I-13_NHC_WAR_Final_Appendices_14Oct2020_reduced

Watershed Assessment
Report
FINAL
October 2020
'hip i
New Hope Creek and Little Creek
Watershed Assessment Report
Durham, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
City of Durham
Public Works Department
Stormwater & GIS Services Division
I M
CITY OF 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
DURHAM Durham, North Carolina 27701

This page intentionally left blank.

New Hope Creek and Little Creek
Watershed Assessment Report
Final
City of Durham
Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Public Works Department
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF
DURHAM Durham, North Carolina 27701

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
Acknowledgements
The AECOM Team received assistance from many individuals while completing the Watershed Assessment Report
for the New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan, including the following:
City of Durham Team:
Paul Wiebke, Assistant Director, Public Works
Lance Fontaine, Project Manager
Sandra Wilbur, Engineering Manager
Laura Smith
Megan Walsh
Antwon Williams
Christine Cailleret
Travis Marion
AECOM Team:
AECOM Technical Services of North Carolina, Inc.
Brian Jacobson, Project Manager
Sujit Ekka, Deputy Project Manager
Hayden Strickling
Jenna Bacic
Beth Kerby
Wildlands Engineering
Jeff Keaton
Carolyn Lanza
Jesse Phillips
Kimley-Horn
Beth Reed
Andrew Jones
Jennifer Murphy
Three Oaks Engineering
Tom Dickinson
Lizzy Stokes -Cawley
Lillian Lovingood
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
Table of Contents
Acronymsand Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................................vi
1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Documentation of Durham's Watershed Improvement Plans..................................................................................1-2
1.3 Federal, State, and Local Regulations.................................................................................................................................1-2
1.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements...........................................................1-3
1.3.2 Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy..................................................................................................1-3
1.3.3 City of Durham Watershed Protection Ordinances......................................................................................1-3
2 Characterization..................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Hydrology......................................................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Floodplains....................................................................................................................................................................................2-4
2.5 Water Quality...............................................................................................................................................................................2-5
2.5.1 Surface Water Classifications.................................................................................................................................2-5
2.5.2 Water Quality Standards and Benchmarks......................................................................................................2-6
2.5.3 Summary of Previous Studies................................................................................................................................2-7
2.5.4 Water Quality Monitoring.....................................................................................................................................2-11
2.5.5 Water Quality Index................................................................................................................................................2-15
2.5.6 Pesticides.....................................................................................................................................................................2-16
2.5.7 Observed Water Quality Conditions.................................................................................................................2-16
2.5.8 Sediment Sampling.................................................................................................................................................2-20
2.6
Land Use.......................................................................................................................................................................................2-21
2.6.1 Existing Land Use.....................................................................................................................................................2-21
2.6.2 Future Land Use........................................................................................................................................................2-23
2.6.3 Land Use Development Trends..........................................................................................................................2-24
2.6.4 Impervious Cover.....................................................................................................................................................2-25
2.7
Field Assessments.....................................................................................................................................................................2-27
2.7.1 Stream Assessment Methods..............................................................................................................................2-27
2.7.2 Stormwater Control Measure Assessment Methods.................................................................................2-44
2.8
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................2-53
3 Preliminary
Project Opportunities....................................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Stream Corridor Improvements............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2
Stormwater Control Measures...............................................................................................................................................3-5
3.2.1 Existing SCM Retrofits..............................................................................................................................................3-5
3.2.2 New SCMs.....................................................................................................................................................................3-9
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
4 Pilot Study Areas.................................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Selection Criteria.........................................................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Pilot Study Area Descriptions................................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Future Monitoring and Modeling........................................................................................................................................4-3
5 Next Steps............................................................................................................................................................5-1
6 References............................................................................................................................................................6-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Exhibits
Appendix B: Data Catalog
Appendix C: Summary of Existing Water Quality Data
Appendix D: Land Use and Impervious Area by Subwatershed
Appendix E: Subwatershed and Ambient Monitoring Station Drainage Density
Appendix F: Pilot Study Area Factsheets
ii New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Figures
Figure 2-1. Daily flow (mean and median) at USGS gage 02097314 (New Hope Creek near Blands, NC)
located on Stagecoach Road and mean monthly precipitation at Raleigh-Durham......................................2-2
Figure 2-2. Stream (MC1008) with Good overall RSAT score located in Duke Forest in NHC54-MC ...........................2-32
Figure 2-3. Stream (SC2020) with Fair overall RSAT score located behind Lenox Baker Hospital in
NHC12LNHC............................................................................................................................................................................2-33
Figure 2-4. Stream (SC2015) with Poor overall RSAT score located parallel to Chapel Tower in
NHC46SC...................................................................................................................................................................................2-33
Figure 2-5. Example of a wet pond (SCM 13124) at Realm at Patterson Place Apartments (3767 SW
DurhamDrive)...........................................................................................................................................................................2-48
Figure 2-6. Example of a dry pond (SCM 00267) near the intersection of Keohane Drive and Alman
Drive..............................................................................................................................................................................................2-48
Figure 2-7. Example of a bioretention area (SCM 00289) at the intersection of Old Chapel Hill Road
andEverwood Court...............................................................................................................................................................2-49
Figure 2-8. Example of a construction wetland (SCM 13345) at Lakewood Elementary School at 2520
VessonAvenue..........................................................................................................................................................................2-49
Figure 2-9. Example of SCM with heavy algae growth (SCM 00503) near Maplewood Park at Whitcomb
Streetand Chapel Hill Road.................................................................................................................................................2-51
Figure 2-10. Example of SCM with trash impounded at the outlet (SCM 00497) at Michael Jordan
Nissan (3930 Durham -Chapel Hill Boulevard)..............................................................................................................2-51
Figure 3-1. Example of a potential Stream Restoration reach (SC2025) that starts downstream of
Cameron Blvd and flows through the Duke University Golf Club in NHC40-SC.............................................3-2
Figure 3-2. Example of a potential Enhancement I reach (SC2008) that flows between Anderson St and
CranfordRd in NHC41 SC......................................................................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3. Example of a potential Enhancement 11 reach (MC1020) that flows through Colonial Village
atDeerfield in NHC55 MC.....................................................................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-4. Example of a potential preservation reach (Reach 1004) located upstream of Cornwallis
Road in Duke Forest in NHC56 MC....................................................................................................................................3-4
Tables
Table 2-1. Hydrologic soil groups within the study area by watershed......................................................................................2-3
Table 2-2. Waterbodies within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds identified as impaired
on the 2018 North Carolina 303(d) list..............................................................................................................................2-7
Table 2-3. Water quality stations within the study area and available water quality data by year
collected......................................................................................................................................................................................2-13
Table 2-4. Average Annual WQI at stations within the study area.............................................................................................2-15
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-5. Pesticides analyzed in 2018 Sandy Creek watershed study at stations NH3.4SC, NH3.4SCTD,
NH4.7SC, and NH4.4SCTD....................................................................................................................................................2-16
Table 2-6. Benthic macro invertebrate community sampling results..........................................................................................2-19
Table 2-7. Simplified land use categories based on the Durham City/County land use classification .........................2-21
Table 2-8. Existing land use within the study area............................................................................................................................2-23
Table 2-9. Future land use within the study area...............................................................................................................................2-24
Table 2-10. Projected land use changes within the study area from existing to future conditions..............................2-25
Table 2-11. Impervious area within the study area(')........................................................................................................................2-26
Table 2-12. Water quality monitoring station drainage areas and associated impervious cover within
studyarea(')................................................................................................................................................................................2-26
Table 2-13. Length of stream assessed by priority level.................................................................................................................2-31
Table 2-14. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) results by subwatershed............................................................2-34
Table 2-15. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches........................................................................................................2-36
Table 2-16. Potential water quality concerns identified during stream assessments........................................................2-41
Table 2-17. Litter observed during stream assessments.................................................................................................................2-41
Table 2-18. Vegetative composition observed during stream assessment.............................................................................2-42
Table 2-19. Sediment yields based on Level 2 BEHI/NBS assessments....................................................................................2-42
Table 2-20. Large Woody Debris based on Level 2 assessments................................................................................................2-44
Table 2-21. Existing SCMs visited in the field......................................................................................................................................2-47
Table 2-22. Existing SCMs visited by surrounding land use..........................................................................................................2-47
Table 2-23. Existing SCMs visited by surrounding land use and subwatershed....................................................................2-47
Table 2-24. Existing SCMs with potential maintenance needs.....................................................................................................2-50
Table 2-25. SCMs and Existing Features identified that have potential retrofit opportunities......................................2-52
Table 3-1. Potential stream project opportunities...............................................................................................................................3-4
Table 3-2. Primary retrofit recommendations and potential add -on retrofits for existing SCMs and
features evaluated by field teams.......................................................................................................................................3-7
Table 3-3. Potential new SCMs recommended for further evaluation......................................................................................3-10
Table 3-4. Potential new SCMs by subwatershed..............................................................................................................................3-11
IV New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Watershed Overview Map
Exhibit 2
Study Area
Exhibit 3
Geology
Exhibit 4
Hydrologic Soil Groups
Exhibit 5
FEMA Floodplains
Exhibit 6
NCDEQ Stream Classifications
Exhibit 7
Monitoring Stations
Exhibit 8
Existing Land Use
Exhibit 9
Future Land Use
Exhibit 10
Impervious Cover
Exhibit 11
Stream Quality Rating (RSAT)
Exhibit 12
Observed Water Quality Concerns
Exhibit 13
Stream Bank Erosion
Exhibit 14
Existing Stormwater Control Measures Evaluated
Exhibit 15
Potential Stream Projects
Exhibit 16
Potential Retrofits to Existing Stormwater Control Measures
Exhibit 17
Potential New Stormwater Control Measures
Exhibit 18
Subwatersheds
Exhibit 19
Pilot Study Areas
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report v

AECOM
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Ng
Micrograms
NCGS
North Carolina Geological Survey
AMPA
Aminomethylphosphonic Acid
NCIPC
North Carolina Invasive Plant Council
BANCS
Bank Assessment for Non -point Source
NCWRC
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Consequences of Sediment
Commission
BEHI
Bank Erosion Hazard Index
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
BLM
Biotic Ligand Model
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Elimination System
CAPP
Critical Area Protection Plan
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
CCC
Criterion Continuous Concentration
NSW
Nutrient Sensitive Water
cfu
Colony Forming Unit
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
City
City of Durham
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
CRS
Community Rating System
PCSWMM
Personal Computer Storm Water
Management Model
Cu
Copper
PSA
Pilot Study Area
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
PTI
Pesticide Toxicity to Invertebrates
El
Enhancement I
RAMP
Riparian Area Management Plan
Ell
Enhancement II
RSAT
Rapid Stream Assessment Technique
FC
Fecal Coliform
RSC
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
SESQA
Southeast Stream Quality Assessment
ft3/s
Cubic Feet Per Second
SCM
Stormwater Control Measure
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
SNAP
Stormwater Nitrogen and Phosphorus
(Tool)
L
Liter
TN
Total Nitrogen
MCPA
2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid
TP
Total Phosphorus
mg
Milligrams
UCFRBA
Upper Cape Fear River Basin
ml
Milliliter
Association
mpn
Most Probable Number
UDO
Unified Development Ordinance
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
UNRBA
Upper Neuse River Basin Association
System
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NBS
Near Bank Stress
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NCDOT
North Carolina Department of
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
Transportation
WIP
Watershed Improvement Plan
NCDWR
North Carolina Division of Water
WQI
Water Quality Index
Resources
WS
Water Supply
NCFRIS
North Carolina Flood Risk Information
WSW
Water Supply Watershed
System
vl New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
1 Introduction
The City of Durham (City) is located in central North Carolina on a natural divide that drains to two water supply
reservoirs, Falls Lake and B. Everett Jordan (Jordan) Lake. The City develops Watershed Improvement Plans (WIPs)
in an effort to understand the unique conditions present in each of the City's watersheds and to develop projects
and programs that target improvements in water quality and watershed health. Since 2007, the City has developed
WIPs for three watersheds in the Falls Lake watershed (Ellerbe Creek [City of Durham, 20101, Little Lick Creek [City
of Durham, 20161, and Eno River [City of Durham, 2018a]) and three watersheds in the Jordan Lake watershed
(Third Fork Creek [City of Durham, 20121, Northeast Creek [City of Durham, 2013a], and Crooked Creek [City of
Durham, 2013a]). This Watershed Assessment Report was prepared to support the development of a similar WIP
for New Hope Creek and Little Creek, which drain to Jordan Lake (classified as Water Supply IV, Critical Area,
Nutrient Sensitive Waters [NSW1).
The New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds encompass approximately 80 square miles within Durham and
Orange Counties (Exhibit 1; based on analysis of provided GIS data). While most of the New Hope Creek
watershed lies within Orange County, approximately 45%, or 36 square miles of the watershed, is located within
the City of Durham. Major tributaries to New Hope Creek include Sandy Creek, Mud Creek, and Third Fork Creek.
The City completed a WIP for Third Fork Creek watershed in 2012 (City of Durham, 2012). For this reason, Third
Fork Creek is not included in this project. Little Creek watershed includes portions of Chapel Hill and the City of
Durham in Orange and Durham Counties. Little Creek forms at the confluence of Bolin Creek and Booker Creek
and flows southeast, joining New Hope Creek directly upstream Jordan Lake.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Watershed Assessment Report is to provide a summary of the existing watershed conditions
in the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds. This summary includes the following key elements:
• Evaluation of watershed characteristics such as hydrology, geology, and soils that influence stormwater
quantity and quality
• Analysis of instream water quality data
• Assessment of existing and future land use within the watershed
• Field evaluations of existing stormwater control measures (SCMs) for retrofits and preliminary assessment of
potential new sites to treat runoff from developed areas that are currently not receiving treatment
• Field inventory and evaluation of stream channels and habitat quality of New Hope Creek, Little Creek, and
their tributaries
• Identification of potential water quality improvement projects as part of the field efforts listed above
• Description of representative Pilot Study Areas (PSAs) where water quality improvement measures will be
analyzed in detail
• Outline of the next steps in the development of the WIP
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 1-1

