NCS000249_Durham SWMP Update App_20190422

City of Durham
Stormwater Management Plan Appendices 01/15/2016

CITY OF DURHAM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES
(revised 2018)

A. City of Durham Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance, 2006
B. City of Durham Stormwater Performance Standards for Development,
effective July 6, 2012
C. City/County UDO Environmental Protection Standards (Article 8), 2017
D. City/County UDO Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance (Sections
3.8, 12.10, 15.1, 15.5), 2018
E. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Site Inspection Protocol
F. Agreement Establishing the Clean Water Education Partnership
G. Authorization of Director of Public Works as Signing Official
H. Key Position Contacts, updated 2018
I. TMDL and Water Quality Limited Pollutants and Causes 2018
J. Public Education Target Pollutants, Sources & Audiences
K. Inventory of Municipal Facilities, Activities and Operations, revised 2018

City of Durham
Stormwater Management Plan Appendices 01/15/2016
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-1
APPENDIX A
City of Durham
Code of Ordinances
Originally adopted November 20, 2006

CHAPTER 70, ARTICLE V
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL

DIVISION 1. GENERALLY

Sec. 70-492. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to further the health, safety and general welfare and
convenience of the public through:
(1) Regulating the use, placement, storage, and management of pollutants in order
to prevent pollution of stormwater;
(2) Limiting pollution of stormwater in the public and private drainage system so as
to limit pollution of the waters of the state and restore, protect, and maintain
better water quality and the benefits that come from better water quality;
(3) Prohibiting illicit discharges and illicit connections to the public and private
drainage system that increase pollution;
(4) Protecting the conveyance capacity of the drainage system by controlling
blockages, and the emission or disposal of substances or effluents, including
sediment, that are injurious to the drainage system;
(5) Complying with the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit issued under the authority of section 402(p) of the clean water act and
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 122.26;
(6) Establishing inspection, surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement and penalty
procedures to the maximum extent authorized under law to achieve the above-
described objectives, and to ensure compliance with this article; and
(7) Authorizing fees necessary to conduct inspections and monitoring of the
stormwater system.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-140), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-493. Definitions.
(a) The acronyms used herein are:
TABLE INSET:

BMP Best Management Practice
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NOI Notice of Intent
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-2
(b) In this article, the following terms and phrases shall be defined as indicated
unless the surrounding context indicates such definition is clearly erroneous. The
definitions shall apply whether the term is used in the singular or in the plural, and
whether or not the term is capitalized.
Best management practice (BMP) means government-approved controls,
including both nonstructural and structural measures that are designed to reduce
the flow of stormwater runoff, or to reduce the amount or concentration of
pollutants that enter stormwater and/or the drainage system. Examples of
nonstructural BMPs include inspections for leaks and spills, general maintenance
and good house keeping practices to prevent pollution, education, and on-site
maintenance of a spill cleanup kit. Examples of structural BMPs are facilities such
as a roofed shed or elevated storage area to keep precipitation or runoff from
reaching raw material storage areas, bioretention cells, and retention and
detention ponds.
Clean Water Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251 et
seq.) and any subsequent amendments thereto.
Director , unless otherwise specified, means the director of the department of
public works of the city or any successor department in which stormwater
services is located, and includes any individual to whom the director delegates
responsibilities under this article.
Discharge means any release, spill, leak, pumping, flow, escape, dumping,
deposit, or disposal of any gas, liquid, semi-solid, or solid substance.
Drainage system means the system of natural and constructed conveyances for
collecting and transporting stormwater, whether publicly or privately owned. It
includes lakes, ponds, rivers, perennial and intermittent streams, connected
wetlands, open ditches, catch basins and other inlets, pipes, sewers, drains,
culverts, and, in addition, created stormwater management facilities that provide
partial treatment by passive means such as wet detention ponds, detention
basins, and stormwater wetlands. The MS4 and waters of the state within the city
are components included within the drainage system, among other components.
Guidelines means the written guidelines of the stormwater services division, or
any successor division responsible for stormwater management, approved by the
director.
Hazardous substance means materials or mixtures containing materials which
pose a physical, environmental, health or safety hazard by virtue of their
ignitable, reactive, corrosive, highly irritating or sensitizing, carcinogenic or toxic
properties. Hazardous substances include, but are not limited to, those
designated pursuant to 33 USC 1321(b)(2)(A), and those listed or defined in 29
CFR 1910.1200, 40 CFR 116, and 40 CFR 261 subpart B.
Illicit connection means any drain, junction, or conveyance, whether on the
surface or subsurface, that can discharge non-stormwater discharges, such as
sewage, process wastewater, or wash water, to the MS4 or to watercourses. Illicit
connections include, but are not limited to, interior floor drains, whether or not
previously allowed under the building code.
Illicit discharge generally means any discharge to the drainage system that is
not composed entirely of stormwater, unless specifically allowed as an
authorized discharge in section 70-513.
Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) means the system of
constructed conveyances, including municipal streets, catch basins, curbs,

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-3
gutters, pipes and ditches owned and operated by the municipality and designed
or used for collecting and conveying stormwater, and which is not intended to be
used to convey sewage or other wastewaters. In the city, the MS4 generally
includes that part of the storm sewer system within street rights-of-way or on
other city owned property.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit means a
permit that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States
issued under the clean water act 33 USC 1242 by the USEPA, or issued by the
NCDENR under authority delegated by USEPA.
Nonstormwater discharge means any discharge to or pollution of the drainage
system that is not entirely from a form of natural precipitation.
Notice of intent or NOI means the notice of intent that is required by the
NPDES stormwater multisector general permit issued by USEPA, or the notice of
intent required by an NPDES general permit issued by the NCDENR.
Person means any individual, partnership, co-partnership, LLC, firm, company,
corporation, unincorporated association, organization, joint stock company,
trust, estate, institution, governmental entity or any other entity that owns a
property, conducts a business, or controls management or activities.
Pollutant means a substance that alters the chemical, physical, biological,
thermal, or radiological integrity of water in a manner that may cause or
contribute to the impairment of waters of the state based on the water quality
classifications assigned under 15A NCAC 2B.0300. Pollutants include, but are not
limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; gasoline and other petroleum fuels;
oil and other automotive fluids; detergents; food waste, including cooking oil
and grease; nonhazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse,
rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, floatables;
insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and other pesticides; fertilizers; soot, slag,
and ash; hazardous substances and wastes; inadequately treated sewage, animal
wastes, fecal coliform, Escheria coli and pathogens; dissolved and particulate
metals; hot water; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building
or structure (including, but not limited to, sediments, slurries, and concrete
rinsates); eroded soils, sediments and particulate matter; and noxious or
offensive matter of any kind.
Pollution and polluted means containing pollutants.
Repeat violation means a violation occurring on the same property, or a
violation by a person that has committed a previous violation, or by an entity in
which a previous person who has committed a violation is part owner or in partial
control. A violation for the purposes of determining a repeat violation includes,
but is not limited to, violations in which the violator has been notified of the
violation by any governmental entity, whether or not any action, remedy, or
penalty has occurred as the result of such violation.
Responsible means having direct or indirect control over the occurrence of an
action, incident, or condition. Responsibility includes the ability to control what
occurs on property through ownership of property, or through ownership,
control, or management of a business, organization, or other entity whose
activities occur on property and cause in part or in whole the action, incident, or
condition. Causation may be through deliberate action or through negligence,
omission, or inattention.

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-4
Stormwater means any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of
water from any form of precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation.
Stormwater pollution prevention plan or SWPPP means a government -
approved plan identifying actual or potential pollutants that could enter the
drainage system at a site, and which describes the best management practices
that will be employed to reduce pollutant discharges to the drainage system.
Wastewater means any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated
stormwater, discharged from a facility after use. Examples include water used for
washing, flushing, cleaning, or in a manufacturing process.
Watercourse means the open channel and open water components of the
drainage system and includes lakes, ponds, rivers, perennial and intermittent
streams, connected wetlands, open ditches, and stormwater management
facilities such as wet detention ponds, detention basins, and stormwater
wetlands.
Waters of the state , as defined in G.S. 143-212(6), means any stream, river,
brook, swamp, lake, sound, tidal estuary, bay, creek, reservoir, waterway, or
other body or accumulation of water, whether surface or underground, public or
private, or natural or artificial, that is contained in, flows through, or borders
upon any portion of this state, including any portion of the Atlantic Ocean over
which the state has jurisdiction.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-141), 11-20-2006)
Secs. 70-494--70-510. Reserved.

DIVISION 2. PROHIBITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 70-511. Illicit discharges; containment of spills and discharges; plans to prevent
discharges.
(a) Prohibition. The discharge, emission, disposal, pouring, or pumping, directly or
indirectly, to the drainage system of any liquid, solid, gas, or other substance, other
than stormwater, is an illicit discharge and is prohibited, except as allowed in
section 70-513. This prohibition also includes airborne emissions where such
emissions deposit pollutants into the drainage system.
(b) Containment of discharges and spills; notice. Persons responsible for property
where an illicit discharge or a spill that may enter the drainage system has occurred
shall immediately take appropriate and timely action to contain the discharge or
spill. Such person shall notify the director within one working day and comply with
all other legally required reporting requirements.
(c) Plans to prevent illicit discharges.
(1) Where the location or manner of storage of pollutants on property may cause
a significant illicit discharge, or where an illicit discharge has previously occurred
on property, the director may require that a responsible person for such property:
a. Develop and maintain BMPs meeting guidelines;
b. Apply for and follow a local permit; and
c. Develop, submit for approval, and follow an SWPPP.
(2) In determining whether to impose such additional requirements the director
shall consider:
a. The history of the property;
b. The likelihood of illicit discharges without additional measures; and
c. The impact of such discharges.

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-5
(3) A permit or plan required under this section is a regulatory requirement and
not a penalty.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-142), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-512. Illicit connections.
(a) Prohibition. Construction, creation, or maintenance of an illicit connection is
prohibited, except that maintenance during a grace period may be allowed as
described in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Examples of illicit connections. Examples of illicit connections include, but are
not limited to, pipes or ditches that carry process wastewater or wash water to the
MS4 or to watercourses, including but not limited to indoor drains whether or not
previously allowed under the building code.
(c) Removal; grace period. Illicit connections that were legal prior to passage of the
ordinance from which this article is derived may continue to exist until June 1, 2007,
at which point they must be removed. However, where the connection has the
potential to discharge hazardous substances, the connection shall be removed
immediately unless an extension is granted. The director may allow an extension of
up to three months for removal of such illicit connection upon a showing of
substantial hardship and minimal risk to the public from the delay.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-143), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-513. Authorized non-stormwater discharges.
The following discharges are not considered illicit discharges prohibited under this
article:
(1) NPDES authorized. Discharges specifically authorized from a property by an
NPDES individual or general permit, a discharge waiver, or a waste discharge order,
provided that the discharger demonstrates full compliance with all requirements of
the permit, waiver, or order in accordance with section 70-514.
(2) Flushing. Discharges of treated potable water used to flush and clean-up a
sewage spill where sewage and flush water are collected and returned to the sanitary
sewer system, and discharges from water line flushing that have been
dechlorinated.
(3) Emergency firefighting or spill removal. Discharges from emergency
firefighting activities, or emergency remediation of a spill of a hazardous substances
authorized by a federal, state, or local government on-scene coordinator, and other
discharges specifically allowed in writing by the director as necessary to protect
public health and safety.
(4) Dye testing. Dye testing using suitable dyes, if verbal notification is given to
the director prior to the test.
(5) Specific listed activities. Certain conditionally exempt discharges listed in this
subsection, provided they are not found to be significant contributors of pollutants.
The director may determine in writing that any such discharge from any property is
no longer exempt if there is evidence of significant pollution from such discharge.
a. Water line flushing;
b. Landscape irrigation;
c. Diverted stream flows;
d. Rising groundwaters;
e. Groundwater infiltration;
f. Uncontaminated pumped groundwater;
g. Discharges from potable water sources;

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-6
h. Foundation drains;
i. Air conditioning condensate (commercial/residential);
j. Irrigation waters (does not include reclaimed water as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0200);
k. Springs;
l. Water from crawl space pumps;
m. Footing drains;
n. Lawn watering;
o. Residential and charity car washing;
p. Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
q. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges;
r. Street wash water;
s. Discharges from flushing and cleaning stormwater conveyances with
dechlorinated, unmodified water.
(6) Wetland dredging. Dredging or filling of wetlands authorized by a state or
federal agency pursuant to the clean water act if conducted in accordance with
applicable requirements.
(7) Mitigation. Mitigation projects approved by a state or federal agency pursuant
to the Clean Water Act if conducted in accordance with applicable requirements.
(8) Piping. Piping of streams or stabilization of stream banks and shorelines in
accordance with requirements of the Durham City-County Unified Development
Ordinance and state or federal authorization and requirements pursuant to the
Clean Water Act.
(9) Farming and forestry. Ongoing farming and forestry activities that are exempt
from permit requirements of section 404 of the clean water act, as specified in 40
CFR 302, conducted in accordance with applicable requirements such as the
provisions of 15A NCAC 2B .0233 regarding riparian buffers in the Neuse River
Basin.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-144), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-514. Demonstration of compliance under NPDES permits, SWPPPs, BMPs,
general NPDES permits, or similar authorizations.
(a) Required documentation, on-site record maintenance. Properties subject to a
plan to control discharges to the drainage system under NPDES permits, SWPPPs,
BMPs, or local permits must demonstrate compliance. The following records shall be
maintained on site and shall be available for inspection and copying by city
representatives upon request.
(1) A copy of the NPDES permit, state or EPA-issued order, SWPPP, or notice of
coverage, as applicable, issued for the premises, activity or operation;
(2) If applicable, a copy of the NPDES permit application, NOI to comply with a
general NPDES permit, application for an sedimentation and erosion control
permit, or similar application;
(3) Any monitoring plan required as a provision of a permit, SWPPP, or BMP;
(4) All inspection and monitoring data collected for a three-year period, or such
shorter period as the property has been required to collect such data.
(b) Noncompliance. Failure to demonstrate full compliance with a permit, SWPPP,
BMP, or other legal authorization, and failure to obtain a permit required under
applicable law, shall, among other things, result in a discharge being considered an
illicit discharge under section 70-511.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-145), 11-20-2006)

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-7

Sec. 70-515. Pollution prevention requirements for automotive activities.
(a) Secondary containment; spill cleanup kits. Motor oil, antifreeze, other
automotive fluids, and other petroleum products that are stored outdoors shall have
secondary containment and shall be stored under a covered area. Gas stations, other
fuel-dispensing facilities, nonresidential properties on which ten or more gallons of
petroleum or automotive products are stored, and tow-truck operators shall
maintain a spill clean-up kit of a type and size to meet guidelines.
(b) Auto towing, maintenance, service, salvage. Properties that are used for
storage of towed vehicles, vehicle maintenance, vehicle service, or salvage of vehicle
parts from vehicles shall have:
(1) One or more spill clean-up kits of a type and size to meet guidelines;
(2) Secondary containment and a covered storage area for substances covered
under subsection (a) of this section;
(3) Covered bays in which all vehicle service or maintenance shall be conducted,
except for emergency road service, glass repair, and electrical service, such as
battery replacement; and
(4) Storage for vehicle parts, both new and used, so that the parts are not exposed
to stormwater runoff or precipitation.
(c) Spills/leaks. Persons responsible for property where a spill or leak of
automotive or petroleum products has occurred shall clean up t he spill or leak and
report it in accordance with section 70-511(b).
(d) NPDES permit. Demonstration under section 70-514 of compliance with a valid
NPDES permit that specifically addresses an activity controlled under this section,
and imposes different requirements than those stated in this section, shall be
deemed compliance with this section.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-146), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-516. Stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) for storage of salvaged
vehicles.
(a) Submission of SWPPP. Storage of ten or more junked, salvaged, or unlicensed
vehicles (hereafter "salvage vehicles") outside, such that they are exposed to
precipitation, shall require an SWPPP if the facility does not possess an NPDES permit
for such activity. The SWPPP shall be developed and submitted to the director in
accordance with the schedule below.
(1) By September 1, 2007, for facilities with 30 or more salvage vehicles; or
(2) By February 1, 2008, for facilities with more than ten but less than 30 salvage
vehicles.
(b) Content of SWPPP. The SWPPP shall be in compliance with guidelines and shall
prevent the discharge of used motor oil and other petroleum products, antifreeze,
solvents, other automotive fluids, brake dust, sediment from land disturbance, and
other pollutants. The SWPPP shall include the following and such other information
as may be required in guidelines:
(1) A map showing the general location of the facility, and a separate site map,
drawn to scale, showing location of structures, drainage features on the
property, salvage autos, and vehicle parts and equipment cleaning areas;
(2) A description of storage practices, loading and unloading activities, outdoor
process areas, activities that generate dust or particulates, and waste disposal
practices;

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-8
(3) A list of significant spills or leaks of pollutants that have occurred at the site
during the three previous years and any corrective actions taken in response;
(4) Methods, in accordance with guidelines, to reduce risk of stormwater pollution,
such as secondary containment, and BMPs; and
(5) Monitoring schedule and method for documenting compliance with the SWPPP.
(c) Alternative SWPPP. A SWPPP developed pursuant to a valid NPDES general or
individual permit for stormwater discharge shall be deemed compliant with this
section provided compliance is demonstrated under 70-514.
(d) Maintenance of SWPPP. The SWPPP shall be maintained on site, and shall be
readily available for review by the city upon request.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-147), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-517. Pollution prevention requirements for hazardous substances.
Hazardous substances that are stored outdoors shall have secondary containment and
shall be stored in a covered area. Where the volume or location of hazardous
substances presents a risk of pollution to the drainage system, the director may
require a person to submit an SWPPP or application for a local permit for approval, and
to follow such SWPPP or permit.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-148), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-518. Spills and releases of pollutants.
(a) Containment. Persons responsible for a spill or other release of pollutants upon
the roads, highways, or in the right-of-way shall take appropriate and timely action
to contain and clean up the spilled material to prevent it from entering any drainage
system. Appropriate action may include contracting with a third party that is
licensed by the state to handle and dispose of the spilled material.
(b) Report. A person responsible for a spill that is subject to G.S. 143-215.75 et
seq. or other applicable law shall immediately report the spill to the Durham City-
County Emergency Management System ("EMS"). The Durham City-County EMS shall
report all spills, with details as to location and nature of the spill, within one
working day to the director.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-149), 11-20-2006)
Secs. 70-519--70-524. Reserved.

DIVISION 3. INSPECTIONS

Sec. 70-525. Authority to enter, inspect, and monitor; routine inspection program.
(a) Right to inspect. City representatives, upon presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law, may enter public or private properties
at all reasonable times to inspect, investigate, or monitor activities and conditions
subject to this article. If consent has not been given through a permit or other
similar authorization, or a person able to give consent has not consented to entry or
inspection, or entry is not otherwise authorized, the director shall obtain an
administrative search warrant from a magistrate as provided under G.S. 15-27.2. The
director shall show either that the property is subject to a routine inspection
program and inspection under such program is due, or that probable cause exists to
inspect.
(b) Inspection activities. City representatives are authorized to do the following as
necessary to determine compliance or noncompliance with this article:

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-9
(1) Observe, inspect, measure, sample, test, and monitor;
(2) Place devices to remain on site for runoff or discharge sampling, monitoring,
flow measuring, or metering;
(3) Inspect, copy, or examine any records, reports, plans, test results or other
information; and
(4) Photograph or video record property conditions, activities, potential causes of
pollution, and potential violations.
(c) Confidential information. City representatives shall treat as confidential
information the composition of materials and substances documented during an
investigation if a claim is timely made and substantiated that such substances are
trade secrets.
(d) Obstruction. No person shall obstruct, hamper, or interfere with a city
representative carrying out official duties. Upon presentation of credentials by city
inspectors, necessary arrangements shall be made to allow immediate access onto
premises or into an area protected by security measures. Any obstruction to the safe
and easy access to property, a facility or enclosure on property, or to monitoring
devices shall immediately be removed. Unreasonable delays in providing safe and
reasonable access or removing obstructions shall be a violation of this article.
(e) Routine inspection program. The director may establish, though guidelines, a
routine inspection program for properties, businesses, or other activities in order to
gather information regarding stormwater, pollution of the drainage system, and
compliance with this article. The inspection cycles for categories of properties,
businesses, or activities may differ depending on location, proximity to particular
streams or other waters of the state, prior history, type of business or activity
conducted on site, size of facility, nature of substances on site, or other parameters
related to the objectives of this article.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-150), 11-20-2006)
Secs. 70-526--70-530. Reserved.

DIVISION 4. DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE; CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

Sec. 70-531. Maintaining drainage systems; permitted alterations.
(a) Maintaining clear drainage system. All persons shall keep and maintain the
drainage system, both surface and underground, located on their property free from
obstructions, trash, and debris.
(b) Obstructing drainage system. No person shall deposit, or allow or cause to be
deposited, into any part of the drainage system, including, but not limited to, street
gutters, catchbasins, ditches, pipes, and streams, any material or substance that will
cause or contribute to blockage or reduced discharge of the drainage system, or that
will damage the drainage system. This includes, but is not limited to, refuse,
rubbish, construction waste, leaves, landscaping debris, garbage, and dirt and
sediment.
(c) Upset. The prohibition above shall not apply to NPDES-authorized discharges of
sediment that result from an upset as defined in the applicable NPDES permit.
(d) Permitted activities. The provisions above do not prohibit the construction,
reconstruction or alteration of drainage systems and BMPs that comply with city
design standards and sound engineering practices where construction is in
accordance with section 70-533, or the applicable sedimentation and erosion control

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-10
program, and where the work employs adequate sediment and erosion control
practices.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-151), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-532. Obstructing the free flow of water.
No person shall construct, install or maintain any stormwater or drainage system in
such a manner as to obstruct or impede the free flow of water. This section does not
apply to the construction, reconstruction or alteration of drainage systems and BMPs in
compliance with city design standards and sound engineering practices and for which a
permit or other approval has been secured from the city's stormwater services division.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-152), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-533. Permit requirements for construction; fees.
(a) Approvals for BMPs, construction connecting to MS4. All construction of, or
nonroutine maintenance work on a BMP, or other drainage feature that is intended
to prevent pollutants from entering the drainage system, or a natural or constructed
portion of the drainage system that directly connects to the MS4 or to the waters of
the state shall require a permit or other approval from the city.
(b) Guidelines.
(1) Guidelines may require that:
a. Permits or approvals be obtained for other work on the drainage system;
b. Certain work is exempt from permitting or approvals, based on:
1. The nature of the activity;
2. The size of the infrastructure;
3. Other permits that are in place; and
4. Other criteria relevant to drainage system impacts; and
c. Mandated practices for work on the drainage system be followed in lieu of
obtaining a permit or approval.
(2) Guidelines may also specify the information required to be submitted for a
permit or approval, or for a determination that a permit or approval is not
required.
(c) Fees. The city shall establish appropriate fees to recover the costs of review of
applications and issuance of permits and approvals authorized in this division, and
for the monitoring of BMPs and other drainage features that discharge directly or
indirectly to the MS4. The city may also require security instruments or other
financial guarantees, or payment into a fund in lieu of such guarantees, to ensure
the continuous upkeep and/or reconstruction of city-required BMPs or other
pollution prevention features.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-153), 11-20-2006)
Secs. 70-534--70-537. Reserved.

DIVISION 5. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 70-538. Administration and enforcement of article and stormwater program.
The director is authorized to administer and enforce the provisions of this article and
other regulations of the city concerning the stormwater system unless a contrary
intention is expressed in such other regulations. Among other things, the director shall
have the authority to issue guidelines to implement this article, and to establish fees,
as authorized by the city council, in the adopted budget or otherwise, to implement

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-11
the stormwater activities authorized in this article and in other sections of this Code.
The director is also authorized to remediate any violations, to alter any previously
issued remedies, and, except as limited below, to settle any case or controversy arising
under this article, including, but not limited to, those subject to administrative
remedies. In the event of judicial action that has been filed on behalf of or against the
city regarding this article or the city's stormwater program, any settlement shall be
approved by the city manager or city council, as applicable, consistent with the city
manager's delegated settlement authority.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-154), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-539. Declaration of violation; remedies.
(a) Violation. Failure to comply with the provisions of this article or the guidelines,
conditions, plans, permits, approvals, or other similar authorizations issued
pursuant to this article is a violation of this article, unlawful, and subject to all
remedies authorized under law, including, but not limited to, those described in this
division.
(b) Separate offense. Each day of a violation may be considered a separate
violation or offense.
(c) Persons responsible. All persons considered under the definitions of this article
to be responsible for a violation shall be considered violators. Violators include, but
are not limited to, owners of property where a violation occurs; persons in the
design or construction field who have created, directed, or assisted in the design or
construction of an improvement or feature in violation of the requirements of this
article; and persons who have control over the use or maintenance of property or
the activities occurring on property where a violation has occurred. Multiple
violations may be charged against multiple individuals or entities for an action that
violates this article.
(d) Remedies not limited. The remedies provided herein, whether civil, criminal, or
administrative, are not exclusive; may be exercised singly, simultaneously, or
cumulatively; may be combined with any other remedies authorized under the law;
and may be exercised in any order.
(e) Public nuisance. A violation that results in observable or detectable negative
impacts to the drainage system or to the public health or safety is a public nuisance
and subject to all remedies for a nuisance available in law and equity.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-155), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-540. Remedies and penalties.
Remedies available for enforcement of this article, and penalties for its violation,
include, but are not limited to, those described in the following subsections. Pursuit of
certain remedies and penalties requires compliance with the procedures specified in
section 70-541.
(1) Administrative remedies.
a. Show cause meeting. The director may have a meeting with the violator prior
to taking any enforcement action under this article. The violator shall receive
notice of such meeting consistent with procedures in section 70-541, and shall
have an opportunity to be heard.
b. Consent orders. The director may enter into consent orders, assurances of
voluntary compliance, or other similar agreements with a violator. Such
agreements shall include, but not be limited to, specific action to be taken by
the violator to correct the violation within the time period established in the

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-12
order. A consent order may also include a mitigation project undertaken to
improve environmental quality of the drainage system in the event that the
director and the violator agree on such project as an additional compliance
measure to generally remediate the impacts of a violation.
c. Administrative orders. The director may direct a violator to comply with this
article through an administrative order which sets forth specific actions that
must be taken and a timetable for taking them.
d. Mandatory security for compliance. The director may require a violator to post
a bond or provide other financial security of a type, form, and amount as
specified in the discretion of the director, to assure performance of any actions
required to bring a property into compliance with this article.
e. Termination of utility service. Where it appears that the continuation of water
and/or sewer service may contribute to a violation of this article, as, for
example, an illicit connection, utility service may be terminated.
f. Costs added to utility bill. The costs of any action taken by the city to
investigate and remediate a violation of this article may be added to the
violator's utility bill, and, if unpaid, may result in termination of utility service as
otherwise provided in this Code.
g. Termination of access. Any property on which illicit discharges to the MS4
have occurred may have their access to the MS4 terminated if such termination
would contribute to the likelihood that the illicit discharge would be reduced or
abated.
h. Withholding of inspections, permits, certificate of occupancy or other
approvals. Building inspections; permits for development or other
improvements; requests for plan approval for zoning, subdivision, other
development or construction; and certificates of occupancy may be withheld or
conditioned upon compliance with this article until a violator with ownership or
management of the property for which permits or approvals are sought has fully
complied with this article and all actions taken pursuant to this article.
(2) Civil penalties.
a. Assessment of penalty. The director may assess civil penalties for violations of
this article after providing the violator notice and opportunity to respond
described in the procedures set forth in section 70-541. Such penalty, if unpaid
within 30 days of notice to the violator that payment is due, may be collected
through a civil action in the nature of debt as described in subsection (3) of this
section. The director shall apply the standards and criteria set forth in
subsections (2)b through (2)d of this section in determining the amount of the
penalty.
b. Penalty amounts for properties used for nonresidential purposes. A maximum
base penalty of up to $10,000.00 per violation may be assessed for violations
occurring on properties used, in whole or in part, for nonresidential purposes or
containing nonresidential uses, subject to the following limitations and
additions:
1. An additional $10.00 per gallon may be added to the base amount for an
illicit discharge to the drainage system that exceeds 1,000 gallons;
2. An additional 25 percent may be added to the base amount for repeat
violations; and
3. First -time violations on property, or by a person, shall be limited to
$2,000.00 per violation unless the property or person is an industrial activity
subject to NPDES requirements.

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-13
c. Penalty amounts for properties used for residential purposes. A maximum
base penalty of up to $500.00 per violation may be assessed for violations
occurring on properties used entirely for residential purposes, subject to the
following limitations and additions:
1. Penalties for blockages of the drainage system shall be limited to $100.00
per violation, except for multifamily residential properties, or when the
blockage causes off-site impacts.
2. The maximum base penalty may be doubled for repeat violations.
d. Criteria for assessing penalty. In determining the amount of the penalty, the
director shall consider the following factors in addition to any factors set forth
in guidelines:
1. The degree and extent of harm to the environment, the public health, public
property, and private property;
2. The duration and gravity of the violation;
3. The effect on ground or surface water quality or on air quality or on flood
hazard;
4. The cost of rectifying the damage;
5. The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
6. Knowledge of the requirements by the violator, and/or reasonable
opportunity or obligation to obtain such knowledge;
7. Whether the violation was willful;
8. Actions taken by the violator to prevent or remediate the impacts;
9. Whether the violation is a repeat violation; and
10. The costs of enforcement to the city.
(3) Judicial actions.
a. Injunction, abatement . The director may institute an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction for a mandatory or prohibitory injunction and/or an
order of abatement or other equitable remedy that requires, among other
things, that action be taken on property to correct a violation. A violator who
fails to comply may be cited for contempt, and the city may execute the order
under G.S. 160A-175(e). A violator may also be subject to remedies available
for a nuisance under G.S. 160A-193 or other law. Costs of prosecution and/or
correction and of remediation of the violation may be assessed as a lien on the
property upon which the violation has occurred, and collected as unpaid taxes,
as provided by law.
b. Criminal prosecution and penalties. Violation of this article shall be a
misdemeanor and is subject to the maximum fine permitted under state
statutes. Each day of the violation shall be a separate offense and may be
punished by imposition of the maximum fine.
c. Collection of civil penalties. Action may be instituted against the violator to
recover any civil penalty that has not been paid within 30 days of the date the
violator receives notice of the penalty.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-156), 11-20-2006)

Sec. 70-541. Procedures for notifying violator and meeting with director.
(a) Content of notice.
(1) Except in emergencies, as described hereafter, upon determining that a
violation has occurred, the director shall provide to each violator against whom
remedial action or penalties may be pursued, written notice that describes:
a. The location of the property and the nature of the violation;

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-14
b. A general description of the remedies and penalties that may be incurred if
the violation is not corrected;
c. The action needed to correct the violation;
d. The time period during which corrective actions must occur;
e. How to provide explanatory or additional information and a contact person
with whom the violation can be discussed;
f. How to request a meeting with the director available for certain violations as
described below; and
g. The deadline for providing information or requesting a meeting.
(2) Only one such notice shall be required to each violator, regardless of the
number of remedies or penalties that are pursued or the timing of their
institution.
(b) Service. The notice shall be placed in an envelope bearing the name of the
violator and, in addition, any names of individuals upon whom service is intended.
Delivery shall be by one or more of the following methods, as appropriate:
(1) Certified or registered mail, return receipt requested;
(2) Hand delivery to the individual, if the violator is an individual;
(3) Hand delivery to an adult at the business or institutional address of the
violator if the violator is an entity;
(4) Any means authorized for the service of documents by Rule 4 of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; or
(5) First class mail addressed to the violator, if notice of the violation is also
posted at the violator's residence or place of business, as may be appropriate.
(c) Delay in imposing certain remedies/penalties. Except in emergencies, as
described hereafter, utility service shall not be terminated under section 70-
540(1)e., civil penalties shall not be assessed, and judicial action shall not be
initiated prior to the expiration of the time period allowed for the violator to correct
the violation. The director may extend the times allowed in the written notice for
correction of the violation. The extension must be in writing.
(d) Meeting. If the violator makes a timely request for a meeting with the director,
during the time period set forth in the notice provided under subsection (a) of this
section, such meeting shall be scheduled at a time determined in the discretion of
the director prior to terminating utility service under section 70-540(1)e., imposing a
civil penalty, or initiating judicial action. The violator shall have the opportunity to
present any information relevant to the violation or proposed remedy or penalty at
the meeting, in writing or orally.
(e) Additional written notice of termination of utility service or imposition of civil
penalties.
(1) Except in emergencies as described hereafter, when the director determines
to terminate utility service under section 70-540(1)e., or assess a civil penalty,
additional written notice of such proposed action shall be given to the
violator. The notice shall contain:
a. Copy of the notice initially given under subsection (a) of this section; and
b. The director's written determination regarding the termination of utility
service and/or civil penalties to be assessed and the reasons for such
action.
(2) Service on the violator shall be as provided in subsection (a) of this section.
(3) A right to appeal prior to termination of utility services may be available as
further provided in the utility payment provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-157), 11-20-2006)

City of Durham
Stormwater Pollution Control Ordinance A-15

Sec. 70-542. Emergencies.
If delay in correcting a violation would seriously threaten the effective enforcement of
this article or pose an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare, or to
the waters of the state, then the director may order the immediate cessation of the
violation without utilizing the procedures described in section 70-541. Any person
ordered to cease such violation or to remedy such violation shall do so immediately.
The director may seek immediate enforcement through any remedy or penalty
authorized in this article or other applicable law.
(Ord. No. 13342, § 1(23-158), 11-20-2006)
Secs. 70-543--70-551. Reserved.

Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-1
APPENDIX B
City of Durham
Code of Ordinances
STORMWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 70, Article X

The City has been protecting water quality through post-construction requirements
first adopted in 1984 under state initiatives and regulations. In subsequent years,
post construction requirements evolved both through local initiatives and in response
to state regulations. Ordinance revisions in 2009 expanded areas of coverage in
accordance with the schedule in NPDES permit NCS0000249, and expanded areas
subject to nutrient loading limits to cover the entire city. In 2010 nutrient loading
limits were adjusted based on anticipated loading targets for Jordan Lake and Falls
Lake.

Ordinance number 14274 adopted June 4, 2012 with an effective date of July 6, 2012,
made minor adjustments to loading limits, and incorporated details required by the
Falls Lake and Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy regulations. The primary
impact from these performance standards were to modify the phosphorus export limit
to be specific for each watershed, to reduce the land disturbance thresholds that
trigger application of the performance standards, and to increase the minimum onsite
treatment required before offsite mitigation is used. In order to achieve reductions
from existing developed areas, the ordinance continues to include modest
requirements for redevelopment projects that do not increase impervious area.

The ordinance text may be found at the following link:
www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=19967&sid=33

The current requirements continue and expand the City’s Phase II Ordinance adopted
March 17, 2009. The current ordinance includes requirements to control peak flow, to
control nitrogen and phosphorous in stormwater runoff from development throughout
the City, with specific targets for the Jordan Lake watershed, the Falls Lake watershed,
and the Neuse River Basin outside of the Falls Lake watershed.

The ordinance also includes provisions that are not required by NCS000249. These
include requirements to manage peak discharge for the two year and ten-year storm
events. Only the ordinance provisions related to the Phase II requirements established
in Session Law 2006-246 as modified, and ordinance provisions related to the three
Nutrient Sensitive Water Strategy rules for new development shall be considered
incorporated into the Stormwater Management Plan.

Proposed ordinance changes are included following the existing ordinance.

Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-2
ORDINANCE # 14275

ARTICLE X. -STORMWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT,

“Sec. 70-736. Purpose and definitions.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of Article X is to further the health, safety and general
welfare and convenience of the public through:

(1) Protecting receiving waters impacted by stormwater runoff discharged from
development within the City of Durham through maintaining performance standards
for total suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria for such
development;

(2) Complying with the City of Durham’s municipal stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit, issued under the authority of Section 402(p) of
the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.26 et seq.;

(3)Complying with the various General Statutes of North Carolina including but not
limited to Article 4A, GS 113A-70 et seq. and implementing regulations for such
state statutes, including but not limited to the statutes and regulations
implementing nutrient management requirements in Neuse, Falls, and Jordan
basins;

(4) Limiting potential flooding of downstream properties and protecting streams and
other waterways from erosion by ensuring that development manages the increases
in peak flows that result from changes in land cover;

(b) Definitions. Within this Article, the following terms and phrases, regardless of
capitalization, shall have the meanings set forth below:

Baseline Date or Applicable Baseline Date means the following dates for the basins
indicated:

Jordan Basin Dec. 31, 2001
Falls Basin Dec. 31, 2006
Lower Neuse Basin March 9, 2001

City Stormwater Standards means written standards related to Stormwater adopted by the
Department of Public Works. They include but are not limited to the Reference Guide for
Development and Reference Guide for Development/Stormwater; other written and adopted
specifications for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of Stormwater Control
Measures or Stormwater Conveyances; and all state standards related to stormwater or state
approved alternatives to such standards that have been adopted by the City’s Department of
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-3
Public Works. The City shall submit to DWQ for approval all technical standards that require
approval

Common Plan of Development means staged or coordinated Development pursuant to an
approved plan such as a development plan or site plan whether or not by the same owner, or
successive improvements over a period of years initiated by the owner(s) of and conducted on
a parcel or contiguous parcels of land for the benefit of such parcel(s). Factors to be considered
in determining whether a Common Plan of Development exists include but are not limited to:
ownership; scope, content, and history of approved plans; other information regarding the
development such as contracts, advertisements, or marketing materials; equitable factors; and
common or joint use of infrastructure such as roads or utilities.

Department means the Department of Public Works of the City of Durham.

Development means Land Disturbance which increases impervious surface on a property,
or alters its location, or results in an increase in runoff from a property or a decrease in
infiltration of precipitation into the soil. It includes both existing development and new
development. It does not include agriculture, mining, or forestry activities.

Director means the Director of the Public Works Department of the City of Durham, or such
person(s) as designated in writing by the Director to perform all or a portion of the functions set
forth in this Article.

Division of Water Quality or DWQ means the Division within the North Carolina
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR).

Downtown Area means the Downtown Tier, Compact Neighborhoods, and Suburban
Transit Zones as shown on the Durham Comprehensive Land Use Plan most recently approved
by the Durham City Council.

Existing Development means Development that, prior to the effective date of this
ordinance has either been lawfully constructed, or has established a vested right under North
Carolina law to construct a proposed project, or portion thereof. With regard to application of
this ordinance, a vested right will be recognized as follows:

a) for Development that does not require a state permit, a vested right shall exist for any
portion of a Development that has an approved or a completed application for a site plan or
subdivision plat covering that portion, or in the event a site plan or subdivision plat is not
required, a building permit or a construction drawing for that portion of the Development. An
approved development plan does not accord vested rights in the absence of an approved or
completed application for the above-described plans or permits. A “completed application” is
one that meets all application requirements, including payment of all required fees and
submission of all required information, prior to the effective date of this ordinance. A vested
right shall expire if the validity of an approved or completed application or approval is not
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-4
continuously maintained as otherwise required under the Unified Development Ordinance or
City Code;

b) for Development that requires a state permit, vested rights shall be recognized if the
project meets all the requirements of a) above, and additionally has received necessary state
permits required for the use or for construction.

Falls Basin means the area that drains to the Falls Reservoir as determined by the Durham
Planning Department.

Impervious Surface means a surface that because of its composition and/or its use impedes
the natural infiltration of water. It includes but is not limited to buildings, roofs, solid decks,
driveways, parking areas, patios, sidewalks, and compacted gravel areas. It does not include
areas that are part of permitted stormwater controls or the open surface water such as
swimming pools.

Jordan Basin means the area that drains to Jordan Lake as determined by the Durham
Planning Department.

Land Disturbance means a change in the natural cover or topography of land that may
result in sedimentation, and includes but is not limited to grubbing, stump removal, removal of
topsoil, coarse or fine grading, and disturbance to the subgrade.

Limited Residential means single family and duplex residential and recreational
development.

Lower Neuse Basin means the area that drains to the Neuse River but not to the Falls Basin
as determined by the Durham Planning Department, which area is generally shown on a map
maintained by such department.

Multifamily and Other Development means development not included in Limited
Residential, and includes but is not limited to multifamily and townhomes, and office,
industrial, institutional (including local government institutional), and commercial
development.

New Development means Development that does not qualify as “Existing Development.”

Redevelopment means Development on a site where structures or impervious surface
already exists. It is a category of new development.

Stormwater Control Measure, or SCM, means a device or practice that is designed to trap,
settle out, filter, or otherwise reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff, and/or to alter or
reduce runoff velocity, amount, timing, or other stormwater characteristics. The term includes
all measures formerly known as “best management practices” or “BMPs”. Such measures
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-5
include but are not limited to stormwater detention facilities, constructed wetlands, vegetative
areas, filter strips, buffers, and vegetated swales, and appurtenant drainage facilities.

Stormwater Conveyance means a physical feature, including constructed devices, that
conveys stormwater. A conveyance may also serve as a Stormwater Control Measure.

Stormwater Facilities means Stormwater Control Measures and Stormwater Conveyances.

Stormwater Pollutant or Pollutant means nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), bacteria,
total suspended solids, and any other substance that can be transported via stormwater and
that is identified in this Article or City Stormwater Standards as requiring regulation.

Sec. 70-737 General; prior requirements; additional standards; interpretations.

(a) Applicability. This Article contains requirements for the control of Stormwater
Pollutants and the management of peak flows from stormwater discharges from Development
in the City of Durham. All Development shall be subject to the requirements of this Article
unless specifically exempted.

(b) Approval contingent upon compliance. No site plan, preliminary or final subdivision
plat, construction drawing for a street or for utilities, or utility permit shall be approved until
the applicant has submitted information required by the City Stormwater Standards sufficient
to determine compliance with this Article, and review for compliance has been conducted.

