20081194 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090226 (83)

aker

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.mbakercorp.com

[

TRANSMITTAL

TO:

Division of Water Quality/DENR
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

RE:

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

D8-\\q~

ATTENTION:
DATE:

Eric Kulz
2-25-09

JOB NO.

108314

We are sending via:

[::J 2- Day Overnight D Regular Mail D Pick-up

D Hand
Delivered/Couriered

The following items:

D Correspondence D Plans

D Specifications 0 Other as listed below:

COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan - Final Report
1 Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan - Appendix

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:

D For Approval
L:J For Your Use

BAs Requested D Approved As Submitted
For Review And Comment D Approved As Noted

B Returned For Corrections

Forward Transmittal
Confirm. To

REMARKS:

Should you have any questions, please contact me at 704-319-7886.

Thank you.

I Copy to: File

I ~O . ~ (l)'i
lA/L".-:'~ d--. zt-&<-.r
Signed:

~ 1"::;' t:;::: ~.'Hl \1'f"'r'" li:\
I? !~i~?L;;;!i \\/ L5ln.1
U' ........ ,- --'" ..J ~
F.EB 2 {) 2009

DENR. WATER (lUAU) '(
WETLAIIDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH

D8-\\~tt

aker

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
1447 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-334-4454
FAX [phone]

February 24, 2009

Mr. Eric Kulz
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650

Subject:

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Project Revisions
Charlotte, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Kulz:

This letter denotes the proposed design and mitigation credit revisions for the Muddy Creek Watershed
Restoration Project. Please note that we have included a GIS map of the proposed project that includes the
conservation easement limits and the proposed Best Management Practice (BMP) footprints and a copy of the
original Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan for your files. The BMPs are proposed solely to improve
storm water runoff and are not being proposed for mitigation credit.

The Priority I Restoration component for Reach 1 in the Proposed Plan Design has been modified from the
original Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (included). The new design designates Enhancement I (per
MBRT) for Reach 1 of Muddy Creek (See Proposed Design Map for details). See Table 1 for new requested
mitigation credit ratios for the project.

Table 1. Updated Mitigation Credit Ratios

Proposed Project Design Approach Credit Ratio Existing Design Proposed
Feature Condition Condition Mitigation Credits
Muddy Creek Enhancement I 2:1 1,391 1,034 517 SMU
Reach 1
Muddy Creek Restoration 1:1 1,132 LF 1,402 LF 1,402 SMU
Reach 2 (Priority 1 & II)
Muddy Creek Enhancement II 1.5:1 1,216 LF 1,232 LF 821 SMU
Reach 3
Muddy Creek Restoration 1:1 728 LF 886 LF 886 SMU
Reach 4 (Priority I & II)
Eastland Branch Enhancement II 1.5:1 496 LF 496 LF 331 SMU
Reach 5
Eastland Branch Restoration 1:1 1,410 LF 1,736 LF
Reach 6 (Priority I & II) 1,736 SMU
Eastland Branch Enhancement I 1:1 466 LF 468 LF 468 SMU
Reach 7
Eastland Branch Restoration 1:1 534 LF 659 LF 659 SMU
Reach 8 (Priority I & II)
Wetland 1 Wetland 2:1
&7 Enhancement 5.7 AC 5.7 AC 2.9 WMU

Please note that the proposed stream restoration and enhancement components of the project have been
discussed with Amanda Jones (USACOE) and are to be considered for mitigation credit by the MBRT. Upon
acceptance, the credits will be applied to the City of Charlotte's Mitigation Bank for future use on projects as
allowed by the City's Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI).

This same information has been submitted to Alan Johnson with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

{Ji ~.~<&U

Chris L. Yow, PE, CFM
Project Manager

Enclosures

.... STORM
. WATER

Services ~

_ Reach 8 __ Conservation Easemem LimiL'
_ Reach 7 0 BMP Footprim
_ Reach 6 _ Creek,
_ Reach 5 = Streets
_ Reach-l
Reach 3

Mecklenburg COUllty, NC

Reach 2
_ Reach I

,

.+'

125

250

Feet
500

Proposed Design Map

Muddy Creek Watershed
Restoration Plan
Char/olle, NC

February 24, 2009

aker

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

D8-\\~L.\-

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Charlotte, North Carolina

Prepared for

of Charlotte Storm Water Services
Charlotte-Mecklenburg

STORM
WATER
Services ~

Prepared By

February 29, 2008
FI NAL REPORT-Revised

Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

~o ~i ((?- r;,a 11'1 f,\,'l r -;;;; "
LS ~;; j c;' jI' f I :) [o)l"
~ l_.l'...ll..t' LS.i
I i~ .. ',: i .
U /Ii
FEB 2 tJ 2009

~ DENR . WATEFI Ql -All j y
WETLAr~DS AND STORMWATER BRANCH

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Charlotte, North Carolina

Prepared For City of Charlotte Storm Water Services

February 29, 2008

Report Prepared By Baker Engineering

~j.~

Chris L. Yaw, PE, CFM
Project Manager

f/dt

J#~

William A. Harman, PG
Principal-In-Charge

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Executive Summary. ........... ........ ............. ........................................................ ...... ................................... ........ XI

Mitigation Bank Proposal.............. ....... ..................................................... ..................................................... XIV

Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Brief Project Description and Location .............................................................. 1-1

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................1-1

1.3 Report Overview... ........ ..... ......... ........... ............. ............... .......... .................... ..... 1-2

2 Background Science and Methods for Stream Restoration...................................................................... 2-1
3 Watershed Assessment Results.............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Watershed Overview.... ......... ..... ......... .............. .................... ........ ...... ........... ...... 3-1

3. 1.1 Watershed History ........................... .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Current Watershed Land Use...................................................................................... 3-3
3. 1.3 Watershed Geo logy..................................................................................................... 3-4

3 .1.4 Watershed So i Is ........................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2 Hyd rology .............................................................................................................. 3-8

3.2.1 Mode I ing Methods..................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.2 Di scharge Estimates................................................................................................. 3 -10

3.3 Cultural Resources.. ........ ........ ...... .............. .............. ............. ......... ............. ...... 3-10

3.4 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites..................................................... 3-11
4 Stream Corridor Assessment Results...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Overview............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Muddy Creek Geomorphic Assessment............................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Muddy Creek Geomorphic Classification ................................................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Bankfull Discharge Verification................................................................. ............... 4-4
4.2.3 Muddy Creek Channel Stability Assessment............................................................. 4-5
4.2.4 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements ...................... 4-6

4.3 Eastland Branch Geomorphic Assessment ....................................................... 4-6
4.3.1 Eastland Branch Geomorphic Classification .............................................................4-7
4.3.2 Bankfull Discharge Veri fication ................................... ............................................. 4-9
4.3.3 Eastland Branch Channel Stability Assessment ........................................................4-9
4.3.4 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements .................... 4-11Ž
4.4 Biological Assessment.. .............. ............ .............. ........ ......... ........ ................... 4-11
4.4.1 Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol............................................................. 4-11

4.4 .2 Vegetation................................................................................................................ 4-13

4.4.3 Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................. 4-14

4.4.4 Fish.......................................................................................................................... .4-1 7

4.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................4-19

4.5 Water Quality Assessment ..... ........... ............. ............ ...... ....... ......... ................. 4-22
4.5.1 S urface Water C lassi fication.................................................................................... 4- 22
4.5.2 Water Quality Parameters and Analysis .................................................................. 4-23

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

4.5.3 Sampling Locations and Frequencies ... ................ ................................................... 4-25
4.5 .4 Water Quality Results.............................................................................................. 4-25

4.5.5 Findings.................................................................................................................... 4- 28

4.6 Wetlands.. ........... ........ ........ ......... ..... ...... ... ........ ..... ........... ......... ........ ................ 4-28

4.6.1 Background .. ........... ...... .... ....... ............ ... ...... ......... ............ ............... ....... ........ ........4-28

4.6.2 Jurisdictional Findings ....... ................... ......... .... .................. .... ................... ....... ......4-29

4.7 Hydraulics........................................................................................................... 4-31

4.7.1 Modeling Methods....................................................................... ............................ 4-31
4.7.2 Discharge Elevation................................................................................................. 4- 32
4.7.3 Structural and Street Flooding .................................................................................4-36

4.8 Potential Constraints .................... ......... ........... ...... .......... ....... ................. ......... 4-38

4.8.1 Property Owners...................................................................................................... 4- 38

4. 8.2 Uti lities..................................................................................................................... 4- 39

4.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass ........... .... ...... ..... ...... ............. ..... ............ ..... ............. ................4-40

4.8.4 Construction Access................................................................................................. 4-40

5 Selected Design Criteria for Stream Restoration ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Potential for Restoration on Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch ....................5-1

5.1.1 Mainstem Channel Restoration Potential................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Design Criteria Selection........ ........ ............ ........ ...... ........... ...... .............. ...... ...... 5-2

5.2.1 Reference Reach Survey............................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.2 Reference Reach Database and Project Evaluation Data........................................... 5-3

6 Restoration Design...."............"......",..,........,..................,.....................",..........................................,.., 6-1

6.1 Restoration Approach.. ........... ......... ........ ................. ........... ........... ................ ..... 6-1

6.1.1 Muddy Creek ............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.2 Eastland Branch......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile) ........................... 6-2

6.2 .1 Muddy Creek............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.2 Eastland Branch ...... .......... ............. .... ...... .................. .... ...... ...... ..... .... ........... ............6-5

6.3 Sediment Transport... ........ ... ... ... ..... ...... ........ ... ..... ........... ........ ...... ........... ........ ... 6-8

6.4 In-Stream Structures. ...................... ......... ........ ...... ........... ............... ........... ......... 6-8

6.4.1 Root Wad................................................................................................................... 6-9.
6.4.2 Brush Mattress .... ...... ............... ............. ...... ...... ..... .... ........ ................... ....... ...... ..... ...6-9

6.4.3 Cross Vanes............................................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.4 Constructed Ri ffle ...................................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.5 Log Vane.................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.6 Cover Log.................................................................................................................. 6-9

6.4.7 J - Hook...................................................................................................................... 6-1 0

6.4.8 Angled Log Step Pool.............................................................................................. 6-1 0
6.5 Enhancement of Wetland Hydrology................................................................ 6-10

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

6.6 Vegetation........................................................................................................... 6-10

6.6.1 Stream Buffer and Wetland Vegetation ................ ..... ............... ................ ...... ......... 6-10
6.6.2 Invasive Species Removal ....................................................................................... 6-14
7 Monitoring and Evaluation ..... ..................................................................................................... ............. 7-1

7.1 Stream Monitoring... ...... ........ ........... ..... ............ ........ ..... ......... ..... ........ ................ 7-1

7.1.1 Bankfull Events.......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Cross Sections............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.4 Bed Material Analyses............................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.5 Photo Reference Sites ................................................................................................ 7-2

7.2 Wetland Monitoring.... ...... ........ ..... ...... ..... .............. ...... ..... ......... ..... ........ ...... ....... 7-2

7.3 Vegetation Monitoring ........ ........ ........ ........ ........... ...... ........ ...... ..... .............. ........ 7-2

7.4 Reporting Methods. ......... ........ .......... ....... ........... ...... ......... ........... ........... ..... ....... 7-3

7.5 Maintenance Issues.... ...... ......... ..... ...... ....... ............. ..... ......... ...... ..... ......... ..... ..... 7-3

8 Storm Water Best Management Practice Design..................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Design Approach ........ ......... ..... ...... ..... ........... .............. ................. ........ ...... ...... 8-1

9 References......................................................................................................................................... ..... 9-1

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Restoration Overview

I

Table I.
Table II.
Table III.
Table IV.
Table V.
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Proposed Mitigation Credits

Credit Release Schedule for Stream Restoration and Enhancement

Credit Release Schedule for Wetland Enhancement

Monitoring Level Requirements per Mitigation Site

Property Owners within the Project Area

Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of
Stability (Rosgen, 2001)

Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from Stability
Conditions (Rosgen, 2001)

Functions of In-Stream Structures

Muddy Creek Watershed by Land Use

Eastland Branch Watershed by Land Use

Muddy Creek Soil Types and Descriptions

Eastland Branch Soil Types and Descriptions

Muddy Creek Subwatershed Hydrologic Characteristics

Eastland Branch Subwatershed Hydrologic Characteristics

Charlotte, NC Six-Hour Balanced Storm Rainfall Distributions

Peak Discharge per Subwatershed for Existing Land Use and Future Land Use

Peak Flow Inputs to the Muddy Creek Hydraulic Model

Peak Flow Inputs to the Eastland Branch Hydraulic Model

Muddy Creek Reach Descriptions

Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Muddy Creek Project Reaches

Stability Indicators for Muddy Creek

Eastland Branch Reach Descriptions

Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Eastland Branch Project Reaches

Stability Indicators for Eastland Branch

MHAP Categories and Scoring

MHAP Scores for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

List of Tables
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Table 4.18
Table 4.19
Table 4.20
Table 4.21
Table 4.22
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 8.1

MHAP Scores for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Summary for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and
2005
In-Situ Water Quality Parameters for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004- and 2005

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Summary for Eastland Branch/Campbell Ck. Bio-
Monitoring for 2004 and 2005

In-Situ Water Quality Parameters for Eastland Branch/Campbell Ck. Bio-Monitoring
2004 and 2005

Fish Assessment for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005

Fish Assessment for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005

Species Under Federal and State Status in Mecklenburg County

Water Quality Results for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch Monitoring

Wetlands Summarized by Watershed and Area

Existing Conditions Manning's n Values

Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Structural Flooding Summary

Eastland Branch Future Conditions Discharge and Water Surface Elevations

Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Structural Flooding Summary

Project Design Stream Types

Common Reference Reach Ratios for C, E, and B Stream Types

Design Criteria for C, E, and B Stream Types

Design Parameters and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics - Muddy Creek

Design Parameters and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics - Eastland Branch

Critical Shear Stress for Proposed Channel Geometry and Associated Minimum
Particle Size

Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations

Proposed Bare Root, Live Stakes, Shrub, and Tree Species

Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture and Tree Species

BMP Design Summary Table

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

.1

I

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Figure 1.2 Site Topographic Map
Figure 2.1 Rosgen Stream Classification
Figure 2.2 Factors Influencing Stream Stability
Figure 2.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
Figure 2.4 Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels
Figure 2.5 Channel Dimension Measurements
Figure 2.6 Design Criteria Selection
Figure 2.7 Modified Shield's Curve
Figure 2.8 Examples of In-stream Structures
Figure 3.1 Watershed Location Map
Figure 3.2 Project Soil Types
Figure 3.3 Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch Subwatersheds
Figure 3.4 Bio-monitoring Sampling Sites and Wetland Locations
Figure 3.5 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites
Figure 4.1 Project Reaches and Cross-Section Locations
Figure 4.2 NC Piedmont Regional Curves
Figure 4.3 HEC-RAS Model Cross-section Locations
Figure 6.1 Restoration Approach
Figure 8.1 Site 4 - Constructed Wetland
Figure 8.2 Site 9A - Constructed Wetland
Figure 8.3 Site 9B - Constructed Wetland
Figure 8.4 Site 10 - Water Quality Pond

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

List of Appendices

1

(Under Separate Cover)

Appendix A

I

Appendix B

I

Appendix C
Appendix D

I

Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G

I

Appendix H

Appendix I

I

Appendix J

Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M

I

I

Appendix N

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Water Quality Lab Results

Geomorphic Data

Habitat Field Sheets

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

Wetland Data

2006 Biomonitoring Report

EDR Report

HEC-RAS Results

Meeting Minutes

Photograph Log

Storm Water BMP Calculations

State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence

Mitigation Proposal Documents

Background Science and Methods for Stream Restoration

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Executive Summary

The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services proposes to restore and enhance 7,373 linear feet (LF) of
stream and 5.7 acres of wetland along Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch, tributaries to Campbell Creek.
The design condition of the project proposes 8,253 LF of restored stream for Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch, and it is anticipated that this project will generate 7,677 stream mitigation units and 2.9 wetland
mitigation units. The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services requests the approval by the Mitigation
Bank Review Team (MBRT) for inclusion of these credits into the City of Charlotte's Umbrella
Mitigation Bank. In addition, this project will implement four storm water best management practices
(BMPs) to improve water quality for which mitigation credits are not being sought. The project is located
in Charlotte, NC. The project lies in the Catawba River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality sub-basin 03-08-34 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050103020050
as illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Both Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch flow through mixed-use urban areas. Muddy Creek's
headwaters form off-site at the outlet of the Firethorne Apartment amenity pond and enters the site from
the west via a rip-rap ditch. The stream flows across the site from west to east through an old 2.6 acre
pond bed. It continues through a privet-infested hardwood forest, crosses beneath Reddman Road
through a 3.5' by 5' elliptical culvert, flows through a narrow riparian area, between two housing
complexes, and then through a young wetland area (approximately 3.5 acres) before converging with
Campbell Creek. A small, intermittent tributary draining from the Cedarwood breached pond/wetland
system (approximately 0.21 acres) enters the creek just above Reddman Road. A second pond (.43 acres)
is situated in the left floodplain just downstream of Reddman Road, has been drained or can no longer
hold water. Several other drainage swales enter from the residential neighborhoods.

Throughout the project, Muddy Creek shows evidence of stream bank erosion, poor bedform diversity
and channel incision. The current length of Muddy Creek evaluated in this plan is 4,467 LF. The
proposed length for Muddy Creek is 4,894 LF. The drainage area of Muddy Creek is approximately
376.6 acres at the downstream end of the project site.

Eastland Branch originates off-site within a residential development just south of Wilora Lake Road and
flows southeast toward Eastland Mall. Flow from Eastland Branch is piped from Eastland Mall across
Albemarle Road where it enters the site from a culvert located behind the abandoned Upton's department
store. A small, intermittent tributary enters the mainstem from the right bank immediately downstream of
the storm water outfall within the upstream limits of the project site. This tributary originates from a
detention pond at a multi-family apartment complex at Reddman Road. The tributary drains additional
multi-family apartment complexes situated along Reddman Road and heavy commercial strips paralleling
Albemarle Road as it flows east toward the mainstem of Eastland Branch. Eastland Branch flows through
a fairly wide and densely vegetated riparian corridor. Four small wetlands are located on the left
floodplain. One wetland is located within the upstream project limits while the other three are located
toward the downstream project limits. All three wetlands bordering Eastland Branch downstream receive
storm water runoff from the large business park located along Executive Center Drive. The confluence of
Eastland Branch and Campbell Creek marks the downstream limits of the project.

Throughout the project, Eastland Branch shows evidence of stream bank erosion, poor bedform diversity
and channel incision. The current length of Eastland Branch evaluated in this plan is 2,906 LF. The
proposed length for Eastland Branch is 3,359 LF. The drainage area of Eastland Branch is approximately
395.92 acres at the downstream end of the project site.

The design goals of the project include:

· Create geomorphic ally stable channel conditions within Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XI

I

I

· Improve and restore hydrologic connections between creeks and floodplains where practical.

· Improve water quality in Muddy Creek, Eastland Branch, and Campbell Creek by reducing Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and nutrient loading supplied from the surrounding catchments.

· Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor by increasing bedform diversity
within the stream channel and restoring riparian buffers with native vegetation.

· Generate mitigation credit for the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Bank.

I

I

I

I

· Lessen structural flooding to the maximum extent practicable.

. Enhance recreational and educational opportunities.

To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:

· Restore and enhance the existing incised, eroding, and channelized stream by creating a stable
channel with access to the floodplain.

· Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff, by stabilizing
stream banks to reduce bank erosion and sediment contribution to creek flows, and by treating
urban drainage areas using a variety of BMPs.

· Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools and areas of water re-aeration, providing woody debris for habitat, and reducing
bank erosion.

I

I

I

· Improve terrestrial habitat by managing invasive species and replanting riparian and wetland
areas with native vegetation. Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in a
permanent conservation easement to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature and provide cover for wildlife.

· Lessen flooding conditions by replacing the culvert at the Reddman Road and by enhancing
detention in the watershed.

I

I

· Enhance recreational and educational opportunities by coordinating environmental improvements
with Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation for consideration of greenway connectivity and
limited recreational access.

I

I

TABLE ES.1
Restoration Overview
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Proposed Project Design Credit Ratio Existing Design Proposed
Feature Approach condition* Condition Mitigation Credits
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1: 1 1,391 LF 1 ,481 LF 1,481 SMU
Reach 1 (Priority I & II)
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1: 1 1,132 LF 1,295 LF 1,295 SMU
Reach 2 (Priority I & II)
Muddy Creek, Enhancement 1.5:1 1,216 LF 1 ,232 LF 821 SMU
Reach 3 11**
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1:1 728 LF 886 LF 886 SMU
Reach 4 (Priority I & II)
Eastland Branch, Enhancement 1.5:1 496 LF 496 LF
Reach 5 11** 331 SMU
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT XII
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Proposed
Mitigation Credits

Proposed Project Design
Feature Approach
Eastland Branch, Restoration
Reach 6 (Priority I & II)
Eastland Branch, Enhancement
Reach 7 1***
Eastland Branch, Restoration
Reach 8 (Priority I & II)
Site 1 & 8, Wetlands Wetland
Enhancement
Planting,
spillway
Site 4 Installation,
downstream
channel
stabilization
Increase
drainage area,
Site 9A grading,
planting, and
outlet
box/spillway
construction.
Grading,
Site 9B planting, and
outlet
box/spillway
construction.
Increase
drainage area,
Site 10 planting,
reconstruct
embankment,
outlet pipe and
spillway

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Credit Ratio

Existing Design
condition* Condition
1 ,410 LF 1,736 LF
466 LF 468 LF
534 LF 659 LF
5.7 AC 5.7 AC
Sub- Restored
watershed spillway,
with High wetland
Pollutant vegetation
Loads enhanced

1,736 SMU

468 SMU

659 SMU

2.9 WMU

NA

NA

NA

NA

I

*Existing conditions length does not correlate with existing conditions reach lengths reported in tables 4.1 and 4.4.
Existing and design reaches were selected at different locations.

**Per the United States Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Guidelines, stream mitigation credit for Enhancement
II ranges from 1.5 - 2.5:1. A credit ratio of 1.5:1 is being sought based on the holistic watershed restoration
approach ofthis project. Enhancement includes bank stabilization and profile adjustments with in-stream structures.
[n addition, four upland stormwater BMPs will be constructed within the watershed.

*** Per the United States Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Guidelines, stream mitigation credit for
Enhancement I ranges from I - 1.5: 1. A credit ratio of I: I is being sought based on the holistic watershed
restoration approach of this project. Enhancement includes bank stabilization and profile adjustments with in-stream
structures. This reach will also access the floodplain during bankfull events. In addition, four upland stormwater
BMPs will be constructed within the watershed.

I

I

I

I

I

1: 1

1: 1

1: 1

2:1

NA

NA

Sub-
watershed
with High
Pollutant
Loads

Constructed
Wetland

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XIII

I

I

NA

Sub-
watershed
with High
Pollutant
Loads

Contructed
Wetland

NA

Degraded
Pond

Water
Quality Pond

I

I

Muddy Creek Restoration
Mitigation Bank Proposal

I

I

On June 16,2004 the City of Charlotte (City) entered into a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), collectively referred to as the Mitigation Bank
Review Team (MBRT), to establish a Mitigation Bank. This bank is to perform as an umbrella mitigation
bank to provide "compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts permitted by the
USACE and the NCDWQ" (USACE, 2004). The use of this Bank is limited to the City of Charlotte and
when determined appropriate Mecklenburg County and the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Schools.

To meet requirements set forth by the MBI, the City of Charlotte would like to request the approval by the
MBRT of the Mitigation Plan Proposal for the Muddy Creek Watershed in Charlotte, NC. It is the City's
request to include the proposed restoration and enhancement of 7,373 linear feet (LF) of stream and 5.7
acres of wetland along Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch tributaries to Campbell Creek into the
Umbrella Bank on which this agreement is established and result in credits available for use to
compensate for permitted and unavoidable stream and wetland impacts.

Design Goals and Objectives

The design goals of the project are to improve water quality by reducing total suspended solids (TSS) and
nutrient loading and to lessen structural flooding downstream by creating more geomorphically stable
channels throughout the project area while improving and restoring their hydrologic connection to their
floodplains. In addition, the project will restore aquatic and terrestrial habitat and enhance recreational
and educational opportunities. To accomplish these goals, existing incised, eroding, and channelized
sections of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch will be stabilized through implementing the design
restoration and enhancement plans, while coordinating environmental improvements with Mecklenburg
County Park and Recreation and private landowners. See section 1.2 of the Restoration Plan for detailed
design goals and objectives.

Ownership of Bank Lands

The City of Charlotte will hold conservation easements, in perpetuity, on all Bank Sites within the Muddy
Creek Watershed Mitigation Site as deemed appropriate by the MBRT. Conservation easements will
allow the City to preserve, maintain, and protect the Bank Sites from uses deemed inappropriate with the
MBI. Any activity that does not retain the ultimate goal of the Bank will be prohibited. As stated in the
MBI, Bank Lands must be free of all liens and/or encumbrances that may interfere with preservation
and/or legal constraints in relation to conservation easements. See the Proposed Easement Map in
Appendix M for the conservation easement boundaries and property owner information. The General
Provisions Section of the City of Charlotte's MBI in Appendix M includes additional clarification.

Site Conditions and Location

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds are located within the city limits of Charlotte in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, in the Catawba River Basin (USGS HUC 03050103020050).
Each branch generally flows to the southeast and feeds into Campbell Creek, draining a total watershed
area of approximately 0.59 square miles (377 acres) and 0.62 square miles (396 acres), respectively.
Refer to Figure 3.1 for the project's watershed boundaries.

The Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds were once rural watersheds dominated by forested,
agricultural, and pasturelands between 1938 and 1966. Increases in population within the Charlotte
metropolitan area resulted in the expansion and construction of such major thoroughfares as US 74 and
Albemarle Road that facilitated the migration of population and urban development east of Charlotte
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT XIV
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

toward the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds. Between 1966 and 1986 an increase in high
density residential land uses occurred and corresponded with the encroachment of the Charlotte city limits
upon the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds following 1975. Since 1986, residential
landuses, consisting of 0.25- to 0.50-acre lots and 0.25-acre multifamily complexes, have continued to
expand throughout the watersheds at the expense of the remaining forested, agricultural, and pasture
lands. See Section 3.0 of the Restoration Plan for additional historical and current landuse information.

The City of Charlotte lies in the Piedmont Physiographical Region (Medina et aI., 2004) within the
Charlotte Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of predominantly metavolcanic and plutonic rock
types. The underlying geology of the project area is late Proterozoic to early Cambrian age felsic, mafic,
and intermediate metavolcanic rocks (NCDNRC, 1985). During field surveys, a highly weathered layer
of bedrock or saprolite was observed on Eastland Branch. This was the only bedrock grade control along
Eastland Branch and it is likely that there are none along Muddy Creek.

Soils within the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds were assessed using NRCS Soil Survey
data for Mecklenburg County, along with preliminary on-site evaluations to locate any hydric soil areas
(NRCS, 1997). A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented Figure 3.2. Soils found
within the project area will support stream restoration activities and are described in more detail in
Section 3.1 of the Restoration Plan.

The potential for cultural sites in the project area is low. A letter was sent to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on August 10,2007, requesting a review of the potential cultural
resources within the vicinity of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. On October 10,2007, a letter from
SHPO was received that stated that there are no historic resources with the project area that would be
affected by the undertaking of the proposed project. A copy of both letters have been included in
Appendix L.

An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Transaction Screen Map Report was obtained that
identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites within the distance required by the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction Screen Process (E 1528). A copy of the
report with an overview map is included in Appendix G. The report conducted a review of relevant state
and federal environmental databases. The report found one listed site within a quarter mile of the project
area and several additional sites within a mile of the project area. There are no reports of soil
contamination in the parcels in which the proposed restoration activities will be conducted. The listed
sites within the project watersheds have been cleaned up or are reported as low risk sites. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed project has a low risk of encountering site contamination, based on a review
of the EDR report. Additional information is located in Section 3.4 of the Restoration Plan. A map
depicting the study areas is located in Figure 3.5.

Muddy Creek Existing Physical and Geomorphic Description

Muddy Creek mainstem, 4,467 LF, is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by
storm water runoff from an urban watershed. The drainage area of Muddy Creek is approximately 376.6
acres at the downstream end of the project site. To evaluate existing conditions, Muddy Creek was
divided into five reaches and begins off-site at the outlet of an amenity pond at the Firethorne Apartments.
(Please note that though there are three ponds discussed in the physical description of Muddy Creek and
its watershed, only the 2.6 acre pond bed is being proposed for inclusion in the Bank Site.)

Reach I (1,116 LF) of Muddy Creek begins at the upstream extent of the project limits and flows through
an old 2.6 acre pond bed, which is now a wetland. The watershed to downstream end of the reach is 0.33
square miles (211.2 acres). This reach is classified as a Rosgen E5. The overall sinuosity for the reach is
low but the channel is actively redeveloping pattern by means of bank erosion. The reach has high
entrenchment ratios (above 2.2), indicating adequate floodplain storage. Much of the substrate is
composed of sand, but in isolated sections gravel is evident. The channel is not incised because grade

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

xv

I

I

I

I

control is provided by the breached dam. In addition, the low slope and large floodplain limit the erosive
power of flood events. Where vegetation exists, the channel banks are moderately stable. In several
sections small meanders have begun to form through erosive processes.

Reach 2 (309 LF) is actively downcutting and is severely incised. It begins at the old dam and flows for
several hundred feet around the dam and back to the old channel. The watershed to the downstream
extent is 0.34 square miles (217.6 acres). This reach is classified as a Rosgen G3c, characterized by a low
width to depth ratio, entrenchment, a slope under 2% and a cobble substrate. (The cobble consists of rip-
rap, is not naturally occurring, and is probably being used to provide stabilization.)

Reach 3 (1,098 LF) is a straight ditch-like channel with raw, clay banks, draining 0.53 square miles
(339.2 acres). It begins at the power transmission right-of-way and continues through a privet-infested
hardwood forest. This reach contains incised Rosgen E5 and G5c sections. Generally, this reach is
incised and has a low width to depth ratio with sand/silt as the dominant substrate. Numerous debris jams
are causing erosion and several head cuts were observed. A small, intermittent tributary draining from a
breached pond/wetland system (0.21 acres) enters the end section of Reach 3 just above Reddman Road.

Reach 4 (1,216 LF) begins at Reddman Road and flows through a 3.5' by 5' elliptical culvert and then
through a narrow riparian area between two housing complexes along the property line of the Campbell
Creek Greenway. This reach was classified as a Rosgen G stream type. A detailed geomorphic analysis
was not performed on this reach due to the high level of anthropogenic impacts, such as residential
development and a sanitary sewer line. The watershed is 0.58 square miles (371.2 acres) at the
downstream extent. A second, small pond (0.43 acres), which has been drained or can no longer hold
water, is situated in the left floodplain, of Reach 4, just downstream of Reddman Road.

Reach 5 (728 LF) begins as it enters Campbell Creek Greenway at the downstream end of Muddy Creek
and flows through approximately 3.5 acres of a young wetland area to its confluence with Campbell
Creek. The drainage area consists of 0.59 square miles (377.6 acres). It is classified as a Rosgen E5
channel. The overall sinuosity for the reach is very low but the channel is actively redeveloping pattern
by means of bank erosion. The wide floodplain and backwater from Campbell Creek has allowed the
channel to remain relatively stable vertically.

See Figure 1.2 for a map depicting the watershed drainage areas and Figure 4.1 for a map of the existing
project reaches.

Using BEHI and Near Bank Stress index (NBS) measurements, Baker Engineering estimates that the
Muddy Creek project area is contributing 140 tons of sediment from bank erosion to the Campbell Creek
watershed. Over 80% of the channel erosion occurs in Reaches 2, 3, and 4. Additional analysis for
Muddy Creek is in Section 4 of the Restoration Plan.

Eastland Branch Existing Physical and Geomorphic Description

Eastland Branch mainstem, 2,906 LF, is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by
storm water runoff from an urban watershed. The drainage area of Eastland Branch is approximately
395.92 acres at the downstream end of the project site. To evaluate existing conditions, Eastland Branch
was divided into four reaches and originates off-site within a residential development just south of Wilora
Lake Road and flows southeast toward Eastland Mall. The entire project site flows through a fairly wide
and densely vegetated riparian corridor containing four small wetlands before reaching the downstream
project limits at the confluence with Campbell Creek. These four wetlands are all located within the
floodplain bordering the left bank, wetland 9 (0.18 acres) is located within the upstream project limits
along Reach 6, while wetlands 10, II, and 12 (0.12, 0.05, and 0.03 acres respectively) are located toward
the downstream project limits along Reach 9. (Please note that though there are 4 wetlands discussed in
the physical description of Eastland Branch and its watershed, none are being proposed for the inclusion
in the Bank Site.)

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XVI

I

I

I

I

I

Reach 6 (1,012 LF) of Eastland Branch begins from a storm water outfall near the abandoned Upton's
department store and flows to the downstream extent where there is a noticeable change in the valley and
channel slope. The drainage area consists of 0.47 square miles (300.8 acres). This reach is classified as a
Rosgen E5. The overall sinuosity for the reach is low due to past channelization. The reach has high
entrenchment ratios (above 2.2), but floodplain access is limited due to moderate to severe channel
incision; bank height ratio is 1.8. Much of the substrate is composed of sand, but in isolated sections
gravel is evident. In several sections small meanders have begun to form through erosive processes.

Reaches 7, 8, and 9 (1,894 LF, collectively) all have similar geomorphic characteristics as Reach 6 other
than valley and channel slope. Valley and channel slope becomes less steep for Reaches 7 and 8. The
floodplain through these reaches is wider with frequent zones of depressional storage. Valley and channel
slope become steeper for Reach 9, before the confluence with Campbell Creek. Reach 7 has a drainage
area of 0.50 square miles (320 acres), reach 8 has a drainage area of 0.55 square miles (352 acres), and
reach 9 has a drainage area of 0.62 (396.8 acres).