AECOM
1.2 Documentation of Durham's Watershed Improvement Plans
The City of Durham's approach in developing comprehensive WIPs relies on several key elements that inform the
process. The New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP will be developed in a similar format as previous WIPs. The
main elements of this WIP will be as follows:
1. Watershed Assessment Report (this document). This report serves as the foundation to develop the WIP
and includes an analysis of current and future land use, water quality data, field identification of potential
water quality improvement projects, and description of representative PSAs.
2. Watershed Improvement Plan Volume I (Executive Summary). This is a brief document that describes
project goals, watershed analysis methods, and watershed improvement scenarios; includes a list of
prioritized watershed improvement projects; and concludes with next steps for implementing the WIP.
3. Watershed Improvement Plan Volume II (Main Report). This report expands on Volume I, providing more
details on the overall approach used to develop the WIP, including the watershed model development,
watershed improvement scenario analysis, prioritization criteria for watershed improvement projects, a
summary of public outreach events, and final WIP recommendations with key milestones and a proposed
implementation schedule.
4. Watershed Improvement Plan Volume III (Technical Appendices). The technical memoranda and reports
developed throughout the project to support the WIP are included as appendices in this section. This
volume includes project factsheets for all feasible watershed improvement projects.
Critical Area Protection Plan (CAPP). This report identifies privately owned parcels with high -quality
riparian buffers that are prioritized for conservation or protection in each watershed. If preserved, these
areas may contribute to improved water quality of the streams and ecological health of the watershed.
The plan is a single document with appendices for each watershed for which a WIP has been completed.
The New Hope Creek and Little Creek watershed -specific CAPP will be included as an appendix to the
WIP.
6. Riparian Area Management Plan (RAMP). The RAMP addresses the protection and maintenance of riparian
buffers on City -owned or maintained property, utility easements, and greenway corridors. The plan
examines existing maintenance practices in these areas for opportunities to protect, expand, or enhance
riparian buffers to improve stream and watershed health. The plan provides strategic guidance for the City
departments routinely involved in working within riparian areas.
1.3 Federal, State, and Local Regulations
The City of Durham watersheds, including New Hope Creek and Little Creek, are regulated under federal, state,
and local water quality rules. The 2018 North Carolina 303(d) list identified New Hope Creek in Durham County
along State Route (SR) 2220 (Old Chapel Hill Road) and a 4-mile segment from SR 2220 to Interstate 40
(assessment units 16-41-1-(11.5) a, b) as impaired for benthos with a fair rating. Little Creek from its source at the
confluence of Booker and Bolin Creeks to 0.7 miles downstream of SR 1110 (Farrington Rd) is also listed in the
303(d) list for poor benthos conditions. A 2-mile segment of Third Fork Creek (assessment unit 16-41-1-12-(1))
that discharges into New Hope Creek is also identified as impaired upstream of NC Highway 54 based on copper
violations.
New Hope Creek ultimately discharges into Jordan Lake, which is impaired for nutrients (total nitrogen [TN], total
phosphorus [TPI), pH, and turbidity. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) was approved for nutrients in 2007, and
for pH and turbidity in 2014. These TMDLs require the upstream jurisdictions (including the City of Durham) to
manage their pollutant loads.
1-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
1.3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements
The City of Durham holds a Phase I National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (Permit No. NCS000249). To maintain compliance with the permit, the City
provides an annual report indicating how it is meeting the minimum control measures required by the NPDES
permit: public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and
elimination, post -construction runoff, municipal pollution prevention, and good housekeeping.
1.3.2 Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
In response to the impairments, the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient Management Strategy (Jordan
Lake Rules) was approved by the State of North Carolina legislature in 2009 (15A NCAC 0213.0262). The rules were
developed to restore and maintain nutrient -related water quality standards and protect classified uses of Jordan
Lake. The Jordan Lake Rules cover a variety of topics such as agriculture, urban stormwater management, riparian
buffer preservation and mitigation, wastewater discharges, fertilizer management, and other options for offsetting
nutrient loads. Portions of the Jordan Lake Rules are effective while other portions of the rules are delayed.
NCDWR has partnered with the Triangle J Council of Governments and Jordan Lake One Water to develop a
recommended One Water/Integrated Water Management framework for the Jordan Lake watershed as part of the
Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Rules readoption.
Jordan reservoir is divided into three arms and the Jordan watershed into three tributary subwatersheds, namely
the Haw River arm, Upper New Hope arm, and Lower New Hope arm. Each arm and subwatershed has its own
reduction goals, allowable pollutant loads, and point and nonpoint source load allocations. As part of the adaptive
management under the Jordan Lake Rules, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) is
required to evaluate the effectiveness of these rules.
The North Carolina General Assembly chartered the University of North Carolina in 2016 to conduct a multiyear
study and analysis of nutrient management strategies of Jordan Lake (UNC, 2019). The study was designed to
provide empirically -based trend analysis of the factors contributing to Jordan Lake's impairment by using a set of
fully integrated research projects and numerical models, which also provide a platform to project future conditions
in Jordan Lake under a range of management scenarios. Results from the study provided insights into strategies
for increasing revenues for management interventions, strengthening local government collaboration around
Jordan Lake management, and addressing nutrient loading to Jordan Lake.
1.3.3 City of Durham Watershed Protection Ordinances
The City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) contains several natural and water resources protection
provisions and sections that are listed below:
• Floodplain protection standards (Section 8.4)
• Riparian buffer protection standards (Section 8.5)
• Water supply reservoir buffer standards (Section 8.6)
• Watershed protection overlay standards (Section 8.7)
• Slope protection standards (Section 8.8)
• Wetland protection standards (Section 8.9)
• Sediment and erosion control standards for infrastructure and public improvements (Section 12.10)
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 1-3

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
2 Characterization
2.1 Overview
The New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds are located within the Central Piedmont Region of North
Carolina in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin (Exhibit 1). New Hope Creek discharges to Jordan Lake and the Cape
Fear River before ultimately reaching the Atlantic Ocean. Most of the New Hope Creek watershed lies within
Orange County, including the Town of Chapel Hill. New Hope Creek flows southeast from south of Hillsborough in
Orange County through Durham County to its confluence with Jordan Lake in Chatham County. The New Hope
Creek watershed (USGS 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes: 030300020601 and 030300020604) is approximately 80
square miles, and approximately 45% or 36 square miles of the watershed is within the City of Durham limits. A
portion of the Duke University campus and commercial areas such as South Square and US 15-501 corridor are
important areas in the New Hope Creek watershed within the City of Durham. Little Creek begins at the
confluence of Bolin and Booker Creeks in the Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County, and flows through Durham
County to its confluence with New Hope Creek north of Jordan Lake. The Little Creek watershed (USGS 12-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code: 030300020603) is approximately 25.2 square miles, and approximately 5.6% or 1.4 square
miles of the watershed is within the City of Durham limits.
Sandy Creek, Mud Creek, and Third Fork Creek are major tributaries to New Hope Creek. The Mud Creek
watershed is approximately 5.9 square miles and is mostly located outside the City of Durham jurisdictional limits;
the small areas within the City are fairly discontiguous. In contrast, Sandy Creek originates close to the Durham
Freeway (NC 147), and the watershed is located entirely within the City of Durham. The Sandy Creek watershed is
bound by Chapel Hill Road and Old Chapel Hill Road (SR 2220) on the eastern side and US Highway 15-501 and
Garrett Road on the western side of the watershed. The Sandy Creek watershed is approximately 6.9 square miles.
The Third Fork Creek watershed covers an area of 16.6 square miles. The northern boundary of the Third Fork
Creek watershed lies in downtown Durham, north of the Durham Freeway, and the southern boundary is close to
Interstate 40. The City completed a WIP for Third Fork Creek watershed in 2012 (City of Durham, 2012). For this
reason, Third Fork Creek is not included in this project.
Given the large size of the watershed with multiple jurisdictions and tributaries, a study area was selected to help
focus on identifying water quality problems and formulate recommendations, specifically, in the New Hope Creek
and Little Creek watersheds within the city limits. The study area includes the portion of the New Hope Creek
watershed that extends from the Durham County boundary to Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) along New Hope Creek
and Farrington Road (SR 1110) along Little Creek (Exhibit 2). Third Fork Creek watershed is not included in the
study area because the City completed a WIP for that watershed in 2012. The study area is 19,322 acres in total.
Within the study area, approximately 12,499 acres (65% of study area) of the New Hope Creek watershed and
approximately 900 acres (4.7% of study area) of the Little Creek watershed fall within the Durham City limits. The
following sections describe watershed characteristics of the study area. Key datasets used in the preparation of
this report are summarized in Appendix B.
2.2 Hydrology
Two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gages with daily stage and discharge data are located within the study area.
USGS gage 0209722970 is located on Sandy Creek at West Cornwallis Road (SR 1308), and USGS gage 02097314
is located on New Hope Creek near Blands, North Carolina, at Stagecoach Road (SR 1107), south of the City of
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-1

AECOM
Durham (Figure 2-1). As described in Section 2.5.3 of this document, several waterfowl impoundments are present
within the project study area, upstream of USGS gage 02097314. The station at Stagecoach Road has been in
operation since 1982, and has a drainage area of 76 square miles, or about 95% of the total New Hope Creek
drainage area. The average daily streamflow is 112 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and median daily streamflow is 37
ft3/s. The average monthly streamflow at this location ranges from a high of 195 ft3/s in March to a low of 57 ft3/s
in August. While outside the study area, data from a third USGS gage 02097280 located on Third Fork Creek at
West Woodcroft Parkway may be used to help understand the impact of the Third Fork Creek watershed on
conditions in New Hope Creek.
400
350
300
250
N
m
200
v
150
100
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
n�
6 u
C
:.
F.ltm
14
16
Figure 2-1. Daily flow (mean and median) at USGS gage 02097314 (New Hope Creek near Blands, NC) located
on Stagecoach Road and mean monthly precipitation at Raleigh -Durham
2.3 Geology and Soils
The north-western portion of the study area is underlain by the resistant metamorphic rock of the Carolina Slate
Belt, while the rest of the study area falls within the Triassic Basin, which comprises mostly sedimentary geology
(Exhibit 3). Inside the study area, approximately 7% (1.8 square miles) of the New Hope Creek watershed falls
within the Carolina Slate Belt and 93% (24.4 square miles) falls within the Triassic Basin. Within the study area, the
entire Little Creek watershed falls within the Triassic Basin.
The Triassic Basin is composed of a mixture of conglomerates, sandstones, and mudstones, as well as igneous
dikes of Jurassic origin. The differences in these underlying geologic materials, which serve as the parent material
to surficial soils, produce soils with very different hydraulic properties. The Triassic Basin soils are poorly drained in
nature and exhibit a low hydraulic conductivity. Additionally, the Triassic Basin soils have a high shrink -swell
potential because of their clay composition. Because of their properties, the Triassic Basin soils control both
surface water and groundwater hydrology in the area. The low infiltration rates result in flashy streams with
relatively high peak flows during storm events, but low base flows due to poor groundwater recharge. Carolina
Slate Belt soils typically have a moderate hydraulic conductivity but are shallow or thin. This allows for minimal
2-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
water storage in the surficial aquifer. As a result, streams draining areas of Carolina Slate Belt soils will often have
no baseflow during extended dry periods.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classifies soils into hydrologic soil groups based on infiltration
rates and water storage capacities. The four major hydrologic soil groups are described as follows:
• Group A soils have high infiltration rates and low runoff potential and are primarily well -drained sandy soils.
Less than 1% of the study area comprises Group A soils.
• Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates and runoff potential. They consist primarily of moderate to
well -drained soils such as loams. Approximately 16% of the study area consists of Group B soils.
• Group C soils have low infiltration rates and moderately high runoff potential. These soils are typically sandy
clays or clay loams. Approximately 2% of the study area consists of Group C soils.
• Group D soils have low infiltration rates and have high runoff potential. Most D soils are clays, contain a
confining layer near the surface, or consist of shallow soils over bedrock. Urban complex and gullied soils
are also typically classified as Group D soils. Approximately 55% of the study area consists of Group D soils
(including undrained soils).
Group A soils have the highest infiltration rates and thus lowest runoff potential, while Group D soils have the
lowest infiltration rates and highest runoff potential. Additionally, some soils are classified as a combination of two
hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, or C/D) with the first letter representing drained areas and the second letter
representing undrained areas.
The north-western portion of the study area, within the Carolina Slate Belt, is dominated by well -drained Group B
soils (-74%), while the portion of the watershed within the Triassic Basin is predominantly poorly drained Group D
soils (-58%). The hydrologic soil groups within the study area are presented in Table 2-1 and Exhibit 4.
Table 2-1. Hydrologic soil groups within the study area by watershed
A
28
<1%
0
0%
0
0%
31
1%
60
<1%
B
1,562
42%
845
19%
505
6%
66
3%
2,978
16%
C
37
1%
8
<1%
278
3%
26
1%
349
2%
D
1,303
35%
2,669
61%
5,093
60%
1,427
64%
10,492
55%
A/D
70
2%
133
3%
127
2%
51
2%
382
2%
B/D
191
5%
265
6%
1,862
22%
515
23%
2,833
15%
C/D
542
14%
143
3%
475
6%
80
4%
1,240
7%
Gullied Land (D
9
<1%
17
<1%
83
1%
7
<1%
115
<1%
soils)
Urban Complex
0
0%
320
7%
93
1%
0
0%
412
2%
(D soils)
Water
17
<1%
13
<1%
45
<1%
20
1%
94
<1%
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-3