(c) Prior requirements, violations continue. Prior stormwater requirements that have been
superseded by the requirements of this Article shall continue to apply to Existing Development
approved and/or constructed under such prior requirements, in the event that the
requirements of this Article do not apply. Existing Development, or portions thereof, that is not
required to comply with this Article must continue to manage Stormwater Pollutants and peak
flow in accordance with the stormwater requirements appearing on approved plans for the
development and the requirements in effect when such plans were approved. Violations of
superseded stormwater requirements shall continue as violations and be subject to
enforcement under this Article unless this Article explicitly allows the Development or action
that constitutes the violation.

(d) City Stormwater Standards. The Department of Public Works is authorized to
promulgate technical standards for use in the administration of this Article, which standards
may be amended from time to time. Technical standards may include but are not limited to
requirements for design, construction, performance, financial security, review, and professional
certification of stormwater facilities. City Stormwater Standards are considered requirements
of this Article. They shall be in writing, and approved and signed by the Director, and shall be
maintained in the City’s Reference Guide for Development or in other written documents. If
such standards conflict with technical standards that have been adopted pursuant to other
portions of the City Code, the Director shall be authorized to resolve such conflicts. Any such
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-6
resolution shall be consistent with the requirements of this Article. The City shall submit to
DWQ for approval all technical standards that require approval.

(e) Maps. The watershed maps for the Falls Basin, the Jordan Basin, and the Lower Neuse
Basin maintained by the Durham City County Planning Department, as supplemented by
particular drainage information that may be required pursuant to City Stormwater Standards or
the Unified Development Ordinance, shall be used to determine the drainage basin in which a
property is located and other determinations regarding drainage.

(f) Final decisions/interpretations. The Director shall be authorized to render all
interpretations of, and final decisions under, this Article. No interpretation shall be binding
unless it is in writing and signed by the Director.

(g) Requirements Supplementary; Conflict. The requirements in this Article supplement
other statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements including, but not limited to,
requirements for buffers, water protection (watershed) overlays, and controls for
sedimentation and erosion that are contained in the Unified Development Ordinance. In the
event of conflict between the requirements of this Article and such other requirements, the
stricter of the requirements shall control. In addition, this Article does not prohibit establishing
stricter requirements in authorizations or agreements for particular projects, including but not
limited to committed elements in development plan rezonings, the terms of utility extension
agreements, or recorded maintenance agreements regarding individual facilities.

(h) Fees. The City is authorized to charge fees to recoup all estimated direct and indirect
costs of administering this Article, and such fees shall be reviewed and approved on a periodic
basis by the Durham City Council.

(i) Severability. If any portion of this Article is determined to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect or invalidate the remaining portions
of this Article.

Sec. 70-738. Peak runoff control requirements.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section 70-738 is to ensure that the increases in volume,
velocity, and peak flow of stormwater discharges from Development are addressed, in order to
mitigate the impacts on downstream properties and receiving waters. All Development,
including Development that may be exempt from pollutant reduction requirements set forth in
remaining sections of this Article, is subject to the requirements of this section unless
exempted in (b) below.

(b) Applicability; calculation of prior impervious area. This Subsection 70-738 applies to the
following Development, assessed in comparison to pre-development prior impervious
conditions as defined in (1) and (2) below: (i) relocation of existing impervious area on a
Multifamily and Other lot; (ii) increase in impervious area on any lot subject to limitations on
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-7
impervious area in an approved plat or plan for reasons such as watershed protection or
stormwater control measure requirements; (iii) increase of more than 200 square feet in
impervious area on a Multifamily and Other lot; (iv) increase of more than 2000 square feet of
impervious area on a Limited Residential lot . For purposes of calculating these thresholds,
subject Development that is part of a Common Plan of Development shall be assessed with
other portions of such common plan that have not previously complied with peak flow
requirements.

(1) For purposes of applying peak flow requirements for the 2 and 10 year storms, the land
cover (including type and location) existing as of April 23, 1997 shall be considered the “pre-
development conditions”;

(2) For purposes of applying the peak flow requirement for the 1 year storm, the land cover
(including type and location) that existed as of March 9, 2001 for land in the Falls Basin and
Lower Neuse Basin, and as of March 17, 2009 for land in the Jordan Basin shall be considered
the “pre-development conditions”;

(c) Requirements.

(1) Stormwater impact analysis. Development that is not exempt under (b) above shall
submit a Stormwater Impact Analysis or approved alternative to such analysis that complies
with City Stormwater Standards as part of the application for site plan or subdivision plat
approval, or if such is not required, as part of submittals for construction drawings or utility
permit approval. Calculations shall be made in conformance with City Stormwater Standards.
No subdivision plats, site plans, utility permits, or construction drawings shall be approved in
the absence of a determination by the Stormwater Division that required submissions have
been made and approved.

(2) One year storm. Development that increases the peak runoff rate from the 1-year
storm from pre-development conditions shall provide stormwater management facilities in
accordance with City Stormwater Standards such that there is no net increase in peak runoff
rate.

(3) Two and ten year storms. Development that increases the peak runoff rate from either
the 2-year or the 10-year storm from predevelopment conditions may be required to provide
stormwater management facilities to address the impact, as determined in accordance with
City Stormwater Standards.

(4) Other design storms. Development that increases the peak runoff from other design
storms such as the 100-year storm may be required to install stormwater management facilities
to address the impact, as determined in accordance with City Stormwater Standards.

Sec. 70-739. Stormwater Pollutant standards; exemptions.
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-8

Sections 70-739 through 70-741 set forth requirements for Stormwater Pollutants, which
include nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, and bacteria. All Development shall
comply with these standards unless exempted as set forth in this subsection 70-739.

(a) Exemptions for limited disturbances. Development in which Land Disturbance,
calculated cumulatively as of the Applicable Baseline Date, is less than the thresholds in Table 1
below is exempt from the standards in subsections 70-740 and 70-741, subject to paragraphs
(1) and (2) below.

TABLE 1 THRESHOLDS FOR APPLICATION OF STORMWATER POLLUTANT
REQUIREMENTS

Project Location Land Disturbance
Limited Residential Multifamily and Other
Jordan Basin 1 acre 0.5 acre
Falls Basin 0.5 acre 12,000 sq. ft.
Lower Neuse Basin 1 acre 0.5 acre

(1) Common Plan of Development. Development that is part of a Common Plan of
Development shall be included in the calculation. If the applicable threshold set forth in
Table 1 is exceeded, all other portions of the Common Plan are subject to the requirements
of this Article;

(2) Redevelopment and Existing Development; maintenance of treatment.
Redevelopment and Existing Development that are exempt under these thresholds must
continue to maintain and reconstruct all SCMs in compliance with approved plans, prior
ordinance requirements, and City Standards.

(b) Other exemptions. Additionally, Development is exempt if:
A. it qualifies in its entirety as Existing Development; or

B. it is located in the Downtown Area and does not increase impervious area
over the Applicable Baseline Date; or

C. it is undertaken by a state or federal entity. (Note: Review and approval by
the state must be demonstrated); or

D. it is a City transportation project in the Jordan basin.

Sec. 70-740. Required reductions for nutrients and TSS; alternatives; calculations

Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-9
(a) Nutrient Loading Limits. Development not exempt under subsection 70-739 shall
construct and implement SCMs so as to limit the post construction loading of nitrogen and
phosphorus from the project area to the limits set forth in Table 2 below, or shall comply with
an allowed alternative as set forth in (b) through (d) below. A portion of the reduction
requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus may be met through off site measures or payments
as set forth in 70-741.

TABLE 2 NUTRIENT EXPORT LOAD LIMITS

Project Location Export Limit lbs/acre/year
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Jordan Basin 2.2 0.82
Falls Basin 2.2 0.33
Lower Neuse Basin 3.6 not required

(b) Alternative percentage reduction option for Redevelopment that increases impervious
area. As an alternative to meeting the load reductions described in (a) above, Redevelopment
not exempt under 70-739 that increases impervious area may reduce the pre-development
nutrient load from the entire project site for nitrogen and phosphorus by the percentage shown
in Table 3 below. The pre-development nutrient load is calculated as of the Applicable Baseline
Date and load reductions already achieved shall be credited.

TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE REDUCTION OPTION FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

Project Location Percent Reduction from Pre-Dev Load
N P
Jordan 35% 5%
Falls 40% 77%
Lower Neuse 30% N/A

(c) Alternative percentage reduction option for Redevelopment that does not increase
impervious area. Redevelopment not exempt under 70-739 that is outside the Downtown Area
and does not increase impervious area shall reduce pre-development nutrient load, calculated
as of the Applicable Baseline Date, by 10% if reductions are achieved onsite, and by 15% if
reductions cannot be entirely achieved onsite.

(d) Alternative for low impact development in Falls basin. Development in the Falls Basin
will be considered compliant with the nutrient reduction obligations of this Section 70-740 if it
demonstrates that it meets the post development hydrologic criteria set forth in Chapter 2 of
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-10
the North Carolina Low Impact Development Guidebook dated June of 2009, as it may be
amended from time to time.

(e) TSS Reduction. When the impervious percentage of a Development that increases
impervious area equals or exceeds 16% in the Falls or Jordan Basins, or 24% in the Lower Neuse
Basin, TSS removal is required as further described in this subsection (e). All impervious
surfaces, as reasonably practical, must drain to an SCM that is designed to provide a minimum
of 85% TSS removal and is sized to capture runoff from the first 1 inch of rainfall from all
surfaces that drain to the SCM. These requirements are expanded, and/or modified as follows:

(1) Piped Areas in Low Density Projects. Projects that do not require construction of SCMs
because their impervious percentage is less than that described in the paragraph above must
treat TSS from stormwater runoff that is conveyed in non-vegetated conveyances, such as
stormwater pipes, but excluding road and driveway crossings.

(2) Overtreatment to address untreatable areas. Where treatment for TSS is not reasonably
practicable, as determined by the Department, such as when impervious areas include offsite
transportation improvements or small noncontiguous areas at the edge of a project, additional
reductions of TSS may be required in treatable areas, such as overtreatment in other project
areas or treatment of offsite runon.

(f) Calculations for Nutrient Loading and TSS Removal. Pollutant loading calculations shall
be made using City Stormwater Standards. All increases in impervious surfaces shall be
included, including but not limited internal and off site transportation improvements.
Approved methodologies for calculating pollutant loading shall be maintained in writing by the
Public Works Department, and shall include those methodologies and calculations required to
be used by the Division of Water Quality or DWQ-approved alternate methodologies.

(g) Submittals. An applicant shall submit pollutant loading calculations for the pre- and
post-development conditions as part of its application for approval of a subdivision or site plan,
utility permit, or construction drawings for a street or utility.

Sec. 70-741 On-site treatment requirements; offsite purchase and credit options;
bacteria control.

(a) On site nutrient treatment requirements. Nitrogen and phosphorus reduction
requirements may be met, in part, through offsite management measures or the purchase of
nutrient credits. At a minimum, however, in the Jordan and Falls Basins a percentage of the
required nitrogen and phosphorus reductions must be achieved through onsite treatment, in
the amount shown in Table 4 below. In addition to meeting the percentage reductions below,
in the Jordan and Lower Neuse Basins, nitrogen export load from the site must not exceed 6
lbs. per acre per year for Limited Residential, and 10 lbs per acre per year for Multifamily and
Other. (Note: offsite credit purchases do not meet TSS removal requirements which must be
met onsite.)
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-11

TABLE 4 ONSITE NUTRIENT TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Project Location Minimum Onsite Nutrient Treatment
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Jordan - General
*40% of required
reduction
*40% of required
reduction
Falls - General
*50% of
required reduction
*50% of
required reduction
Falls and Jordan
within Downtown
Area
*30% of
required reduction
*30% of
required reduction
Falls and Jordan
exceeding
thresholds but with
less than 1 acre land
disturbance
*30% of
required reduction
*30% of
required reduction
Lower Neuse
No Percentage
reductions apply, but
the 6/10 nitrogen
export limit
described in
paragraph (a) above
must be met
No Percentage
reductions apply, but
the 6/10 nitrogen
export limit
described in
paragraph (a) above
must be met
*The “required reduction” is the difference between the post development loading in
pounds per acre per year multiplied by the site area in acres before treatment minus the
loading target, in pounds per acre per year multiplied by the acres. The percentage shown
in the chart above is applied to that difference and the resulting number is the amount in
pounds/year of nutrient reduction that must be achieved onsite.

(b) Offset Payments to state approved nutrient mitigation banks. Development and
Redevelopment shall have the option of purchasing nutrient credits from state-approved
nutrient banks to partially offset nitrogen and/or phosphorus loads as allowed by State law and
regulation, including but not limited to 15A NCAC 02B.0235, 15A NCAC 02B.0282, and 15A
NCAC 02B.0240, as they may be amended from time to time. In the Jordan Basin, calculation of
credits required shall reflect State approved delivery factors. The number of pounds for which
credits are purchased shall be increased by 5% if the nutrient bank is not located in the City of
Durham. The following additional requirements shall apply:

1. Location of nutrient banks. Development in the Falls Basin must use nutrient
banks located in the upper Falls portion of the Falls Basin – the portion that is
north and/or west of Highway 50. Development in the Jordan Basin must use
nutrient banks located in the Upper New Hope arm of such basin, as defined in
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-12
state regulations.

2. Certification of Nutrient Bank Provider. Offset credits may only be obtained from
nutrient banks certified by the state.

3. Utilization of NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Credits may also be
obtained from the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program if such credits are
available, and if applicable state requirements regarding utilization of private
nutrient banks are first met.

4. Certification of credits. Credits purchased pursuant to this subsection (b) shall be
verified by the State and proof of such verification that meets City requirements
shall be presented prior to approval of a final plat, or if no plat is required, prior
to issuance of the first building permit within the project, or such earlier
deadline as may be required by City Stormwater Standards.

(c) Combination with noncontiguous donor parcels. Development that has met the onsite
treatment requirement in Section 70-741 may include within the proposed Development
noncontiguous properties (hereafter “donor parcels”) deemed beneficial to water quality by
the Department and made available for nutrient reduction through an agreement recorded
prior to October 1, 2011 that perpetually protects the donor parcels from development. Such
parcels must meet the requirements detailed in the Public Works Operating Policy on the
Review Criteria for Acceptance of Conservation Easements for Non-contiguous Donor Parcels.
Use of donor parcels is also subject to the following additional restrictions:

(1) The donor and receiving parcels must be within the same reservoir basin;

(2) The donor parcels must be perpetually restricted from development though
the recorded legal easement referenced above that can be enforced by the City or County
of Durham;

(3) Areas within the donor parcels that the Department has determined to be
undevelopable such as areas within the floodway or within required 50 riparian foot
stream buffers may not be used for credit;

(4) The amount of credit shall be as determined by the Department through a
legally binding agreement approved prior to October 1, 2011;

(5) All purchases or commitments for use of donor parcels shall be made prior to
October 1, 2015.

(d) Bacteria removal; control of other identified Stormwater Pollutants. All Development
which constructs Stormwater Control Measures in order to comply with this Article and which is
located in an area that is subject to a state approved Total Maximum Daily Load for bacteria
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-13
shall be required to have at least one SCM for each stormwater discharge that is rated as
medium or high for its ability to remove bacteria from stormwater. Ratings shall be those that
appear in the most recent version of the NCDENR Stormwater SCM manual or as determined or
approved by the Director. In addition, SCMs required to be constructed under this Article must
also treat any other pollutant for which a Total Maximum Daily Load has been identified for the
area within which the SCM is located.

Sec. 70-742. Design, construction, and completion of SCMs and stormwater
conveyances.

The owner(s) and/or the developer(s) of any Development for which SCMs and/or
Stormwater Conveyances have been approved, and persons or entities that have contracted to
perform all or a part of an owner’s or developer’s obligations, shall be responsible for
complying with the requirements set forth below.

(a) Design. Stormwater Facilities required by this Article shall be designed in accordance
with City Stormwater Standards. Dams, as defined by the North Carolina Dam Safety Law,
including but not limited to NCGS 143-215.23 et seq., and associated state administrative codes,
as they may be amended in the future, are subject to the above-cited state requirements.
Stormwater Facilities that are not required by this Article shall be subject to applicable City
Stormwater Standards.

(b) Approvals for Stormwater Facilities. Stormwater Facilities required under this Article
or any other requirement of City Code or the Unified Development Ordinance shall be
constructed in accordance with City Stormwater Standards. Plans for such work, and any other
work that may be identified in City Stormwater Standards, shall be submitted to the
Department for review and approval on such timetable as required in City Stormwater
Standards. City Stormwater Standards may require that permits be obtained for such work.

(c) Construction plans, fees, maintenance, financial guarantees. For a Development in
which construction of one or more Stormwater Control Measures is required, the owner(s)
and/or developer(s) must ensure compliance with (1) through (5) below prior to i) transfer of
any ownership interest or any lot within the development; ii) issuance of a building permit for
construction within the development; iii) issuance of a utility permit for the development; and
iv) construction drawing approval for any infrastructure within the development:

(1) Review and approval of the Stormwater Impact Analysis;
(2) Review and approval of plans and specifications for the SCMs and Stormwater
Conveyances within the development;
(3) Payment of permit and review fees required by the Department;
(4) Approval and recordation of an agreement and/or covenants that meet City
Stormwater Standards and that provide, among other things, for the construction and long
term maintenance, inspection, repair, and reconstruction of the SCMs in accordance with
City Standards. In the case of residential development intended for home ownership, a
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-14
homeowners’ association shall be created prior to recordation of such agreement and
covenants and shall be a necessary party to such agreement;
(5) Provision of financial guarantees to ensure the long term maintenance, inspection,
repair, and reconstruction of stormwater control measures in accordance with City Code
Section 70-751, the Unified Development Ordinance, and City Stormwater Standards.

(d) Completion of construction. Construction of SCMs and stormwater conveyances shall
be completed, and final inspection and as-built drawings submitted to and approved by the
City, in accordance with timelines set forth in City Stormwater Standards, unless a
performance guarantee to ensure completion is approved pursuant to (e) below.

(e) Performance Guarantees. The owner or developer of a Development in which the
requirements of (d) above have not been completed shall provide a performance guarantee of
a type as set forth in City Stormwater Standards. The amount provided shall be as set forth in
City Stormwater Standards, or as determined by the Director, which shall at a minimum require
that all direct and indirect costs of completion and compliance with City requirements be
guaranteed. City Stormwater Standards shall also include deadlines for completion of facilities
for which performance guarantees have been provided. Deadlines may be modified by the
Director to better ensure the protection of the City and the public, or to address special
circumstances. A performance guarantee provided under this subsection may be used for any
purpose not otherwise prohibited by law or the specific terms of such guarantee.

(f) Conditional Certificates; Reduction of Guarantees. The City is authorized to issue
conditional certificates of compliance for buildings for which stormwater guarantees have been
provided and completion ensured consistent with City Stormwater Standards. In addition, City
Stormwater Standards may allow for reduction of performance guarantees as approved by the
Department as Stormwater Facilities are completed and requirements are met.

(g) Obligation to complete facilities; City use of land. The owner of property for which a
stormwater facility has been approved as part of a Development, and any parties that have
obligated themselves to construct such facilities under approved plans, permits, or agreements,
are legally obligated to construct the facilities approved, or to pay for the construction of such
facilities, if any land disturbing activity has occurred in the Development. An owner that applies
for and receives approval to construct a stormwater facility in a Development agrees, without
further written agreements or conditions, to allow the City and its agents to enter and
construct such facilities and to a reasonable right of entry to such land for the City and its
agents, without compensation for such entry or use, to construct facilities required under this
Article. Such agreement applies to all properties within the Development that are conveyed by
such owner, and to all persons or entities that utilize an approved plan requiring construction of
a stormwater facility for further development. . This provision does not: i) require the City to
take any action, acquire any property, or construct any facility; or ii) create any right or
entitlement for any persons or entities other than the City; or iii) limit the City’s ability to
require other persons or entities not identified in this subsection (g) to construct stormwater
facilities that have not been constructed; or iv) limit the City’s ability to utilize any other
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-15
authority it may have under law to recoup the cost of construction of stormwater facilities,
including but not limited to authority to assess properties served by such facilities.

(h) Rights under contracts. The City is entitled to enforce any third party rights for the
benefit of the public or itself that may be expressly or implicitly created in contracts for the
design and construction of SCMs or Stormwater Conveyances. Contractors that have not
performed in accordance with such contracts may be considered responsible parties under this
Article.

Sec. 70-743 Inspection, Maintenance, Repair, and Reconstruction.

(a) Private maintenance responsibility. The inspection, maintenance, repair and
reconstruction of Stormwater Control Measures and Stormwater Conveyances not located in
city right of way shall be the responsibility of i) the owner of the property on which such SCMs
and conveyances are located; and ii) any person or entity that has legally agreed to be
responsible for the SCMs; and iii) the non-City properties served by the SCMs or conveyances,
as determined by reference to site plans, plats, and construction drawings for the SCMs or
conveyances.

(b) Level of maintenance. Every SCM and Stormwater Conveyances shall be maintained,
repaired, and reconstructed so as to continue its functionality to the level for which it was
designed for the control and/or conveyance of stormwater and for the treatment of Stormwater
Pollutants. Maintenance, repair, and reconstruction shall be performed in compliance with City
Stormwater Standards. Standards for maintenance include but are not limited to the specific
operation and maintenance agreement that may exist for particular facilities on file with the City
Public Works Department, and the most recent version of the "Owner's Maintenance Guide for
Stormwater SCMs Constructed in the City of Durham.”

(c) Annual private inspection. An annual inspection report that meets City Stormwater
Standards shall be provided for each Stormwater Control Measure by the persons or entities
responsible for such facility, identified in (a) above. The report shall be submitted on such
schedule as approved by the Department. In addition, such persons or entities shall maintain
inspection and repair reports regarding the SCMs as required by City Stormwater Standards.

(d) City right to inspect. The City may inspect Stormwater Control Measures and
Stormwater Conveyances located on private property. Inspection may include but is not limited
to testing of structures, water, or vegetation as the City determines may be useful to determine
the history or performance of the SCM or conveyance.

Sec. 70-744 Remedies for Violation

The following are considered a violation of this Article: noncompliance with any
requirement of this Article or prior stormwater ordinances; noncompliance with City
Stormwater Standards implementing this Article; and noncompliance with any approval,
Municipal Facilities
and Activities B-16
permit, or similar authorization granted pursuant to this Article. A violation of this Article is a
violation of the City Code and is subject to all civil and criminal penalties allowed under law, in
addition to those specifically set forth below. Persons and entities identified in Sec. 70-742 and
70-743(a) as responsible for compliance with this Article shall be responsible for any violation.
Remedies are cumulative, and may be exercised separately, together, or in any order.

(a) Withholding of Permits, Approvals, and Certificates of Occupancy/Compliance. In the
event of violation of this Article, the City may withhold any approval or permit for any
development activity occurring on the property or in the development where the violation
exists, including but not limited to withholding any permit or certificate of
occupancy/compliance for any structure served by an actual or proposed SCM or stormwater
conveyance that is in violation.
(b) Stop work order. The City may issue a stop work order to any person or entity
performing work on property and/or in a development where there is a violation of this Article.
(c) Injunction; Nuisance; Costs as Lien. The City may institute an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction for an injunction, order of abatement, or any other equitable remedy
not prohibited by law to remediate a violation of this Article. The City may also maintain an
action under GS 160A-193 to remedy a condition prejudicial to the public health and safety.
Costs of correction sustained by the City may be assessed as a lien against property, as allowed
by law.
(d) Incorporation of 70-538 et seq. In addition, all remedies and procedures set forth in
Sections 70-538 through 70-542 of the City Code shall apply to violations of this Article whether
or not such violations are also violations of City Code Section 70, Article V.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective July 6, 2012 and shall replace the above-cited
sections of the City Code

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STORMWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR DEVELOPMENT, DURHAM CITY CODE CHAPTER 70, ARTICLE X,
SECTIONS 70-736 THROUGH 70-749

WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Durham finds that:

The health, safety and general welfare and convenience of the public will be furthered through:

1) Protecting receiving waters impacted by stormwater runoff discharged from
development within the City of Durham through maintaining performance
standards for total suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria for such
development;

2) Complying with the City of Durham’s municipal stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit, issued under the authority of Section 402(p)
of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.26 et
seq.;

3) Complying with the General Statutes of North Carolina, including but not limited
to Article 4A 113A-70 et seq. and with implementing regulations for such state
statutes, including but not limited to the statutes and regulations implementing
nutrient management requirements for the Neuse Basin and the Falls Basin;

4) Limiting potential flooding of downstream properties and protecting streams and
other waterways from erosion by ensuring that development manages the increases
in peak flows that result from changes in land cover;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Durham that:

SECTION 1. Existing Sections 70-736 through 70-741 are amended as follows:
2

“Sec. 70-736. Purpose and definitions.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of Article X is to further the health, safety and general welfare
and convenience of the public through:

(1) Protecting receiving waters impacted by stormwater runoff discharged from
development within the City of Durham through maintaining performance standards
for total suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria for such development;

(2) Complying with the City of Durham’s municipal stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit, issued under the authority of Section 402(p) of
the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.26 et seq.;

(3) Complying with the various General Statutes of North Carolina including but not
limited to Article 4A, GS 113A-70 et seq. and implementing regulations for such
state statutes, including but not limited to the statutes and regulations implementing
nutrient management requirements for the Neuse Basin and the Falls Basin;

(4) Limiting potential flooding of downstream properties and protecting streams and
other waterways from erosion by ensuring that development manages the increases in
peak flows that result from changes in land cover;

(b) Definitions. Within this Article, the following terms and phrases, regardless of
capitalization, shall have the meanings set forth below:

Baseline Date or Applicable Baseline Date means the following dates when stormwater
requirements were adopted for the basins indicated:

Jordan Basin March 17, 2009 (see TSS Definition)
Falls Basin July 6, 2012
Lower Neuse Basin March 9, 2001

City Stormwater Standards means written standards related to Stormwater adopted by the
Public Works Department or City Council. They include but are not limited to the Reference
Guide for Development and content published on the City’s web pages; other written and
adopted specifications for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of Stormwater
Control Measures or Stormwater Conveyances; and all state standards related to stormwater or
state approved alternatives to such standards that have been adopted by the City’s Public Works
Department or City Council. The City shall submit to NC DEQ for approval all technical
standards that require approval.

Common Plan of Development means staged or coordinated Development pursuant to an
approved plan such as a development plan or site plan whether or not by the same owner, or
successive improvements over a period of years initiated by the owner(s) of and conducted on a
parcel or contiguous parcels of land for the benefit of such parcel(s). Factors to be considered in
3

determining whether a Common Plan of Development exists include but are not limited to:
ownership; scope, content, and history of approved plans; other information regarding the
development such as contracts, advertisements, or marketing materials; equitable factors; and
common or joint use of infrastructure such as roads or utilities.

Department means the Public Works Department of the City of Durham.

Development means any land-disturbing activity that increases the amount of impervious
surface area or that otherwise decreases the infiltration of precipitation into the subsoil.

Director means the Director of the Public Works Department of the City of Durham, or such
person(s) as designated in writing by the Director to perform all or a portion of the functions set
forth in this Article.

Department of Environmental Quality or DEQ means the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NC DEQ).

Downtown Area means the Downtown Tier, Compact Neighborhoods, and Suburban Transit
Zones as shown on the Durham Comprehensive Land Use Plan most recently approved by the
Durham City Council.

Existing Development means Development that, prior to the effective date of this ordinance
has either been lawfully constructed, or has established a vested right under North Carolina law
to construct a proposed project, or portion thereof. With regard to application of this ordinance,
a vested right will be recognized as follows:

a) for Development that does not require a state permit, a vested right shall exist for any
portion of a Development that has an approved or a completed application for a site plan or
subdivision plat covering that portion, or in the event a site plan or subdivision plat is not
required, a building permit or a construction drawing for that portion of the Development. An
approved development plan does not accord vested rights in the absence of an approved or
completed application for the above-described plans or permits. A “completed application” is
one that meets all application requirements, including payment of all required fees and
submission of all required information, prior to the effective date of this ordinance. A vested
right shall expire if the validity of an approved or completed application or approval is not
continuously maintained as otherwise required under the Unified Development Ordinance or
City Code;

b) for Development that requires a state permit, vested rights shall be recognized if the
project meets all the requirements of a) above, and additionally has received necessary state
permits required for the use or for construction.

Falls Basin means the area that drains to the Falls Reservoir as determined by the Durham
Planning Department.

4

Impervious Surface means a surface that because of its composition and/or its use impedes
the natural infiltration of water. It includes but is not limited to buildings, roofs, solid decks,
driveways, parking areas, patios, sidewalks, and compacted gravel areas. It does not include
areas that are part of permitted stormwater controls; the open surface water such as swimming
pools; a surface of 57 stone, as designated by the American Society for Testing and Materials,
laid at least four inches thick over a geotextile fabric; a trail as defined in G.S. 113A-85 that is
either unpaved or paved as long as the pavement is porous with a hydraulic conductivity greater
than 0.001 centimeters per second (1.41 inches per hour); or landscaping material, including, but
not limited to, gravel, mulch, sand, and vegetation, placed on areas that receive pedestrian or
bicycle traffic or on portions of driveways and parking areas that will not be compacted by the
weight of a vehicle, such as the area between sections of pavement that support the weight of a
vehicle. The owner or developer of a property may opt out of any of the exemptions from
"impervious surface" set out in this definition.

Jordan Basin means the area that drains to Jordan Lake as determined by the Durham
Planning Department.

Land Disturbance means a change in the natural cover or topography of land that may result
in sedimentation, and includes but is not limited to grubbing, stump removal, removal of topsoil,
coarse or fine grading, and disturbance to the subgrade.

Limited Residential means single family and duplex residential and recreational
development.

Lower Neuse Basin means the area that drains to the Neuse River but not to the Falls Basin
as determined by the Durham Planning Department, which area is generally shown on a map
maintained by such department.

Multifamily and Other Development means development not included in Limited
Residential, and includes but is not limited to multifamily and townhomes, and office, industrial,
institutional (including local government institutional), and commercial development.

New Development means Development that does not qualify as “Existing Development.”

Redevelopment means any land-disturbing activity that does not result in a net increase in
impervious surface area and that provides greater or equal stormwater control to that of the
previous development.

Stormwater Control Measure, or SCM, means a device or practice that is designed to trap,
settle out, filter, or otherwise reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff, and/or to alter or reduce
runoff velocity, amount, timing, or other stormwater characteristics. The term includes all
measures formerly known as “best management practices” or “BMPs”. Such measures include
but are not limited to stormwater detention facilities, constructed wetlands, vegetative areas,
filter strips, buffers, and vegetated swales, and appurtenant drainage facilities.

5

Stormwater Conveyance means a physical feature, including constructed devices, that
conveys stormwater. A conveyance may also serve as a Stormwater Control Measure.

Stormwater Facilities means Stormwater Control Measures and Stormwater Conveyances.

Stormwater Pollutant or Pollutant means nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), bacteria, total
suspended solids, and any other substance that can be transported via stormwater and that is
identified in this Article or City Stormwater Standards as requiring regulation.

TSS means Total Suspended Solids. TSS requirements outside of Watershed Protection
Overlays were adopted on March 17, 2009 to fulfill NPDES Ph. 2 requirements incorporated in
the City’s NPDES MS4 Permit.

Sec. 70-737 General; prior requirements; additional standards; interpretations.

(a) Applicability. This Article contains requirements for the control of Stormwater
Pollutants and the management of peak flows from stormwater discharges from Development in
the City of Durham. All Development shall be subject to the requirements of this Article unless
specifically exempted.

(b) Approval contingent upon compliance. No site plan, preliminary or final subdivision
plat, construction drawing for a street or for utilities, or utility permit shall be approved until the
applicant has submitted information required by the City Stormwater Standards sufficient to
determine compliance with this Article, and review for compliance has been conducted.

(c) Prior requirements, violations continue. Prior stormwater requirements that have been
superseded by the requirements of this Article shall continue to apply to Existing Development
approved and/or constructed under such prior requirements, in the event that the requirements of
this Article do not apply. Existing Development, or portions thereof, that is not required to
comply with this Article must continue to manage Stormwater Pollutants and peak flow in
accordance with the stormwater requirements appearing on approved plans for the development
and the requirements in effect when such plans were approved. Violations of superseded
stormwater requirements shall continue as violations and be subject to enforcement under this
Article unless this Article explicitly allows the Development or action that constitutes the
violation.

(d) City Stormwater Standards. The Public Works Department is authorized to promulgate
technical standards for use in the administration of this Article, which standards may be amended
from time to time. Technical standards may include but are not limited to requirements for
design, construction, performance, financial security, review, and professional certification of
stormwater facilities. City Stormwater Standards are considered requirements of this Article.
They shall be in writing, and approved and signed by the Director, and shall be maintained in the
City’s Reference Guide for Development or in other written documents. If such standards
conflict with technical standards that have been adopted pursuant to other portions of the City
Code, the Director shall be authorized to resolve such conflicts. Any such resolution shall be
6

consistent with the requirements of this Article. The City shall submit to NC DEQ for approval
all technical standards that require approval.

(e) Maps. The watershed maps for the Falls Basin, the Jordan Basin, and the Lower Neuse
Basin maintained by the Durham City County Planning Department, as supplemented by
particular drainage information that may be required pursuant to City Stormwater Standards or
the Unified Development Ordinance, shall be used to determine the drainage basin in which a
property is located and other determinations regarding drainage.

(f) Final decisions/interpretations. The Director shall be authorized to render all
interpretations of, and final decisions under, this Article. No interpretation shall be binding
unless it is in writing and signed by the Director.

(g) Requirements Supplementary; Conflict. The requirements in this Article implement
and in some cases supplement other statutory and regulatory requirements including, but not
limited to, requirements for buffers, water protection (watershed) overlays, and controls for
sedimentation and erosion that are contained in the Unified Development Ordinance. In the
event of a conflict between the requirements of this Article and statutory or regulatory
requirements, the statutory or regulatory requirements shall control.

(h) Fees. The City is authorized to charge fees to recoup all estimated direct and indirect
costs of administering this Article, and such fees shall be reviewed and approved on a periodic
basis by the Durham City Council.

(i) Severability. If any portion of this Article is determined to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect or invalidate the remaining portions of
this Article.

Sec. 70-738. Peak runoff control requirements.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section 70-738 is to ensure that the increases in volume,
velocity, and peak flow of stormwater discharges from Development are addressed, in order to
mitigate the impacts on downstream properties and receiving waters. All Development,
including Development that may be exempt from pollutant reduction requirements set forth in
remaining sections of this Article, is subject to the requirements of this section unless exempted
in (b) below.

(b) Applicability; calculation of prior impervious area. This Subsection 70-738 applies to
the following Development, assessed in comparison to pre-development prior impervious
conditions as defined in (1) and (2) below: (i) relocation of existing impervious area on a
Multifamily and Other lot; (ii) increase in impervious area on any lot subject to limitations on
impervious area in an approved plat or plan for reasons such as watershed protection or
stormwater control measure requirements; (iii) increase of more than 500 square feet in
impervious area on a Multifamily and Other lot; (iv) increase of more than 2000 square feet of
impervious area on a single family or duplex residential lot included on a preliminary or final
plat submitted for review, or for any lot utilized for recreation. For purposes of calculating these
7

thresholds, subject Development that is part of a Common Plan of Development shall be
assessed with other portions of such common plan that have not previously complied with peak
flow requirements.

(1) For purposes of applying peak flow requirements for the 2 and 10 year storms, the land
cover (including type and location) existing as of April 23, 1997 shall be considered the “pre-
development conditions”;

(2) For purposes of applying the peak flow requirement for the 1 year storm, the land cover
(including type and location) that existed as of March 9, 2001 for land in the Falls Basin and
Lower Neuse Basin, and as of March 17, 2009 for land in the Jordan Basin shall be considered
the “pre-development conditions”;

(c) Requirements.

(1) Stormwater impact analysis. Development that is not exempt under (b) above shall
submit a Stormwater Impact Analysis or approved alternative to such analysis that complies with
City Stormwater Standards as part of the application for site plan or subdivision plat approval, or
if such is not required, as part of submittals for construction drawings or utility permit approval.
Calculations shall be made in conformance with City Stormwater Standards. No subdivision
plats, site plans, utility permits, or construction drawings shall be approved in the absence of a
determination by the Stormwater Division that required submissions have been made and
approved.

(2) One year storm. Development that increases the peak runoff rate from the 1-year storm
from pre-development conditions shall provide stormwater management facilities in accordance
with City Stormwater Standards such that there is no net increase in peak runoff rate. This
requirement shall be applicable in the Jordan basin only when one acre or more of land has been
cumulatively disturbed and the previously pervious portion of the property as of March 17, 2009
will be developed to exceed 24% impervious area.

(3) Two and ten year storms. Development that increases the peak runoff rate from either
the 2-year or the 10-year storm from predevelopment conditions may be required to provide
stormwater management facilities to address the impact, as determined in accordance with City
Stormwater Standards.

(4) Other design storms. Development that increases the peak runoff from other design
storms such as the 100-year storm may be required to install stormwater management facilities to
address the impact, as determined in accordance with City Stormwater Standards.

Sec. 70-739. Stormwater Pollutant standards; exemptions.

Sections 70-739 through 70-741 set forth requirements for Stormwater Pollutants, which
include nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, and bacteria. All Development shall
comply with these standards unless exempted as set forth in this subsection 70-739.

8

(a) Exemptions for limited disturbances. Development in which Land Disturbance,
calculated cumulatively as of the Applicable Baseline Date, is less than the thresholds in Table 1
below is exempt from the standards in subsections 70-740 and 70-741, subject to paragraphs (1)
and (2) below.

TABLE 1 THRESHOLDS FOR APPLICATION OF STORMWATER
POLLUTANT REQUIREMENTS

Project Location Land Disturbance
Limited Residential Multifamily and Other
Jordan Basin 1 acre 1 acre
Falls Basin 0.5 acre 12,000 sq. ft.
Lower Neuse Basin 1 acre 0.5 acre

(1) Common Plan of Development. Development that is part of a Common Plan of
Development shall be included in the calculation. If the applicable threshold set forth in
Table 1 is exceeded, all other portions of the Common Plan are subject to the requirements
of this Article unless lots within the Common Plan were lawfully constructed after the
baseline date in accordance with the applicable requirements then in effect and the lot(s) are
under separate ownership at the time of development and those portions are under different
ownership, applicant, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate than the project area;

(2) Redevelopment and Existing Development; maintenance of treatment.
Redevelopment and Existing Development that are exempt under these thresholds must
continue to maintain and reconstruct all SCMs in compliance with approved plans, prior
ordinance requirements, and City Standards.

(b) Other exemptions. Additionally, Development is exempt if:
A. it qualifies in its entirety as Existing Development; or

B. it does not increase impervious area over the Applicable Baseline Date; or

C. it is undertaken by a state or federal entity in the Falls or Jordan Basin.

D. it is undertaken by an entity covered by its own individual NPDES MS4
permit.

Sec. 70-740. Required reductions for nutrients and TSS; alternatives; calculations

(a) Nutrient Loading Rate Limits. Development not exempt under subsection 70-739 shall
construct and implement SCMs so as to limit the post construction loading rate of nitrogen and
phosphorus from the project area to the limits set forth in Table 2 below, or shall comply with
allowed alternative (b) below. A portion of the reduction requirements for nitrogen and
phosphorus may be met through off site measures or payments as set forth in 70-741.

9

TABLE 2 NUTRIENT EXPORT LOADING RATE LIMITS

Project Location Export Limit lbs/acre/year
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Falls Basin 2.2 0.33
Lower Neuse Basin 3.6 not required

(b) Alternative for low impact development. Development in the Falls Basin will be
considered compliant with the nutrient reduction obligations of this Section 70-740 if it
demonstrates that it meets the post development hydrologic criteria set forth in Chapter 2 of the
North Carolina Low Impact Development Guidebook dated June of 2009, as it may be amended
from time to time, or within any basin that shows compliance through NCDEQ’s Storm-EZ
spreadsheet.

(c) TSS Reduction. TSS reduction is applicable to Development as further described in this
subsection (c) when the following conditions are met:
• An increase in impervious area occurs as compared to what existed as of March 17,
2009, and
• Increase in impervious area assessed in comparison to pervious area existing as of
March 17, 2009 exceeds 24%
All increased impervious surfaces, as reasonably practical, must drain to an allowed SCM that is
designed to provide a minimum of 85% TSS removal or designated as a Primary SCM in the
North Carolina Stormwater Control Measure Credit Document and is sized to capture runoff
from the first 1 inch of rainfall from all surfaces that drain to the SCM. These requirements are
expanded, and/or modified as follows:

(1) Piped Areas in Low Density Projects. Projects that do not require construction of
SCMs because their impervious percentage is less than that described in the paragraph above
must treat TSS from stormwater runoff that is conveyed in non-vegetated conveyances, such as
stormwater pipes, but excluding road and driveway crossings.

(2) Overtreatment to address untreatable areas. Where treatment for TSS is not reasonably
practicable as determined by the Department, such as when impervious areas include offsite
transportation improvements or small noncontiguous areas at the edge of a project, additional
reductions of TSS may be required in treatable areas, such as overtreatment in other project areas
or treatment of off-site run-on.

(d) Calculations for Nutrient Loading and TSS Removal. Pollutant loading calculations
shall be made using City Stormwater Standards. All increases in impervious surfaces shall be
included, including but not limited to internal and offsite transportation improvements in City
maintained right-of-way. Approved methodologies for calculating pollutant loading will be
maintained in writing by the Public Works Department, and will include those methodologies
and calculations required by NC DEQ or alternative methodologies approved by the Public
Works Department and/or NC DEQ.