See Figure 1.2 for a map depicting the watershed drainage areas and Figure 4.1 for a map of the existing
project reaches.

Using BEHI and Near Bank Stress index (NBS) measurements, Baker Engineering estimates that the
Eastland Branch project area is contributing 111.7 tons of sediment from bank erosion to the Campbell
Creek watershed per year. The estimated erosion rates are similar on the left and right banks of the
channel. Additional analysis for Eastland Branch is in Section 4 of the Restoration Plan.

Biological and Water Quality Assessment

Campbell Creek from its source to McAlpine Creek is classified by the NCDWQ as Class C waters
[DWQ Index No. 11-137-9-1]. Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch are officially listed as "unnamed"
tributaries of Campbell Creek.

Six sites were monitored throughout the project corridor. Habitat scores generally increased at most
monitoring sites for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch between 2004 and 2005. Between 2005 and
2006, all monitoring sites exhibited a decrease in habitat score with the exception of monitoring sites
EaB I and EaB3 which showed steady improvement in habitat throughout all three years of monitoring.
Habitat scores at monitoring sites MC I and MC3 have been in steady decline from 2004 to 2006 while
scores at monitoring sites EaB2 and MC2 have fluctuated over the three year period, eventually resulting
in a slight overall decrease in habitat.

A bottomland hardwood community is located along the floodplains and streambanks of Muddy Creek
and Eastland Branch and is the dominant ecological community. The canopy species are fairly mature
with an average age of approximately 15 to 25 years. The dominant species in the overstory areas
includes sweetgum (LitJltidumbur styrac(/ltlu), red maple (Acer TllbTllm), sycamore (P/UtUIlIlS
occide/ltu/is), swamp chestnut oak (jJllerclls michullXli), red cedar (Jimlpems virgliliullU) and box elder
(Acer /leglllldo). The midcanopy and understory are dominated by invasive species which have formed
dense stands in many areas.

All the sites sampled exhibited very impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Mouthpart
deformities were found in Chi/'Ollomlls sp. larvae. All sites received low total richness and EPT taxa
richness and high biotic index values. A Bioclassification Rating was established for each site, based on
the EPT taxa richness values. All of the sites sampled were rated as "Poor".

The diversity offish fauna in Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch is very small due to its shallow, uniform
depths and channelized structure. The fish present are those that are tolerant of still and warm waters, e.g.
mosquitofish and juvenile/subadult sunfishes. There was no evidence of disease or sores on any of the
fish identified. Both, Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch received a "Poor" classification for all sites in
2006.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XVII

I

I

I

I

I

No federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate or species of concern have been recorded within 1.0
mile of the project area based upon the NHP database checked on April 19, 2004. No federal or state
protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field survey. Critical habitat
for the listed species, as defined by the USFWS, is not designated in the proposed project area.

Fecal coliform concentrations were above NC health standard limits on greater than 79 percent of the
samples collected. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were either below NC standards or reported as low.
Turbidity and BOD were reported as elevated or above water quality standards at various sampling sites
on various sampling dates. Overall, the water quality analysis demonstrates a strong influence toward
water quality impairment issues. Impaired benthic macro invertebrates and fish communities in Muddy
Creek and Eastland Branch further substantiate the evidence of impairment and show the effect of water
quality impairments on biological communities and their habitat. In addition to addressing the water
quality concerns, the proposed project reaches of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch could benefit from
habitat improvement.

See Section 4.4 and 4.5 of the Restoration Plan for additional biological and water quality information.
See Figure 3.4 for a map of the sampling sites.

Wetland Delineation

I

I

I

I

I

A total of twelve wetlands were identified within the study corridor of this project (Figure 3.4). Wetland
4 was identified in the backyard of an adjacent landowner and outside of the proposed project area, and is
not discussed.

I

Wetland I (2.63 acres) was an old farm pond that has had a breach in the wall of the dam. Vegetation
consists of box elder (Ace; negtllldo), black willow (Sabx nigra), tearthumb (Po(ygonltm sagittatltm), soft
rush (hlllats effitswJ, jewel weed (/mpatiens capensis), silky dogwood (COTllltS amomltm), and tag alder
(A /tlttS se;mlata). Wetland hydrology includes standing water, multiple tree trunks, and leaf staining.
Soils are sandy clays and dark gray with strong brown mottles. The chroma value is I.

Wetland 2 (0.17 acres) is located within a power line easement that crosses Muddy Creek. This wetland
has a small channel which flows into the wetland. Vegetation consists of box elder (Ace; negtllldo),
blackberry (Rltbltsspp.), black willow (Salixnigra), tearthumb (Po(ygonltmsagit/tttltm), soft rush (hlllats
iftiISltS), Chinese privet (Ligltstmm slilense), and multiflora rose (Rosa mltltiflora). Wetland hydrology
includes water markings, soil saturation in the upper 12 inches, and standing water in depressional areas.
Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray with red mottles. The chroma value is I.

Wetland 3 (0.13 acres) is located at the toe of a slope approximately 50 feet from the banks of Muddy
Creek. Overstory vegetation consists of red maple (Ace; T/lbT/lm), sycamore (Platantls ocddentab's), and
sweetgum (Liqltidamba; sty;adfllta). Understory and midcanopy species consist of sedges (Ca;exspp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Loll/cera iapontCa), and Chinese privet (LigltstT/lm slilense). Water was observed
in soil borings 3 inches below the surface. Water-stained leaves were also noted. Soils are sandy clays
and are dark gray with strong brown mottles. The B I horizon has a chroma value of 1. The B2 horizon
has a chroma value of2.

Wetland 5 (0.06 acres) is located at the toe ofa slope south of the sewer line easement adjacent to Muddy
Creek. Overstory vegetation consists of red maple (Ace; T/lbmm) and swamp chestnut oak ((!lteI"ctls
mtChaltXli). Understory and midcanopy species consist of spicebush (Linde;a benzoin), Japanese
honeysuckle (LontCe;a iaponica), Chinese privet (Ligltstmm sinense), and musclewood (Capinlts
CtlTObitiana). Water was observed in soil borings 8 inches below the surface. Water-stained leaves and
shallow roots were also observed as indicators of wetland hydrology. Soils are sandy clays and are dark
gray with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 6 (0.24 acres) is located within the floodplain of Muddy Creek and Campbell Creek. Overstory
vegetation consists of red maple (Ace; mbmm), sweetgum (Liqltidamba; styraaJltla), American elm

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XVIII

I

I

I

I

I

(Ulmtts americana), and swamp chestnut oak ((Jtterctts michatlXli). Understory and midcanopy species
consist of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), muscadine
( Vilis rolll/ldtjOlia), Chinese privet (Ligttslrttm sinense), mayapple (Podophylltlm pellalttm), and
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Water was observed in soil borings 4 inches below the surface.
Swollen trunks and shallow roots were observed as indicators of wetland hydrology. Soils are sandy
clays and are dark grayish brown with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 7 (3.06 acres) is located in the floodplain of Muddy Creek. Overstory vegetation consists of red
maple (Acer rtlbrttm), sweetgum (Liqttidambar styracifltla), willow oak ((Jtterctts phellos), and green ash
(Fraxintts pennsylvanica). Understory species consists primarily of multiflora rose (..Rosa mltll(/1ora).
Standing water was found in numerous sections of the wetland. Other hydrologic indicators were
blackened leaves and shallow roots. Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray with yellowish red mottles.
The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 8 (0.21 acres) is located within Cedarwood Park. This wetland was previously a pond that had
been drained, and the site currently has a raised wooden walkway. Overstory vegetation consists of
sweetgum (Liqltidambar styracifltla), red maple (Acer rttbrttm), yellow poplar (LiriodendronlttltjJ(/era),
and American elm (Ulmtts Americana). Midcanopy species includes musclewood (CalpillllS
caroltitiana), black willow (Sala nigra), and silky dogwood (Corntts amomttm), with understory species
consisting of multiflora rose (..Rosa mttll(/1ora), water horehound (Lycoptts rtlbelltls), hooded arrowhead
(Sagillaria ca(yetita), and false stinging nettle (Boehmeria cyltitdrica). Evidence of wetland hydrology
included blackened leaves, swollen tree trunks, and shallow roots. Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray
with dark yellowish brown mottles. B I horizon and B3 horizon, each, has a chroma value of I. B2
horizon (3-6 inches below surface) has a chroma value of 6; however, water was observed in soil borings
6 inches below ground surface.

Wetland 9 (0.18 acres) appears to have been created, due to limited drainage, by the construction of the
shopping center to the north and a berm adjacent to the sewer line easement to the south. Vegetation
consists of red maple (Acer rttbrttm), black willow (Saltx nigra), sycamore (Plalanlls occfdenlalis),
sweetgum (Liqllidambar styracifltla), green ash (Fraxlitlls pe/lllsylvanica), and American elm (Ulmlls
americana). There were no herbaceous species noted. Wetland hydrology includes dendritic roots,
shallow root systems, swollen buttresses, and blackened leaves. Soils were clay loams and colored
brown with strong brown mottles and gray with dark yellowish brown and dark gray mottles. B I horizon
has a chroma value of 2, while B2 horizon has a chroma of I.

Wetland 10 (0.12 acres) is located within a power line easement that crossed Eastland Branch. A small
channel flows through the wetland from the parking lot of the adjacent development. Vegetation consists
of ironweed ( Vernonia giganlea), cardinal flower (Lobelto cardtitalts), jewel weed (/mpaliens capensls),
blackberry (HllbllSSpp.), black willow (Saltx nigra), tearthumb (Po(ygonllm sagillalllm), soft rush (JiI/letIS
f(/jilSttS), Japanese honeysuckle (Lo/licera joponica), Indian potato (Apioyamericatla), and silky dogwood
(Cornlls amomllm). Wetland hydrology includes standing water in places and drainage patterns. Soils
were clay loams and dark gray with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is I.

Wetland II (0.05 acres) is a low quality toe of slope wetland located adjacent to a parking lot. Vegetation
consists of red maple (Acer rttbrttm), black gum (A:'Yysa sylvatica), swamp chestnut oak ((Jllerclls
michatlXli), sweetgum (Liqllldambar ytyrac(/111a), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera joponica), and
Virginia creeper (ParthenOetSSlls qlllitqllqoltO). Wetland hydrology includes shallow roots, drainage
patterns and swollen buttresses. Soils were clay loams and colored grayish brown with dark yellowish
brown and black mottles and dark gray with dark yellowish brown mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 12 (0.03 acres) is a low quality toe of slope wetland located adjacent to a parking lot. Vegetation
consists of red maple (A cer rttbrttm), American elm (Ulmlls americana), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), green
ash (Fraxlitlls pennsylvanica), and ironwood (Carplillls caroltitlona). Wetland hydrology includes

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XIX

I

I

I

.

-

shallow roots and swollen buttresses. Soils were clay loams colored dark gray with strong brown mottles.
The chroma value is I.

See Section 4.6 of the Restoration Plan and Appendix F for additional wetland information.

-

Mitigation Design Plans

There are 8 reaches and 2 wetland sites that will be either restored or enhanced throughout the project
area. The primary approach of the restoration design is to construct streams with a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile that have access to the floodplain at flows greater than the bankfull stage, or bank
stabilization in areas where constraints inhibit restoration. The enhancement design will focus on
removing invasive species, reestablishing native species, and improving habitat and increasing species
diversity. See the proposed Restoration Design Plans and Figure 6.1 for a map depicting restoration
reaches and wetland enhancement sites.

Preservation Mechanisms

A permanent conservation easement area will be established along both Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch from the upper constraints of the project area to their downstream confluence with Campbell
Creek. As stated in Section 3.0 of this report, the City of Charlotte will hold all property rights to the
easements in perpetuity. "The conservation easement shall ..., preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all
use of the property inconsistent with its use as a mitigation property, including any activity that would
materially alter the biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands within the site,
consistent with the Restoration Plan" (2004, USACE). A copy of the City's Standard Conservation
Easement is located in Appendix M.

See Appendix M for MBI terms and conditions.

Credit Ratios

As discussed in the Mitigation Design Plans section there are 8 reaches and 2 wetland sites that will be
either restored or enhanced throughout the project area. Proposed mitigation credits are projected in
Table I. Reference figures (Figure 4.1 for existing features and Figure 6.1 for proposed features) and
design plans are located as part of the Restoration Plan. It is anticipated that these credits will be used to
off-set "in-kind" stream and wetland impacts as authorized by Section 404 of the CW A and will follow
the USACOE criteria for mitigation sites selected for compensatory credit. The selection criteria are as
follows:

· For use within one stream order of the impacted stream, the same 8 digit HUC code, and as close
proximity as possible. Intermittent streams should be treated as a 151 order streams when
requiring mitigation,

· For use on streams with similar habitat designations, as defined in the Wildlife Resource
Commission's habitat guidance, and

· For use on streams within the same Physiographic Region.

The same compensatory credits cannot be used for more than one activity and should be used for projects
where impacts were unavoidable.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

xx

I

I

I

TABLE I.
Proposed Mitigation Credits

1

Muddv Creek Watershed MitiQation Bank Proposa
Proposed Design Design Approach Credit Existing Design Proposed Mitigation
Feature Ratio condition* Condition Credits
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1: 1 1,391 LF 1,481 LF 1,481 SMU
Reach 1 (Priority I & II)
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1: 1 1 ,132 LF 1,295 LF 1,295 SMU
Reach 2 (Priority I & II)
Muddy Creek, Enhancement 11** 1.5:1 1,216 LF 1 ,232 LF 821 SMU
Reach 3
Muddy Creek, Restoration 1:1 728 LF 886 LF 886 SMU
Reach 4 (Priority I & II)
Eastland Branch, Enhancement 11** 1.5:1 496 LF 496 LF 331 SMU
Reach 5
Eastland Branch, Restoration 1: 1 1401 LF 1736 LF 1,736 SMU
Reach 6 (Priority I & II)
Eastland Branch, Enhancement 1*** 1 :1 475 LF 468 LF 468 SMU
Reach 7
Eastland Branch, Restoration 1: 1 534 LF 659 LF 659 SMU
Reach 8 (Priority I & II)
Wetlands, Wetland 2:1 5.7AC 5.7 AC 2.9 WMU
Site 1 & 8 Enhancement

'I

I

I

,I

'I

1

I

*Existing conditions length does not correlate with existing conditions reach lengths reported in tables 4.1 and 4.4.
Existing and design reaches were selected at different locations

**Per the United States Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Guidelines, stream mitigation credit for Enhancement
11 ranges from 1.5 - 2.5: I. A credit ratio of 1.5: I is being sought based on the holistic watershed restoration
approach of this project. Enhancement includes bank stabilization and profile adjustments with in-stream structures.
In addition, four upland storm water BMPs will be constructed within the watershed.

***Per the United States Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Guidelines, stream mitigation credit for Enhancement
I ranges from I - 1.5: I. A credit ratio of I: I is being sought based on the holistic watershed restoration approach of
this project. Enhancement includes bank stabilization and profile adjustments with in-stream structures. This reach
will also access the floodplain during bankfull events. In addition, four upland stormwater BMPs will be
constructed within the watershed.

I

I

I

Phasing

The Project will be constructed in one phase and will follow the subsequent general implementation
sequence.

I.) Pre-Construction Phase

· Approval of a site specific mitigation plan, a restoration plan and an enhancement plan for the
Muddy Creek Restoration Project

· Apply and receive a construction grant from Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)

· Apply and receive all applicable permits (401/404, NPDES, etc.)

· Contract Bids

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XXI

I

I

The City will follow the required criteria set forth by USACE to monitor, maintain, and assure the
successful establishment and performance of all enhancement and restoration activities throughout the
project area. The Monitoring Plan will include the evaluation of channel stability, ecological function,
and photo documentation, as well as, a long term management protocol. The monitoring plan will be in
accordance with the CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines, which meet or exceed the requirements of
the USACE's Stream Mitigation GlIldebites(ApriI2003) and the requirements of the MBI. Each site will
be monitored and evaluated for 5 years post construction, or until the final success criteria are achieved,
whichever is longer, to determine the success or failure of the following monitoring level benchmarks. If
failure should occur, the City will perform the corrective action indicated to return the site to conditions
regarded as successful by the USACE and the MBRT.

See Table IV for the Monitoring Level requirement per proposed stream design mitigation level.

As-built channel survey will be preformed for Restoration and Enhancement Level I projects. They will
include the restored channel's dimension, pattern, and profile. Permanent cross-sections should be
established at an approximate frequency of one per 20 bankfull-width lengths along the channel length
and should represent a I: I ratio of riffles to pools. An as-built survey shall include photo documentation
of all cross-sections and structures, longitudinal profile for 3,000 LF of the restored stream, plan view
diagram, vegetation information, and pebble counts for 6 cross-sections or all if the number of cross-
sections is less than 6.

Monitoring Level I will be preformed once per year for a 5-year monitoring period and will apply to all
Restoration and Enhancement Level I sites within the project area. At least two bankfull events, within
separate years, must be documented within the monitoring period. If two events have failed to occur
during this time period monitoring will continue until the second event has been documented, unless the
USACE and DWQ, in consultation with the other MBRT agencies, determine that additional monitoring
is not required. In addition to bankfull event documentation, monitoring data shall include the following:
reference photos, channel stability analysis, and vegetative survival analysis.

Monitoring Level II will be preformed each year for the 5-year monitoring period and will apply to all
Enhancement Level II sites within the project area. At least two bankfull events, within separate years,
must be documented within the monitoring period. If two events have failed to occur during this time
period monitoring will continue until the second event has been documented, unless the USACE and
DWQ, in consultation with the other MBRT agencies, determine that additional monitoring is not
required. In addition to bankfull event documentation, monitoring data shall include the following:
reference photos and vegetative survival analysis. Channel stability will only need to be evaluated when
the mitigation project alters the bankfull channel.

Monitoring Level III will apply to Preservation sites within the project area. A 5-year monitoring
program is not required; however, reference photos with a description of the preservation area along
should be taken, documented, and submitted to the USACE and DWQ.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XXIV

I

:1

I

I

TABLE IV
Monitoring Level Requirements per Mitigation Site
Muddy Creek Watershed Mitigation Bank Proposal

I

I

Proposed Design Feature Design Approach Monitoring Level Required
Muddy Creek, Restoration (Priority I & II) Level I
Reach I
Muddy Creek, Restoration (Priority I & II) Levell
Reach 2
Muddy Creek, Enhancement II Level II
Reach 3
Muddy Creek, Restoration (Priority I & II) Level I
Reach 4
Eastland Branch, Enhancement II Level II
Reach 5
Eastland Branch, Restoration (Priority I & II) Level I
Reach 6
Eastland Branch, Enhancement I Level I
Reach 7
Eastland Branch, Restoration (Priority I & II) Level I
Reach 8
Wetlands, Wetland Enhancement Level III
Site I & 8

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Though not a requirement, the City often performs additional monitoring analyses for design approaches
requiring Level I Monitoring to further document the project's success. These may include stream
geomorphic surveys, biological surveys (fish and macroinvertebrates), water quality analysis, and habitat
assessment.

I

I

Success of the project requires the three forms of required monitoring criteria set forth by USACE and the
DWQ. The following will be used to evaluate the success of those criteria:

Photo Documentation

I

. The lack of channel aggradation or degradation.
. The lack of bank erosion.
. Riparian vegetation established.
. Effective erosion control measures.

I

. The absence of instream bars.

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

xxv

I

I

I
I
I

Ecological Function

. 80% survival of planted species after 5 years.

o The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320
3-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old, planted trees per
acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period.

. Restoration reach should mimic reference reach where applicable.

Channel Stabilitv

. Insignificant change in current dimension from as-built.

. Changes in channel stability minor and represent an increase in stability.

. Insignificant change in current longitudinal profile from as-built.

. Pool/riffle spacing is remaining fairly constant.

. Pools are not aggrading and riffles are not degrading.

. Pebble count is changing toward desired bed material composition.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the MBR T.
Additional Monitoring Plan information can be found in Section 7 of the Restoration Plan.

Preliminary Title Opinions

A conservation easement along the entire project area, outside of current utility easements, will be held
under the control of the City of Charlotte, in perpetuity. Any property necessary to fulfill the easement
requirements that is not presently owned by the City of Charlotte will be acquired. The Title Opinion for
the mitigation will be completed and submitted to the MBRT. Below (Table V) is a listing of current
property owners along the project area.

TABLE V
Property Owners within the Project Area
Muddy Creek Watershed Mitigation Bank Proposal

Owner

-

-

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY GRANT SITE
ASSOCIATION COUNTRY WALK HOMEOWNERS
KINGS 1 PACES LLC, TC PACES LLC
BRAD NEWSOME HURST AND JENNIFER LYNN-SPATES-HURST
FIRST CHARTER BANK
SMV CHARLOTTE LLC
SAGEBRUSH REALTY, FOREST RIDGE APARTMENTS LLC
GREEN ACRES INC
THOMAS JR. HUCKS AND LYDIA C. HUCKS

-

WILLIAM D. NICHOLS AND DARLA M. NICHOLS
LEFFERS ASSOCIATES
RENEE C. WRIGHT
JENNIFER CROWDER
ANTOINETTE CODY
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

PIO
133-051-03
133-161-32
133-094-10
133-132-68
133-051-02
133-095-03
133-095-10
133-101-12
133-101-01
133-161-03
133-095-07
133-095-09
133-133-28
133-101-10
133-131-02
133-131-21
133-131-22

XXVI

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Owner
CORNELIUS O'NEIL III AND ELEANOR G. O'NEILL
JOHN B. ALBERTSON AND KAREN M. ALBERTSON
DERONDAJ.COLEMAN
CHARLOTTE EAST LLC
AUDRA R. NEWTON
KELlI ALLEN
THERESA K. HUGHES
RODNEY DIONNE PARRIS AND ANTHONY ATIASE
JOHN STARKE
CHUOI THI VO AND JESSICA LE

PID
133-131-23
133-131-26
133-131-27
133-142-05
133-132-33
133-132-32
133-132-31
133-132-30
133-131-28
133-131-29

Utility easements present within the project area are considered minimal and include the following:

Muddy Creek

overhead Duke Power line

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility sanitary sewer line

Eastland Branch

overhead Duke Power line

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility sanitary sewer line

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility water line

Charlotte Department of Transportation pedestrian walkway

See Project Design Plans for property owner information, boundaries, and utility locations.

Long Term Management Provisions

The City of Charlotte will institute a Long Term Management Plan responsible for assessing the condition
of Bank (Mitigation) Sites and implementing maintenance provisions to maintain the performance of each
Site. The conservation easement that will be in place throughout the Project boundaries will help to
ensure that only activities deemed acceptable by the MBRT will be allowed. To ensure that the project's
continued success throughout its lifespan, the Long Term Management Plan for the Project will be
implemented following the five year monitoring period and subsequent release of all mitigation credits.

CSWS will visually inspect all components of the restoration project annually or less frequently, as
needed to ensure the project remains stable in perpetuity. Sources of instability and other project
deficiencies will be addressed as needed. CSWS will also send letters to all properties with Permanent
Conservation Easements annually, reminding the residents of the limits and restrictions of the easement
area. Follow-up inspections will be completed annually or less frequently, as needed to ensure
compliance with easement provisions. Invasive species will be managed semiannually or less frequently,
as needed to ensure the long term survivability of the planned vegetative community.

All reporting will be documented and kept on file for future reference.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

XII

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I

I

I

1 Introduction and Background

I

1.1 Brief Project Description and Location

I

The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) proposes to restore and enhance 7,373 linear feet
(LF) of channelized stream, enhance and preserve 5.7 acres of existing wetlands, and implement four
BMPs along Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. It is anticipated that this project will generate 7,677
stream mitigation units and 2.9 wetland mitigation units. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 provide an overview of the
project.

The project is located in Charlotte, NC. The project lies in the Catawba River Basin within North
Carolina Division of Water Quality sub-basin 03-08-34 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
hydrologic unit 03050 I 03020050 as illustrated in Figure 1.1.

I

I

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives

I

CSWS proposes to restore and enhance 7,373 linear feet (LF) of stream and 5.7 acres of wetland along
Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch, tributaries to Campbell Creek. The design condition will result in
8,253 LF of restored stream for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. This project will also implement four
storm water best management practices (BMPs) to improve water quality.

I

I

The design goals of the project include:

. Create geomorphic ally stable channel conditions within Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch.

. Improve and restore hydrologic connections between creeks and floodplains where practical.

· Improve water quality in Muddy Creek, Eastland Branch, and Campbell Creek by reducing Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and nutrient loading supplied from the surrounding catchments.

. Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor by increasing bedform diversity
within the stream channel and restoring riparian buffers with native vegetation.

· Generate mitigation credit for the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Bank.

I

I

I

· Lessen structural flooding to the maximum extent practicable.

. Enhance recreational and educational opportunities.

To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified:

· Restore and enhance the existing incised, eroding, and channelized stream by creating a stable
channel with access to the floodplain.

· Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff, by stabilizing
stream banks to reduce bank erosion and sediment contribution to creek flows, and by treating
urban drainage areas using a variety of BMPs.

· Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools and areas of water re-aeration, providing woody debris for habitat, and reducing
bank erosion.

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

1-1

I

I

I

. Improve terrestrial habitat by managing invasive species and replanting riparian and wetland
areas with native vegetation. Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in a
permanent conservation easement to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature and provide cover for wildlife.

. Lessen flooding conditions by replacing the culvert at the Reddman Road and by enhancing
detention in the watershed.

I

I

. Enhance recreational and educational opportunities by coordinating environmental improvements
with Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation for consideration of greenway connectivity and
limited recreational access.

I

1.3 Report Overview

I

I

This report has been arranged and formatted to maximize its utility. Section 2 provides new readers with
a review of the background science and methodologies applied by Baker Engineering in the practice of
natural channel design. This section can be passed over by those readers already familiar with our design
processes and procedures. Sections 3, 4, 5,6, 7 and 8 of the report are specific to the project. These
sections cover the site assessment findings, stream and BMP design documentation, proposed restoration
and monitoring.

The naming convention of this project refers to the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Project, and
includes all proposed improvements with the Muddy Creek, Eastland Branch and Campbell Creek
watersheds. Specific project site names for stormwater best management practices and wetland
enhancement sites (i.e. Site 1,4, 8, 9A, 9B, and 10) refer to the naming convention established for the
project.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

1-2

I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2 Background Science and Methods for Stream Restoration

See Appendix N for this section of the report.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

2-1

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I

I

3 Watershed Assessment Results

I

3.1

Watershed Overview

I

The project lies in the Catawba River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality sub-basin
03-08-34 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050103020050. The Muddy
Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds are located within the city limits of Charlotte in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, approximately four miles east of downtown. Figure 3.1 shows the watershed
boundaries for the project. Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch generally flow to the southeast and feed
into Campbell Creek, draining a total watershed area of approximately 0.59 square miles (377 acres) and
0.62 square miles (396 acres), respectively.

3.1.1 Watershed History

I

I

I

Using a composite of aerial photography, Baker Engineering documented historical patterns of
development and land use within the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds. Aerial photography
assemblages from 1938, 1951, 1956, 1966, 1975, 1986,200 I, and 2002 were included in the analysis and
were provided by the Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) of Mecklenburg County.

The Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds were once rural watersheds dominated by forested,
agricultural, and pasturelands between 1938 and 1966. Increases in population within the Charlotte
metropolitan area resulted in the expansion and construction of such major thoroughfares as US 74 and
Albemarle Road that facilitated the migration of population and urban development east of Charlotte
toward the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds. The largest surge in urban development
within the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds occurred between 1966 and 1986 in the form of
high density residential land uses, and corresponded with the encroachment of the Charlotte city limits
upon the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds following 1975. Since 1986, residential land
uses, consisting of 0.25- to 0.50-acre lots and 0.25-acre multi-family complexes, have continued to
expand throughout the watershed at the expense of remaining forested, agricultural, and pasture lands.

I

I

I

I

3.1.1.1

Muddy Creek Historic Land Use

I

Land use within the Muddy Creek watershed in 1938 was predominantly forest intermingled with vast
pockets of agricultural and pasture lands. The majority of the forested land was situated within the
western and southwestern portion of the watershed along the right bank of the Muddy Creek mainstem
while the left bank was primarily bordered by agricultural and pasture lands. Tributaries of Muddy Creek
within the headwaters of the watershed contained fairly wide riparian buffers while the wetland area at the
Muddy Creek watershed outlet lacked dense riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation was also generally
sparse immediately surrounding the channel throughout the majority of the Muddy Creek corridor.
Existing major roads within the Muddy Creek watershed include North Sharon Amity Road, Reddman
Road, and Pierson Drive.

The headwaters of the Muddy Creek watershed experienced a significant decline in forested lands
between 1938 and 1951 due to the construction of Albemarle Road and the addition of a golf course
between what is currently multi-family complexes located between Iron Gate Lane and Fair Grove Lane.
An extensive clear-cut occurred just downstream of the golf course along the right bank of Muddy Creek
and continued in a southwestern direction away from the channel toward the watershed boundary.

By 1956, watershed hydrology was altered by the construction of a large on-line pond in the middle of the
Muddy Creek watershed (which is now drained). Two additional off-line ponds were introduced to the
Muddy Creek watershed around the same time period. One of these ponds was located just north of
Albemarle Road within the headwaters and the other paralleled the left bank of Muddy Creek just
downstream of Reddman Road. A substantial plot of previously clear-cut forested land adjacent to the

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-1

I

I

I

I

right bank of the on-line pond was re-c1eared and converted to pasture land. A power line cut,
intersecting Muddy Creek, carved through the central portion of the watershed, perpendicular to the
channel just downstream of the on-line pond. Only a few 0.5- to 2-acre residential lots had been
constructed within the watershed by 1956 (along Cedarwood Lane).

Several smaller residential lots, comprised of 0.25- to 0.5-acres, were observed throughout the
southwestern portion of the Muddy Creek watershed by 1966 along Pierson Drive and Kipling Drive, and
within the headwaters along Starkwood Drive. The off-line pond, just north of Albemarle Road, was
drained and converted into pastureland. Vegetation emerged within the riparian corridor between the
downstream boundary of the on-line pond and the upstream limit of the wetland area surrounding the
basin outlet. Riparian buffers within the headwaters and lower wetland area at the watershed outlet
remained sparse.

Landuse changes within the Muddy Creek watershed between 1966 and 1975 primarily consisted of the
conversion offorested and agricultural/grazing lands to smaller acre, high density residential land uses. It
was during this time period that the watershed underwent the transition from a rural-dominated landscape
to an urban-dominated landscape. A few multi-family complexes (0.25-acre residential) and commercial
strips were clustered within the headwaters along North Sharon Amity Road and Albemarle Road. The
widespread development of 0.25- to 0.5-acre residential lands peaked by 1975 and continued eastward
from Pierson Drive toward Glenbrier Drive and Farmingdale Drive. The Muddy Creek watershed
remained fairly undeveloped throughout the central portion and toward the watershed outlet downstream
of Reddman Road. Vegetated buffers increased along the riparian corridor. For the first time since 1938,
a dense swath of vegetation emerged within the wetland area surrounding the watershed outlet. The large,
on-line pond just north of the power line right-of-way was breached and half-drained by 1975.

The increase in small-acre residentiallanduses throughout the Muddy Creek watershed remained
prominent between 1975 and 1986, but at a declining rate. Several multifamily complexes were
constructed within the headwaters just south of Albemarle Road, replacing the golf course once located
between Coronado Drive and Starkwood Drive. The apartment complexes at Paces Glen Avenue (along
the left bank of Muddy Creek) and Amity Springs Drive were constructed. Thru traffic was halted along
Reddman Road at Muddy Creek by 1986 and additional 0.25- to 0.5-acre residential lots expanded
downstream of Reddman Road along Misty Way Lane and other neighboring streets. Riparian buffers
continued to recover near the power line cut and downstream of Reddman Road along the left bank as
dense vegetation reclaimed former pasture land. The large on-line pond in the central portion of the
watershed was completely drained by 1986 and a single-thread channel formed through the pond bed.

By 200 I, a few smaller residential developments were added in the Muddy Creek watershed including the
completion of the apartments at Paces Glen and Iron Gate Lane within the headwaters. Upon the
completion of the apartments at Iron Gate Lane, a detention pond was constructed online which receives
drainage from the majority of the Muddy Creek watershed headwaters. Construction was also underway
for multi-family complexes just north of Country Walk Drive where exposed catchment surfaces were
evident. Residential lots, comprising 0.25- to 0.5-acres, were developed along Country Walk Drive and
Sunglow Court along the left bank of Muddy Creek toward the watershed outlet. The groundbreaking of
another multi-family complex occurred in 2002 between Fair Grove Lane and Amity Springs Drive. This
complex has since been completed along with the condominiums north of Country Walk Drive.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

3.1.1.2

Eastland Branch Historic Land Use

I

Land use within the Eastland Branch watershed in 1938 also consisted of a mixture of forested land with
agricultural and pasturelands. The majority of the forested land was situated within the headwaters north
of Central Avenue and Albemarle Road while agricultural and pasture lands generally occupied the
southwest portion of the watershed and the entire eastern periphery of the watershed. Eastland Branch
already appeared to have been channelized by this time but riparian areas throughout the watershed
appear to be fairly well-buffered.

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-2

I

I

I

I

I

Forested land within the headwaters of the Eastland Branch watershed (north of Central Avenue) began
declining between 1938 and 1956 due to the sprawl of low density residential lots along newly
constructed roads spurring from Wilora Lake Road. The plot ofland where Eastland Mall exists today
however, remained densely forested up until the construction of the mall which began in 1974. The
western extension of Albemarle Road was completed by 1951 along with the construction of a pond that
now provides detention for an apartment complex located near the intersection of Albemarle Road and
Reddman Road. An extensive clear-cut occurred within the downstream limits of Eastland Branch along
the right floodplain of Campbell Creek.