AECOM
2.4 Floodplains
Functioning natural floodplain systems offer many benefits, including flood risk reduction, water quality
maintenance, groundwater recharge, and recreational opportunities such as fishing and hiking. Floodplains reduce
flood risk by providing excess flood storage, reducing flood flow rates, reducing shoreline erosion, reducing runoff
rates through ponding and infiltration, and regulating nonflood flow rates through groundwater recharge.
Floodplain ecosystems offer habitat for a variety of plants and wildlife, which provide natural erosion control,
filtration of pollutants entering streams, and improvement of water quality.
In 1968, the U.S. Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce risks associated with
flooding, such as loss of human life and destruction of property, and to provide cost-effective flood insurance. The
NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the Department of
Homeland Security. FEMA produces and updates Flood Insurance Rate Maps to demarcate Special Flood Hazard
Areas. In April 2015, FEMA published preliminary flood maps for roughly half of the City of Durham and Durham
County. The City Council adopted these updated maps for use in September 2018. The two primary hazard areas
are the 1 % Annual Chance Floodplain and the Floodway. The 1 % Annual Chance Floodplain, commonly referred to
as the 100-year floodplain," is the area in which flooding is predicted to have a 1% chance of occurring in any
given year. The Floodway is the area within a floodplain where most of the flow and highest velocities occur
during a flood. The 100-year floodplain and Floodway within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds are
presented in Exhibit 5.
The City participates in the NFIP in part by enforcing minimum floodplain regulations on development. By
participating in the NFIP, Durham residents are eligible for federally backed flood insurance policies, regardless of
whether their property is located in a FEMA-mapped floodplain. Flood insurance is required for all buildings
financed with federally backed loans if the buildings are located within the 1% Annual Chance Floodplain.
Development activities within mapped FEMA floodplains are strictly regulated regarding fill placement, building
standards, elevations, and flood protection. Development within the FEMA floodway is strongly discouraged by
regulation and is usually limited to utility and street crossings. In addition, any development within the floodway
generally requires flood studies by professional engineers to determine and map impacts of the development on
floodplains.
Two primary goals of NFIP floodplain regulations are to prevent the construction of new buildings in mapped
floodplains and reduce the impacts of new development on flood elevations. The City/County floodplain
standards, codified in the UDO, are more stringent than minimum NFIP standards. For instance, the City/County
requires that all new buildings be constructed or flood -proofed to elevations at least 2 feet above the 1 % future
conditions annual chance flood elevations (not shown on Exhibit 5). One of the benefits of stronger floodplain
standards is that the City is rated in FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS). The City's current status as a CRS
community saves Durham property owners with buildings in the 1% Annual Chance Floodplain 10% on flood
insurance rates.
Within the study area, the City manages a flood warning gage monitoring system on Sandy Creek at Cornwallis
Road in coordination with USGS. USGS also manages a monitoring gage at Stagecoach Road on New Hope Creek
that is a part of the North Carolina Inundation Mapping and Alert Network. Public Works Stormwater & GIS
Services staff and Durham County Emergency Management receive alerts when certain gage depths are reached.
Emergency Management then arranges for the closure of several sections of roads leading to impacted areas.
Stormwater & GIS services also monitors flood warning systems for flooding in areas outside of the study area,
such as central Durham and at the City's Public Works Operation Center.
2-4 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
The City and Durham County Emergency Management participate in and help maintain the Eno -Haw Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan. One of the benefits of maintaining a hazard mitigation plan and participating in the NFIP
is eligibility for FEMA hazard mitigation grants. The City applies for hazard mitigation grants for mitigation actions
that include acquisition, open space creation, and raising residential building elevation for high -risk structures
within FEMA floodplains.
2.5 Water Quality
The New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP is aimed at (i) protecting areas of the watersheds with high -quality and
healthy surface waters and (ii) identifying and providing recommendations for improving watershed areas with
water quality concerns. This section describes the applicable surface water classifications and water quality
standards, provides a brief overview of previous studies conducted in the watersheds, and characterizes the
existing water quality conditions within these watersheds.
2.5.1 Surface Water Classifications
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) assigns surface water classifications to all surface waters
within North Carolina. These classifications are assigned to protect designated uses and special waterbody
characteristics, such as swimming, fishing, or drinking water supply. Surface waters are subjected to a set of water
quality standards that protect their designated use(s). Within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watershed
study area, three primary classifications and one supplemental classification apply to surface waters (Exhibit 6):
1. Class C (Primary): All surface waters within the state of North Carolina are subject to standards associated
with Class C uses. These uses include secondary recreation (wading, boating, and other activities that involve
infrequent human contact with water), fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, and aquatic life propagation.
2. Water Supply IV (WS-IV; Primary): Waters used as water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes that cannot feasibly meet the standards of WS-1 through WS-III, which are the most stringent. WS-
IV waters are generally located in a watershed with moderate to high -density development. These waters
allow for development densities of one dwelling unit per one-half acre. The WS-IV classification includes a
portion of New Hope Creek from 0.3 miles upstream of Durham County SR 2220 to Jordan Lake, Gum Creek
from source to its confluence with New Hope Creek, and all of Little Creek within the study area. The WS-IV
classification includes a critical area within one-half mile of the Jordan Lake normal pool and a protected
area within 5 miles of the Jordan Lake normal pool. The City and County of Durham have developed a UDO
that extends the State's critical area to a distance of one mile from the Jordan Lake normal pool. This UDO
limits development density within both the critical area and protected area and requires stream buffers
extend 100 feet to 150 feet for perennial streams and 50 feet for intermittent streams.
3. Water Supply V (WS-V; Primary): Waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and
draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or
as waters formerly used as water supply. There are no development density restrictions for these waters. The
WS-V classification includes a portion of New Hope Creek from its source to 0.3 miles north of Durham
County SR 2220 and all of Sandy Creek and Mud Creek.
4. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NWS; Supplemental): A supplemental classification for waters that require
additional nutrient management because of excessive aquatic vegetation (both microscopic and
macroscopic). The entire Jordan Lake watershed is classified as NSW.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-5

AECOM
2.5.2 Water Quality Standards and Benchmarks
Water quality standards serve to protect waters based on their designated uses. The following water quality
standards are important when measuring the overall health of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds
study area:
• Benthic: Benthic classification assigned to each water body sampled consists of five categories: Excellent,
Good, Good -Fair, Fair, and Poor. Classification is based on threshold numbers of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa present in a sample. Waters with Excellent or Good benthic classifications will
contain diverse, stable, and pollution -sensitive communities of aquatic macroinvertebrates.
• Copper: The standard for dissolved copper is defined using the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC),
which is defined as the highest concentration of a chemical in water that aquatic organisms can be exposed
to indefinitely without resulting in an adverse effect (Chronic in NC 15A NCA 02B Surface Water Standards
Table). The bioavailability, and therefore toxicity, of metals depends on various characteristics of a body of
water. Because of this, the criterion for copper is site -specific and can vary throughout the year. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) criteria are based on the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) and require
input data for temperature, pH, dissolved organic carbon, major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K), major anions
(SO4 and CI), alkalinity, and sulfide (USEPA, 2007). The average CCC standards for the protection of aquatic
life for copper are 4.7 micrograms per liter (pg/L) in New Hope Creek, 7.6 pg/L in Sandy Creek, 4.8 pg/L in
Mud Creek, and 4.0 pg/L in Little Creek.
• Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The standard for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a daily average not less
than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an instantaneous value not less than 4 mg/L.
• Fecal Coliform Bacteria: The standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires
that the geometric mean is less than 200 colony forming units per 100 ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon five
consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the
sample collected during the same period. Note that violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected
during rain events.
• Nitrate: The standard for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is not to exceed 10mg/L for Water Supply
Watershed (WSW).
• Turbidity: The standard for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is not to exceed 50 Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTUs) for streams.
• Zinc: The USEPA has not yet approved the BLM for determining zinc criteria in freshwater systems, though it
is in the planning phases. The current criterion is defined as a function of hardness (USEPA, 1996). The
average CCC standards for the protection of aquatic life for zinc is 66 pg/L in New Hope Creek, 106 pg/L in
Sandy Creek, 66 pg/L in Mud Creek, and 63 pg/L in Little Creek
• Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): There are no numeric
standards for nutrients (TN or TP) or BOD that are established or enforced by the State of North Carolina,
though the City applies the following local water quality benchmarks as part of its Water Quality Index
(WQI):
— BOD greater than 2 mg/L but less than 4 mg/L
— TN greater than 0.8 mg/L but less than 1.0 mg/L
TP less than 0.08 mg/L
• Chlorophyll -a: The North Carolina water quality standard for chlorophyll -a is not to exceed 40 pg/L. In 2006,
Jordan Lake was placed on the 303(d) list for elevated chlorophyll -a concentrations. Chlorophyll -a is
2-6 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
photosynthetic pigment found in algae and other plants. Harmful algal blooms, which cause elevated levels
of chlorophyll -a, are often caused by excessive nutrient loading to slow -moving water bodies.
Three stream segments within the study area are listed as impaired under the 2018 North Carolina 303(d) list of
impaired waterbodies, two segments of New Hope Creek and one segment of Little Creek, all impaired for
benthos. Upstream of the study area, in Orange County, two segments of Bolin Creek and three segments of
Booker Creek, both tributaries to Little Creek, are listed as impaired waterbodies. The location, length, and
impairment status of impaired stream segments relevant to the study area are listed in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Waterbodies within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds identified as impaired
on the 2018 North Carolina 303(d) list
Length Criteria Rating Parame1i
Stream Location (miles) Status
New Hope Creek 0.3 miles upstream of Durham County SR 2220 0.3 Exceeding Fair Benthos
to SR 2220
New Hope Creek
From SR 2220 to 1-40 4
Exceeding
Fair
Benthos
Little Creek
From source to a point 0.7 mile downstream of 5
Exceeding
Poor
Benthos
Durham County SR 1110
Bolin Creek')
From Pathway Drive to US Highway 501 3
Exceeding
Fair
Benthos
Business
Bolin Creek')
US Highway 501 Business to Little Creek 1
Exceeding
Fair
Benthos
Booker Creek')
From source to dam at Eastwood Lake 4
Exceeding
> 10% and
Dissolved
>90% conf (2)
Oxygen
Booker Creek')
From dam at Eastwood Lake to US Highway 15 1
Exceeding
Fair
Benthos
Booker Creek')
From US Highway 15 to Little Creek 1
Exceeding
Fair
Benthos
(1) Stream segments are
located outside the study area in Orange County. Both Bolin Creek
and Booker Creek
are tributaries to
Little Creek.
(2) Greater than 10% exceedance with greater than or equal to 90% confidence.
2.5.3 Summary of Previous Studies
Given the location of New Hope Creek in the Jordan Lake watershed, multiple stakeholders have been involved for
several decades in conducting pertinent studies examining water quality in the lake and contributing waterbodies.
This includes the City of Durham, Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association, New Hope Creek Advisory Committee,
research universities (University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University), and state and federal
agencies. A list of key studies investigating water quality and conservation efforts in the New Hope Creek and
Little Creek are briefly discussed below:
Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity (2019). The Partners for Green Growth Program of the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and Orange County funded this study with the
goal of developing an action plan to ensure wildlife habitat connectivity across the landscape of Eno River
and New Hope Creek/Jordan Lake watersheds (Tuttle et al., 2019). Together, Eno River (in Neuse River Basin)
and the New Hope Creek/Jordan Lake watersheds (in Cape Fear River Basin) contain over 65 Natural
Heritage Natural Areas, defined as "terrestrial or aquatic sites of special biodiversity due to the presence of
rare species, unique natural communities, important animal assemblages, and other ecological features." In
order to maintain the connectivity of wildlife habitats that is critical to their survival, the landscape
conservation plan was developed, with anticipated additional benefits to water quality, native vegetation,
local economy, and public health (Tuttle et al., 2019). The landscape conservation plan provides
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-7