10

(e) Submittals. An applicant shall submit pollutant loading calculations for the pre- and
post-development conditions as part of its application and as part of the stormwater impact
analysis for approval of a subdivision or site plan, utility permit, or construction drawings for a
street or utility.

Sec. 70-741 On-site treatment requirements; offsite purchase and credit options;
bacteria control.

(a) On site nutrient treatment requirements. Nitrogen and phosphorus reduction
requirements may be met, in part, through offsite management measures or the purchase of
nutrient credits. At a minimum, however, in the Falls Basin a percentage of the required
nitrogen and phosphorus reductions must be achieved through onsite treatment, in the amount
shown in Table 4 below. In addition to meeting the percentage reductions below, in the Lower
Neuse Basin, nitrogen export load from the site must not exceed 6 lbs. per acre per year for
Limited Residential, and 10 lbs per acre per year for Multifamily and Other. (Note: offsite
credit purchases do not meet TSS removal requirements which must be met onsite.)

TABLE 4 ONSITE NUTRIENT TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Project Location Minimum Onsite Nutrient Treatment
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Falls - General
*50% of
required reduction
*50% of
required reduction
Falls Downtown
Area
*30% of
required reduction
*30% of
required reduction
Falls exceeding
thresholds but with
less than 1 acre land
disturbance
*30% of
required reduction
*30% of
required reduction
Lower Neuse
No Percentage
reductions apply, but
the 6/10 nitrogen
export limit described
in paragraph (a)
above must be met
No Percentage
reductions apply, but
the 6/10 nitrogen
export limit described
in paragraph (a)
above must be met
*The “required reduction” is the difference between the post-development loading rate
in pounds per acre per year before treatment minus the loading rate target, in pounds per
acre per year. The percentage shown in the chart above is applied to the difference and the
resulting number is the amount in pounds/acre/year that the nutrient loading rate must be
reduced onsite.

(b) Offset Payments to state approved nutrient mitigation banks. Development shall have
the option of purchasing nutrient credits from state-approved nutrient banks to partially offset
nitrogen and/or phosphorus loads as allowed by State law and regulation, including but not
limited to 15A NCAC 02B.0235, 15A NCAC 02B.0282, and 15A NCAC 02B.0240, as they may
be amended from time to time. The number of pounds for which credits are purchased shall be
11

increased by 5% if the nutrient bank is not located in the City of Durham. The following
additional requirements shall apply:

1. Location of nutrient banks. Development in the Falls Basin must use nutrient
banks located in the upper Falls portion of the Falls Basin – the portion that is
north and/or west of Highway 50.

2. Certification of Nutrient Bank Provider. Offset credits may only be obtained
from nutrient banks certified by the state.

3. Utilization of NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services (Ecosystem Enhancement
Program). Credits may also be obtained from the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program if such credits are available, and if applicable state requirements
regarding utilization of private nutrient banks are first met.

4. Certification of credits. Credits purchased pursuant to this subsection (b) shall be
verified by the State and proof of such verification that meets City requirements
shall be presented prior to approval of a final plat, or if no plat is required, prior to
issuance of the first building permit within the project, or such earlier deadline as
may be required by City Stormwater Standards.

(c) Bacteria removal; control of other identified Stormwater Pollutants. All Development
which constructs Stormwater Control Measures in order to comply with this Article and which is
located in an area that is subject to a state approved Total Maximum Daily Load for bacteria
shall be required to have at least one primary SCM for each stormwater discharge that is rated as
medium, good, high, or excellent for its ability to remove bacteria from stormwater. Ratings
shall be those that appear in the utilized version of the NC DEQ Stormwater design manual
and/or North Carolina Stormwater Control Measure Credit Document as specified in the
Reference Guide for Development or as determined or approved by the Director. In addition,
SCMs required to be constructed under this Article must also treat any other pollutant for which
a Total Maximum Daily Load has been identified for the area within which the SCM is located.

Sec. 70-742. Design, construction, and completion of SCMs and stormwater
conveyances.

The owner(s) and/or the developer(s) of any Development for which SCMs and/or
Stormwater Conveyances have been approved, and persons or entities that have contracted to
perform all or a part of an owner’s or developer’s obligations, shall be responsible for complying
with the requirements set forth below.

(a) Design. Stormwater Facilities required by this Article shall be designed in accordance
with City Stormwater Standards. Dams, as defined by the North Carolina Dam Safety Law,
including but not limited to NCGS 143-215.23 et seq., and associated state administrative codes,
as they may be amended in the future, are subject to the above-cited state requirements.

12

(b) Approvals for Stormwater Facilities. Stormwater Facilities required by this Article or
any other requirement of City Code or by the Unified Development Ordinance shall be
constructed in accordance with City Stormwater Standards. Plans for Stormwater Control
Measures shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval on such timetable as
required in City Stormwater Standards. City Stormwater Standards may require that permits be
obtained for such work.

(c) Construction plans, fees, financial guarantees. For a Development in which
construction of one or more Stormwater Control Measures is required, the owner(s) and/or
developer(s) must ensure compliance with (1) through (5) below prior to i) recordation of final
plat for development involving individual ownership of lots or units within the development; ii)
issuance of a utility permit for development which is not exclusively for residential
home/condominium ownership; iii) issuance of a building permit for construction within a
development which is not exclusively for residential home/condominium ownership and does not
require a utility permit or iv) construction drawing approval for any infrastructure within the
development which will not require a building or utility permit:

(1) Review and approval of the Stormwater Impact Analysis;
(2) Review and approval of plans and specifications for the SCMs and Stormwater
Conveyances within the development;
(3) Payment of permit and review fees required by the Department;
(4) In the case of development involving individual ownership of lots or units within the
development, an owners’ association shall be created prior to recordation of covenants that
comply with City Stormwater Standards and that provide, among other things, for the long
term maintenance, inspection, repair, and reconstruction of the SCMs in accordance with
City Standards;
(5) Provision of financial guarantees to ensure the long term maintenance, inspection,
repair, and reconstruction of stormwater control measures in accordance with City Code
Section 70-751, the Unified Development Ordinance, and City Stormwater Standards.

(d) Completion of construction. Construction of SCMs and stormwater conveyances shall
be completed prior to final plat approval, if a final plat approval is required for the development,
and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a building, structure, or use not deemed
single family and duplex residential development, unless a performance guarantee to ensure
completion is approved pursuant to (e) below.

(e) Performance Guarantees. The owner or developer of a Development in which the
requirements of (d) above have not been completed shall provide a performance guarantee of a
type as set forth in City Stormwater Standards. The amount provided shall be as set forth in
City Stormwater Standards, or as determined by the Director, which shall at a minimum require
that all direct and indirect costs of completion and compliance with City requirements be
guaranteed. City Stormwater Standards shall also include deadlines for completion of facilities
for which performance guarantees have been provided. Deadlines may be modified by the
Director to better ensure the protection of the City and the public, or to address special
circumstances. .

13

(f) Conditional Certificates; Reduction of Guarantees. The City is authorized to issue
conditional certificates of compliance for buildings for which performance guarantees have been
provided and completion ensured consistent with City Stormwater Standards. In addition, City
Stormwater Standards may allow for reduction of performance guarantees as approved by the
Department as Stormwater Facilities are completed and requirements are met.

(g) Obligation to complete facilities; City use of land. The owner of property for which a
stormwater facility has been approved as part of a Development, and any parties that have
obligated themselves to construct such facilities under approved plans, permits, or previously
approved agreements, are legally obligated to construct the facilities approved, or to pay for the
construction of such facilities, if any land disturbing activity has occurred in the Development.
An owner that applies for and receives approval to construct a stormwater facility in a
Development agrees that the City and its agents are authorized to enter upon the property and to
construct the stormwater facilities if the owner fails to do so. This provision does not: i) require
the City to take any action, acquire any property, or construct any facility; or ii) create any right
or entitlement for any persons or entities other than the City; or iii) limit the City’s ability to
require other persons or entities not identified in this subsection (g) to construct stormwater
facilities that have not been constructed; or iv) limit the City’s ability to utilize any other
authority it may have under law to recoup the cost of construction of stormwater facilities,
including but not limited to authority to assess properties served by such facilities.

(h) Rights under contracts. The City is entitled to enforce any third party rights for the
benefit of the public or itself that may be expressly or implicitly created in contracts for the
design and construction of SCMs or Stormwater Conveyances. Contractors that have not
performed in accordance with such contracts may be considered responsible parties under this
Article.

Sec. 70-743 Inspection, Maintenance, Repair, and Reconstruction.

(a) Private maintenance responsibility. The inspection, maintenance, repair and
reconstruction of Stormwater Control Measures and Stormwater Conveyances shall be the
responsibility of i) the owner(s) of the property on which such SCMs and conveyances are
located; or ii) any person(s) or entity that is legally responsible pursuant to applicable agreements
and/or covenants.

(b) Level of maintenance. Every SCM and Stormwater Conveyance shall be maintained,
repaired, and reconstructed so as to continue its functionality to the level for which it was
designed for the control and/or conveyance of stormwater and for the treatment of Stormwater
Pollutants. Maintenance, repair, and reconstruction shall be performed in compliance with City
Stormwater Standards. Standards for maintenance include but are not limited to the most
recently approved version of the operation and maintenance manual specifically prepared for
each facility, a recorded stormwater facility agreement, and the most recent version of the
"Owner's Maintenance Guide for Stormwater SCMs Constructed in the City of Durham.”

(c) Annual private inspection. An annual inspection shall be conducted by a SCM
Maintenance Certifier and a report that meets City Stormwater Standards shall be submitted to
14

the Director for each Stormwater Control Measure by the persons or entities responsible for such
facility, identified in (a) above. The report shall be submitted on such schedule as assigned by
the Department. In addition, such persons or entities shall maintain inspection and repair reports
regarding the SCMs as required by City Stormwater Standards.

(d) City right to inspect. The City may inspect Stormwater Control Measures and
Stormwater Conveyances located on private property. Inspection may include but is not limited
to testing of structures, water, or vegetation as the City determines may be useful to determine
the history or performance of the SCM or conveyance.

Sec. 70-744 Remedies for Violation

The following are considered a violation of this Article: noncompliance with any
requirement of this Article or prior stormwater ordinances; noncompliance with City Stormwater
Standards implementing this Article; and noncompliance with any approval, permit, or similar
authorization granted pursuant to this Article. A violation of this Article is a violation of the City
Code and is subject to all civil and criminal penalties allowed under law, in addition to those
specifically set forth below. Persons and entities identified in Sec. 70-742 and 70-743(a) as
responsible for compliance with this Article shall be responsible for any violation. Remedies are
cumulative, and may be exercised separately, together, or in any order.

(a) Withholding of Permits, Approvals, and Certificates of Occupancy/Compliance. In the
event of violation of this Article, the City may withhold any approval or permit for any
development activity occurring on the property or in the development where the violation exists,
including but not limited to withholding any permit or certificate of occupancy/compliance for
any structure served by an actual or proposed SCM or stormwater conveyance that is in
violation.
(b) Stop work order. The City may issue a stop work order to any person or entity
performing work on property and/or in a development where there is a violation of this Article.
(c) Injunction; Nuisance; Costs as Lien. The City may institute an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction for an injunction, order of abatement, or any other equitable remedy not
prohibited by law to remediate a violation of this Article. The City may also maintain an action
under GS 160A-193 to remedy a condition prejudicial to the public health and safety. Costs of
correction sustained by the City may be assessed as a lien against property, as allowed by law.
(d) Incorporation of 70-538 et seq. In addition, all remedies and procedures set forth in
Sections 70-538 through 70-542 of the City Code shall apply to violations of this Article whether
or not such violations are also violations of City Code Section 70, Article V.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption and shall replace
the above-cited sections of the City Code.

Article 8 Environmental Protection | Durham Unified Development Ordinance Page 1 of 1
The Durham Unified Development Ordinance is current through legislation effective:Durham County: Fe…
Article 8 | Environmental Protection
Sections:
Sec. 8.1 Purpose
Sec. 8.2 Exemptions from Environmental Protection Standards
Sec. 8.3 Tree Protection and Tree Coverage
Sec. 8.4 Floodplain and Flood Damage Protection Standards
Sec. 8.5 Riparian Buffer Protection Standards
Sec. 8.6 Water Supply Reservoir Buffer
Sec. 8.7 Watershed Protection Overlay Standards
Sec. 8.8 Steep Slope Protection Standards
Sec. 8.9 Wetlands Protection Standards
Sec. 8.10 Durham Inventory Site Protection Standards
The Durham Unified Development Ordinance is current through legislation effective:
Durham County: February 1, 2019
City of Durham: February 1, 2019
Disclaimer: The Durham City-County Planning Department office has the official version of the
Durham Unified Development Ordinance. Users should contact the Planning Department for
amendments subsequent to the amendment cited here.
City Website: durhamnc.gov
Code Publishing Company

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-1
APPENDIX D
City/County
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
Revisions Effective March 1, 2018

Following review by NCDEMLR and approval by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission, City-County
UDO provisions regarding Durham County’s Sedimentation and Erosion Control program were revised,
effective March1, 2018. A memorandum from Durham County Stormwater and Erosion Control Division
to the Sedimentation Control Commission requesting approval of the revisions provides the following
overview and rationale for the revisions:
Durham County is seeking to revise portions of the City-County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) with respect to its Sedimentation and Erosion Control program. Many of the revisions are
required to bring the UDO into compliance with recent amendments to the Sedimentation and
Pollution Control Act, including hand delivery of NOVs and the addition of the remissions options
for civil penalties. In addition, Durham County is seeking to remove the requirement of submission
of plans to the Soil and Water Conservation District for review and comment. This is part of our
ongoing process improvements across all business units of the County.
In 2015, Durham County adopted the Managing for Results (MFR) business model as a means for
tracking performance data and identifying strategies for improving governmental operations. As a
part of MFR, departments were asked to look closely at how their employees were allocating their
time and resources. Additionally, business units and Senior Management began reviewing
programs for areas of duplicated efforts. During this initial evaluation, the Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) identified that approximately twenty percent (20%) of one
employee’s time was being used on erosion control plans, while other areas – agricultural
economic development in particular – were underserved. As a process improvement, erosion
control plan review was identified as an activity that could be removed from the SWCD portfolio in
order to free up staff time and resources for other programs and to reduce duplication of efforts.
As part of this effort, Durham County’s Executive Leadership, including the County Manager and
General Managers have worked to significantly strengthen the County’s internal expertise in the
areas of erosion control plan review and implementation. The Stormwater and Erosion
Control Division staffing now includes a Professional Engineer (PE), two Certified Professionals in
Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), and experienced field staff. These technical professionals
have in excess of 35 years of experience in reviewing, designing, and implementing erosion control
plans. In addition, our staff are in the process of obtaining additional certifications in inspections
and plans review practices. We continue to look for strategic opportunities to improve
environmental protections while maximizing outcomes from public investment and see this request
as part of our ongoing process improvement in that space.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-2
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Excerpts Related to Sedimentation and Erosion Control

Table of Contents
Section 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control ........................................................................ D-2
Sec. 3.8.1 Applicability ................................................................................................................ D-2
Sec. 3.8.2 Application Requirements .......................................................................................... D-2
Sec. 3.8.3 Fees .............................................................................................................................. D-3
Sec. 3.8.4 Action by Sedimentation and Erosion Control Office ................................................ D-4
Sec. 3.8.5 Preconstruction Conference ....................................................................................... D-4
Sec. 3.8.6 Self-Inspection ............................................................................................................. D-4
Sec. 3.8.7 Disapproval of Plan ..................................................................................................... D-4
Sec. 3.8.8 Amendment of Plan .................................................................................................... D-5
Sec. 3.8.9 Appeals ........................................................................................................................ D-5
Sec. 3.8.10 Expiration .................................................................................................................... D-6

Section 8.8 Steep Slope Protection Standards .......... (See APPENDIX C for Section 8 of the UDO)

Section 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control ........................................................................ D-8
Sec. 12.10.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ D-8
Sec. 12.10.2 Applicability ................................................................................................................ D-8
Sec. 12.10.3 Basic Control Objectives ........................................................................................... D-10
Sec. 12.10.4 Mandatory Standards for Land-Disturbing Activity ................................................. D-10
Sec. 12.10.5 Permanent Downstream Protection of Stream Banks, Channels
and Slopes ................................................................................................................. D-12
Sec. 12.10.6 Borrow and Waste Areas ........................................................................................... D-15
Sec. 12.10.7 Access and Haul Roads ............................................................................................. D-15
Sec. 12.10.8 Operations in Lakes or Natural Watercourses ......................................................... D-15
Sec. 12.10.9 Responsibility for Maintenance ................................................................................ D-16
Sec. 12.10.10 Self-Inspection ........................................................................................................... D-16
Sec. 12.10.11 Additional Measures ................................................................................................. D-17

Section 15.1 Violations; Violators ............................................................................................... D-19
Sec. 15.1.1 Applicability .............................................................................................................. D-19
Sec. 15.1.2 Violation .................................................................................................................... D-19
Sec. 15.1.3 Violator ...................................................................................................................... D-19
Sec. 15.1.4 Responsibility ............................................................................................................ D-20

Section 15.5 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and
Penalties .................................................................................................................. D-21
Sec.15.5.1–15.5.5 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties ............................. D-21
Sec.15.5.6 Revocation of Permits ............................................................................................... D-21
Sec.15.5.7 Civil Penalties ............................................................................................................ D-21
Sec.15.5.8 Remission of Civil Penalties ...................................................................................... D-24
Sec.15.5.9 Criminal Penalties ..................................................................................................... D-24
Sec.15.5.10 Enforcement Alternatives ......................................................................................... D-24
Sec.15.5.11 Restoration of Areas Affected by Failure to Comply ................................................ D-25

Section 16.3 Defined Terms .......................................................................... refer to UDO Section 16

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-3

Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control
3.8.1 Applicability
A. If required under Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion
Control, an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan
and/or a land-disturbing permit shall be obtained before
commencing land-disturbing activity.

B. Pursuant to Sec. 113A-57{4) of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of
1973, no person shall initiate any land-disturbing activity that will disturb more than one
acre or requires a sedimentation and erosion control plan under Sec 12.10 unless, 30 or
more days prior to initiating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation control plan for
the activity is filed wit h and approved by the County Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Office.
3.8.2 Application Requirements
A. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
1. Two copies of a sedimentation and erosion control plan and one preliminary set of
construction drawings shall be filed with the County Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Office. A digital copy of approved construction drawings must be submitted upon their
approval.
2. A sedimentation and erosion control plan shall contain site drawings, vicinity maps,
assumptions, calculations, narrative statements, and a construction sequence as needed
to adequately describe the proposed development and the measures proposed to
comply with the requirements of this Article.
3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan shall be prepared by, and bear the seal and
signature of, a registered professional engineer, registered landscape architect,
registered architect, registered land surveyor, or certified professional in erosion and
sediment control. The County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee
may, however, deem such a seal and signature not necessary due to site simplicity (as
the absence of sensitive geographical features and receiving watercourses) and the
limited nature of the sedimentation and erosion control measures required.
4. The approval of sedimentation and erosion control plan is conditioned on the applicant's
compliance with federal, state and local water quality laws, regulations, and rules.
5. An approved sedimentation and erosion control plan shall be kept on file at the job site.
B. Land‐Disturbing Permit

Sufficiency

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-4
Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

1. A land-disturbing permit may be obtained by submitting the following:
a. Applicable fee;
b. Zoning compliance checkoff issued by the Durham City-County Planning
Department;
c. Completed Durham County Financial Responsibility/Ownership Form With
Landowner Consent Form (FRO);
d. Approved sedimentation and erosion control plan, if required;
e. Improvement security, if required;
f. Certification that tree protection fencing has been installed, if required; and
g. Approval of the proposed project by the City or County as applicable.
2. No permit shall be issued until such time as the Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Officer or designee is assured that the proposed land-disturbing activity will be carried
out in accordance with this section and Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control,
and the approved sedimentation and erosion control plan, if required. A land-disturbing
permit application may be disapproved for the same reasons that a sedimentation and
erosion control plan may be disapproved, as set forth in paragraph 3.8.7, Disapproval of
Plan, of this Ordinance.
3. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee shall require security to
assure performance of the conditions of the permit whenever a land-disturbing activity is
in excess of five acres or whenever the Officer or designee determines that the activity
may result in significant off-site damage. The applicant shall file with the Officer or
designee an improvement security in the form of a performance bond or letter of
credit. The amount shall be that which the Officer or designee deems sufficient to cover
all costs of protection or other improvements required for conformity with standards
specified in this section and Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control. The security
may be adjusted or released as the amount of disturbed area changes. The security shall
be released when the Officer or designee has certified that all of the requirements of
such sections have been met. Forfeiture of the improvement security shall not release
the person conducting the land disturbing activity of their obligation to install and
maintain necessary erosion control measures, to stabilize the site, or any other
obligation of this section or Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, or any rule or
order promulgated in furtherance thereof.
4. Prior to initiating land-disturbing activity, the permittee shall notify the Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Office of the date that such activity will begin.
5. A land-disturbing permit issued shall be prominently displayed at the job site until all
construction is completed, all permanent sedimentation and erosion control measures
are removed, and the site has been stabilized as required.
3.8.3 Fees
The fees charged for the administration and enforcement of this Article shall be as
prescribed by the Board of Commissioners.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-5
Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

3.8.4 Action by Sedimentation and Erosion Control Office
A. The County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee shall review each
complete sedimentation and erosion control plan submitted and within 30 days of receipt
shall notify the person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with
modifications, or disapproved. Failure to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove
a complete plan within 30 days of receipt shall be deemed approval. Failure to approve,
approve with modifications, or disapprove a revised plan within 15 days of receipt shall be
deemed approval. Disapproval of a plan must specifically state in writing the reasons for
disapproval.
B. If, following commencement of a land-disturbing activity pursuant to an approved
sedimentation and erosion control plan, the County Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Officer or designee determines that the plan is inadequate to meet the requirements of this
section or Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, the Officer or designee may
require such revisions as it deems necessary to comply with such sections. Failure to
approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove a revised plan within 15 days of receipt
shall be deemed approval. Pending approval of a revised plan, work shall cease or shall
continue only as authorized by the Officer or designee.
C. The County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee shall review each permit
application that does not require an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan and
within 14 calendar days of receipt shall notify the person submitting the application that it
has been issued or denied.
3.8.5 Preconstruction Conference
When deemed necessary by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer, or designee, a
preconstruction conference may be required.
3.8.6 Self Inspections
The landowner, the financially responsible party, or the landowner's or the financially
responsible party's agent shall perform an inspection of the area covered by the plan after
each phase of the plan has been completed and after establishment of temporary ground
cover in accordance with Sec. 12.10. The person who performs the inspection shall maintain
and make available a record of the inspection at the site of the land-disturbing activity. The
record shall set out any significant deviation from the approved erosion control plan,
identify any measures that may be required to correct the deviation, and document the
completion of those measures. The record shall be maintained until permanent ground
cover has been established as required by the approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan. The inspections required by this subsection shall be in addition to inspections
conducted by the Durham County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Office.
3.8.7 Disapproval of Plan
A. An erosion control plan may be disapproved upon a finding that an applicant, or a parent,
subsidiary or other affiliate of the applicant:
1. Is conducting or has conducted land-disturbing activity without an approved plan, or has
received notice of violation of a plan previously approved by the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission or a local government pursuant to the North
Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, as amended, and all rules and
orders adopted pursuant to it (the Act) or local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act,

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-6
Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

and has not complied with the notice within the time specified in the notice;
2. Has failed to pay a civil penalty assessed pursuant to the Act or a local ordinance
adopted pursuant to the Act by the time the payment is due;
3. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to NCGS § 113A-64(b) or any criminal
provision of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Act; or
4. Has failed to substantially comply with state rules or local ordinances and regulations
adopted pursuant to the Act.
B. For purposes of this subsection, an applicant's record may be considered for only the two
years prior to the application date.
C. Any person engaged in land-disturbing activity who fails to file a plan in accordance with this
Article, or who conducts a land-disturbing activity except in accordance with provisions of an
approved plan, shall be deemed in violation of this Article.
3.8.8 Amendment of Plan
Applications for amendment of an erosion control plan in written and/or graphic form may be made at
any time under the same conditions as described in this section for a new application. Until such time as
such amendment is approved by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee, the land-
disturbing activity shall not proceed except in accordance with the erosion control plan as originally
approved.
3.8.9 Appeals
A. Except as provided in paragraph B. of this subsection, the appeal of a disapproval or
approval with modifications of a plan shall be governed by the following provisions:
1. The disapproval or modification of any proposed erosion control plan or the refusal to
issue a land-disturbing permit by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or
designee shall entitle the person submitting the plan, or applying for the permit, to a
hearing if such person submits written demand to the Clerk to the Board of
Commissioners for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of written notice of disapproval
or modifications. The written demand must specify, with particularity, the factual and/or
legal basis for the appeal. No grounds, other than those so specified, may be argued;
2. Hearings held pursuant to this section shall be conducted by the Board of Commissioners
within 15 days after the date of the appeal or request for a hearing, or at
the next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is later; and
3. If the Board of Commissioners upholds the disapproval or modification of a proposed
erosion control plan or refusal to issue a permit following the public hearing, the person
submitting the plan or permit application shall then be entitled to appeal the Board of
Commissioners' decision to the State Sedimentation Control Commission as provided in
NCGS § 113A-61(c) and Title 15 NCAC 4B.0018(d).
B. In the event that an erosion control plan is disapproved pursuant to paragraph 3.8.7,
Disapproval of Plan, the County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Office shall notify the
Director of the Division of Land Resources (within the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources [DENR]) of such disapproval within ten days. The Office
shall advise the applicant and the Director in writing as to the specific reasons that the plan
was disapproved. The applicant may appeal the Office's disapproval of the plan pursuant to
paragraph 3.8.7, Disapproval of Plan, directly to the State Sedimentation Control

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-7
Sec. 3.8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

Commission.
3.8.10 Expiration
A. A land-disturbing permit shall expire at the end of:
1. One year from the date of issuance if no land-disturbing activity has been undertaken
in that period. No land-disturbing activity may take place following expiration until
the person responsible has applied for, and received, a new land-disturbing permit.
The fee for the new permit shall be 100% of the current applicable fee; or
2. A two-year period, unless it is extended by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Officer or designee upon written request of the permit holder. The request for
extension shall include reasons for incompletion of the work. After review of the
original plan and an on-site inspection of the completed work, the permit may be
extended effective for a period not to exceed six months from the date of expiration
of the original permit. The fee for the extended permit shall be 25% of the current
applicable fee. If work cannot be completed and the site permanently stabilized prior
to expiration of the permit extension, then a new land-disturbing permit must be
applied for and obtained as described in this section.
B. An approved sedimentation and erosion control plan for which no permit has been
issued shall expire one year from the approval date. If a plan has been disapproved, a
revised plan must be submitted within one year from the disapproval date or the file will
be closed.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-8

Sec. 8.8 Steep Slope Protection Standards

(See Appendix C for all of Section 8)

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-9
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control
12.10.1 Purposes
A. This Section is adopted for the purposes of:
1. Regulating private, non-exempt land-disturbing activity to control accelerated erosion
and sedimentation in order to prevent the pollution of water and other damage to lakes,
watercourses and other public and private property by sedimentation; and
2. Establishing procedures through which these purposes can be fulfilled.
B. No person shall undertake any land-disturbing activity without first obtaining a permit from
the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee as required by this section.
12.10.2 Applicability
A. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a permit under this section:
1. Land-disturbing activities for the purpose of fighting fires;
2. Land-disturbing activities that are less than 12,000 square feet in surface area. In
determining the area, lands under one or diverse ownership being developed as a unit
will be aggregated. Notwithstanding this provision, an erosion control plan and/or
permit may be required by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee
when off-site damage is occurring, or if the potential for off-site damage exists.
Additionally, this section may apply when the applicant, or a parent, subsidiary, or other
affiliate of the applicant has engaged in any activity enumerated in paragraph 3.8.7,
Disapproval of Plan;
3. As set forth in NCGS § 113A-52.01, land-disturbing activities relating or incidental to the
production of crops, grains, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy,
livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agriculture undertaken on agricultural land for the
production of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to:
a. Forage and sod crops, grain and feed crops, tobacco, cotton and peanuts;
b. Dairy animals and dairy products;
c. Poultry and poultry products;
d. Livestock, including beef cattle, llamas, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules or
goats, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals;
e. Bees and apiary products;
f. Fur animals; and
g. Mulch, ornamental plants, and other horticultural products. For purposes of this
section, "mulch" means substances composed primarily of plant remains or
mixtures of such substances;
4. Land-disturbing activities undertaken on forest land for the production and harvesting of
timber and timber products and which are conducted in accordance with best
management practices set out in Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality, as
adopted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR.) If land-disturbing activity undertaken on forestland for the production and

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-10
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

harvesting of timber and timber products is not conducted in accordance with Forest
Practice Guidelines Related to Water Quality, the provisions of this Article shall apply to
such activity and any related land-disturbing activity;
5. Land-disturbing activities undertaken by persons as defined in NCGS § 113A-52(8) who
are otherwise regulated by the provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, NCGS § 74-46--74-
68;
6. Land-disturbing activities over which the state has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction as
provided in NCGS § 113A-56(a);
7. Land-disturbing activities undertaken for the duration of an emergency, activities
essential to protect human life;
8. Activities undertaken to restore the wetland functions of converted wetlands to
provide compensatory mitigation to offset impacts permitted under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act; and
9. Activities undertaken pursuant to Natural Resources Conservation Service standards to
restore the wetlands functions of converted wetlands as defined in Title 7 Code of
Federal Regulations Sec. 12.2 (January 1, 2014 Edition).
B. Plan Required
Subject to the exemptions listed in subsection 12.10.2, a sedimentation and erosion control
plan shall be required for any land-disturbing activity within the County, including the City, if
more than 20,000 aggregate square feet will be disturbed, or if 12,000 or more aggregate
square feet will be disturbed in a M/LR-A, M/LR-B, F/J-A, or E-A watershed protection overlay
district. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee may also require
a plan for any land-disturbing activity if it determines that off-site damage is occurring
or the potential for off-site damage exists. A plan may also be required when the
applicant, or a parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant, has engaged in any
activity listed in paragraph 3.8.7, Disapproval of Plan.

Less than 12,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f. to
20,000 s.f. More than 20,000 s.f.
Plan MR MR(*R) R
Permit MR R R
MR ‐ May be required when off-site damage is occurring, the potential for off-site
damage exists, or if the applicant or a parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the
applicant has engaged in any activity enumerated in paragraph 3.8.7, Disapproval of
Plan.
R ‐ Required.
*R ‐ Required in a Lake Michie/Little River Critical Area (M/LR-A), Lake Michie/Little River
Protected Area (M/LR-B), Falls/Jordan Critical Area (F/J-A) and Eno River Critical Area (E-A).
C. Protection of Property
Persons conducting land-disturbing activity shall take all reasonable measures to protect all
public and private property from damage caused by such activity.
D. More Restrictive Rules Shall Apply
Whenever conflicts exist between federal, State or local laws, ordinances or rules, the more
restrictive provision shall apply.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-11
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

12.10.3 Basic Control Objectives
In order for a sedimentation and erosion control plan to be approved, the following control
objectives shall be met:
A. Identify Critical Areas
On-site areas which are subject to severe erosion, and off-site areas which are especially
vulnerable to damage from erosion and/or sedimentation, are to be identified and receive
special attention;
B. Limit Time of Exposure
All land-disturbing activity is to be planned and conducted to limit exposure to the shortest
feasible time;
C. Limit Exposed Areas
All land-disturbing activity is to be planned and conducted to minimize the size of the area
to be exposed at any one time;
D. Control Surface Water
Surface water runoff originating upgrade of exposed areas shall be controlled to reduce
erosion and sediment loss during the period of exposure;
E. Control Sedimentation
All land-disturbing activity is to be planned and conducted so as to restrain off-site
sedimentation damage; and
F. Manage Stormwater Runoff
When the increase in the velocity of stormwater runoff resulting from a land-disturbing
activity is sufficient to cause accelerated erosion of the receiving watercourse, plans are to
include measures to control the velocity at the point of discharge so as to minimize
accelerated erosion of the site and increased sedimentation of the stream.
12.10.4 Mandatory Standards for Land‐Disturbing Activity
No land-disturbing activity shall occur except in accordance with the mandatory standards
listed below. Except where more stringent standards are specified in this Ordinance, the
technical standards and specifications contained in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual shall also apply.
A. Buffer Zones
Except where more stringent buffer requirements are specified in Article 8, Environmental
Protection, and/or Article 9, Landscaping and Buffering, the following requirements shall
apply;
1. No land-disturbing activity during periods of construction or improvement to land shall
be permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is
provided along the margin of the watercourse of sufficient width to confine visible
siltation within the 25% of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing activity. This
subsection shall not apply to a land-disturbing activity in connection with the
construction of facilities to be located on, over or under a lake or natural watercourse;
and
2. Unless otherwise provided, the width of a buffer zone is measured from the top of the
bank nearest edge of the disturbed area, with the 25% of the strip nearer the land-

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-12
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

disturbing activity containing natural or artificial means of confining visible siltation.
B. Stabilization of Disturbed Land
The angle for disturbed land shall be no greater than the angle which can be retained by
vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures.
1. Ongoing Activity. Land left exposed shall be planted or otherwise provided with
temporary ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion within the
applicable time period after completion of any phase of grading or period of inactivity as
follows: seven days for a steep slope; ten days for a moderate slope; 14 days for land
with no slope or inclination. For purposes of this section, a moderate slope means an
inclined area, the inclination of which is less than or equal to three units of horizontal
distance to one unit of vertical distance; and a steep slope means an inclined area, the
inclination of which is greater than three units of horizontal distance to one unit of
vertical distance. No other criteria apply.

2. Completed Activity. For any area of land-disturbing activity where grading activities
have been completed, temporary or permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain
erosion shall be provided as soon as practicable, but in no case later than seven days
after completion of grading.
C. Stabilization of Sedimentation and Erosion Control Devices
Whenever land-disturbing activity exceeds 12,000 square feet, the person conducting the
land-disturbing activity shall install such sedimentation and erosion control devices and
practices as are sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land-disturbing activity
within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of such tract,
and shall plant or otherwise provide a temporary ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion
generated by such devices and practices within seven days.
D. Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures and devices shall be so planned,
designed and constructed as to provide protection from the calculated maximum peak of
runoff from the 25-year storm. Runoff rates shall be calculated using the procedures in the
USDA, Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation
Practices," or other calculation procedures acceptable to the Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Officer or designee.
E. Each sediment basin or trap in the Suburban or Rural Tier shall have a minimum volume of
3,600 cubic feet per acre of disturbed area and a minimum surface area of 435 square feet
per cfs of Q25 (25-year storm) peak inflow. Each sediment basin or trap in the Downtown,
Compact Neighborhood, or Urban Tier shall have a minimum volume of 1,800 cubic feet per
acre of disturbed area and a minimum surface area of 325 square feet per cfs of Q25 peak
inflow. A skimmer shall be used in each sediment basin or trap.
F. Sediment basins and traps shall be designed and constructed such that the basin will have a
settling efficiency of at least 70% for the 40-micron (0.04mm) size soil particle transported
into the basin by the runoff of that two-year storm that produces the maximum peak rate of
Commentary: The moderate and steep slope definitions in this section are mandated by state
law (S.L. 2009-486) for sedimentation and erosion control purposes. This steep slope
definition differs from the steep slope definition under UDO Sec. 8.8, Steep Slope Protection
Standards, which is otherwise applicable throughout the UDO.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-13
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

runoff as calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for
Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of the
State or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
G. Sediment basins and traps shall not be installed in perennial or intermittent streams.
H. Existing ponds and lakes shall not be used as sediment basins or traps.
I. One party shall retain operational control of any basin or trap. Sold outparcels shall be
permitted separately.
J. Newly constructed open channels shall be designed and constructed with side slopes no
steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative cover is used for stabilization,
unless soil conditions permit steeper slopes or where the slopes are stabilized by using
mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any event, the
angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion.
K. Additional areas may be added per the criteria enumerated in this section only if the basin or
trap is properly installed and maintained.
L. In high quality water (HQW) zones, uncovered areas shall be limited at any time to a
maximum total area of 20 acres. Only the portion of the land-disturbing activity within a
HQW zone shall be governed by this section. Larger areas may be uncovered with the
written approval of the Director of DEQ, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources.
12.10.5 Permanent Downstream Protection of Stream Banks, Channels and Slopes
A. Intent
Stream banks and channels downstream from any land-disturbing activity shall be protected
from increased degradation by accelerated erosion caused by increased velocity of runoff
from the land-disturbing activity.
B. Performance Standard
The land-disturbing activity shall be planned and conducted such that the velocity of
stormwater runoff in the receiving watercourse at the point of discharge resulting from a 25-
year storm after development shall not exceed the greater of:
1. The velocity specified according to the soil type in the following table, for a point of
discharge into a receiving watercourse with bare soil or rock banks or bed;

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-14
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

Materials
Maximum
Permissible
Velocities
Name Description FPS1 MPS2
Fine Sand (noncolloidal) Cecil fine sandy loam, Pinkston fine sandy loam 2.5 0.8
Sand Loam
(noncolloidal)
Appling sandy loam, Creedmoor sandy loam, Helena
sandy loam, Mayodan sandy loam, Wedowee sandy
loam, Wilkes sandy loam, White shore sandy loam

2.5

0.8
Silt Loam (noncolloidal) Georgeville silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Lignum silt
loam, Roanoke silt loam 3.0 0.9
Ordinary Firm Loam Iredell loam, Mecklenburg loam, Wahee loam,
Davidson clay loam, White Store clay loam-eroded 3.5 1.1
Fine Gravel 5.0 1.5
Stiff Clay (very colloidal) Iredell-Urban land complex, White Store-Urban land
complex, Mayodan-Urban land complex 5.0 1.5
Graded, Loam to
Cobbles (noncolloidal)
Tatum gravelly silt loam, Nason stony silt loam,
Goldston slaty (channery) silt loam 5.0 1.5
Graded, Silt to Cobbles
(colloidal)
5.5 1.7
Alluvial Silts
(noncolloidal)
Wehadkee silt loam, Congaree silt loam, Chewacla silt
loam, Cartecay silt loam 3.5 1.1
Alluvial Silts (colloidal) 5.0 1.5
Coarse Gravel
(noncolloidal)
6.0 1.8
Cobbles and shingles 5.5 1.7
Shales and Hard Pans 6.0 1.8
1 FPS: Feet per second
2 MPS: Meters per second
2. The velocity specified according to the type of vegetation and depth of flow in the
following table, for a point of discharge into a vegetated receiving watercourse; or
Vegetatively Protected Watercourses and Point of Stormwater Discharge
Group
No. Vegetation Depth of Flow
(feet)
Maximum
Permissible Velocity
1 Bermudagrass up to1 greater
than 1
4
6
2 Reed canarygrass; Kentucky bluegrass up to1 greater
than 1
3
6
3 Grass and legumes, mixed; Weeping lovegrass up to1 greater
than 1
3
4
4 Annuals: Annual lespedeza (KOBE); Sudangrass
Small grain: (Rye, Oats, barley); Ryegrass
up to1 greater
than 1
2.5
2.5
Notes: Do not use vegetative protection on longitudinal parallel to flow slopes steeper than 10%
except for side slopes. Annuals: use only as temporary protection until permanent cover is established.

3. The velocity in the receiving watercourse determined for the ten-year storm prior to
development.
C. If the conditions enumerated in paragraph B, Performance Standard, of this subsection
cannot be met, the channel below the discharge point shall be designed and constructed to
withstand the expected velocity.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-15
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

D. Slope Protection
When soils with slopes as indicated in the following table, occur between a point of
stormwater discharge and the next confluence of concentrated stormwater runoff, such
areas, on- or off-site, shall be protected from accelerated erosion by diverting the
stormwater discharge from those soil surfaces. Diversion may include the provision of piped,
paved or armored storm drainage facilities.