By 1966, the headwaters of Eastland Branch were continuing to experience rapid growth in low density
residential lots. Agricultural land located between Central Avenue and Albemarle Road was converted
into a mix of light commercial and multi-family apartment complexes. The proportion of commercial
land uses had surged by 1978. The construction of Eastland Mall was completed in the summer of 1975
and that portion of Eastland Branch coinciding with the mall property was piped all the way to Albemarle
Road. Commercial strips lined Albemarle Road at the Central A venue intersection and the business park
located along Executive Center Drive was almost complete. Construction had begun on what is now the
abandoned Upton's department store and an additional length of Eastland Branch was piped in the
process. The south and southwestern portions of the Eastland Branch watershed (south of Albemarle
Road) were still predominantly occupied by agricultural and pasture land by 1978.

Agricultural and pasture land within the south and southwestern portions of the watershed was on the
decline by 1986 as dense residential development in the form of multi-family complexes and 0.25- to 0.5-
acre lots spread south along Reddman Road. By 200 I, a small acre residential development surrounding
the watershed outlet was completed, in addition to, a commercial strip which was constructed at the
intersection of Wilora Lake Road and Albemarle Road. Landuse from 200 I to present has remained
much the same as the watershed is close to its built-out capacity.

3.1.2 Current Watershed Land Use

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The 2004 landuse for the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds is presented in Table 3.1 and
Table 3.2, respectively. Within the Muddy Creek watershed, residential lots less than 0.5 acres in size
comprise the greatest proportion oflanduse within the project watershed, making up a combined total of
67.5 percent of the entire watershed area. The majority of the 0.25- to 0.5-acre residential land use class
resides along the southern periphery of watershed boundary while most of the multi-family complexes
(less than 0.25-acre residential) and commercial strips are clustered in the higher elevations of the
watershed headwaters, within the northern half of the watershed. Forested lands (woods/brush) comprise
15.2 percent of the watershed area, the second largest landuse class, and are concentrated throughout the
central portion of the watershed between Reddman Road and the apartments on Iron Gate Lane.

I

I

TABLE 3.1
Muddy Creek Watershed by Land Use

I

Muddv Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Land Use Area (ac) Percent of Muddy Creek Watershed
Less than 0.25-Acre 95.5 25.4
Res./Apts./Row houses
0.25- to 0.5-Acre Residential 158.3 42.1
0.5- to 2-Acre Residential 39.9 10.6
Greater than 2-Acre Residential & 4.6 1.2
Open Space
Commercial - Heavy (Strip Malls) 7.0 1.9
Commercial - Light (Office Parks) 10.2 2.7
Transportation 3.3 0.9

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-3

I

I

I

I

Land Use Area (ac) Percent of Muddy Creek Watershed
Woods/Brush (Good Condition) 57.0 15.2

I

I

Within the Eastland Branch watershed, commercial lands (light and heavy commercial land uses
combined) comprise the greatest proportion oflanduse, making up a total of 44.4 percent of the entire
watershed area. The majority of the commercial lands border Albemarle Road and Central Avenue within
the middle of the watershed and parallel Executive Center Drive along the southeastern periphery of
watershed boundary. Eastland Mall comprises almost half of the commercial land area within the
watershed. The second largest land use class is residential lots less than 0.5 acres in size which comprise a
combined total of27.2 percent of the watershed area. Multi-family complexes make up the majority of
the high density residential land use class and are predominantly located within the southwestern portion
of the watershed. Residential lots greater than 0.5 acres comprise 18.3 percent of the watershed area and
are situated within the north and northeastern portion of the watershed along Wilora Lake Road. Forested
lands comprise 7.7 percent of the watershed area and are primarily located behind the Executive Center
Drive business park, bordering the stream corridor within the downstream portion of the watershed.

I

I

I

I

TABLE 3.2
Eastland Branch Watershed by Land Use
U~

I

Muddv Cree 'Eltershed Restoration Plan
Land Use Area (ac) Percent of Muddy Creek Watershed
Less thanO.25-Acre 99.5 25.1
Res./ Apts./Rowhouses
0.25- to 0.5-Acre Residential 8.2 2.1
0.5- to 2-Acre Residential 65.1 16.4
Greater than2-Acre Residential & 7.6 1.9
Open Space
Commercial - Heavy (Strip Malls) 132.4 33.5
Commercial - Light (Office Parks) 43.1 10.9
Transportation 6.0 1.5
Institutional Areas (Hospitals, 3.7 0.9
Schools, Churches)
Woods/Brush (Good Condition) 30.3 7.7

I

I

I

3.1.3 Watershed Geology

I

I

The City of Charlotte lies in the Charlotte Belt, which is a geologic zone comprised of predominantly
metavolcanic and plutonic rock types. The underlying geology of the project area is late Proterozoic to
early Cambrian age felsic, mafic, and intermediate metavolcanic rocks. During field surveys, a highly
weathered layer of bedrock or saprolite was observed on Eastland Branch. This was the only bedrock
grade control along Eastland Branch and it is likely that there are none along Muddy Creek

3.1.4 Watershed Soils

I

Soils within the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds were assessed using NRCS Soil Survey
data for Mecklenburg County, along with preliminary on-site evaluations to locate any hydric soil areas
(NRCS, 1997). A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in Figure 3.2. Soils found
within the project area will support stream restoration activities and are described in more detail below. A
summary of each soil type for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch is presented in Tables 3.3 and 3.4,
respectively.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-4

I

I

The most prevalent soil type within the Muddy Creek watershed is the Cecil-Urban land complex which
is found within the higher elevations as well as the hillsides on the western half of the Muddy Creek
watershed. This soil type, which covers half of the Muddy Creek drainage basin, does not contain any
hydric soils.

The second most abundant soil type is Cecil sandy clay loam. This soil type is found within the higher
elevations and along the bottomlands of both watersheds.

The Helena sandy loam soil type is found along the channels and immediate floodplains of Muddy Creek
as well as many of its minor tributaries. The land containing these soils is generally suitable for efforts to
restore stability to stream banks and to manipulate riparian vegetation and wetland areas, as long as care
is taken during months of flooding (November through April). Hydric soils were found within this soil
type. The Davidson sandy clay loam soils are found on the upper, eastern hillsides of the drainage basin.
Lining the eastern bottom lands of Muddy Creek are the Enon sandy loam and Monacan soil types. The
Monacan loam is found at the confluence of Muddy and Campbell Creek as well as the adjoining
floodplain. Hydric soils are present in the Monacan areas.

The soil type labeled "Water" is land that was submerged under water at the time of the soil survey and
likely is Cecil sandy clay loam and/or Helena sandy loam. Since the soil survey was conducted, the upper
pond in the Muddy Creek watershed has been breached and drained.

I

I

3.1.4.1

Muddy Creek Soils

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 3.3
Muddy Creek Soil Types and Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Soil Descriptions taken from National Soil Information System (NASIS) Database

I

Soil Name DSL Percent Hydric Hydrologic Location
Name Area Soils Group
Cecil-Urban
land CuB 51 No B Ridges and
complex hillside

I

Description

I

I

I

Cecil sandy CeB2 26
clay loam

Ridges and
hillside

No

B

I

Helena HeB
sandy loam

10

Yes

C

Ridges and
hillside

I

I

This soil type occurs on gentle slopes (2 to 8%) and generally
has a very deep soil profile and is well drained. They are often
located on upland areas. They formed in residuum from felsic
rock. The surface layer is loamy and the subsoil is clayey.
Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low.
Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet. Urban land
consists of areas where the original soils have been cut, filled,
graded, or paved to the extent that a soil type can no longer be
recognized. These areas are used for shopping centers.
factories, municipal buildings, parking lots, and other urban
uses.

These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, well drained,
eroded soils are on uplands. They formed in residuum from
felsic rocks. They have a loamy surface layer and a clayey
subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is
low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet.

These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, moderately well
drained soils are on uplands. They formed in residuum from a
mixture of felsic and mafic rock. They have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-
swell potential is high. Seasonal high water table is within a
depth of 1.5 to 2.5 feet.

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-5

I

I

I

I

TABLE 3.3
Muddy Creek Soil Types and Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Soil Descriptions taken from National Soil Information System (NASIS) Database

I

Soil Name DSL Percent Hydric Hydrologic Location
Name Area Soils Group
Davidson DaB 8 No B Ridges and
sandy clay hillside
loam

Description

I

These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, well drained soils
are on uplands and old high stream terraces. They formed in
materials weathered from mafic rock. They have a loamy
surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is
below 6.0 feet.

I

Enon sandy EnB
loam

3

No

c

Hillside

These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, well drained soils
are on uplands. They formed in residuum from mafic rock.
They have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil.
Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is high.
Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet.

I

I

Monacan MO
loam

Yes

c

Floodplain

These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils
are on flood plains. They formed in loamy alluvial deposits.
They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is
moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 0.5 to 2.0 feet. These soils are
subject to occasional flooding.

I

3.1 .4.2

Eastland Branch Soils

I

The most prevalent soil type within the Eastland Branch watershed is the Cecil sandy clay loam which is
found within the headwaters or higher elevations as well as the hillsides within the central portion of the
Eastland Branch watershed. This soil type, which covers approximately a third of the Eastland Branch
drainage basin, does not contain any hydric soils.

The second most abundant soil type is Urban land and Cecil-Urban land. Both of these soil types
coincide with the more intensive landuses within the watershed such as large scale commercial
developments, business parks, multi-family or high density residential developments. These altered soils
tend to be found on ridges, hillsides, and bordering major thoroughfares like Albemarle Road, Sharon
Amity Road, and Central A venue. Eastland Mall is situated along these thoroughfares and coincides with
the urban soil boundary where the mainstem of Eastland Branch is piped.

As with the Muddy Creek watershed, Helena sandy loam and Monacan loam are the predominant soil
types found along the channels and immediate floodplains of Eastland Branch, as well as, many of its
minor tributaries. Hydric soils were found within these soil types. The land containing these soils is
generally suitable for efforts to restore stability to stream banks and to manipulate riparian vegetation and
wetland areas, as long as, care is taken during months of flooding (November through April).

Two areas of Cecil sandy clay loam (CeD2) located within the headwaters appear to have been used as fill
to support land development in low lying areas east of Sharon Amity Road. Davidson sandy clay loam
and Mecklenburg fine sandy loam soils are both found on the lower, western hillsides of the drainage
basin. The soil type labeled "Water" is an active detention pond at an apartment complex located off of
Albemarle and Reddman Roads.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WA TERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3.6

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 3.4
Eastland Branch Soil Types and Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
SOil Descriptions taken from National SOil Information System (NASIS) Database
Soil Name DSL Percent Hydric Hydrologic Group Location Description
Name Area Solis
Cecil sandy CeB2 31 No B Ridges and These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, well drained,
clay loam hillside eroded soils are on uplands. They formed in residuum
from felsic rocks. They have a loamy surface layer and a
clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell
potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0
feet.
Cecil sandy CeD2 3 No B Ridges and These strongly sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded
clay loam Floodplain soils are on uplands. They formed in residuum from
felsic rocks. They have a loamy surface layer and a
clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell
potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0
feet
Cecil-Urban CuB 17 No B Ridges and This soil type occurs on gentle slopes (2 to 8%) and
land hillside generally has a very deep soil profile and is well drained.
complex They are often located on upland areas. They formed in
residuum from felsic rock. The surface layer is loamy and
the subsoil is clayey. Permeability is moderate and
shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is
below 6.0 feet. Urban land consists of areas where the
original soils have been cut, filled, graded, or paved to
the extent that a soil type can no longer be recognized.
These areas are used for shopping centers, factories,
municipal buildings, parking lots, and other urban uses.
Davidson DaB 11 No B Ridges and These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, well drained
sandy clay hillside soils are on uplands and old high stream terraces. They
loam formed in materials weathered from mafic rock. They
have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil.
Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is
low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet.
Helena HeB 3 Yes C Ridges and These gently sloping (2 to 8%), very deep, moderately
sandy loam hillside well drained soils are on uplands. They formed in
residuum from a mixture of felsic and mafic rock. They
have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil.
Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is high.
Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1 .5 to 2.5
feet.
Monacan MO 5 Yes C Floodplain These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained
loam soils are on flood plains. They formed in loamy alluvial
deposits. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is
low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 0.5 to
2.0 feet. These soils are subject to occasional flooding.
MecklenburgMeB 6 No C Ridges and These gently to strongly sloping (2-15% slopes), very
fine sandy hillside deep, well drained soils are on uplands. They formed in
loam residuum from mafic rock. They have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and
shrink-swell potential is moderate to high. Seasonal high
water table is below 6.0 feet
Urban land Ur 24 No D Ridges and This map unit consists of areas of urban land where
hillside more than 75 percent of the area is covered by
pavement or buildings. The natural soils have been
altered by cutting, filling, grading, during urbanization.
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT 3-7
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

3.2 Hydrology

3.2.1 Modeling Methods

HEC-HMS was used to quantifY the watershed runoff to Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. Figure 3.3
illustrates the subwatershed breakdown for the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch watersheds. An
existing conditions curve number (CN) was assigned to each subwatershed based on the existing landuse
and soil type. A future use CN was also generated for each subwatershed, anticipating future build-out in
both watersheds. A time of concentration was estimated for each subwatershed using the NRCS
(formerly SCS) Technical Release 55 (TR-55) methodology. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 summarize the
hydrologic characteristics for each subwatershed within the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
watersheds, respectively.
Table 3.5
Muddy Creek Subwatershed Hydrologic Characteristics
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

I

I

Subwatershed Area, acres Area. sa mi Tc hours Laa time hours eN Existing eN Future
1W 98.98 0.1547 0.80 0.48 75 75
1E 80.21 0.1253 0.55 0.33 80 80
2W 10.78 0.0168 0.83 0.50 57 57
2E 24.15 0.0377 0.29 0.18 75 75
3W 49.17 0.0768 0.69 0.41 67 69
3E 25.94 0.0405 0.69 0.42 70 74
3S 52.76 0.0824 0.43 0.26 69 70
4W 18.78 0.0293 0.57 0.34 76 77
4E 12.11 0.0189 0.28 0.17 75 75
5W 3.72 0.0058 0.29 0.17 76 76

I

I

I

I

Table 3.6
Eastland Branch Subwatershed Hydrologic Characteristics
Mdd C k~ hdR, .

I

U (JV ree aters e estoratlOn Plan
Subwatershed Area, acres Area, sa mi Tc, hours Laa time, hours eN Existing eN Future
1N 45.63 0.0713 0.56 0.33 70 72
1W 26.94 0.0421 0.53 0.32 70 70
2A 29.5 0.0461 0.56 0.33 83 83
2E 49.79 0.0778 0.28 0.17 85 85
2S 54.4 0.0850 0.36 0.22 87 88
2W 89.6 0.1400 0.53 0.32 94 95
3E 6.46 0.0101 0.28 0.17 59 79
3N 29.82 0.0466 0.64 0.38 81 84
3S 35.52 0.0555 0.31 0.18 80 81
3W 28.29 0.0442 0.19 0.12 82 84

I

I

I

The precipitation data used in the model are based on the six-hour balanced storm rainfall distributions for
Charlotte, NC. Table 3.7 summarizes the precipitation data used for each of the storm events modeled.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-8

I

I

I

I

I

Table 3.7
Charlotte, NC, Six-Hour Balanced Storm Rainfall Distributions

I

Muddv Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Precipitation, inches
per Recurrence Interval, years
Duration 2 10 25 50 100
5 min 0.42 0.59 0.68 0.75 0.83
15 min 0.83 1.25 1.47 1.62 1.78
1 hr 1.45 2.36 2.76 3.06 3.34
2 hr 1.76 2.9 3.4 3.78 4.12
3 hr 1.95 3.21 3.75 4.2 4.56
6 hr 2.28 3.72 4.38 4.92 5.34

I

I

I

Table 3.8 summarizes the peak discharge from each project subwatershed under existing landuse (using
the existing conditions CN) and under the projected future landuse (using the future conditions CN). The
projected future peak flow rates are only slightly higher than the existing conditions peaks. Because the
difference is slight, and to be conservative, we chose to use the peaks developed from the future
conditions eNs for our analysis.

I

Table 3.8
Peak Discharge per Subwatershed for Existing Landuse and Future Landuse
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Peak Discharge (cfs)
2-year 10-vear 25-vear 100-vear
Muddy Creek Existing Existing Existing Existing
Subwatershed eN Future eN eN Future eN eN Future eN eN Future eN
1W 27.4 27.4 119.1 119.1 163.9 163.9 229.4 229.4
1E 45.1 45.1 152.6 152.6 201.5 201.5 271.4 271.4
2W 0.1 0.1 3.5 3.5 6.1 6.1 10.4 10.4
2E 11.3 11.3 48.8 48.8 66.9 66.9 93.5 93.5
3W 7.2 7.2 46.3 46.3 67.5 67.5 99.6 99.6
3E 7.0 7.0 32.1 32.1 44.6 44.6 62.9 62.9
3S 11.0 11.0 67.8 67.8 97.8 97.8 142.8 142.8
4W 7.8 7.8 30.6 30.6 41.3 41.3 56.9 56.9
4E 5.8 5.8 25.1 25.1 34.4 34.4 48.0 48.0
5W 2.0 2.0 8.1 8.1 11.0 11.0 15.2 15.2
Eastland
Branch
Subwatershed
1N 8.4 10.9 50.9 57.2 73.4 80.9 91.0 99.1
1W 5.1 5.1 31.1 31.1 44.8 44.8 55.6 55.6
2A 21.4 21.4 63.8 63.8 82.5 82.5 96.1 96.1
2E 62.3 62.3 164.7 164.7 209.0 209.0 240.9 240.9
2S 67.3 72.2 168.4 174.4 211.5 217.7 242.1 248.2
2W 140.9 149.0 286.3 293.4 345.4 352.1 386.1 392.3
3E 0.2 4.7 4.2 16.3 7.3 21.6 9.9 25.5
3N 16.8 21.5 54.8 62.1 71.9 79.8 84.4 92.6
3S 27.0 29.6 89.0 93.0 117.3 121.5 137.9 142.3
3W 31.7 37.2 92.9 100.6 120.1 128.3 140.0 148.2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-9

I

I

I

I

The subwatershed hydrographs were routed downstream using the kinematic wave routing method. A
trapezoidal channel shape was used to represent the creek, and the surveyed creek lengths and slopes were
used for each channel reach. A Manning's roughness value was selected based on observed channel
conditions.

I

I

3.2.2 Discharge Estimates

Tables 3.9 and 3.10 summarize the peaks of the additive hydrographs moving down the Muddy Creek and
Eastland Branch channels from upstream to downstream at Campbell Creek. Figure 3.3 illustrates the
flow change locations. These peak flows were input into the HEC-RAS hydraulic model at the noted
flow change locations. To be conservative in respect to flooding, flows were increased at the upstream
end of each subwatershed, rather than the downstream end.

I

I

Table 3.9
Peak Flow Inputs to the Muddy Creek Hydraulic Model

I

Muddv Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Flow
Subwatersheds Change Peak Flow, Future Land Use (cfs)
Contributina Location 2-vear 10-vear 25-vear 50-vear 100-vear
1E, 1W, 2E & 2W A 75 288 390 467 539
1E, 1W, 2E, 2W, 3E & 3W B 88 365 501 604 699
1E, 1W, 2E, 2W, 3E, 3W & 3S C 98 420 580 703 815
1E, 1W, 2E, 2W, 3E, 3W, 3S, 4E & 4W D 108 462 637 772 896
1 E, 1W, 2E, 2W, 3E, 3W, 3S, 4E, 4W &
5W E 108 465 642 777 903

I

I

I

Table 3.10
Peak Flow Inputs to the Eastland Branch Hydraulic Model

I

Muddv Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Flow
Subwatersheds Change Peak Flow, Future Land Use (cfs)
Contributina Location 2-vear 10-vear 25-vear 50-vear 100-vear
1N, 1W, 2A, 2E, 2S & 2W A 286 702 887 1020 1146
1 N, 1W, 2A, 2E, 2S, 2W & 3E B 290 715 903 1040 1169
1 N, 1 W, 2A, 2E, 2S, 2W, 3E, 3N, 3S &
3W C 323 813 1030 1187 1337
1 N, 1 W, 2A, 2E, 2S, 2W, 3E, 3N, 3S &
3W D 356 910 1157 1335 1505

I

I

I

Storage volume behind the breached dam at the upstream end of Muddy Creek provides a 27 % peak
reduction at the most downstream end of the reach during the 100-year storm. No other flood events were
evaluated. Based on direction from CSWS, we did not consider this attenuation when we calculated the
existing peak flows for the project. There is no guarantee that the dam will remain in its current
configuration, so future attenuation is not guaranteed.

3.3 Cultural Resources

I

There are no cultural resources within the site that would be affected by this project. On October 3,2007,
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded to a cultural resource review
request for the project area. The response stated that upon review, within the vicinity of the Muddy Creek
and Eastland Branch project site, that there are "no historic resources that would be affected by the
project". See Appendix L for a copy of the letter of request to SHPO and for their response.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-10

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

3.4 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites

A Transaction Screen Map Report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) that
identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites within the distance required by the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction Screen Process (E 1528). A copy of the
report with an overview map is included in Appendix G. The report conducted a review of relevant state
and federal environmental databases, including Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL); hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS); suspect state hazardous waste, solid
waste or landfill facilities. The report found one listed site within a quarter mile of the project area and
several additional sites within a mile of the project area; sites within the project watershed are
summarized below and shown in Figure 3.5.

All of the parcels that are comprise the project sites are currently zoned for residential use (designations
Sup R-4, R-4, R-8MF(CD), R-9MF(CD), R-12, R-12MF(CD), and R-20MF). The parcels that were
identified by the EDR query are outside of the area of disturbance of the project; however, several are
located in either the Muddy Creek or Eastland Branch watersheds. The closest site to the study area is the
Brian Center (Site I) in the Eastland Branch watershed. The site is listed in the North Carolina Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. A petroleum leak was detected at the facility in 2006. The
site has been closed out and evaluated as a low risk site. See the Appendix for additional details.

Two additional sites were found within a half mile of the proposed restoration sites in the Eastland
Branch watershed. The Goodyear site (Site A), listed as 5905 and 5925 Albemarle Road was listed in
five databases. Four listings related to petroleum tank removal and the fifth listed the site as a small
quantity hazardous waste generator that was evaluated as a low risk site. There were eight listings for
5650 Albemarle Road (Site B). The site operated as a gas station, and the listings pertain to accidental
releases from the site including overfilling of tanks and spills. The site was evaluated in the LUST
database as a low risk site.

There are seven additional sites within one mile of the proposed restoration sites; three in the Eastland
Branch watershed and four in the Muddy Creek watershed. There are two listings for the Firestone
Service Center at 5699 Central Avenue (Site C). The Underground Storage Tanks (UST) database lists
the facility as a low risk site. The site is also listed in the RCRIS database as a conditionally exempt
small quantity generator with a written informal notice of violation in October 1995 that was corrected in
November 1995. No other details of the violation were available and no releases to the environment were
listed. There are five listings for the Carolina Credit Union at 5620 Central Avenue (Site D). The listings
pertain to a leaking underground storage tank that was removed in 2005 and is listed by the LUST
database as a low risk site. Also listed in this grouping were the JC Penney and Sears Stores at the
Eastland Mall. These sites had leaking underground storage tanks that were removed in 1993. The Sears
site is listed as a low risk site and there is no additional information available for the JC Penney site. The
final cluster in Eastland Branch (Site F) is also located in the Eastland Mall. The BelklDillard's site has a
storage tank onsite that has no documented leaks. A hydraulics leak at the site in 1996 has a listed
cleanup date of2002. No additional information is available.

There are four sites within the Muddy Creek watershed that are within a mile of the potential project sites.
The Exxon gas station at 3100 N. Sharon Amity Road (Site G) is listed in two databases. However
neither the RCRIS nor UST databases report a release to the environment from the site. The Jeld Win
Site (Site 30) located at 5427 South Amity Road is listed has having a closed petroleum tank and no
releases to the environment have been reported from the site. The Exxon gas station at 5225 Albemarle
Road (Site 33) had a loss of gasoline reported in 1985 and a notice of violation in 1991. The site appears
to have been closed in 1992 and is listed by the LUST database as a low risk site. A storage tank leak at
the Billie B. Gunter Residence at 4751 Amity Place (Site 39) was reported in 1995. Cleanup took place
in September 1995 and no further information is available about the site.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-11

I

I

As shown above, there are no reports of soil contamination in the parcels in which the proposed
restoration activities will be conducted. The listed sites within the project watersheds have been cleaned
up or are reported as low risk sites. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project has a low risk of
encountering site contamination, based on a review of the EDR report.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

3-12

I

I

I

I

4 Stream Corridor Assessment Results

I

4.1

Overview

I

Baker Engineering performed several analyses on the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch stream corridors
to assess its conditions. These include:

I

· geomorphic assessment (sections 4.2 and 4.3),
· biological assessment (section 4.4),
· water quality assessment (section 4.5),
· wetlands delineation (section 4.6),
· hydraulic analysis (section 4.7) and
· constraints analysis (section 4.8).
A photo log is included in the Appendix. Each of these analyses is discussed below.

I

I

I

4.2 Muddy Creek Geomorphic Assessment

I

Baker Engineering perfonned longitudinal and cross-section surveys, substrate characterization, and Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) evaluations of the stream reaches to assess the current geomorphic
condition and overall stability of the channels. Figure 4.1 illustrates the locations of cross-section surveys
on the project reaches. The following sections summarize the survey results for Muddy Creek.

For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided Muddy Creek into five reaches with Reach
I beginning at the upstream end of the project and Reach 5 ending at the confluence with Campbell
Creek. Generally, each reach division was based on changes in geomorphic character, riparian zone
changes, road crossings or property ownership. Reach 4 was surveyed for flood control modeling efforts
but was not fully analyzed for geomorphic characteristics due to the extensive number of property
owners. The limits and lengths of each reach are listed in Table 4.1.

I

I

I

TABLE 4.1
Muddy Creek Reach Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Reach Existing Upstream Extent Downstream Watershed Size Watershed Size at
Surveyed Reach Extent at Downstream Downstream End of
Length End of Reach Reach
(linear feet) (square miles) (acres)
1,116 Upstream end of the The major 0.33 211.2
project limits pond dam
breach on
Park property
2 309 The major pond dam Power 0.34 217.6
breach on Park transmission
property right-of-way
3 1,098 Power transmission Reddman 0.53 339.2
right-of-way Road culvert

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-1

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.1
Muddy Creek Reach Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Reach Existing Upstream Extent Downstream Watershed Size Watershed Size at
Surveyed Reach Extent at Downstream Downstream End of
Length End of Reach Reach
(linear feet) (square miles) (acres)
4 1,216 Reddman Road Park property 0.58 371.2
culvert line for
Campbell
Creek
Greenway
parcel
5 728 Park property line for Confluence 0.59 377.6
Campbell Creek with
Greenway parcel Campbell
Creek

I

I

I

I

I

4.2.1 Muddy Creek Geomorphic Classification

Reach I of Muddy Creek flows through an old pond bed which is now a wetland. This reach is classified
as a Rosgen E5. An E5 stream type is characterized by slight entrenchment with very low width/depth
ratios, high sinuosity, and sandy bed material. The overall sinuosity for the reach is low but the channel
is actively redeveloping pattern by means of bank erosion. The reach has high entrenchment ratios
(above 2.2), indicating frequent access to a large floodplain. Much of the substrate is composed of sand,
but in isolated sections, gravel is evident. The channel is not incised because grade control is provided by
the breached dam. In addition, the low slope and large floodplain limit the erosive power of flood events.
Where vegetation exists, the channel banks are moderately stable. In several sections small meanders
have begun to form through erosive processes.

Reach 2 begins at the old dam and flows for several hundred feet around the dam and back to the old
channel. This reach is classified as a Rosgen G3c, characterized by a low width to depth ratio,
entrenchment, a slope under 2% and a cobble substrate. (The cobble consists of rip rap, is not naturally
occurring, and is probably being used to provide stabilization.) This reach is actively downcutting and is
severely incised.

Reach 3 contains incised Rosgen E5 and G5c sections which are very similar with the exception that the
E5 stream sections are less entrenched. Generally, this reach is incised and has a low width to depth ratio
with sand/silt as the dominant substrate. Numerous debris jams are causing erosion and several head cuts
were observed. Reach 3 is a straight ditch-like channel with raw, clay banks.

Reach 4 begins at Reddman Road and flows to the property line of the Campbell Creek Greenway. This
reach was classified as a Rosgen G stream type. A detailed geomorphic analysis was not performed on
this reach due to the high level of anthropogenic impacts, such as residential development and a sanitary
sewer line.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Reach 5 begins as it enters park property at the downstream end of Muddy Creek. It is classified as a
Rosgen E5 channel. The overall sinuosity for the reach is very low but the channel is actively
redeveloping pattern by means of bank erosion. The wide floodplain and backwater from Campbell
Creek has allowed the channel to remain relatively stable vertically.

Table 4.2 summarizes the geomorphology of the Muddy Creek reaches. The detailed profile and cross-
section survey results are included in the Appendix.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY. INC.

4-2

I

I

I
I
TABLE 4.2
I Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Muddy Creek Project Reaches
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan -[ For future plans, don't carry this values out to two decimal places. One is more than enouqh.j
Reach 1 Reach2 Reach 3 Reach 5
I Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
1. Stream Type E5 G3c E5,G5c E5
2. Drainage Area - square miles 0.33 0.34 0.53 0.59
I 3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) - feet 6.35 8.03 7.72 7.26 10.11 7.40 10.71
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) - feet 1.23 2.23 1.74 1.36 2.12 1.47 2.67
I 5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio) 3.61 5.17 4.44 3.42 7.45 3.96 5.04
6. Bankfull Area (Abktl - SF 7.81 17.87 13.45 11.95 17.09 10.85 28.54
I 7. Bankfull Mean Velocity (Vbkf) - fps* 2.0 4.0 3.0 5.5 2.0 4.5 3.5 4.5
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - cfs* 40 40 50 60
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - feet 1.75 2.84 2.07 2.13 2.73 2.12 3.61
I 10. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.42 2.31 1.19 1.00 2.01 0.79 2.46
11. Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 2.61 1.49 2.05 1.0 1.49
I 12. Floodprone Area Width (Wfpa) - feet 126.1 235.89 9.97 12.98 73.06 80.64 136.46
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 15.71 37.14 1.29 1.28 8.64 8.81 14.15
I 14. Meander length (Lm) - feet N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
15. Ratio of meander length to bankfull N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
width (Lm/wbkf)
I 16. Radius of curvature (Rc) - feet N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
bankfull width (Rc/ Wbkf)
I 18. Belt width (Wblt) - feet N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
19. Meander Width Ratio (WbIJWbkf) N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
I 20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley 1.11 1.01 1.01 1.02
Distance
21. Valley Slope - feet per foot 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
I 22. Channel Slope (Schannel) - feet per 0.0043 0.009 0.007 0.004
foot
23. Pool Slope (Spool) - feet per foot .000048 0.0018 0.0025 0.0075 .000059 0.0012 0.00038 0.0059
I 24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope 0.01
0.42 0.28 0.83 0.008 0.17 0.10 1.48
(SpOOl / Schannel)
I 25. Maximum Pool Depth (dpool) - feet 1.53 2.53 3.7 2.42 4.82
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average 0.69 2.06 2.13 0.91 3.28
I Bankfull Depth (dpool/dbktl
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT 4-3
I RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.2
Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Muddy Creek Project Reaches
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan -f For future plans, don't carry this values out to two decimal places. One is more than enouqh.]

Reach 1 Reach2 Reach 3 Reach 5

I

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
27. Pool Width (Wpool) - feet 10.95 11.53 8.37 8.15 12.35
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width 1.36 1.82 1.08 0.76 1.67
(Wpool / Wbkf)
29. Pool Area (ApOOI) - square feet 9.72 17.88 21.86 12.9 35.41
30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area 0.54 2.29 1.63 0.45 3.26
(Apool/ At,kf)
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing - feet 68 196 68 315 81 295 73 135
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to 8.5 30.9 8.8 40.8 11.2 29.2 6.8 18.2
Bankfull Width (P-P/Wbkf)
33. Riffle Slope (Sriffle) - feet per foot 0.0014 0.0084 0.02 0.031 0.009 0.016
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average 0.33 1.95 2.22 4.41 2.25 4.00
Slope (Sriffle/ Sbktl

I

I

I

I

I

I

Particle Size Distribution of Channel Material
I Material (d5o) I Riffle
d16 - mm 0.65

Ipool I Reach-Wide
0.28 0.40
0.44 0.88
0.64 1.97
1.88 10.67
3.80 15.09

I

d35 - mm 2.34
d50 - mm 4.77
dS4 - mm 12.66
d95 - mm 15.78
NOTES:

I

I

* Calculations performed in HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS
1 If data are not presented, they were not collected, not calculated, or not applicable.
2 Limited pattern is present in existing stream condition.

I

4.2.2 Bankfull Discharge Verification

I

The bankfull stage in Muddy Creek was identified in the field as a break in slope on a flat depositional
feature, a high scour line, and the top of bank. Vegetation trends were used as validation for this stage
selection. These indicators are consistent with other North Carolina Piedmont streams. Bankfull data for
the project reach is compared with the North Carolina Piedmont curves in Figure 4.2. The project's
cross-sectional areas consistently plot between the rural and urban regional curve data, indicating that
bankfull stage was adequately selected within acceptable limits. The elevations of the bankfull field
indicators were compared to the water surface elevations of the 1- to 2- year flows in HEC-RAS. The
bankfull indicator elevations suggest that the bankfull flow for Muddy Creek is between a 1- and 2- year
event. No gauge station analysis or reference reach data was collected at this time.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-4

I

I

I

1;<

I

4.2.3 Muddy Creek Channel Stability Assessment

I

Muddy Creek is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by storm water runoff
from an urban watershed. The channel is only slightly incised in the upper and lower reaches but is
substantially incised in the middle reaches. The upper and lower reaches have wide, flat floodplains and
downstream grade control, which has helped to prevent incision. The majority of the banks are
moderately eroding; cohesive soils and moderate vegetation has protected the banks. Following past
channelization, meanders are re-developing through moderate erosion in some sections where vegetation
is sparse. At Reach I, where the channel flows through an old pond bed, minor erosion is occurring but if
incision moves up from Reach 2, the old pond substrate will be easily eroded. Reaches 2 and 3 have
severely eroding sections and evidence of active head cuts.

