Storm Water Projects
Drainage & Flooding
Pollution Prevention
Fees & Billing
Storm Water A-Z
Print this PageSite Feedback
Muddy Creek Public Meeting Minutes

September 28, 2006

Meeting Conducted by Shawn Wilkerson of Buck Engineering
Location: Central United Methodist Church


  • Shawn Wilkerson introduced Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch Watershed Project.
  • Housekeeping items were discussed.

SWS Overview
Shawn Wilkerson discussed the teams of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) and how they function.  Specifically, the Engineering Team manages capital improvement projects, and the Water Quality Team focuses on education, mitigation, permitting, and water quality issues.

Jennifer Krupowicz, CSWS Water Quality Team, showed a video highlighting the Capital Improvement Project Process.

Muddy Creek Project Team 

  • Jennifer Barker-CSWS Project Manager
  • Danee McGee-CSWS Assistant Project Manager
  • Buck Engineering-Design Consultant
  • Jarrod Karl– CSWS Water Quality Team

Why has the City selected Muddy Creek to do work?
Shawn Wilkerson explained that CSWS ranks projects based on feasibility and need.  Muddy Creek had three key things that make a good water quality project:

  • streams degraded
  • room to work (parks, apartments, green-space)
  • limited number of properties

Goals of Project
Shawn Wilkerson went over the goals of the project as follows:

  • Improve water quality (reduce sediment and fecal coliform)
  • Improve stream habitat (increases in fish and macro-invertebrate populations)
  • Mitigation (create mitigation credit for other City projects to use)
  • Flooding issues (reduce flooding at Reddman Road)
  • Erosion (stabilize banks with natural vegetation)
  • Education (use the project to educate the public on water quality issues)

Phases of the Project 
Shawn Wilkerson explained that a water quality project follows the same path as the CIP from the video except that there will be 5 years of monitoring after construction to ensure success.  Right now the project has completed the Existing Conditions phase.  To determine existing conditions, the project team evaluated environmental, flooding, and infrastructure issues.  Shawn went over the results of the Existing Conditions phase:

Environmental Findings
To determine the environmental state of the watershed, Buck Engineering performed field surveys, habitat assessments, stability assessments, water quality monitoring, fish sampling, vegetation assessments and GIS assessments.

Upstream section of Muddy Creek

  1. muddy, straight and in old pond bed which is now a wetland
  2. moderate habitat
  3. creek stagnant
  4. lots of erosion at dam

Heavily wooded section downstream of the dam

  1. 6' gully vertical clay banks "Muddy Creek"
  2. Poor WQ
  3. Moderate habitat

            Section of Muddy Creek downstream of Reddman Road

    1. Moderately stable banks
    2. Poor WQ
    3. Moderate habitat

Flat wooded wetland section near Campbell Creek

  1. Straight
  2. Young forest with functioning wetlands
  3. Poor WQ

Eastland Branch

  1. Gully with some erosion
  2. More stable than Muddy Creek
  3. Poor WQ
  4. Moderate habitat

Old Pond at Cedarwood Park

  1. Lots of sand and gravel from trails
  2. Functioning wetland
  3. Could be better

To determine flooding problems, Buck Engineering performed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, looked at the 311 calls for service, and sent out questionnaires.  For house flooding the 100- year storm event was evaluated along tributaries to Campbell Creek.  The results were:

  • Finished floor flooding at Reddman Road (citizen feedback and modeling)
  • Cedarwood Lane road almost flooded  in 1999 and 2003 (citizen feedback)
  • Yard flooding is a nuisance along the downstream portion of Muddy Creek (citizen feedback and modeling)
  • Pedestrian walkway at Reddman Road floods  in the 25- & 100-year storm (citizen feedback and modeling)

Overall Summary
Shawn summarized the existing conditions as:

  • Moderately degraded stream channels
  • Poor water quality
  • Moderate habitat value
  • Moderate to severe erosion in several locations
  • Some localized flooding issues
  • Lots of potential due to wetland and open space

Next Steps of the Project
Shawn went over the next steps of the project:

  • Select and analyze alternatives such as stream restoration, wetland creation, storm water detention, and water quality best management practices
  • Another public meeting will be held to present the results of the Alternatives Analysis phase.

Citizen Discussion
Past problems were discussed by the citizen attendees and are noted below:

  • Flooding from Duke Power and run-off from apartments at Country Walk Drive in 1999. CSWS put in an extra pipe and problem was fixed in 2002.
  • Citizen commented that it would be good for water quality to get rid of the car wash on Albemarle.
  • Area around the upper dam was an old dairy farm and the dam breach occurred 5 to 6 years ago in a flood.
  • Manhole nearby with frequent overflow – located north, northwest of old pond- relining not far enough.  Discussion followed that detailed that this area is a "hot spot" for CMU to decrease overflows.
  • Apartments on Reddman Road have created flooding and erosion problems due to the increase in asphalt.
  • Citizens suggested that we use plants to cleanse water.
  • Citizens suggested using native species and eliminating invasive species.

A couple of the citizens were very interested in Cedarwood Park and encouraged the wetland there to improve water quality.  They also noted that due to the high sloped areas and trails that a lot of erosion in the park was flowing to the wetland.  Park and Recreation has not been very responsive to their requests but they would support CSWS's work there.

Reddman Road discussion closed the meeting.  Citizens were interested to know what might happen at Reddman Road.  Shawn conveyed that, at this point, no decisions had been made about the alternatives that would be evaluated, but there had been no discussion, to his knowledge, regarding the re-opening of the road to through traffic.