Critical Soils of Durham County
ApC Appling sandy loam 6-10% slopes
CfC Cecil fine sandy loam 6-10% slopes
CrC Creedmoor sandy loam 6-10% slopes
DaD Davidson clay loam 6-10% slopes
GeC Georgeville silt loam 6-10% slopes
GeD Georgeville silt loam 10-15% slopes
GIE Goldston slaty silt loam 10-25% slopes
GIF Goldston slaty silt loam 25-45% slopes
GrC Granville sandy loam 6-10% slopes
Gu Gullied land Clayey materials
HeC Helena sandy loam 6-10% slopes
HrC Herndon silt loam 6-10% slopes
HsC Herndon stony silt loam 2-10% slopes
IrC Iredell loam 6-10% slopes
IyC Iredell-Urban land complex 6-10% slopes
MfC Mayodan sandy loam 6-10% slopes
MfD Mayodan sandy loam 10-15% slopes
MfE Mayodan sandy loam 15-25% slopes
MrC Mayodan-Urban land complex 0-10% slopes
MrD Mayodan-Urban land complex 10-15% slopes
MuC Mecklenburg loam 6-10% slopes
NaD Nason silt loam 10-15% slopes
NaE Nason silt loam 15-25% slopes
NoD Nason stony silt loam 10-15% slopes
PfC Pinkston fine sandy loam 2-10% slopes
PfE Pinkston fine sandy loam 10-25% slopes
TaE Tatum gravelly silt loam 15-25% slopes
Ur Urban land
WmD Wedowee sandy loam 10-25% slopes
WmE Wedowee sandy loam 15-25% slopes
WsC White Store sandy loam 6-10% slopes
WsE White Store sandy loam 10-25% slopes
WvC2 White Store clay loam 2-10 % slopes, eroded
WvE2 White Store clay loam 10-25% slopes, eroded
WwC White Store-Urban land complex 0-10% slopes
WwE White Store-Urban land complex 10-25% slopes
WxE Wilkes sandy loam 10-25% slopes

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-16
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

E. Acceptable Management Measures
Measures applied alone or in combination to satisfy the intent of this section are acceptable
if there are no objectionable secondary consequences. The State Sedimentation Control
Commission recognizes that the management of stormwater runoff to minimize or control
downstream channel and bank erosion is a developing technology. Innovative techniques
and ideas will be considered and may be used when shown to have the potential to produce
successful results. Some alternatives are to:
1. Avoid increases in surface runoff volume and velocity by including measures to
promote infiltration to compensate for increased runoff from areas rendered
impervious;
2. Avoid increases in stormwater discharge velocities by using vegetated or roughened
swales and waterways in lieu of closed drains and high velocity paved sections;
3. Provide energy dissipaters at outlets of storm drainage facilities to reduce flow velocities
at the point of discharge. These may range from simple rip-rapped sections to complex
structures; and
4. Protect watercourses subject to accelerated erosion by improving cross sections and/or
providing erosion-resistant lining.
F. Exceptions
This section shall not apply where it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee that stormwater discharge velocities
will not create an erosion problem in the receiving watercourses.
12.10.6 Borrow and Waste Areas
When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is also the person conducting the
borrow or waste disposal activity, areas from which borrow is obtained and which are not
regulated by the provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, and waste areas for surplus materials
other than landfills regulated by the State Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources Division of Solid Waste Management, shall be considered as part of the land-
disturbing activity where the borrow material is being used or from which the waste
material originated. When the person conducting the land-disturbing activity is not the
person obtaining the borrow and/or disposing of the waste, these areas shall be considered
a separate land-disturbing activity.
12.10.7 Access and Haul Roads
Temporary access and haul roads, other than public roads, constructed or used in
connection with any land-disturbing activity shall be considered a part of such activity.
12.10.8 Operations in Lakes or Natural Watercourses
Land disturbing activity in connection with construction in, on, over, or under a lake or natural
watercourse shall minimize the extent and duration of disruption of the stream channel.
Where relocation of a stream forms an essential part of the proposed activity, the relocation
shall minimize unnecessary changes in the stream flow characteristics.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-17
Sec. 12.10 Sedimentation and Erosion Control

12.10.9 Responsibility for Maintenance
During the development of a site, the person conducting the land-disturbing activity shall
install and maintain all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control
measures as required by the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973,
as amended, and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it (the Act), this section, rules
or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this section or the Act, or an approved
sedimentation and erosion control plan. After site development, the land owner or
person in possession or control of the land shall install and/or maintain all necessary
permanent erosion and sediment control measures, except those measures installed
within a road or street right-of- way or easement accepted for maintenance by a
governmental agency.
12.10.10 Self‐Inspections
Where inspections are required by paragraph 3.8.6, Self-Inspections, the following
apply:
A. The person who performs the inspection shall make a record of the site inspection by
documenting the following items:
1. All of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, practices and devices, as
called for in a construction sequence consistent with the approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan, including but not limited to sedimentation control
basins, sedimentation traps, sedimentation ponds, rock dams, temporary diversions,
temporary slope drains, rock check dams, sediment fence or barriers, all forms of
inlet protection, storm drainage facilities, energy dissipaters, and stabilization
methods of open channels, have initially been installed and do not significantly
deviate (as defined in Sub-item (l)(e) of this Rule) from the locations, dimensions
and relative elevations shown on the approved erosion and sedimentation plan.
Such documentation shall be accomplished by initialing and dating each measure or
practice shown on a copy of the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan
or by completing, dating and signing an inspection report that lists each measure,
practice or device shown on the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan.
This documentation is required only upon the initial installation of the erosion and
sedimentation control measures, practices and devices as set forth by the approved
erosion and sedimentation control plan or if the measures, practices and devices are
modified after initial installation;
2. The completion of any phase of grading for all graded slopes and fills shown on the
approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, specifically noting the location
and condition of the graded slopes and fills. Such documentation shall be
accomplished by initialing and dating a copy of the approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan or by completing, dating and signing an inspection
report;
3. The location of temporary or permanent ground cover, and that the installation of
the ground cover does not significantly deviate (as defined in Sub-item (l)(e) of this
Rule) from the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan. Such
documentation shall be accomplished by initialing and dating a copy of the

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-18
approved erosion and sedimentation control plan or by completing, dating and
signing an inspection report;
4. That maintenance and repair requirements for all temporary and permanent
erosion and sedimentation control measures, practices and devices have been
performed. Such documentation shall be accomplished by completing, dating and
signing an inspection report (the general storm water permit monitoring form may
be used to verify the maintenance and repair requirements); and
5. Any significant deviations from the approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan, corrective actions required to correct the deviation and completion of the
corrective actions. Such documentation shall be accomplished by initialing and
dating a copy of the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan or by
completing, dating and signing an inspection report. A significant deviation means
an omission, alteration or relocation of an erosion or sedimentation control
measure that prevents the measure from performing as intended.
B. The documentation, whether on a copy of the approved erosion and sedimentation
control plan or an inspection report, shall include the name, address, affiliation,
telephone number, and signature of the person conducting the inspection and the
date of the inspection. Any relevant licenses and certifications may also be included.
Any documentation of inspections that occur on a copy of the approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan shall occur on a single copy of the plan and that plan shall
be made available on the site. Any inspection reports shall also be made available on
the site.
C. The inspection shall be performed during or after each of the following phases of a
plan:
1. Installation of perimeter erosion and sediment control measures;
2. Clearing and grubbing of existing ground cover;
3. Completion of any phase of grading of slopes or fills that requires provision of
temporary or permanent ground cover pursuant to G.S. 113A-57(2);
4. Completion of storm drainage facilities;
5. Completion of construction or development; and
6. Quarterly until the establishment of permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain
erosion or until the financially responsible party has conveyed ownership or control
of the tract of land for which the erosion and sedimentation control plan has been
approved and the agency that approved the plan has been notified. If the financially
responsible party has conveyed ownership or control of the tract of land for which
the erosion and sedimentation control plan has been approved, the new owner or
person in control shall conduct and document inspections quarterly until the
establishment of permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion.
12.10.11 Additional Measures
Whenever the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer, or designee, determines
that significant sedimentation is occurring as a result of land-disturbing activity,
despite application and maintenance of protective practices, the person conducting

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-19
the land- disturbing activity will be required to and shall take the additional
protective action directed.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-20

SEC. 15.1 VIOLATIONS; VIOLATORS
15.1.1 Applicablility
Sec. 15.5, Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties, shall apply
to enforcement provisions of this Ordinance and state statute or regulation governing
sedimentation and erosion control. Sec. 15.6, Floodplain and Flood Damage
Protection Enforcements and Penalties, shall apply to enforcement of provisions of
this Ordinance and state statute or regulation governing floodplain and flood damage
protection. Sec. 15.8, Riparian Buffer Protection Enforcement, shall apply to
enforcement of provisions of this Ordinance and state statute or regulation governing
riparian buffers, including reservoir and wetland buffers. The provisions of those
sections, where applicable, shall supersede conflicting provisions of this Article.
15.1.2 Violation
A. It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Ordinance to establish, create, expand,
alter, occupy, or maintain any use, land development activity, or structure,
including but not limited to signs and buildings, that violates or is inconsistent
with any provision of this Ordinance or any order, approval, or authorization
issued pursuant to this Ordinance. Approvals and authorizations include, but
are not limited to: special use permits, sign permits, certificates of compliance,
variances, building permits, development plans, site plans, and conditions of
such permits, variances, and plans.
B. It shall also be a violation to engage in any construction, land development activity,
or use, without all approvals and authorizations required by this Ordinance.
C. Each day of a violation may be considered a separate and distinct violation.
15.1.3 Violator
A. General
Violators may include any person who owns, leases, occupies, manages, or builds any
structure or engages in any land development activity in violation of this Ordinance
and any person who owns, leases, or occupies a use in violation of this Ordinance. A
violation may be charged against more than one violator.

B. Sedimentation and Erosion Control (Sec. 3.8, Sec. 12.10, Sec. 15.5)
The person responsible for violations of Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control
or Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, or Sec. 15.5, Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties, consistent with the provisions of NCGS §
113A-64 shall mean:
1. The developer or other person who has, or holds himself out as having,
financial or operation control over the land-disturbing activity; or
Article 15 | Enforcement
Commentary: The definition of violator and the ability to charge more than one violator
means that both tenant and landlord, where applicable, may be in violation and subject to
penalties.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-21
Sec. 15.1 Violations; Violators

2. The landowner or person in possession or control of the land when he or she has
directly or indirectly allowed the land-disturbing activity, has benefited from it, or has
failed to comply with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973,
as amended, and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it (the Act), Sec. 3.8,
Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control,
Sec. 15.5, Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties, rules or
orders adopted or issued pursuant to those sections or the Act, or an approved
sedimentation and erosion control plan.
15.1.4 Responsibility
The Planning and/or Inspections Director, and/or County Engineer, or appropriate
designees, shall enforce this Ordinance and the remedies authorized under this section.
The responsible individual shall have the authority to settle any violations that involve
the payment of money to the governing entity in exchange for a written release from
actual or potential claims.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-22
Sec. 15.5 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties

SEC. 15.5 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
15.5.1 Agents, officials or other qualified persons authorized by the Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Officer or designee may periodically inspect land-disturbing activities to ensure
compliance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, as
amended, and all rules and orders adopted pursuant to it, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and
Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, rules or orders adopted
or issued pursuant to those sections or (the Act,) or an approved sedimentation and
erosion control plan and to determine whether the measures utilized or required in the
plan are effective in restraining erosion and retaining sediment resulting from land-
disturbing activity. Notice of the right to inspect shall be included in the notification of
plan approval of each sedimentation and erosion control plan.
15.5.2 No person shall willfully resist, delay or obstruct an authorized representative, employee
or agent of Durham County while that person is lawfully inspecting or attempting to
inspect a land-disturbing activity under this section.
15.5.3 If it is determined that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to comply
with the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10,
Sedimentation and Erosion Control, rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to those
sections or the Act, or an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan, a notice of
violation shall be served upon that person. The notice may be served by any means
authorized under NCGS § 1A-1, rule 4. The notice shall specify a date by which the person
must comply with the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Sec.
12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, rules or orders adopted pursuant to those
sections or the Act, or an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan and inform
the person of the actions that need to be taken to comply. If the person engaged in land-
disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shall be
initiated. If the person engaged in the land-disturbing activity has not received a previous
notice of violation as specified in this section, the Erosion Control Officer or designee shall
deliver the notice in person and shall offer assistance in developing corrective measures.
Assistance may be provided by referral t o a technical assistance program or cooperative
extension program, or by the provision of written documents such as Department of
Environmental Quality or County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Office documents. If
the Erosion Control Officer or designee is unable to de liver the notice of violation in
person within 15 days following discovery of the violation, the notice of violation may be
served in the manner prescribed for service of process by G.S. lA-1, Rule 4, and shall
include information on how to obtain assistance in developing corrective measures.
15.5.4 The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer, or designee shall have the power to
conduct such investigations as he/she may reasonably deem necessary to carry out their
duties as prescribed in this section, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times
upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the
sites of any land-disturbing activity.
15.5.5 The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer, or designee shall also have the power
to require written statements, or the filing of reports under oath, with respect to
land- disturbing activity.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-23

16 Sec. 15.5 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties
15.5.6 Revocation of Permits
A. The County Engineer shall have the power to revoke land-disturbing permits issued
pursuant to Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, and Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation
and Erosion Control. When the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee
proposes to the County Engineer that a land-disturbing permit be revoked, the Officer or
designee shall serve the permittee or other responsible person with a notice of intent to
revoke specifying the time and date of a pre-termination hearing to be held before the
County Engineer. The notice shall be delivered at least three working days, Monday
through Friday, before the date specified for the pre-termination hearing.
B. Should the County Engineer determine that the land disturbing permit should be
revoked, he/she shall serve the permittee or other responsible person, with a notice of
revocation. Upon receipt of the notice of revocation, the responsible person shall
immediately cause or order the cessation of all land-disturbing activities except those
activities which are specifically directed towards bringing the site into a state of
compliance.
C. The person responsible for the land-disturbing activity may appeal the revocation of a
land- disturbing permit to the Board of Commissioners by submitting a written demand
to the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of
the written notice of revocation. The written demand must specify, in detail, the factual
and/or legal basis for the appeal. No grounds other than those so specified may be
argued.
D. No person shall resume or continue any land-disturbing activity other than those
necessary to bring the site into a state of compliance after receipt of a revocation notice
and before reissuance of a land-disturbing permit or decision of the Board of
Commissioners reinstating a land-disturbing permit. After the Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Officer or designee has inspected the site and approved the remedial work, the
responsible party may reapply for a land-disturbing permit. The fee for reapplication
shall be 100% of the current application fee.
15.5.7 Civil Penalties
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8,
Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, or
rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to those sections or the Act, or who initiates
or continues a land-disturbing activity for which sedimentation and erosion control plan
and/or land-disturbing permit is required except in accordance with such plan or permit
shall be subject to civil penalties. The maximum civil penalty for a violation shall be
$5,000.00, or $5,000.00 per day for a continuing violation. Civil penalties may be imposed
from the date a violation was commenced. Each day of continuing violation shall
constitute a separate violation. When the person has not been assessed any civil penalty
under this section for any previous violation and that person abated continuing
environmental damage resulting from the violation within 180 days from the date of the
notice of violation, the maximum cumulative total civil penalty assessed under this
subsection for all violations associated with the land-disturbing activity for which the
erosion and sedimentation control plan is required is $25,000.00.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-24
Sec. 15.5 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Enforcement and Penalties

B. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee shall impose the civil
penalties authorized by this section. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or
designee shall notify the person upon whom the civil penalties are imposed of the
amount of the penalty, the reason for assessing the penalty, the option available to that
person to request remission of the civil penalty under Sec. 15.5.8, the date of the
deadline for that person to make the remission request regarding this particular
penalty, and when that person has not been assessed any civil penalty under this
section for any pervious violation, the date of the deadline for that person to abate
continuing environmental damage resulting from the violation in order to be subject to
the maximum cumulative total civil penalty under this section. In determining the
amount of the penalties the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee shall
consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying
the damage, the amount of money the violator saved by noncompliance, whether the
violation was committed willfully, and the prior record of the violator in complying or
failing to comply with the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control,
Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, rules or orders adopted or issued
pursuant to those sections or the Act, or an approved sedimentation and erosion control
plan. The notice of civil penalties shall be served by any means authorized under NCGS §
1A-1, rule 4, and shall direct the violator to either pay or contest the civil penalties,
within 30 days after receipt of the notice, by filing a petition for a contested case under
NCGS § 150B, art. 3. The administrative law judge hearing the matter shall make a
recommended decision to the Board of Commissioners. If either party wishes to
challenge the recommended decision, they must file with the Clerk to the Board of
Commissioners, and serve on the other parties, and the Office of Administrative
Hearings, specific exceptions and objections, detailing the errors of fact or law they
contend exist within the recommended decision, and other written argument they wish
to submit, within 30 days after the issuance of same. Other parties shall file any
response they wish to make to a submission of exceptions and objections within 30 days
of service of same, but may not use this subsequent filing to submit new, or additional,
exceptions and objections of their own. The recommended decision and any written
submissions of the parties will be reviewed by the Board of Commissioners within 90
days after the official record in this matter is served upon the Clerk to the Board of
Commissioners by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Board of Commissioners
shall adopt or modify the recommended decision consistent with the provisions of NCGS
§ 150B-36. Appeal of the decision of the Board of Commissioners shall be in accordance
with NCGS § 150B, art. 4.
C. If payment is not received within 30 days after demand for payment is made the matter
will be referred to the County Attorney's Office for initiation of a civil action to recover
the amount of the civil penalties. Civil penalties that are not contested are due when the
violator is served with a notice of civil penalties. Civil penalties that are contested are due
at the conclusion of administrative and judicial review.
D. The clear proceeds of civil penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be credited to
the Durham Public Schools in accordance with the provisions of NCGS § 115C-437

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-25
15.5.8 Remission of Civil Penalties
A. A request for remission of a civil penalty imposed under Sec. 15.5 may be filed with the
Sedimentation Control Commission within 60 days of receipt of the notice of
assessment. Notification of a request for remission must also be filed with the County
Engineer. A remission request must be accompanied by a waiver of the right to a
contested case hearing pursuant to Chapter 150B, art. 3 of the General Statutes and a
stipulation of the facts on which the assessment was based.
B. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether a civil penalty
remission request will be approved:
1. Whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in G.S. 113A 64(a)(3)
were wrongly applied to the detriment of the petitioner.
2. Whether the petitioner promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting
from the violation.
3. Whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident.
4. Whether the petitioner had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations.
5. Whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for necessary remedial
actions or would otherwise create a significant financial hardship.
6. The assessed property tax valuation of the petitioner's property upon which the
violation occurred, excluding the va lue of any structures located on the property.
C. The petitioner has the burden of providing information concerning the financial impact
of a civil penalty on the petitioner and the burden of showing the petitioner's financial
hardship.
D. The Commission may remit the entire amount of the penalty only when the petitioner
has not been assessed civil penalt ies for previous violations and payment of the civil
penalty will prevent payment for necessary remedial actions.
E. The Commission may not impose a penalty under this section that is in excess of the
civil penalty imposed by the County.
15.5.9 Criminal Penalties
Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of the Act, this section, Sec.
3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, or
rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to those sections or the Act, or who knowingly
or willfully initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an approved
sedimentation and erosion control plan and/or land-disturbing permit is required except
in accordance with such plan or permit shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor which may
include a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, as provided in NCGS § 113A-64.
15.5.10 Enforcement Alternatives
Violation of any provision of this Article shall result in forfeiture of any applicable security
or portion thereof required under paragraph 3.8.3.
A. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or
threatening to violate the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control,

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-26
Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, any rule or order adopted or issued
pursuant to those sections or the Act, or an approved sedimentation and erosion control
plan, the County Attorney may, either before or after the institution of any other action
or proceeding authorized by this section, institute a civil action as provided in paragraph
15.3.3, Injunctive Relief in Superior Court, for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or
threatened violation in superior court.
B. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any
party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalties assessed under this
section.
C. Land-disturbing activities undertaken without first obtaining a land-disturbing permit,
but which are required by Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, to obtain a
land- disturbing permit, shall be subject to a permit fee of 200% of the current
applicable fee, in addition to any civil penalties assigned per paragraph 15.5.7, Civil
Penalties.

D. Conveyance of the property subject to the permit, in whole or in part, shall not terminate
the permit holder's obligations under the Act, this section, Sec. 3.8, Sedimentation and
Erosion Control, Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, any rule or order adopted
or issued pursuant to those sections or the Act, or an approved sedimentation and
erosion control plan until such time as a substitute, or succeeding, permit is approved by
the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee.
15.5.11 Restoration of Areas Affected by Failure to Comply
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer or designee may require a person who
engaged in a land disturbing activity and failed to retain sediment generated by the
activity, as required by NCGS § 113A-57(3) and Sec. 12.10, Sedimentation and Erosion
Control, to restore the waters and land affected by the failure so as to minimize the
detrimental effects of the resulting pollution by sedimentation. This authority is in
addition to any other civil or criminal penalty or injunctive relief authorized under this
section or the Act.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-27

APPENDIX E
City of Durham
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
SITE INSPECTION PROTOCOL

The and Erosion Control Division of the Durham County Engineering and Environmental Services
Department is charged with enforcement of erosion control the Durham City/County Unified
Development Ordinance. The engine for enforcement lies with the performance of field
inspections at active construction sites.

Newly submitted projects typically include a requirement for tree protection fencing, the
installation of which is inspected prior to issuing a land disturbance permit. Once the permit is
issued, a field inspection within ten days of permit issuance.

Once in active construction, sites are field inspected at least once during each calendar month.
The and Erosion Control Division utilizes a database to track projects inspections. At the
beginning of each calendar month, a list of active projects is generated. As inspectors perform
field inspections, inspection date. Progress is tracked to ensure that all active projects are
inspected each calendar month.

Maintenance issues, compliance issues, heavy rain events, project size/complexity and citizen
complaints/inquiries all serve to trigger additional inspections of particular sites. The Division
inspects in response to citizen complaints; such inspections sometimes reveal activity that has
started, without proper notice or permitting, and such sites are subject to enforcement in
addition to increased frequency of inspection.

CITY/COUNTY SEDIMENTATION & EROSION
CONTROL (UDO REQUIREMENTS) D-28
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

CWEP Agreement F-1

APPENDIX F
City of Durham
AGREEMENT FORMING THE
CLEAN WATER EDUCATION PARTNERS

Original Agreement between City of Durham and partners to form the Clean
Water Education Cooperative

CWEP Agreement F-2

CWEP Agreement F-3

CWEP Agreement F-4

CWEP Agreement F-5

CWEP Agreement F-6

CWEP Agreement F-7

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY G-1
APPENDIX G
AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
AS SIGNING OFFICIAL FOR NPDES STORMWATER
PERMIT # NCS000249
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY G-2

J-1
APPENDIX H
City of Durham
KEY POSITION CONTACTS

The most current and complete list is provided in the latest annual report
The following list is a subset that includes directors, assistant directors and key managers
This list is current as of October 20, 2018, refer to Annual Reports updates

City Manager – Thomas J. Bonfield
Deputy City Manager, Administrative & Support – Wanda Page
Deputy City Manager, Community Building – Keith Chadwell
Durham One Call Contact Center Manager– vacant
Deputy City Manager, Operations – William Bowman "Bo" Ferguson

Public Works Director – Marvin G. Williams
Assistant Director, Engineering Services – Tasha Johnson
Assistant Director, Maintenance & Operations– Phillip Powell
Stormwater Maintenance Supervisor – John Sandin
Street Cleaning Supervisor – Benita Quick
Assistant Director, Stormwater & GIS – Paul Wiebke
Stormwater Billing & GIS Administrator – Edward Cherry
Stormwater Billing Manager – Carmen Murphy
Stormwater Development Review Manager – Shea Bolick
SCM Maintenance Program Coordinator – Bill Hailey
Stormwater Infrastructure Manager – Dana Hornkohl
Drainage and Floodplain Civil Engineer – Graham Summerson
Stormwater Infrastructure Engineer – Greg Smith
Water Quality Manager – Michelle Woolfolk
Assistant Water Quality Manager – JV Loperfido
Water Quality Specialist (Monitoring) – Susan Gale
Water Quality Specialist (Investigations and Inspections) – James Azarelo
Pollution Prevention Coordinator – Emily Rhode
Watershed Planning and Implementation Engineer - Sandra Wilbur
Stormwater Public Education Coordinator – Laura Smith
General Services Director - Steven Hicks
Facilities Operations Manager - Al Walker
Landscape & Forestry Division Manager - Kevin Lilley
Urban Forestry Manager – Alex Johnson
Construction Project Management Division Manager – Robyn Williams Heeks
Keep Durham Beautiful, Inc. Executive Director – Tania Dautlick
Parks and Recreation Director - Rhonda B. Parker
Assistant Director, Park Planning, Maintenance and Athletics – Thomas Dawson
Parks Superintendent –Robert Jennings
Water Management Director – Don Greeley
Assistant Director, Administration and Operations – Vicki Westbrook
Environmental Programs Administrator - Reginald Hicks
Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator/FOG – Gerald Tyrone Battle
Assistant Director, System Engineering & Maintenance – Vacant

J-2
Superintendent, Water and Sewer Maintenance – Junior Mobley
Assistant Superintendent, Water and Sewer Maintenance – Tim Segard
Assistant Superintendent (Plant Operations & Maintenance) – Sean McFarland
Superintendent, Wastewater Treatment, North Durham WRF – John Dodson
Superintendent, Wastewater Treatment, South Durham WRF – Charlie Cocker
Superintendent, Lift Station Maintenance – Bob Slaughter
Utility Engineering Manager – Jerry Morrone
System Rehabilitation Supervisor – Jeffrey Perrigo
Solid Waste Director – Donald Long
Assistant Director/Operations – Wayne Fenton
Sr. Assistant Solid Waste Manager/Operations – Carlos Lyons
Disposal Manager/Transfer Station - Dan Parker
Code Enforcement Officer - Mike Simpson, Supervisor
Fire Department –Chief Dan Curia
Deputy Fire Chief - Christopher Iannuzzi
Assistant Chief of Planning and Administration - Andrew Sannipoli
Hazardous Materials Team (HazMat)
Neighborhood Improvement Services - Constance Stancil
Nuisance Abatement Supervisor – Rudy Toledo
Impact Team Manager– Daryl Hedgspeth
Fleet Management Director – Joseph W. Clark
Fire Equipment Supervisor, William Painter
Transportation Director – Bill Judge (acting)
Sign Shop Supervisor – Danny Cochran, Sr.

Durham City-County Departments
Durham City/County Sustainability Office – Tobin Fried, Manager
Durham City/County Planning – Patrick Young, Director
Development Services Center Manager – Pete Sullivan
Zoning Administration Supervisor – Landus Robertson
Durham City/County Inspections – William E. (Gene) Bradham, Director
Chief Plumbing Inspector – Christian Baird
City-County Emergency Management – Jim Groves, Fire Marshall
Emergency Management Division Chief - Leslie O’Connor
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) – David Marsee

County Departments/Divisions
Durham Soil and Water Conservation District – Eddie Culberson, Director
Public Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Director – J. Christopher Salter
Supervisor, Onsite Water Protection - Patrick C. Eaton, REHS
Supervisor, Restaurant & Lodging - Marc Meyer
Stormwater & Erosion Control Division Manager – Ryan Eaves
Stormwater Manager - McKenzie Gentry
Erosion Control Supervisor – Vince Chirichella
Utility Division Deputy Director - Stephanie Brixey
Utility Supervisor – Stephen Phillips

Please refer to the most recent annual report for a more complete and up-to-date list.

Total Maximum Daily Load Response Plan for Turbidity & Total
Suspended Solids in Third Fork Creek (Cape Fear River Basin),
Durham, North Carolina

Prepared by the Public Works Department,
Stormwater & GIS Services Division

April 22, 2019

TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
2

The City of Durham’s Water Quality Group in the Division of Stormwater & GIS Services and the
Department of Public Works developed this TMDL Response Plan for the City of Durham. The City
would like to acknowledge contributions to this TMDL Response Plan from several City and County
government departments and divisions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF DURHAM
City-County Planning
Code Enforcement Unified Development Ordinance
Landus Robertson Mike Stock
Bo Dobrzenski
Danny Cultra
Public Works Department
Stormwater & GIS Services Operations
Jonathan Baker Phillip Powell
Michelle Woolfolk Bruce Woody
J.V. Loperfido John Sandin
Emily Rhode Mike Boyd
Jim Azarelo
Patrick Hogan
Sandra Wilbur
Lance Fontaine
Laura Smith
Megan Walsh
Jennifer Buzun
Brajesh Tiwari
Water Management Department
Water & Sewer Maintenance Industrial Waste Control
Kerry Sanford Tyrone Battle
Kenny Willard
Jeremy Farlow
DURHAM COUNTY
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Stormwater & Erosion Control Utilities
Ryan Eaves Stephanie Brixey
McKenzie Gentry
Public Health Department
Environmental Health
Patrick Eaton
Noelle Spence
Soil & Water Conservation District
Heather Dutra
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
3

Table of Contents
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 4
2. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 5
3. TMDL Response Plan Objective ....................................................................................................................... 6
4. Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Watershed Information ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.2. Jurisdictional Responsibility ................................................................................................................... 11
5. Pollutant Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1. In-stream Sediment Sources ................................................................................................................. 12
5.2. Construction/Development Sources of Sediment ................................................................................ 12
5.3. Runoff from Impervious Surfaces and Direct Discharge ..................................................................... 13
6. Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures Currently Being Implemented ........................................... 13
6.1. Response Plan Measure Definitions ..................................................................................................... 13
7. Newly Proposed Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 16
7.1 Measures to Reduce In-stream Sediment Sources .............................................................................. 16
7.2 Measures to Reduce Construction Sources of Sediment .................................................................... 17
7.3 Measures to Reduce Other Sources of Sediment ................................................................................ 18
8. Prioritized Measures Applicable to the NPDES Six Minimum Measures .................................................... 21
8.1. Implementation of Plan to the Maximum Extent Practicable .............................................................. 21
8.2. Public Education and Outreach ............................................................................................................. 21
8.3. Public Participation and Involvement .................................................................................................... 22
8.4. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ........................................................................................... 22
8.5. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ...................................................................................... 22
8.6. Post-Construction Stormwater Management........................................................................................ 23
8.7. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations ................................................. 23
9. Watershed Planning ....................................................................................................................................... 23
10. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 24
10.1. Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 24
10.2. Turbidity Data and Computed TSS Loads ......................................................................................... 27
11. Water Quality Co-Benefits of TMDL Response Plan Implementation ...................................................... 27
11.1. Value Added to Removal of Nutrients and Metals ........................................................................... 27
11.2. Benefits to Aquatic Life ...................................................................................................................... 28
12. Steps Towards TMDL Response Plan Implementation ............................................................................ 28
12.1. Response Plan Schedule by Agency .................................................................................................. 28
12.2. Tracking and Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 30
12.3. Re-evaluation of Response Plan ........................................................................................................ 30
13. References .................................................................................................................................................. 30
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
4

14. Appendix A: Summary Table of All Proposed Measures (Priority and Non-Priority) ................................ 32
15. Appendix B: Summary Table of Measures Not Included in the TMDL Response Plan .......................... 35
16. Appendix C: Measure of Incremental Progress ........................................................................................ 36

List of Tables
Table 1. Approved TMDL for the Third Fork Creek Watershed ............................................................................. 8
Table 2. Measures currently implemented in the Third Fork Creek watershed ................................................ 15
Table 3. Prioritized Measures in the Third Fork Creek watershed ..................................................................... 20
Table 4. NCDEQ 2016 Final 303(d) List (NCDEQ 2016), Category 5 Assessments for Third Fork Creek. ....... 27
Table 5 Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan ............. 32
Table 6. Measures considered and not currently feasible for implementation in the Third Fork Creek TMDL
Response Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
Table 7 Preliminary list of incremental progress ................................................................................................. 36

List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Third Fork Creek Watershed in City of Durham with the impaired segment shown in red.
................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. 2018 Existing Land Use in the Third Fork Creek watershed............................................................... 10
Figure 3. Sediment generation, fate, and transport conceptual model. ............................................................ 12
Figure 4. City of Durham, UCFRBA, and DWR ambient stream monitoring sites in the Third Fork Creek
watershed. .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
 CPV – Channel Protection Volume
 CWEP – Clean Water Education Partnership
 DWR – Division of Water Resources
 EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
 IDDE – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
 LA – Load Allocation
 LID – Low Impact Development
 NCAC – North Carolina Administrative Code
 NCDEQ – North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
 NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 NTU – Nephelometric turbidity units
 MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
 SCM – Stormwater Control Measure
 TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
 TSS – Total Suspended Solids
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
5

 UCFRBA – Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
 USGS – United States Geological Society
 WIP – Watershed Improvement Plan
 WLA – waste load allocation
2. Executive Summary
The City of Durham’s Stormwater Quality Group in the Department of Public Works and Division of
Stormwater & GIS Services developed this Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Response Plan to address
water quality impairments in Third Fork Creek due to elevated levels of turbidity and total suspended solids
(TSS). The TSS TMDL for Third Fork Creek was issued in 2005 by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A TMDL
sets the allowable pollutant loads for a waterbody so that actions may be taken to reduce point and
nonpoint source pollution in order to meet State water quality standards (USEPA, 1991).
The Third Fork Creek watershed covers an area of 16.6 square miles and is entirely within Durham’s
municipal limits. The watershed includes a large portion of the older and highly developed downtown section
of the City. A 3.6-mile segment of Third Fork Creek is listed as impaired by turbidity; however, the pollutant
reductions for this TMDL are expressed as pounds per year of TSS. Turbidity is a measurement to determine
the cloudiness of stream water. Suspended sediment in streams that cause turbidity can be quantified as a
concentration measurement of the total mass of solids per a unit volume of stream water (e.g., mg TSS / L).
Suspended sediment in Third Fork Creek comes from in-stream erosion of channel banks and stream beds,
erosion and transport due to earth-moving activities (e.g., construction site grading), and is present in runoff
discharged to storm sewer systems.
This response plan is the product of several brainstorming and planning meetings in 2018 involving input
from multiple City and County Departments. This response plan outlines the prevention and mitigation
measures that City and County staff will implement to achieve reductions of turbidity and TSS concentrations
in Third Fork Creek. A prevention measure stops releases of pollutants from happening and a mitigation
measure removes pollutants once they have been released. The actions described in this plan focus on ways
to reduce sediment from in-stream sources (e.g., streambank erosion), construction sources (e.g., new
development and re-development), and other sources.
The recommended prioritized actions that address in-stream sources include streambank restoration and
stabilization, stream channel volume protection for new development, and stream walks to identify eroding
and collapsed streambanks. The prioritized actions that target sediment from construction activity include
using flocculants in construction site ditches, increased sediment and erosion control inspections, stop-work
orders for non-compliant small construction sites (<12,000 square feet), and using storm drain protection
materials for street maintenance work. The prioritized actions that address sediment and turbidity from
other sources include conducting a media campaign, increased street sweeping, adding green infrastructure
to complement traditional stormwater control measures (SCMs), prioritizing the construction of SCMs
identified in the Third Fork Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) that reduce turbidity and sediment,
and steep slope protection on site development projects.
The actions described in this response plan are estimated to be implemented over three permit cycles
(within 15 years). There are five actions estimated to be implemented within the current permit cycle (2018-
2023), there are four actions that may be implemented within 5-10 years (2018-2028), and three actions
estimated to be implemented within 10-15 years (2018-2033). The City’s Public Works Department will be
responsible for communicating with the appropriate departments, divisions, and workgroups to identify the
metrics and data needed to track the progress of measures outlined in this response plan. As resources
allow, the City’s Public Works Department will re-evaluate the measures outlined in this response plan on a
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
6

five-year basis and will continue to provide progress updates on an annual basis as part of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit annual reporting cycle.
3. TMDL Response Plan Objective
The objective of this TMDL Response Plan is to identify and implement measures that will reduce the levels
of turbidity and TSS in Third Fork Creek within the City limits of Durham, North Carolina. This TMDL Response
plan addresses the City of Durham’s assigned municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) waste load
allocation (WLA) documented in the 2005 EPA-approved TMDL for Third Fork Creek. In addition, this TMDL
Response Plan is required under Section J of the City of Durham’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit (No. NCS00249). This response plan incorporates ideas from
multiple stakeholders that have a vested interest in complying with state and federal regulations as well as
reducing the TMDL pollutants of concern and improving overall water quality in the Third Fork Creek
watershed. The proposed prevention and mitigation measures aim to reduce turbidity/TSS levels using a
variety of tools that address the multiple sources and transport pathways of the pollutant of concern. The
variety of tools used in this plan is leveraged by the stakeholder groups’ diverse regulatory authority and
capabilities. As a result, the stakeholders included in this response plan have the ability to implement some
but not all of the proposed prevention and mitigation measures. No one entity, including the City of Durham
Public Works Department, has the ability to remedy the turbidity/TSS levels individually, given the nature of
the issue.
4. Introduction and Background
The City of Durham is subject to an approved TMDL with waste load allocations in the Third Fork Creek
watershed, in the Cape Fear River Basin. In 2002, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ, formerly NCDENR) identified a 3.6-mile segment of Third Fork Creek as impaired by turbidity
(NCDENR, 2003a). Figure 1 shows the impaired segment of Third Fork Creek highlighted in red. A TSS TMDL
for Third Fork Creek was approved in 2005 (Table 1). The pollutant reductions for this TMDL are expressed
as pounds per year of TSS. A maximum TSS load of 0.75 tons per day is required in Third Fork Creek. A WLA
of 0.36 tons TSS per day was assigned to the City of Durham MS4 area and a Load Allocation (LA) of 0.39
tons TSS per day was assigned to nonpoint sources in the Third Fork Creek watershed, which are all located
within the City of Durham. Both point and nonpoint sources were considered and margins of safety were
included in the WLA and LA listed above. The final EPA-approved TMDL document can be found on the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) website at the link below:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/FINAL%20TMDLS/Cape%20Fear/Haw%2CDe
ep%2Cetc.TurbidityFecalTMDL.pdf
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
7

Figure 1. Map of the Third Fork Creek Watershed in City of Durham with the impaired segment shown in red.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
8

Table 1. Approved TMDL for the Third Fork Creek Watershed
Description of area DWR Assessment
Unit(s)
Stream
Classification(s) TMDL Parameter TMDL EPA Approval Date
Third Fork Creek from
two miles upstream of
Highway 54 to New
Hope Creek.
16-41-1-12-(2) WS-IV NSW.
Potable water
supply, Nutrient
Sensitive Water
TSS 0.75 tons per
day of TSS
January 11, 2005
NSW. Nutrient Sensitive Water
WS. Water Supply classification

The TSS TMDL for Third Fork Creek was developed because stream monitoring data exceeded the Fresh
Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters under Title 15A, Subchapter 2B of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC). Under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(21), the water quality standard for turbidity is
stated as follows:
The turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams
not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs designated as trout waters;
for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity
exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be
increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met when land management activities employ
Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by the
Designated Nonpoint Source Agency [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs shall be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation, and maintenance
of such BMPs.

The water quality standard for turbidity is the target that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
measures in this TMDL Response Plan with the overall goal to reduce TSS loads in Third Fork Creek. Annual
updates on progress toward improving turbidity levels and TSS concentrations in Third Fork Creek are
provided in the City of Durham NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit Annual Report.

Third Fork Creek is also within the B. Everett Jordan Lake watershed. A chlorophyll a TMDL for Jordan Lake
was approved in 2007. The pollutant reductions for this TMDL are expressed as 336,079 pounds per year of
total nitrogen and 23,106 pounds per year of total phosphorus. Target reductions are not expressed
specifically for Third Fork Creek but are expressed as loads to the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake.
Full implementation of the measures enclosed in this TMDL Response Plan will be enabled as resources
allow. Potential barriers to full implementation include budget constraints, staffing levels, and employee
turnover in departments designated for executing the response plan measures. Some measures presented
in this TMDL Response Plan require significant monetary resources and thus, are highly dependent on the
city budget conditions. The ability to secure support and approval for proposed measures from City Council
and management could potentially influence project schedules. Implementation of this response plan also
depends on coordination and effective partnership with organizations outside of the City of Durham.
4.1. Watershed Information
The Third Fork Creek watershed covers an area of 16.6 square miles and is entirely within Durham’s
municipal limits. The watershed includes a large portion of the older and highly developed downtown section
of the City. The creek flows through the heart of many Durham neighborhoods like Tuscaloosa-Lakewood, St.
Teresa, Forest Hills, Hope Valley Farms, and Woodcroft, down to New Hope Creek, which flows into Jordan
Lake. The northern edge or boundary of the watershed lies in downtown Durham, just north of the Durham
Freeway (NC 147), and the southern edge or boundary is close to Interstate 40. The downstream portion of
the watershed contains areas of protected lands, including the game lands associated with Jordan Lake. A
map of the watershed and the impaired section of Third Fork Creek is provided in Figure 1 and a map of
existing land use types in the Third Fork Creek watershed is shown in Figure 2. Land use in the Third Fork
Creek watershed is predominantly a combination of residential development, a dense downtown commercial
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
9

center, and unmanaged open space. Residential land cover is generally higher-density in the northern
portion of the watershed near downtown Durham and lower-density toward the southern mouth of the
watershed. A significant amount of impervious surface associated with transportation networks, downtown
areas, and commercial land uses exists in the north/northeast portion of the watershed. A majority of the
development in the upper and middle portions of the watershed occurred prior to the more robust SCM
controls that are now used with new development. Unmanaged open space and a wildfowl impoundment lie
adjacent to the main stem of Third Fork Creek in the middle and downstream portions of the watershed.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
10

Figure 2. 2018 Existing Land Use in the Third Fork Creek watershed
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
11

4.2. Jurisdictional Responsibility
The City of Durham, Durham County, and North Carolina State government have regulatory authority for
controlling the various pathways that sediment can reach Third Fork Creek. These agencies have
responsibilities for implementing different prevention and mitigation measures described in this TMDL
Response Plan.
City of Durham Departments
Within the Public Works Department are the Stormwater & GIS Services Division, the Engineering Services
Division, and the Operations Division. The Stormwater & GIS Services Division is responsible for managing
the following NPDES permit programs: Pollution Prevention & Good Housekeeping, Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination, Public Education & Outreach, Public Participation & Involvement, and Post-Construction
Stormwater Management. Stormwater Infrastructure and Watershed Planning are also included in this
division. The Stormwater Development Review Group and the Engineering Services Division are responsible
for reviewing development plans. The Operations Division is responsible for the City’s street sweeping
program and maintaining the City’s streets and storm drainage system.
Durham County Departments
The Engineering and Environmental Services Department’s Stormwater and Erosion Control Division is
responsible for managing the County’s stormwater program and inspecting private construction sites.
The Durham Soil and Water Conservation District manages and secures grants for stream restoration
projects and helps protect local water quality by providing consultations and funding for residential
landscape erosion and drainage projects.
Durham City-County Departments
The Planning Department’s Zoning Enforcement Division inspects many properties for code violations and
notifies the City Stormwater & GIS Services Division and the County Stormwater and Erosion Control Division
when sediment and erosion control problems or violations are observed during field investigations. The
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) group is responsible for amending the City-County UDO and ensuring
compliance with the UDO, which may include measures that prevent or mitigate sources of sediment. The
Planning Department also investigates stream buffer violations and enforces the UDO stream buffer
requirements in the Cape Fear River Basin.
North Carolina State Government Departments
The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources is responsible for investigating
stream buffer violations in the Neuse River Basin and enforcing State regulations when sediment discharges
from construction sites impact downstream surface waters. The Department of Environmental Quality’s
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources is responsible for issuing NPDES MS4 permits, which
provide regulatory guidance for developing and implementing TMDL response plans.
5. Pollutant Sources
Suspended sediment is the primary cause of high turbidity levels in Third Fork Creek and has many different
sources throughout the watershed. Both human and natural processes contribute to the amount of sediment
directly discharged to and mobilized within the stream. A large amount of sediment in Third Fork Creek is
generated from and transported in nonpoint source stormwater runoff. This includes runoff from impervious
surfaces (e.g., streets, roofs) and from pervious surfaces through the erosion of soil. Areas where land is
disturbed, like grading or cleared land on construction sites, can also be significant sources of sediment.
Increased impervious cover added throughout a watershed also leads to increased peak flow rates in
streams during storm events and generates higher scouring forces that accelerate stream bank erosion.
Vegetation in stream riparian areas can naturally filter out sediment from overland storm flows and help
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
12

stabilize soil in stream banks and floodplain areas while alterations and removal of riparian vegetation can
contribute to higher sediment and turbidity levels in Third Fork Creek. Discharges of sediment and turbid
substances from municipal facilities, industrial facilities, and construction sites to storm sewer networks and
stream channels directly contribute sediment to Third Fork Creek.