We used data from the twenty cross-sections and longitudinal profile surveyed during the geomorphic
classification to evaluate channel stability. Sediment transport competency analysis, normally performed
for gravel and cobble bed streams was not performed because Muddy Creek is generally a sand bed
channel. The cross-sections are provided in the Appendix and summarized in Table 4.3 below.

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.3
Stability Indicators for Muddy Creek
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Parameter Reach 1
2 3 5
Stream Type E5 G3c E5, G5c E5
Riparian Vegetation Predominately Mature forest. Mature forest. M atu re forest.
grasses and
forbs, some
shrubs along
banks.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area (SF) 7.81-17.87 13.45 11.95-17.09 10.85-28.54
Width/Depth Ratio 3.61-5.17 4.44 3.42-7.45 3.96-5.04
Channel Pattern
Sinuosity 1.11 1.01 1.01 1.02
Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 -1.1 2.61 1 .49-2.05 1.0-1.49
(BHR)
Entrenchment Ratio 15.71-37.14 1.29 1.28-8.64 8.81-14.15
(ER)
Evolution Scenario E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-Bc E-G-F-C-E E-G-F-C-E
Simon Evolution II/III III III II/III
Stage

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

NOTES:

1 Where multiple cross-sections were surveyed in a single reach the data are presented as a range of
values.

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-5

I

I

I

I

I

The width/depth (w/d) ratios are generally very low (less than 10) indicating that the channel has not
begun to widen. A bankfull wid ratio of 10 is common for stable alluvial channels with similar
watersheds and valley types in the North Carolina Piedmont. Reach I and Reach 5 are in an evolutionary
stage II to III, based on the Simon Channel Evolution Model. These reaches have been impacted and are
starting to incise. Reaches 2 and 3 are in an evolutionary stage III with incision and widening exhibited
as the active processes.

The ER values for Reaches I and 5 are greater than 2.2, which indicate that the stream is. slightly
entrenched. Slightly entrenched streams have access to a wide floodplain during flood events where
velocities are reduced, providing water and sediment storage. For this reason, only moderate instability is
evident. Reaches 2 and 3 have entrenchment ratios much less than 2.2 and bank height ratios of greater
than 2.0 indicating that there is excessive shear stress within the active channel during high flows. This
excessive shear stress encourages bank erosion and bed scour.

Sinuosity is approaching 1.0 throughout much of the system, indicating channelization. In alluvial
systems this often leads to bank erosion as the channel works to decrease stream power by increasing
sinuosity, which in turn decreases the average channel slope.

4.2.4 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements

Sediment loading was estimated for Muddy Creek using BEHI and Near Bank Stress index (NBS)
measurements. Using this methodology, Baker Engineering estimates that the Muddy Creek project area
is contributing 140 tons of sediment from bank erosion to the Campbell Creek watershed. Over 80% of
the channel erosion occurs in Reaches 2, 3, and 4. The results of this analysis are shown in the Appendix
H.

4.3 Eastland Branch Geomorphic Assessment

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Baker Engineering performed longitudinal and cross-section surveys, substrate characterization, and Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) evaluations of the stream reaches along Eastland Branch to assess the
current geomorphic condition and overall stability of the channels. Figure 4.1 illustrates the locations of
cross-section surveys on the project reaches. The following report sections summarize the survey results
for Eastland Branch.

For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided Eastland Branch into four reaches with
Reach 6 beginning at the upstream end of the project and Reach 9 ending at the confluence with Campbell
Creek. Generally, Eastland Branch was divided into reaches based on changes in geomorphic character.
The limits and lengths of each reach are listed Table 4.4.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-6

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.4
Eastland Branch Reach Descriptions
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Reach Existing Upstream Downstream Watershed Size Watershed Size at
Surveyed Extent Extent at Downstream Downstream End of Reach
Reach Length End of Reach (acres)
(Ii near feet) (square miles)
6 1,012 102" CMP Valley and 0.47 300.8
Channel Slope
Transition
7 566 Valley and Valley and 0.50 320
Channel Slope Channel Slope
Transition Transition
8 420 Valley and Valley and 0.55 352
Channel Slope Channel Slope
Transition Transition
9 908 Valley and Confluence 0.62 396.8
Channel Slope with Campbell
Transition Creek

I

I

I

I

I

4.3.1 Eastland Branch Geomorphic Classification

Reach 6 of Eastland Branch begins from a storm water outfall near the abandoned Upton's department
store. This reach is classified as a Rosgen E5. An E5 stream type is characterized by slight entrenchment
with very low width/depth ratios, high sinuosity, and sandy bed material. The overall sinuosity for the
reach is low due to past channelization. The reach has high entrenchment ratios (above 2.2), but
floodplain access is limited due to moderate to severe channel incision; bank height ratio is 1.8. Much of
the substrate is composed of sand, but in isolated sections, gravel is evident. In several sections small
meanders have begun to form through erosive processes.

Reaches 7, 8 and 9, all have similar geomorphic characteristics as Reach 6 other than valley and channel
slope. Valley and channel slope becomes less steep for Reaches 7 and 8. The floodplain through these
reaches is wider with frequent zones of depressional storage. Valley and channel slope become steeper
for Reach 9, before the confluence with Campbell Creek.

Table 4.5 summarizes the geomorphology of the Eastland Branch project reaches. The detailed profile
and cross-section survey results are included in the Appendix.

I

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.5
Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Eastland Branch Project Reaches
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Reach 6 Reach 7 Reach 8 Reach 9
Mean Min Max Mean Mean
1. Stream Type E5 E5 E5 E5
2. Drainage Area - square miles 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.62
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) - feet 13.85 11.61 14.4 14.55 12.05
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkfl - feet 1.97 1.93 2.47 2.12 3.08
5. Width/Depth Ratio (wid ratio) 7.02 4.71 7.45 6.86 3.91
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT 4-7
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

I

I

I

I

I
I
TABLE 4.5
I Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Eastland Branch Project Reaches
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Reach 6 Reach 7 Reach 8 Reach 9
I Mean Min Max Mean Mean
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) - SF 27.3 27.8 28.6 30.9 37.1
7. Bankfull Velocity (Vbkf) - fps 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.0
I 8. Bankfull Mean Discharge (Qbkf) - cfs 70 - 90 70 90 75 - 95 100 - 120
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) - feet 2.73 2.78 3.01 2.75 4.11
I 1 O. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.39 1.44 1.22 1.30 1.33
11. Bank Height Ratio 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.0
I 12. Floodprone Area Width (Wfpa) - feet 39.74 26.7 75.2 202.86 232.78
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 2.9 1.9 6.5 13.9 19.3
14. Meander length (Lm) - feet N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
I 15. Ratio of meander length to bankfull N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
width (Lm/wbkf)
I 16. Radius of curvature (Rc) - feet N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
bankfull width (Rc/ Wbkf)
I 18. Belt width (Wblt) - feet N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
19. Meander Width Ratio (WbIJWbkf) N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 N/A3
I 20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.06
Distance
21. Valley Slope - feet per foot 0.0093 0.0032 0.0009 0.0177
I 22. Channel Slope (Schannel) - feet per 0.0084 0.003 0.0009 0.0199
foot
23. Pool Slope (SpoOl) - feet per foot 0.0003 0.00023 0.00036 0.0013
I 24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope 0.0357 0.077 0.4 0.065
(Spool / Schannel)
25. Maximum Pool Depth (dpool) - feet 2.92 6.17 3.16 5.13 3.15 6.96 2.89 5.08
I 26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average 1.48 3.13 1.64 2.08 1.49 3.28 0.94 1.65
Bankfull Depth (dpool/dbkf)
I 27. Pool Width (Wpool) - feet 14.08 11.0 9.99 20.58
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width 1.02 0.76 0.95 0.69 1.71
(Wpool / Wbkf)
I 29. Pool Area (Apool) - square feet 27.73 21.23 27.17 21.18 63.39
30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area 1.02 0.75 1.05 0.69 1.71
I (ApOOI/ At,kf)
MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT 4-8
I RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.
I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.5
Geomorphic Characteristics of the Existing Eastland Branch Project Reaches
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Reach 6 Reach 7 Reach 8 Reach 9
Mean Min Max Mean Mean
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing - feet 30 148 25 84 31 109 28 38
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool Spacing to 2.17 10.69 2.15 5.83 2.13 7.49 2.32 3.15
Bankfull Width (P-P/Wbkf)
33. Riffle Slope (Sriffle) - feet per foot 0.009 0.097 0.0017 0.021 0.007 0.014 0.0014 0.008
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average 1.07 11.55 0.57 7.0 7.78 15.56 0.0704 0.402
Slope (Srifflel Sbkf)
Particle Size Distribution of Channel Material

I

I

I

I

Material (d5o) Riffle Pool Reach-Wide
d16 - mm 0.55 0.56 0.56
d35 - mm 0.90 0.80 0.85
d50 - mm 1.25 1.10 1.18
dS4 - mm 10.0 11.0 10.5
d95 - mm 30.0 23.0 26.5
NOTES:

I

I

I

1 If data are not presented, they were not collected, not calculated, or not applicable.
2 Specific remarks regarding selection of design criteria follow in the detailed design narratives on dimension, pattern, and
profile.
3 Limited pattern is present in existing stream condition.

I

I

4.3.2 Bankfull Discharge Verification

The bankfull stage in Eastland Branch was identified in the field as a break in slope on a flat depositional
feature, a high scour line, and the top of bank. These indicators are consistent with other North Carolina
Piedmont streams. Bankfull data for the project reach is compared with the North Carolina Piedmont
curves in Figure 4.2. The project's cross-sectional areas consistently plot between the rural and urban
regional curve data. This is expected. The upstream watershed is highly urbanized, creating higher peak
flows than a rural watershed of the same size. The upstream reaches are also incised (Bank height ratios
greater than 1.4), but not entrenched. This means that the channel carries flows greater than the bankfull
stage, but large flood events do spill onto the adjacent floodplain / flood prone area. Therefore, some
channel enlargement has occurred, but not to the extent of the urban streams used to create the urban
regional curve. The elevations of the bankfull field indicators were compared to the water surface
elevations of the 1- to 2- year flows in HEC-RAS. The bankfull indicator elevations suggest that the
bankfull flow for Eastland Branch is between a 1- and 2- year event.

4.3.3 Eastland Branch Channel Stability Assessment

I

I

I

I

Eastland Branch is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow regime dominated by storm water runoff
from an urban watershed. Reaches 6 and 7 are very incised and vertically unstable with a bank height
ratio around 1.8. Reach 8 is slightly less incised, but considered moderately unstable to unstable with a
bank height ratio of 1.3. Reach 9, the most downstream reach is very stable with a bank height ratio of

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-9

I

I

I

I

1.0. The stability of Reach 9 can be attributed to a wider floodplain and downstream grade control from
the confluence with Campbell Creek. The majority of the banks have minor erosion; cohesive soils and
moderate vegetation has protected the banks. Following past channelization, meanders are re-developing
through minor erosion in some sections where vegetation is sparse.

We used data from the 10 cross-sections and longitudinal profile surveyed during the geomorphic
classification to evaluate channel stability. Sediment transport competency analysis, normally performed
for gravel and cobble bed stream only, was not performed because Eastland Branch is generally a sand
bed channel. The cross-sections are provided in the Appendix and summarized in Table 4.6 below.

I

I

I

TABLE 4.6
Stability Indicators for Eastland Branch
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Reach 1

Parameter

I

6

I

Stream Type

E5

E5

8
E5

9
E5

7

Riparian Vegetation Mature forest. Mature forest. Mature forest. Mature forest.

I

Channel Dimension

I

Bankfull Area (SF) 27.3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.0

27.8 - 28.6

30.9
6.9

37.1
3.9

4.7-7.5

Channel Pattern

I

Sinuosity

1.06

1.05

1.05

1.06

I

Vertical Stability
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 1 .4 - 1.9 1.3 1.0
(BHR)
Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 1.9-6.5 13.9 19.3
(ER)
Evolution Scenario E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E E-Gc-F-C-E
Simon Evolution III III III II
Stage

I

I

I

NOTES:

1 Where multiple cross-sections were surveyed in a single reach the data are presented as a range of
values.

I

The width/depth (w/d) ratios are generally very low (less than 10) indicating that the channel has not
begun to widen. A bankfull wid ratio of 10 is common for stable alluvial channels with similar
watersheds and valley types in the North Carolina Piedmont. Reaches 6, 7, and 8 are in a Simon Channel
Evolution Model stage lll, where vertical incision is taking place. Reach 9 is in evolutionary stage II,
where the channel has been impacted but channel degradation has not occurred.

For the most part all entrenchment ratios are greater than 2.2, which indicate that the stream is slightly
entrenched. However, floodplain access is generally limited due to widespread channel incision which
gradually increases in severity when moving upstream; bank height ratios (measure of channel incision)
increase from 1.0 at Reach 9 near Campbell Creek to 1.9 and 1.8 further upstream at Reaches 7 and 6,

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-10

I

I

I

I

respectively. For Reach 7, the minimum entrenchment ratio is 1.9, which indicates moderate
entrenchment. Vertical instability from excessive shear stress is slightly higher in this area of Reach 7.

Sinuosity is approaching 1.0 throughout much of the system, indicating channelization. In alluvial
systems this often leads to bank erosion as the channel works to decrease stream power by increasing
sinuosity, which in turn decreases the average channel slope.

4.3.4 Bank Erodibility Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress Measurements

Sediment loading was estimated for Eastland Branch using BEHI and Near Bank Stress index (NBS)
measurements. Using this methodology, Baker Engineering estimates that the Eastland Branch project
area is contributing III tons of sediment from bank erosion to the Campbell Creek watershed per year.
The estimated erosion rates are similar on the left and right banks of the channel. The results of this
analysis are shown in the Appendix.

I

I

I

4.4 Biological Assessment

I

The following biologic characteristics were assessed for the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
watersheds and are discussed in subsequent sections: habitat, vegetation, macroinvertebrate species, fish,
and Threatened and Endangered Species.

4.4.1 Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol

4.4.1.1 Habitat Data Collection

I

I

Stream habitat data and riparian zone quality data were collected in 2004, 2005, and 2006 by using the
Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol (MHAP). In 2004, habitat data were collected for the entire
length of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. For 2005 and 2006, habitat data were only collected within
proximity to the bio-monitoring sites, approximately 100 yards upstream and downstream of each site as
shown in Figure 3.4. The streams were scored using an assessment form with either a glide/pool or
riffle/run key depending on the feature types present per reach. Table 4.7 presents the habitat components
examined for the feature types.

I

I

TABLE 4.7
MHAP Categories and Scoring
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

In-stream cover 20 Bottom substrate/available 20
cover
Epifaunal substrate 20 Pool substrate 20
Embeddedness 20 Pool variability 20
Channel/bank alteration 20 Channel/bank alteration 20
Sediment deposition 20 Sediment deposition 20
Frequency of riffles 20 Channel sinuosity 20
Channel flow 20 Channel flow 20

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-11

I

I

I

TABLE 4.7
MHAP Categories and Scoring
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

Bank vegetative protection

Bank vegetative protection

I

Right

10

Right

10

Left

10

Left

10

I

Bank stability

Bank stability

Right

10

Right

10

I

Left

10

Left

10

Buffer zone width

Buffer zone width

I

Right

10

Right

10

Left

10

Left

10

I

Total

200

Total

200

I

4.4.1.2

Habitat Data Analysis

I

Possible MHAP scores range from 0 (poorest quality of habitat) to 200 (highest quality habitat).
Although no definitive studies exist that define intermediate qualitative ratings associated with MHAP
scores, studies performed in the Southeastern US indicate that habitat scores of 115 or more indicate
higher habitat quality. Habitat evaluation is used as an indicator of in-stream biological conditions; this
method is simpler and more cost-effective than direct measurements of stream biota.

Habitat scores were determined and compared at each monitoring site. Comparison of the 2004 habitat
data to the 2005 and 2006 sampling events was complicated due to variations in reach limits where
habitat data were collected. The entire length of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch were divided into
distinct reaches in 2004 (influenced by changes in habitat and stream type) from which to assess riparian
habitat. This allowed for a more uniform classification of habitat characteristics within a single reach,
enabling quantitatively valid comparisons when scoring subsequent reaches of Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch. However, reach breaks in 2005 and 2006 were dictated by distance in proximity to the previous
bio-monitoring sites and on some occasions it was necessary to combine multiple 2004 reaches to better
approximate reach limits used in 2005 and 2006. Where applicable, upstream and downstream scores
from 2004 were averaged to enable a comparison of the 2004 data to the data collected at the six sites
assessed in 2005 and 2006.

I

I

I

I

4.4.1.3

Habitat Assessment Results

I

The 2004 and 2005 habitat scores for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek are
summarized in Tables 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. Habitat data for 2006 were collected by S&ME, Inc. as
part of the year three pre-construction bio-monitoring report for Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration
Plan that includes benthic, fish, and water quality sampling data. Habitat results from 2006 are discussed
below in conjunction with those from 2004 and 2005. The complete year three (2006) pre-construction

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-12

I

I

I

I

bio-monitoring report provided by S&ME, Inc. is contained within the Appendix. Complete habitat
sampling results from 2004 and 2005 are provided in the Appendix.

TABLE 4.8
MHAP Scores for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

MC1
MC2
MC3

8
5
2

124.5
90
128.5

2
3

127.5
105
110

I

I

TABLE 4.9
MHAP Scores for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

EaB1

91.5

126

I

EaB2
EaB3

2
N/A

84
N/A

2
3

108
82

I

Habitat scores generally increased at most monitoring sites for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
between 2004 and 2005. Substantial increases were observed in EaB I and EaB2. Habitat scores at EaB I
exceeded 115, indicating a transition to a higher quality habitat. MC3 reported the only decrease in
habitat scores for both streams. The habitat score from MC3 decreased from 128.5 to 110 between 2004
and 2005, falling just below the 115 threshold denoting a higher functioning habitat.

The differences in habitat scores from 2004 and 2005 may be associated with changes in habitat
parameters. Increases in frequency and variety of bedform features and in-stream cover structures
(namely riffle/pool sequences, woody debris and a greater diversity oflarger substrate) were observed in
EaB I and EaB2. The decreased habitat scores for MC3 can be attributed to a reduction in both, channel
flow status and bank vegetative protection, between 2004 and 2005. Also, a significant increase in
sediment deposition was noted in MC3 and pool variability was reduced in the downstream portion of
MCI.

I

I

I

I

Between 2005 and 2006, all monitoring sites exhibited a decrease in habitat score with the exception of
EaB I and EaB3 which showed steady improvement in habitat throughout all three years of monitoring.
Habitat scores at MC I and MC3 have been in steady decline from 2004 to 2006 while scores at EaB2 and
MC2 have fluctuated over the three year period, eventually resulting in a slight overall decrease in habitat.
It is important to note that while periodic improvement to habitat was observed in the upstream portion of
Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch, the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish monitoring results discussed
in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 demonstrate the continued impairment of the fish and benthic
macro invertebrate communities in these reaches.

I

I

4.4.2 Vegetation

I

A bottomland hardwood community is located along the floodplains and streambanks of Muddy Creek
and Eastland Branch and is the dominant ecological community. The canopy species are fairly mature

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-13

I

I

I

I

with an average age of approximately 15 to 25 years. The dominant species in the overstory areas
includes sweetgum (Liqltidambar styraci/ltta), red maple (Acer nlbrum), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michallXli), red cedar (Junlpenls virginiana) and box elder
(Acer negundo).

The midcanopy and understory are dominated by invasive species which have formed dense stands in
many areas. In many places this community is dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustmm sinense). Other
midcanopy species identified include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), ironwood (Calplnus caroltnltl/la) and
American holly (/Iexopaca), with herbaceous and vine species consisting of poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), greenbrier (Smlfar spp.), muscadine (Vilis
rotlllldtjOlt'a), and multi-flora rose (Rosa mult(/lora).

4.4.3 Macroinvertebrates

I

I

I

I

I

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected in conjunction with physical-chemical measurements
at six sites on April 9, 2004, July 21,2005, and on August 3 and 4 of2006 (see Figure 3.4 for site
locations). Physical-chemical measurements included water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentration, percent DO saturation, specific conductivity, and pH. The sampling methodology
followed the Qual-4 protocol listed in the North Carolina Department of Water Quality's (NCDWQ's)
Standard Operating Procedtlres jOr BeIlthic MacTOIilvertebrates. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
and in-situ water quality parameter results are summarized for Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch/Campbell Creek in Sections 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2, respectively. It should be noted that the 2006
benthic sampling results provided by S&ME, Inc. are discussed below in conjunction with those from
2004 and 2005, but are not included in Tables 4.10 through 4.13. The complete year three (2006) pre-
construction bio-monitoring report conducted by S&ME, Inc. is contained within the Appendix

The components of the benthic macro invertebrate community that are commonly used to evaluate water
quality are the EPT taxa. The EPT taxa include specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). These groups are generally the least
tolerant to water pollution and therefore are very useful indicators of water quality. Therefore, the
presence of substantial numbers of EPT taxa and individuals are considered indicative of relatively
undisturbed, higher quality streams. EPT metrics commonly used to assess water quality include EPT
taxa richness, EPT biotic index, and EPT abundance, which are shown in Tables 4.10 and 4.12.

All the sites sampled exhibited very impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities. All sites received
low total richnes and EPT taxa richness and high biotic index values. A healthier community is
characterized by higher total and EPT taxa richness values and lower biotic indices values. Comparing
biotic indices between sites is not as useful when total taxa richness is low and biotic indices are very
high (like Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch); therefore the total and EPT taxa richness values were used
in the site comparisons for this project. A Bioclassification Rating was established for each site, based on
the EPT taxa richness values. All of the sites sampled were rated as "Poor".

Downstream reaches of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch have a more extensive forested buffer than
their respective upstream reaches. A heavily forested, riparian buffer provides adequate shade, coarse
particulate organic matter (CPOM), and habitat such as root mats for aquatic organisms, and also reduces
siltation and sedimentation. Reaches having extensive buffers typically support a greater diversity of
benthic invertebrates than those with a disturbed buffer. However, exceptions occur when water quality
has been severely impacted upstream of the buffered areas (i.e. heavily urbanized areas).

One parameter in analyzing the benthic macroinvertebrate community that relates to headwater riparian
habitat is evaluating the shredder community. Shredders are important organisms that break down coarse
particulate organic matter (CPOM) such as leaves and woody debris for food and cover. Many of the
shredder organisms, like stoneflies and caddisflies, are intolerant to pollution. The lack of shredders
along with other intolerant organisms throughout Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch, even in their

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-14

I

I

I

I

downstream reaches where availability of CPOM is high, is one indicator that the benthic
macroinvertebrate community is impaired by the ambient water quality and not just by habitat
degradation.

I

4.4.3.1

Muddy Creek Macroinvertebrates

I

TABLE 4.10
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Summary for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

MC1 10 5 0 3 8.52 6.42 NA 6.37 0 12
MC2 10 6 2 7.24 6.71 6.2 6.35 11
MC3 20 9 2 7.59 6.6 6.2 6.35 3 11
TABLE 4.11
In-Situ Water Quality Parameters for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

MC1

19.1

27.7 50

46.8 4.6

3.69 7.3

6.9

130

100

45

570

I

MC2

14.8

24.6 73.9 78.7 7.48

6.55 7.6

6.7

120

90

530 780

I

MC3

14.1

24.5 69.7 58.2 7.18

4.86 7.4

6.9

120

100

620 640

I

Differences in total taxa richness experienced between sampling periods correspond with seasonal
differences. Conditions during the Spring 2004 sampling were more favorable for benthic
macroinvertebrates because of cooler water temperature, higher DO, and greater flow levels than those
encountered in the Summer 2005 sampling period. As a result, total benthic macro invertebrate diversity
was naturally higher during the 2004 sampling. Increase in EPT taxa richness and abundance during the
2005 period were attributed to tolerant mayflies (one Rae/is jlavis/riga and one Caems sp. found at MC I
I) and tolerant hydropsychid caddisflies (Cltettma/opsyclte sp. and Hydropsyclte bet/em). In 2006, all
three sampling sites exhibited impaired communities and were considered "Poor. In general, water
quality and the health of benthic macroinvertebrate communities for Muddy Creek has remained
consistently poor throughout the three year monitoring period.

The reference site MC I is located upstream of the proposed restoration reach, just below an existing pond
as shown in Figure 3.4. Lentic in nature, this site received very low DO concentration and saturation
levels due to very little flow and high water temperature. The high water temperature was due to open
canopy and surficial heating of the metal spillway wall, riprap, and hyperlimnetic water release from the
upstream pond.

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-15

I

I

I

I

The potential recruitment of intolerant organisms into Muddy Creek will continue to be very limited as
long as the water quality remains impaired. Enhancing the wetland system, stabilizing stream banks, and
increasing the forested riparian buffer width along the upstream portion of the project should help treat
and improve ambient water quality and therefore facilitate recruitment of pollution intolerant organisms.
Recruitment may also come from refugia from Campbell Creek, downstream of the restoration area.
However, no appreciable recruitment is expected from the upstream reference site due to its degraded
condition.

I

I

4.4.3.2

Eastland Branch Macroinvertebrates

I

TABLE 4.12
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Summary for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

EaB1 3 6 0 8.34 7.99 NA 6.2 0
EaB2 13 4 0 8.79 8.33 6.2 NA 0
EaB3 26 9 4 2 7.55 7.04 6.06 6.14 8 11
TABLE 4.13
In-Situ Water Quality Parameters for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

EaB1

22.5 23.7 86.2 68.6 7.46 5.82

7.9

6.7

110

100

GRL 4800

I

EaB2

22.9 26.2 77.8 36.6 6.67 2.99

7.9

6.3

149

NA

GRL 1000

I

EaB3 22.6 26.9 67.1 74.4

5.84 5.94

7.8

7.3

90

NA

13000 420

Notes: GRL - Greater than Reporting Limit

I

EaB I is located in the upstream section of the proposed restoration reach directly behind the former
Upton's department store building as shown in Figure 3.4. EaB2 was sampled just upstream of the
confluence with Campbell Creek. EaB3 was sampled in Campbell Creek for recruitment potential of
benthic invertebrates. No sampling was conducted upstream of the proposed restoration reach, since
Eastland Branch is piped through the entire upper watershed.

The decrease in total and EPT taxa richness experienced in 2005 at EaB2 and EaB3 corresponds with an
increase in water temperature, as well as a sharp decline in DO at EaB2. The extremely low DO levels at
EaB2, partially caused by temperature increase, may also have resulted from a significant increase in the
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in Eastland Branch. Streams in urban settings commonly experience
sewage input, which could increase BOD levels and therefore decrease DO concentration levels. The
higher fecal coliform levels recorded in the 2005 sampling period for Eastland Branch (see Table 4.13)

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-16

I

I

I

I

hints at a possible sewage input event. Such an event was documented during the 2004 bio-monitoring
sampling.

The majority of the EaB2 reach was made up of pools caused by debris jams, limiting the number of
riffles. Habitat composed of riffles typically supports the highest benthic macroinvertebrate species
diversity compared to other in-stream habitats. The riffles sampled in 2005 for EaB2 and EaB3 were
warmer, shallower, and more embedded than in 2004, possibly contributing to the lower species diversity
observed in 2005. ).

In 2006, EaB 1 and EaB2 continued to exhibit impaired benthic communities and were again rated "Poor".
EaB3 continued a "Fair" bio-classification rating between 2005 and 2006, suggesting a slight
improvement in water quality along Campbell Creek. In general, water quality and the health of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities for Eastland Branch has remained consistently poor throughout the three
year monitoring period.

The potential recruitment of intolerant organisms into Eastland Branch will continue to be very limited as
long as the water quality remains impaired. Enhancing the intensely urbanized watershed with BMPs,
stabilizing streambanks, and increasing the forested riparian buffer width along the upstream portion of
the project should help treat and improve ambient water quality and therefore facilitate recruitment of
more pollution intolerant organisms. Recruitment will most likely come from Campbell Creek,
downstream of the restoration area. No appreciable recruitment will come from upstream of the
restoration since Eastland Branch is piped through a large portion of that area.

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.4.4 Fish

I

4.4.4.1

Muddy Creek

I

A survey of the fish community in Muddy Creek was conducted on April 17,2004, July 23, 2005, and
August 24 through 26 of2006. Fish community survey data for 2006 was collected by S&ME, Inc. as
part of the year three pre-construction bio-monitoring report for the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration
Plan. Results from the 2006 fish survey are discussed below in conjunction with those from 2004 and
2005 but are not included within the summary tables. The complete year three (2006) pre-construction
bio-monitoring report provided by S&ME, Inc. is contained within the Appendix

Three segments were surveyed for fish communities in Muddy Creek with three different techniques: a
backpack electroshocker and dip netting, kick sets with the dip net, and seining with a 10 foot seine. The
three segments sampled are shown in Figure 3.4. Extremely shallow depths in one segment and deeper
pools in another segment dictated the use of different gear types.

MC I, which is approximately 100 yards in length, was seined in the "natural" headwaters above the
proposed restoration segment. Two segments of200 yards in length were sampled further downstream
on Muddy Creek. MC2 was partially shocked and dip netted. MC3 was shocked. One hundred yards
of Campbell Creek, EaB3, was also surveyed for fish species that could repopulate Muddy Creek.

Water levels on July 23, 2005 ranged between a few inches and 12 inches at MC2 and MC3 and over four
feet at MC I; the flow velocity was negligible. All fish were released after identification and counting.

Diversity offish fauna in Muddy Creek is very small due to its shallow, uniform depths and channelized
structure. The fish present are those that are tolerant of still and warm waters, e.g. mosquito fish and
juvenile/subadult sunfishes. There was no evidence of disease or sores on any of the fish identified. The
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which ranges from a possible 0 (Very Poor) to 60
(Excellent), was 24 in 2005 for Muddy Creek which equates to a "Poor" classification. Muddy Creek
also received a "Poor" classification (NCIBI of20) for all three sites in 2006. There were some slight
differences in the numbers and species caught over the three year period and Table 4.14 provides a
summary for 2004 and 2005.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-17

I

I

I

TABLE 4.14
Fish Assessment for Muddy Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

MC1

I

MC2

I

MC3

I

I

EaB3

I

Eastern mos uitofish
Blue ill
Lar emouth bass
Eastern mos uitofish
American eel
Blue ill
Golden shiner
Eastern mos uitofish
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Blue ill
Green sunfish
Lar emouth bass
Swallowtail shiner
Creek chub
Eastern mos uitofish
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Blue ill
Lar emouth bass

12
3
o
o
1
1
2
2
o
o
2
o
o
5
2
o
8
o
2
1

o
27
1
13
o
1
1
1
4
1
5
1
5
o
1
3
28
1
o
10

o

100

93

7

39

61

74

26

The area above the proposed restoration segment will not likely be a recruitment source, except for
bluegills that most likely originated from the impoundment just upstream. However, native fish species
from Campbell Creek should migrate into the restored reaches. Creating pools and undercut banks,
adding root wads and submerged debris, and providing for a continuous base flow will help increase the
numbers and diversity of desirable species such as the minnows and redbreast sunfish.

A survey of the fish community in Eastland Branch was conducted on September 20,2004, July 22, 2005,
and August 24 through 26 of2006. Fish community survey data for 2006 was collected by S&ME, Inc.
as part of the year three pre-construction bio-monitoring report for the Muddy Creek Watershed
Restoration Plan. Results from the 2006 fish survey are discussed below in conjunction with those from
2004 and 2005 but are not included within the summary tables. The complete year three (2006) pre-
construction bio-monitoring report provided by S&ME, Inc. is contained within the Appendix

Two segments of200 yards in length, EaB I and EaB2, were surveyed in Eastland Branch with a
backpack electro shocker and dip netting; these are the same two segments that were sampled in 2004.
The segment locations are shown in Figure 3.4. No segments were shocked in the headwaters above the
proposed restoration segment since the creek is piped immediately above the site. Approximately 100
yards of Campbell Creek, EaB3, were surveyed on April 17,2004 and July 22, 2005. Data from this
collection are used to determine what fish may repopulate Eastland Branch.

Water levels on July 22, 2005 ranged between a few inches and 36 inches at EaB I and EaB2; the flow
velocity was negligible. Water depths at EaB2 had the greatest variation. Shallow depths were found
near the confluence with Campbell Creek. The upper half of the site was influenced by a woody debris
jam which increased the depth to several feet. Depths in EaB I were uniformly shallow. All fish were
released after identification and counting.

Diversity of fish fauna in Eastland Branch is very small due to its overall shallow depths and channelized
structure and consists of fish species tolerant of still and warm waters, e.g. mosquitofish and juvenile

I

I

1.4.4.2

I

I

I

I

I

I

Eastland Branch

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

4-18

sunfishes (Table 2.8). There was no evidence of disease or sores on any of the-fish identified. The
NCIBI score for the reach in 2005 was 24 which equates to a "Poor" classification. Eastland Branch also
received a "Poor" classification (NCIBI of 18 and 20) for all three sites in 2006.

TABLE 4.15
Fish Assessment for Eastland Branch/Campbell Creek Bio-Monitoring 2004 and 2005
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

The greater depths encountered in the lower segment of EaB2 are the result of water backing up behind a
woody debris jam; these areas were found to be devoid of fish. While initially this absence was
surprising, it could reflect the tendency of smaller, juvenile fish to avoid deeper waters and exposure to
predators. Shallow waters tend to be nursery areas since they exclude the larger predators. There are no
natural areas above the proposed restoration segment that could be a source that will help repopulate the
creek after restoration. However, the native fish species present in Campbell Creek should provide a
good recruitment source. There were some slight differences in the numbers and species caught over the
three year period and Table 4.15 provides a summary for 2004 and 2005.