AECOM
recommendations and strategies for best practices to minimize the impacts of changing land use on wildlife
habitat connectivity.
Jordan Lake Study (2019). In 2019, the University of North Carolina completed a study on Jordan Lake as
directed under 2016 legislation, for submission to the North Carolina General Assembly (UNC, 2019). This
report is a compilation of several studies related to Jordan Lake performed by multiple agencies and
researchers. Specifically, the report documents the following studies:
— Jordan Lake Watershed and Reservoir Models
— Paying for Nutrient Reduction and Management
— Policy Principles and Possibilities for the Jordan Lake Watershed
— Water Quality Monitoring and Water Circulation in Jordan Lake
— Evaluation of Controls of Algal Blooms
— Stream Monitoring and Nutrient Loading
— Sediment Dynamics
— Stormwater Control Measures
— Agriculture in the Jordan Lake Watershed
— Stakeholder Engagement in the Jordan Lake Watershed
Based on the research presented, management recommendations are provided in three categories:
— Increasing revenue for Jordan Lake management and water quality improvement
— Increased local government collaboration for Jordan Lake management
— Addressing nutrient loading to Jordan Lake
Miller et al. (2019) conducted a complementary Jordan Lake and watershed modeling study for the North
Carolina Policy Collaboratory. The modeling approach included both point and nonpoint sources of
nutrients, and Upper Falls Lake was also considered in addition to Jordan Lake. The study found that
anthropogenic activities are a primary cause of increased nutrient levels in the watershed. Urban land
contributes the greatest TN and TP loads to Jordan Lake. The New Hope Creek watershed was found to
contribute 19% of the total TN load and 20% of the total TP load to Jordan Lake. Within all watersheds
point sources were found to contribute 48% of the total TN and 24% of the total TP loads to Jordan Lake,
suggesting that loads from wastewater treatment plants remain substantial in comparison to the nonpoint
sources (Miller et al., 2019; UNC, 2019).
The study noted that up to 60% greater TN load and up to an 82% greater TP load was produced during
wet years than dry years emphasizing the key role of hydroclimatological variability in formulating nutrient
management strategies. Finally, the report provides several nutrient loading reduction scenarios from
different sources and their benefit to the water quality improvement in Jordan Lake. Reducing nutrient
loads to the New Hope arm of Jordan Lake is expected to provide greater water quality improvement
benefits than reducing nutrient loading in the Haw River arm of the lake. A second model of Jordan Lake
was created in Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) for this study and identified lake sediments as a
considerable source of phosphate and ammonia.
• Sandy Creek Special Study (2019). The City of Durham conducted a special study in Sandy Creek
watershed to support the New Hope Creek WIP project (City of Durham SW, 2019). The objectives of this
study were to (i) characterize nutrient sources and loads, (ii) evaluate the impacts of stream physical and
chemical conditions on aquatic life uses, and (iii) identify potential sources of pesticides within the Sandy
2-8 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Creek watershed. The study focused on the mainstem of Sandy Creek and two main tributaries (Tributary A
and D). Twenty-one sites were monitored with different types of monitoring conducted at each site,
including hydrology, channel morphology, sediment quality, ambient water quality, pesticides, midge
deformity, and synoptic nutrients. Analytical results for pesticides from the first sampling event were
reported as non -detects, and thus pesticide monitoring was discontinued. A lack of sufficient samples of the
correct genus prevented the midge deformity analysis from being completed. All other results are discussed
in detail in the final report.
Trends in Water Quality of Select Streams and Reservoirs used for Water Supply in the Triangle Area
of North Carolina (2018). The USGS, in partnership with the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring
Project, conducted a study in 2018 in which temporal trends in water quality were examined for 13 streams
and 8 reservoir sites, including USGS site 02097314 on New Hope Creek. The investigation identified
considerable changes in population, land cover, streamflow, and selected water -quality characteristics in the
study area over the 25-year period data analyzed (1989-2013).
Duke Law Stream Litter Study (2018). In 2018, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic conducted litter
sampling and surveys as a supplemental study to assess the health of the Sandy Creek watershed and its
stream network (Gerbode et al., 2018). Three sampling locations were identified adjacent to City's ambient
monitoring stations, and both dry period (baseline) and post -rainfall samples were collected to determine
the influence of stormwater runoff in litter loads. North Carolina water quality standards and assessment
methods do not exist for evaluating litter so the researchers chose to classify litter into seven different
categories, namely hard plastic, soft plastic, styrofoam, glass, metal, sports equipment, and other, and then
subcategorized as floatable (easily transported with flow) or sinkable (likely to settle out of the water
column) litter. The Duke study observed litter present in all stream segments investigated during both dry
and post -rainfall sampling events. Soft plastic was the most common litter item, followed by glass and hard
plastic.
City of Durham Comprehensive Plan (2017). The Durham Comprehensive Plan outlines the City's long-
term vision for how the community would like to grow and develop (City of Durham, 2017). Chapter 7
(amended November 2017) of the Comprehensive Plan describes the City's goals and vision with respect to
conservation and environment plans. This portion of the Plan describes the protection and restoration of
Durham County's green infrastructure by focusing on water quality, air quality, floodplain protection, energy
conservation, important habitats and rare species, open space planning, and farmland preservation, among
other topics. Policies listed in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan that are supported by the New Hope
Creek and Little Creek WIP are listed below:
— Enforcement of sediment and erosion control measures that protect water quality and sensitive mussel
species habitat (Chapter 7.1.2a)
— Stream buffer protection through the UDO (Chapter 7.1.2c)
— Low -impact development (Chapter 7.1.2d)
— Permanent buffer protection through external funding sources (Chapter 7.1.2e)
— Wetland restoration (Chapter 7.1.2f)
— Stream restoration (Chapter 7.1.2g)
— Streamflow restoration (Chapter 7.1.2j)
— Protection of habitat for sensitive species identified by the NC Natural Heritage Inventory (Chapter 7.1.6)
— Open Space Master Plans (Chapter 7.2.2d)
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-9

AECOM
Chapter 9 (amended in June 2014) of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on actions needed to ensure that the
City's water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities are well -maintained and adequate to support future new
development. The New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP supports the objectives of Durham's
Comprehensive Plan by identifying stream, buffer, and SCM projects that benefit water quality and aquatic
health.
• The Southeast Stream Quality Assessment (2014). In 2014, the USGS conducted a study of stream quality
across the Piedmont and the southern Appalachian Mountains, which included sites on Sandy Creek and
New Hope Creek. The goal of the study was to characterize multiple water quality factors (contaminants,
nutrients, sediment, and streamflow alteration) that are stressors to aquatic life and the relation of these
stressors to ecological conditions in streams throughout the study region. Benthic, water quality, sediment,
and pesticide samples were collected as part of the study.
• Metformin and Other Pharmaceuticals Widespread in Wadeable Streams of the Southeastern United
States (2014). In 2014, the USGS conducted a study to assess pharmaceutical contaminant concentrations
in wadeable headwater streams in the Piedmont ecoregion of the southeastern United States. Primary
objectives included addressing the current lack of information about fluvial pharmaceutical contamination in
wadeable streams throughout the ecoregion and assessing the relative importance of non-WWTF sources of
pharmaceutical contamination in these aquatic systems. The study involved monitoring at USGS site
0209722970 (Sandy Creek at Cornwallis Rd) within the New Hope Creek watershed.
• Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2013). The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies
three primary goals: making and maintaining connections, improving sustainability and accessibility, and
optimizing current facilities (City of Durham, 2013b). In conjunction with this Plan, the Durham Trails and
Greenway Masterplan (2011) addresses these goals by outlining a comprehensive trail system through the
City, including seven proposed greenway trails totaling 16.5 miles in the New Hope Creek watershed and
roughly 32 miles of existing greenway trails within the overall study area. Identification of riparian properties
for restoration and preservation through the New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP will provide
opportunities to build upon existing conservation plans, increasing benefits to water quality and improving
the connectivity of wildlife habitat corridors.
Patterns of Watershed Urbanization and Impacts on Water Quality (2007). Carle et al. conducted a
study in 2007 of six urban watersheds in Durham, North Carolina, including New Hope Creek, to examine
how urbanization contributes to nonpoint source pollution. Multiple linear regression models were
developed to relate indicators, including type and density of urbanization and access to municipal services,
to total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal coliforms within streams.
Results indicate that development density was correlated to decreased water quality. Indicators of
urbanization type such as the house age, amount of contiguous impervious surface, access to city services,
and stormwater connectivity were correlated with water quality as well.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Study (1992). The New Hope Creek corridor spanning through
Durham and Chapel Hill was designated as an "Important Regional Wetland" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1992 (USFWS, 1992). The report identifies approximately 1,500 acres with both Riverine
(unconsolidated bottom) and Palustrine (forested and scrub -shrub) wetland types. The report describes the
wetlands in the corridor as a rare area of Piedmont forest, which includes habitat for several species of
special concern.
• New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Master Plan (1991). The master plan was developed as a
multijurisdictional plan (City of Durham, Town of Chapel Hill, Durham County, and Orange County) and
adopted by the City of Durham in 1991 (City of Durham, 1991). The master plan identified critical areas of
2-10 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
environmental significance for protection and preservation of the New Hope Creek corridor that links the
Eno River State Park, the New Hope Creek, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) land to the rapidly
growing communities of Durham and Chapel Hill.
Some notable projects have positively impacted the adjacent floodplains in the New Hope Creek and Little Creek
watersheds. In 1990, members of the Duke University Wetland Center with personnel from Duke Forest and the
Pratt School of Engineering began planning the Stream and Wetland Assessment Management Park (SWAMP)
restoration project in the Upper Sandy Creek watershed (Duke University Wetland Center, 2020). The original
three-phase project was completed in 2007 and included stream recontouring, floodplain re-establishment, dam
and impoundment construction, and construction of a stormwater treatment wetland. In 2009, in collaboration
with the Durham Soil and Water Conservation District, construction began on a fourth phase which involved
reconnecting a portion of Upper Sandy Creek to its original floodplain and to SWAMP's three earlier phases. This
portion of the project was designed to improve water quality across 210 acres of the watershed through improved
stream flow, hydrologic water retention, and sedimentation prevention. A fifth phase of the SWAMP project, a
collaboration between Duke University and the Durham County Soil and Water Conservation District, included
construction of 0.4-acre extended detention stormwater wetland and restoration of 734 linear feet of an unnamed
Upper Sandy Creek tributary adjacent to the stormwater wetland (Duke University Wetland Center, 2020).
The NCWRC manages five impoundments within the project study area. These impoundments were constructed
to mitigate impacts to wetlands and streams caused by the lake construction. Impoundments provide habitat for
wildlife such as overwintering and migrating birds. Each impoundment in the Jordan Game Lands is managed such
that flooding occurs every other year. While rainfall and stream flow impact the scheduling of flooding events, in
general, the impoundment management regime involves slowly raising the water level in an impoundment
beginning in early fall to promote flooding during late fall or early winter. In early spring, water is released from
the impoundment so that the stream and wetlands return to base levels. Of the 46,768 acres of land protected
around Jordan Lake, approximately 2,507 acres of managed land are located within the study area.
2.5.4 Water Quality Monitoring
The City of Durham has collected environmental monitoring data since 1998' (City of Durham, 2020a). The City
operates and maintains ambient water quality monitoring stations throughout the City, with the data available for
download from the City -maintained Water Quality Data Web Portal (http://www.durhamwaterquality.orgQ. Eleven
ambient water quality stations are located within the study area of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek
watersheds. Included in this list is one station located on the mainstem of New Hope Creek (NHO.ONHC) and 10
stations located on tributaries to New Hope Creek (LITC1.5LITC, NH1.OSC, NH1.7SCTA, NH2.3MC, NH3.ONHC,
NH3.3SC, NH4.3SC, NH4.4SCTD, NH4.8SCTDT, and NH5.OSCTD). For each monitoring station, the first two letters
denote the watershed (NH = New Hope), the number denotes the upstream distance from New Hope Creek in
river miles, and the last two to four letters denote the stream name (LITC = Little Creek, MC = Mud Creek, NHC =
New Hope Creek, SC = Sandy Creek, SCTA = Sandy Creek Tributary A, SCTD = Sandy Creek Tributary D). In
addition to the City's monitoring stations, water quality data has been collected by the NCDWR and Upper Cape
Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA) in New Hope Creek at Stagecoach Road near Blands and in New Hope
Creek at NC54 near Durham. The ambient water quality monitoring stations within the New Hope Creek and Little
Creeks watersheds are presented in Exhibit 7.
The City of Durham conducts monitoring and assessing of benthic macro invertebrate communities at two ambient
water quality stations within the study area: NH2.3MC on Mud Creek and NH1.OSC on Sandy Creek. The water
Although data collection began in 1998, the City's Water Quality Data Web Portal includes data collected since 2004.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-11