Figure 3. Sediment generation, fate, and transport conceptual model.
5.1. In-stream Sediment Sources
During storm events, peak flows can lead to elevated sediment transport in stream systems like Third Fork
Creek. These peak flows and fast stream velocities create high shear stress that can mobilize sediment
already in the stream. For example, relatively high shear stresses were associated with high-gradient
meander bends in a Piedmont watershed located in Maryland (Nelson et al., 2006). Stream banks can also
collapse as a part of channel erosion with wider stream channels observed in urban (as opposed to rural)
streams in the southern United States (O’Driscoll et al, 2010). Peak stormwater flows can also cause
channel incision of stream beds with erodible material, like clays and silts, to a greater extent in urban
streams as compared to rural streams (O’ Driscoll et al., 2010). These highly erodible soils are present in the
Third Fork Creek watershed.
5.2. Construction/Development Sources of Sediment
In addition to in-stream sources of sediment, upland and floodplain areas can be important factors in
watershed sediment transport. A watershed sediment-budget study conducted in Maryland noted that
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
13

upland erosion can be a significant source of sediment in streams (Allmendinger et al., 2007). Land
disturbance activities including digging, grading, and earth-moving associated with development projects or
repair projects can make upland soils particularly susceptible to erosion. A recent increase in directional
drilling operations associated with the installation of underground fiber optic cables in the City of Durham
has led to more incidents of sediment and turbid water reaching the City’s MS4 and streams, including Third
Fork Creek. Riparian areas act as critical barriers that prevent sediment transport to streams – alteration of
these areas during land disturbance activities can enable a significant amount of sediment to reach local
stream channels.
5.3. Runoff from Impervious Surfaces and Direct Discharge
Sediment reaching storm sewer networks through direct discharge or in runoff from impervious surfaces can
contribute to instream turbidity issues and higher TSS loading. Sediment can come from sources including
municipal facilities, soil erosion on residential properties, and sediment associated with commercial
facilities, industrial site facilities, and accumulated material on impervious surfaces like streets and parking
lots. This sediment is washed off of impervious surfaces and can be transported through storm drain
networks to local streams.
6. Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures Currently Being Implemented
6.1. Response Plan Measure Definitions
The measures described in this TMDL Response Plan fall into two main categories: Prevention and
Mitigation. The definitions below apply to this plan and may be reviewed and modified in future revisions of
this plan.
A prevention measure is defined as a management practice, procedure, requirement or other action that can
stop a release of pollution from happening. For Third Fork Creek, prevention measures are designed to
target sediment at its source by preventing sediment from reaching the storm drainage system and surface
waters. Prevention measures prioritized in Third Fork Creek include:
 Conducting media campaigns to motivate the public to take specific actions that reduce sources of
sediment
 Providing sediment and erosion control materials to City Public Works crews
 Managing steep slopes for development projects
A mitigation measure is defined as a practice, control measure, technology, requirement, or other action that
can remove pollution once it has been released, reached the storm drainage system, or reached surface
waters. For Third Fork Creek, mitigation measures are designed to contain or remove sediment and
decrease in-stream turbidity. Mitigation measures prioritized in Third Fork Creek include:
 Implement stream restoration and streambank stabilization projects
 Increasing the frequency of street sweeping
 Enable utilization of green infrastructure to complement traditional SCMs in post-construction
stormwater management strategy
 Install SCMs that address TSS and turbidity in developed areas
 Utilization of flocculants in drainage ditches on construction sites
In addition to identifying new mitigation and prevention measures, the 2018 brainstorming sessions held by
the Stormwater & GIS Services Division also identified measures that are currently being implemented by
City and County departments and may not have been reported in the previous NPDES annual reports. Table
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
14

2 below shows the list of seven measures that were discussed during the brainstorming sessions and are
currently implemented in the Third Fork Creek watershed. The next step is to communicate with each
responsible department about the best method for collecting and reporting the data in the TMDL Response
Plan updates.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
15

Table 2. Measures currently implemented in the Third Fork Creek watershed
Measure Currently Implemented NPDES Minimum Measure Category Estimated Impact on Reducing Sediment Group(s) Responsible for
Implementation Jurisdiction
City-wide street sweeping program (including Third Fork Creek). Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
High Public Works Operations City
Conduct monthly inspections on privately-funded construction sites. Promptly issue violations
for off-site sediment discharges from active construction sites.
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Medium-High Stormwater & Erosion Control County
Adherence to field crew protocols for sweeping and shoveling sediment in the street and curb
gutter during and after street water line repair work in order to prevent sediment from entering
storm drains.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
Low-Medium Water Management – Water & Sewer
Maintenance
City
Remove sediment from clogged storm drains prior to flushing storm drains which prevents
more sediment from being released into a nearby stream.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
Low-Medium Public Works Operations City
Conduct site inspections monthly and conduct lot sweeping 1-2 times per month or as needed
at the Public Works Operation Center (PWOC). Regularly check and replace sediment control
bags in stormwater catch basins at PWOC.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
Low-Medium Public Works Operations City
Conduct routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater catch basins. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
Low Public Works Operations, Stormwater &
GIS - Infrastructure
City
Disturbed land must be stabilized with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain
erosion as described in the City-County Unified Development Ordinance (Section 12.10.4(B)).
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Medium-High Stormwater & Erosion Control, Planning County, City-County
Conduct weekend enforcement patrols in the Third Fork Creek watershed. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works – Stormwater Quality -
IDDE
City
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
16

7. Newly Proposed Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures
In 2018, the City’s Water Quality Group met with workgroups in several City and County departments to
discuss the TMDL Response Plan measures that were specific to their area of responsibility. There were
several factors discussed during these meetings to help decide whether or not a measure could be
implemented in the Third Fork Creek watershed. Some of the factors that were discussed and considered
during the prioritization process include:
 the estimated impact that the measure would have on reducing the amount of turbid water and
sediment reaching Third Fork Creek and its tributaries;
 the group(s) that would be responsible for implementing the measure;
 the barriers to implementing the measure;
 the implementation steps;
 the amount of time (in years) it would take to implement the measure;
 an approximate order-of-magnitude cost estimation;
 the NPDES minimum measure category assigned to the measure, if any; and
 whether or not the responsible group thought the measure should be included in the TMDL
Response Plan
The priority measures shown in Table 3 are discussed in this section and in Section 8 (grouped by the six
minimum measures of the NPDES program). A table of all the priority and non-priority measures proposed for
this TMDL Response Plan is found in Appendix A. The non-priority measures will not be implemented as part
of this TMDL Response Plan, but they may be revisited and implemented as part of future revisions to this
TMDL Response Plan. Appendix B lists all of the measures that were not included in the TMDL Response
Plan due to factors such as the estimated high costs (>$500,000) for implementation, multiple barriers that
could hinder implementation, the estimated low impact on reducing sediment, and the responsible group’s
willingness to include the measure in the response plan.

A general measure that addresses all sources of sediment pollution is a media campaign to motivate the
public to take specific actions that reduce sources of turbidity and sediment. This media campaign would
include outlets such as the City website, online videos (e.g., YouTube), social media accounts, the Waterways
newsletter, partnering with the Clean Water Education Partnership, and other methods. Staff members from
Public Education and Pollution Prevention will collaborate on a media campaign. Outcome measures for the
media campaign may be quantified using attendance numbers for in-person outreach events; metrics
tracking views, likes, and shares of educational material posted on social media; and possibly surveying
methods to gauge resident awareness of turbidity/TSS issues in Third Fork Creek.
7.1 Measures to Reduce In-stream Sediment Sources
Intense stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces can cause stream banks to erode and collapse which
adds sediment directly to the stream and increases turbidity levels. The measures in this section are
intended to address stream bank sediment sources.
 Perform additional streambank stabilization and restoration. The Public Works Watershed Planning
and Stormwater Infrastructure groups have previously completed a stream restoration project along
Third Fork Creek. The proposed measure would expand on previous efforts and implement additional
stream restoration in the Third Fork Creek watershed. The Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) for
Third Fork Creek was completed in December 2012 and identified several potential locations where
stream restoration projects could be implemented. This measure would likely involve collaboration
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
17

between Public Works and other City departments in addition to non-city groups such as the Durham
County Soil & Water Conservation District.
 Routine stream-walk program for Third Fork Creek; target main stem and tributaries with historically
higher incidences of illicit discharges of sediment and also inspect and assess stream bank erosion.
The City will establish a schedule and procedures for surveying sections of Third Fork Creek and its
tributaries to identify turbid discharges and illicit discharges of sediment from the City’s storm drain
system. Stream-walk teams will inspect major outfalls that discharge to Third Fork Creek and its
tributaries. The City’s Stormwater Quality Group will perform the routine stream walks and
communicate with County Stormwater and Erosion Control for issues related to construction site
stormwater runoff control. The Stormwater Quality Group will also require responsible parties to
clean up sediment discharges through enforcement of the Stormwater Management and Pollution
Control Ordinance. Stream walk teams will also inspect stream banks for areas of active and
potential erosion or bank instability. The location of problematic areas with high erosion potential will
be shared with the Public Works Watershed Planning group to examine the feasibility of including
these areas in future stream stabilization and restoration projects.
 Investigate highly effective channel protection methods to reduce streambank scour including
stream channel protection volume (CPV) measures. If supporting evidence (e.g., data, technical
reports, etc.) and justification to develop a channel protection requirement exists, the Public Works
Stormwater Development Review group would propose modifications to design criteria for SCMs and
submit proposed City code changes for public comment. The City would also ensure that the
proposed design criteria and regulations comply with any State laws related to stormwater control
measures for new development and redevelopment. Implementation of this measure would require
public support and approval by Durham City Council.
7.2 Measures to Reduce Construction Sources of Sediment
 Promote the use of flocculants in drainage ditches on construction sites to settle out sediment and
solids. The County Stormwater and Erosion Control Division would be responsible for researching the
practice and developing design criteria for effective use in the field. This division would also pursue
formal policy adoption and approval (e.g., Unified Development Ordinance changes). The Public
Works Stormwater Quality group would create a one-page handout about flocculant guidance or
update current construction handouts to include guidance on the use of flocculants. This educational
material can be distributed to the contractors to keep the construction community up-to-date and
informed on how to implement the use of flocculants as part of sediment and erosion control
practices.
 Conduct more frequent sediment & erosion inspections and enforcement. The Durham County
Stormwater and Erosion Control Division will aim to increase the annual number of sediment and
erosion control inspections performed on active construction sites within Durham County. To date,
the number of inspections has been limited by the number of sediment and erosion control
inspectors that are on staff. The Stormwater and Erosion Control Division will increase the number of
inspectors. Challenges to successfully implementing this measure include identifying qualified
candidates and securing funding for additional positions.
 Change City code to grant authority for the City’s Public Works Department to issue a “stop-work
order” for small construction sites that are not in compliance with required sediment and erosion
control practices. County sediment and erosion control inspectors do not have the authority to
inspect small construction sites (<12,000 sf). The Public Works Stormwater Quality group will aim to
gain authority to issue a “stop-work order” for small construction sites that are discharging sediment
to the City’s storm drain system. This effort will include developing and proposing text for
modification of the ordinance, gaining approval for the change, and training staff and developing a
workflow for the stop-work orders.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
18

7.3 Measures to Reduce Other Sources of Sediment
 Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take specific actions that reduce sources of
sediment and turbidity through the City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social media
accounts, Waterways newsletter, Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP) handouts, and other
methods. A media campaign will be undertaken to encourage the public to take specific actions
which may reduce sediment runoff in Third Fork Creek. For example, planting a vegetated buffer,
stabilizing a gravel driveway, or growing a healthy lawn can reduce sediment and erosion issues on
private property. The Public Works’ Stormwater Quality and Watershed Planning groups will leverage
previous public education and outreach efforts to inform residents about sources, pollution
prevention techniques, transport pathways, and impacts of sediment on local streams.
 Implement an Adopt-a-Drain program that encourages residents to participate in removing
sediment, leaves, and trash from the street gutter near and around storm drain grates. An
interactive web map and registration website have been developed for this program. Public
education staff in the Public Works’ Watershed Planning Group will be responsible for managing the
Adopt-a-Drain program when it is handed over to the City in 2019.
 Increase street sweeping frequency in the Third Fork Creek watershed. The Public Works Operations
Division will aim to increase the annual number of streets swept in Third Fork Creek. To date, the
amount of street sweeping has been limited by the staffing numbers in the division. The Operations
Division will aim to increase the number of street maintenance staff members. Challenges to
successfully implementing this measure include identifying qualified candidates and retaining staff
members.
 Purchase, supply, and educate Public Works Operations Division field staff with the materials they
need to protect storm drains during street maintenance work. The Public Works Department will
purchase supplies for street maintenance crews to protect storm drains during street maintenance
operations. The pollution prevention supplies will be distributed to and utilized within the Public
Works Operations Division. The Stormwater Quality group’s pollution prevention staff will assist in
providing training to street maintenance crews.
 Review the Third Fork Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and implement the construction of
SCMs identified in the WIP that address TSS. The City’s Watershed Planning Group and Stormwater
Quality Group will be responsible for reviewing the WIP and prioritizing SCMs that will be built,
assuming available land, funding, and public support. The Watershed Planning Group will be
responsible for coordinating public communication, land acquisition, and contract management for
the construction of the SCMs.
 Explore strategies to promote greater use of green infrastructure to complement traditional SCMs &
BMPs in the City’s post-construction stormwater management efforts. This includes determining
effective incentives to encourage green infrastructure utilization on private site development.
Investigate using green infrastructure on City projects. Research and recommend effective City code
changes to reduce barriers to implementing green infrastructure in public and private development
projects.
 (A) For development and planning, designate slopes as Preserved (natural areas >25% slope) and
Man-made (managed areas >25%). (B) Eliminate 50% slope (2:1) allowance. Add steep slope
violation, encroachment clarification in the Unified Development Ordinance. The City-County
Planning Department will investigate the development of slope protection regulations for natural
areas and managed areas, eliminate 50% slope (2:1) allowance, and clarify steep slope
encroachment violation language in the ordinance. This will include modification of existing slope
protection rules and/or development of new rules. The Planning Department will lead the
modification of the Unified Development Ordinance and the approval process through the City
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
19

Council. The Public Works’ Stormwater Development Review Group and Engineering Services
Division will assist in the ordinance change.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
20

Table 3. Prioritized Measures in the Third Fork Creek watershed
Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact on Reducing
Turbidity/TSS
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated Cost
to Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline (years)
Perform additional streambank stabilization and restoration. Mitigation NA High Public Works - Watershed Planning; Public
Works - Infrastructure; County Soil & Water
Conservation District
$$$ 10-15
Increase street sweeping frequency in the Third Fork Creek watershed. Mitigation Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
High Public Works - Operations $$$ 5-15
More frequent sediment & erosion inspections and enforcement. Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff
Control
High County Stormwater & Erosion Control $$ 5-15
Promote the use of flocculants in drainage ditches on construction
sites to settle out sediment and solids. Create a one-page handout
about flocculant guidance or update current construction handout to
include guidance on the use of flocculants.
Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff
Control
High Public Works - Stormwater & GIS - IDDE;
County Stormwater and Erosion Control
$ 0-5
Review Third Fork Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and implement
the construction of SCMs identified in the WIP that address TSS.
Mitigation NA Medium-High Public Works - -Watershed Planning and
Stormwater Quality
$$$ 5-10
Routine stream-walk program to target the main stem and tributaries
with historically higher incidences of illicit discharges. Also, inspect
and assess stream bank erosion.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
Medium Public Works - Stormwater Quality $$ 0-5
Investigate highly effective channel protection methods to reduce
streambank scour including stream channel protection volume (CPV)
measures.
Mitigation Post-Construction Stormwater
Management
Medium Public Works - Stormwater Development
Review
$ 0-5
Explore strategies to promote greater use of green infrastructure to
complement traditional SCMs & BMPs in the City’s post-construction
stormwater management efforts.
Mitigation Post-Construction Stormwater
Management
Low-Medium Public Works - Stormwater Development
Review
$$ 5-10
Change City code to grant authority for the City’s Public Works
Department to issue a “stop-work order” for small construction sites
that are not in compliance with required sediment and erosion control
practices.
Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff
Control
Low-Medium Public Works - Stormwater Quality; City
Attorney; City Manager; City Council
$ 5-10
Purchase and supply Public Works Operations Division field staff with
the materials they need to protect storm drains during maintenance
work in the street.
Prevention Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Low-Medium Public Works - Operations $ 0-5
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take specific
actions that reduce sources of sediment and turbidity through the
City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social media accounts,
Waterways newsletter, CWEP handouts, and other methods.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low-Medium Public Works – Stormwater Quality and
Watershed Planning; CWEP Contractor
$ 0-5
(A) For development and planning, designate slopes as Preserved
(natural areas >25% slope) and Man-made (managed areas >25%).
(B) Eliminate 50% slope (2:1) allowance. Steep slope violation,
encroachment clarification in the Unified Development Ordinance.
Prevention Construction Site Stormwater Runoff
Control
Low-Medium [(A) - Low, (B) - Med)] Public Works -Stormwater Development
Review and Engineering Services; City-
County Planning;
$ - $$ 5-10
Implement an Adopt-a-Drain program that encourages residents to
participate in removing sediment, leaves, and trash from the street
gutter near and around storm drain grates.
Prevention Public Participation and Involvement Low Public Works – Watershed Planning $ 0-5
Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
21

8. Prioritized Measures Applicable to the NPDES Six Minimum Measures
This section highlights the prioritized response plan measures that fall under the six minimum control
measures for the EPA’s Stormwater Phase II Final Rule. The prioritized measures in this response plan
address Public Education and Outreach, Public Participation and Involvement, IDDE, Construction Site
Stormwater Runoff Control, and Post-Construction Stormwater Management, Pollution Prevention and Good
Housekeeping
8.1. Implementation of Plan to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The City will implement response plan measures to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) with the goal of
reducing the levels of turbidity and TSS in Third Fork Creek. While the elimination of all turbidity and TSS
point and nonpoint sources may reduce concentrations below water quality standards, it is recognized that
this may not be feasible due to technical, economic, logistic or social factors. Therefore, the City will pursue
turbidity and TSS reductions to the MEP based on Clean Water Act and MS4 NPDES requirements. Section
402(p)(3)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires municipal MS4 permittees, to the extent allowable under State
or local law, to prohibit non‐stormwater discharges into the MS4 and implement controls and management
measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Section J(1)(b) of the
City’s MS4 NPDES permit also requires that the City utilize BMPs (commonly referred to as SCMs) pertaining
to the six minimum measures and the TMDL Response Plan to meet the approved TMDL WLA to the MEP.
Additionally, Section J(1)(c) of the City’s MS4 NPDES also states that the City is not responsible for attaining
State water quality standards as this requires pollutant reductions from all point and nonpoint sources
identified in the approved TMDL.

8.2. Public Education and Outreach

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take
specific actions that reduce sources of sediment and turbidity
through the City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social
media accounts, Waterways newsletter, CWEP handouts, and
other methods.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
22

8.3. Public Participation and Involvement

8.4. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

8.5. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Implement an Adopt-a-Drain program that encourages
residents to participate in removing sediment, leaves, and
trash from the street gutter near and around storm drain
grates.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Routine stream-walk program to target main stem and
tributaries with historically higher incidences of illicit
discharges of sediment. Also inspect major outfalls (greater
than 36" diameter pipe) for turbid discharges and assess
stream bank erosion.
Timeline
0 to 5 years

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Promote the use flocculants in drainage ditches on
construction sites to settle out sediment and solids. Create a
one-page handout about flocculant guidance or update current
construction handout to include guidance on the use of
flocculants.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Change City code to grant the Public Works Department
authority to issue a “stop work order” for small construction
sites that are not in compliance with required sediment and
erosion control practices.
5 to 10 years

TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
23

8.6. Post-Construction Stormwater Management

8.7. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations

9. Watershed Planning
Watershed planning is an additional measure that the City of Durham has incorporated into the Stormwater
program. Although this is not one of the Phase II minimum measures, this program does provide information
and direction regarding practices in the Third Fork Creek watershed.
Durham County, Engineering and Environmental Services Department, Stormwater and
Erosion Control Division
Measure
Increase sediment & erosion inspections and enforcement
(i.e., more frequent inspections).
Timeline
5 to 15 years

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Investigate highly effective channel protection methods to
reduce streambank scour including stream channel protection
volume (CPV) measures.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Explore strategies to promote greater use of green
infrastructure to complement traditional SCMs & BMPs in the
City’s post-construction stormwater management efforts.
5 to 10 years

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Operations Division
Measure
Purchase and supply Public Works Operations Division field
staff with the materials they need to protect storm drains
during maintenance work in the street.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Increase street sweeping frequency in the Third Fork Creek
watershed.
5 to 15 years

TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
24

In 2007 the City began the process of developing Watershed Improvement Plans for watersheds across the
City. As of December 2018, watershed improvement plans have been completed for Ellerbe Creek,
Northeast Creek, Crooked Creek, Third Fork Creek, Little Lick Creek, and Eno River. Each plan identifies new
opportunities for stormwater control measures, as well as opportunities to upgrade existing measures (i.e.,
retrofit existing measures). Extensive field work is conducted in the watershed planning process to verify on-
the-ground conditions prior to carrying a project concept forward. Stream restorations are also evaluated as
potential control measures to pollution that can arise from the stream bank (e.g., sediment/turbidity). Each
plan provides a recommended list of ranked new stormwater control measures, opportunities for retrofitting
measures, and stream restoration. Cost estimates are provided for each measure or restoration opportunity.
The City finalized the Third Fork Creek Watershed Improvement Plan in December 2012. The Watershed
Improvement Plan notes that approximately 23 percent of the Third Fork Creek watershed lies within the
watershed protection overlay district. New development has been required to design stormwater controls to
remove 85 percent of total suspended solids within the watershed overlay district since 1985, and
everywhere in Third Fork Creek since 2009 when Phase II post-construction requirements took effect. The
Third Fork Creek Watershed Improvement Plan found that 35% of the channels within Third Fork Creek were
rated as Fair and 19% were rated as poor for channel stability. The completed plan recommended stream
corridor restoration for six stream reaches, or 5,475 feet of stream. Stream corridor restoration would have
a high impact on sediment levels in Third Fork Creek and these reaches have been identified as unstable or
degraded to the point where they are significantly contributing to water quality problems as discussed in
section 2.4.6 of the Stormwater Management Plan.
A computer-based watershed water quality model known as the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)
was set up to simulate the Third Fork Creek watershed and help develop the WIP. The model simulated the
capability of existing SCMs in the watershed to manage runoff volume and pollutant washoff (including
sediment). The model helped identify areas with the highest amounts of pollutants of concern and prioritize
areas in need of new or improved stormwater treatment. There were numerous recommendations for new
SCMs or SCM retrofits that included constructed wetlands, bioretention areas, and wet detention ponds.
Each of these types of structural SCMs also remove sediment, including the smallest particles that cause
turbidity. Structural SCMs also provide peak flow detention of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces
and helps reduce the presence of erosive high-flow conditions in stream channels. A total of 15 new high-
priority structural SCMs were recommended in the Third Fork Creek WIP.
10. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring
10.1. Water Quality Monitoring
The City of Durham has a routine ambient stream monitoring program to generate data that describe the
condition of streams in the City and County limits. The City’s Stormwater Management Plan states that the
ambient stream monitoring program supports the following assessment goals (City of Durham, 2017):
 to identify pollution problem areas within the City of Durham;
 to assess compliance with state water quality programs, including TMDLs and nutrient management
strategies;
 to determine pollution removal credits;
 to identify overall water quality trends; and
 to evaluate the water quality impacts of urban stormwater on area streams
The monitoring program includes water chemistry, biological monitoring (benthic macroinvertebrates and
habitat assessment), and hydrologic monitoring. The ambient water chemistry program focuses on surface
water conditions. Special studies are conducted on an infrequent basis to assess stream sediment
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
25

chemistry. City monitoring staff follow procedures outlined in the Ambient Water Chemistry Monitoring
Program Quality Assurance Project Plan and collect grab samples monthly at scheduled monitoring sites.
Samples are collected at all monitoring sites in a given basin on the same day. The City uses a rotating
stream basin approach to monitor sites in each basin every two years; however, monitoring sites are
evaluated at the end of each year and site locations are adjusted to meet the City’s water quality
assessment needs. The TMDL for Third Fork Creek was developed because turbidity violations were the
reason for listing the creek on the state 303(d) list; however, the TMDL is expressed in terms of TSS loading.
The TMDL assumes that in meeting the TSS target load that the turbidity violations will decrease to an
acceptable level. The City of Durham tracks both turbidity and TSS loads in Third Fork Creek in order to
evaluate compliance with both the TMDL and the water quality standard for turbidity.
The Third Fork Creek ambient stream monitoring sites for the City, Upper Cape Fear River Basin (UCFRBA),
and State Division of Water Resources (DWR) are shown below in Figure 4. The City of Durham has seven
water quality monitoring stations in Third Fork Creek – five stations are monitored on even years and two
locations are monitored consistently that are near continuous stream monitoring gaging stations. These two
locations (TF3.4.TC and TF1.0TC) are near the Public Works Operation Center at MLK Jr. Pkwy and further
downstream at Woodcroft Pkwy. Downstream of these City of Durham monitoring stations is the UCFRBA
monitoring station at Highway 54 (B3025000) and continuous discharge data collection by the US
Geological Survey. This location is the TMDL compliance point. The acceptable criterion at the compliance
point is no more than 10% of the turbidity data in a five-year period exceeding the water quality standard of
50 NTU. Evaluating turbidity on an annual basis since 2010, turbidity levels have exceeded the water quality
standard in more than 10% of samples during three years. In September 2018, a completed stream
restoration project stabilized 1,250 linear feet of Third Fork Creek and replaced 700 linear feet of an asphalt
walking trail with a new boardwalk. This may affect turbidity concentrations as well as annual loads.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
26

Figure 4. City of Durham, UCFRBA, and DWR ambient stream monitoring sites in the Third Fork Creek
watershed.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
27

10.2. Turbidity Data and Computed TSS Loads
Loads of TSS are typically calculated annually using the USGS load estimation program LOADEST (Mod4.8,
March 2013). For each NPDES Permit Annual Report Update, loads are recalculated each year. A minimum
of 5 years of data are used to calibrate LOADEST for TSS load calculations. As a result, all load estimations in
this report will differ from previous reports, in some years significantly.
Estimates of the mean monthly load are provided by LOADEST, including the upper and lower 95%
confidence limits on the mean monthly load. These were used to estimate the mean annual load and the
95% confidence limits on that load. These load estimates were compared to the TMDL load of 547,500
pounds/year.
11. Water Quality Co-Benefits of TMDL Response Plan Implementation
Implementation of the priority measures for the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan aims to reduce
turbidity and TSS loading to the creek and will also have co-benefits in reducing other pollutants and
improving the aquatic habitat. For example, reduction of sediment in Third Fork Creek could reduce other
pollutants like metals and nutrients. Reductions of these pollutants, possible increases in dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and improved aquatic habitat quality could lead to healthier populations of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish.
11.1. Value Added to Removal of Nutrients and Metals
A co-benefit of implementing priority measures with this TMDL Response Plan is decreased transport of
nutrients and other pollutants. Instream concentrations of heavy metals like copper, zinc, and lead have
been correlated with higher suspended sediments and are transported during storm events (Balogh et al.,
1997; Cravotta and Bilger,2001). Reduced TSS loading achieved through the implementation of priority
measures could result in lower concentrations of copper, which is a pollutant that Third Fork Creek is listed
for on the Final 2016 NCDEQ 303d list (NCDEQ, 2016; Table 4). Suspended sediment can also serve as a
transport medium for nutrient pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus (House et al., 1998). Reductions in
nutrient loading achieved could positively impact water quality in Jordan Lake, which, is currently impacted
by excess nutrients. Suspended sediment is comprised of a mixture of flocculated inorganic particles (e.g.,
clays and silts), bacterial and algal communities, and organic particles (Droppo, 2001) – decreasing
suspended sediment loading could lead to decreased bacteria transport (Badgley et al., 2011). Decreased
turbidity and TSS would increase water clarity and light penetration into the water column, fostering the
growth of plants and algae at the primary trophic level (Henley et al., 2000). This could increase dissolved
oxygen generation through photosynthetic activity, helping address the 2016 Final 303(d) listing of Third
Fork Creek for dissolved oxygen.
Table 4. NCDEQ 2016 Final 303(d) List (NCDEQ 2016), Category 5 Assessments for Third Fork Creek.
Description of
stream segment
DWQ
Assessment
Unit(s)
Impaired
segment
length
(miles)
Assessment
Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of
Interest IR Category
From source to a
point 2.0 miles
upstream of NC
Hwy. 54
16-41-1-12-
(1)
5.16 Exceeding
Criteria
> 10% and >90% conf
> 10% and <90% conf
> 10% and >90% conf
Zinc (50 µg/L;)
Copper (7 ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (4
mg/L)
5
5e
5
From a point 2.0
miles upstream of
NC HWY. 54 to New
Hope Creek
16-41-1-12-
(2)
3.86 Exceeding
Criteria
> 10% and >90% conf

> 10% and <90% conf
Dissolved Oxygen (4
mg/L;)
Copper (7 ug/L)
5

5e
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
28

11.2. Benefits to Aquatic Life
Reducing turbidity and TSS could potentially foster significant improvements in fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and aquatic life in Third Fork Creek. Fine fractions of suspended sediment are known to
result in declines in benthic macroinvertebrates and fish presence and diversity (Henley et al., 2000; Bilotta
and Brazier, 2008) – implementation of priority measures for this TMDL Response Plan could potentially
result in increased health in populations of these aquatic insects. The growth of plants and algae at the
primary trophic level, discussed above, could create a healthier habit for benthic macroinvertebrates and
fish to thrive. Decreased suspended sediment concentrations have been shown to decrease microbial
production of ammonia, which is toxic to fish (Xia et al., 2009).
12. Steps Towards TMDL Response Plan Implementation
The Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan will be implemented by workgroups in Durham City and County
government. This implementation process is not necessarily a direct prescriptive process – depending on
the level of change that implemented response measures are having on turbidity and TSS loads in Third Fork
Creek. Adapting and modifying the response plan will be informed through ongoing analysis of programmatic
data collected to quantify progress.
12.1. Response Plan Schedule by Agency
This section organizes the prioritized response plan measures by the departments that are responsible to
implement them. The prioritized measures in this response plan will be implemented in partnership between
City of Durham Public Works Department (Stormwater and GIS Services Division, Operations Division) and
Durham County, Engineering and Environmental Services Department, Stormwater and Erosion Control
Division. The timeline for implementation of the prioritized response plan measures is between five and
fifteen years.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
29

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take
specific actions that reduce sources of sediment and turbidity
through the City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social
media accounts, Waterways newsletter, CWEP handouts, and
other methods.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Implement an Adopt-a-Drain program that encourages
residents to participate in removing sediment, leaves, and
trash from the street gutter near and around storm drain
grates.
0 to 5 years
Routine stream-walk program to target main stem and
tributaries with historically higher incidences of illicit
discharges. Also inspect and assess stream bank erosion.
0 to 5 years
Promote the use flocculants in drainage ditches on
construction sites to settle out sediment and solids. Create a
one-page handout about flocculant guidance or update current
construction handout to include guidance on the use of
flocculants.
0 to 5 years
(in coordination with
County Stormwater &
Erosion Control Div.)
Investigate highly effective channel protection methods to
reduce streambank scour including stream channel protection
volume (CPV) measures.
0 to 5 years
Explore strategies to promote greater use of green
infrastructure to complement traditional SCMs & BMPs in the
City’s post-construction stormwater management efforts.
5 to 10 years
Review Third Fork Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and
implement the construction of SCMs identified in the WIP that
address TSS.
5 to 10 years
Change City code to grant authority for the City’s Public Works
Department to issue a “stop work order” for small construction
sites that are not in compliance with required sediment and
erosion control practices.
5 to 10 years
(in coordination with City
Management and Council)
(A) For development and planning, designate slopes as
Preserved (natural areas >25% slope) and Man-made
(managed areas >25%). (B) Eliminate 50% slope (2:1)
allowance. Steep slope violation, encroachment clarification in
ordinance.
5 to 10 years
(in coordination with Eng.
Services Div. and City-
County Planning Dept.)
Perform additional streambank stabilization and restoration. 10 to 15 years

TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
30

12.2. Tracking and Data Collection
The City’s Public Works Department will communicate with the appropriate departments, divisions, and
workgroups to identify the metrics and data needed to track the progress of measures outlined in this
Response Plan. A preliminary list of metrics that may be used to track incremental progress for this
Response Plan is shown in Appendix C.
12.3. Re-evaluation of Response Plan
The City’s Public Works Department will re-evaluate the measures outlined in this TMDL Response Plan on a
five-year basis, as resources allow. Modifications to the response plan will depend on reductions in turbidity
and TSS concentrations, the feasibility of implementing measures, stakeholder needs, and new measures
identified. The City will continue to provide progress updates on an annual basis as part of the NPDES
Municipal Stormwater Permit annual reporting cycle.
13. References
Allmendinger, N.E., Pizzuto, J. E., Moglen, G. E., and Lewicki, M. 2007. A sediment budget for an urbanizing
watershed 1951-1996, Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S.A. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 43(6), 1483-1498.
Badgley, B. D., Thomas, F. I. M. and Harwood, V. J. 2011. Quantifying environmental reservoirs of fecal
indicator bacteria associated with sediment and submerged aquatic vegetation. Environmental Microbiology
13(4), 932–942.
Bilotta, G. S. and Brazier, R. E. 2008. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and
aquatic biota. Water Research 42(12), 2849–2861.
City of Durham. 2017. City of Durham Stormwater Management Program Plan. Public Works Department.
August, 2017. Durham, NC.
City of Durham, Public Works Department, Operations Division
Measure
Purchase and supply Public Works Operations Division field
staff with the materials they need to protect storm drains
during maintenance work in the street.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Increase street sweeping frequency in the Third Fork Creek
watershed.
5 to 15 years
Durham County, Engineering and Environmental Services Department, Stormwater and
Erosion Control Division
Measure Timeline
Conduct more frequent sediment & erosion inspections and
enforcement.
5 to 15 years
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
31

Droppo, I. G. 2001. Rethinking what constitutes suspended sediment. Hydrological Processes 15(9), 1551–
1564.
Henley, W. F., Patterson, M. A., Neves, R. J. and Lemly, A. D. 2000. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on
lotic food webs: A concise review for natural resource managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8(2), 125–
139.
House, W. A., Jickells, T. D., Edwards, A. C., Praska, K. E. and Denison, F. H. 1998. Reactions of phosphorus
with sediments in fresh and marine waters. Soil Use and Management 14, 139–146.
Nelson, P.A., Smith, J.A., and Miller, A.J. 2006. Evolution of channel morphology and hydrologic response in
an urbanizing drainage basin. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 31, 1063-1079.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003. North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). February, 2003.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2005. Total Maximum Daily
Load for Turbidity and Fecal Coliform for Haw River, Deep River, Third Fork Creek, and Dan River in North
Carolina. January, 2005. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2016. 2016 Integrated Report – All Assessed
Waters, 2016 Final 303(d) List. April, 2018. Raleigh, NC.
O’ Driscoll, M., Clinton, S., Jefferson, A., Manda, A., and McMillan, S. 2010. Urbanization Effects on
Watershed Hydrology and In-Stream Processes in the Southern United States. Water 2, pg. 605-648.
Tetra Tech. 2012. Durham Third Fork Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Durham.
December, 2002. Durham, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. April, 1991. Washington, DC.
Waite, T.D. 1984. Principles of Water Quality. Academic Press, New York.
Xia, X., Yang, Z. and Zhang, X. 2009. Effect of suspended-sediment concentration on nitrification in river
water: Importance of suspended sediment-water interface. Environmental Science and Technology 43(10),
3681–3687.

TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
32

14. Appendix A: Summary Table of All Proposed Measures (Priority and Non-Priority)
Table 5 Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact
on Reducing
Turbidity/TSS
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated
Cost to
Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Priority
Perform additional streambank stabilization and restoration. Mitigation NA High Public Works - Watershed Planning;
Public Works - Infrastructure; Soil &
Water Conservation District
$$$ 10-15 Yes
Increase street sweeping frequency in the City. Mitigation Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
High Public Works - Operations $$ - $$$ 5-15 Yes
More frequent sediment & erosion inspections and enforcement. Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control High County Stormwater and Erosion Control $$ 5-15 Yes
Promote the use of flocculants in drainage ditches on construction
sites to settle out sediment and solids. Create a one-page handout
about flocculant guidance or update current construction handout to
include guidance on the use of flocculants.
Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control High Public Works - Stormwater Quality;
County Stormwater and Erosion Control
$ 0-5 Yes
Review Third Fork Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and implement
the construction of SCMs identified in the WIP that address TSS.
Mitigation NA Medium-High Public Works - Watershed Planning and
Stormwater Quality
$$$ 5-10 Yes
Routine stream-walk program to target the main stem and tributaries
with historically higher incidences of illicit discharges. Also, inspect
and assess stream bank erosion.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Medium Public Works - Stormwater –Quality $$ 0-5 Yes
Investigate highly effective channel protection methods to reduce
streambank scour including stream channel protection volume (CPV)
measures.
Mitigation Post-Construction Stormwater Management Medium Public Works - Stormwater Development
Review
$ 0-5 Yes
Explore strategies to promote greater use of green infrastructure to
complement traditional SCMs & BMPs in the City’s post-construction
stormwater management efforts.
Mitigation Post-Construction Stormwater Management Low-Medium Public Works - Stormwater Development
Review
$$ – $$$ 5-10 Yes
Change City code to grant authority for the City’s Public Works
Department to issue a “stop-work order” for small construction sites
that are not in compliance with required sediment and erosion control
practices.
Mitigation Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Low-Medium Public Works - Stormwater Quality; City
Attorney; City Manager; City Council
$ 5-10 Yes
Purchase and supply Public Works Operations Division field staff with
the materials they need to protect storm drains during maintenance
work in the street.
Prevention Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
Low-Medium Public Works - Operations $ 0-5 Yes
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take specific
actions that reduce sources of sediment and turbidity through the
City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social media accounts,
Waterways newsletter, CWEP handouts, and other methods.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low-Medium Public Works - Watershed Planning and
Stormwater Quality; CWEP Contractor
$ 0-5 Yes
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
33

Table 5 Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact
on Reducing
Turbidity/TSS
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated
Cost to
Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Priority
(A) For development and planning, designate slopes as Preserved
(natural areas >25% slope) and Man-made (managed areas >25%).
(B) Remove 50% slope (2:1) allowance and add steep slope violation,
encroachment clarification in the Unified Development Ordinance.
Prevention Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Low-Medium [(A) -
Low, (B) - Med)]
Public Works -Stormwater Development
Review and Engineering Services; City-
County Planning;
$-$$ 5-10 Yes
Implement an Adopt-a-Drain program that encourages residents to
participate in removing sediment, leaves, and trash from the street
gutter near and around storm drain grates.
Prevention Public Participation and Involvement Low Public Works – Watershed Planning $ 0-5 Yes
Promote stream buffer education for residents that disturb land or
perform construction work on their property.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low-Medium City-County Planning, Public Works–
Watershed Planning, County Stormwater
and Erosion Control, Soil & Water
Conservation District, City- County
Inspections
$ 0-5 No
(A) Provide incentives to attend public education events for invasive
species education, such as partnering with local nurseries to give out
native plants. (B) Conduct public outreach on ways to improve
residential buffers.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low Public Works – Watershed Planning and
Infrastructure, Soil & Water
Conservation District
$ 0-5 No
Expand “no mow zones” pilot program with Water Management and
explore other potential “no mow” areas and partners.
Prevention NA Low Water Management, Public Works -
Watershed Planning
$-$$ 5-10 No
Require sediment & erosion control practices for critical areas on
construction sites that are directly adjacent to buffers.
Prevention Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Low City-County Planning, County Stormwater
& Erosion Control
$ 0-5 No
Improve concrete cutting and installation practices for Public Works
Operations projects (managing concrete slurry and washout controls).
Prevention Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
Low Public Works Operations, Stormwater
Quality
$ 0-5 No
Advertise the Muddy Water Watch App on websites, social media, and
at public events.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low County Stormwater and Erosion Control $ 0-5 No
Develop partnerships with outside organizations to acquire or secure
easements in riparian areas where a native vegetated buffer can be
protected or restored.
Prevention NA Low-Medium Public Works - Watershed Planning $$$ 10-15 No
Conduct street sweeping in residential areas with cul-de-sacs that
have stormwater outfalls near a stream. Develop routes using GIS
maps.
Mitigation Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
Low Public Works - Operations $-$$ 0-5 No
Use aerial photography to identify denuded areas or
sites with sediment and erosion issues.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality $ 0-5 No
Mitigate flow from older DOT roads by installing retrofits on DOT
easements.
Mitigation NA Medium NCDOT $$$ 10-15 No
Educate road designers about better stormwater control practices. Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low City Transportation Department $ 5-10 No
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
34

Table 5 Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact
on Reducing
Turbidity/TSS
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated
Cost to
Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Priority
Evaluate the feasibility of a program to identify barren or unvegetated
land where native plants may be established using simple techniques
such as seeding, planting, and live staking.
Mitigation NA Low Public Works - Watershed Planning $$ 5-10 No
Targeted stormwater outfall program in both watersheds. Check
selected hot spot (<15) outfalls annually. Outfalls where previous
contamination issues have been observed are considered ‘hot spots’.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality $ 0-5 No
Targeted investigations and stream survey. Quickly assess field
conditions and identify illicit discharges in priority catchments.
Inspect outfalls, business corridors, and apartment complexes during
baseflow conditions. Implement a pilot program with existing staff to
conduct proactive investigations during the weekdays.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality $ 0-5 No
Query information from sanitary sewer inspection reports on
CityWorks using keywords for sediment issues (failing stream banks,
private and public sewer spills, etc.) for Stormwater Services to
investigate and report back to City Works users for tagging feedback.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality $ 0-5 No
Zoning Enforcement and Water Quality Investigator cross-training;
enhancing communication between departments based on better
understanding of each other’s requirements but does not include the
authority to enforce each other’s code.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality; City-
County Planning
$ 0-5 No
Raise more awareness on preventing sediment from reaching creeks
and storm drains. Target outreach efforts towards homeowners and
landscaping businesses.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality,
Watershed Planning
$ 0-5 No
Provide sediment control materials for stormwater roadside ditch
work and install controls prior to ditch work. These sediment controls
will be used for projects occurring longer than 1 day.
Prevention Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
Low - Medium Public Works - Operations $ 0-5 No
Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
35

15. Appendix B: Summary Table of Measures Not Included in the TMDL Response Plan
Table 6. Measures considered and not currently feasible for implementation in the Third Fork Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of Measure NPDES Minimum
Measure
Estimated Impact on
Reducing Turbidity/TSS
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated Cost to
Implement Measure
Implementation
Timeline (years)
Conduct more enforcement of stream buffer rules in the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Mitigation NA Low-Medium City-County Planning $ 0-5
Raise more awareness on reporting sediment discharges in creeks and
storm drains by using an anonymous reporting app. [This idea overlaps with
Muddy Water Watch App used by County Stormwater & Erosion Control]
Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Public Works - Stormwater Quality,
County Stormwater & Erosion
Control
$ 0-5
Consider requiring an S&E plan that developers submit with a small site plan
along with a security deposit, or submit S&E plan and have 'significant' fines
if developers do not implement S&E practices.
Prevention Construction Site
Stormwater Runoff
Control
Low-Medium City-County Planning $ 5-10
Expand “Let It Grow” program - help stabilize stream banks by planting
native grasses along City-owned easements and creeks.
Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Watershed Planning $ 0-5
Require limit on the area of mass grading for construction sites. Require a
phased approach for clearing and grading on construction sites
Prevention Construction Site
Stormwater Runoff
Control
Medium-High City-County Planning $$ 10-15
Build partnerships with nurseries and other garden stores to set up
education kiosks and incentives.
Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Public Works – Stormwater Quality $ 0-5
Place signs along trails (near creeks and sewer lines) to raise public
awareness on how and what to report (regarding cloudy water, turbidity,
sediment) for sediment discharges.
Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Trail Advisory Group $ 0-5
Provide weekend answering service for Stormwater Pollution Hotline (560-
SWIM) or designate on-call staff members.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge
Detection and
Elimination
Low-Medium Public Works – Stormwater Quality $$ 0-5
Install infiltration/biofilter swales along roadside ditches to reduce sediment
and erosion.
Mitigation NA Medium NCDOT; Public Works – Operations $$$ 10-15
*Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Turbidity in Third Fork Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019
36

16. Appendix C: Measure of Incremental Progress
Implementation of any one measure may not directly impact turbidity levels or TSS concentrations in Third
Fork Creek. Implementing a combination of measures may reduce sediment levels to a much greater extent.
The following table lists the incremental progress that will be tracked for this TMDL Response Plan. This
tracking is in addition to any tracking performed through the monitoring program.
Table 7 Preliminary list of incremental progress
TMDL Response Plan Metric Metric Reporting Reporting Frequency
In-Stream Sediment Sources
Linear feet of stream restored and bank stabilized Linear feet Every five years
Construction/Development Source of Sediment
Number of storm drain protection kits purchased
and provided to Public Works Operations Division Count Annually
Number of “stop-work orders” issued for non-
compliant construction sites Count Annually
Number of Sediment & Erosion Control inspections
conducted Count Annually
Runoff from Impervious Surfaces and Direct
Discharge
Number of curb miles of streets swept Miles Annually
Number of construction plans approved with green
infrastructure practices Count Every five years
Number of SCMs from WIP installed Count Every five years
Linear feet of streams walked in the Third Fork
Creek watershed Linear feet Annually
Educational Material Tracking
Number of flocculent-education handouts
distributed to residents and businesses Count Annually
Number of social media informational
advertisements published Count Annually
Public Participation Tracking
Number of storm drains adopted by residents Count Annually

Total Maximum Daily Load Response Plan for Fecal Coliform
Bacteria in Northeast Creek (Cape Fear River Basin),
Durham, North Carolina

Prepared by the Public Works Department,
Stormwater & GIS Services Division

April 22, 2019
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

2

The City of Durham’s Stormwater Quality Group in the Division of Stormwater & GIS Services and
the Department of Public Works developed this TMDL Response Plan for the City of Durham. The
City would like to acknowledge contributions to this TMDL Response Plan from staff in several City
and County government departments and divisions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF DURHAM
City-County Planning
Code Enforcement Unified Development Ordinance
Landus Robertson Mike Stock
Bo Dobrzenski
Danny Cultra
Public Works Department
Stormwater & GIS Services Operations
Jonathan Baker Phillip Powell
Michelle Woolfolk Bruce Woody
J.V. Loperfido John Sandin
Emily Rhode Mike Boyd
Jim Azarelo
Patrick Hogan
Sandra Wilbur
Lance Fontaine
Laura Smith
Megan Walsh
Jennifer Buzun
Brajesh Tiwari
Water Management Department
Water & Sewer Maintenance Industrial Waste Control
Kerry Sanford Tyrone Battle
Kenny Willard
Jeremy Farlow
DURHAM COUNTY
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Stormwater & Erosion Control Utilities
Ryan Eaves Stephanie Brixey
McKenzie Gentry
Public Health Department
Environmental Health
Patrick Eaton
Noelle Spence
Soil & Water Conservation District
Heather Dutra
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

3

Table of Contents
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 4
2. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 5
3. TMDL Response Plan Objective ....................................................................................................................... 6
4. Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Watershed Information .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2. Jurisdictional Responsibility ................................................................................................................... 12
5. Pollutant Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1. Human Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 14
5.2. Livestock and Domestic Animal Sources .............................................................................................. 15
5.3. Wildlife Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 15
5.4. MS4 and In-stream Sources .................................................................................................................. 15
6. Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures Currently Being Implemented ........................................... 16
6.1. Response Plan Measure Definitions ..................................................................................................... 16
7. Newly Proposed Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 19
7.1. Measures to Reduce Human Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria ...................................................... 19
7.2. Measures to Reduce Domestic Animal Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria ...................................... 21
7.3. Measures to Reduce Wildlife Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria ...................................................... 21
7.4. Measures to Reduce Multiple Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria ..................................................... 21
7.5. Measures to Identify Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria .................................................................... 22
8. Prioritized Measures Applicable to the NPDES Six Minimum Measures .................................................... 24
8.1. Implementation of Measures to the Maximum Extent Practicable ..................................................... 24
8.2. Public Education and Outreach ............................................................................................................. 24
8.3. Public Participation and Involvement .................................................................................................... 24
8.4. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ........................................................................................... 25
8.5. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ...................................................................................... 25
8.6. Post-Construction Stormwater Management........................................................................................ 25
8.7. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations ................................................. 25
9. Watershed Planning ....................................................................................................................................... 25
10. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 26
10.1. Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 26
10.2. Bacterial Source Tracking .................................................................................................................. 29
11. Water Quality Co-Benefits of TMDL Response Plan Implementation ...................................................... 30
11.1. Value Added for Removing Nutrients and Metals ............................................................................ 30
11.2. Benefits to Aquatic Life ...................................................................................................................... 31
12. Steps Towards TMDL Response Plan Implementation ............................................................................ 32
12.1. Response Plan Schedule by Agency .................................................................................................. 32
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

4

12.2. Tracking and Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 34
12.3. Re-evaluation of Response Plan ........................................................................................................ 34
13. References .................................................................................................................................................. 34
14. Appendix A: Summary Table of All Proposed Measures (Priority and Non-Priority) ................................ 36
15. Appendix B: Summary Table of Measures Not Included in the TMDL Response Plan .......................... 38
16. Appendix C: Measures of Incremental Progress ....................................................................................... 40

List of Tables
Table 1. Approved TMDL for the Northeast Creek Watershed ............................................................................. 9
Table 2. Measures currently implemented in the Northeast Creek watershed ................................................ 18
Table 3. Prioritized Measures in the Northeast Creek watershed...................................................................... 23
Table 4. Pollutants of concern found in untreated domestic wastewater and untreated septage, not including
bacteria concentration data. ................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 5. NCDEQ 2016 Final 303(d) List (NCDEQ, 2016) and 2018 Draft 303(d) List (NCDEQ, 2018),
Category 5 Assessments for Third Fork Creek. Listings for turbidity were not included on the 2016 303(d)
List but added to the Draft 2018 303(d) List. ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 6. Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Northeast Creek TMDL Response Plan ........... 36
Table 7. Measures considered and not currently feasible for implementation in the Northeast Creek TMDL
Response Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 38
Table 8 Preliminary list of incremental progress ................................................................................................. 40

List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Northeast Creek Watershed in Durham County, Wake County, and Chatham County
with the impaired segment shown in red. ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Northeast Creek Watershed 2018 Existing Land Use in Durham County ......................................... 11
Figure 3. Fecal coliform bacteria pathway conceptual model. ........................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Percent contribution of the fecal coliform bacteria isolates that were identified in stream water
samples collected from April to July 2004 in Northeast Creek at Sedwick Rd. in Durham County (MapTech,
2005). ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. City of Durham, UCFRBA, and DWR ambient stream monitoring sites in the Northeast Creek
watershed. .............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 6. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations with proportional source contributions indicated for
Northeast Creek at Sedwick Rd. (MapTech, 2005). ............................................................................................. 29

1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
 BST – Bacterial Source Tracking
 cfu – colony forming units
 CWEP – Clean Water Education Partnership
 DWR – Division of Water Resources
 EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
 FOG – fats, oils & grease
 IDDE – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

5

 LA – load allocation
 NCAC – North Carolina Administrative Code
 NCDENR – North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
 NCDEQ – North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
 NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 MEP – maximum extent practicable
 MPN – most probable number
 MST – microbial source tracking
 MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
 OWTS – on-site wastewater treatment system
 RTP – Research Triangle Park
 SCM – Stormwater Control Measure
 TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
 UCFRBA – Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
 USGS – United States Geological Society
 UV - ultraviolet
 WIP – Watershed Improvement Plan
 WLA – waste load allocation
2. Executive Summary
The City of Durham’s Stormwater Quality Group in the Department of Public Works and Division of
Stormwater & GIS Services developed this Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Response Plan to address
water quality impairments in Northeast Creek due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The fecal
coliform bacteria TMDL for Northeast Creek was issued in 2003 by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A TMDL
establishes the allowable pollutant loads for a waterbody so that actions may be taken to reduce point and
nonpoint source pollution in order to meet State water quality standards (USEPA, 1991).
The Northeast Creek watershed lies in the southeastern portion of the City of Durham (the City) and includes
large portions of unincorporated Durham County (the County) and Research Triangle Park (RTP). The
watershed also extends into Wake and Chatham Counties, encompassing an area of approximately 50.2
square miles. Approximately 40% of the watershed is within the City limits. An 8.4-mile segment of Northeast
Creek beginning in the City of Durham is listed as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. Fecal coliform
bacteria, a subset of total coliform bacteria, live within the digestive system of warm-blooded animals, which
is an indicator bacteria that can be monitored to identify surface water impairments due to the presence of
human or animal waste. Fecal coliform bacteria can come from humans, livestock, urban and rural wildlife,
waterfowl and other birds, and pets.
This response plan is the product of several brainstorming and planning meetings in 2018 involving input
from multiple City and County Departments. This response plan outlines the prevention and mitigation
measures that City and County staff will implement to achieve reductions of fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations in Northeast Creek. A prevention measure inhibits releases of pollutants from happening
while a mitigation measure removes pollutants from the creek after they have been released. The actions
described in this plan focus on ways to reduce fecal coliform bacteria from human sources (sanitary sewer
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

6

system and septic system discharges), domestic animal sources (dog waste), and wildlife sources (Canada
Geese waste).
The recommended prioritized actions that address human sources include a community survey to identify
failing septic systems, replacing failing septic systems with a new connection to the City or County sanitary
sewer system, and various Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) techniques such as routine stream
walks to identify sewage discharges. The prioritized actions that target domestic animal waste (primarily
from dogs) include education and outreach about proper disposal of dog waste, requiring pet waste
receptacles for new development projects, and identifying all of the private dog parks and dog kennel
facilities in the watershed. The prioritized action to target wildlife sources involves the management of
Canada Geese populations near stormwater control measures (SCMs) and neighborhood ponds or lakes.
Other prioritized actions that address multiple sources include a media campaign, the exploration of
ultraviolet (UV) light treatment devices in the City’s stormwater system, and prioritizing the construction of
SCMs identified in the Northeast Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) that remove fecal coliform
bacteria.
The majority of the actions described in this response plan are anticipated to be implemented within the first
5 years of the current permit cycle (2018-2023); however, there are four actions that may be implemented
within 5-10 years (2018-2028), and one action is estimated to be implemented within 10-15 years (2018-
2033). The City’s Public Works Department will be responsible for communicating with the appropriate
departments, divisions, and workgroups to identify the metrics and data needed to track the progress of
measures outlined in this response plan. As resources allow, the City’s Public Works Department will re-
evaluate the measures outlined in this response plan on a five-year basis and will continue to provide
progress updates on an annual basis as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit annual reporting cycle.
3. TMDL Response Plan Objective
The objective of this TMDL Response Plan is to identify and implement measures that will reduce the levels
of fecal coliform bacteria in Northeast Creek within the City and County limits of Durham, North Carolina.
This TMDL Response plan addresses the City of Durham’s assigned municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) waste load allocation (WLA) documented in the 2003 EPA-approved TMDL for Northeast Creek. In
addition, this TMDL Response Plan is required under Section J of the City of Durham’s NPDES Municipal
Stormwater Permit (No. NCS00249). This response plan incorporates ideas from multiple stakeholders that
have a vested interest in complying with state and federal regulations as well as reducing the TMDL
pollutant of concern and improving overall water quality in the Northeast Creek watershed. The proposed
prevention and mitigation measures aim to reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels using a variety of tools that
address the multiple sources and transport pathways of the pollutant of concern. The variety of tools used in
this plan is leveraged by the stakeholder groups’ diverse regulatory authority and capabilities. As a result,
the stakeholders included in this response plan have the ability to implement some but not all of the
proposed prevention and mitigation measures. No one entity, including the City of Durham Public Works
Department, has the ability to remedy fecal coliform bacteria levels individually, given the nature of the
issue.
4. Introduction and Background
The City of Durham is subject to an approved TMDL with waste load allocations in the Northeast Creek
watershed, in the Cape Fear River Basin. In 2002, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ, formerly North Carolina Division of Environmental and Natural Resources, NCDENR) identified an
8.4-mile segment of Northeast Creek as impaired by fecal coliform bacteria (NCDENR, 2003b). Figure 1
shows the impaired segment of Northeast Creek highlighted in red. A fecal coliform bacteria TMDL for
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

7

Northeast Creek was approved in 2003 (Table 1). The pollutant reduction for this TMDL is expressed as a
load of colonies and as a percent load reduction. A Waste Load Allocation (WLA) of 6.68x1010 colonies per
day was assigned to the City of Durham MS4 area and a Load Allocation (LA) of 2.40x1010 colonies per day
was assigned to nonpoint source in the Northeast Creek watershed. These values represent 92% and 91%
reductions in point source and nonpoint source loading of fecal coliform bacteria from the baseline load
(1997-2001), respectively. Both point and nonpoint sources were considered included in the load reduction
with WLAs and LAs included in the TMDL. The final EPA-approved TMDL document can be found on the
NCDEQ website at the link below:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/FINAL%20TMDLS/Cape%20Fear/Northeast_C
reek_TMDL_Final.pdf
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

8

Figure 1. Map of the Northeast Creek Watershed in Durham County, Wake County, and Chatham County with the
impaired segment shown in red.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

9

Table 1. Approved TMDL for the Northeast Creek Watershed
Description of area DWQ Assessment
Unit(s)
Stream
Classification(s) TMDL Parameter TMDL EPA Approval
Date
Northeast Creek from NC
Highway 55 to a point 0.5
miles downstream of
Panther Creek
16-41-1-17-(0.7)a
16-41-1-17-(0.7)b2
WS-IV NSW. Potable
water supply, Nutrient
Sensitive Water
Fecal coliform
bacteria
1.12x1011
colonies per
day
September 12,
2003
NSW. Nutrient Sensitive Water
WS. Water Supply classification

The fecal coliform bacteria TMDL for Northeast Creek was developed because stream monitoring data
exceeded the Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters under Title 15A, Subchapter 2B of
the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC). Under 15A NCAC 02B .0211(7), the water quality standard
for fecal coliform bacteria is stated as follows:
Fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five
consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/100ml in more than 20
percent of the samples examined during such period. Violations of the fecal coliform standard are
expected during rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused by
uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution. All coliform concentrations shall be analyzed using the
membrane filter technique, unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate the tube
dilution method. In case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution technique shall be used as
the reference method.

The water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria listed above is the target that will be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the measures in this TMDL Response Plan which are aimed at reducing fecal coliform
bacteria loads in Northeast Creek. Annual updates on progress toward improving fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations in Northeast Creek are provided in the City of Durham NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit
Annual Report.
Northeast Creek is also within the B Everett Jordan Lake watershed. A chlorophyll a TMDL for Jordan Lake
was approved in 2007. The pollutant reductions for this TMDL are expressed as 336,079 pounds per year of
total nitrogen and 23,106 pounds per year of total phosphorus. Target reductions are not expressed
specifically for Northeast Creek but are expressed as loads to the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake.
Full implementation of the measures enclosed in this TMDL Response Plan will be enabled as resources
allow. Potential barriers to full implementation include budget constraints, staffing levels, and employee
turnover in departments designated for executing the response plan measures. Some measures presented
in this TMDL Response Plan require significant monetary resources and are highly dependent on the city
budget conditions. All tables with cost-estimate ranges for response plan measures are only associated with
the costs to City or County government departments. The ability to secure support and approval for proposed
measures from City Council and management could potentially influence project schedules. Implementation
of this response plan also depends on coordination and effective partnership with organizations outside of
the City of Durham.
The City will implement response plan measures to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) with the goal of
reducing the levels of fecal coliform bacteria in Northeast Creek. While the elimination of all fecal coliform
bacteria point and nonpoint sources may reduce concentrations below water quality standards, it is
recognized that this may not be feasible due to technical, economic, logistic or social factors. Therefore, the
City will pursue fecal coliform bacteria reductions to the MEP based on Clean Water Act and MS4 NPDES
requirements. Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires municipal MS4 permittees, to the extent
allowable under State or local law, to prohibit non‐stormwater discharges into the MS4 and implement
controls and management measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

10

practicable. Section J(1)(b) of the City’s MS4 NPDES permit also requires that the City utilize BMPs
(commonly referred to as SCMs) pertaining to the six minimum measures and the TMDL Response Plan to
meet the approved TMDL WLA to the MEP. Additionally, Section J(1)(c) of the City’s MS4 NPDES also states
that the City is not responsible for attaining State water quality standards as this requires pollutant
reductions from all point and nonpoint sources identified in the approved TMDL. Therefore, City and County
staff will coordinate to implement the measures outlined in this TMDL Response Plan to the MEP.

4.1. Watershed Information
The Northeast Creek watershed lies in the southeastern portion of the City of Durham and includes large
portions of unincorporated Durham County and Research Triangle Park. The downstream portions of the
watershed are located in Wake and Chatham Counties, with the entire watershed encompassing an area of
approximately 50.2 square miles. While a majority of the watershed is in Durham County (70%),
approximately 40% of the watershed lies within the City limits (Brown and Caldwell, 2013). Interstate 40
passes east to west through the middle of the watershed and NC-55 runs north to south through the
watershed within the city limits. The eastern border of the watershed is defined closely by Miami Boulevard
while Barbee Road wraps around the western boundary. The downstream end of the watershed (southern
end) is bounded by Jordan Lake. The area upstream of the intersection of O-Kelly Chapel Road and
Northeast Creek is approximately 17 percent impervious. A map of the watershed and the impaired section
of Northeast Creek is provided in Figure 1 and a map of existing land use types in the Northeast Creek
watershed is shown in Figure 2. Within Durham County, the Northeast Creek watershed contains several
different land use classifications. This includes industrial, office park, and commercial land uses, mainly in
the eastern portion of the watershed, and single and multi-family residential, mainly in the western portion of
the watershed. Undeveloped open space does exist throughout the watershed.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

11

Figure 2. Northeast Creek Watershed 2018 Existing Land Use in Durham County
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

12

4.2. Jurisdictional Responsibility
The City of Durham, Durham County, and North Carolina State government have regulatory authority for
controlling the various pathways fecal coliform bacteria can enter the environment. These agencies have
responsibilities for implementing different prevention and mitigation measures described in this TMDL
Response Plan.
City of Durham Departments
Within the Public Works Department are the Stormwater & GIS Services Division, the Engineering Services
Division, and the Operations Division. The Stormwater & GIS Services Division is responsible for managing
the following NPDES permit programs: Pollution Prevention & Good Housekeeping, Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination, Public Education & Outreach, Public Participation & Involvement, and Post-Construction
Stormwater Management. Stormwater Infrastructure and Watershed Planning are also included in this
division. The Engineering Services Division is responsible for reviewing development plans and permitting
private connections to the City sanitary sewer system. The Operations Division is responsible for the City’s
street sweeping program and maintaining the City’s streets and storm drainage system.
The Water Management Department’s Water and Sewer Maintenance Division is responsible for inspecting
the sanitary sewer system for leaks, stopping sanitary sewer overflows, repairing sanitary sewer lines, and
cleaning up sewer spills from pipes, manholes, and pump stations. The Industrial Pretreatment Program is
responsible for educating the public about proper disposal of Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG) and nonwoven
products, and inspecting grease interceptors at food service establishments, assisted living centers, and
hotels.
Durham County Departments
The Public Health Department’s Environmental Health Division is responsible for inspection of on-site
wastewater systems (septic systems) and enforcement of regulations for failing septic systems.
The Engineering and Environmental Services Department’s Utilities Division is responsible for controlling
sewer leaks, overflows and spills that come from the sanitary sewer system located in the County outside the
City limits. The Utilities Division is also responsible for operating the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant on
NC Hwy 55 which discharges treated effluent into Northeast Creek.
The Durham County Sheriff’s Office enforces the Canine Waste Removal Ordinance
(https://www.dconc.gov/environment/canine-waste-ordinance) which prohibits dog owners from leaving dog
waste on any public property, public right-of-way or private property without the permission of a private
property owner.
Durham City-County Departments
The Planning Department’s Zoning Enforcement Division inspects many properties for code violations and
notifies the City’s Stormwater & GIS Services Division when failing private sewer lines are found during field
investigations. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) group is responsible for amending the City-County
UDO and ensuring compliance with the UDO.
North Carolina State Government Departments
The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources is responsible for inspecting private
sewer pump stations, investigating sewer spills and fish kills in surface waters, and enforcing State
regulations related to sewage discharges. The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources is responsible for issuing NPDES MS4 permits, which provide regulatory
guidance for developing and implementing TMDL response plans.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

13

5. Pollutant Sources
Fecal coliform bacteria live within the digestive system of warm-blooded animals and are found in their
feces. Fecal coliform bacteria can come from humans, livestock, urban and rural wildlife, waterfowl and
other birds, and pets. Fecal coliform bacteria are transported from point sources (e.g., wastewater treatment
plants) and nonpoint sources (e.g., animal waste in stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, and leaking
sewer lines) to the stormwater drainage system and surface waters. A simple conceptual model illustrates
the multiple sources of fecal coliform bacteria that can reach surface waters and result in unsanitary
conditions (Figure 3). The results of a 2004 Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) Study for stream samples
collected in Northeast Creek at Sedwick Road are shown in Figure 4 The 2004 BST study results show a
mixture of wildlife, domestic, and human sources of fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed. Sections 5.1 to
5.4 briefly describe the known and potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in the Northeast Creek
watershed. While land-application of biosolids may be a potential source of fecal coliform bacteria within the
Northeast Creek watershed, the City of Durham Water Management Department does not land-apply solids
within the watershed or Durham County limits.

Figure 3. Fecal coliform bacteria pathway conceptual model.

TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

14

Figure 4. Percent contribution of the fecal coliform bacteria isolates that were identified in stream water samples
collected from April to July 2004 in Northeast Creek at Sedwick Rd. in Durham County (MapTech, 2005).
5.1. Human Sources
Fecal coliform bacteria from human waste are typically transported to surface waters when sanitary sewer
manholes overflow, sewer mains and laterals leak or break, sewer pump stations fail and overflow, and
septic and sand filter systems leak or fail. Other sources of human waste can come from illicit connections
of sanitary sewer lines to the stormwater system and from homeless camps. According to Tchobanoglous
and Burton (1991), the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria typically found in untreated domestic
wastewater ranges from 106 to 107 (1,000,000 to 10,000,000) colonies per 100mL.
As on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) like septic systems age or are poorly maintained, they can
fail and cause untreated sewage to discharge to nearby surface waters during dry weather and wet weather
conditions. In properly performing septic systems, fecal coliform bacteria concentrations can range from 103
to 106 (1,000 to 1,000,000) MPN/100mL in septic tanks and from 0 to 100 MPN/100mL at 1.0 to 3.0 feet
below the bottom of the leachfield trench (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). Schueler (2000) reported that
the failure rate of septic systems can range from 5% to over 30%, with an average of about 10%. The
Durham County Environmental Health Division has estimated there are 141 residential properties with on-
site wastewater treatment and 53 of the properties are within 50 feet of a public sanitary sewer line.
Although OWTS are inspected by Durham County Environmental Health, the current number of failing OWTS
in the Northeast Creek watershed is unknown. One of the proposed measures in this response plan is to
identify the properties with failing OWTS and prioritize which properties must connect to the City or County
sanitary sewer system.
The Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in southern Durham County along NC Hwy 55
and discharges treated effluent into Northeast Creek. The Durham County Utilities Division reported that
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

15

during the 2017-2018 fiscal year the effluent annual average for fecal coliform bacteria was 1.4
cfu/100mL, which was in compliance with the Triangle WWTP’s permit limit monthly average of 200
cfu/100mL (Durham County, 2018). The 2017-2018 average fecal coliform bacteria concentration was also
lower than the annual averages reported for 2000, 2001, and 2002 in the 2003 TMDL Northeast Creek
Study, which were 56 cfu/100mL, 62 cfu/100mL, and 52 cfu/100mL, respectively (NCDENR, 2003a).
5.2. Livestock and Domestic Animal Sources
During the nonpoint source assessment phase for the 2003 Northeast Creek TMDL Study, NCDEQ (with
assistance from Durham County staff) determined that there were 80 cows and 175 horses in the Northeast
Creek watershed, although none were observed to be grazing near the stream channel (NCDENR, 2003a).
The loading rates for livestock in the Northeast Creek watershed were estimated to be 3000 to 7000
colonies per 100 ml (NCDENR, 2003a). This livestock and domesticated animal survey has not been
replicated since the 2003 effort.
In the Northeast Creek TMDL Study, NCDEQ used data from the Durham County Animal Control database to
estimate that there were 37,396 dogs and 19,230 cats in Durham County (NCDENR, 2003a). NCDEQ also
cited a United States Geological Survey (USGS) study by Hyer et. al. (2001) which found that pet waste
accounted for approximately 10% of the fecal coliform bacteria contributions of three creeks in Virginia with
varying land uses (NCDENR, 2003a). There are no City-owned dog parks in the Northeast Creek watershed;
however, the City Stormwater Quality Group plans to identify how many neighborhood dog parks, apartment
complex dog parks, and dog kennels are located in the watershed to aid in the City’s public education and
outreach efforts to reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
Although dogs and cats are the primary domestic animals in the watershed, domestic chickens (aka
backyard chickens) have become more popular within the City limits. The City of Durham has supported the
keeping of domesticated chickens on single-family residential lots by allowing up to 10 female chickens per
lot. More detailed regulations for keeping domesticated chickens are explained in Section 5.4.12 of the City-
County UDO. The Public Works Department has not researched how many domestic chickens are kept in the
Northeast Creek watershed. The City-County Planning Department issues Limited Agriculture Permits for
keeping domestic chickens and may be able to provide more data on the number of chickens on residential
lots in Northeast Creek.
5.3. Wildlife Sources
In the Northeast Creek TMDL study, the primary wildlife fecal contribution was attributed to the deer
population because estimates of other animals were not known or available. Using estimates from the North
Carolina Wildlife Commission, the NCDEQ used the upper limit of 30 deer per square mile in Northeast Creek
and assigned a fecal coliform bacteria loading rate of 50 to 100 cfu/mL (NCDENR, 2003a). Canada Geese
and other waterfowl are also contributors of fecal coliform bacteria in urban areas because they can be
found at neighborhood lakes and stormwater ponds. Hyer and Moyer (2003) reported that geese were
identified as the second highest contributor of fecal coliform bacteria in stream water samples collected in
an urban watershed (Accotink Creek) in Virginia.
5.4. MS4 and In-stream Sources
There is a wide range of fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in stormwater runoff which may be due to
seasonal variation and factors in urban settings, such as pet waste, sanitary sewer overflows, and illicit
sewer connections. For example, Geldreich and Kenner (1969) reported that average fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations in stormwater runoff from various geographic regions ranged from 2,700 cfu/100mL in rural
areas to 13,000 cfu/100mL in urban business districts. In a USGS study of three Virginia streams by Hyer
and Moyer (2003), in-stream fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were lowest during base flow conditions
(200 – 2,000 cfu/100mL) and increased during storm events to as high as 700,000 cfu/100mL.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

16

Another potential source of fecal coliform bacteria may be the transport of sediment from the City’s
stormwater drainage system and resuspension of stream bottom sediments. Some research has shown that
fecal coliform bacteria can survive and grow in storm drains and stream sediments (Burton et al., 1987;
Marino and Gannon, 1991). High concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria can persist and grow in storm
drain sediments during warm, dry weather periods of up to 6 days (Marino and Gannon, 1991). Biofilms
located in storm drains and streams also provides a safe environment for fecal coliform bacteria to persist,
colonize, and subsequently detach back into the water column (Urban Water Resources Research Council,
2014). Fecal coliform bacteria can survive for weeks and possibly for several months in stream sediments
and with bacteria concentrations many times higher than the overlying water (Burton et. al., 1987). A study
by Characklis et. al. (2008) comparing storm event microbial concentrations and particle concentrations at
wet ponds and stream sites in the Northeast Creek watershed found that average storm concentrations
were almost two orders of magnitude higher than background concentrations for bacterial indicators.
6. Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures Currently Being Implemented
6.1. Response Plan Measure Definitions
The measures described in this TMDL Response Plan fall into two main categories: Prevention and
Mitigation. The definitions below apply to this plan and may be reviewed and modified in future revisions of
this plan.
A prevention measure is defined as a management practice, procedure, requirement or other action that can
stop a release of pollution from happening. For Northeast Creek, prevention measures are designed to target
fecal coliform bacteria at its source by preventing the bacteria from reaching the storm drainage system and
surface waters. Prevention measures prioritized in Northeast Creek include:
 Conducting media campaigns to motivate the public to take specific actions that reduce sources of
fecal coliform bacteria
 Managing backyard pet waste
 Managing Canada Geese near ponds and SCMs
 Installing pet waste receptacles for residential development
A mitigation measure is defined as a practice, control measure, technology, requirement, or other action that
can remove pollution once it has been released, reaches the storm drainage system, or reaches surface
waters. For Northeast Creek, mitigation measures are designed to remove or inactivate fecal coliform
bacteria. Mitigation measures prioritized in Northeast Creek include:
 Identifying failing septic systems with the potential to connect to the sanitary sewer system
 Conduct stream walks paired with Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination procedures
 Investigate the feasibility of and install UV treatment devices in culverts and catch basins
 Design and construct SCMs that treat or remove fecal coliform bacteria
 Conduct bacterial source tracking studies to identify sources and their relative contribution to fecal
coliform bacteria present in Northeast Creek.
In addition to identifying new mitigation and prevention measures, the 2018 brainstorming sessions held by
the City Stormwater & GIS Services Division identified measures that are currently being implemented by City
and County departments and may not have been reported in the previous NPDES annual reports. Table 2
below shows the list of nine measures that were discussed during the brainstorming sessions and are
currently implemented in the Northeast Creek watershed. The next step is to communicate with each
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

17

responsible department about the best method for collecting and reporting the data in the TMDL Response
Plan updates.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

18

Table 2. Measures currently implemented in the Northeast Creek watershed
Measures Currently Implemented NPDES Minimum Measure Category Estimated Impact on Reducing Fecal
Coliform Bacteria Group(s) Responsible for Implementation Jurisdiction
Distribute educational mailings on proper maintenance of septic systems to homeowners with septic
systems.
Public Education and Outreach Medium Environmental Health County
Distribute educational material on proper maintenance of private sewer laterals to encourage
homeowners to take care of laterals.
Public Education and Outreach Medium Water Management – Water & Sewer
Maintenance; Stormwater Quality - IDDE
City
Education campaign for the proper disposal of nonwoven products (also called flushable wipes) and FOG
(fats, oils, and grease).
Public Education and Outreach Medium Water Management - Pretreatment City
Target the Northeast Creek watershed during weekend enforcement patrols. Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
Low-Medium Public Works – Stormwater Quality - IDDE City
Inspect sewer lines and pump stations to identify and respond to sewage releases in early stage. Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
Medium Water Management – Water & Sewer
Maintenance
City
Identify and inspect all private sewer pump stations (permitted and non-permitted) and conduct
enforcement actions for discharges to the storm drainage system.
Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination
High Department of Environmental Quality – Water
Resources; Public Works – Stormwater Quality
– IDDE
State (inspection &
enforcement); City
(enforcement)
Routine inspection and maintenance of stormwater catch basins. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
for Municipal Operations
Low Public Works – Operations; Stormwater
Infrastructure
City
All development which is located in an area that is subject to a TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria shall be
required to have at least one SCM for each stormwater discharge that is rated as medium or high for its
ability to remove bacteria from stormwater (City code 70-741(d)).
Post-Construction Stormwater
Management
Low-Medium Public Works – Stormwater Development
Review
City
Identify sewer rehabilitation areas based on routine inspection and prioritize sewer lines to be repaired. N/A Low Water Management – Water & Sewer
Maintenance
City
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

19

7. Newly Proposed Pollution Prevention and Mitigation Measures
In 2018, the City’s Water Quality Group met with workgroups in several City and County departments to
discuss the TMDL Response Plan measures that were specific to their area of responsibility. There were
several factors discussed during these meetings to decide whether or not a measure could be implemented
in the Northeast Creek watershed. Some of the factors that were discussed and evaluated during the
prioritization process include:
 the estimated impact that the measure would have on reducing the number of fecal coliform
bacteria reaching Northeast Creek and its tributaries;
 the group(s) that would be responsible for implementing the measure;
 the barriers to implementing the measure;
 the implementation steps;
 the amount of time (in years) it would take to implement the measure;
 an approximate order-of-magnitude cost estimation;
 the NPDES minimum measure category assigned to the measure, if any; and
 whether or not the responsible group thought the measure should be included in the TMDL
Response Plan
The priority measures shown in Table 3 are discussed in this section and in Section 8 (grouped by the six
minimum measures of the NPDES program). A table of all the priority and non-priority measures proposed for
this TMDL Response Plan is found in Appendix A. The low-priority measures will not be implemented as part
of this TMDL Response Plan, but they may be revisited and implemented as part of future revisions to this
TMDL Response Plan. Appendix B lists all of the measures that were not included in the TMDL Response
Plan due to factors such as the estimated high costs (>$500,000) for implementation, multiple barriers that
could hinder implementation, the estimated low impact on reducing fecal coliform bacteria, and the
responsible group’s willingness to include the measure in the response plan.

A general measure that addresses all bacterial pollution sources is a media campaign to motivate the public
to take specific actions that reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria. This media campaign would include
outlets such as the City website, online videos (e.g., YouTube), social media accounts, the Waterways
newsletter, partnering with the Clean Water Education Partnership, and other methods. Staff members from
Public Education and Pollution Prevention will collaborate on a media campaign. Outcome measures for the
media campaign may be quantified using attendance numbers for in-person outreach events; metrics
tracking views, likes, and shares of educational material posted on social media; and possibly surveying
methods to gauge resident awareness of fecal coliform bacteria issues in Northeast Creek.
7.1. Measures to Reduce Human Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Human waste can enter the environment through sanitary sewer overflows, failing private sanitary sewer
laterals, failing septic tanks, failing septic/sand filter systems, and by direct discharge. The measures in this
section are intended to identify and eliminate these sources.
Measures for single- or multi-family, on-site wastewater systems. These measures will be implemented by
Durham County Environmental Health unless otherwise noted.
 Conduct a community survey to identify failing subsurface systems. Durham County Environmental
Health will conduct a door-to-door survey of residences using single-family, on-site systems to locate
any systems that may be failing. There are an estimated 141 single- or multi-family residences using
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

20

on-site treatment in the Northeast Creek watershed, including those that are located within the city
limits.

 Notify NCDEQ of all existing, unpermitted septic and sand filter discharge systems. Discharging
residences are required to have an NPDES permit. Only a portion of the known septic and sand filter
discharge systems are actually permitted, leading to uncertainty regarding the impact of this source
of fecal coliform bacteria.

 Repair or replace existing septic systems within city limits that are failing or leaking. Once a
residential, on-site wastewater system has been deemed in violation by Durham County
Environmental Health, the homeowner(s) are required to make repairs to the existing system or to
connect to City sanitary sewer. The ease of implementation will vary based on the locations of
existing sanitary sewers, required plumbing serves to connect to the sanitary sewer system, cost,
and personal preference.

 Provide a cost-share option as an incentive to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system. Repairing
septic systems and connecting to the City sanitary sewer system can be expensive. The City will
explore and potentially implement a cost-share program to provide an incentive to connect to City
sewer. The cost-share program would relieve a portion of the financial burden on homeowners and
residents within the City limits. This measure will require collaboration between multiple City and
County departments, including County Environmental Health, City Stormwater & GIS Services, City
Engineering Services, and City Water Management.
Measures for sanitary sewer overflows. These measures will be implemented by the City of Durham Public
Works Department unless otherwise noted.
 Routine stream-walk program to target main stem and tributaries with historically higher incidences
of illicit discharges, and inspect major outfalls (greater than 36" diameter pipe) for sources of fecal
coliform bacteria. The City will establish a schedule and procedures for walking along sections of
Northeast Creek and its tributaries to identify illicit discharges of sewage from the City’s sanitary
sewer system and private sanitary sewer laterals. Stream-walk teams will also inspect major outfalls
that discharge to Northeast Creek and its tributaries. The City’s Stormwater Quality Group will
perform the routine stream walks and communicate with the Water Management Department,
private property owners, and NCDEQ’s Division of Water Resources depending on the type and extent
of sewage discharge detected. The Stormwater Quality Group will also require private property
owners to stop and clean up sewage discharges through enforcement of the Stormwater
Management and Pollution Control Ordinance. The City’s Water Management Department repairs or
replaces aging and failing sections of the public sanitary sewer lines throughout the City. Water
Management staff may be consulted to determine which sewer lines in the Northeast Creek
watershed have not been repaired or replaced. Stormwater Quality staff may plan stream-walks in
areas of the watershed where sewer rehabilitation has not recently occurred.
 Conduct cross-training for the Zoning Enforcement and Stormwater Quality Illicit Discharge
Detection & Elimination groups to improve communication between departments on sanitary sewer
and septic system issues observed in the field. These groups will schedule cross-training events to
educate their staff on multiple code violation subjects, including illicit discharges of sewage from
overflowing private sewer laterals or failing septic systems. Zoning Enforcement staff will become
familiar with the best methods for reporting sewage discharges to Stormwater Quality IDDE staff.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

21

7.2. Measures to Reduce Domestic Animal Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Domestic animal waste can enter the environment when pet owners do not pick up after their pets and do
not properly dispose of the waste. The measures in this section are intended to identify and prevent sources
of dog waste.
 Require developers to include pet waste receptacles in new residential development. This
requirement would be a part of residential development site plans. The City-County Planning
Department will investigate if an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance is feasible. The
City Council and County Board of Commissioners would need to approve this ordinance change.