4.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

4.4.5.1 Background

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists of
rare and protected animal and plant species contain five federally listed species and thirty-six state listed
species that are known to occur in Mecklenburg County (North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, 2007).

Legal protection for federally listed species, Threatened or Endangered status, is conferred by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U .S.c. 1531-1534). This act makes it illegal to kill,
harm, harass, or remove any federally listed animal species from the wild; plants are similarly protected
but only on federal lands. Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund
or authorize do not jeopardize any federally listed species. Species that are being considered for federal
protection, though not currently listed, are designated as candidate species and may be listed in the future.

Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 4.16 includes FSC species listed for Mecklenburg County and their

I

I

I

I

I

EaB1

I

I

EaB2

I

EaB3

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Eastern mos uitofish
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Green sunfish
Creek chub
Eastern mos uitofish
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Blue ill
Redear sunfish
Green sunfish
Lar emouth bass
Swallowtail shiner
Creek chub
Eastern mos uitofish
Redbreast sunfish
Warmouth
Blue ill
Lar emouth bass

9
13
o
2
o
2
14
1
6
1
o
1
5
2
o
8
o
2
1

o
6
1
1
2
1
5
1
o
o
2
4
o
1
3
28
1
o
10

87

13

67

33

74

26

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

4-19

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

state classifications. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.

4.4.5.2

Methodology

An in-office review of information provided by USFWS, NHP, and associated reference material was
undertaken prior to conducting fieldwork. A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on
March 22 and 23, 2004 to identifY the general habitats existing within and near the area.

4.4.5.3

Findings

No federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate or species of concern have been recorded within 1.0
mile of the project area based upon the NHP database checked on April 19, 2004. No federal or state
protected species were observed in or adjacent to the project area during the field survey. Critical habitat
for the listed species, as defined by the USFWS, is not designated in the proposed project area.

Species that the NHP lists under federal protection for Mecklenburg County as of March 18,2004 are
listed in Table 4.16. Other Federal Species of Concern are also included. A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements of these federally protected species follow the table, along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impact.

TABLE 4.16
Species of Federal and State Status in Mecklenburg County
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan
Vertebrates
Accipitridae Haliaeetus Bald Eagle
leucocephalus
Invertebrates
Unionidae Lasmigona Carolina
decorata Heelsplitter
Vascular Plants
Asteraceae Echinacea Smooth E
laevigata Coneflower
Asteraceae Helianthus Schweinitz's E
schweinitzii Sunflower
Anacardiaceae Rhus michauxii Michaux's E
Sumac

No/ No Effect

No/No Effect

E-SC Marginal/No Effect

E

Marginal/Undetermined
E-SC Marginal/No Effect

Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's
flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants).

Echinacea laevigata (Smooth Coneflower)
Smooth coneflower grows up to 1.5 meters tall with smooth stems and few elliptical to lanceolate leaves.
Flowers are normally solitary, raylike, and light pink to purplish in color. Smooth coneflower can be
distinguished from its popular relative Ecninoceo plllJ7l1reO (purple coneflower) by its leaves, which are
never cordate like purple coneflower. Also, the awn of the pale is incurved while purple coneflower's is
straight.

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-20

I

I

There are 24 known populations of smooth coneflower with 6 known in North Carolina. Historically, the
species habitat was prairie-like, often controlled by fire. Now, due to urbanization and fire suppression,
known populations are limited to open woods, cedar barrens, utility right of ways, and dry limestone
bluffs normally with magnesium or calcium rich soils associated with mafic rock.

The majority of the project area site doesn't have favorable habitat for the smooth coneflower since it is
primarily forested with virtually no open woods, no cedar barrens, and no dry limestone bluffs. However,
the utility right of ways within the project corridor do possess marginal habitat for the smooth coneflower.
A pedestrian survey was conducted on March 22 and 23, 2004 for potential individuals throughout the
project area and none were identified. A July 2, 2007 search of the NCNHP database indicated no known
populations within five miles of the study areas. Therefore, a "no effect" determination was made for the
Smooth coneflower.

I

I

I

I

Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's Sunflower)
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually three to six feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to several fuzzy purple
stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves are two to seven inches long, 0.4 to
0.8 inches wide, lance shaped, and usually opposite, with upper leaves alternate. Flowers are yellow and
generally smaller then other sunflowers in North America. Flowering and fruiting occurs from mid-
September to frost. The Schweinitz's sunflower grows in clearings and along edges of upland woods,
thickets, and pastures. It is also found along roadsides, power line clearings, and woodland openings. It
prefers full sunlight or partial shade and is intolerant offull shade.

According to the NHP database the closest known Schweinitz's sunflower has been identified
approximately 5.4 miles to the southwest of the proposed project area. Although the majority of the
project area is a well canopied bottomland hardwood/floodplain forest, there is some potential for habitat
along the edges of these forested areas. Prior to project construction, plant-by-plant surveys should be
conducted from mid-September to mid-October, during peak blooming season. Grading plans may need
to be adjusted to avoid impacts to any populations within the project area.

Rhus michauxii(Michaux's Sumac)
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3 feet (0.2 to 1.0 meter) in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to thirteen sessile, oblong-Ianceolate
leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches (4 to 9 centimeters) long, 0.8 to 2 inches (2 to 5 centimeters) wide, acute,
and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants
flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish-yellow to white flowers.

This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on disturbance such as
mowing, clearing or fire to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in open habitat where it can get
full sunlight and is often found with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy. Michaux's
sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina.

The project area had marginal habitat for Michaux's sumac. Although early in the growing season for
this plant, a survey was conducted on March 22 and 23, 2004 for potential individuals throughout the
project area and none were identified. An July 2, 2007 search of the NHP database indicated no known
populations within five miles of the immediate project area. It is concluded that the project will not
impact this endangered species.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Bald eagles are large raptors, 32 to 43 inches long, with a white head, white tail, yellow bill, yellow eyes,
and yellow feet. The lower section of the leg has no feathers. Wingspread is about seven feet. The
characteristic plumage of adults is dark brown to black with young birds completely dark brown.
Juveniles have a dark bill, pale markings on the belly, tail, and under the wings and do not develop the
white head and tail until five to six years old.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-21

I

I

I

I

I

Bald eagles in the Southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between forest and marsh or
open water. Nests are cone-shaped, six to eight feet from top to bottom, and six feet or more in diameter.
They are typically constructed of sticks lined with a combination of leaves, grasses, and Spanish moss.
Nests are built in dominant live pines or cypress trees that provide a good view and clear flight path,
usually less than 0.5 miles from open water. Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to
nesting trees, but may be somewhat farther from water. In North Carolina, nest building takes place in
December and January, with egg laying (clutch of one to three eggs) in February and hatching in March.
Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders consuming a variety ofliving prey and carrion. Up to 80% of their
diet is fish, which is self caught, scavenged, or robbed from osprey. They may also take various small
mammals and birds, especially those weakened by injury or disease.

Potential habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the study area. The project area does not provide
suitable nesting areas less than 2 miles from open water. In addition, a search of the NHP database on
July 2, 2007 found no occurrences of the bald eagle within the vicinity of the proposed project; therefore
the proposed project is not expected to have an impact on this species.

Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
The Carolina heelsplitter is a bivalve that may be more than 4.5 inches long as an adult. The shell has an
ovate, trapezoid-shaped, unsculptured shell. The shell's outer surface varies from greenish brown to dark
brown in color and may be orange on the inner surface. Younger individuals have fine rays (stripes
radiating outward from the hinge area) on the outer shell, which are greenish brown or black. The inner
shell varies from pearly white to bluish white, becoming orange on the inner surface.

The Carolina heelsplitter is usually found in cool, slow-moving, small to medium-sized streams or rivers
along, stable, well shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrate. The stability
of the stream banks appears to be very important factor in the habitat. Its range has been drastically
reduced by impoundments and deterioration of habitat and water quality by siltation and other pollution
resulting from stream channelization, dredging, sand mining, sewage effluents, and poorly implemented
agricultural, forestry, and development practices. Only six populations of the species are presently known
to exist. Known populations in North Carolina are located in Goose Creek (Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin)
and Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River Basin) in Union County, according to the NCNHP database.

The study site does not possess favorable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter based on the degraded
conditions of Muddy Creek. A search of the NCNHP database on July 2, 2007 found no known
populations within five miles of the immediate project area. No record has been reported in Mecklenburg
County in the past 20 years. Muddy Creek does not drain into either Goose Creek or Waxhaw Creek.
Therefore, it is anticipated that project construction will have "no effect" on the Carolina heel splitter.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.5 Water Quality Assessment
4.5.1 Surface Water Classification

I

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) designates surface water classifications for
water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes, which define the best uses to be protected within these
waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply). These classifications carry with them an
associated set of water quality standards to protect those uses. All surface waters in North Carolina must
at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications
provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water
supplies (WS). Class C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic
life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Classifications and their
associated protection rules may also be designed to protect the free flowing nature of a stream or other
special characteristics.

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-22

I

I

I

I

Campbell Creek from its source to McAlpine Creek is classified by the NCDWQ as Class C waters
[DWQ Index No. 11-137-9-1]. Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch are officially listed as "unnamed"
tributaries of Campbell Creek. As part of the existing conditions survey for Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch, six locations were identified for water quality analysis. These sites are shown in Figure 3.4 and
are discussed in the following sections.

I

I

4.5.2 Water Quality Parameters and Analysis

I

Water quality samples were taken in conjunction with macro invertebrate monitoring at each of the sites.
Samples were taken and handled using standard procedures and appropriate preservatives. Samples were
analyzed by Prism Laboratories, Inc. in Charlotte, NC or in-stream with field meters. (See below for
designation of analytical procedures.) A description of the data collection methods and testing procedures
can be found on Prism Laboratories, Inc website (www.orismlabs.net). Lab results are included in
Appendix A. The following is a list of parameters that were measured and definitions summarizing their
relevance to monitoring water quality.

Analvzed in the Lab:

. Nitrate - Nitrate is an oxidized form of nitrogen and is the preferred state of the essential nutrient by
aquatic plants. An increase in nitrates can produce accelerated plant growth, algal blooms, low
dissolved oxygen levels, and death of aquatic life (USEP A, 1997). There are no maximum allowable
concentration standards for nitrates, at this time, in Class C waters, for NCDENR or the EPA
(NCDENR, 2007).

. Total Phosphorus - Total Phosphorous (TP) measures all the forms of phosphorous in a sample. In
most fresh waters, phosphorus is the nutrient that is in short supply. Even a modest increase in
phosphorus can, under the right conditions, set off a whole chain of undesirable events in a stream
including accelerated plant growth, algae blooms, low dissolved oxygen levels, and death of aquatic
life. There are no maximum allowable concentration standards for phosphorus, at this time, in Class
C waters, for NCDENR or the EPA (NCDENR, 2007).

. Biological Oxygen Demand, S-day (BODS) - Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), also refers to
the standard 5-day BOD test, measures the amount of oxygen consumed by microorganisms that
break down suspended organic materials. An excessively high BOD will cause the DO in the water
to drop, stressing and suffocating organisms (USEP A, 1997). A BOD measurement:::; 5 mg/L is
indicative of unpolluted, natural water.

. Fecal Coliform - Fecal coliforms (Fe) are bacteria present in the intestines and feces of warm
blooded animals. They are often used as indicators of the sanitary quality of water. Fecal coliform
levels up to 200-colonies/1 OOml are considered to be safe for human contact.

. Turbidity - Turbidity is a measure of how material suspended in the water column affects water
clarity and the passage of light. In addition to clogging gills of sensitive macroinvertebrates,
suspended particles also generally absorb and hold heat, increasing water temperature and decreasing
available oxygen in the water. (USEPA, 1997). For Class C waters that do not support trout, the
North Carolina Administrative Code states that turbidity shall not exceed 50 NTU. (In 2004,
turbidity was analyzed in the lab, and in 2005, it was analyzed in-stream.

. Total Suspended Solids - Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are organic and inorganic particles
suspended with the water column (USEP A, 1997). In 2005, TSS was added to the list of parameters
for the laboratory to analyze. See Section 4.5.2.1 for additional information and maximum
concentration rates.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-23

I

I

I

I

I

Analvzed In-stream:

. pH - pH is a measure of how acidic or alkaline water is. The pH of a stream can directly affect its
biological communities simply because each organism has optimal pH ranges. If the pH varies from
that optimal range, the organism may become stressed. A change in pH may indicate a change in
rainwater composition (acid rain) or discharges to the stream system (USEPA, 1997). For Class C
waters that do not support trout, the North Carolina Administrative Code states that pH should
generally range between 6.0 and 9.0.

. Conductivity - According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Conductivity is a
measure of water's ability to pass an electrical current" (USEP A, 1997). Conductivity will vary
depending on the local geology of the surrounding valley. Rivers with clay soils will tend to have
higher conductivities and rivers running through granite bedrock will have lower conductivities.
Conductivity should be measured during pre-construction surveys to determine a baseline for stream.
Future variations from the baseline value could point to discharges entering the stream system.

. Dissolved Oxygen - Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a measure of available oxygen in the water. DO
varies with water temperature and will fluctuate throughout the day as temperature rises and falls
(USEP A, 1997). For Class C waters that do not support trout, the North Carolina Administrative
Code states that DO should not fall below a daily average of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and
should never fall below a single value of 4.0 mg/L.

. Temperature - The temperature of a stream directly affects the biological and chemical processes
occurring in the system (USEP A, 1997). Temperature of a stream is not to exceed 2.8 degrees C
(5.04 degrees F) above the natural water temperature, which would be 32 degrees C (89.6 degrees F)
for lower piedmont waters, as in the project area.

· Total Dissolved Solids - Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) consist of calcium, chlorides, nitrate,
phosphorus, iron, sulfur, and other ions particles within the water column that will pass through a
filter with pores of around 2 microns (0.002 cm) in size (USEP A, 1997). There are no maximum
allowable concentration standards for TDS, at this time, in Class C waters, for NCDENR or the EPA
(NCDENR,2007).

4.5.2.1 Parameters for Total Suspended Solids

On May 10,2004, Baker Engineering submitted a Technical Memorandum (TM) Polltltallt Load
Nodeltitg fOr Naddy Creek- ENC Selectioll to CSWS. This document is contained in the Appendix and
it discusses the constituents and the determination of Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) that would be
used to estimate the annual pollutant loads for the sites. CSWS staff requested that Baker Engineering
contact Jeff Hieronymus, City Storm Water Quality Group, (CSWQG) to discuss the proposed list of
constituents and the methodology for sampling and estimating pollutant loading rates. After a brief phone
discussion of the project objectives and the proposed sampling and estimating methods, CSWQG
recommended that Baker Engineering focus their efforts on annual load estimates for Total Suspended
Solids (TSS).

According to CSWQG, CSWS established a level of600 Ibs/ac/yr ofTSS as a general threshold for the
determination of stream health. Streams with a TSS load of less than 600 Ibs/ac/yr were considered
healthy, while streams with an estimated load of greater than 600 Ibs /ac/yr were considered impaired.
The threshold level was based primarily on the Edwards Branch Watershed Study. Using the Simple
Method, none of the sites assessed showed loadings above this threshold. More discussions should be
held to determine if this threshold should be the standard for CSWS.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-24

I

I

I

I

I

4.5.3 Sampling Locations and Frequencies

Water quality samples were collected in six locations: three along Muddy Creek, two along Eastland
Branch, and one on Campbell Creek. Figure 3.4 illustrates these site locations. In 2004, the Muddy
Creek sites were sampled during base flow on April 21 st and during a storm flow event on June 21 st. The
Eastland Branch and Campbell Creek sites were sampled that same year during base flow on September
8th and during a storm flow event on September 15th. In 2005, all six sites were sampled during base
flow on July 25th.

Water quality data were also collected on August 3, 2006 by S&ME, Inc. as part of the year three pre-
construction bio-monitoring report for Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. The same six sites
sampled in 2004 and 2005 were re-sampled. Water quality results from 2006 are discussed below in
conjunction with those from 2004 and 2005 but are not included in the summary tables. The complete
year three (2006) pre-construction bio-monitoring report provided by S&ME, Inc. is contained within the
Appendix F.

4.5.4 Water Quality Results

The water quality results for both the 2004 and the 2005 sampling events are presented in Appendix A
and summarized in Table 4.17. Six sites were monitored throughout the project corridor, three stations on
Muddy Creek and three stations on Eastland Branch. Units, reporting limits, and test methods are
included. A result registering below the reporting limit is presented as BRL. Holding times were not
exceeded, except for the fecal coliform analysis ofMCI on 7/25/05. The sample was analyzed and a
note, regarding the holding time, was made in the lab results. All results exceeding State and/or Federal
guidelines are highlighted in blue within the table and discussed in further detail below.

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.5.4.1

BOD Exceedances of Water Quality Standards

I

On 4/21/04, BOD concentrations were above North Carolina water quality standards at all sampling
stations on Muddy Creek. When comparing these results with the samples taken on dates 6/21/04 and
7/25/05, the results of 4/21/04 are reported as considerably higher. Explanations for these results may be
attributed to an excess flush of organic debris entering Muddy Creek prior to sampling on 4/21/04.

BOD concentrations of Eastland Branch are recorded above NC standards on 9/8/04 for both EaB I and
EaB3. However, at sampling site EaB2 on 9/8/04, the BOD concentration was reported below the
reporting limit, as well as, on all other sampling dates and at all stations. Because the high BOD
concentrations were not reported continually throughout the sampling period, these exceedances, like
those on Muddy Creek, were probably due to an influx of organic debris above the corresponding
sampling station on Eastland Branch prior to sampling.

I

I

I

4.5.4.2

Fecal Coliform Exceedances of Water Quality Standards

I

Fecal coliform (FC) results show an impairment trend for both Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch.
Reportings were above the human health benchmark of200-colonies/100ml for all samples collected at
every sampling station (except for MC I on 4/21/04) on 4/21/04, 6/21/04, and 7/25/05 for Muddy Creek
and 9/8/04, 9/15/04, and 7/25/05 for Eastland Branch. In addition, FC samples collected on 8/3/06 at
EaBI

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-25

I

I

I
...... ..,. ~ ~ .... M ~ ~ 00 ....
I ~ ~ 0 00 00
.... .... 0 .... 0 ....
Z Z 0 Z Z 0 Z Z 0
0 0 0 ....
:3
0
~
I
CO
I -
0
Q)
~ ~ ...... .... ~ ~ 10 CO ~ ~ CO '0
N .... N 10 -.i -.i '(ij
z Z N 0 Z Z N M z Z N N 'S
N N 0
I '0
Q)
N
>-
III
C
III
~ ~ 10 ...... ~ ~ .... m ~ ~ 10 ..,. '0
I 0 ~ CO N m m c
Z Z N z z Lri to z z N M III
'0
Q)
>
.~
I l!!
Q) Q)
~ ~ ..,. ~ ~ CO ~ ~ 10 m a.E
.... EO:::
co ...... N m M 10 CD
Z Z ...... ...... z z .... z z .... III N
U) .!: oJ.
I U:2
u..O
<< ~
~ ~ ...... ...... ~ ~ 10 N ~ ~ m 10
I ..,. 0 ...... N to 00
z z to r..: z z to r..: z z to
III
'E
III
'0
C
I ~ ~ 0 ..,. ~ ~ M 0 ~ ~ 0 .... III
M ...... Ci5
z z .... ai z Z N N Z Z .... ....
~
iij
:3
0
I 0 ....
co m 0 $
co ...... N 00 ..,. ...... to 0 10 00 ..,.
N N .... N m ..,. .... ...... -.i N ~
10 N ....
C
0
I ~
'E
0 0 ::J
10 0 0 ...J 0 0 0 ...J 0 0 0 ..,. ~
..,. 10 ...... a::: M 0 00 a::: N .... ..,. co
..,. 10 co 10 0 ...... co co 10 co Q)
.... '0
I Q)
u..
--
Q)
1ii
N m ...J N m ...J N m ...J Ci5
co .... M a::: 00 ...... M a::: 00 .... M a::: III
I M V V CD ..,. V V CD ..,. V V CD '0
Q)
~ l-
X
W U
W
...,
...J M ...... M co 0
00 00 10 ...J m 10 N ...J ...... 10 10 0::
I a::: M ...... 0 a::: 0 0 ...... a::: ...... 0 0 a..
co 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 z
0
i=
~
0
l-
I en
W
...J N M N M ...... co ...... ...... 0 m 0 0:: U
a::: ...... N N M M M M N ...... ...... N 01 Cl ~
co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c W
:J: >'
v 'E en
0 0:: Z
a. r:::- ~z~
I l!! 0 ~::Sa:
3: 0 a..w
~ ~ 10 ~ ~ N :':::ZW
co 10 co ~ ~ 10 co 0 WoZ
0 ......0 0 NO 0 MO Q) a::: w-a
....0 ....0 << 0 NO NO NO MO MO MO CO Z O::I-Z
UC:! UC:! ....N U~ UC:! UC:! UC:! U~ UC:! UC:! UC:! U~ U~W
UUi II W
~...... ~...... ~-- ~...... ::::!:...... ~IO ::::!:iV5 ::::!:...... ~...... ::::!:IO ~-- 0 >-00::
I ~ C:! ::::!:N C2 C:! C:! C:! li3 C:! C:! C:! C2 ...J~ U Cll-W
-- 00 00 a::: 'E Clen:.:::
CO ...... ..,. CO ...... ..,. CO ...... ~ :::lW<(
CO:: ::!:O::lD
I
I

I

sit ~ ~ N -.r ~ ~ N M ~ ~ 0'1 ......
0 ...... r-- ...... 0 ......
Z Z ...... ci z z 0 ci z z ...... ci
ci ci ci ...
::I
0
. .r=
I
CO
e -
0
i dl
~ ~ CO -.r ~ ~ 0'1 LO ~ ~ ...... -.r "C
t~ N LO -<i 00 r--: r-- 'iij
Z Z N M z Z N cO Z Z N cO 'S
E N N N 0
~ "C
dl
N
>-
ell
e:
ell
81' ~ ~ -.r -.r ~ ~ co ..... ~ ~ 00 r-- "C
00 M 0'1 LO ...... LO e:
Z Z -<i cO z z N M z z Lri Lri ell
"C
dl
>
'8
b ~
IE dl dl
~ ~ r-- 00 ~ ~ ...... M ~ ~ 00 -.r o.E
~.~ LO 00 ...... r-- co r-- E-=
"U) z z ...... ..... z z ...... ...... z z ..... ...... ~.~
c:::J
0 u:!2
0 u.O
. .r=
:z: ~ ~ M M ~ ~ ...... 00 ~ ~ N 0'1
N -.r 0'1 0 M M
Q, Z Z r--: r--: z z cO r--: z z r--: r--:
III
'E
ell
"C
e:
(/):::: ~ M ..... ~ LO M ~ 0 LO ell
U)r:a z M -<i ...... z -.r cO r-- Z co Lri oj en
I-E v ~
(ij
::I
b 0
S::) ...
-I- 0 00 -.r 0'1 N r-- C! 0 co ...... r-- N 2
ofz -.r r--: M oj LO ...... ...... N LO cO cO Lri ~
::J
l- e:
0
.l!l
e 0 'E
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::i
0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....J li!
u.~ ...: ..... 00 q LO ..... 0_ LO 0 co N ~
...: ~ N M r-- ri M -.r m
:! ...... ^ ..... dl
0> ^ ..... "C
c U dl
'l: U.
.s --
"2 dl
0 .. 1ii
::2 8~! -.r 0'1 ....J r-- -.r 0'1 ....J -.r 0'1 ....J en
.c
<.) if -.r M M ~ M M M ~ N M M ~ III
N ......
c V v m v v v m v v m "C
~ dl
m P3
""0
C x
..!!! W
en .. -
co CL~! ...... LO r-- N LO 0 co 0'1 0 N LO co
W 0'1 r-- 0 r-- r-- 0 LO
I-D ...... ...... 0 0 ci ...... 0 0 ...... ...... ci 0
""0<:::: ci ci ci ci ci
ffiJ9 E ci ci v ci ci v ci
..><Cl:
Q) <:::: -
e .S!
<...)~
>.~ ...
:g~ 00
~~ g~~ N -.r 00 N -.r LO M LO 0'1 co -.r
LO -.r -.r M -.r LO N ...... M N ...... 00 01
...'@ _D ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 0 e:
S-l::; ZE ci 'E
.l!l~ 0
"3~ Q. ;::-
~~ ~ 0
~ 0
~~ r:a ~ LO -.r LO N
-.r co -.r co -.r LO co 0
.....- ill C 0 NO NO (')-.r MO Qj ~
:;;~C i.:I ......0 ......0 .....0 .....0 NO NO MO MO
mO mN mN mO mO m~ m~ mO mO mQ m~ mO m z
wO~ E(/) ell!::! ell in ell-- ell!::! ell!::! ell-- ell-- ell!::! ell!::! ellLO ell-- ell!::! /I w
....J...:t:> W~ W...... W~ W~ W~ WLO WLO W~ W~ W~ WLO W~ ....J.l!l Cl
m-Sl-g III 0'1 -- -- ...... !::! Q) !::! u
~3~ U) Q) r-- 00 Q) 0; r-- 00 0'1 r-- 00 ~'E
m= z