AECOM
quality ratings for NH2.3MC and NH1.OSC are mostly Fair and Poor. The City also conducted a comprehensive
water quality study in the Sandy Creek watershed in 2018-2019 to support the WIP. The water quality stations that
were a part of the Sandy Creek watershed study are shown in Exhibit 7.
All water quality monitoring stations within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds are described in
Table 2-3.
2-12 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-3. Water quality stations within the study area and available water quality data by year collected
LITC1.5LITC Little Creek
City
Little Creek
Farrington Road
23.8
Ambient
NHO.ONHC New Hope Creek
City
New Hope Creek
Chapel Hill Road
52.3
Ambient
NH1.OSC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Garrett Road
6.9
Ambient
NH1.6SC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek at Larchmont Rd.
6.6
SCWS
NH1.7SCTA Sandy Creek Trib. A
City
Sandy Creek
Ivy Creek Boulevard
1.4
Ambient
NH1.8SCTA Sandy Creek Trib. A
City
Sandy Creek
MLK Pkwy
0.06
SCWS
NH2.3MC Mud Creek
City
Mud Creek
Pickett Road
5.4
Ambient/ Benthic
NH3.ONHC(1) New Hope Creek
City
New Hope Creek
Erwin Road
31.3
Ambient/ Sediment
NH3.3SC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Cornwallis Road
4.8
Ambient/ Sediment/
SESQA
NH3.4SC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Upstream of confluence with Sandy Creek Trib. D
2.05
SCWS
NH3.4SCTD Sandy Creek Trib. D
City
Sandy Creek
Upstream of confluence with Sandy Creek
2.65
SCWS
NH4.3SC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Erwin Rd at Duke Center for Living
1.39
Ambient
NH4.4SCTD Sandy Creek Trib. D
City
Sandy Creek
Academy Road
1.59
Ambient / SCWS
NH4.7SC Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek at Morrene Rd.
0.92
SCWS
NH4.8SCTDT Sandy Creek Trib. D
City
Sandy Creek
Duke University Road
0.34
Ambient
NHS.OSCTD Sandy Creek Trib. D
City
Sandy Creek
Anderson Road
0.96
Ambient
SCSN 1 Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
Near Waterbury St.
0.99
SCWS
(1) Station is located outside of the project study area.
(2) Stations BB090 and BF057 are located at the same
site.
NCDWR = North Carolina Division of Water Resources
SESQA = Southeast Stream Quality Assessment
SCWS = Sandy Creek Watershed Study
UCFRBA = Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-13

AECOM
Table 2-3. Water quality stations within the study area and available water quality data by year collected (continued)
SCSN 3 Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
SCSN 4 Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
SCSN 6 Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
SCSN 7 Sandy Creek
City
Sandy Creek
SCSN 10 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 11 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 13 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 14 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 15 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 17 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 18 Sandy Creek
City
SCSN 21 Sandy Creek
City
B3040000 New Hope Creek
UCFRBA
B3020000 New Hope Creek
UCFRBA
BB085 New Hope Creek
NCDWR
BB238 New Hope Creek
NCDWR
BB090, BF0572 New Hope Creek
NCDWR
(1) Station is located outside of the project study area.
(2) Stations BB090 and BF057 are located at the same site.
NCDWR = North Carolina Division of Water Resources
SESQA = Southeast Stream Quality Assessment
SCWS = Sandy Creek Watershed Study
UCFRBA = Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Lower New Hope Creek
Lower New Hope Creek
Lower New Hope Creek
Lower New Hope Creek
Lower New Hope Creek
Welcome Dr. and Tryon Rd.
Near Evans St.
Off Kangaroo Dr. behind post office
Downstream of NC147 in Duke Manor Apartments off
LaSalle St.
Near Circuit Dr.
Near parking lot on Fuqua Dr.
Near Nasher Museum parking lot off Campus Dr.
Near end of Hull Ave.
Near Campus Dr. downstream of NC147
Upstream of Morehead Dr.
Off Brooks -Pascal Dr. below stadium
Near Pierce St. and Prince St.
Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) near Blands
NC 54 near Durham
1-40
Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) near Blands
SR 2220
0.08
SOWS
0.09
SOWS
0.06
SOWS
0.17
SOWS
0.08
SOWS
0.07
SOWS
0.08
SOWS
0.04
SOWS
0.03
SOWS
0.09
SOWS
0.08
SOWS
0.13
SOWS
74.4
Ambient
56.1
Ambient / Benthic
57.9
Benthic
74.4
Benthic
52.3
Benthic
2-14 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
2.5.5 Water Quality Index
The City determines a WQI value for ambient water quality stations based on threshold values of dissolved
oxygen, BOD, bacteria, nutrients, turbidity, and metals for a given sample date. A WQI is a numerical "grade" that
ranges from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent) and indicates the overall health of the stream. The WQI numerical value is
assigned a letter grade (A, B, C, D, and F), where a value lower than 60 is considered an "F" and a value higher than
90 an "A". Average WQI values across all sample years for stations within the study area are presented in Table 2-4
and annual average values are presented in Appendix C.
At one station in the Little Creek watershed, LITC1.51LITC, water quality data are only available for calendar year
2015. The average WQI for 2015 was 72, which can be compared to a "C".
Two stations in the Lower New Hope Creek watershed were assigned WQI values, NHO.ONHC at Chapel Hill Road
and NH3.ONHC at Erwin Road. The average value for NHO.ONHC is 82 and for NH3.ONHC is 91.
WQI values are available for seven stations in the Sandy Creek watershed. The average WQI for Sandy Creek (three
stations) is 81.5. The average WQI for Sandy Creek Tributary A (one station) is 64. The average WQI for Sandy
Creek Tributary D (two stations) is 81.5. The average WQI for Sandy Creek Tributary D (one station) is 78.
The one station in the Mud Creek watershed, NH2.3MC at Pickett Road, has an average WQI value of 85 (B)
Table 2-4. Average Annual WQI at stations within the study area
LITC1.5LITC
Little Creek
Little Creek
Farrington Road
72
2015
NHO.ONHC
Lower New Hope
New Hope Creek
Chapel Hill Road
82
2004-2011, 2013,
Creek
2015, 2017, 2019
NH3.ONHC
Lower New Hope
New Hope Creek
Erwin Road
91
2009-2011, 2013,
Creek
2015, 2017, 2019
NH2.3MC
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Pickett Road
85
2004-2011, 2013,
2015, 2017, 2019
NH1.OSC
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Garrett Road
83
2004-2011, 2013,
2015, 2017, 2019
NH1.7SCTA
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Ivy Creek Boulevard
64
2010-2011, 2013,
Tributary A
2015, 2017, 2019
NH3.3SC
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Cornwallis Road
80
2008-2020
NH4.3SC
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Erwin Road
-
-
NH4.4SCTD
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Academy Road
77
2019
Tributary D
NH4.8SCTDT
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Duke University
78
2011, 2013, 2015,
Tributary D
Road
2017
NH5.OSCTD
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Anderson Road
86
2011, 2013
Tributary D
WQI = Water Quality
Index
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-15

AECOM
2.5.6 Pesticides
A study conducted by USGS from April to June in 2014, the Southeast Stream Quality Assessment (SESQA),
sampled 121 different sites across five states to assess stream quality, including station NH3.3SC at Cornwallis
Road on Sandy Creek (USGS, 2014). The goal of this assessment was to determine how ecological conditions in
streams were affected by chemical and physical stressors. Water samples were collected weekly for up to 10 weeks
and analyzed for various parameters, including roughly 240 dissolved pesticides and pesticide degradates
(compounds that result when pesticides break -down or degrade). USGS categorizes pesticides into four major
groups: herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and a mixed group of pesticides, including fumigants, nematicides,
and other miscellaneous pesticides. The Sandy Creek station (NH3.3SC) scored a value of 0.76 normalized toxicity
units, categorized as "Medium", for Predicted Pesticide Toxicity to Invertebrates (PTI). PTI scoring was based on
comparisons of measured pesticide concentrations and published toxic concentrations for each taxonomic group.
Acute toxicity is predicted above a PTI value of 1 normalized toxicity units, which is the theoretical threshold for an
additive toxicity model; chronic (or a low degree of acute) effects are predicted above a PTI value of 0.1
normalized toxicity units.
Pesticide sampling was also conducted as part of the Sandy Creek Watershed Study (City of Durham, 2019) at four
stations in the Sandy Creek watershed: NH3.4SCTD, NH3.4SC, NH4.4SCTD, and NH4.7SC. The 22 pesticides
analyzed in this study were selected based on the frequency of detection and detection of concentrations above
published toxicity limits in the 2014 SESQA study, as well as the testing ability of the contract laboratory. Pesticide
samples were collected in June of 2018; however, the sampling efforts were suspended after the first event
because all results were non -detects. The USGS study (USGS, 2014) measured these pesticides at the nanogram
per liter range through the use of specialized analytical methods, whereas most commercial laboratories are only
capable of reporting in the pg/L range. In the Sandy Creek Watershed Study, non -detect results may have been
due to the pesticides not being present at the time, or due to the commercial lab being unable to detect
concentrations of these chemicals below certain levels (City of Durham, 2019). A list of pesticides analyzed during
the Sandy Creek Watershed Study is provided in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5. Pesticides analyzed in 2018 Sandy Creek watershed study at stations NH3.4SC, NH3.4SCTD,
NH4.7SC, and NH4.4SCTD
2,4-D
Diuron
Propiconazole
Acephate
Fipronil
Simazine
Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA)
Glyphosate
Sulfometuron-methyl
Atrazine
Imidacloprid
Tebuconazole
Azoxystrobin
2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid (MCPA)
Tebuthiuron
Carbaryl
Metolachlor
Triclopyr
Carbendazim
Myclobutanil
Dimethenamid-P
Prometon
2.5.7 Observed Water Quality Conditions
Water Quality within the study area was assessed using data collected at one station along the mainstem of New
Hope Creek (NHO.ONHC), one station on Little Creek (LITC1.5LITC), seven stations on Sandy Creek (NH1.OSC,
2-16 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
NH1.7SCTA, NH3.3SC, NH4.3SC, NH4.4SCTD, NH4.8SCTDT, and NH5.OSCTD), and one station on Mud Creek
(NH2.3MC). Data from the special study in the Sandy Creek watershed in 2018-2019 are also included. New Hope
Creek at Turkey Farm Road (City of Durham monitoring station NH 8.8NHC), located in Orange County, was used
as a reference station by the City because of its good water quality. Sandy Creek has historically been found to
have poor water quality for bacteria and aquatic life.
The City of Durham conducts monitoring and assessing of benthic macro invertebrate communities at two ambient
water quality stations within the study area: NH2.3MC on Mud Creek and NH1.OSC on Sandy Creek. The water
quality ratings for NH2.3MC are mostly Fair and water quality ratings for NH1.OSC are mostly Poor. Existing water
quality data are included in Appendix C and existing benthic data are presented in Table 2-6. Values presented in
bold in Appendix C indicate that either a) the average concentration or b) a considerable number of individual
samples for the year exceed the water quality standard or criteria. A summary of water quality within each
subwatershed is presented below based on the downstream -most station in each subwatershed. A summary of
water quality data by year and station is presented in Appendix C.
Little Creek (LITC1.5LITC)
Samples at LITC1.5LITC were only collected for 2013 and 2015, and only fecal coliform, DO, and turbidity samples
were collected in 2013. The average annual WQI at LITC1.5LITC is 72. Parameters of concern that did not meet the
standards within the timeframe samples were collected include BOD, fecal coliform, TN, TP, and copper as
described below:
• The average BOD is 3.5 mg/L, higher than the 2 mg/L threshold.
• The geometric mean fecal coliform concentration is 58 cfu/100 ml in 2013 and 372 cfu/100 ml in 2015,
higher than the 200 cfu/100 ml geometric mean standard. Concentrations exceeded the standard 12 out
of the 24 months samples were collected.
• The average annual TN concentration is 0.87 mg/L, higher than the 0.80 mg/L benchmark.
The average annual TP concentration is 0.09 mg/L, higher than the 0.08 mg/L benchmark.
• The CCC for copper was exceeded in 4 of the 12 samples collected.
Parameters that have acceptable concentrations within the timeframe samples were collected include DO, zinc,
and turbidity as described below:
• The average DO concentration is 6.5 mg/L, higher than the 4.0 mg/L minimum standard. Concentrations
were above the standard 19 of the 23 days samples were collected.
• The CCC for zinc was never exceeded.
• The average turbidity is 24 NTUs, which is below the maximum standard of 50 NTUs. Only one sample
exceeded the standard.
New Hope Creek (NHO.ONHC)
Samples at NHO.ONHC were collected from 2004 to 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The average annual WQI at
NHO.ONHC is 82. BOD and fecal coliforms were the only parameters of concern that did not meet the standards
within the timeframe samples were collected as described below:
• The average BOD is 2.3 mg/L for all years, which is slightly higher than the 2 mg/L benchmark.
• The geometric mean fecal coliform concentration for all years is 268 cfu/100 ml, which is above the 200
cfu/100 ml geometric mean standard. Concentrations exceeded the standard for 45% of samples taken.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-17