 Identify the number and location of private dog parks (neighborhood, apartment, HOA) and dog
kennel facilities in the Northeast Creek watershed. This measure will identify potential hotspots of
fecal coliform bacteria from dog waste. Targeted mailings or in-person outreach can also be used to
reach residents that visit private dog parks and commercial dog kennels in the watershed. Provide
educational materials on pet waste management. The City’s Stormwater Quality Group and public
outreach staff will conduct online searches and field surveys to complete this measure.
7.3. Measures to Reduce Wildlife Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Wildlife can excrete fecal material in forested, wetland, and herbaceous areas. Wildlife can also deposit
fecal material directly into waterbodies, such as lakes, ponds, and streams. The measure in this section
targets Canada Geese that nest or gather near SCMs, ponds, and lakes.
 Management program for Canada Geese to control population and proximity to water, which may
include non-SCM lakes and ponds. This measure is meant to reduce the presence of Canada Geese
in and around neighborhood ponds and lakes, and SCMs, such as wet ponds. The City’s Stormwater
Development Review Group and the Stormwater Quality Group will research state and federal laws
and successful methods of geese management programs in other towns, cities, and states. Surveys
may be performed to determine which SCMs, ponds, and small lakes have problems with geese and
geese waste. The Stormwater Development Review, Stormwater Quality, and public outreach staff
will develop guidance material for a Canada Geese management program that may be implemented
by the City, neighborhood communities, and homeowners associations.
7.4. Measures to Reduce Multiple Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The measures in this section are structural treatment and control devices that can capture or treat fecal
coliform bacteria in stormwater runoff. The following measures will be implemented by the City of Durham
Public Works Department.
 Explore UV light treatment devices in culverts or stormwater catch basins to reduce fecal coliform
bacteria. UV light is used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater but is not as commonly used to
treat urban stormwater runoff. The City’s Stormwater Quality Group will research types of UV
treatment devices that can be installed in line with the stormwater system. The City will select and
hire contractors to install one or more UV treatment devices in the City’s stormwater drainage
system.

 Review the Northeast Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and implement the construction of
SCMs identified in the WIP that address fecal coliform bacteria. The City’s Watershed Planning Group
and Stormwater Quality Group will be responsible for reviewing the WIP and prioritizing SCMs that
will be built, assuming available land, funding, and public support. The Watershed Planning Group
will be responsible for coordinating public communication, land acquisition, and contract
management for the construction of the SCMs.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

22

7.5. Measures to Identify Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Microbial source tracking (MST) is a useful tool for identifying the various sources of fecal bacteria in
impaired surface waters. MST technology analyzes fecal coliform bacteria in stream water samples and
identifies differences among the fecal coliform bacteria found in the feces of humans and animals. The
following measure will be implemented by the City of Durham Public Works Department.
 Conduct a microbial source tracking (MST) study and compare results to the City’s 2004 bacterial
source tracking study. The City’s Stormwater Quality Group will be responsible for hiring a contractor
and managing the MST study. The results of the MST study will be used to focus resources on
response plan measures that reduce fecal coliform bacteria in the most economical way.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

23

Table 3. Prioritized Measures in the Northeast Creek watershed
Proposed Measure Type of Measure NPDES Minimum Measure
Estimated Impact on
Reducing Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated Cost to
Implement Measure* Measure Funding Source
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Management program for Canada Geese to control population and
proximity to water, which may include non-SCM lakes and ponds. Prevention N/A High
Public Works Stormwater
Development Review and
Stormwater Quality
$$ – 5-10
Explore UV treatment devices in culverts or stormwater catch basins to
reduce fecal coliform bacteria in baseflow or low turbidity water. Mitigation N/A High Public Works Stormwater Quality
and Infrastructure $$ City Stormwater Utility Fund 5-10
Conduct a community survey to identify failing subsurface systems Mitigation N/A High County Environmental Health $ – 0-5
Conduct a second microbial source tracking (MST) study and compare
results to the first BST study completed for Northeast Creek Mitigation N/A Medium Public Works Stormwater Quality $ - $$ – 5-10
Notify NCDEQ of all existing, unpermitted discharge systems (septic
and sand filter systems) Prevention N/A Medium County Environmental Health $ – 0-5
Repair or replace existing septic systems located within city limits that
are failing or leaking. Provide a cost-share option as an incentive to
connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Medium
County Environmental Health, Public
Works Engineering Services, Water
Management
$ City Stormwater Utility Fund 0-5
Require developers to include pet waste receptacles in new residential
development. Prevention Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Medium City-County Planning $ – 5-10
Review the Northeast Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and
implement the construction of SCMs identified in the WIP that address
fecal coliform bacteria.
Mitigation N/A Low-Medium Public Works Watershed Planning
and Stormwater Quality $$$ – 5-15
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take specific
actions that reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria through the
City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social media accounts,
Waterways newsletter, Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP)
handouts, and other methods.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low-Medium
Public Works Stormwater Quality
and Watershed Planning, CWEP
Contractor
$ City Stormwater Utility Fund 0-5
Routine stream-walk program to target the main stem and tributaries
with historically higher incidences of illicit discharges. Also, inspect
major outfalls (greater than 36" diameter pipe) for sources of fecal
coliform bacteria.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Medium Public Works Stormwater Quality $$ – 0-5
Conduct cross-training for the Zoning Enforcement and Water Quality
IDDE groups to improve communication between departments on
sanitary sewer and septic system issues observed in the field.
Prevention Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low Public Works Stormwater Quality,
City-County Planning $ – 0-5
Identify the number and location of private dog parks (neighborhood,
apartment, HOA) and dog kennel facilities in the Northeast Creek
watershed. Provide educational materials on pet waste management.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low Public Works Stormwater Quality $ – 0-5
*Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

24

8. Prioritized Measures Applicable to the NPDES Six Minimum Measures
This section highlights the prioritized response plan measures that fall under the six minimum control
measures for the EPA’s Stormwater Phase II Final Rule. The prioritized measures in this response plan
address Public Education and Outreach, IDDE, and Post-Construction Stormwater Management. There were
no measures identified to address Public Participation and Involvement, and Construction Site Stormwater
Runoff Control.
8.1. Implementation of Measures to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The City will implement response plan measures to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) with the goal of
reducing the levels of turbidity and TSS in Third Fork Creek. While the elimination of all turbidity and TSS
point and nonpoint sources may reduce concentrations below water quality standards, it is recognized that
this may not be feasible due to technical, economic, logistic or social factors. Therefore, the City will pursue
turbidity and TSS reductions to the MEP based on Clean Water Act and MS4 NPDES requirements. Section
402(p)(3)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires municipal MS4 permittees, to the extent allowable under State
or local law, to prohibit non‐stormwater discharges into the MS4 and implement controls and management
measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Section J(1)(b) of the
City’s MS4 NPDES permit also requires that the City utilize BMPs (commonly referred to as SCMs) pertaining
to the six minimum measures and the TMDL Response Plan to meet the approved TMDL WLA to the MEP.
Additionally, Section J(1)(c) of the City’s MS4 NPDES also states that the City is not responsible for attaining
State water quality standards as this requires pollutant reductions from all point and nonpoint sources
identified in the approved TMDL.
8.2. Public Education and Outreach

8.3. Public Participation and Involvement
There were no response plan measures proposed for this NPDES minimum measure.
City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take
specific actions that reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria
through the City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social
media accounts, Waterways newsletter, Clean Water
Education Partnership (CWEP) handouts, and other methods.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Identify the number and location of private dog parks
(neighborhood, apartment, HOA) and dog kennel facilities in
the Northeast Creek watershed Provide educational materials
on pet waste management.
0 to 5 years
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

25

8.4. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

8.5. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
There were no response plan measures proposed for this NPDES minimum measure.
8.6. Post-Construction Stormwater Management

8.7. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
There were no response plan measures proposed for this NPDES minimum measure.
9. Watershed Planning
Watershed planning is an additional measure that the City of Durham has incorporated into the Stormwater
program. Although this is not one of the Phase II minimum measures, this program does provide information
and direction regarding practices implemented in the Northeast Creek watershed.
In 2007 the City began the process of developing Watershed Improvement Plans for watersheds across the
City. As of December 2018, watershed improvement plans have been completed for Ellerbe Creek,
Northeast Creek, Crooked Creek, Third Fork Creek, Little Lick Creek and Eno River. Each plan identifies new
opportunities for stormwater control measures, as well as opportunities to upgrade existing measures (i.e.,
retrofit existing measures). Extensive field work is conducted in the watershed planning process to verify on-
the-ground conditions prior to carrying a project concept forward. Stream restorations are also evaluated as
potential control measures to pollution that can arise from the stream bank (e.g., sediment/turbidity). Each
City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Repair or replace existing septic systems located within city
limits that are failing or leaking. Provide a cost-share option as
an incentive to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Routine stream-walk program to target main stem and
tributaries with historically higher incidences of illicit
discharges. Also inspect major outfalls (greater than 36"
diameter pipe) for sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
0 to 5 years

City- County Planning Department
Measure
Require developers to include pet waste receptacles with new
residential development projects.
Timeline
5 to 10 years
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

26

plan provides a recommended list of ranked new stormwater control measures, opportunities for retrofitting
measures, and stream restoration. Cost estimates are provided for each measure or restoration opportunity.
The City finalized the Northeast and Crooked Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) in 2013. The
completed plan made the following recommendation to support the reduction of fecal coliform bacteria in
the creek:
 Work with the City’s Department of Water Management sanitary sewer rehabilitation and
replacement program. Support efforts to continue the ongoing sanitary sewer line inspections, with
rehabilitation and replacements as necessary. Work to ensure that Durham County Environmental
Health Division and NCDNER continue to inspect sand filters and septic systems and require actions
to be taken to address leaking or failing systems.
 The City recorded 54 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) between 1999 and 2011 in the Northeast and
Crooked Creek watersheds, which includes both manhole overflows and leaking sewer pipes and
septic systems. The highest-priority recommendation to decrease fecal coliform bacteria loads within
the watersheds is to complete the on-going sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement program
to reduce the SSOs and eliminate illicit connections. Approximately 90 percent of the SSOs and illicit
connections could be removed through the City’s on-going sanitary sewer rehabilitation and
replacement program at an estimated cost of $3.3 million
The WIP also included areas in Durham County, Chatham County, and Wake County. Some
recommendations were also made about fecal coliform bacteria in these jurisdictions.
As described in the WIP, the most cost-effective action to reduce fecal coliform bacteria in Northeast Creek
relates to sanitary sewage, including the collection system and single-family, on-site treatment systems (i.e.,
septic and discharging sand filter systems). New SCMs and SCM retrofits were evaluated for the ability to
treat fecal coliform bacteria, thus additional benefits will be realized by these new projects.
10. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring
10.1. Water Quality Monitoring
The City of Durham has a routine ambient stream monitoring program to generate data that describe the
condition of streams in the City and County limits. The City’s Stormwater Management Program Plan states
that the ambient stream monitoring program supports the following assessment goals (City of Durham,
2017):
 to identify pollution problem areas within the City of Durham;
 to assess compliance with state water quality programs, including TMDLs and nutrient management
strategies;
 to determine pollution removal credits;
 to identify overall water quality trends; and
 to evaluate the water quality impacts of urban stormwater runoff on area streams
The monitoring program includes water chemistry, biological monitoring (benthic macroinvertebrates and
habitat assessment), and hydrologic monitoring. The ambient water chemistry program focuses on surface
water conditions. Special studies are conducted on an infrequent basis to assess stream sediment
chemistry. City monitoring staff follow procedures outlined in the Ambient Water Chemistry Monitoring
Program Quality Assurance Project Plan and collect grab samples monthly at scheduled monitoring sites.
Samples are collected at all monitoring sites in a given basin on the same day. The City uses a rotating
stream basin approach to monitor sites in each basin every two years; however, monitoring sites are
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

27

evaluated at the end of each year and site locations are adjusted to meet the City’s water quality
assessment needs. There are three sites in the Northeast Creek basin that are monitored during even-
numbered years. The City’s stream monitoring sites in Northeast Creek are located on the main channel at
NC Hwy 54 (NE1.2NE) and Sedwick Rd. (NE0.0NE), and on the North Prong tributary at Meridian Parkway
(NE2.2NP). The Northeast Creek ambient stream monitoring sites for the City, Upper Cape Fear River Basin
(UCFRBA), and State Division of Water Resources (DWR) are shown below in Figure 5.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

28

Figure 5. City of Durham, UCFRBA, and DWR ambient stream monitoring sites in the Northeast Creek watershed.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

29

Instream assessments of fecal coliform bacteria have been performed primarily at the point where
Northeast Creek crosses Sedwick Road, far upstream of the compliance point that is located 0.5 miles
downstream of Panther Creek in Chatham County. Sedwick Road offers a convenient location to evaluate
City of Durham and Durham County progress, without interference from other counties or the Triangle
WWTP. Sedwick Road is a current monitoring location for the City of Durham (NE0.0NE) and a former
monitoring location for the UCFRBA at B3300000. Future comparisons may be made downstream at the
compliance point, assuming state data is readily available for the same time frame. However, this is not the
best location to track the impact that City actions have on fecal coliform bacteria levels in Northeast Creek
since city boundaries do not extend south of Sedwick Road more than approximately 3,000 feet.
The City and State water quality monitoring programs include sample collection and analysis once monthly.
The fecal coliform bacteria standard is written for five samples collected within 30 days. Thus, the
monitoring methods do not exactly match the water quality standard. The City will screen for compliance by
comparing monthly fecal coliform bacteria monitoring data to the state water quality standard to determine
if compliance is likely. Data collected during storm events are not removed from this comparison.
Consistent with the NPDES permit, an analysis of changes over time will be performed. This may be a
graphical analysis, a linear regression, a Seasonal Kendall test, or another type of time series analysis.
10.2. Bacterial Source Tracking
In 2004, the City of Durham conducted a BST study in coordination with NCDEQ (formerly NCDENR) and
private consultants to identify sources of E. coli and relative percent contributions from target source groups.
The study analyzed antibiotic resistance characteristics of more than 60 scat samples (domestic, wildlife,
and human sources) collected from the Northeast Creek watershed and compared them to fecal coliform
bacteria concentrations at two stream monitoring sites to identify bacteria sources (City of Durham, 2017).
The results from the Sedwick Rd. monitoring site (NE0.ONE) indicated that wildlife sources were more
prevalent than domestic and human sources (Figure 6; MapTech, 2005). Figure 6 presents fecal coliform
bacteria concentrations with proportional source contributions for NE0.0NE.

Figure 6. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations with proportional source contributions indicated for Northeast Creek at
Sedwick Rd. (MapTech, 2005).
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

30

11. Water Quality Co-Benefits of TMDL Response Plan Implementation
In addition to reducing fecal coliform bacteria, the actions implemented in this TMDL response plan may
reduce other contaminants of concern that affect water quality in Northeast Creek. For example, reducing
and eliminating discharges of untreated domestic wastewater and untreated septage will prevent high
concentrations of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, nitrogen,
phosphorus, metals, pathogens, and other contaminants. Typical concentrations of specific contaminants in
untreated domestic wastewater and untreated septage are shown below in Table 4 (Tchobanoglous and
Burton 1991).
Table 4. Pollutants of concern found in untreated domestic wastewater and untreated septage, not including
bacteria concentration data.
Untreated Domestic Wastewater
Concentration1
Septage Concentration1
Contaminant Unit Weak Medium Strong Range Typical
Suspended Solids mg/L 100 220 350 4,000 – 100,000 15,000
BOD mg/L 110 220 400 2,000 – 30,000 6,000
TOC mg/L 80 160 290 – –
Total Nitrogen mg/L 20 40 85 – –
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L – – – 100 – 1,600 700
Ammonia as N mg/L – – – 100 – 800 400
Total Phosphorus mg/L 4 8 15 50 – 800 250
Heavy Metals2 mg/L 100 – 1,000 300
1 Adapted from Tchobanoglous and Burton (1991).
2 Primarily iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and aluminum (Al).

11.1. Value Added for Removing Nutrients and Metals
The NCDEQ’s 2016 Final 303(d) List reports that specific sections of Northeast Creek are impaired for
copper and zinc because samples have exceeded the State water quality standards of 7 µg/L and 50 µg/L,
respectively. The NCDEQ’s 2018 Draft 303(d) List also includes a listing of impairment for turbidity. All
303(d) List Category 5 Assessments are shown in Table 5. Northeast Creek drains to a recreational and
drinking water lake (B. Everett Jordan Lake) which is impaired for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Table 5. NCDEQ 2016 Final 303(d) List (NCDEQ, 2016) and 2018 Draft 303(d) List (NCDEQ, 2018), Category 5
Assessments for Third Fork Creek. Listings for turbidity were not included on the 2016 303(d) List but added to the
Draft 2018 303(d) List.
Description of
stream segment
DWQ
Assessment
Unit(s)
Impaired
segment
length
(miles)
Assessment
Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of
Interest IR Category
From US Hwy 55 to
Durham Triangle
WWTP
16-41-1-17-
(0.7)a

3.3 Exceeding
Criteria
> 10% and >90% conf
> 10% and >90% conf
Copper (7 ug/L)
Turbidity (50 NTU;
2018 Draft Listing)
5
5
From Durham
Triangle WWTP to
Kit Creek
16-41-1-17-
(0.7)b1
3.3 Exceeding
Criteria
> 10% and >90% conf Zinc (50 ug/L) 5
From Kit Creek to a 16-41-1-17-3.2 Exceeding > 10% and > 90% conf Zinc (50 ug/L) 5
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

31

point 0.5 miles
downstream of
Panther Creek
(0.7)b2 Criteria >10% and < 90% conf
-
Copper (7 ug/L)
Turbidity (50 NTU;
2018 Draft Listing)
5e
5

The implementation of measures that target human sources of fecal coliform bacteria have an added value
of reducing nutrients and metals; measures that target wildlife and domestic animal sources of fecal
coliform bacteria can also reduce nutrient pollution. In addition, the installation of SCMs that target fecal
coliform bacteria can also reduce metals, nutrients, and sediment transported in urban stormwater runoff.
Implementing the prioritized measures in this response plan may result in the reduction of nutrient and
dissolved metals pollution in Northeast Creek and Jordan Lake, and in turn, could help the City and County
meet State water quality standards and the Jordan Lake Rules.
11.2. Benefits to Aquatic Life
The reduction of overflows and leaks from the City and County sanitary sewer systems and replacement of
failing private septic systems will also benefit the aquatic life community (fish, benthic macroinvertebrates,
amphibians, etc.) in Northeast Creek. Sanitary sewer overflows can cause fish kills in streams due to toxic
effects of high ammonia and BOD concentrations, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Reduction in
illicit discharges and the number of cross-connected pipes to the City’s MS4 system could reduce metals
loading, which, has been shown to affect the health of instream benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., Hickey and
Clements, 1998). Reduced suspended sediment concentrations in Northeast Creek could facilitate healthier
instream fauna communities (Henley et al., 2000) and could be facilitated by the installation of SCMs.
Increased water clarity could also enable sunlight to penetrate deeper into the water column to inactivate
fecal coliform bacteria (Urban Water Resources Research Council, 2014).
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

32

12. Steps Towards TMDL Response Plan Implementation
The Northeast Creek TMDL Response Plan will be implemented by workgroups in Durham City and County
government. This implementation process is not necessarily a direct prescriptive process – depending on
the level of change that implemented response measures are having on fecal coliform bacteria loads in
Northeast Creek. Adapting and modifying the response plan will be informed through an ongoing analysis of
programmatic data collected to quantify progress.
12.1. Response Plan Schedule by Agency
This section organizes the prioritized response plan measures by the departments that are responsible for
implementing them. The prioritized measures in this response plan will be implemented in partnership
between the City of Durham Public Works Department (Stormwater and GIS Services Division and
Engineering Services Division), the Durham County Public Health Department (Environmental Services
Division), and the Durham City-County Planning Department. The timeline for implementation of the
prioritized response plan measures is between five and fifteen years.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

33

City of Durham, Public Works Department, Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Measure
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take
specific actions that reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria
through the City’s website, online videos (e.g. YouTube), social
media accounts, Waterways newsletter, Clean Water
Education Partnership (CWEP) handouts, and other methods.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Routine stream-walk program to target main stem and
tributaries with historically higher incidences of illicit
discharges. Also inspect major outfalls (greater than 36"
diameter pipe) for sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
0 to 5 years
Identify the number and location of private dog parks
(neighborhood, apartment, HOA) and dog kennel facilities in
the Northeast Creek watershed. Provide educational materials
on pet waste management.
0 to 5 years
Conduct cross-training for the Zoning Enforcement and Water
Quality IDDE groups to improve communication between
departments on sanitary sewer and septic system issues
observed in the field.
0 to 5 years
(in coordination with the
Planning Department)
Management program for Canada Geese to control population
and proximity to water, which may include non-SCM lakes and
ponds.
5 to 10 years
Explore UV treatment devices in culverts or stormwater catch
basins to reduce fecal coliform bacteria in baseflow or low
turbidity water.
5 to 10 years
Conduct a second bacterial source tracking (BST) study and
compare results to the first BST study completed for Northeast
Creek.
5 to 10 years
Review the Northeast Creek Watershed Improvement Plan
(WIP) and implement the construction of SCMs identified in
the WIP that address fecal coliform bacteria.
5 to 15 years
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

34

12.2. Tracking and Data Collection
The City’s Public Works Department will communicate with the appropriate departments, divisions, and
workgroups to identify the metrics and data needed to track the progress of measures outlined in this
Response Plan. A preliminary list of metrics that may be used to track incremental progress for this
Response Plan is shown in Appendix C.
12.3. Re-evaluation of Response Plan
The City’s Public Works Department will re-evaluate the measures outlined in this TMDL Response Plan on a
five-year basis, as resources allow. Modifications to the response plan will depend on reductions in fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations, the feasibility of implementing measures, stakeholder needs, and new
measures identified. The City will continue to provide progress updates on an annual basis as part of the
NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit annual reporting cycle.
13. References
Brown and Caldwell. 2013. Northeast and Crooked Creek Watershed Improvement Plan. Prepared for the
City of Durham. June 6, 2013. Durham, NC.
Burton, G. A., Gunnison, D., and Lanza, G. R. 1987. Survival of pathogenic bacteria in various freshwater
sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53(4), p. 633-638.
Characklis, G. W., Simmons, O. D., Sobsey, M. D., Drummey, P. N., and Krometis, L. 2008. Identifying the
origins and attachment behavior of non-point source microbial. Water Resources Research Institute. Report
No. 384. Chapel Hill, NC.
Durham County, Public Health Department, Environmental Health Division
Measure
Conduct a community survey to identify failing subsurface
systems
Timeline
0 to 5 years
Notify NCDEQ of all existing, unpermitted discharge systems
(septic and sand filter systems)
0 to 5 years

Repair or replace existing septic systems located within city
limits that are failing or leaking. Provide a cost-share option as
an incentive to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
0 to 5 years
(in coordination with City
Stormwater Services,
Engineering Services, and
Water Management)
Durham City-County, Planning Department
Measure
Require developers to include pet waste receptacles in new
residential development.
Timeline
0 to 5 years
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

35

City of Durham. 2017. City of Durham Stormwater Management Program Plan. Public Works Department.
August, 2017. Durham, NC.
City of Durham. 2018. City of Durham Annual Sanitary Sewer System Report FY 2017-2018. Water
Management Department. July, 2018. Durham, NC.
Durham County. 2018. Durham County Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant Performance Annual Report:
July 2017 – June 2018. Engineering & Environmental Services Department, Utilities Division. August 31,
2018. Durham, NC.
Geldreich, E. E. and Kenner, B.A. 1969. Concepts of fecal streptococci in stream pollution. J. Water Pollution
Control Federation. 41(8), R336–R352. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25036430.
Hicky, C.W. and Clements, W.H. 1998. Effects of heavy metals on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
New Zealand streams. Environ Toxicol Chem. 17(11), 2338-2346.
Henley, W. F., Patterson, M. A., Neves, R. J. and Lemly, A. D. (2000). Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on
lotic food webs: A concise review for natural resource managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8(2), 125–
139.
Hyer, K.E. and Moyer, D.L. 2003. Patterns and sources of fecal coliform bacteria in three streams in Virginia,
1999-2000. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4115. Richmond, Virginia
MapTech, Inc. 2005. Pathogen Source Assessment for TMDL Development and Implementation in North
Carolina Piedmont and Coastal Plain Watersheds. Prepared for the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality. 16-EW03032. Blacksburg, VA.
Marino, R.P. and Gannon, J.J. 1991. Survival of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in storm drain
sediment. Water Research 25(9), 1089-1098.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003a. Fecal Coliform Total
Maximum Daily Load for the Northeast Creek Watershed, Durham County, Chatham County and Wake
County. July, 2003. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003b. North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). February, 2003.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2016. 2016 Integrated Report – All Assessed
Waters, 2016 Final 303(d) List. April, 2018. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2018. Draft 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments
“303(d) List” for Public Review. November, 2018. Raleigh, NC.
Schueler, T. 2000. Microbes in Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources, & Pathways: The Practice of
Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Pages 74-84.
Tchobanoglous, G and Burton, F.L. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 3rd
Edition. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Urban Water Resources Research Council 2014. Pathogens in Urban Stormwater Systems. American Society
of Civil Engineers, August, 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. April, 1991. Washington, DC.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

36

14. Appendix A: Summary Table of All Proposed Measures (Priority and Non-Priority)
Table 6. Priority and non-priority measures proposed for the Northeast Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact on
Reducing Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
Group(s) Responsible for
Measure Implementation
Estimated Cost
to Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Priority
Notify NCDEQ of all existing, unpermitted discharge systems (septic and sand
filter systems). Prevention N/A Medium County Environmental
Health $ 0-5 Yes
Conduct a community survey to identify failing subsurface systems. Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination High County Environmental
Health $ 0-5 Yes
Repair or replace existing septic systems located within city limits that are
failing or leaking. Provide a cost-share option as an incentive to connect to
the City's sanitary sewer system.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Medium
County Environmental
Health, City Engineering
Services, City Stormwater
Quality
$ 0-5 Yes
Routine stream-walk program to target the main stem and tributaries with
historically higher incidences of illicit discharges. Also, inspect major outfalls
(greater than 36" diameter pipe) for sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Medium Public Works Stormwater
Quality $$ 0-5 Yes
Conduct cross-training for the Zoning Enforcement and Water Quality IDDE
groups to improve communication between departments on sanitary sewer
and septic system issues observed in the field.
Prevention Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low
Public Works Stormwater
Quality, City-County
Planning
$ 0-5 Yes
Identify the number and location of private dog parks (neighborhood,
apartment, HOA) and dog kennel facilities in the Northeast Creek watershed.
Provide educational materials on pet waste management.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low
Public Works Stormwater
Quality and Watershed
Planning
$ 0-5 Yes
Management program for Canada Geese to control population and proximity
to water, which may include non-SCM lakes and ponds. Prevention N/A High
Public Works Stormwater
Development Review,
Stormwater Quality,
Watershed Planning;
Durham County Sheriff’s
Office Animal Services; N.C.
Wildlife Resources
Commission
$$ 5-10 Yes
Conduct a microbial source tracking (MST) study and compare results to the
BST study completed for Northeast Creek. Mitigation N/A Medium Public Works Stormwater
Quality $-$$ 5-10 Yes
Explore UV treatment devices in culverts or stormwater catch basins to
reduce fecal coliform bacteria in baseflow or low turbidity water. Mitigation N/A High
Public Works Stormwater
Quality and Stormwater
Infrastructure
$$ 5-10 Yes
Review the Northeast Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) and
implement the construction of SCMs identified in the WIP that address fecal
coliform bacteria.
Mitigation N/A Low-Medium
Public Works Watershed
Planning and Stormwater
Quality
$$$ 5-15 Yes
Require developers to include pet waste receptacles in new residential
development. Prevention Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Medium City-County Planning $ 5-10 Yes
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

37

Proposed Measure Type of
Measure
NPDES Minimum Measure Estimated Impact on
Reducing Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
Group(s) Responsible for
Measure Implementation
Estimated Cost
to Implement
Measure
Implementation
Timeline
(years)
Priority
Conduct a media campaign to motivate the public to take specific actions
that reduce sources of fecal coliform bacteria through the City’s website,
online videos (e.g. YouTube), social media accounts, Waterways newsletter,
Clean Water Education Partnership (CWEP) handouts, and other methods.
Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low-Medium
Public Works Stormwater
Quality and Watershed
Planning
$ 0-5 Yes
Increase education for backyard dog waste and County-wide dog waste
ordinance. Prevention Public Education and Outreach Medium
Public Works Stormwater
Quality and Watershed
Planning, Durham County
Sheriff
$ - $$ 0-5 No
Expand the nonwoven products (flushable wipes) public education campaign. Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low Water Management –
Pretreatment $ 0-5 No
Query information from sanitary sewer inspection reports on CityWorks using
keywords for bacteria issues. Stormwater & GIS Services can use search
results to investigate sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $ 0-5 No
Hire a contractor to pilot drones or a helicopter equipped with infrared
camera equipment to spot discharges based on changes in temperature. Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $$ 5-10 No
Targeted stormwater outfall program in Northeast Creek watershed. Selected
hot spot (<15) outfalls are checked annually. These hot spot outfalls are
ones where previous contamination issues have been observed.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $ 0-5 No
Develop a pilot program for conducting proactive investigations during
weekdays. Inspect outfalls, business corridors, and apartment complexes
during baseflow conditions. Quickly assess field conditions and identify illicit
discharges in priority catchments.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $ 0-5 No
Add, update, and maintain dog waste stations at City parks and add signs for
reporting violations of the County dog waste ordinance. Prevention
Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
Low-Medium
Public Works Stormwater
Quality and Watershed
Planning, Parks &
Recreation
$ 0-5 No
Increase street sweeping frequency in the City. Mitigation
Pollution Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
Low-Medium Public Works Operations
Division $$-$$$ 5-15 No
Educate apartment complexes about proper dog waste protocols. Prevention Public Education and Outreach Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $ 0-5 No
Incentivize the installation of dog poop digesters and other uses for dog
waste on residential properties. Prevention Public Participation and
Involvement Low To be determined $$ 5-15 No
Develop a cost-share program to plant tall grass buffers and wetland plants
around lakes to keep geese and their waste out of the lakes. Evaluate other
solutions such as planting wildflowers.
Prevention Public Participation and
Involvement Low
City Stormwater
Development Review,
County Soil & Water
$$ 5-10 No
Encourage Stormwater Star Businesses to install and maintain dog waste
stations. Prevention Public Participation and
Involvement Low Public Works Stormwater
Quality $ 0-5 No
*Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

38

15. Appendix B: Summary Table of Measures Not Included in the TMDL Response Plan
Table 7. Measures considered and not currently feasible for implementation in the Northeast Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of Measure NPDES Minimum
Measure
Estimated Impact on
Reducing Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated Cost to
Implement Measure
Implementation
Timeline (years)
Coordinate sanitary sewer high priority line inspection schedule with outfall
screening to optimize surveys. Reduce overlapping surveys and space out
the timing of inspections.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge
Detection and
Elimination
Low Public Works Stormwater Quality,
Water Management - Water &
Sewer
$ 0-5
Identify and inspect all private sewer pump stations (permitted and non-
permitted) and conduct enforcement for discharges.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge
Detection and
Elimination
High Water Management -Water &
Sewer, NCDWR, Public Works
Stormwater Quality
$ 5-10
Create a weekend answering service for the Stormwater Pollution Hotline
(560-SWIM), or designate staff to be on-call to answer or check the
Stormwater Pollution Hotline.
Mitigation Illicit Discharge
Detection and
Elimination
Low-Medium Public Works Stormwater Quality $$ 0-5
Identify sewer rehabilitation priority areas based on routine inspection and
fix failing sewer lines.
Mitigation N/A Low Water Management -Water & Sewer $$$ 5-10
Implement a voluntary cost-share program for septic pump-outs to keep
systems maintained and prevent discharges.
Prevention N/A Low County Environmental Health $$$ 0-5
Require inspection of private septic systems at the time of property sale or
transfer. Require connection to the sewer system when one or more
conditions are triggered.
Prevention N/A Medium County Environmental Health $ 5-10
Install infiltration or biofilter swales along roadside ditches for fecal coliform
bacteria removal.
Mitigation N/A Medium NCDOT, Public Works Operations
Division, Public Works Stormwater
Development Review
$$ - $$$ 5-10
Keep materials on every Water Management truck to prevent sewage from
entering the City's stormwater drainage system.
Prevention Pollution
Prevention/Good
Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations
Low Water Management - Water &
Sewer
$ 0-5
Increase the use of SCMs that allow natural UV disinfection for new and
existing development [i.e., wetlands].
Mitigation Post-Construction
Stormwater
Management
Medium Public Works Stormwater
Development Review
$$-$$$ 5-10
Require Dog Park specifications for SCMs or other bacteria reduction
measures to address fecal coliform bacteria issues.
Mitigation Post-Construction
Stormwater
Management
Medium-High City-County Planning, Public Works
Stormwater Development Review,
Parks & Recreation
$$ 0-5
Place kiosks at vets and pet stores for dog waste education with a focus on
how to handle backyard dog waste.
Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Public Works Stormwater Quality $ 0-5
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

39

Table 7. Measures considered and not currently feasible for implementation in the Northeast Creek TMDL Response Plan
Proposed Measure Type of Measure NPDES Minimum
Measure
Estimated Impact on
Reducing Fecal
Coliform Bacteria
Group(s) Responsible for Measure
Implementation
Estimated Cost to
Implement Measure
Implementation
Timeline (years)
Add a section to the City's reporting App for dog waste issues in City parks. Prevention Public Education and
Outreach
Low Public Works Stormwater Quality,
Durham OneCall, Parks &
Recreation
$ 0-5
Place signs along trails (near creeks and sewer lines) to raise public
awareness about reporting sewage discharges and other sources of fecal
coliform bacteria.
Mitigation Public Education and
Outreach
Low-Medium Public Works Watershed Planning,
Trail Advisory Group, Water
Management
$ 0-5
Develop a Dog Park Poop Patrol program with volunteers from the Durham
community.
Prevention Public Participation
and Involvement
Low-Medium Public Works Stormwater Quality
and Watershed Planning, Parks &
Recreation
$ 5-10
*Estimated Costs: $$$ > $500,000, $$ = $50,000 to $500,000, $ <$50,000. Estimated costs consider only the projected costs to the City and County departments.
TMDL Response Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Northeast Creek, Durham, NC
April 22, 2019

40

16. Appendix C: Measures of Incremental Progress
Implementation of any one measure may not directly impact concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in
Northeast Creek. Implementing a combination of measures may reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels much
more. The following table lists the incremental progress that will be tracked for this TMDL Response Plan.
This tracking is in addition to any tracking performed through the monitoring program.
Table 8 Preliminary list of incremental progress
TMDL Response Plan Metric Metric Reporting Reporting Frequency
Human Sources
Single-family on-site wastewater systems inspected Count Annually
Multi-family on-site wastewater systems inspected Count Annually
Number of family on-site wastewater systems
referred to DWR Count Annually
Number of failed wastewater systems identified
(septic or sand filter) Count Annually
Number of new connections to sanitary sewer Count Annually
Number of property owners seeking funding
assistance to connect to city sewer Count Annually
Number of sanitary sewer overflows, sanitary sewer
breaks, or sewer lateral discharges
One Count/all three (reported in
NPDES annual report) Annually
Volume of sewage discharged from public sanitary
sewer overflows Count Annually
Domestic Animal Waste
Number of private dog parks. Count Every three-five years
Number of dog kennels Count Every three-five years
Requirement for pet waste receptacles
implemented in Comprehensive Plan or UDO Yes/No N/A
Number of Limited Agriculture Permits issued to
residents keeping domestic chickens located within
Northeast Creek
Count Every three-five years
Wild Animal Waste
Guidance for managing Canada Geese at ponds
and on grounds
Count of guidance materials
distributed to HOAs Annually
Other To be determined To be determined
Educational Material Tracking
To be determined based on outreach programs that
are developed To be determined To be determined

J-1
APPENDIX J
City of Durham
TARGET POLLUTANTS, SOURCES & AUDIENCES
DISCUSSION
Revised July, 2015

1. Identification of Pollutants, Sources and Target Audiences

The City of Durham’s stormwater education and outreach program uses research‐based
methods to increase awareness and to promote changes in behavior. Important measureable
goals of the program from Section 7.2 of the Stormwater Management Plan include:

• Identification of target pollutants and their sources that the City’s public education
program is designed to address.
• Identification of target audiences related to target pollutants and sources.

Target pollutants and sources are selected, in part, based on state determinations of water
body impairment, and based on local data indicating the pollutant is likely to be related to a
local water quality problem. Pollutants and sources are also selected based on risk to the
environment, and whether increased awareness and changes in behavior may reduce that risk.
The focus of selecting target pollutants and sources is to identify somewhat broad categories of
sources or behaviors that are not addressed through other means. Inspections are conducted at
construction sites and at industrial and light industrial facilities that address pollutants, sources
and reduction measures at those sites.

SEEING RESULTS:
Wet weather discharge in one of Durham’s urban
streams was characterized in a 1974 EPA study that
compared storm flows in the creek to raw sewage.
Based on current knowledge of stormwater runoff
quality in Durham, and on water quality conditions in
the Third Fork Creek, in the 1970’s wet weather
sewage discharges were a significant source of
pollution. Fecal coliform concentrations had declined
by the 1990s when routine monitoring began, and
have continued to decline at most monitoring sites.
Areas of older development – some dating to the
1800s ‐ still tend to have poorer water quality than
areas of newer development. However, water quality
has improved in all areas of the city, including the
much older areas.

J-2
The following table summarizes the target audiences, some example messages, and the
pollutant sources addressed.

Table I – 1
Target Audience Summary

Target Audience(s) for
Source Control Message Theme Examples Potential Pollutant (Pollution) Sources Addressed
Car owners who maintain
their own vehicles
Use a professional car wash that
collects and recycles water Brake wear, vehicle exhaust
City residents
Take HHW to City Collection Center
which will recover and reuse paint
and other useful material, properly
disposing of the remainder
Improper disposal of aerosol sprays, acidic household
products, batteries, alkaline cleaning products,
fluorescent bulbs, paint, solvents, computer
equipment & electronics, used motor oil, oil filters
‘No Mow’ zones along creeks to
anchor soil and shade streams;
Promote need for stream
restoration projects
Runoff is slowed and filtered, woody vegetation
anchors stream banks reducing bank erosion, tree
canopy provides shading of streams which reduces
water temperature;
(Improves habitat, sediment delivery, stability of
streams that have been straightened and dredged to
hasten drainage)
Use pesticides sparingly, apply
according to label directions, use
alterative products, use Integrated
Pest Management where possible,
properly dispose of unused product
and residual wastes such as by
carrying to HHW Center
Improper use, improper disposal of pesticides
City staff, city residents
Report illicit discharges Illicit discharges
Help prevent SSOs by proper grease
disposal
Illicit discharges, especially those associated with
grey water systems.
Homeowners, renters
Keep it neat, leaves and grass off
the street
Leaves, grass, other yard wastes, placed in street or
thrown from mower or blown onto street, driveway
Mow high, use a mulching blade,
and leave the clippings, which
nourish your lawn.
Mowing cool season grasses at 3 inches or higher
reduces the need to water and helps control weeds.
Mulched grass clippings provide slow‐release
fertilizer, help shade the soil; the added organic
matter helps build soil, so that it retain water;
properly lawn care reduces the need for watering.
Use ‘P’ free fertilizer; fertilize only
when necessary, not near
waterways or on rainy or windy
days;
Phosphorous need be applied only when establishing
a new lawn or in unlikely event a soil test indicates
deficiency; initial application of P binds to soil; soil
cannot retain phosphorus when continually applied.
Disconnect rooftop downspouts,
directing rainwater to lawns,
cisterns, or rain gardens
(Reduction in runoff helps to mitigate in‐stream
erosion from hydrologic modification
Pet owners, residents living
near ponds and BMPs
Use pet waste stations
Clean up after pets
Don’t feed geese
Pet and animal wastes

The summary table above was reformatted from information on the following table of
pollutants, potential sources and audiences.