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

....
N
~

I-
U
W
-..
o
0::
a..
Z
o
i=
(:i
o
I-
en
w
0:: U
@ ~
:I: >-"
1Q Z
~Z~
:g::5a:
>a..w
~~~
~i=~
U(:iw
600::
~l.i;~
:::;;;~~

I

I

I

and EaB2 were above human health thresholds. Explanations for these results may be attributed to the
high percentage of urban land use within each watershed's drainage area and the presence of sanitary
sewer lines with a potential for overflow. Sewer overflows were documented on Eastland Branch
downstream of the Eastland Mall outfall. See Appendix J for photos.

I

4.5.4.3

Turbidity Exceedances of Water Quality Standards

I

Turbidity results from Eastland Branch on 9/8/04 exceeded or were elevated to near NC water quality
standards. This trend seems to follow the elevated concentrations of BOD recorded on the same date for
Eastland Branch to further collaborate an influx coming into the Branch. Turbidity results for Muddy
Creek were above NC standards on 7/25/05 for MC I and on 6/21/04 and 8/3/06 for MC2. The only
possible trend found for Muddy Creek was on 8/3/06. Turbidity on this date at MC2 was 28 times greater
than the State standards. This exceptionally high turbidity measure seems to correspond with high TSS
and DO concentrations. Based on this data, it is possible that this section within Muddy Creek may have
encountered a period of turbulence upstream or within the sampling area just prior to sampling. Since
water quality exceedences seem to be associated with either an influx of material or turbulence on isolated
events, no water quality impairment trend is evident; however, further study may be warranted.

I

I

4.5.4.4

Dissolved Oxygen Exceedances of Water Quality Standards

I

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were sampled at all sampling stations on both Muddy Creek and
Eastland Branch on 7/25/05 and 8/3/06. Over 2/3 of the samples collected were below NC water quality
standards on 7/25/05. while the remaining 1/3 of the samples were recorded as just above the standards
limit at 5.18 mg/l (EaB3) and 5.61 mg/I (MC2), respectively. On 8/3/06, all samples except for MC I had
DO concentrations higher than those the previous year and only 50% of the samples were below State
standards. Based on the data collected, both Eastland Branch and Muddy Creek have a tendency for low
dissolved oxygen concentrations, but may be improving, a trend that seems to be supported by the slight
improvement in health of benthic macro invertebrate communities from 2005 - 2006.

4.5.5 Findings

I

I

I

Overall, the water quality analysis demonstrates a strong influence toward water quality impairment
issues. Impaired benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities in Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
further substantiate the evidence of impairment and show the effect of water quality impairments on
biological communities and their habitat. In addition to addressing the water quality concerns, the
proposed project reaches of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch could benefit from habitat improvement.

I

4.6 Wetlands

I

4.6.1 Background

I

The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal
regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as "those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas"
(33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The areas within the project limits that displayed one or more
wetland characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics
included:

I) Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation;

2) Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation; and

3) Hydric soils.

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-28

I

I

I

I

Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle
map, a pedestrian survey of the project area was made to investigate potential wetland sites and to
delineate all wetlands and waters of the U. S. The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional
definition further detailed in the criteria and methods contained in the Cotpso/Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manl/a/(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary information to further support
wetland determinations was found in the National List 0/ Plant SpeCIes that Occl/r in Wetlands: SOl/theast
(Region 2) (Reed, 1988).

4.6.2 Jurisdictional Findings

I

I

I

A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on March 22 and 23, 2004 to assess the extent of
USACE jurisdiction in the project area. The following paragraphs describe USACE jurisdictional areas
found in the project area.

A total of twelve wetlands were identified within the study corridor of this project. Wetland 4 was
identified in the backyard of an adjacent landowner and outside of the proposed project area, and is not
discussed within this report. The wetlands are shown in Figure 3.4 and are summarized by area in Table
4.18. Wetland determination forms for each wetland site can be found in the Appendix.

I

I

TABLE 4.18
Wetlands Summarized by Watershed and Area
Mudd Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

Muddy Creek 2.63
2 Muddy Creek 0.17
3 Muddy Creek 0.13
5 Muddy Creek 0.06
6 Muddy Creek 0.24
7 Muddy Creek 3.06
8 Muddy Creek 0.21
9 Eastland Branch 0.18
10 Eastland Branch 0.12
11 Eastland Branch 0.05
12 Eastland Branch 0.03
Wetland 1

I

I

I

I

I

Wetland I was an old farm pond that has had a breach in the wall of the dam. Vegetation within this old
farm pond consists of box elder (Acer negl/ndo), black willow (Sala nigra), tearthumb (Po(ygonl/m
sagittatl/m), soft rush (JtlltctlS tf./itSl/S), jewel weed (/mpatlens capensis), silky dogwood (COrltl/J'
amomllm), and tag alder (Alnlls sermlata). Wetland hydrology includes standing water, multiple tree
trunks, and leaf staining. Soils are sandy clays and dark gray with strong brown mottles. The chroma
value I.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-29

I

I

I

I

Wetland 2

Wetland 2 is located within a power line easement that crosses Muddy Creek. This wetland has a small
channel which flows into the wetland. Vegetation within Wetland 2 consisted of box elder (Acer
negtmdo), blackberry (Rttbttsspp.), black willow (Salix nigra), tearthumb (Polygonttm sagittatttm), soft
rush (Jttnctts effitstts), Chinese privet (Ligttstntm sinense), and multi flora rose (Rosa mttlt(/lora).
Wetland hydrology includes water markings, soil saturation in the upper 12 inches, and standing water in
depressional areas. Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray with red mottles. The chroma value is I.

Wetland J

Wetland 3 is located at the toe of a slope approximately 50 feet from the banks of Muddy Creek.
Overstory vegetation within Wetland 3 consists of red maple (Acerntbntm), sycamore (Platantts
occidentalis), and sweetgum (Liqttidambar styracifltta). Understory and midcanopy species consist of
sedges (Carexspp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligttstntm sinense).
Water was observed in soil borings 3 inches below the surface. Water-stained leaves were also noted.
Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray with strong brown mottles. The B I horizon has a chroma value of
I. The B2 horizon has a chroma value of 2.

I

I

I

I

Wetland 5

I

Wetland 5 is located at the toe of a slope south of the sewer line easement adjacent to Muddy Creek.
Overstory vegetation within Wetland 5 consists of red maple (A cer ntbntm) and swamp chestnut oak
(f]tterctls michallXti). Understory and midcanopy species consist of spicebush (Lindera benzOIi/),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), Chinese privet (Ligttstntm sinense), and musclewood
(Catpinlts caroliniana). Water was observed in soil borings 8 inches below the surface. Water-stained
leaves and shallow roots were also observed as indicators of wetland hydrology. Soils are sandy clays
and are dark gray with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 6

Wetland 6 is located within the floodplain of Muddy Creek and Campbell Creek. Overstory vegetation
within Wetland 6 consists of red maple (A cer ntbntm), sweetgum (Liqttidambar styracifltla), American
elm (Olmtts americana), and swamp chestnut oak (f]tterctls michallxli). Understory and midcanopy
species consist of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japont'ca),
muscadine ( Vilis rottmdijOlia), Chinese privet (Ligttstntm sinense), mayapple (Podophylltlm peltatllm),
and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Water was observed in soil borings 4 inches below the surface.
Swollen trunks and shallow roots were observed as indicators of wetland hydrology. Soils are sandy
clays and are dark grayish brown with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 7

Wetland 7 is located in the floodplain of Muddy Creek. Overstory vegetation within Wetland 7 consists
of red maple (A cer nlbntm), sweetgum (Liqttidambar styracifltla), willow oak (f]tterCIIs phellos), and
green ash (Fraxtillls pennsylvant'ca). Understory species consist primarily of multiflora rose (Rosa
mltlt(/lora). The lack of understory vegetation is most likely due to the time of year sampling occurred
(early spring), and the fact that the wetland had numerous places which had standing water. Other
hydrologic indicators were blackened leaves and shallow roots. Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray
with yellowish red mottles. The chroma value is 2.

Wetland 8

Wetland 8 is located within Cedarwood Park. This wetland was previously a pond that had been drained,
and the site currently has a raised wooden walkway. Overstory vegetation consists of sweetgum
(Liqllldambar styracifltta), red maple (Acer ntbntm), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tttltj/(/era), and
American elm (Olmtts Amen'cana). Midcanopy species includes musclewood (Catpti/t(s caroltitiana),

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-30

I

I

I

black willow (Sala nigra), and silky dogwood (Cornlls amomllm), with understory species consisting of
multiflora rose (Rosa mllltiflora), water horehound (Lycoplls rllbe/ltts), hooded arrowhead (Sagittar/a
cafycina), and false stinging nettle (Boehmer/a cyltndrica). Evidence of wetland hydrology included
blackened leaves, swollen tree trunks, and shallow roots. Soils are sandy clays and are dark gray with
dark yellowish brown mottles. B I horizon and B3 horizon, each, has a chroma value of I. B2 horizon (3-
6 inches below surface) has a chroma value of 6; however, water was observed in soil borings 6 inches
below ground surface.

Wetland 9

I

I

I

I

Wetland 9 appears to have been created by the construction of the shopping center to the north and a berm
adjacent to the sewer line easement to the south. The slopes from the berm and the shopping center
appear to have caused limited drainage during the growing season. Vegetation within this wetland
consists of red maple (A cer rttbrttm), black willow (Sala nigra), sycamore (Platanlls occidentalt"s),
sweetgum (Liqllidambar styracifllla), green ash (Frax/nlls pennsylvalllca), and American elm (Ulmlls
americana). There were no herbaceous species noted within this wetland. Wetland hydrology includes
dendritic roots, shallow root systems, swollen buttresses, and blackened leaves. Soils were clay loams
and colored brown with strong brown mottles and gray with dark yellowish brown and dark gray mottles.
B I horizon has a chroma value of2, while B2 horizon has a chroma of I.

Wetland ./0

I

I

I

Wetland 10 is located within a power line easement that crossed Eastland Branch. This wetland has a
small channel which flowed into the wetland from the parking lot of the adjacent development.
Vegetation within Wetland 10 consists of ironweed ( Vernonia gigantea), cardinal flower (Lobelt'a
card/nalts), jewel weed (/mpatiens capensis), blackberry (RlIblls spp.), black willow (Sa!t:nligra),
tearthumb (Pofygonllm saglt/a/llm), soft rush (hmms tffitSllS), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera j'aponica),
Indian potato (Apios amencana), and silky dogwood (Cornlls amomllm). Wetland hydrology includes
standing water in places and drainage patterns. Soils were clay loams and dark gray with yellowish red
mottles. The chroma value is I.

I

I

Wet/and ./ ./

Wetland II is a low quality toe of slope wetland located adjacent to a parking lot. Vegetation within
Wetland II consists of red maple (Acer ntbrttm), black gum (kYssa sylva/ica), swamp chestnut oak
({!lIerCltS michtlltx/i), sweetgum (Liqllidambar styrac(/ltta), Japanese honeysuckle (Lolllcera j'aponica),
and Virginia creeper (Par/helloClssllS qtttnqtttjOlt'a). Wetland hydrology includes shallow roots, drainage
patterns and swollen buttresses. Soils were clay loams and colored grayish brown with dark yellowish
brown and black mottles and dark gray with dark yellowish brown mottles. The chroma value is 2.

We/land ./2

I

I

I

Wetland 12 is a low quality toe of slope wetland located adjacent to a parking lot. Vegetation within
Wetland 12 consists of red maple (A cer ntbntm), American elm (Ulmlls amencana), greenbrier (Smilax
spp.), green ash (Frax/nllspennsylvanica), and ironwood (Catp/nlls caroltn/'ana). Wetland hydrology
includes shallow roots and swollen buttresses. Soils were clay loams colored dark gray with strong
brown mottles. The chroma value is I.

I

4.7 Hydraulics

4.7.1 Modeling Methods

HEC-RAS 3.1.1 was used to model the channel and floodplain hydraulics of Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch and to develop water surface elevations for the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year events. The
surveyed stream geomorphic cross-sections were used to generate the geometry of the HEC-RAS model.
Mecklenburg County 2 foot increment LIDAR topography was used to supplement floodplain geometry

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-31

I

I

I

I

I

as needed. Figure 4.3 illustrates the location of the model cross-sections. Manning's n values were
assigned to the floodplains and channels based on field observations. Table 4.19 summarizes the
Manning's n values.

I

Ran e

0.035 - 0.055

ROB
0.013-0.15

I

I

We compared these Manning's n values to the values used in the Campbell Creek FEMA model. The
Campbell Creek model used Manning's n values of 0.044 to 0.066 in the channel and 0.11 to 0.199 on the
overbanks. Our selections for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch correlated well with the Campbell
Creek roughness ranges. Our overbank values were as high as 0.15 to reflect densely vegetated riparian
areas, and as low as 0.013 to reflect parking lots that are located adjacent to Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch.

The peak flow rates from the HEC-HMS hydrologic models were used for the HEC-RAS flow input. The
HEC-RAS models start at Campbell Creek; the 2-year water surface elevations of 684.44 and 689.14 at
Campbell Creek were selected as the starting conditions for the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
backwater models, respectively. The 2-year water surface in Campbell Creek was selected as the starting
elevation for the model because any larger flooding event in Campbell Creek causes such high water
elevations that the downstream ends of Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch are inundated in the Campbell
Creek floodplain.

4.7.2 Discharge Elevation

Tables 4.20 and 4.21 provide the water surface elevations at each Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch
cross-section for the storms studied, respectively. Figure 4.4 maps the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year flood
inundation areas.

I

I

I

I

I

The HEC-RAS flooding results were compared with reported flooding at homes adjacent to Muddy
Creek. The flooding elevations and frequencies predicted by the model seem reasonable when compared
with reported flooding problems. There have been no previous flooding reports along Eastland Branch.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-32

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~
ttl
E
E
:::J
en
0>
c::
'6
o
o
u:::
10 t:::
::; ~
u......
2 t:::
Ci5 .~
rn ~
2 ~
'g&
8~
0>"P'I
~ as
Jj~
:;a ~ 1i
..,:l5~
~~:6-
al-c't>
::~~

I

I

I

I

I

I

e
0
:;::l
~ 00 ..,. ..... 0 ('I') ..,. ..,. 00 ('I') ..,. ..... ..,. ..... Ol 0 ..... N ..,. ..,. CD ""': 00 ..... ('I') ('I') 0
U) .0 cO ,..: cci a) N C"i C"i ~ ~ cO ,..: cci a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... N ~ ~ .0 cO
.. QI 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e ~ jjj CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'-
~
W QI
.. e'
~
QI ~
>;- .c 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Q III ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') I'- I'-
Q a J!! o. ~ ~ o. o. ~ 0_ 0_ 0_ ~ 0_ ~ CD CD CD CD CD CD N N N N N N ..... .....
.... u ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 00 00 00 00 00 CD CD
e
0
:;::l
~ I'- ('I') ..... 00 N N ..... LO 0 ..... Ol N ..,. I'- 00 00 0 ..... N ('I') 00 CD 00 ..... ..... I'-
U) QI .0 cO ,..: ,..: a) N C"i C"i ~ ~ .0 ,..: ,..: a) a) a) 0 0 0 0 0 N C"i ~ .0 .0
.. ~ jjj 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'-
~ QI
W e'
..
~ ~
QI .c
>;- u 00 00 00 00 00 N N N N N N N 00 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol LO LO
III J!!
Q a ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('I') ('I')
II) u Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 00 00 00 00 00 00 I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- LO LO
e
0
:;::l
~ CD C'! Ol I'- ..... 0 Ol N I'- 00 00 0 ..,. ..,. LO CD I'- 00 00 0 CD N CD 00 00 ..,.
U) QI .0 CD cO I'- a) N N C"i C"i C"i .0 ,..: cO a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 N C"i C"i ~ .0
.. ~ jjj 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'-
~ QI
W e'
..
~ ~
QI .c
>;- u 00 00 00 00 00 ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') 00 00 00 00 00 00 CD CD
III J!!
II) a LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ ~
N U I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- CD CD CD CD CD CD LO LO LO LO LO LO
e
0
:;::l
~ LO 0 00 CD 00 ~ ..,. I'- N ..,. ..... ..,. N ..... ..... N ('I') ..,. ..,. CD N I'-; N ~ ('I') Ol
U) QI .0 cO cO ,..: cci ..... N N C"i C"i .0 cO cO a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 ..... C"i ('I') ~ ~
.. ~ jjj 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0
e CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I'- I'- I'- I'- I'- I'-
~ QI
W e'
..
~ ~
~ .c
u 00 00 00 00 00 ~ ~ ..,. ~ ..,. ..,. ~ N N N N N N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
I III J!!
Q a ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol N N N N N N N N
.... U LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ('I') ('I')
e
0
:;::l
~ ..... LO 00 LO 00 ('I') Ol ""': 0 ..... LO 0 N Ol 0 0 N ('I') CD 0 I'- 00 CD ""': I'-; ..,.
; QI .0 .0 cO ,..: cci 0 0 ..... N N N C"i C"i .0 cO cO cO cO cO ,..: ,..: cci 0 ..... ..... N
jjj 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 0
.. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I'- I'- I'- I'-
e
~ QI
W e'
.. ~
~ .c
~ u LO LO
III J!! LO LO LO ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') N N N N N N
I a N N N N N N N N N N N N ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..,. ..,.
N U ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 00 00
e
0
~ :;::l ..... CD Ol Ol ..,. 0 0 ..,. ..,. Ol Ol LO LO 0 LO I'- 0 0 0 LO
J!I 0 LO ..... ..... ..... ..... ('I') ..... Ol ..,. I'- N LO Ol 0 00 ..,. ..... N ..... 0 I'- Ol I'- 00 Ol
('I') 00 CD ..,. 00 00 0 ..... N ('I') LO 00 00 00 Ol Ol 0 ..... N ('I') ..,. LO I'- 00 Ol 0
U) ..... ..... ('I') ..,. LO 00 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N N N N N N N N N ('I')

M
M
~

f-
U
W
o
a::
c..
z
o
i=
~
o
f-
CI)
W
a:: 0
@ ~
:I: >
~ z
~z~
:g::5ii:
>c..w
m~~
~i=~
u~w
~~ffi
ClCl)~
~~C1i

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
ttl
I E
E
:::J
en
C>
c::
'C
0
0
I u::
~ t:::
:::J ~
t) c:c
2 .~
en
I en ~
c:: S
g '"
'C ~
c::
o ~
U CIl
I g>~
:.;:::l <1.l
en ...
Jj~
Q .>t: ~
Ql
N ~ ~
-i uU
I l.LJ ~:S>
...J
a::l '0 -g
;:: ~~
I
I

e
0
~
!: en <0 C! C! C! C! "! ~
.. ~ CD cO 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
e iii t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
CD
>
W CD
... e'
l'll
~ l'll
r.
I.J
0 III J!! t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
0 2i ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
... I.J <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
e
0
~
l'll N ...... V V V LO t-- C!
> cO 0 0 0 0 0 0
UJ CD ......
.. 3: iij 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
e t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
CD
> CD
W 01
... ...
l'll l'll
~ r.
I.J LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
III J!!
0 2i M M M M M M M M
II) I.J LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
e
0
~
!: en v t-- t-- t-- t-- N t--
UJ CD ..0 m m m m m 0 0
.. 3: iii 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... ......
e t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
~ CD
w e'
...
l'll l'll
~ r.
I.J <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
III J!!
II) 2i v v v ~ ~ v v V
N I.J V V V V V V
e
0
~
!: "': M LO <0 <0 CC! en v
UJ CD LO cO cO cO cO ex> m 0
.. 3: iii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ......
e t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
~ CD
W 01
... ...
l'll l'll
~ r.
I.J ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex>
I III J!!
0 2i N N N N N N N N
... I.J M M M M M M M M
e
0
~
!: 0 ...... <0 V M N ...... LO
~ CD M ..0 ..0 cO ......: cO m m
iii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
e
~ CD
W e'
... l'll
l'll r.
~ I.J
III J!! v v v v v v v V
I 2i
N I.J ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex>
e
0
~ ~ M M M M ex> 0 LO 0
J!l LO N N N en v t-- V
...... N V <0 t-- en 0 ......
UJ M M M M M M V V

....
..,
.J.

l-
e..>
w
-,
o
a::
a..
z
o
f=
~
o
I-
en
w
a:: U
@ ~
J: >"
~ z
~z~
;;5:'5~
>a..w
m~~
~f=~
e..>~w
5~ffi
Clen~
~~ili

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
c:
I .Q
m
>
Q)
iIi
Q)
t) t:::
~~
I ~Cl:
~.~
Q)'"
ca~
~Sl
'"
-g~
I "''t>
Q) Q.)
~~
-5~
i3~
"''6
I :s t:::
~&S
:s~
u~
Q)'>::;
~ '"
I -S~
u.'t>
.r=t:::
t) ""
C:->c:
~ Q.)
....m~
"!-cU
I ':16:&
:a'iii'15
~~~
I
I

c
0
:;::l
!: M ~ 10 10 to r-.. 0 M CD 0 OJ .... 0
U) CD m .... ~ .0 cO ,...: a:i m c:i N C'i cO a:i
.. :t iii to OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 0 0 0 0
c CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r-.. r-.. r-.. r-.. r-..
CD
>
W CD
.. e'
ftl
CD ftl
>;' r. 10 10 10 r-.. r-.. r-.. OJ OJ CD CD
IJ 10 10 r-..
0 III J! 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M CD CD '<t '<t
0 is 10 10 10 10 10 M M M M .... .... .... ....
.... U .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ....
C
0
:;::l
!: .... I': M M CD '<t r-.. 0 M I': '<t .... CD
U) CD m .... ~ .0 cO ,...: ,...: m c:i .... C'i cO ,...:
:t iii to OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 0 0 0 0
.. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r-.. r-.. r-.. r-.. r-..
c
~ CD
w e'
..
ca ca
~ r. 10 10 r-.. r-.. r-.. 0 0 0 0
U 10 10 10 r-..
III J! M M M M M to to to to '<t '<t N N
0 is M M M M M .... .... .... .... 0 0 0 0
10 U .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
C
0
:;::l
!: .... ~ N .... M ..... '<t CD OJ ~ 0 M M
U) CD m .... ~ .0 cO ,...: ,...: a:i m .... C'i .0 ,...:
:t iii to OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 0 0 0
.. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r-.. r-.. r-.. r-..
c
CD
> CD
w e'
..
ca ca
CD r. r-.. r-.. r-.. 0 0 0
>;' u r-.. r-.. 0
III J! 10 10 10 10 10 M M M M M M r-.. r-..
10 is .... .... ..... ..... .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to
N U .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... OJ OJ to to
C
0
:;::l
!: .... C! 0 r-.. to CD OJ ..... '<t to N '<t '<t
U) CD m ..... ~ ~ .0 cO cO a:i m c:i N ~ cO
:t iii to OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 0 0 0
.. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r-.. r-.. r-.. r-..
c
~ CD
w e'
..
III III
CD r.
>;' u 0 0 0 0 0 M M M 10
III J! M 10 N N
0 is .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .... 0 0
.... U OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ to to to to r-.. r-.. r-.. r-..
c
0
:;::l
ca .... 10 to '<t ..... 0 10 N 10 CD r-.. ~ '<t
> m c:i N C'i ~ .0 .0 cO ,...: a:i m C'i
U) CD ....
:t iii to OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 0
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r-.. r-..
..
c
~ CD
w e'
.. ca
ca r.
~ u CD CD CD CD M
III J! CD M M M 0 0 CD CD
is 10 10 10 10 10 N N N N OJ OJ to to
N U M M M M M M M M M N N N N
C
0
U) :;::l ..... to '<t 10 ..... CD 10 r-.. r-..
~ :J OJ to 0 OJ r-.. 0 10 OJ '<t r-.. to OJ
0 N ;l; ..... 0 M 10 CD OJ N '<t CD r-..
U) r-.. M to .... ..... .... ..... .... N N N N

...,
M
~

l-
t.)
W
...,
o
0::
a..
z
o
~
~
o
I-
en
W
0:: <..i
53 ~
:J: >-"
~ Z
Wz~
~:5~
3:a..ffi
:'::zW
lHQ~
O::I-z
t.)~w
15~ffi
o en:.::
~~[i!j

I

I
I
I

4.7.3 Structural and Street Flooding

Table 4.22 presents a structural flooding table which summarizes the flood elevations with respect to
finished floor elevations (FFE) and lowest adjacent grade (LADJ) adjacent to the creek.

TABLE 4.22
Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Structural Flooding Summary
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS ws WS
6051 Sunrise Ct (Shed) Elevation 688.15 688.20 688.37 688.67
FFE 689.28 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6
LADJ 688.14 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5

I
I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
6037 Misty Way Ln (Shed) Elevation 689.52 690. 18 690.51 690.88
FFE 693.62 4.1 3.4 3.1 2.7
LADJ 692.01 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.1

I
I
I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 689.52 690. 18 690.51 690.88
FFE 692.37 2.8 2.2 1.9 1.5
6345 Cold Water Ln LADJ 690.42 0.9 0.2 -0.1 -0.5
HVAC 690.40 0.9 0.2 -0.1 -0.5
LADJ (Porch) 690.13 0.6 -0.1 -0.4 -0.8
LADJ (Shed) 687.84 -1.7 -2.3 -2.7 -3.0

I
I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 689.52 690. 18 690.51 690.88
6343 Cold Water Ln FFE 694.00 4.5 3.8 3.5 3.1
HVAC 693.51 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.6
LADJ 691.73 2.2 1.6 1.2 0.9

I
I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 689.52 690. 18 690.51 690.88
6014 Ridge Point Ct. FFE 695.42 5.9 5.2 4.9 4.5
VENT 693.44 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.6
HVAC 692.68 3.2 2.5 2.2 1.8
LADJ 691.27 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.4

I

5938 Meadow Hill Dr 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 690.27 691.57 691.95 692.42
FFE 693.44 3.2 1.9 1.5 1.0

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-36

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.22
Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Structural Flooding Summary
C kW. hdR< . PI.

I

Muddv ree 'Ellers e estoratlon an
HVAC 692.59 2.3 1.0 0.6 0.2
LADJ 691.85 1.6 0.3 -0.1 -0.6
LADJ (Shed) 689.66 -0.6 -1.9 -2.3 -2.8

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 690.27 691.57 691.95 692.42
5934 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 694.15 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.7
HVAC 693.27 3.0 1.7 1.3 0.8
LADJ 692.83 2.6 1.3 0.9 0.4

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 690.57 692.00 692.41 692.90
5930 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 693.82 3.2 1.8 1.4 0.9
HVAC 692.84 2.3 0.8 0.4 -0.1
LADJ 692.77 2.2 0.8 0.4 -0.1

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 690.87 692.43 692.87 693.37
5926 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 693.75 2.9 1.3 0.9 0.4
HVAC 692.32 1.4 -0.1 -0.6 -1.1
LADJ 692.47 1.6 0.0 -0.4 -0.9

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 691.11 692.74 693.22 693.78
5922 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 693.96 2.9 1.2 0.7 0.2
HVAC 692.79 1.7 0.0 -0.4 -1.0
LADJ 692.21 1.1 -0.5 -1.0 -1.6

I

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 691.57 692.98 693.46 694.03
5918 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 695.42 3.9 2.4 2.0 1.4
HVAC 694.84 3.3 1.9 1.4 0.8
LADJ 693.29 1.7 0.3 -0.2 -0.7

l!;-'

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 692.03 693.22 693.70 694.27
5914 Meadow Hill Dr FFE 697.89 5.9 4.7 4.2 3.6
HVAC 696.10 4.1 2.9 2.4 1.8
LADJ 695.53 3.5 2.3 1.8 1.3

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4.37

I

I

I

I

TABLE 4.22
Muddy Creek Existing Conditions Structural Flooding Summary
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 695.94 699. 10 699.44 699.92
Reddman Road Culvert Invert 692.90 -3.0 -6.2 -6.5 -7.0
Too of Culvert 696.40 0.5 -2.7 -3.0 -3.5
T OD of Road 698.40 2.5 -0.7 -1.0 -1.5

I

I

I

2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
WS WS WS WS
Elevation 696.02 699. 19 699.56 700.06
FFE 699.50 3.5 0.3 -0.1 -0.6
6416 Reddman Rd VENT 699.39 3.4 0.2 -0.2 -0.7
HVAC 698.63 2.6 -0.6 -0.9 -1.4
LADJ 697.67 1.7 -1.5 -1.9 -2.4
LADJ (Shed) 698.81 2.8 -0.4 -0.8 -1.3

I

I

I

Notes
Positive numbers indicate structure height above flood elevation.
Negative numbers in bold indicate depth of flooding.
FFE: Finished Floor Elevation
LADJ: Lowest Adjacent Grade
HVAC: Concrete Pad for Heating/Cooling Unit
VENT: Bottom of Vent to Crawl Space

I

I

4.8 Potential Constraints

I

Baker Engineering documented the potential constraints to construction in the project area including
property ownership, utilities conflicts, hydrologic and hydraulic issues, construction access, and
threatened and endangered species. '. It has been determined that these potential constraints will not
prevent the successful completion of stream restoration and storm water BMP construction. Figure 4.1
depicts the locations of the project reaches to be used as a reference when discussing existing constraints
in the following sections.

I

4.8.1 Property Owners

I

Reach I is located on two parcels; one which is privately held and one which is owned by Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation (Parks). The privately owned property is an apartment complex and the
stream channel/wetland system is located away from active land use. In this location property ownership
is not expected to be a major constraint to construction activities.

Reach 2 is located on Parks property and construction is not expected to be constrained by this property
owner.

I

I

Reach 3 is located on four privately owned single family properties. Three of the properties have no
active land uses adjacent to the channel; these three property owners are expected to be open to
discussions of possible work on the channel and riparian area. The fourth property has a residential
dwelling adjacent to the channel but has flooding issues and is expected to be open to improvements that

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-38

I

I

I

I

I

address channel erosion and flooding on their property. Table 4.22 presents a structural flooding
summary of properties located adjacent to Muddy Creek.

Reach 4 was not considered originally for construction activities as numerous residential properties are
adjacent to the stream channel. Several of these residents have reported channel erosion and hydraulic
modeling shows yard flooding at several locations, so residents may desire construction to improve the
situation in this reach.

Reach 5 is located entirely on Parks property and is considered to be available for construction as needed.
Coordination with Parks is needed to assure an appropriate solution for the channel and adjacent wetlands
is pursued.

Reach 6 of Eastland Branch flows through two parcels, both of which are privately owned. The reach
originates from a storm water outfall behind the abandoned Upton's department store located along
Albemarle Road. The reach flows through a parcel occupied by a nursing home and a parcel containing a
multifamily apartment complex (Forest Ridge Apartments) further downstream. Both properties have no
active land uses adjacent to the channel or floodplain and are expected to be open to discussions of
possible work on the channel and riparian area.

Reaches 7 and 8 are located entirely within the Forest Ridge Apartments parcel which is privately owned.
The stream corridor throughout both reaches is well buffered with mature forest along both banks and is
located away from active land use. In this location property ownership is not expected to be a major
constraint to construction activities.

I

I

I

I

I

I

Reach 9 is located on four parcels, three of which are privately owned and one which is owned by Parks
located downstream at the confluence with Campbell Creek. The three privately owned parcels consist of
the Forest Ridge Apartments complex, a single family residence, and a large vacant parcel. The stream
corridor throughout each parcel is well buffered with mature forest along both banks and is located away
from active land use. A small portion of the reach coincides with a Duke Power utility right-of-way mid-
reach which may constrain channel improvements in this area due to regular maintenance of vegetation
within the right-of-way. Overall, property owners along Reach 9 are expected to be open to discussions
of possible work on the channel and riparian area.

4.8.2 Utilities

4.8.2.1 Muddy Creek Utility Constraints

I

I

I

I

Utilities are not a major constraint in most parts of the Muddy Creek portion of the project. Adjacent
sanitary sewer is the major utility present and for the most part should be able to be avoided. Reaches 3
and 4 have adjacent sanitary sewer within 20-30 feet on the right bank for their entire length. There are
also several lateral crossing in these reaches. The design alignment successfully passes over these sewer
laterals. Reach 3 also has an overhead power line parallel with the left bank at the downstream section.
The design alignment successfully avoids the power line.

A major power transmission line crosses the channel at the junction of reaches 2 and 3. Coordination
with Duke Power is currently in progress. At Reddman Road where flooding is a concern, overhead
power lines, sanitary sewer, a waterline, and a Charlotte Division of Transportation pedestrian walkway
are located. Utilities will be relocated in this area during culvert demolition and pedestrian bridge
construction. Utility constraints for Reaches I, 2, and 5 are minimal and generally involve the presence of
mature trees and/or sanitary sewer within the floodplain.

I

I

I

4.8.2.2

Eastland Branch Utility Constraints

I

A sanitary sewer line is located within close proximity to a majority of Eastland Branch. On reach 6, the
sanitary sewer line approaches the channel on the right bank and crosses the channel approximately 500'
downstream of the upstream culvert. Once the line crosses the channel, it remains approximately 10'-15'

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-39

I

I

I

off of the top of the left bank throughout the remainder of the reach. The sanitary sewer line continues
approximately 15' off of the top of the left bank throughout all of Reach 7 and extends to approximately
35' off of the top ofthe left bank by the end of reach 8. On reach 9, the sanitary sewer line is located
approximately 35' off of the top of the left bank in the upstream portion and narrows to approximately
10' -20' in the downstream portion prior to crossing the channel just before the confluence with Campbell
Creek.

A utility building is located at the downstream end of Reach 3 and the upstream end of Reach 4
approximately 80' off of the top of the right bank.

Proposed BMP design and stream alignment successfully avoids all utility constraints along Eastland
Branch.

I

I

I

I

4.8.3 Hydrologic Trespass

I

As expected, the I OO-year water surface elevation will increase in sections of priority I restoration. No
permanent structures will be affected, and the water surface increase will be contained within the
permanent conservation easement, therefore no hydraulic trespass is expected.

4.8.4 Construction Access

I

Construction access will be made from Reddman Road (via Albemarle Rd.) for Site 10 BMP construction
and Muddy Creek stream restoration. Site 4 construction access will be from the Cedarwood Park
entrance along Reddman Road. BMP Site 9A/9B construction, and Eastland Branch restoration will be
accessed from Hollins Drive (via Executive Center Dr.). Construction access points are shown within the
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Design Plan Set.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

4-40

I

I

I

I

5 Selected Design Criteria for Stream Restoration

I

5.1

Potential for Restoration on Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch

I

I

Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch are appropriate candidates for restoration because more erosion will
occur before the channels are able to achieve a stable quasi-equilibrium state. The channel reaches are
incising and bank erosion is contributing extensive amounts of sediment to the areas downstream of the
project site. Restoration can help to stabilize the channels by stopping incision and significantly reducing
bank erosion.

The project is located in an urban watershed and there are many site constraints that prevent a full Rosgen
Priority I level stream restoration design. These obstacles include sanitary sewer lines, urban and
residential developments, topography, and existing mature trees. Therefore, a variety of approaches for
restoring incised/channelized streams will be used. A Rosgen Priority I restoration will be used for large
sections of this project; however, there are some sections where site constraints will prevent raising the
existing channel bed or increasing sinuosity. In these reaches, a Rosgen Priority 3 approach will be used
to create bankfull benches and riffle/step pool bed features. A Rosgen Priority 2 approach will be used to
transition between existing channels and Priority I reaches, as well as between Priority I and 3 reaches.
Where urban constraints prohibit alteration to the alignment or profile, the channel will be enhanced.

5.1.1 Mainstem Channel Restoration Potential

I

I

I

I

5.1.1.1

Muddy Creek

I

The restoration approach on the mainstem of Muddy Creek is to expedite the evolutionary process that is
already occurring. For design purposes Muddy Creek was divided into four reaches. A Rosgen Priority I
design is proposed for Reaches 1,2, and 4 to re-connect the stream to the historic floodplain and increase
sinuosity. These reaches have been designed as Rosgen E-type channels. Stream bank stabilization is
proposed in Reach 3 due to residential development and sanitary sewer line constraints. Soil
bioengineering and in-stream structures will be used on all reaches to stabilize the banks, control grade,
and create habitat. Given the wide floodplain in most areas, relatively flat slopes, cohesive soils, and
favorable growing conditions, these restoration approaches are achievable. Selected invasive vegetative
species removal and native reforestation of the riparian buffer will complement the channel restoration.
See Table 5.1 for additional information on proposed stream reach design.

I

I

Table 5.1

Project Design Stream Types

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Reach Proposed Rationale
Stream
Type
E4

I

I

Reach 1, 2,
4 Muddy
Creek

I

Reach 3
Muddy
Creek

NA

Rosgen Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity and improve
bedform diversity. A riparian buffer with native vegetation will
improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats. A Priority 2 restoration
will be used to tie project reaches into the existing channel, the
Reddman Road Culvert, Campbell Creek and through an existing
pond embankment..
Streambank stabilization (Enhancement II) will be implemented to
stabilize eroding streambanks. In addition, in-stream structures
will be used to diversify the bed profile.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

5-1

I

I

I

I

Table 5.1

Project Design Stream Types

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Reach Proposed Rationale
Stream
Type
C4

I

I

Reach 6 and
8 Eastland
Branch

I

Reach 5
Eastland
Branch
Reach 7
Eastland
Branch

NA

Rosgen Priority 1 restoration will increase sinuosity and improve
bedform diversity. A riparian buffer with native vegetation will
improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Priority 2 restoration will
be used to tie project reaches into the existing channel, areas of
high relief and Campbell Creek.
Stream bank stabilization (Enhancement II) will be implemented to
stabilize eroding streambanks. In addition, in-stream structures
will be used to diversify the bed profile.
Rosgen Priority 3 (Enhancement I) restoration will be
implemented to adjust dimension and profile using in-stream
structures and benching. Bank slopes will be stabilized and
planted with native vegetation.

I

NA

I

5.1.1.2

Eastland Branch

I

The overall restoration approach for Eastland Branch is similar to Muddy Creek. For design purposes
Eastland Branch was divided into four reaches. A Rosgen Priority I design is proposed on Reaches 6 and
8 to re-connect the stream to the historic floodplain and increase sinuosity. These reaches have been
designed as Rosgen C-type channels. Reach 5 exhibits considerable site constraints, including sanitary
sewer lines, residential development, and topographic constraints. Therefore, only stream bank
stabilization is proposed. Soil bioengineering and in-stream structures will be used on all reaches to
stabilize the banks and bed, control grade, and create habitat in the newly constructed channel. Given the
wide floodplain in most areas, relatively flat slopes, generally stable nature of the soil, and favorable
growing conditions at the site, these restoration approaches are achievable goals. Selected invasive
vegetative species removal and native reforestation of the riparian buffer will complement the channel
restoration.

1

I

I

5.2

Design Criteria Selection

I

Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches including reference
reaches surveys, review of reference reach databases, regime equations, modeling results, and evaluation
of results from past projects, as discussed in Section 2.5. Selection of a general restoration approach was
the first step in selecting design criteria at Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch sites. The approach was
based on each reach's potential for restoration as determined during the watershed and site assessment.
After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were developed so each
reach's plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and profile could be described for the purpose of
developing construction documents.

Specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference reach data, past project
experiences, and best professional judgment. The design philosophy at the Muddy Creek and Eastland
Branch sites is to use conservative design values for the selected stream types and to allow positive
changes to occur over long periods of time under the processes of flooding and the establishment of
woody vegetation.

5.2.1 Reference Reach Survey

I

I

I

I

An undisturbed reference reach could not be found in close proximity to the project site, so a reference
reach survey was not performed. Previously-collected reference reach data were used as discussed in the
following section.

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

5-2

I

I

I

I

5.2.2 Reference Reach Database and Project Evaluation Data

I

The NC DOT reference reach database contains a variety of Rosgen C, E, and B stream types throughout
the North Carolina Piedmont, in both rural and urban settings. Several reference reaches included in the
database were completed by Baker Engineering. Typical urban stream system ratios derived from Baker
Engineering reference reach surveys are included in Table 5.2.

I

Table 5.2
Common Reference Reach Ratios for C, E, and B Stream Types

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

Parameter Reference Reach Ratios
MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Type (Rosgen) C/E 4 B4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0
Width to Depth Ratio, WID (Nft) 5.0 12.0 12.0 18.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.0 12.0 N/a N/a
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.2 2.0 N/a N/a
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 3.0 8.0 N/a N/a
Sinuosity, K 1.20 1.60 1.1 1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (Nft) 0.0050 0.0150 0.020 0.030
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.5 2.0 1.1 2.5
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Srif 0.50 0.80 N/a N/a
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan 0.30 0.50 0.3 0.5
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.20 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpooi/Dbkf 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/wbkf 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.5
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 7.0 1.5 5.0

Source: NC DOT reference Reach database, evaluation of Baker Engineering projects.

In addition, Baker has completed five years of quantitative monitoring on five projects in the Mitchell
River Watershed and quantitative/qualitative monitoring on dozens of projects throughout NC, including
C, E, and B stream types. These projects have demonstrated how natural channel design projects evolve
over time, as the permanent vegetation is established and the channel responds to overbank flooding.
Lessons learned from these projects have been incorporated into a revised summary of design criteria as
shown in Table 5.3.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

5-3

I

I

I

I

I

Table 5.3
Design Criteria for C, E, and B Stream Types

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Parameter Desian Ratios
MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Type (Rosgen) C/E 4 B4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ftIs) 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0
Width to Depth Ratio, WID (ft/ft) 10.0 12.0 12.0 18.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.0 12.0 N/a N/a
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.8 3.5 N/a N/a
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 3.5 8.0 N/a N/a
Sinuosity, K 1.20 1.60 1.1 1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ftIft) 0.0050 0.0150 0.020 0.030
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.5 3.0 1.1 1.8
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Srif 0.50 0.80 N/a N/a
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan 0.30 0.50 0.3 0.5
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.20 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.5
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 7.0 1.5 5.0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Source: NC DOT reference reach database, evaluation of Baker Engineering projects.

Table 5.3 shows that adjustments were made to the following ratios: bankfull width to depth, radius of
curvature, meander width, and pool width. These changes were made due to the influences of well
established riparian buffers on channel dimension and pattern. Most reference reach streams are located
in bottomland hardwood forests. The root mass of the vegetation allows streambanks to be near vertical,
but stable. This supports low WID ratios in the riffles and low bankfull width ratios in the pools. Project
evaluation has shown that projects built with higher riffle WID ratios and higher pool width ratios will
narrow over time and trend more towards the reference condition. This is a more conservative approach
that provides a greater likelihood of project success. We have also found that the meander width ratio is
critical for determining the plan form geometry and that it takes a meander width ratio greater than 3 to
create a meandering channel. Therefore, if the ratio is less than 3, a step-pool approach (Priority 3) is
recommended.