AECOM
Parameters that have acceptable concentrations within the timeframe samples were collected include DO, TN, TP,
copper, zinc, and turbidity as described below:
• The average DO concentration is 7.2 mg/L which is well above the minimum standard of 4.0 mg/L. DO
levels are above the standard 82% of days samples were taken.
• The average TN concentration is 0.68 mg/L which is below the 0.8 mg/L benchmark. The average annual
TN concentration never exceeded the benchmark during the 12 years data were collected.
• The average TP concentration is 0.078 mg/L, which is slightly below the 0.08 mg/L benchmark. The
average annual TP concentration exceeded the benchmark only 3 of the 12 years data were collected.
• The CCC for copper was exceeded in only 4% of samples taken.
• The CCC for zinc was never exceeded.
• The average annual turbidity value was below the standard of 50 NTUs for all years. Turbidity exceeded
the standard in only 12% of samples taken.
Sandy Creek (NH1.0SC)
Samples at NH1.OSC were collected from 2004 to 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The average annual WQI at
NH1.OSC is 83. Parameters of concern that exceeded standards within the timeframe samples were taken include
BOD, fecal coliforms, TN, and TP as described below:
• The average BOD is 2.4 mg/L, which is slightly higher than the 2 mg/L benchmark.
• The geometric mean fecal coliform concentration for all years was 333 cfu/100 ml, which is above the 200
cfu/100 ml geometric mean standard. Concentrations exceeded the standard for 55% of samples taken.
• The average TN concentration is 0.88 mg/L, which is above the 0.80 mg/L benchmark. The average annual
TN concentration exceeded the benchmark 5 out of the 12 years samples were taken.
• The average TP concentration is 0.088 mg/L, which is above the 0.08 mg/L benchmark. The average
annual TP concentration exceeded the benchmark 8 out of the 12 years samples were taken.
• The benthic bioclassification rating was Fair for 3 years and Poor for 8 years of the 11 years data were
collected at NH1.OSC.
Parameters that have acceptable concentrations within the timeframe samples were collected include DO, copper,
zinc, and turbidity as described below:
• The average DO concentration is 8.4 mg/L for all years, which is well above the minimum standard of 4.0
mg/L. DO concentrations were above the standard for 95% of samples taken.
• The CCC for copper was exceeded in only 13% of samples.
• The CCC for zinc was never exceeded during the 12 years samples were taken.
• The average turbidity value is 28 NTUs, which is below the standard of 50 NTUs. The average annual
turbidity exceeded the standard only 1 year, in 2006. Only 15% of samples taken exceeded the standard.
Mud Creek (NH2.3MC)
Samples at NH2.31VIC were collected from 2004 to 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The average annual WQI at
NH2.31VIC is 84. Parameters of concern, that exceeded standards within the timeframe samples were taken include
BOD, fecal coliform, and TN as described below:
• The average BOD is 2.4 mg/L for all years, which is higher than the 2 mg/L benchmark.
2-18 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
• The geometric mean fecal coliform concentration is 259 cfu/100 ml, which is above the 200 cfu/100 ml
geometric mean standard. Fecal coliform values exceeded the standard in 48% of samples. Annual
geometric mean values exceeded the standard in 8 of the 12 years samples were collected.
• The average TN concentration is 0.86 mg/L, which exceeds the benchmark of 0.80 mg/L. TN
concentrations exceeded the benchmark for 41% of samples.
• The benthic bioclassification rating was Poor or Fair for 5 years and Good or Good -Fair for only 2 of the 7
years data were collected at NH2.3MC.
Parameters that have acceptable concentrations within the timeframe samples were collected include DO, TP,
copper, zinc, and turbidity as described below:
• The average TP concentration is 0.067 mg/L, which is below the benchmark of 0.08 mg/L. TP
concentrations exceeded the benchmark for only 16% of samples.
• The average DO concentration is 8.4 mg/L for all years, which is well above the 4.0 mg/L minimum
threshold. DO concentrations were above the threshold for 92% of samples.
• The CCC for copper was exceeded in only 6% of samples.
• The CCC for zinc was never exceeded during the 12 years samples were taken.
• The average turbidity is 36 NTUs, which is below the standard of 50 NTUs. Turbidity values exceeded the
standard for only 15% of samples.
Table 2-6. Benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling results
BB085 - Lower New Hope Creek
10/09/1985 48 -
4
-
-
Fair
BB090 - Lower New Hope Creek
03/12/1987 50 -
2
-
-
Fair
BB238 - Lower New Hope Creek
10/09/1985 32 -
3
-
-
Poor
07/07/1998 38 -
3
-
-
Fair
07/07/2003 32 -
3
-
-
Fair
07/22/2008 38 -
2
-
-
Fair
NHI.OSC - Sandy Creek
09/18/2006 29 104
3
12
7.29
Fair
07/09/2007 30 98
5
22
7.09
Poor
09/18/2009 35 137
4
13
7.62
Poor
03/10/2009 43 192
5
17
7.62
Poor
04/29/2010 53 235
4
24
7.75
Poor
08/16/2010 49 -
6
21
7.61
Poor
EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
orders of aquatic insects.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-19

AECOM
Table 2-6. Benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling results (continued)
NHI.OSC - Sandy Creek (continued)
04/14/2011 23
-
4
-
7.52
Poor
04/25/2013 48
-
5
-
7.4
Poor
04/07/2015 16
55
2
-
6.85
Fair
03/30/2017 41
95
4
-
7.27
Poor
2019 29
-
5
25
6.89
Fair
NH2.3MC - Mud Creek
03/09/2009 55
207
6
24
7.61
Poor
04/28/2010 59
215
9
51
6.35
Fair
04/15/2011 28
-
10
32
6.34
Fair
04/25/2013 53
-
7
-
6.8
Fair
04/07/2015 26
75
5
-
5.17
Good
03/30/2017 64
194
12
-
6.61
Good -Fair
2019 57
-
9
37
6.66
Fair
EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera orders of aquatic insects.
2.5.8 Sediment Sampling
A study was conducted on sediment bacteria from 2009 to 2010 at three ambient stations: NH2.3MC in Mud
Creek, NH3.3SC in Sandy Creek, and NH3.ONHC in New Hope Creek. Samples were analyzed for physical
characteristics (bulk density and soil components), organic carbon, fecal coliforms, and E. Coli. At all three sites
fecal coliform concentrations were found to be elevated, where average values for NH2.3MC were 5,078 cfu/100
ml, for NH3.ONHC were 1,686 cfu/100 ml, and for NH3.3SC were 4,973 cfu/100 ml. Concentrations for E. Coli were
elevated as well, where average values for NH2.3MC were 478 mpn, for NH3.ONHC were 75 mpn, and for NH3.3SC
were 96 mpn.
Sediment sampling data is also available from the 2018 Sandy Creek Watershed Study for four sample stations
(NH1.8SCTA, NH1.6SC, NH4.4SCTD, and NH4.7SC) within the Sandy Creek watershed (City of Durham, 2019a).
Samples were analyzed for both physical (dry weight, particle size distribution) and chemical characteristics,
including organic carbon, 10 metals, and 11 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Particle size analysis of sediment samples indicated that the NH1.8SCTA and NH1.6SC stations had predominantly
medium to coarser sand, while both headwater stations (NH4.4SCTD and NH4.7SC) were characterized by fine -
medium sand. Comparison of PAHs with historic observations from City-wide sampling sites could not be made
since the reporting limit used in the Sandy Creek Watershed Study was higher than the historic mean. However,
fluoranthene, pyrene, and phenanthrene were measured higher than the City-wide historic mean at NH1.8SCTA.
Results also indicated that seven out of 10 PAHs were well above historical mean values at NH4.7SC. While
comparisons to historic means could not be made for cadmium, all other metals were reported to be below
historical mean values with the exception of zinc at stations NH1.6SC, NH4.4SCTD, and NH4.7SC, and lead at
stations NH4.4SCTD and NH4.7SC. The incidence of toxicity, or the percent of samples that would likely cause
2-20 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
toxicity in one or more aquatic test species, ranged from 1.4% to 3.5% for all stations, suggesting the potential for
toxicity from the combination of metals and PAHs is very low. The study concluded that given the low incidence of
toxicity values observed, Sandy Creek watershed is a low -priority watershed for conducting future stream
sediment toxicity studies. The study also suggested that there is a low likelihood that toxicity due to sediment
chemistry would negatively impact benthic communities in Sandy Creek.
Sediment sampling was conducted by USGS at two stations: USGS-02097314 on New Hope Creek at Stagecoach
Road (SR 1107) and 0209722970 on Sandy Creek at Cornwallis Road. Sampling at both stations was conducted in
2014 as part of the USGS Southeast Stream Quality Assessment (SESQA) study. Results from the SESQA study
indicate medium toxicity of benchmark quotient contaminants (BQ5; PAHs, organochlorine compounds, PCBs,
metals, and pesticides) and medium toxicity of Pyrethroid pesticides at both stations. Sampling at Stagecoach
road was also conducted in May 2009, where mercury concentrations were found to be 0.11 mg/kg
2.6 Land Use
Durham County and the City of Durham actively maintain parcel land use data for areas within the county. In
addition to the existing land use, future land use data, based on forecasted build -out by 2025, are also available
for Durham County. While the future land use data used in this analysis is the most recent data available, it is
expected to change as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan currently being updated. The existing and future
land use data were grouped into 10 categories using a methodology similar to what was used in previous WIPs
completed by the City of Durham in the Eno River, Little Lick Creek, Third Fork Creek, Ellerbe Creek, Northeast
Creek, and Crooked Creek watersheds (Table 2-7). This simplification allows for a direct comparison between
existing and future land uses within and across WIPs.
Table 2-7. Simplified land use categories based on the
Durham City/County land use classification
Agriculture
AGR
Very Low Density Residential
VLR
Low Density Residential
LDR
Medium Density Residential
MDR
High Density Residential
HDR
Commercial
COM
Institutional
INT
Industrial
IND
Parks and Open Space
POS
2.6.1 Existing Land Use
To characterize existing land use data within the study area, the data were reclassified like previous WIPs as
follows:
• Offices were classified as Commercial
• Utilities were classified as Commercial
• Public areas were classified based on impervious area and type:
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-21