J-3

Table I-2
Summary of Target Pollutants, Sources, and Audiences

Parameter or
substance(s)
Water Quality Impact
or Regulatory Action Potential Pollutant Sources Message Theme Examples Target Audience(s)
for Source Control
Nitrogen (N)
and/or
Phosphorous (P)
Impaired reservoirs
(Jordan Lake, Falls
Lake)
Urban streams in
areas with old
infrastructure tend to
have slightly higher
nitrogen
concentrations;
otherwise nutrient
concentrations are
generally low*
Leaves & leaf matter (both) Keep it neat, leaves and grass
off the street
Homeowners,
Yard & landscape
maintenance biz
Illicit discharges (primarily
untreated sewage) (both)
Report illicit discharges (see
also surface cleaning below)
City staff, city
residents
Lawn maintenance:
excessive use of phosphorus
lawn fertilizers; grass
clippings on street or
disposed in ditches
Use ‘P’ free fertilizer; fertilize
only when necessary, not near
waterways or on rainy or
windy days; recycle grass
clipping with mulching mower
Homeowners
Pet and animal wastes
Use pet waste stations
Clean up after pets
Don’t feed geese
Pet owners,
residents living
near ponds and
BMPs
Fecal coliform
Northeast Creek
(fecal coliform
TMDL); South Ellerbe
Creek; upper Third
Fork Creek
Illicit discharges (grease,
laundry wash water,
sewage) esp. in in older
areas developed from the
1800s to the 1940s.
Report illicit discharges;
Help prevent SSOs by proper
grease disposal
City staff, city
residents
Sediment
Third Fork Creek
TMDL for turbidity;
other streams with
instream erosion
Channelized streams
(straightened, dredged
channels to hasten
drainage)
Need for ‘No Mow’ zones
along creeks to anchor soil,
promote need for stream
restoration projects
City residents
Instream erosion from
hydromodification
(Promote various rooftop
disconnection strategies, e.g.
Rain Catchers)
Homeowners
Construction sites with
inadequate control of
sediment, prevention of
erosion
Use track out controls and
other BMPs to keep sediment
on site
Home builders
(promote reporting of
sediment discharge violations)
City staff, city
residents
Surface cleaning
Contain, collection, and
properly dispose of
wastewater from cleaning
activities
Businesses
engaged in power
washing, mobile
car washing, AC
coil cleaning,
restaurant grease
Street dirt (street sweeping)
FOG
Automotive
brake dust,
leaked motor oil
and antifreeze
Source of copper,
zinc, cadmium;
possible impact on
WQS for dissolved
copper
Brake wear, vehicle exhaust
(street sweeping); Use a
professional car wash that
collects and recycles water
Car owners who
maintain their own
vehicles
Personal care
products,
pharmaceuticals
not metabolized
Unknown Illicit discharges Report illicit discharges City staff, city
residents

J-4
Table I-2
Summary of Target Pollutants, Sources, and Audiences

Parameter or
substance(s)
Water Quality Impact
or Regulatory Action Potential Pollutant Sources Message Theme Examples Target Audience(s)
for Source Control
Household
hazardous wastes Unknown, but may
contribute to
reduction of pollution
sensitive benthic
species
Improper disposal of
aerosol sprays, acidic
household products,
batteries, alkaline cleaning
products, fluorescent bulbs,
paint, solvents, computer
equipment & electronics,
used motor oil, oil filters
Take HHW to City Collection
Center which will recover and
reuse paint and other useful
material, properly disposing of
the remainder
City residents
Pesticides
(herbicides,
insecticides,
bactericides,
fungicides,
rodenticides,
algaecides, etc.)
Improper use, improper
disposal
Use sparingly, apply according
to label directions, use
alterative products, use IPM,
carry unused product and
residual wastes to HHW Center
for disposal
City staff, city
residents

The list above focuses on pollutants that are appropriate for management through education of
city residents, municipal employees, and a range of business owners. The list generally does not
include potential pollutants of concern where any of the following apply:

• The pollutant has only been found in a limited area,
• The source of the pollutant is largely unknown,
• The source of pollutant not amenable to management through educational messages, or
• The source is an industrial or light‐industrial site that is inspected under the industrial
inspection program.

A given pollution source often contributes several pollutant or parameters of concern. For
example, discharges from cleaning and washing operations may contribute sediment, metals,
oxygen‐consuming substances, and nutrients in addition to any surfactants, polyphosphates,
caustics, or acids used in cleaning. The lists above may not include all of the pollutants
associated with a given source.

2. Discussion of Pollutants and Sources

Pollutants Identified in 303(d) List and TMDLs
The pollutants/impairments identified on the 303(d) list and in TMDLs include:

• Nitrogen associated with atmospheric deposition, human sewage, leaves, grass clipping,
fertilizer application, and pet and wildlife wastes;
• Phosphorous which is attached to soil from historic fertilizer use, sewage, leaves, grass
clippings, fertilizer application, pet and wildlife wastes, and soil erosion;

J-5
• Fecal Coliforms, pathogen indictors, from pet wastes, urban wildlife, sewage (details
further below), seasonal re‐growth in wet organic matter (e.g. leaves in gutters) , soil
and stream sediment;
• Low Dissolved Oxygen (DO) from organic matter in stormwater runoff (e.g. leaves in
gutters) and sewage, particularly problematic in stream segments that have been
dredged to form a deep pool;
• Turbidity from clay sediment entering waterways, construction sites, and in stream
erosion;
• Biological Impairment from multiple stressors (details below).
• Zinc (added to 2010 list based on historical data were portions of Ellerbe Creek and
Northeast Creek downstream of WWTPs, and portions of New Hope Creek and Third
Fork Creek for exceedances of Action Limit for total zinc); and
• Copper (added to 2010 list based on historical data were portions of Third Fork Creek
and Northeast Creek for exceedances of Action Limit for total copper).

North Carolina adopted new standards for dissolved metals in 2016. State methods for
monitoring dissolved metals for the purposes of 305(b) are still under development. The City of
Durham recently completed TMDL Response Plans for the Northeast Creek fecal coliform
bacteria TMDL and the Third Fork Creek turbidity/TSS TMDL. These plans include specific
modifications to multiple minimum control measures, including education, outreach and
involvement. These plans are in Appendix I.

Pollutants Identified in City Stream Monitoring
The water quality problems identified in monitoring of the City’s urban streams include:
• Fecal Coliforms (very high frequency of occurrence in monitoring samples);
• DO (high frequency of occurrence in monitoring samples);
• Turbidity (moderate frequency of occurrence in monitoring samples);
• BOD (limited occurrence often associated with specific sources);
• Dissolved Zinc (found at one location downstream of an industrial site); and
• Dissolved Copper (found at one location downstream of an industrial site).

Pollutants Identified in USGS Studies
The water quality problems identified by the USGS in monitoring of urban streams nationwide
and in North Carolina has generally found low occurrence. Of potential concern are insecticides
that are being used in place of organophosphate insecticides as a result of EPA’s decision to
restrict use of Diazion and chlorpyrifos:

• Herbicides such as diuron, simazine, atrazine (low frequency of occurrence, elevated in
10 to 14% of samples of urban streams nationwide).
• Insecticides, likely including carbaryl, pyrethroids, and possibly fipronil, use of which
appears to have increased in place of diazinon and chlorpyrifoswhich have been
declining (low frequency of occurrence in urban streams nationwide); and

J-6
• Hydrocarbons/PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) such as anthracene
(anthraceen had low frequency of occurrence but exceeded toxicity benchmarks in a
few North Carolina streams).
Diazinon and chlorpyrifos are no longer available to the public. Recent data show diazinon has
declined in some urban streams ‐ further decline should occur as use is curtailed. In urban
streams in North Carolina diazinon was not found to exceed aquatic life toxicity screening
benchmarks. As a group, PAHs were the most frequently detected by USGS. Other studies
indicate that sealcoats used to resurface roads and parking lots are likely the dominant source
of PAHs in many streams. Coal tar‐derived sealcoats used more commonly in the eastern US
and have higher PAH concentrations than asphalt‐based sealcoats

The City of Durham has conducted limited sampling of sediment for hydrocarbons. Thus far,
hydrocarbon concentrations were low or below detection except at one location. Similarly, the
City of Charlotte has analyzed sediment of hydrocarbons and has not found widespread issues.
Anecdotal information suggests that coal‐tar sealants are not used as much as asphalt‐based
sealants.

In 2007 NCDENR began operating a probabilistic monitoring program on freshwater streams,
with each site monitored for two years; this program, called Random Ambient Monitoring
System (RAMS) monitors monthly for alkalinity, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, dissolved organic
carbon, mercury, and volatile organics. Every other month the sites are monitored for cyanide,
sulfide, semi‐volatile organics, pesticides, and PCBs. RAMS monitoring to date has included one
site in Durham, Third Fork Creek at NC55.

The Durham site is located on the Rock Creek tributary of Third Fork Creek; the watershed
included a major limited access highway, industrial areas (including the major chemical facility
in Durham, residential uses and institutional uses. Findings:

• Dissolved oxygen: frequent exceedances of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen
were reported.
• Metals: total copper exceeded the state’s action limited but dissolved copper was below it.
Total and dissolved zinc both exceeded the action limit.
• Organics: Monitoring for organics detected toluene in two samples, both within water
quality standards. Non‐detects were reported for other volatile organics, pesticides, and
semi‐volatile organics.

USGS conducted a stable isotope study of nitrate in three streams in Durham, using isotope
ratios for nitrogen and oxygen to distinguish the source of the nitrogen. The pilot study found
that:
• Concentrations of nitrate were low, and
• Nitrogen was derived largely from natural sources.

The discussion below focuses on

J-7

1. fecal indicator bacteria
2. nutrients
3. insecticides

1. Fecal Indicator Bacteria (Fecal coliforms)

Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) are used to indicate the possible presence of human pathogens in
water. Swimming in contaminated water can lead to skin infection, ear infection or
gastrointestinal illness. The presence of FIB indicate the potential for more serious illnesses.

North Carolina water quality standards use fecal coliform a FIB in fresh water under Class C,
Class B and water supply designations. The standard contains two parts: (1) the geometric
mean of five samples collected within a 30 day period shall be less than 200 colony forming
units per 100 mL; and (2) less than 20% of samples may exceed 400 cfu/100. This standard is
intended to protect swimmers from gastrointestinal disease and other illnesses. Restoring
waters to achieve this standard is intended to help achieve the Clean Water Act goal of having
“swimmable, fishable” waters wherever attainable.

North Carolina’s ambient monitoring program collects samples monthly generally in streams
that are third order and higher. At sites monitored by NCDENR, only Northeast Creek exceeds
the fecal coliform standard. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been established by
NCDENR for Northeast Creek, and the City has been implementing a TMDL Response Plan for
this watershed. A TMDL is commonly called a “pollution diet.”

The City of Durham ambient monitoring program also collects samples monthly, usually at the
same site monitoring by NCDENR, but primarily in smaller first and second order streams.

History of illicit discharges, high fecal coliforms ‐ Historically, the City’s urban streams have had
very high concentrations of fecal coliforms. An EPA report published in 1974 (EPA 670/2‐74‐
096) reported concentrations of fecal coliforms of 23,000 cfu/100 ml during storm event
monitoring. The study found high levels of BOD, volatile suspended solids, and other
conventional wastewater parameters and the authors indicated that wet weather stream flows
were comparable to raw sewage. The figure on the following page shows the 1974 value
compared to fecal coliforms in stormwater monitoring conducted in the 1990s, showing that is
it much higher. It is now believed that the extremely high fecal coliform concentration in the
1974 report was from illicit discharges, including wet weather sewer overflows due to excessive
infiltration and inflow.

Early EPA guidance on illicit discharges in Investigation of Inappropriate Entries into Storm
Sewer Systems, EPA600R‐92/238, 1992 indicates:

J-8
Prior research has shown, that for many pollutants, stormwater may contribute
the smaller portion of the total pollutant mass discharged from a storm drainage
system.

In 1996 an audit of wet weather monitoring sites used to assess stormwater quality for a range
of land uses, found that one of seven sites was downstream of an aerial sewer crossing where
the cast iron sewer pipe had a crack in the upper portion. After the cracked pipe was repaired,
fecal coliforms declined in storm samples.

In 1998 following completion
of wet weather monitoring, city
staff analyzed available data to
prepare an application for
permit renewal. One of the
analyses included in the
submittal was the figure to the
right. This graph shows fecal
coliform data as box plots for
both urban streams in Durham
and for Durham’s stormwater
characterization. The graph
shows that many urban stream
sites had higher fecal coliform
concentrations (1992‐1998)
than could be explained by
concentrations in stormwater runoff monitored over roughly the same period. The 1998 report
suggests that dry weather illicit discharges were a significant source of fecal coliforms in the
city’s urban streams, and indicates that the statement quoted above from EPA, 1992 is true for
fecal coliform.

Based on the likelihood that illicit discharges were significant sources of fecal coliform, the city
enhanced pollution screening parameters to also include ammonia, which was added to the
parameters included in EPA600R‐92/238. Urine converts fairly quickly to ammonia in septic
systems, sewer pipes and the environment. Ammonia was selected to facilitate finding illicit
discharges associated with discharges from grey water systems.

Although human sewage may have been responsible for the very highest concentrations of
fecal coliforms, studies in Northeast Creek demonstrate that it is not the only source. North
Carolina regulators identified several waterways in the state for development of a TMDL for
fecal coliforms, including Northeast Creek. As a result of the finding in 1998 reported above, the
City began targeting illicit discharge efforts in Northeast Creek. Staff found and eliminated
several chronic sources. City Water and Sewer Maintenance replaced an old sewer line crossing
the creek that may have been a contributor. Fecal coliforms declined.

J-9
The City subsequently participated with other cities in study to identify sources of fecal bacteria
using multiple antibiotic resistance to distinguish between humans, pets, and wildlife. Scat was
collected from the Northeast Creek watershed to develop a library. Water samples were
collected from a station at Sedwick Road, which is close to the downstream edge of the city.
Sampling included normal dry weather and wet weather conditions. At the Sedwick Road
Station, the study found that wildlife sources were the most persistent, while some human and
domestic animal sources were present to a lesser degree.

Progress Made – More recent data is available for three of the stream sites shown in the figure
above. The figure to the left shows that fecal coliforms have declined over roughly twenty
years, although progress has slowed. It may be that as human sources are eliminated, the
remainder represents sources such as wildlife and domestic animals (livestock, pets) that will be
more difficult to control.

A number of factors are likely to have contributed to the reduction in fecal coliform in
Durham’s urban streams:

• Durham adopted ammonia as an IDDE indicator in 1999 to supplement the indicators
required by 40CFR122.26 – six years before ammonia was recommended in the IDDE
guide prepared by the Center for Watershed Protect and Dr. Robert Pitt for EPA.

J-10
Ammonia has been the best single indicator for nutrient‐related discharges that are also
typically sources of fecal coliforms.
• In about 2001 stormwater and Water and Sewer Maintenance began coordinating on
remediation of sewer overflows (blocking flow and pumping it back into collections
system, often opening a water hydrant to flush the sewage to the pump). Prior to this,
contaminated water was contained and pumped by into the collection system based on
visual signs of contamination; testing for ammonia and other indicators has resulted in
more complete remediation.
• Increase in public awareness has resulted in timely reporting by the public.
• Investigations of reports from the public, and from city and county staff, have
eliminated numerous illicit discharges.
• Proactive outfall screening has resulting in elimination of discharges, including sewer
service lines improperly plumbed to the stormwater system, that had persisted for years
without having been reported by the public or by municipal staff.
• Installation of pet waste stations has encouraged more responsible behavior by pet
owners who clean up after their pets.
• Identification and elimination of laundry discharges and failing septic systems.
• In the first few years of IDDE, failing septic systems were more common than today; the
total number of septic systems within the city declined, and failures rate is now 3%,
which is well below the norm of 10%.
• Reduction in both the volume and frequency of dry weather sanitary sewer overflows
from city‐operated and county‐operated collection systems.
• Mapping of locations where sewer and stormwater pipes cross, and subsequent ‐
identification and elimination exfiltration where at locations sewer pipes cross over
stormwater pipes.
• Requirements that large discharges from private sewer systems be remediated by
recovering the sewage to the extent practicable
• Implementation of a pet waste program that includes operation of three dog parks,
operation of 85 pet waste stations is city parks and along trails and greenways, the
Canines for Clean Water social marketing campaign, and educational messaging and
media campaigns.
• Landlord Training workshops that cover responsibilities of property management
companies and landlord to promptly address clogged house service lines and private
sewer lines.
• Increase preventative maintenance by owner associations on private sewer lines to
address repeated overflows from service line clogging.

Cross‐connections that direct sewage into stormwater piping systems have been eliminated at
a number of homes, a shopping center restroom, several restaurants, and a medical facility. The
City’s Water Management Department has increased maintenance and has obtained rate
increases to support a program of replacing or rehabilitating aging infrastructure, rather than
just patching it. Similarly, the significant redevelopment of old buildings in Durham has
resulted in replacing or rehabilitating privately‐owned aging infrastructure.

J-11

Continuing Progress Needed –At sites monitored by in the City’s ambient program, the
geometric mean of monthly samples at a sampling location may be less than 200 cfu/100 in a
given year, although perhaps not in the following year. Even when urban streams sites are
below 100 cfu/100 mL, the same data set shows the site often has more than 20% of samples
over 400 cfu/100 mL, and thus does not meet the water quality standard. While progress has
been made toward meeting water quality standards, continued progress is needed to find and
eliminate sources of fecal indicator bacteria.

Unfortunately, in 2014 several sites in Third Fork Creek show significant increase in fecal
coliforms. The reasons are not clear. What is clear is that efforts must be maintained in order
for progress to be sustained.

Sources to consider
Plumbing errors continue result in cross‐connections where a sewer service line for a home or
business has been improperly connected to the stormwater system.

Each year, stormwater IDDE staff members investigate a large number of sewage discharges
from privately maintained sewer lines and private sewage pumping stations that serve
residential and commercial property. While large spills are rare, when there is a discharge from
a townhome or apartment complex, the responsible party is required to contain the discharge,
and operate pumps (available for rental) to return the fugitive wastewater to the collection
system. When there have been repeat occurrences, the HOA or property management
company can be required to implement preventative maintenance.

A large percentage of residential property in Durham is rental housing. On occasion, discharges
are found coming from sewer clean outs as a result of clogged building service lines. The city
has been conducting landlord training workshops that include a stormwater presentation on
the responsibilities of property owners and managers to promptly eliminate and mitigate
sewage discharges at rental property. This training also includes a presentation on proper
handling of Fats, Oils and Grease (by Water Management Department) to reduce service pipe
clogging; bilingual materials are available for landlord and management companies to use in
educating tenants.

There remain a large number of locations in the city where old vitrified clay or cast iron sanitary
sewer lines cross over stormwater pipes. As the pipe material degrades, water can begin to
seep from one pipe to the other. Over time the seepage can erode soil, resulting in more rapid
seepage. In a few cases the erosion has removed enough soil to result in collapsed piping and
formation of a sinkhole, and larger discharge of sewage. Most of the crossing locations do not
appear to be causing a problem, but remain a potential source to be investigated when
investigation or outfall screening identify contaminated discharges.

Livestock has been identified as a source in only Northeast Creek and the Rocky Branch
tributary of Lick Creek. A farm in Northeast Creek has a small number of cows, and allows them

J-12
direct access to waterways. The much larger Kingsmill Farm in Lick Creek has had severe
impacts on water quality as reported in previous annual reports. The herd was reportedly
removed from Kingsmill, and the future of the farm is uncertain.

2. Nutrients
Nutrients are necessary for algae to grow. Algae serve as the basis for the food web that
supports aquatic ecosystems. Although algae produce oxygen during daylight hours, they
consume oxygen at night. When algae die and settle to the bottom, their decomposition also
consumes oxygen. Excessive algal productivity can lead to swings in dissolved oxygen, swings in
pH, and oxygen depletion. Moderate depletion can harm sensitive organisms, while more
severe depletion can result in fish kills.

North Carolina has established water quality standards for chlorophyll a, pH and turbidity.
Chlorophyll a concentrations are controlled by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous),
temperature and light. Chlorophyll a is requires for photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a
concentrations indicate the potential productivity of the algae. High concentrations of
chlorophyll a indicate too much algae. Excessive algal productivity may contribute to swings in
pH and in some cases, increases in turbidity.

The established standards of chlorophyll a, pH and turbidity are response parameters that can
show the impact of nutrients. North Carolina has not established numeric concentration limits
for nitrogen or phosphorus in streams or lakes, in part because the clarity of the water may
have more control over algal blooms than nutrient concentration. The impact of a given
nutrient concentration will vary, depending upon a variety of factors.

In a given water body, however, the primary cause of excessive algal growth is high
concentrations of nitrogen and/or phosphorus. In some water bodies, algal growth is limited by
either nitrogen or phosphorus, but in many cases algal growth is co‐limited, meaning that both
nitrogen and phosphorus must be controlled in order to limit excessive algal growth.

Durham is located upstream of three water bodies that have been classified as nutrient
sensitive, the Neuse estuary, Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. North Carolina has not adopted target
nutrient concentrations for these water bodies. North Carolina has adopted rules requiring
reduction in nutrient load that are applied to many of the significant sources of nitrogen and
phosphorus.

Benchmarks ‐ Given the lack of a numeric concentration standards for either nitrogen or
phosphorous, Stormwater Services has established concentration benchmarks as discussed
below.

Nutrient impact on stream benthic communities – Streams with significant development
and human populations nearly always do not support healthy communities of benthic

J-13
invertebrate organisms. North Carolina classifies sites with a benthic rating of Good‐Fair or
better as fully supporting benthic communities. The relationship between healthy benthic
communities and nutrient concentrations was evaluated by Winston (2012) comparing
NCDENR ambient monitoring data statewide for sites with paired benthic monitoring data.
For the Piedmont of North Carolina sites with a benthic rating of Good‐Fair had median
concentrations of Total Nitrogen of 1.16 mg/l, total phosphorous of 0.13 mg/l, and
dissolved oxygen of 8.4 mg/l. These concentrations suggest that benthic organisms are not
highly sensitive to elevated concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Trophic condition of urban streams‐ For streams, Dodds developed a suggested trophic
classification scheme that indicates 1.5 mg/L total nitrogen and 0.075 mg/L total
phosphorous as an approximate boundary between mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions
(Dodds, 1998 1).

Lake impacts ‐ Nutrient concentrations which are not a problem for streams may
nevertheless cause excessive growth of algae when water slows down and becomes
stagnant. The Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake has been found to be nitrogen limited,
resulting in development of a TMDL for nitrogen.

Mean nitrogen concentrations in the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake range from 1.1
to 1.3 mg/L, and so these concentrations are too high. Lower concentrations ranging from
0.8 to 0.9 mg/L found in the Lower New Hope Arm of the lake, do not result in impairment.
The difference in concentration between the Upper and Lower arms of the New Hope side
of the lake is somewhat less than 35%. Taking the average concentration in the upper New
Hope arm as 1.2 mg/L, a 35% reduction would results in the average concentration 0.8
mg/L as a benchmark.

Concentration Benchmarks to
Protect Example Resources

Benchmark for Nitrogen Phosphorus
Benthic communities 1.16 mg/L 0.13 mg/L
Stream trophic condition
(mesotrophic) 1.4 mg/L 0.075 mg/L
Lower New Hope arm of Jordan Lake 0.8 mg/L N/A
Initial Benchmark 0.8 mg/L 0.08 mg/L

Initial benchmarks for nitrogen and phosphorus are 0.8 mg/l and 0.08 mg/L, respectively, given
that monitoring and adaptive management will be used to assess progress toward Jordan Lake
goals.

1 Dodds, W. K. et. al., Suggested Classification of Stream Trophic State: Distributions of Temperate Streams Types
By Chlorophyll, Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Water Research Vol. 32, No.5, pp 1455‐1465, 1998.

J-14

Progress made – Given that sources of fecal coliform are also sources of nitrogen, it is not
surprising that there has been a decline in nitrogen concentrations in the city’s urban streams
over the last two decades. As shown in the figure below, the decline has been modest. The
decline appears largely due to a reduction in the occasional high concentration value. On the
left side of the graph (depicting earlier time period), there are a number of measurements
above the upper green line at 2 mg/L, whereas in the more recent data on the right side there
are no measurements above the green line. The trendline shows progress toward achieving a
median TN concentration of 0.8 mg/L.

Nitrogen discussion – Average annual total nitrogen concentration has generally been declining
throughout the city. Annual average total nitrogen at the mouth of Third Fork Creek (TF0.0TC)
was 0.84 mg/L in 2012 and 0.78 in 2013 and in 2014. Monitoring sites on the main stem of
Ellerbe Creek upstream of the NDWRF discharge have average total nitrogen concentrations
below 0.8 mg/L in 2013 and 2014 as well. These short‐term changes may reflect weather
patterns, and may not persist over time. However the long term trend shown for Third Fork
Creek suggests that median concentrations are approaching concentrations supporting
mesotrophic conditions in local streams, and that would be similar to concentrations in the
lower New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake, which is currently meeting water quality standards and
supporting all uses.

J-15
Tributaries in areas of older development generally exceed the nitrogen benchmark. Higher
concentrations in upper Goose Creek, in sections of South Ellerbe Creek, and in Rock Creek
have been associated with aging infrastructure.

USGS conducted a stable isotope study of nitrate in three streams in Durham, using isotope
ratios for nitrogen and oxygen to distinguish the source of the nitrogen. The pilot study found
that:
• Concentrations of nitrate were low, and
• Nitrogen was derived largely from natural sources.

Somewhat higher concentrations of nitrogen are found in Durham’s stormwater runoff where
event mean concentrations range from 1.3 to 2.2 mg/L by land use. These concentrations are
well above the total nitrogen benchmark of 0.8 mg/L. Stormwater treatment generally
produces effluent concentrations around 0.9 to 1.2 mg/L 2, generally close to the benchmark. It
should be noted that nitrogen in
stormwater is subject to in‐stream
processing and transport loss in first‐
order streams.

Sources to consider
• Illicit discharges that are also
sources of fecal coliform
• Atmospheric deposition
• Leaf matter in gross solids

Phosphorus discussion ‐ In recent years,
phosphorous concentrations in the city’s
urban streams have averaged between
0.05 and 0.18 mg/L, depending upon the monitoring station. Much higher average annual
concentrations of between 0.20 and 0.50 mg/L were observed between 2003 and 2006.
Phosphorus concentrations appear to be generally high in Third Fork Creek.

While nitrogen appears to be derived from natural sources, elevated concentrations of
phosphorus may be from use in fertilizer. Many times, this use is unnecessary to maintain a
healthy lawn. Starter fertilizers contain very high concentrations and are used on land that has
been graded; the phosphorus will bind to the newly exposed soil and will remain in place to
provide a source for plants for many years. Established lawns do not need annual application of
phosphorus. Lawn soil has a limited capacity to store phosphorus and continued application
will result in washoff. For maintaining an existing lawn, phosphorus should only be applied if
indicated by a soil test.

2 Stormwater treatment effluent concentrations in the Jordan Falls Accounting Tool, version 3.0, Assignments tab.

J-16
Stormwater runoff monitoring in Durham during the 1990s found event mean concentrations
much higher than those found in Durham’s urban streams. These concentrations ranged from
0.31 to 0.50 mg/L. Stormwater treatment generally produces mean effluent concentrations for
total phosphorous of 0.11 to 0.15 mg/l 3, a significant reduction, but still above the 0.08 mg/L
benchmark for phosphorus.

In summary, while ambient concentrations of nitrogen are approaching the benchmark,
concentrations during storm events are nearly double the benchmark. SCMs will normally
produce effluent concentrations closer to the nitrogen benchmark. Source control may reduce
or eliminate the periodic high concentrations of nitrogen.

Ambient concentrations of phosphorus tend to be more variable than those for nitrogen.
Phosphorus concentrations increase significantly during storm events, more so than nitrogen.
This is surprising given that rainfall is a significant source of nitrogen. This seems to imply that
phosphorus is comparatively more plentiful. It may be that because nitrogen more mobile it
does not long remain at the surface where it is accessible to runoff.

3. Insecticides

North Carolina has been monitoring
benthic macroinvertebrates to
assess aquatic life support in North
Carolina streams.
Macroinvertebrates sensitive life
stages of aquatic insects. Because
insecticides are intended to target
these organisms, their presence in
urban streams may contribute to
findings of impairment for urban
streams.

Previous studies (USGS, 2007) have
found registered pesticides to be
commonly found in the nation’s
waters, including in urban areas in
data for the 1992 to 2001 period.
Studies by CASQA in California
subsequently linked the organophosphate insecticide Diazinon and Chlorphyrifos with in‐
stream toxicity. EPA modified the allowable uses of these pesticides and they are no longer
available to the general public.

3 Ibid

J-17
Previous studies (USGS, 2007) have found registered pesticides to be commonly found in the
nation’s waters, including in urban areas in data for the 1992 to 2001 period. Studies by CASQA
in California subsequently linked the organophosphate insecticide Diazinon and Chlorphyrifos
with in‐stream toxicity. EPA modified the allowable uses of these pesticides and they are no
longer available to the general public.

Pyrethroids are a class of insecticides that came into wider use to replace the organophosphate
projects. The class includes Permethrin, Cypermethrin, Bifenthrin, and other compounds. Label
changes for pyrethroids have resulted in reduced risk to surface waters. Use of fipronil now
appears to be on the rise.

Bibliography

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007. Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and
Ground Water, 1992–2001, Circular 1291, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007. Use of Chemical Analysis and Assays of Semipermeable
Membrane Devices Extracts to Assess the Response of Bioavailable Organic Pollutants in
Streams to Urbanization in Six Metropolitan Areas of the United States. Scientific Investigations
Report 2007–5113, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

Winston, R.J., W.F. Hunt, and J.K. McNett (2012). Establishing Target Effluent Concentrations for
Stormwater Control Measures. NC Cooperative Extension Urban Waterways Series, AGW‐588‐
24W. Available at: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/
EffluentTargetConcentrations2012.pdf.

J-1

APPENDIX K
City of Durham
INVENTORY OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES,
ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS

Permit NCS0000249 requires the City to “maintain an inventory of facilities and operations owned and
operated by the permittee with the potential for generating polluted stormwater runoff.” Other NPDES
permits issued within the City of Durham are included in Table L‐1. Table L‐2 lists other major permits.

Stormwater Services has identified the following typical activities as having potential to discharge
pollutants to the drainage system:

Vehicle repair
Vehicle fueling
Vehicle washing
Vehicle storage
Outdoor loading
Outdoor storage
Waste management
Building repair
Building maintenance
Parking lot maintenance
Turf management
Landscaping
Swimming pool discharges
Grading, land development & construction

These activities were used to generate a list of City facilities that have potential to contribute polluted
stormwater runoff. Pollution potential is based on the activities taking place at a facility.

The following activities area associated with specific departments:
• Building repair: General Services
• Building maintenance: General Services
• Parking lot maintenance: Lanier Parking Solutions (contract operator)
• Turf management and landscaping: General Services, Parks & Recreation, Water Management,
and Hillandale Golf Course*
• Swimming pool discharges: General Services
• Water, sewer, and stormwater utilities maintenance: Public Works and Water Management
• Grading, land development & construction:‐ General Services, Public Works, and Water
Management

*In 2011, The Durham Foundation, non‐profit owner of Hillandale Golf Course, approached the City of Durham
concerning donation of the course to the City. The City hired a consultant who evaluated improvements needed at
the course and financial feasibility of taking over ownership. In 2012 the City took title to this 18‐hole course,
which continues to be operated and managed by Amerazil Golf, headed by Karl Kimball. Amerazil has expressed
interest in owning the course.

J-2
Below is a list of typical municipal facilities that have the potential to contribute polluted stormwater
runoff together with information about those facilities within the City of Durham (a city facility that has
multiple uses may be listed under several types):

• Composting facilities – none 1
• Asphalt plants ‐ none
• Concrete plants ‐ none
• Equipment storage and maintenance yards – General Services, Parks and Recreation Operations
Facility, Public Works Operations Center, Transportation Sign and Signal Shop, and Water
Management Administration Facility
• Hazardous Waste Handling and Transfer Facilities – none
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection – no storage, only drop off2
• Incinerators and landfills ‐ none
• Solid Waste Transfer Station – Waste Disposal and Recycling Center (Transfer Station)
• Materials Storage Yards – General Services Facility, Parks and Recreation Operations Facility,
Public Works Operations Center, and Water Management Administration Facility
• Municipal Golf Courses – (Hillandale Golf Course)4
• Public Works Yards – Public Works Operations Center
• Vehicle Maintenance Yards – Fleet Maintenance, Public Works Operations Center, Solid Waste
Vehicle Wash, and DATA Transit Maintenance (DATA is under private management and
operation)
• Vehicle Fueling ‐ Fleet Maintenance, Public Works Operations Center, and DATA Transit
Maintenance (DATA is under private management and operation)
• Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities – North Durham Water Reclamation Facility, South
Durham Water Reclamation Facility, Williams Water Treatment Facility, and Brown Water
Treatment Facility
• Fire Training Center – Durham Fire Training Academy
• Other Public Buildings – City Hall and ancillary buildings; Police and Fire Stations; there are no
municipal libraries (low potential for pollution.)
• Other City Facilities – 4 parking decks and 6 public parking lots with 60 or more spaces

The city facilities included above are summarized below. Listing order is generally north to south to
facilitate finding facilities on a map that is in preparation.
• Brown Water Treatment Facility, 1615 Infinity Rd
• Water Management Administration Facility, 1600 Mist Lake Dr
• Waste Disposal and Recycling Center (Transfer Station), 2115 E. Club Blvd
• Household Hazardous Waste Center, 1900 E. Club Blvd (across from NDWRF)
• North Durham Water Reclamation Facility, 1900 E. Club Blvd
• Durham Fire Training Academy, 2008 E. Club Blvd

1 Yard waste is currently is disposed of in a landfill in Brunswick County, VA. Application has been submitted for a
permit to construct and operate a compost facility. The permit will require that compost leachate be addressed as a
wastewater. Preliminary plans are to use authorized Pump-and-Haul to transfer the leachate to the city’s North Durham
WRF. A SWPPP will also be prepared. Construction may begin in FY 2009.
2 HHW drop-off is available at 1900 E Club Blvd. City contracts with EcoFlo for collection and disposal services. EcoFlo
packs and removes HHW daily.
4Hillandale Golf Course is located on land that was retitled in the City’s name in 2012; deed restrictions require the land
to be used as a public golf course. Although operation and management by private operator continues, the facility is
inspected as a municipal entity.

J-3
• Fleet Maintenance, 1900 Camden Av
• Transportation Sign and Signal Shop, 320 Muldee Street
• Solid Waste Vehicle Wash Station, 1833 Camden Av
• DATA Transit Maintenance (contract operator), 1907 Fay St
• General Services Facility, 2011 Fay St
• Hillandale Golf Course (public access course under private operation), 1600 Hillandale Road
• Williams Water Treatment Facility, 1405 Hillandale Rd
• Public Works Operations Center, 1100 Martin Luther King Pkwy
• Parks and Recreation Operations Center, 301 Archdale Drive
• South Durham Water Reclamation Facility, 6605 Farrington Road

The following are recreational facilities, some of which have potential for contributing polluted
stormwater runoff (beyond landscaping) but are implementing mitigation measures as listed:

Dog Parks:
• Piney Wood Park (400 E Woodcroft Parkway, at Woodlake Dr)
• Northgate Park (Lavender Ave)
• Central Park
Dog Parks are open to dogs whose owners have paid City of Durham Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) dog fees and are wearing their “Dogapalooza” DPR Tag. Owners are required to
clean up after their dogs. ‘Mutt Mitt’ type clean‐up stations are provided.

Outdoor Pools
• Forest Hills, 1639 University Drive
• Hillside, 1300 South Roxboro Street
• Long Meadow Pool, 917 Liberty Street
Open Mid‐June to mid‐August, filter backwash discharges to the sanitary sewer system.

Recreation Centers (with indoor pools)
• Edison Johnson Recreation Center, 500 West Murray Av, (919) 560‐4270, Audrey Gill
• I. R. Holmes Sr. Recreation Center at Campus Hills, 2000 South Alston Av, (919) 560‐4444.
Brian Rhea
The pools have filter backwash discharges to the sanitary sewer system.

Other Recreation Centers
• Lyon Park Recreation Center, 1309 Halley St, (919) 560‐4288, Jeff Forde
• W.D. Hill Recreation Center, 1308 Fayetteville St, (919) 560‐4292, Andre White
• Weaver Street Recreation Center, 3000 Weaver St, (919) 560‐4294, Nikiya Cherry‐Sanders

Neighborhood Centers (based out of 400 Cleveland Street, (919) 560‐4355)
• East Durham Neighborhood Center (2615 Harvard Ave.), 560‐4278
• E.D. Mickle Neighborhood Center (1204 N. Alston Ave.), 560‐4284
• T.A. Grady Neighborhood Center (531 Lakeland St.), 560‐4280
• W.I. Patterson Neighborhood Center (2641 Crest St.), 560‐4560
• Walltown Neighborhood Center (1300 Club Blvd.), 560‐4296
• Club Boulevard Neighborhood Center, 2415 Glennbrook Dr, 560‐4355
• Hoover Road Neighborhood Center, 1129 Hoover Rd, 560‐4355, ext. 210

J-4
• Morreene Road Neighborhood Center, 1100 Morreene Rd, 560‐4405
• Liberty Street Neighborhood Center, 131 Commerce St, 560‐4355, ext. 210

Regional Parks
• West Point on Eno, 5101 N. Roxboro Rd, 471‐1623
(Environmental education at this site, may fall under state park system in future)

Privately Operated Facilities
• Historic Durham Athletic Park (DAP)
• Durham Bulls Athletic Park (DBAP)
• Hillandale Golf Course
(These facilities are under private operation, maintenance and management.)

Other Facilities
• Armory, 212 Foster St, 560‐4514
• CCB Plaza, 201 N. Corcoran St, 560‐4355
• Forest Hills Clubhouse, 1639 University Dr, 560‐4782

Parks –There are 21 community parks, 41 neighborhood parks and miniparks; 14 miles of greenways
and trails existing out of a planned system of 118 miles. The City has 16 acres of public open space
per 1000 residents, including lake surfaces, or 6 acres per 1000 excluding water surfaces. Dispensers
of bags to pick up pet wastes (e.g. ‘Mutt Mitt’ type clean‐up stations) have been provided in parks
and on trails and greenways.

Other locations of interest include:

Fire Station Locations
Station #1, 139 E. Morgan Street, 560‐4245
Station #2, 1001 Ninth Street, 560‐4251
Station #3, 822 S. Miami Blvd., 560‐4255
Station #4, 1818 Riddle Road , 560‐4257
Station #5, 2212 Chapel Hill Blvd., 560‐4261
Station #6, 3700 Swarthmore Road, 560‐4264
Station #7, 3919 N. Duke Street, 560‐4266
Station #8, 225 Lick Creek Lane, 560‐1405
Station #9, 2012 E. Club Blvd., 560‐4271
Station #10, 1805 Cole Mill Road, 560‐4311
Station #11, 2800 W. Cornwallis Road, 560‐4463
Station #12, 1230 Carpenter Fletcher Road, 560‐4260
Station #13, 2901 S. Miami Blvd., 560‐4907
Station #14, 1327 Umstead Road, 560‐1126
Station #15, under construction
Station #16, Farrington Rd, 560‐1450
Station #17, 5503 Leesville Road

J-5
Based on seven years of regular inspections, the City has identified three facilities as requiring a
Special Action Plan to promote improvement. The remaining facilities have been divided into
medium and low priority for inspections. The following facilities have been classified as high
priority facilities:

• City of Durham Public Works Operations Center, 1100 Martin Luther King Pkwy, including
ancillary facilities: PWOC Training Site #1, PWOC Training Site #2

The following facilities are classified as medium priority facilities:

• City of Durham Brown Water Treatment Facility, 1615 Infinity Rd
• City of Durham Fire Vehicle Maintenance Garage
• City of Durham Fleet Maintenance, 1900 Camden Av
• City of Durham General Services Facility
• City of Durham Parks and Recreation Operations Facility
• City of Durham Transportation Sign and Signal Shop
• City of Durham Solid Waste Vehicle Wash Facility
• City of Durham Solid Waste Disposal and Recycle Center
• City of Durham Water Management Administration Facility
• City of Durham Williams Water Treatment Facility, 1405 Hillandale Rd
• Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) Transit Maintenance (contract operator), 1907 Fay St
• Hillandale Golf Course
• North Durham Water Reclamation Facility, 1900 E. Club Blvd
• South Durham Water Reclamation Facility, 6605 Farrington Road,

The following facilities are classified as low priority facilities:

• City of Durham Fire Training Academy
• City of Durham Fire Station #1
• City of Durham Fire Station #2
• City of Durham Fire Station #3
• City of Durham Fire Station #4
• City of Durham Fire Station #5
• City of Durham Fire Station #6
• City of Durham Fire Station #7
• City of Durham Fire Station #8
• City of Durham Fire Station #9
• City of Durham Fire Station #10
• City of Durham Fire Station #11
• City of Durham Fire Station #12
• City of Durham Fire Station #13
• City of Durham Fire Station #14
• City of Durham Fire Station #15
• City of Durham Fire Station #16
• City of Durham Fire Station #17 (co‐shared between Durham County EMS and City of Durham
Fire Department)

J-6
Table J‐1

Facilities Requiring NPDES Industrial
Stormwater Permits*
Facility Permit Type Permit Number or
Certificate of
Coverage
Facility Contact
South Durham Water
Reclamation Facility
Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG11 NCG110082
Charles Cocker,
Superintendent,
Department of Water
Management
North Durham Water
Reclamation Facility
Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG11 NCG110092
John Dodson,
Superintendent,
Department of Water
Management
Fleet Maintenance Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG8 NCG080771
Joe Clark, Director,
Department of Fleet
Maintenance
Solid Waste Vehicle
Wash Facility
Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG8 NCG080773
Dan Parker, Operations
Manager, Department
of Solid Waste
Public Works
Operations (PWOC)
Center/Water
Management/Fuel
Island
Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG8 NCG080776
vacant, Supervisor,
Department of Public
Works; alternate
Martin Nona,
Department of Water
Management
DATA Bus
Maintenance Facility,
1903 Fay Street
Industrial
Stormwater‐NCG8

NCG080788
issued to contract
operator DCTC
Bob Losinieki,
Maintenance Manager,
DCTC
* Each listed facility has developed and is implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP).

J-7

Table J‐2

Selected Permits Other Than Stormwater
Issued to the City or County
Facility or Permit Type,
Discharge Location
Permit Number or
Certificate of
Coverage
Operator in
Responsible Charge or
Contact
South Durham Water
Reclamation Facility
Major Wastewater,
Lat 36.029866
Lon ‐78.86334
NC0047597 Exp. Apr
30, 2016

Charles Cocker,
Superintendent,
Department of Water
Management
North Durham Water
Reclamation Facility
Major Wastewater,
Lat 35.9035
Lon ‐78.98218
NC0023841
Exp. Jan 31, 2013
John Dodson,
Superintendent,
Department of Water
Management
City of Durham Sewer
Collection System Non‐discharge WQCS00005
Exp. Mar 1, 2018
vacant,
Superintendent,
Department of Water
Management
County of Durham
Sewer Collection
System
Non‐discharge
WQCS00038 Exp.
Jan, 31, 2015

Stephanie Brixey,
Utility Division Mgr,
Durham County
Engineering
Department

Note: The collection system for the Durham Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant extends into
the city and is listed in the table above. The Triangle WTP is not included, although it has
permits for wastewater treatment and stormwater because the Triangle WTP is located outside
city limits.