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

5-4

I

I

I

I

6 Restoration Design

I

6.1

Restoration Approach

I

There are 8 design reaches for restoration approach, as opposed to 9 from the existing conditions. The
primary approach of the restoration design is to construct streams with a stable dimension, pattern, and
profile that have access to the floodplain at flows greater than the bankfull stage. If constraints do not
allow for this level of restoration, then a bank stabilization approach is used. Figure 6.1 shows the
proposed design with the following elements:

I

I

6.1.1 Muddy Creek

I

Priority 1 Stream Restoration
· Reach I (formerly Reach I & 2 of the existing conditions) - this reach will be restored to a more
sinuous E-type stream. A short section upstream will require minimal floodplain grading to tie into
existing ground elevations. Grading will also be required for the transition between Reach I and 2,
through the abandoned earthen dam.

· Reach 2 (formerly Reach 3 of the existing conditions) - this reach will be restored to a C-type stream.
A short section of Priority 2 restoration will be implemented at the downstream extent near the
proposed pedestrian bridge, in order to alleviate flooding hazards at 6416 Reddman Road.

· Reach 4 (formerly Reach 5 of existing conditions) - this reach will be restored to a C-type stream. A
short section of Priority 2 will be implemented at the downstream end of the reach.

Priority 4 Stream Restoration
· Reach 3 (formerly Reach 4 of existing conditions) - restraints in this section include a sanitary sewer
line and adjacent residential lots which do not allow for pattern adjustment or floodplain benching of
the existing channel. Streambank stabilization will be used to eliminate erosion. In-stream structures
will be used to diversifY the bedform.

Wetland Enhancement
· Site 1 (formerly wetland I) - enhancement includes invasive species removal and wetland planting.
Minor grading is proposed to create high/low marsh zones and open water areas to establish habitat
diversity.

Riparian Buffer Enhancement
· Project-wide invasive species removal, planting and preservation in riparian zones.

Preliminary plans for Muddy Creek restoration are attached. Details of the design are discussed in the
following sections.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

6.1.2 Eastland Branch

I

Priority 1 Stream Restoration
· Reach 6 (formerly Reach 7 of existing conditions) - this reach will be restored to a C-type stream.
Sections of Priority 2 restoration will implemented in sections of high floodplain relief.

· Reach 8 (formerly Reach 9 of existing conditions) - this reach will be restored to a C-type stream. A
short section of Priority 2 restoration will be implemented to connect the stream profile with
Campbell Creek.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-1

I

I

I

I

I

Priority 3 Stream Restoration
. Reach 7 (formerly Reach 8 of existing conditions) - restraints in this reach include a sewer line on the
left floodplain and adjacent residential lots on the right floodplain which do not allow for pattern
adjustment of the existing channel. Priority 3 restoration will be implemented to adjust dimension
and profile using in-stream structures and benching. Bank slopes will be stabilized and planted.

Priority 4 Stream Restoration
. Reach 5 (formerly Reach 6 of existing conditions) - restraints in this section include a sewer line on
the left floodplain and high topographic relief on the right floodplain, which does not allow for
pattern adjustment. Priority 4 restoration will be implemented to adjust stream profile and provide
bank stabilization using in-stream structures. This section will increase the stream profile elevation to
allow for Priority I restoration in Reach 6.

Wetlands Enhancement
. Site 8 (formerly wetland 7) - enhancement includes invasive species removal and wetland planting.

Riparian Buffer Enhancement
. Project-wide invasive species removal, planting and preservation in riparian zones.

Preliminary plans for Eastland Branch restoration are attached. Details of the design are discussed in the
following sections.

I

I

I

I

I

6.2 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile)
6.2.1 Muddy Creek

I

The design rationale for Muddy Creek is provided below.

6.2.1.1

Design Reaches

I

A stable cross section will be achieved by widening the channel and increasing the width/depth ratio. The
channel will be designed as a high width/depth ratio E stream type. Sinuosity will be increased by adding
meanders to the channel, which will reduce channel slope and therefore stream power. The increase in
sinuosity will also improve the riffle-pool sequence. Grade control will be provided by in-stream
structures such as constructed riffles and cross vanes. These structures will also improve bedform
diversity. Prior to watershed urbanization, native bed material was more than likely larger than the
existing material. Therefore, material used to construct riffles will have a larger median diameter than
existing bed material. The new bed material will classify as "gravel/cobble," while the majority of
existing bed material classified as "sand". Bioengineering and in-stream structures will be used at the
outside of meander bends to promote bank stability and improve habitat.

Table 6.1 presents the stream restoration dimensions for Reaches I through 4 of Muddy Creek.

I

I

I

I

Table 6.1
Muddy Creek Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Reach 1 geaCl1 2 ReaCh 3 Reach 4
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
1. Stream Type E4 E4 B4c E4
2. Drainage Area - square 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.59
miles

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-2

I

I

I

I

Table 6.1
Muddy Creek Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

n:Yr:ii:fii0SS,,;...:,:.....,...':"<fY~ ,',. .'. ;Xx;. ..: ..., ,? ..f .......:. .'Hn.:.:.i.:!. :':~;:,
.. .;nn" .... :S: n ",.., , ....'ii..i ,
Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) - feet 10.0 13.0 - 15.0
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 1.1 1.2 - 1.4
- feet
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d 9.3* 11.2 - 11.1
ratio)
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) 10.7 15.1 - 20.3
-SF
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.0
(Vbkf) - fps
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - 40 50 58 60
cfs
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) 1.6 1.9 - 2.1
- feet
1 O. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.5 1.6 - 1.6
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ratio
12. Floodprone Area Width >22 >28.6 >33.0 >33.0
(Wfoa) feet
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
14. Meander length (Lm) - 65 101 95 130 - - 125 180
feet
15. Ratio of meander length 6.5 10.1 7.3 10.0 - - 8.3 12.0
to bankfull width (Lm/wbkf)
16. Radius of curvature (Rc) - 17.0 24.7 24.0 31.5 - - 29.0 49.0
feet
17. Ratio of radius of 1.9 3.3
curvature to bankfull width (Rc 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.4 - -
/ Wbkf) 36 101
18. Belt width (wb;;f feet 28 73 34 79 - -
19. Meander Width Ratio 3.0 7.3 2.6 6.1 - - 3.0 6.7
(WbIJWbkf)
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream 1.48 1.22 1.03 1.24
Lenath/ Vallev Distance
21. Valley Slope - feet per 0.0049 0.0084 0.0054 0.0062
foot
22. Channel Slope (Schannel) - 0.0033 0.0069 0.0052 0.005
feet oer foot
23. Pool Slope (SpOOl) - feet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
per foot
24. Ratio of Pool Slope to 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Averaoe Slope (Snool / Schannel)
25. Maximum Pool Depth 2.6 2.7 2.7
(doool) feet 2.3

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-3

I

I

2.0 2.1 2.0
15 19.5 22.5
1.5 1.5 1.5
29. Pool Area (Apool) - square 16.9 22.8 29.1
feet
1.6 1.5 1.4
43 81 45 98 43 133 70 126
4.3 8.1 3.5 7.5 4.7 8.4
(Sriffle) - feet 0.0039 0.017 0.007 0.017 0.0057 0.0129 0.0078 0.017
1.2 5.2 1.1 2.5 1.1 2.5 1.6 3.4

I

I

Table 6.1
Muddy Creek Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

*Reach 1 width/depth ratio was designed outside of design criteria range due to unique floodplain hydraulic
characteristics (i.e. attenuation from earthen dam)

Typical riffle and pool cross sections are shown on the attached plan sheets. For Reaches 1,2, and 4, a
Rosgen E stream with a wid ratio ranging between 9 and 12 was designed. Reach 3 will be enhanced by
adding in-stream structures and constructed riffles to increase habitat diversity. Banks will be maintained
at a stable slope and planted. The ratio of low bank height to maximum bankfull depth (BHR) will be
constructed to 1.0. In areas where the floodplain might exceed the channel bank elevation because of
localized topography, minimal grading will be used to transition bankfull stage to the floodplain. Once
flood water rises above the bankfull stage, and the storm flow is able to spread out on the floodplain,
reducing erosion-causing shear stress in the near bank region. Root wads, brush mattresses, and log vanes
will be used to provide bank protection and maintain pool cross sections at the outside of meander bends
where necessary.

Plan views of the existing versus design channel are shown on the attached plan sheets. The existing
channel has minimal sinuosity due to past channelization. Currently, Muddy Creek measures 4,358 linear
feet. The stream length after restoration will be approximately 4,900 linear feet, with 536 linear feet of
increased length. The sinuosity of the new channel varies from straight reaches where constraints
prevent restoration to almost 1.5 in the wide flat alluvial valleys. The meander width ratio (MWR) on the
restored channel will range between 2.8 and 7.3. These lengthy meanders will dissipate energy,
decreasing the potential for degradation. Curve radii will range between 17 and 49 feet throughout
Reaches I through 4, or approximately two to three times the channel's proposed bankfull width. The
project was designed using larger radius of curvature ratios than the reference reach ratios, in an effort to
enhance stability immediately after construction before a stable vegetative root mass has been established.

I

6.2.1.2

Dimension

I

I

I

6.2.1.3

Pattern

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

I

6-4

I

I

6.2.1.4

Profile/Bedform

I

The thalweg, existing ground, and bankfull profiles are shown on the attached plan sheets. In the Priority
I restoration reaches, the profile is set so that the bankfull stage corresponds with the existing ground
elevation. Priority 2 and 3 reaches show that the bankfull stage is below the existing ground elevation,
indicating that a floodplain or bankfull bench must be excavated.

The profile design will include riffle-pool sequences along the stream bed. Constructed riffles will be
used to provide grade control and habitat diversity in most riffle sections. In addition, cross vanes will be
used to provide bank stability, grade control, and to create deep pools. The slopes for the constructed
riffles vary from 1.2 to 5.2 times the proposed channel slope. The design criteria ratios indicate that a
range of 1.5 to 3.0 is conservative. Riffles that are steeper than three times the average slope will be
designed with constructed-riffle material that is immobile during bankfull events. The maximum pool
depth will be constructed at a point two-thirds of the total pool length. This maximum pool location was
selected based on guidance from the US Army Corps of Engineers manual (Copeland et aI., 200 I).

6.2.2 Eastland Branch

I

I

I

I

The design rationale for Eastland Branch is provided below.

6.2.2.1

Design Reaches

I

A stable cross section will be achieved by widening the channel and increasing the width/depth ratio. The
channel will be designed as a C stream type, and the sinuosity will be increased by adding meanders to
lengthen the channel. Grade control at the bed will be provided by in-stream structures such as
constructed riffles, cross vanes, and boulder cross vanes. These structures will also help to improve
bedform diversity. Bioengineering ahd in-stream structures will be used at the outside of meander bends
to improve bank stability and improve habitat.

Table 6.2 presents the stream restoration dimensions for Reaches 5 through 8 of Eastland Branch.

I

I

I

Table 6.2
Eastland Branch Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Rest(}{ation Plan

I

..
Reach 5 Ruchti Reach 7 A_ache
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
1. Stream Type B4c C4 B4c C4
2. Drainage Area - square 0.47 0.47 0.5 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.62
miles
3. Bankfull Width (Wbkf) - feet - 15.0 - 16.0
4. Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 1.3 1.2
- feet - -
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w/d - 12.0 - 13.1
ratio)
6. Cross-sectional Area (Abkf) 18.8 19.6
-SF - -
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity 3.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
(Vbkf) - fps

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-5

I

I

I

Table 6.2
Eastland Branch Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

'i;H>'i',X } "~"i'lK:!ii},i~ '
.}...Irk:>}..};;> ....>.
.....}..<.; Min Max Min Max Min I Max Min I Max
8. Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) 80 90 90 95
cfs
9. Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
- feet
1 O. dmbkf / dbkf ratio 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ratio
12. Floodprone Area Width >35.2 >33 >33.0 >33.0
(Wfoa) - feet
13. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
14. Meander length (Lm) - - - 112 172 - - 141 150
feet
15. Ratio of meander length - - 7.5 11.5 - - 8.8 9.4
to bankfull width (Lm/wbkf)
16. Radius of curvature (Rc) - - - 29 45 - - 29 45
feet
17. Ratio of radius of 1.8 2.8
curvature to bankfull width (Rc - - 1.9 3.0 - -
/ Wbkf) 65 84
18. Belt width (Wblt) feet - - 63 82 - -
19. Meander Width Ratio - - 4.2 5.4 - - 4.1 5.3
(WbIJWbkf)
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream 1.09 1.33 1.03 1.39
Length/ Valley Distance
21. Valley Slope - feet per 0.0044 0.0061 0.0039 0.0067
foot
22. Channel Slope (Schannel) 0.0017 0.0045 0.0038 0.0048
feet per foot
23. Pool Slope (Spool) - feet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
per foot .
24. Ratio of Pool Slope to 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average Slope (Spool / Schannel)
25. Maximum Pool Depth 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.8
(dpool) - feet
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to 2.2
Average Bankfull Depth - 2.1 -
(doool/dbkf) 25.5
27. Pool Width (Woool) feet - 21.5 -
28. Ratio of Pool Width to - 1.4 - 1.6
Bankfull Width (Woool / Wbkf)
29. Pool Area (Apool) - square - 35.7 - 46.1
feet
30. Ratio of Pool Area to - 2.38 - 2.35
Bankfull Area (Apool/Al>kf)
31. Pool-to-Pool Spacing - 32 188 83 1119 80 1125 45 1104
feet

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-6

I

I

I

I

Table 6.2
Eastland Branch Reach Dimensions

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

2.8

6.5

I

I

(Sriffle) - feet

0.0024 0.0031

0.0045 0.0089

0.0075 0.0098

1.4

1.8

1.5

1.9

1.2

2.3

1.6

2.0

I

6.2.2.2

Dimension

I

Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the attached plan sheets. Reaches 6 and 8 will
be restored to a C-type stream with wid ratios ranging between 12.0 and 13.1. These reaches include
Priority I and 2 restoration approaches in order to reduce the bank height ratio to 1.0. Enhancement will
be conducted for Reaches 5 and 7. Restoration is not achievable for these reaches because of
topographic, development, and utility constraints. Root wads, brush mattresses, and log vanes will be
used to provide bank protection and maintain pool cross sections at the outside of meander bends where
necessary.

I

I

6.2.2.3

Pattern

I

Plan views of the channel are shown on the attached plan sheets. Currently, Eastland Branch is 2,956
linear feet in length. The stream length after restoration will be approximately 3,360 linear feet, with an
overall increase in stream length of 404 linear feet. The meander width ratio (MWR) on the restored
channel will range between 4.1 and 5.4. These lengthy meanders will dissipate energy, thereby reducing
the risk of degradation. Reaches 5 and 7 will not include pattern adjustments. Reaches 6 and 8 are less
constrained and therefore pattern will be adjusted and sinuosity will increase. The channel slope will
effectively decrease through the addition of the meandering length, helping to slow the mean velocity and
shear stress in the channel.

I

I

Curve radii will range between 29 and 45 feet for Reaches 6 and 8, or approximately two to three times
the channel's proposed bankfull width. The project was designed using larger radius of curvature ratios
than the reference reach ratios in an effort to enhance stability immediately after construction before a
stable vegetative root mass has been established.

I

6.2.2.4

Profile/Bedform

I

The existing channel is currently degrading and the profile continues to incise. Reach 5 has numerous
headcuts and areas of stream bank mass wasting. Reach 6, 7, and 8 are moderately stable due to
downstream grade control which has prevented further incision. Reach 5 will have the lowest channel
slope of the project, while Reach 8 will have the steepest.

Restoration of Eastland Branch will include the construction of riffle-pool sequences along the stream bed
using grading, constructed riffles, or log vanes at selected locations. The slopes for the constructed riffles
vary from 1.2 to 2.0 times the proposed channel slope. The reference reaches indicated that this ratio
range will be appropriate for this stream size and type. The maximum pool depth will be constructed at a
point two-thirds of the total pool length. This maximum pool location was selected based on guidance
from the US Army Corps of Engineers manual (Copeland et aI., 200 I).

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-7

I

I

I

I

6.3

Sediment Transport

I

Sediment supply in the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch Watersheds is fairly low. The primary source
of existing sediment supply is from stream bank erosion, which will be significantly reduced by
restoration efforts. Sediment supply from the upstream watershed is limited due to impervious cover and
piping.

The existing bed material for both streams is dominated by sand size fractions. Fine grained bed material
is likely attributed to bank erosion and possible sediment inputs during development. Native bed material
for these streams was likely coarser prior to urbanization, as seen in streams with less disturbed
watersheds within the same physiographic region.

Since sediment supply is low, sediment transport capacity calculations were not completed for this
project. In addition, sediment transport competency calculations are only required of gravel/cobble bed
streams. Therefore, competency calculations were also not calculated. Given the low sediment supply
and bed material dominated by sand, the primary concern regarding sediment transport and channel
stability is the potential for bed degradation.

To address this concern, constructed riffles were incorporated into the design to provide grade control.
The smallest particle of the constructed riffle was designed to remain immobile during a bankfull event.
Rock size was calculated using the critical shear stress curve shown in Figure 2.7 and Table 6.3.

Table 6.3

Critical Shear Stress for Proposed Channel Geometry and Associated Minimum Particle Size
From Leopold Wolman, and Miller(7964J, and Colorado Data

I

I

I

I

I

I

Design Critical Shear
Reach (1:c) Particle Size (mm) Particle Size (in)
Reach 1 0.18 47.27 1.86
Reach 2 0.41 105.91 4.17
Reach 4 0.34 88.23 3.47
Reach 6 0.27 72.72 2.86
Reach 8 0.32 85.33 3.36

I

I

6.4

In-Stream Structures

I

A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch site. Structures
such as root wads, constructed riffles, cross vanes, and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly-
restored stream. Coarse stone will be used to provide grade control in the constructed riffles. Wood
structures such as log vanes will also be used on this site. Table 6.4 summarizes the use of in-stream
structures at the site.

I

Table 6.4
Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Structure Type Location
Root Wad. Outside bank of smaller radius meander bends.
Brush Mattress Outside bank of selected meander bends.
Cross Vane Downstream end of riffle, to hold grade and encourage scour into pool.
Also used to form step pools.
Constructed Riffle Through straight, steeper sections to provide grade control.
Log Vane Through meander bend to turn water.
Cover Log In pools to provide habitat features.

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-8

I

I

I

Table 6.4
Proposed In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

At tail of riffles for grade control.
In areas of constraint where pattern manipulation not feasible.

I

I

6.4.1 Root Wad

I

Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus a
portion o(the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away from the
bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream bank and
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food source for aquatic insects. Root
wads will be placed throughout project reaches.

6.4.2 Brush Mattress

I

I

Brush mattresses are placed on bank slopes on the outside of meander bends for stream bank protection.
Layers of live, woody cuttings are wired together and staked into the bank. Brush mattresses help to
establish vegetation on the bank to secure the soil. Once the vegetation is established, the cover also
provides habitat for wildlife.

6.4.3 Cross Vanes

I

I

Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and protect
the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two rock or log vanes joined by a center structure installed
perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the stream bed.
Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles.
These structures will be placed in the main channel at both the upstream and downstream project limits.
They are also a critical component of the restoration of the high slope step pool channels.

6.4.4 Constructed Riffle

I

I

A constructed riffle consists of the placement of coarse bed material in the stream at the specific riffle
locations along the profile. A buried log at the upstream and downstream end of each riffle may be used
to control the slope through the riffle in steeper sections. The purpose of this structure is to provide grade
control and establish riffle habitat. Constructed riffles will be placed throughout all reaches. In the
higher slope reaches, the constructed riffles and cross vanes will be intermixed to provide diversity of
structure and in-stream habitat.

I

I

6.4.5 Log Vane

I

A log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-half to
two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream
flow intersects the bank at an acute angle in a meander bend. Log vanes will be placed in the larger, low
slope channels on the project site.

6.4.6 Cover Log

I

A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. The log is
buried into the outside bank of the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the
pool and may be buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement
of the cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the pool.

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-9

I

I

I

I

This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will be used on all
reaches, but fewer will be placed in the small and steep reaches because the habitat value is not as great.

I

6.4.7 J-Hook

I

I-hooks are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and protect the
stream bank. I-hooks used for Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch consist of boulders and logs that forms
a "J" installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the
stream bed.

I

6.4.8 Angled Log Step Pool

I

Angled log step pools consist of a header log and a footer log placed in the bed of the stream channel,
perpendicular to stream flow. The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the structure to
prevent erosion and bypassing of the structure. The logs are installed flush with the channel bottom
upstream of the log. The footer log is placed to the depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure from
being undermined. The logs are placed at alternating angles to the bank to diversify the low flow path
and allow micro pool habitats to form between steps. This structure provides bedform diversity,
maintains the channel profile, and provides pool and cover habitat. Angled log step pools will be used
section of the restoration where stream pattern cannot be implemented.

I

I

6.5 Enhancement of Wetland Hydrology

I

To maintain wetland hydrology at Sites I and 8 (Figure 6.1), the stream will be restored and the old
channel will be fully to partially filled. Enhancement of both sites will include invasive species removal
(multiflora rose, privet, etc.) and subsequent planting of native wetland plant species. Areas of high
marsh and permanent open water will be established in site I to diversify the wetland topography and
provide additional aquatic refuge habitat.

Surface flows from the adjacent hillslopes will be diverted into the restored wetland area where
topography allows. Overland flow will be diverted over the floodplain area, where it will be intercepted
by wetland micro topography (surface storage areas) and allowed to infiltrate into the soil column,
maintaining a higher water table.

For Site I, grading activities will focus primarily on creating microtopography within the wetland
boundary and adjusting surface flow patterns to improve hydrologic inputs to the site. Some minor
surface roughening may be included to maximize surface storage potential at the site.

The topography of site I will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites and will include
the restoration of minor depressions (microtopography) that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions
and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques will be instrumental to the restoration of
site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing
higher water table conditions across the enhancement site. Microtopography contributes to the properties
of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956;
Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995).

6.6 Vegetation

I

I

I

I

I

I

Native riparian and wetland vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer and wetland areas.
Also, areas of invasive vegetation such as kudzu, privet and bamboo will be managed so as not to threaten
the newly-established native plants within the conservation easement.

6.6.1 Stream Buffer and Wetland Vegetation

I

I

One-inch caliper trees, bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will be planted within
designated areas ofthe conservation easement. A buffer will be established along all restored stream

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-10

I

I

I

I

reaches. In general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8
foot by 8 foot grid. Planting of bare-root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the dormant
season, with all trees installed prior to March 20, during the year of construction.

Species selection for re-vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program
(WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Selected species for hardwood re-vegetation are presented in
Table 6.5 and 6.6 below. Tree species selected for wetland and stream restoration areas will be generally
weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil
is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive
in soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species
are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the
growing season (WRP, 1997).

Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be
matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.

Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will be
sufficiently disked and loosened prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a dibble
bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently
deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted
around trees once they have been planted to avoid drying out.

Live stakes will be installed randomly two to three feet apart using triangular spacing or at a density of
160 to 360 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.

Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 6.6 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates which will be used. A mixture is provided for floodplain wetland
and floodplain non-wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or browntop
millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. The permanent seed mixture
specified for floodplain areas will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored
stream channel and is intended to provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat
value. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream
channels, providing long term stability.

Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These
areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is
applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre.
Ifapplied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of brown top millet, applied at a rate
of 45 pounds per acre.

Bare-root and I" caliper trees and live stake species selected for revegetation of the restoration site are
listed in Table 6.5. Table 6.6 summarizes the permanent seed mixtures and hardwood forest palette for
the wetland enhancement site. Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-11

I

I

I

I

Common Name Scientific Name Percent Size
Planted by
Species or
Quantity
Streambank Planting Zone- 3' a.c. on riffle banks and outside of meander bends
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 30% Live Stake
Silky willow Salix sericea 20% Live Stake
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 20% Live Stake
Tag alder Alnus serrulata 20% BRffubling
Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 10% Live Stake
Floodplain Planting Zone
Shrubs 6' C.C.
Tag alder Alnus serrulata 20% BRffubling
Beautyberry Callicarpia americana 15% BRffubling
Winterberry holly /lex vertici/lata 15% BRffubling
Virginia sweetspire /tea virginica 15% BRffubling
Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 15% BRffubling
Arrowood viburnum Viburnum dentatum 20% BRffubling
Trees - Spacing 10' C.C.
River birch Betula nigra 30% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 40% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Upper Bank Planting Zones
Shrubs/Small Trees - Spacing 6' C.C.
Redbud Cercis canadensis 15% BRffubling
Deciduous Holly /lex decidua 15% BRffubling
Virginia sweetspire /tea virginica 15% BRffubling
Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 15% BRffubling
Arrowwood Viburnum Viburnum dentatum 25% BRffubling
Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum prunifolium 15% BRffubling
Trees - Spacing 12' C.C.
River birch Betula nigra 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 30% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 15% BRffubling/1 "Caliper*

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Table 6.5
Proposed Bare-Root, Live Stake, Shrub, and Tree Species
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

'ThIrty percent of the specIes Installed should be I" Caliper trees.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-12

I

I

I

Table 6.6
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture and Tree Species
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

Common Scientific Name Percent of Seeding Size Wetness
Name Mixture Density Tolerance
(Ibs/acre)
Riparian/Wetland Seed Mix
Redtop bent Agrostis stolonifera 30% 3.0 - FACW
grass
Hop sedge Carex lupulina 5% 0.5 - OBL
Shallow sedge Carex lurida 5% 0.5 - OBL
Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 20% 2.0 - OBL
River oats Chasmanthium latifolium 5% 0.5 - FAC-
Deertongue Dichanthelium 30% 3.0 - FACW
grass landestinum
Swamp Helianthus angustifolius 5% 0.5 - FAC +
sunflower
Soft rush Juncus effucus 10% 1.0 - FAC W+
Fall Panic Panicum dichotomiflorum 10% 1.0 - FACW
grass
Switch grass Panicum virgatum 30% 3.0 - FAC +
Wetland Tree Species (planting density to be 475 stems per acre)
River birch Betula nigra - - BR/Tubling FACW
Bitternut Carya cordiformis - - Container FAC
Hickory
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata - - Container FACW
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana - - BR/Tubling FAC
Green Ash Fraxinus pennylvanica - - BR/Tubling FACW
Black Walnut Juglans nigra - - BR/Tubling FAC U
Tulip tree Uriodendron tulipifera - - BR/Tubling FAC
Umbrella tree Magnolia tripetala - - Container FAC
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica - - BR/Tubling FAC
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis - - BR/Tubling FAC W-
White Oak Quercus alba - - BR/Tubling FACU
Water Oak Quercus nigra - - BR/Tubling FAC
Overcup Oak Quercus Iyrata - - Container OBL
Swamp Quercus michauxii - - BR/Tubling FAC
chestnut oak
Willow oak Quercus phellos - - BR/Tubling FAC W-
Swamp red Quercus shumardi - - Container FAC W-
oak
Black Willow Salix nigra - - Live Stake OBL

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-13

I

I

I

6.6.2 Invasive Species Removal

In addition to large populations of privet in the floodplain at the confluence of Muddy Creek and
Campbell Creek, there are isolated areas of invasive plants, such as mimosa, multiflora rose, privet and
english ivy throughout the remaining areas of the project along both Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch.
These areas will be removed during grading activities and monitored so that these invasive species do not
threaten the newly-planted riparian vegetation.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

6-14

I

I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---. --.--..-

7 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring data collected and evaluated for the project site will follow the June 2005 edition of Charlotte-
Mecklenburg's CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document, and will include photo reference sites,
vegetation survival/development analysis, and geomorphic channel stability analysis. Post-restoration
monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document project
success.

7.1 Stream Monitoring

Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted each year to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross
sections), pattern and in-stream structures (plan view survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and
photographic documentation on Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches and on Enhancement Level
2 reaches that have had their bankfull channel altered. The methods used and any related success criteria
are described below for each parameter.

7.1.1 Bankfull Events

The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a crest
gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the restored
channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gage will be
checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.

One bankfull flow event must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period.

7.1.2 Cross Sections

Four permanent cross sections will be installed per stream reach with two cross-sections located at a
representative riffle and two at a representative pool. Each cross section will be marked on both banks
with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross
sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year- to-year data. The annual cross-
section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of
water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification System.

There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or
erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). All monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.

7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile

A longitudinal profile will be conducted for the entire length of the project. Measurements will include
thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the
head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and at the maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied
to a permanent benchmark.

The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

7-1

I

I

should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type.

7.1.4 Bed Material Analyses

I

I

Bed material analysis will not be completed for monitoring purposes since the median grain size is sand.
It is unlikely that there will be any change in the grain size distribution from pre- to post-construction
(long-term) conditions.

7.1.5 Photo Reference Sites

I

I

Photographs will be used to qualitatively document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for five years following construction. Reference photos
will be taken once a year. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet.
Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site
are monitored in each monitoring period.

Lateral reftrellce photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section.

Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.

Stnlctllre photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored stream.
Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.

Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should
indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.

I

I

I

I

7.2 Wetland Monitoring

I

Wetland enhancement does not require a 5-year monitoring period; however, reference photos with a
description of the site should be taken, documented, and submitted to the USACE and DWQ, along with
the yearly monitoring report.

I

7.3 Vegetation Monitoring

I

Successful restoration of the vegetation on a stream and wetland mitigation site is dependent upon
hydrologic restoration, active planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the
native plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring
quadrants will be installed across the restoration site, as directed by the February 2005 CSWS Mitigatioll
MOIll'tonitg GlIidallce LJocllmellt. Three permanent quadrants will be measured each year, while three
temporary quadrants will be randomly plotted from year to year. Each quad will extend from the outward
limit of the conservation easement on the left side of the stream to the outward limit of the conservation
easement on the right side of the stream. Each quad will be sixteen feet wide and will be placed at an
equal distance from its associated quadrants and along the stream.

I

I

I

Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf-out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be
provided and will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be
calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that
they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

7.2

I

I

I

At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated. For
each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated
between July and November.

Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the the 80%
survival of the planted species after the 5 years. The interim measure of vegetative success for the site
will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the
monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of260 5-year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. While measuring species density is the
current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on restoration projects, species density
alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation
monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices to assess overall
vegetative success.

I

I

I

I

7.4 Reporting Methods

I

An as-built (year I post-construction) and subsequent monitoring (years 2 - 5 post-construction) reports
will be developed and will include benchmark elevations, cross sections, profiles, photographs, plot
locations, a description of initial species composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The
monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria referenced in the previous sections. Stream morphology and vegetation will
be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for
five years, or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Monitoring reports will be
prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the City. The monitoring reports will
include:

I

I

I

. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance
activities;

I

· GIS maps including the as-built locations of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points,
and transects;

I

. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations;

. Bankfull verification data;

. Vegetative data;

· Identification of any invasion by undesirable plant species, including quantification of the extent
of invasion of undesirable plants by either stem counts, percent cover, or area, whichever is
appropriate;

· A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism;

. Wildlife observations; and

. Raw data.

I

I

I

7.5

Maintenance Issues

I

Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:

· Projects without established, woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from
floods than those with a mature, hardwood forest.

· Projects with sandy, non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than cohesive
soils or soils with high gravel and cobble content.

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

7-3

I

I

I

· Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.

· Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.

· Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.

· Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.

· The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer
can be established.

Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the as-
built and monitoring reports. The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have
necessitated maintenance will be discussed.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

7-4

I

I

I

I

I

8 Storm Water Best Management Practice Design

I

8.1 Design Approach

The primary objective of the water quality design is to construct BMPs that will reduce total suspended
solids and phosphorus loads to Muddy Creek and Eastland Branch. The proposed designs for all BMP
sites follow the "Mecklenburg County BMP Design Manual." However, for initial surface area sizing,
the NCDENR BMP Design Manual has been cited. The proposed design includes the following BMPs
and their corresponding elements:

I

I

Table 8.1
BMP Design Summary Table
Mdd C. *W~ hedR, t t,' PI.

I

Drainage % Time of Removal TSS
Site Area Impervious Concentration SAlDA Efficiency Removed
acres - minutes - % Ibs/year
Site 4 28.6 17 16.6 0.35 < 85 1,007
Site 9A 8.1 49 13.7 2.47 85 1,037
Site 98 13.3 70 19.6 3.38 85 3,090
Site 1 0 13.9 32 15.8 3.45 85 987

I

I

I

Site 4 - Cedarwood Park Wetland

I

Site 4 is a 0.1 O-acre wetland in Cedarwood Park on Reddman Road (Figure 8.1). Natural upland
topography and a small earthen dam near the northern park boundary define the wetland boundary. The
earthen dam has been breached, and all storm water is routed through an incised channel originating at the
breach. Negative impacts to the wetland occur from un-stabilized trails within the park and adjacent
overland flows that contribute significant sediment loads to the system.

The wetland enhancement portion of this project consists of the reconstruction of the incised channel at
the breach to improve wetland hydrology and pollutant removal in the wetland. Improvements include a
simple weir outlet structure. The structure is trapezoidal with a wider base than the existing channel,
constructed of stone for stability, and set with a flow line equal to existing ground elevation. The existing
wetland will be excavated with an average depth of2-feet of material removed. The design and re-
construction of the breached dam is not intended to create a storm water management facility. Rebuilding
the earthen dam will enhance existing wetland functions such as wildlife habitat, flood attenuation, and
sediment removal. Preservation of the existing trees in the wetland and the replanting of understory
species will improve wetland habitat and aesthetic value of the site.

The stabilization of park trails will serve to reduce onsite sediment contributions from entering the
wetland and allow native wetland vegetation to proliferate. Stabilization measures include the installation
of water bars on all trails to divert storm water and prevent the development of concentrated flow patterns
that lead to erosion.