AECOM
— Parcels with less than 10% impervious area were classified as Parks and Open Space
— Churches, schools, and government buildings were classified as Institutional
• Recreation and open space areas were classified based on the location in respect to the FEMA 100-year
floodplain boundaries and type:
— Parcels on public or private land within a FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary were classified as Parks
and Open Space
— Parcels on private land outside of a FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary were classified as the adjacent
existing land use
— Parcels on public land outside of a FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary were classified as Parks and
Open Space
• Vacant areas were classified based on impervious area and size:
— Parcels with greater than 10% impervious area were classified as their future land use
— Parcels less than 5 acres in size and with less than 10% impervious area were classified as Medium
Density Residential
— Parcels greater than 5 acres in size and with less than 10% impervious area were classified as Parks and
Open Space
• Residential parcels were classified based on parcel acreage:
— Parcels less than 0.125 acres: High Density Residential
— Parcels between 0.125 and 0.33 acres: Medium Density Residential
— Parcels between 0.33 and 1.0 acres: Low Density Residential
— Parcels greater than 1.0 acres: Very Low Density Residential
• Durham City/County does not have an existing land use classification for transportation. Transportation
rights -of -way were generated using available parcel data to identify parcels without an existing land use
attribute. The "Erase" ArcGIS geoprocessing tool was used to create a polygon from these unclassified
parcels. The resulting area was classified as "Roadways."
The following land uses were reclassified in a manner consistent with previous WIPs:
• 411 (Com/Apartment-Garden) — classified as High Density Residential
• 413 (Com/Apartment-Dwg Conv) — classified as Low Density Residential
• 633 (Comm Svc/Home for the Aged) — classified as Medium Density Residential
• 643 (Comm Svc/Assisted Lvg) — classified as Medium Density Residential
• 697 (Comm Svc/ABC Stores) — classified as Commercial
Table 2-8 and Exhibit 8 present the reclassified existing land use within the study area. The study area within the
city limits is 40% Residential, 24% Parks and Open Space, and 21 % Commercial/Institutional.
2-22 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-8. Existing land use within the study area
Agriculture
717
4%
103
1 %
Very Low Density Residential
1,426
7%
563
4%
Low Density Residential
2,537
13%
2,097
16%
Medium Density Residential
1,941
10%
1,487
11%
High Density Residential
1,291
7%
1,252
9%
Commercial
1,522
8%
1,423
11 %
Institutional
1,469
8%
1,335
10%
Industrial
26
<1%
26
<1%
Parks and Open Space
6,123
32%
3,180
24%
Roadways
2,261
12%
1,903
14%
Total
19,314
100%
13,369
100%
(1) Individual totals and percentages
may not sum to column
totals due to rounding.
2.6.2 Future Land Use
Similar to existing land use, future land use data provided by Durham City/County were also reclassified. This
allows for a direct comparison between existing land use and future land use and an evaluation of development
trends throughout the study area. The same Roadways land use polygon created for the existing land use was
used to characterize roadway land use in the future land use condition because a Transportation future land use
does not exist.
The current future land uses were amended by the Durham City/County Planning Department in the 2015 Durham
City/County Comprehensive Plan (City of Durham, 2015). The future land use data are less granular compared to
existing land use data. Existing land use data are parcel specific, whereas future land use data combine multiple
parcels expected to contain similar land uses. Durham City/County are currently in the process of updating the
Comprehensive Plan, which will result in changes to future land use designations. Future watershed assessments
should reference the most updated data available.
In some areas throughout the study area, the existing degree of development density was found to be higher in
the existing land use condition than in the projected future land use condition. For instance, many areas that are
currently Medium Density or High Density Residential in the existing land use were projected to be Very Low or
Low Density Residential in the future land use. To address this concern, the future land use condition was revised
such that the future residential land use categories did not change to a lesser degree of development density. For
example, existing High Density Residential areas remained as High Density Residential areas in the future land use
rather than changing to a lower density (Medium, Low, or Very Low Density Residential) in the future. However, a
lower density residential area was allowed to increase in development density if projected to do so in the future
land use. Additionally, the following adjustments were made to the future land use for consistency with the
existing land use:
• Low -Medium Density Residential areas were classified as Low Density Residential
• Medium -High Density Residential areas were classified as Medium Density Residential
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-23

AECOM
• Rural Density Residential areas were classified as Very Low Density Residential
• Offices were classified as Commercial
• Design District areas were classified as High Density Residential
Specific parcel reclassifications were based on a desktop review of aerial imagery.
Table 2-9 and Exhibit 9 present the reclassified future land use condition within the study area. Future land use
within the study area is projected to be primarily Parks and Open Space and Residential with an increase in Low -
and High -Density Residential areas.
Table 2-9. Future land use within the study area
Agriculture
0
0%
0
0%
Very Low Density Residential
1,334
7%
115
1%
Low Density Residential
3,545
18%
2,623
20%
Medium Density Residential
1,840
10%
1,442
11%
High Density Residential
1,767
9%
1,479
11%
Commercial
1,639
8%
1,538
11%
Institutional
1,496
8%
1,362
10%
Industrial
153
1 %
153
1 %
Parks and Open Space
5,279
27%
2,769
21%
Roadways
2,261
12%
1,902
14%
Total
19,314
100%
13,369
100%
(1) Individual totals and percentages
may not sum to column
totals due to rounding.
2.6.3 Land Use Development Trends
Based on the current 2025 future land use projection, the primary development trend is the transition of both
Agricultural, Very Low Density Residential, and Open Space land to Low Density and High Density Residential
lands. There is no significant projected change in Commercial areas and a marginal increase in Industrial areas
within the study area. Projected land use changes from existing to future land use for the study area are presented
in Table 2-10 and for each subwatershed in Appendix D.
2-24 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-10. Projected land use changes within the study area from existing to future conditions
Agriculture
717
103
614
0
0
0
-717
-100%
-103
-100%
i -614
-100%
Very Low
1,426
576
850
1,334
115
1,219
-92
-6%
-461
-80%
369
43%
Density
Residential
Low Density
2,537
2,096
441
3,545
2,623
922
1,008
40%
527
25%
481
109%
Residential
Medium
1,941
1,493
448
1,840
1,442
398
-101
-5%
-51
-3%
-50
-11%
Density
Residential
High
1,291
1,252
39
1,767
1,479
288
476
37%
228
18%
248
631%
Density
Residential
Commercial
1,522
1,422
100
1,639
1,538
101
117
8%
116
8%
1
1%
Institutional
1,469
1,335
134
1,496
1,362
134
27
2%
27
2%
0
0%
Industrial
26
26
0
153
153
0
127
488%
127
481%
0
-19%
Parks and
6,123
3,178
2,945
5,279
2,769
2,510
-844
-14%
-410
-13%
-434
-15%
Open Space
Roadways
2,261
1,902
359
2,261
1,902
359
I -
0%
0
0%
0
0%
(1) Individual totals and percentages may not sum to column totals due to rounding
2.6.4 Impervious Cover
Impervious area greatly affects both the hydrologic response of a watershed and the water quality of surface
waters. As the impervious area increases, streams often exhibit higher peak flows and total volumes in response to
storm events and will also exhibit lower base flows. Pollutants, such as nutrients, bacteria, and heavy metals,
deposited on impervious surfaces are transported to streams through stormwater runoff leading to water quality
degradation. Additionally, these high peak flows result in increases in shear stress, which results in accelerations in
bank erosion and stream scour, which are often a significant source of sediment.
The impervious cover for the study area was determined by merging City planimetric data (2016), County building
footprint data (2015), and road centerline data (2016). The planimetric data include "footprints" for buildings,
homes, driveways, and parking lots within Durham city limits. Outside of city limits, only buildings footprints were
available. The impervious area associated with roadways was determined by applying a buffer to road centerline
data maintained by the City and Durham County, where the width of each road was specified in the roads dataset.
The final composite impervious coverage for the study area was produced by merging all three datasets. This
approach is consistent with previous watershed plans developed for the City.
The impervious area within the study area is approximately 19% and the impervious area within the city limits is
approximately 25% as shown in Table 2-11. A map displaying impervious cover within the study area is included
as Exhibit 10. Appendix D provides additional detail on the impervious area for each subwatershed. Most of the
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report 2-25

AECOM
impervious cover occurs in the Lower New Hope Creek watershed (1,699 acres; 20% impervious) while the greatest
percent impervious coverage is in the Sandy Creek watershed (27%). Little Creek and Mud Creek have the lowest
impervious coverage at only 10% impervious area.
Table 2-11. Impervious area within the study area(')
Little Creek 2,223 899
228
154
10
17
Mud Creek 3,761 1,720
383
339
10
20
Lower New 8,562 6,345
1,699
1,613
20
25
Hope Creek
Sandy Creek 4,413 4,413
1,188
1,188
27
27
Total 18,959 13,377
3,498
3,294
19
25
(1) All columns refer to areas within the study area.
(2) Individual totals and percentages may not sum to column
totals due to rounding.
Table 2-12 provides a summary of impervious area and percent impervious area associated with each of the City's
ambient monitoring stations and the two UCFRBA stations within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek
watersheds. The drainage areas for stations on Sandy Creek have the largest impervious percentages, ranging
from 27% to 46%, while the stations on Mud Creek and Little Creek have the lowest impervious percentages at
10% each. The NH3.ONHC watershed, receiving water west of the County line, is only 3% impervious, while the
watersheds for the other three New Hope Creek stations have approximately 20% impervious surface.
Table 2-12. Water quality monitoring station drainage areas and associated
impervious cover within study area(')
LCTC1.51LITC
Little Creek
15,232
2,221
227
10
B3020000
Lower New Hope Creek
35,915
13,422
2,704
20
B3040000
Lower New Hope Creek
48,759
15,657
2,936
19
NHO.ONHC
Lower New Hope Creek
33,442
11,045
2,312
21
NH3.ONHC
Lower New Hope Creek
20,035
0
0
NA
NH2.3MC
Mud Creek
3,388
3,388
323
10
NH1.OSC
Sandy Creek
4,321
4,321
1,148
27
NH1.6SC
Sandy Creek
4,196
4,196
1,104
26
NH1.7SCTA
Sandy Creek
893
893
414
46
NH1.8SCTA
Sandy Creek
706
706
320
45
NH3.3SC
Sandy Creek
2,979
2,979
865
29
(1) With the exception of "Total Area (acres)", all columns
refer to areas
or percentage of area
within the study area
(2) "NA" =
not applicable
2-26 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-12. Water quality monitoring station drainage areas and associated
impervious cover within study area(') (continued)
NH3.4SC
Sandy Creek
1,271
1,271
441
35
NH3.4SCTD
Sandy Creek
1,674
1,674
418
25
NH4.3SC
Sandy Creek
942
942
411
44
NH4.4SCTD
Sandy Creek
999
999
297
30
NH4.7SC
Sandy Creek
546
546
251
46
NH4.8SCTDT
Sandy Creek
220
220
89
40
NH5.OSCTD
Sandy Creek
596
596
176
30
(1) With the exception of "Total Area (acres)",
all columns refer to areas or percentage of
area within the study area
(2) "NA" = not applicable
2.7 Field Assessments
Watershed health and water quality are dependent on the streams that flow through them. Characterization of
New Hope Creek, Little Creek, and their main tributaries is an integral part of the WIP development process. Field
assessments were performed to evaluate existing conditions of streams and riparian buffers, identify water quality
concerns, and identify potential stream and water quality improvement projects. A desktop Geographic
Information System (GIS) analysis was conducted prior to the field visits to identify and prioritize the streams that
would undergo a rapid (Level 1) or comprehensive (Level 2) assessment (City of Durham, 2020b).
Existing SCMs were also evaluated in the field for improper function, due to design or maintenance issues, and
their potential to be retrofitted. Any existing areas where runoff treatment mechanisms do not exist were also
evaluated for the feasibility of constructing a new SCM. A desktop prescreening was conducted prior to the field
work for selecting new sites with a higher likelihood of feasibility for constructing new SCMs to capture untreated
runoff.
Drainage density, the measure of stream length per unit area of drainage basin, is one indicator of drainage
efficiency within a watershed. A higher drainage density can indicate less permeability in soils which produces
higher flood rates. Drainage density for the subwatersheds and ambient monitoring stations within the study area
is presented in Appendix E.
2.7.1 Stream Assessment Methods
The purpose of the stream assessments was to characterize existing stream conditions within the watershed and
identify potential projects to improve the overall water quality and health of the watershed. Methods used during
the stream assessment were consistent with previous watershed plans completed by the City of Durham. The field
stream inventory and assessment was performed by field teams consisting of an Environmental Scientist with
experience in stream ecology and an engineering professional with experience in stream restoration design from
Wildlands and City Staff when available. The stream inventory included the following tasks:
1. Collect data on the physical condition of the streams and riparian buffers within the watershed
2. Identify stream reaches and riparian buffers in need of restoration, enhancement, or preservation
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-27