I

I

I

I

I

Site 9A - Constructed Wetland

I

Site 9A is a BMP wetland located along the reach 6 of Eastland Branch (Figure 8.2). The site treats storm
water from the nursing home complex and adjacent parking area. The drainage area is 8.1 acres and
consists of a mixture of residential land use and open space with an impervious cover of approximately 49

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

8-1

I

I

I

I

percent. The proposed surface area of the wetland is approximately 0.20 acres (SA/DA ratio is 2.47)
which is larger than the surface area required by the NCDENR BMP Design Manual. The NCDENR
BMP Design Manual specifies an SA/DA ratio of approximately 2.03 for BMP construction at a site with
this drainage area. This ratio has been exceeded and can be credited with 85% influent TSS reduction.
The Mecklenburg County BMP Manual specifies that runofffrom the first inch of precipitation (first
flush) to be held within the BMP for at least 48 hours. The design meets this criterion. The runoff
volume from the channel protection storm is also adequately stored. The proposed wetland design has an
outlet structure consisting of a concrete riser, a channel protection orifice, and a water quality orifice
located at the permanent pool elevation. The top of the riser is located 3.5 feet above the permanent pool
elevation. An emergency spillway has been added to allow the 50-year, 6-hour storm to pass without
over topping the embankment. The wetland geometry avoids existing utilities, wetlands, and captures
runoff from three storm water pipe networks.

An additional feature of the wetland includes the construction of a forebay. Maintenance will be required
to assure the wet detention basin achieves maximum pollutant removal efficiency. Routine maintenance,
twice a year (spring and fall) will be required. Maintenance for the vegetation should include invasive
species removal, and pruning of native species. These maintenance practices will ensure a diverse plant
population and prevent decaying leaf matter within the wet detention basin. Non-routine maintenance
will be required to remove sediment (dredging) within the forebay. Sediment should be dredged from the
forebay when the original depth has been reduced by 25%. Frequency offorebay dredging will depend
upon the sediment supply of the watershed, but is anticipated to occur between 5-10 years. A permanent
access road will be constructed for maintenance of the forebay. A drainpipe will be installed near the
outlet structure for complete drainage of the structure. This will be controlled by a gate valve located in
the embankment between the structure and the creek and will be accessible during large events.

Site 98 - Constructed Wetland

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Site 9B is a BMP wetland located along reaches 7 and 8 of Eastland Branch (Figure 8.3). The site treats
storm water from the adjacent parking area and office complex. The drainage area is 13.3 acres and
consists of high density commercial land use with an impervious cover of approximately 70 percent. The
proposed surface area of the wetland is approximately 0.45 acres (SA/DA ratio is 3.38) which is larger
than the surface area required by the NCDENR BMP Design Manual for wetland construction. The
NCDENR BMP Design Manual specifies an SA/DA ratio of approximately 2.88 for BMP construction at
a site with this drainage area. This ratio has been exceeded and can be credited with 85% influent TSS
reduction. The Mecklenburg County BMP Manual specifies that runofffrom the first inch of
precipitation (first flush) to be held within the BMP for at least 48 hours. The design meets this criterion.
The runoff volume from the channel protection storm is also adequately stored. The proposed wetland
design has an outlet structure consisting of a concrete riser, a channel protection orifice, and a water
quality orifice located at the permanent pool elevation. The top of the riser is located just above the peak
of the I-year, 24-hour storm event (channel protection). An emergency spillway has been added to allow
the 50-year, 6-hour storm to pass without over topping the embankment. The wetland geometry avoids
existing utilities, wetlands, and capture runoff from the storm pipe.

An additional feature of the wetland includes the construction of a forebay. Maintenance will be required
to assure the wet detention basin achieves maximum pollutant removal efficiency. Routine maintenance,
twice a year (spring and fall) will be required. Maintenance for the vegetation should include invasive
species removal, and pruning of native species. These maintenance practices will ensure a diverse plant
population and prevent decaying leaf matter within the wet detention basin. Non-routine maintenance
will be required to remove sediment (dredging) within the forebay. Sediment should be dredged from the
forebay when the original depth has been reduced by 25%. Frequency of fore bay dredging will depend
upon the sediment supply of the watershed, but is anticipated to occur between 5-10 years. A permanent
access road will be constructed for maintenance of the forebay. A drainpipe will be installed near the

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

8-2

I

I

I

I

I

outlet structure for complete drainage of the structure. This will be controlled by a gate valve located in
the embankment between the structure and the creek and will be accessible during large events.

I

Site 10 - Water Quality Pond

Site 10 includes an existing pond bordering the left floodplain of Muddy Creek located immediately
downstream of the Reddman Road crossing (Figure 8.4). The drainage area is 13.9 acres and consists of
medium density residential land use with an impervious cover of approximately 32 percent. The
proposed surface area of the pond is approximately 0.48 acres (SA/DA ratio is 3.45) which is larger than
the surface area required by the NCDENR 8MP Design Manual for new pond construction. The
NCDENR 8MP Design Manual specifies an SA/DA ratio of approximately 1.15 for 8MP construction at
a site with this drainage area. This ratio has been exceeded and can be credited with 85% influent TSS
reduction.

I

I

I

The Mecklenburg County 8MP Manual specifies that runofffrom the first inch of precipitation (first
flush) to be held within the 8MP for at least 48 hours. The design meets this criterion. The runoff
volume from the channel protection storm is also adequately stored. The proposed wetland design has an
outlet structure consisting of a concrete riser, a channel protection orifice, and a water quality orifice
located at the permanent pool elevation. The top of the riser is located just above the peak of the I-year,
24-hour storm event (channel protection). An emergency spillway has been added to allow the 50-year 6-
hour storm to pass without over topping the embankment. The location of the pond has been relocated
and configured to accommodate the proposed Mecklenburg County green way and Mecklenburg County
8MP design criteria.

Other improvements include the construction of a forebay and aquatic shelf. Maintenance will be
required to assure the wet detention basin achieves maximum pollutant removal efficiency. Routine
maintenance, twice a year (spring and fall) will be required for aquatic shelf vegetation. Maintenance for
the vegetation should include invasive species removal, and pruning of native species. These
maintenance practices will ensure a diverse plant population and prevent decaying leaf matter within the
wet detention basin. Non-routine maintenance will be required to remove sediment (dredging) within the
forebay. Sediment should be dredged from the forebay when the original depth has been reduced by
25%. Frequency offorebay dredging will depend upon the sediment supply of the watershed, but is
anticipated to occur between 5-10 years. A permanent access road will be constructed for maintenance of
the forebay. A drainpipe will be installed near the outlet structure for complete drainage of the structure.
This will be controlled by a gate valve located in the embankment between the structure and the creek and
will be accessible during large events.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

8-3

I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I

I

9 References

I

I

Andrews, E. D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material. Geological SOCtelj'
0/ America glllletin94: 1225-1231.

Bledsoe, Brian P., C. C. Watson, and D. S. Biedenharn. 2002. Quantification of incised channel evolution
and equilibrium. JA WRA 38, No 3: 861-870.

Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource division in an understory herb community: Responses to temporal and
microtopographic gradients. The American Natllralist 110 (974): 679-693.

Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Exp. Stn. Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4. Washington, DC. 79 pp. + app.

Budd, W.W, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream corridor management in the
Pacific Northwest: 1. Determination of stream corridor widths. Environmental Management.

Bunte, K. and S. Abt. 200 I. Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size distributions in wadable
gravel- and cobble-bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, hydraulics, and streambed monitoring.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 428 pp.

Buol, S.W., F. D. Hole, and R. J. McCracken. 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State
University Press. 446 pp.

Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. July 13, 1994.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services. 2005. CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document.
Charlotte, NC.

City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, Storm Water Services. July 2007. Mecklenburg County Best
Management Practices Design Manual. Charlotte, NC.

Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, c.R. Thorne, PJ. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington,
DC.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Craft, C. B., and W. P. Casey. 2000. Sediment and nutrient accumulation in floodplain and depressional
freshwater wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands 20, No.2 (June 2000): 323-332.

Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
(htto:/ /www.wes.armV.mil/el/wetlands/odfs/wlman87 .pdt)

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISR WG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.

Goldsmith, R., Milton, DJ., and Horton, J.W. 1985. Geologic Map of the Charlotte lOx 20 Quadrangle,
North Carolina and South Carolina. USGS Map 1-1251-E, 3p.

Gomez, B. 1991. Bedload transport. Earth-Sctence ReVIews 31: 89-132.

Gosselink, J. G., and R. E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems.
Freshwater Wetlands63-78. R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds. Burlington, MA:
Academic Press.

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

9-1

I

I

I

Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, lM. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and
R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. A WRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.

Inglis, C.c. 1947. Meanders and their bearing on river training. Institution of Civil Engineers. Maritime
and Waterways Engineering Division. Paper No.7: 54 pp.

Jessup, A.G. 2002. Personal communication with W.A. Harman.

King, R. 2000. Effects of single burn events on degraded oak savanna. Ecological Restoration 18:228-
233.

I

I

I

I

Knighton, D. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. New York: Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc.

_' 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes - A New Perspective. London: Arnold Publishers.

Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.

Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and l P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. New York:
Dover Publications, Inc.

Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lilly, l P. 1981. The blackened soils of North Carolina: Their characteristics and management for
agriculture. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. Technical Bulletin No. 270.

Lutz, H. l 1940. Disturbance of forest soil resulting from the uprooting of trees. Yale University School
of Forestry. Bulletin No. 45.

Mausbach, M. J., and J. L. Richardson. 1994. Biogeochemical processes in hydric soil formation.
ClIrrent Topics in Wetland giogeochemistry I (1994 ):68-124.

McCandless, T. L. 2003. Maryland stream survey: Bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of
streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the valley and ridge hydrologic regions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Annapolis, MD.

Mitsch, W.J., and lG. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. 920 pp.

NatureServe Conservation Status Factors. 20 Feb 1997.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. 2007. NC
and EPA Criteria Table. August 29, 2007.
htto:/ /h2o.enr .state.nc. us/ csu/ documents/ncandeoatab le290807 000. odf

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2005.
Stormwater gest Management Practices Malll/a/. Raleigh, Nc.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2004. List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. Edited by Franklin and Finnegan. Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation and
Community Affairs. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 2003. Standard operating
procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. Biological Standards Unit, Water Quality Section. July 2003.
Raleigh, NC.

NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD), Division of Land
Resources. 1985. The Geologic Map of North Carolina.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

9-2

I

I

I

Reed, Jr., and Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National
Summary. US Fish & Wildlife Service. BioI. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.

Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Southeast (Region 2).
USDIIUSFWS BioI. Rept. 88 (26.2).

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.

_' 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.

_' 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference
on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, EJ. Langendoen, and F.D.
Shields, Jr., eds. 12-22.

_' 1998. The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on
River Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.

_' 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.

_' 200 I b. The cross-vane, w-weir and j-hook vane structures... their description, design and
application for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August, 2001.

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.

Scherrer, E. 2000. Using microtopography to restore wetland plant communities in Eastern North
Carolina. MS Thesis. Forestry Department, North Carolina State University.

Schiechtl, H.M., and R. Stern. 1994. Watercourse Bioengineering Techniques. Cambridge: Blackwell
Sciences.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Schumm, S.A. 1960. The shape of alluvial channels in relation to sediment type. US Geological Survey.
Professional Paper 352-B. Washigton, DC.

Sharitz, R. R., R. L. Schneider, and L. C. Lee. 1990. Composition and regeneration of a disturbed river
floodplain forest in South Carolina. Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts: Illustrated by
Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems. J. G. Gosselink, L. C. Lee, and T. A. Muir, eds. 195-218.
Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Slllftce Processes
and LandfOrms 14( I): 11-26.

Skaggs, R. W., D. Amatya, R.O. Evans, and J. E. Parsons. 1991. Methods for evaluating wetland
hydrology. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 91-2590. St. Joseph, MO.

Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam, and R. O. Evans. 1991 a. A computer simulations study of poco sin
hydrology. Wetlands, Special Issue, II: 399-416.

Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DRAINMOD reference report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage-
water management systems for soils with high water tables. US Department of Agriculture. Soil
Conservation Service. 329 pp.

Soar and Thorne. 2001. Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers. US Army Corps of
Engineers. Engineering Research and Development Center. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory.
ERDC\CHL CR-O 1-1. September, 2001.

Sprecher, S. W. 2000. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands. WRAP Technical Notes

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

9-3

I

I

I

I

Collection, ERDC TN- WRAP-00-02. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS. htto:/ /www.wes.armv.mil/el/wraop/pdf/tnwrapOO-2.odf

United States Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, April 2003. Available URL:
..htto://www.saw.usace.armv.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/streammitigation.html(Accessed January 29,
2007).

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y -87 -1. Environomental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Ilpp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, April 2003. Available URL:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Miti!!ation/streammitigation.html( Accessed January
29, 2007).

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Part 650,
Chapter 19 of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination.

Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. 1996. G. W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F.,
eds. Fort Worth, TX.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1968. Soil Survey of
McDowell County, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Recovery Plan for Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleriPorter).
Atlanta, Georgia. 24 pp.

van Beers, W. F. J. 1970. The auger-hole method: a field measurement of hydraulic conductivity of soil
below the water table. /LR/ glllletinl, rev. ed. Wageningen. 32 pp.

Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.

Wolman, M. G. (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 35, No.6, 951-956.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
RESTORATION PLAN
BAKER ENGINEERING NY, INC.

9-4

I

I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Figures

:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

_STORM
WATER
ServJces ~

~m~
~~~'~y

LEGEND
CJ USGS Hydrologic Unit
.:: NCDWQ Sub-basin
C:J Counties

aker

Figure 1.1: Project [..oclltion Map

2.5

10
Miles

Mecklenburg Count.\'. NC

I
I
I
: I
I
I
I
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
I

I

I

I

I

.""-
STORM
WATER
SIMC"~

=1' .
roJcct Rcachcs

D Watcrshcd Be . I
JU1H.. ary
o

aker

0.25

0.5
Miles

I

I

I

'I

I

I

I

, I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

flc 0
II> -
E c.
-5 ~
C -
GlO '50
-- '0-
cC; -c;
lIJa: 3: a:

I

I

I

I

>>~
-=a.n
; ~~
~::JN
OC .
-JcnC

::
..
o~
~::J"!
o c~
....JCii~

€
s=ON
Dl::J .
c~
i:Ui~

s=>>
Dl_
s:~~
~::J~
II> c~
>Cii~

!>>
Ill:
....
"0-
-0 ::J "!
Oc~
...-^
"'U1~

!>>
Ill:
....
Cl>0~
"tJ:JC'!
o c'-
...-^
"'U1~

.!,..
Ill:
....
Cl>o~
"'tJ:::I~
OC'-
...-^
"'U1~

~
o~
~::J"!
oC'-
_.cii~

@

o

G

G

G

8

o

o

::
..
o
::J
C
en

.
8-
o
"'.

~I 8 t.
~ ..;

J':

a I 8 r_
Ol v
c
e
~q j.
8. .0
o
"' 01
~cH
.0

01
. M
NO
O.
.0

" N
g" ~ r
e v

~I
"'

.01
~8 r-
oo

N
a I ;;
E!' v
~ . en
NM
00
00

I...

a
a.
51 01
........SL..
o.
.0

a N
E!"~
e v

~1~8L
~ d ci

a ~
g'1 0 E:...
e v

a . '"
g.'Z8r
";j; od

a . '"
g> I 6 ~ t..
e dd
a ~
g., 0 r
"' ^

--

-

C>
C.
o
en

,..
II> _ ..
- G.I __-
~.l2 >---0 0
.g f! i ~
o Cl UI UI

c:
GI
Cl
en
o
a:
C;
e
::J
o
rn

;;;
;:J
..
~
o
.
..
u
.c5
~;:
--
Ifll
uil
.~ .
..J~
~l~
> ...00:
;!:lI!!l
~r'
I&: j
~rf~
.2 c'.!l
~~~
._ 1: ~
~~ c
~].~
!je~
~~il
..:! 00:
'Ii ~ Ii
"'~ g
~8'"
~JJ

ii:.5.5

....r:::s:::
. 0 CO
N.-~
CIl1iiQ
:; ~ s:::
en'oo :2
.- rn CO
U-col..;;
-0
t)"ii)
E Q)
coO::
0)'0
~ Q)
cn..s:::
r::: ~
O)~
~~
c:::~
Q)
~
(,)
-S
~
~

CD
en
en
......

>-
OJ
o
o
....
'0
>-
I
'0
r:::
..!2
J2
~
E;;
o
'0
.t::
e-
~
"-
Q)
;:,.
i:t
'0
.92
2:
"C
-i
'0
'S
ro
o

r:::
Q)
C>
en
o
c:::
Q)
~
::l
o
en

I

I

I
II

I

~
E
......
....
QJ
~

I

Ln
~

I

Q)
a.
o
Vi
E
ro
Q)
~
.oJ
VI

I

I

I

I

I

Q)
.~
VI
.oJ
C
Q)
.S
"0
Q)
VI

I

I

E
E
d

I

I

I

I

I

~
~~l
~~'

".,
;:,
cc,
~.
l"fJ ,
o<C

Z
o
~
o
<(
CC
\D
UJ
0'
T

C'!Z't::
N'- co
Ql:6ii:
~ .s t::
en C/) :2
U::E~
III 0
Ql....
..... CIJ
-Q)
C/)a::
~"O
'- Q)
U..c::
:fi ~
:J Q)
c;::....
.E~
~-lc
o Q)
U~
~()
~
"0
~

1.0
1.0
en
T'"

Q)
c
ro
-l

t.;
Q)
it::
<t:

I

I

I

Class I. Sinuous, Premodlfled
h<he

he = critical bank height

) a direction of bank or
bed movement

I

~

I

I

I

Class II. Channelized
h<he

floodplain

ILr

Class III. Degradation
h<he

Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h>he

terrace

I

slumped material

I

Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>he

terrace

I

t
h
!

Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<he

I

Class I

I

Class IV

I

precursor
nick point

Class V

Class VI

ow

I

. over steepened reach

. aggradation zone .

I

So=c: Simon. 1989: US Anny COlpS of Enginecrs. 1990.
Fig. 1.14 - Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Re3toration: Principles. ProcesSC$, and Practices. 10/98.
Intcnlgency Stream RcswnltioD Working Group (FISRWG)(IS Fedenll agencies of the US).

I

I

Source: Simon, 1989

Figure 2.3
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I
I 'Otlllt:::
N'Qi-S!
CIlCQ
~ 1ij t:::
C),C ~
I .- u ~
lI..U
Ql.2
I~ III CI)
,<(, ~'X' "g&
~' IV:;.: ::'0
'j'<f:. ~\"" o CD
I -~
"~ ::l ~
W:' ~ <l>
I'\"'Z <= +:S
~" 0 'C; Cl]
I ,"{: '/\"" a: "g~
I ~~ C I~"
! ,~(( en Q..:c
I c 1/~,,~~ .2 IV c:: C CD
I I 0 0 o ~
[, '<(', <(. '<?' III U ~~ ..J
III .. (\l ~u
.. I ~ ":/ Ql
IV K, '<(',. > Q, ~'/ o€
> . ~.. c c ~ Ui'O
C 0 ~~
I 0 U IV
U U .~
cg cg :a
0 0
.. .. Ie
~ ll. .. ~
rn <l>
I -- -- -- :>
'a Ql .... c::
,Q
U
<l>
C/)
en
I en
0
U
I
I
u , - - - ,
II
r__...... 1/
I ( ",." I ~ c:
,1 '- 0
, <l> ~o
,- I :>
I - ,-, c:: o_
m -",
\ II> <Il
\ u: al E
0:: <Il
\ .- .816'
I .c",
I \ a:l U <ll
I \y -0 ~:E
c c:: C C a",
0 0 .2 m 0 u 0.0
~ CL <(<Il,...
III -0 := III III 'iiig~
.. c .. ..
Ql 0 12 Ql Ql .~ @?-
I > CL u.. > > o ~ ~
c c c o '" a
0 0 0 3 .c 0,_
U U U a.O,!(!
<ll o ~ g
u u u :> E-::
0 0 0 c:: 0.... <Il
Q alO",
I .. .. .. c:: U Cll1l'"
~ ll. 'ct; ll. ct; <ll Ol<ll
0- 0- C/) ~~B
-- =c "0 "8 en
Ie 0 U en . <Il :..,
0 i.i: 0 0 ....J<Il.o
u:: u:: U ~e~
I ~~ , ~~ , <llQ-e
s Z J 0, _ :::.
< - I . en-
CO U ",'" U ~ '" c: ~ l1l
'" U ",'" &~Q
'"
'" lIJ'- CI)
'" 00:: <Il
0:: 'C Q.
I ". 3l ~
~ '0 ~
::::l .s '"
0_ <ll
(1)0.....
9'I!OOI-J:J'llV900l00l90M
I
I

I

I

I

Stable Channel

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Incised Channel

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

Channel Dimension Measurements

Bankfull Elevation is associated with the
channel forming discharge. It is the point
where channel processes and flood plain
processes begin.

Bankfull width: the distance between the
left bank bankfull elevation and the right
bank bankfull elevation

Bankfull mean depth: the average depth
from bankfull elevation to the bottom of the
stream channel

Max depth (dmax): the deepest point within
the cross-section measured to the bankfull
elevation

Width to Depth Ratio: Bankfull width f
Bankfull mean depth

Bank Heiqht Ratio: Bank height (measured
from top of bank to the bottom of the
stream channel) f the max depth of the
bankfull elevation (dmax)

Flood Prone Width: Width measured at the
elevation of two times (2x) the maximum
depth at bankfull (dmax)

Entrenchment Ratio: Floodprone width f
bankfull width

Figure 2.5
Channel Dimension Measurements
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t:
o

u
u
u
en

d

u
.....

...
U

t:

::0

'"
U
o

...c:
u
d
(I)
O::...c:
(I) U
U ...
t: d
(l) (I)
...en
~
(I)
0::

C'.
...c: (I)
u 0.
d 0
(I) V-
...- '"
(I).g >-,
U"'" (I)
t:"'=
~ d d
.(I)...c: >-
_.....(1)
~.;: E
.. d
dE'"
~d~
(I) (I)
...c::(1)
-CI':lC
'" 0.'-
_ ::s'~

...c: >-
IJ t;
d.-
(l) >-
0:: (I)
(1)0::
U (I)
t: '"
iU ~
.....0
,(I) d
- .....
(I) ~
0::0

CDc::t:::
N.Q (\J
Q)-Q-
... U
~ (I) t:::
tn(l)O
._ en :.:::
u.ro~
.;:: 0
(I)....
_ CI)
.- Q)
uO::
c::'O
C)Q)
'ii) -c::
(I) ~
O~
~
..lc:
Q)
~
o
-S
"0
~

I

I
I

I

'\

I

...)\
'I C

~.

l--

I

"

I
I

"
\.

-Q-

"(
:~J
~\ 1\ ....
LL
fT
~
~~> "\. '"
~
<> '"
'"
IIII ~Q: I ..
I ~ ::.
d III
~ ...
, It
: I , ..
.&:
II I 1/ III
I1II "- '" ~
I-l+I- '\'" .~--
- -0 .~ G
~ ~~ "
- ~ O~~ ~
....
'l) ...J
!ii e:! ~
::;J 'Ji\
0 ~ o;J.
~ :5 ~
Q, >; 0 1\ '- )1
2- 01 ~ ~
0
~ ... "0
." 'CO <>. "" Vl~
~ ~ -6 ::> c 11\ 0eS..)
...: f + <'3
...: .... E K~
~ ~ -0 d ;;:-:0 0
c d
:: ~ '" 0'("1:::
~ .. .,. (f, ~
.., .., 00> . ~ (0 "0-...f
~ "O-~ ., 03.. cr. t....
c: c: ~ _~r& ";: ~ * ...: 1
~ <J )
E a 8~~ g .. I\) U .2 lJ) ~
~ '0 '" ~:E ~ ;: - ~:-;;WUJ I .(1
.~ 0 -..,-
> > "'-g~~~ !W:) n
-0 -0 ~ ,g c: ;!! g.oo ~ coi ;;:; i I
;g ,~'g ~ .u lfJ aJ <(II 1I) ~ 0')
8- "0 + .= r-J -=- ~ ~,..... d \J
Q, 0
0 0 "0 I\) 01\) I!J C i.. II II E '- II II
., ., .= :.;.= 8 ~ ~ E'n: ~ ~ E'li::
...J ...J C) I 1\)
. I .g ti. ~ .~ 5.11. g I fJ
<> -0 .
0 <I . e &. .!'i! "& B
. .g 2 ,0 2 t~
U...J ...J
I I IIIII I I I IIIII I Till I ~ ~
0
0
S! ~ ci
~ 8 d
SJ9I;1W~IW' JlllllWll!O ( iiIp!lutd ) ll!W~

I
I
I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

o
~

>-
a..
a.
::>
(f)
'E
(l,)
E
'6
(l,)
(f)
~
~
:.a
('J
U5
L-
(l,)
>
ii:
'0
'E
(l,)
E
(/)
(/)
(l,)
(/)
(/)
<(
"0
(l,)
..c
(/)
L-
(l,)
r5
s:
<(
c....
LU
(f)
;:)
E
e
~
(l,)
>
....
::>
o
(/)
(/)
(l,)
L-
U5
....
('J
Q)
..c
(f)
~o
.-2 ~
U'::
:n
I"-V)
N(f)
~o:::
::><(
.21>.
lJ.. .::.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

j ."
\; .'~11,' ·
n I
I t. '
L
~

H ·
~:.~: I J i'\
;:.~ I~ i'~" 1 ;.

l' I \.,

. ~l '~, '~::\~l
, ~\: lk\.
'!; ,\~~~
~I

. '., ~
o
o
::c
- I
.,

CI
r:
~
'"
.'"
.0
I"
U
~
\I
o
D::
G-
O
..
Q
CI
-
.a
~
o
Q

~~c::
N....~
Q)::::lQ
"'uc::
~ ::::l
C) .... .Q
u:Ci5~
E.E
ro CI)
~~
00"0
t: <ll
-..c::
15 ~
1Jl~
~~
E~
ro <ll
~ ~
o
-S
"0
~

CI
r:
~
~
\I
o
D::

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

JJ\. CWO"."" ''''''"'''' _ <:,,'~

J$

Mecklt-nburll. County, NC

l\trcd:-;

u"'"

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f}

c::::J \\';ltl'r~h('d noumbry

_ Buildin~ (~(I0.J)

~oi]Typt.

L1 (:cB2.~:t'l.:il ~alHly d,ty h',IIl)
_ (,uH,(.cl.:II-Lrh,UlJ.lIlJCl,mplcx

8 DAB.,. l),I\"iJsoll s,m.JY d,,)' hUll
EnB, Enon ,;,mdy In,llB
IlcB,lldelus;U1dylo.lm
" -'IU. .\ton,leiul SCllh
w,\\ater

o I:CD1, Ceol s,tnJy c1,IY hun

_ .\leB, \lccklcnburg tint, s,lIIdy ]o,lIn
L..J Cr, L'rl"'lI tmJ

~ rlydric SOII.~

Figure 3.2: l'rojecl Soil Types

aker

-f:rt'l'ks

$

'.000
'"'

M.:ckl.-ntJurl!. CO'IIlI\", NC

I

~

~ lilo\\' Change I,OCHion<
C Sub\\'ater,hcJ BounJ'ln', "
, l:~

_ BuilJing' (2004)
- Crccb

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

400

BOO
Feet

M<'(,kwllbllr~ COIlllly. NC

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

e Bio.monitoring Sites (2(J04 & 200S) [Jwatershed Boundaries D Parcds

EJ lixisting Wetlands . Buildings (2004) - Creeks
o 200 400 800
P"""""IlI . Feet

I

I

Figur~ 3.4: Bio-monitoring Sampling
SItes and Wetland Locations

.

~.~I

I: ~

aker

I

I

I

I

I
I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f}

I

M.,..kl~"bu,1o: <;''''''1'". Me

I

LEGEND
V EDRSites
L:J Watershed Boundaries

_ Buildings (2004)
- Creeks

Figure 3.5: Potential
Hazardous Waste Sites

= Street~

400 800
Feet

o

aker

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

'I

I

1< lid
a . 't4/l' ~ r
--- ........ II,
Xl C
,
4,0
~ .
~" ,-
.
, .

...

.
.
I
I
. .
I .......~...
. ,.. " :
I ~............ 1t___
Mornin low C. .
.

. .It . . . . . ... . .

c::::=. Reach j
=I\e.ch(,
_Reach 7
~ Reach R
I!!!!!!!!lI!!It Reach I)

F'( l' Proiect Reaches
Igure.... J .
and Cross-Section LocatIOns

....... (:rO:'~H'l'(ti(lI1:'

-Crn'k:o;

C\\'atnshl'd BClUJlllary

aker

+

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t::
0) ctl
~a:
::J t::
U .Q
~~
o 0
'OJ ~
0) 0)
a::: 0::
-'0
c: 0)
0-1::
E ~
'C Q)
0)....
.- ctl
a..~
:g~
= Q)
N e ~
. lIlU
-.tU
~.c-S
::Jt::'O
010=:3
U:Z~

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~

~
1\
\
. iIlII \
. \~.
"\

\I\r ~
~~+-=1~

W\-- --.

-:..\-
~ ---\

- -

--~-
.. - -
- -- --
-------

-f-----

-- -- -

o
o
o

0
0
, I , , , 0
..,. '" -
'" '" <II --
0 t- o V"\ c
C ;.0: ~ ;.0: ~ '" 0 --
(';I \0 <<l r<'\ 0 c: "=
.r:. 0 ..... ~ 0 0 -
..... II :s - II .- 0
::l \ON 0:: N No:: uOO --
II 0:: 0 '"
II 00 '"
>-. >-. '" 0 -
<II .....
o U C C
U -5 O.S! -
.- '"
~ C <II '"
Q) tU tf) QJ
tU - Q) ....
<caS~CDSo~_
O<<l "000::
o >-. C 0::
C_"O <<l_ C
<<l <<l"O -= <<l <<l
.J:Js....~V)..."O
:5~~U3~:5
I I 0
. . -- 0
. . -
-

--

-- - --

-- -- --

iIlII

- -~- -

,

- -

-- f.-I--- l----- -
- ---
-l------ -
-- - --

-- I--- -

- - - r

- -I---

f -

-f-----

-f--- -
- - --I--- -
-- l----- - I------ -

-- --

o

( z lJ) ll;UV (llUO!paS-SSO.l:) ,,".PIUllg

f\
~.
. '~~:-i*
I~~ ~~.If

. ! \ . ..

1\ ·

~

o
o

.--
....
E
'-'
~
OJ
I..
0 <
OJ
~
~
=
.;
I..
~

o

II
I
II
II
I
I

I

.

...

. '

I

,..

,

I

.

I

I

I

I

I

I

.
..
,
.,
.,
,
J
.
,.3
..~
..~
,8

I

~
..
,
,
.
.
.
...
I.
,
.
.
&.
. :-

I

I

I

I

'.

......
~ '.

I

Map Insel

~

M....kknhurll. COllnly. NC

LEGEND
........ I II':C-R;\S ~Iouel Cross-section Stations

C Subwatersheu Hounuanes

_ Huiluings (21111-l)
- <:rccks

I

400

800
Feet

+

aker

I

I

II

II

I

I

,I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

- RC,lCh ,-
_ Re:lch..j.-
Reach 2 _ Reach X
_ RcachS-
Reach ,) -

Figurc 6 1 .
Mudd C . Rcstorati A
y rcck Watcrshcd on pproach
C Restoratio'
harlottc, NC n ProJcct

ProPIlSl'J C
Reach (, ~ .onsef\'atjon I' .
~ Proposed \\. .a'emen!
r77'l . _' ctlanJ J':nhancl'm '
~ [..xl~ritw \\". 1 ent
h 1.:1 anJ
liMP,

I

A

190

I)XII
'".<t

I

aker

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

LEGEND
c=J Constructed Wetland
. Stormdrain Manhole

Storm Sewer

Stream

o

225

Drainage Area

2' Contau rs

10' Contours

V////l ExistingWetland

450
Feet

v

Figure 8.1 Proposed Site 4 BMP .
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Charlotte, NC

aker

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

LEGEND
I : : : : : : : :1 Constructed Wetland
. Manhole
Storm Sewer
Drainage Area

o

,

170

2' Co ntou rs

10' Contours
W//..oI Existing Wetland
Streams

340
'Feet

~

Figure 8.2 Proposed Site 9A BMP
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Charlotte, NC

aker

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

A

I

LEGEND

I. . - . . -I Constructed Wetland~//~ Existing Wetland
· Stormdrain Manhole 2' Contours
Storm Sewer

10' Contours

Drainage Area

Streams

o

,

A

285

570
'Feet

Figure 8.3 Proposed Site 9B BMP
Muddy Creek Watershed Resortation Project
Charlotte, NC

aker

I

I

I

I

.,,:'11I
"-'t
l/.tj.~ ^,.J~
r.J/F. 't "'. ., .
"'tl' . . 't'"
W;';i;. ,.,
... .

I

'o:l;

I

~
-1".
'1
~
. -

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

. .- ..,. '1' .
. -",:;." '

lllo ... ;'

...

..

J
. ~
.... I ,

~~

".

,

.~-

t ,

~jr '. .
~v t

- -

""-' Il

.....-f"

, ,"1l ..,/J'.'
11.

"

,.
rn r,,1'J
.

,)

. ...

"j".

..

~
1:1:>
........

..,.:~

"-
1

c::J Water Quality Pond 2' Contours
· Stormdrain Manholes - 10' Contours

I

- Storm Sewer

I

o

I

155

Drainage Area

310
Feet

A

If

. )
. r'~J:

~~~" J.--
'~t~"
!

~

,-4

~ ~,.,

Jt~,
'?"

.
, -

,;:

~

Figure 8.4 Proposed Site 10 BMP
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Project
Charlotte, NC

aker