AECOM
3. Identify potential sources of pollution along the stream corridors within the watershed
4. Identify issues with public utilities that cross or are adjacent to the streams
5. Collect information needed for the watershed improvement scenarios
6. Collect more detailed information such as streambank erosion rate on Level 2 stream reaches that can
help to prioritize restoration and enhancement projects
Data were collected in the field using Survey123 for ArcGIS with a GPS-enabled tablet. After the field assessment
was completed, the data was compiled into a geodatabase. In February 2020, field teams performed assessments
along approximately 34 miles of stream, which included 115 individual stream reaches. Stream reach break points
were determined in the field based on changes in stream and/or riparian buffer conditions, such as cross -sectional
dimensions, degree of erosion, width and density of buffers, or obvious changes in stream type. Two levels of field
assessment were performed. Level 1 stream assessments involved a higher -level survey to collect more general
data on a large percentage of streams throughout the watershed. Level 2 stream assessments were more detailed
and performed on a subset of Level 1 streams. Both Level 1 and Level 2 stream assessment methodologies are
described below, and more detailed information on each assessment method can be found in the Stream
Assessment Field Plan in Volume III — Technical Appendices of the Watershed Improvement Plan (City of Durham,
2020b).
2.7.1.1 Level 1 Stream Assessments
Most perennial and larger intermittent streams within the study area, except for those outside of the City limits or
on federal land, were assessed during the Level 1 stream assessment. Streams with drainage areas greater than
50-acres were identified, using GIS analysis, to be evaluated during field assessment. The final selection of streams
assessed is presented in the Stream Assessment Field Plan in Volume III - Technical Appendices of the Watershed
Improvement Plan (City of Durham, 2020b). The Level 1 assessments included collection of the following data:
Basic Stream Reach Data
Basic information about each stream reach was collected, including stream reach ID, field team number,
subwatershed, surrounding land use, and priority level of the assessment reach (Level 1 or Level 2).
Physical Measurements
A representative riffle cross-section was selected for each reach and channel cross -sectional dimensions were
measured with a tape measure. An estimate of sinuosity and dominant bed material were also noted.
Rapid Stream Assessment Technique Evaluation
Field teams also performed a semi -quantitative evaluation of several stream characteristics using the Rapid Stream
Assessment Technique (RSAT; Galli, 1996). This method includes an evaluation of the following riparian and in -
stream features:
1. Channel Stability
2. Channel Scouring/Deposition
3. Physical Instream Habitat
4. Water Quality Indicators
5. Riparian Habitat Condition
6. Biological Indicators
2-28 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
For each stream reach assessed, field teams assigned a numeric score to each of the six metrics listed above.
Adjective ratings of Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor also correspond to a range of numeric scores. The component
metric scores were then tabulated, and an overall score and corresponding overall rating was determined for each
reach. Details regarding the RSAT method are presented in the Stream Assessment Field Plan in Volume III —
Technical Appendices of the Watershed Improvement Plan (City of Durham, 2020b).
Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Opportunities
Field teams evaluated potential project opportunities for each reach based on the condition of the reach and the
feasibility of implementing different types of projects. A potential opportunity for each reach was selected from
the following options: Restoration, Enhancement Level I (E1), Enhancement Level II (E2), Bank Stabilization, Buffer
Restoration, or Preservation based on the definitions developed by USACE in its stream mitigation guidelines for
North Carolina (USACE, 2003).
Water Quality Concerns
When potential water quality concerns were identified in the field, details were noted, and the location was
recorded with the field tablet Global Positioning System (GPS). Potential water quality issues included visual
evidence of discharge, leaking infrastructure, suspect odor, suspect water appearance, erosion and sediment
control concern, or other. Water quality concerns were immediately reported to the City of Durham's Water
Quality and Treatment department.
Litter Observed
A new metric intended to characterize litter observed in the watershed was included as part of the stream field
assessments. Previous watershed improvement plans included a metric to capture observations of "dumping in
channel". The updated metric was intended to provide consistent responses by assigning set categories, instead of
open-ended comments, to characterize the relative abundance and apparent source of the dumping.
Initially, the categories used to capture relative abundance of litter during the field assessments were based on six
groups described in a 2018 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic study examining litter (Gerbode et al., 2018).
Methods from the Duke study were referenced to revise the litter metric to articulate the approximate amount of
litter and apparent source of the litter while remaining comparable with the metric used for 'dumping' in previous
watershed improvement plans.
Analysis of the field data revealed that observations made with the six categories were subjective, overly
qualitative, and prone to interpretation based on each field crew member's previous experience working in urban
streams. Observations were also likely affected by unmeasured factors such as recent weather and stream flows. In
a post -processing step, the categories used to capture relative abundance of litter were consolidated into four
broader groups based North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's Stream Watch program online
stream assessment tool (NC DEQ, 2020), which characterizes trash density into four groups: none/sparse, light,
moderate, heavy.
The five categories for apparent source of dumping were: Instream: likely from upstream source, Instream: likely
from dumping, In buffer/along bank: likely from flooding event or upstream source, In buffer/along bank: likely
from dumping and, Source unclear.
Utilities Condition
Field teams observed existing utilities that crossed or paralleled assessed streams. Field teams noted the type of
utility present (sanitary sewer, gas, water, or other), the condition of the utility (stable or unstable), and any
observed issue with the utility (leaking, exposed, stability threatened, or broken). The GPS was used to locate the
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-29

AECOM
existing utilities. The City of Durham's Water Management department was notified of unstable or leaking utilities
when they were observed by field teams.
Stormwater Control Measure Opportunities
Opportunities to implement SCMs along stream corridors were also noted by field teams. The teams identified the
most appropriate SCM type and used the GPS to locate the potential SCM. Emphasis was placed on selecting
feasible SCM locations.
Headcuts and Low -Head Dams
Locations of existing headcuts and low -head dams were recorded and located with the tablet GPS. A headcut as
defined by Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (NC Division of
Water Quality, 2010) is an abrupt vertical drop in the bed of a stream that is an active erosional feature. For the
purposes of the field assessment, low -head dams were considered any man-made or natural structures (e.g.
beaver dams) greater than three feet in height from the channel bed that were observed to significantly impede
streamflow.
Vegetative Composition
A new parameter to assess the vegetative composition of the surrounding land was included in the field work
performed for this watershed plan. Classifications of vegetative composition was adapted from the NC Stream
Assessment Method or SAM (SFAT, 2013). The vegetation composition was classified into one of three categories
based on qualitative observations of how levels of habitat disturbance are reflected in the composition of invasive
species and native species: undisturbed, moderately disturbed, very disturbed. Dominant invasive species were
noted where observed.
Photographs
Photographs taken at each reach included a shot from the upstream end of each reach looking downstream and
at the downstream end of each reach looking upstream. Additional photographs captured habitat features such as
deep pools, woody debris, areas of streambank erosion, and other noteworthy features of concern.
2.7.1.2 Level 2 Stream Assessments
Level 2 stream assessments were conducted on certain Level 1 reaches that were either selected during the
planning of field work or selected in the field based on the judgement of field teams during Level 1 assessments.
The prioritization of Level 2 reaches is described in the Stream Assessment Field Plan in Volume III— Technical
Appendices of the Watershed Improvement Plan (City of Durham, 2020b). Level 2 assessments included Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI), Near Bank Stress (NBS) analyses, and counts of large woody debris.
Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Field teams performed the BEHI assessment (Rosgen, 2006) on all Level 2 reaches. BEHI is an assessment of stream
bank erosion potential and was performed on subreaches with similar streambank characteristics.
Near Bank Stress
An NBS assessment was performed for every subreach assessed for BEHI. The NBS assessment evaluates the
potential shear stress on the streambank and results in an adjective rating of very low, low, moderate, high, very
high, or extreme. These ratings are used with the BEHI ratings to develop estimates of sediment loads from bank
erosion along a reach.
2-30 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Large Woody Debris Counts
Field teams also counted large woody debris along each reach. Large woody debris was defined as any dead
woody material over one meter in length and ten centimeters in diameter (Harman. et al, 2017).
2.7.1.3 Results of Stream Assessments
The results of the assessments indicate that the majority of streams assessed in the watershed are in fair to good
overall health, but that some stream reaches are in poor overall condition. A total of 34.44 miles (Table 2-13) of
streams were assessed by two field crews.
Table 2-13. Length of stream assessed by priority level
Level 1 23.71
Level 2 10.73
Total 34.44
RSAT Results
Level 1 stream assessments occurred on approximately 34 miles of stream, divided into 115 individual stream
reaches based on the current condition of the stream channel and the riparian corridor. The majority of stream
reaches were rated Fair on the overall RSAT score (Table 2-14 and Exhibit 11). Of the overall stream miles
assessed, none were rated Excellent, 18% were rated Good, 70% were rated Fair, 9% were rated Poor and 3% were
not rated due to the presence of a beaver impoundment or other environmental factor. Figures shown below
display characteristics of reaches in Good (Figures 2-2), Fair, (Figure 2-3), and Poor (Figure 2-4) conditions. Table
2-14 shows the miles of streams rated in each subwatershed and the overall percentage in each stream category.
Table 2-15 provides additional characteristics for each individual stream reach assessed during field work.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-31

AECOM
Figure 2-3. Stream (SC2020) with Fair overall RSAT score located behind
Lenox Baker Hospital in NHC12_LNHC
Figure 2-4. Stream (SC2015) with Poor overall RSAT score located
parallel to Chapel Tower in NHC46_SC
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-33

AECOM
Table 2-14. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) results by subwatershed
NHC04 LC
Little Creek
0.88
0%
42%
58%
0%
NHC09_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.76
0%
81%
19%
0%
NHC11_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.42
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC12_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.91
0%
68%
32%
0%
NHC15_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.33
0%
100%
0%
0%
NHC17_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.32
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC22_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.33
0%
0%
68%
32%
NHC24_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.81
0%
52%
48%
0%
NHC25_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.46
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC26_LNHC
New Hope Creek
1.28
0%
0%
77%
23%
NHC27_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.83
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC28_LNHC
New Hope Creek
1.1
0%
0%
43%
57%
NHC29_LNHC
New Hope Creek
1.94
0%
30%
70%
0%
NHC30_LNHC
New Hope Creek
1.29
0%
0%
79%
21%
NHC31_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.51
0%
0%
50%
50%
NHC32_LNHC
New Hope Creek
0.72
0%
0%
80%
20%
NHC33_SC
Sandy Creek
0.98
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC34_SC
Sandy Creek
0.18
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC35_SC
Sandy Creek
2.11
0%
34%
66%
0%
NHC36_SC
Sandy Creek
1.92
0%
35%
65%
0%
NHC37_SC
Sandy Creek
0.59
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC38_SC
Sandy Creek
0.24
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC40_SC
Sandy Creek
2.19
0%
12%
80%
8%
NHC41_SC
Sandy Creek
0.43
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC42_SC
Sandy Creek
0.53
0%
64%
0%
36%
NHC45_SC
Sandy Creek
1.78
0%
36%
64%
0%
NHC46_SC
Sandy Creek
1.32
0%
0%
70%
30%
NHC47 MC
Mud Creek
1.58
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC48 MC
Mud Creek
1.64
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC49 MC
Mud Creek
1.11
0%
0%
100%
0%
NHC51 MC
Mud Creek
1.035
0%
0%
100%
0%
(1) Out of the 56 subwatersheds in New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watersheds, 35
were assessed.
(2) Three percent
stream miles assessed were not
rated due to the
presence of a beaver impoundment
or other environmental
factor.
2-34 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-14. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) results by subwatershed (continued)
NHC52 MC Mud Creek
0.48
0%
0%
0%
0%
NHC54 MC Mud Creek
0.99
0%
54%
46%
0%
NHC55 MC Mud Creek
0.87
0%
21%
79%
0%
NHC56 MC Mud Creek
1.56
0%
0%
62%
38%
Total(Z)
34.44
0%
18%
70%
9%
(1) Out of the 56 subwatersheds in New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watersheds, 35 were assessed.
(2) Three percent stream miles assessed were not rated due to the
presence of a beaver
impoundment
or other environmental factor.
Streams in 35 of the 56 subwatersheds in the study area were assessed by field crews. Subwatersheds within the
City limits and those with primarily lotic systems were prioritized. Thirteen subwatersheds contained streams with
an overall RSAT rating of Good. While 10 of the subwatersheds had some rated Poor, only 2 subwatersheds had
greater than half of their assessed stream length rated Poor. Additionally, three subwatersheds had reaches that
could not be rated because of a beaver impoundment or other environmental factors. The distribution of RSAT
rating throughout the study area shows that the overall stream condition is Fair, but that localized areas are in
Poor condition. The streams surveyed in the New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watersheds are located mostly in
the Triassic Basin. Streams in this area tend to score lower on biological assessments due to relative lack of
benthic macroinvertebrates which affects the biological indicators used in RSAT. Triassic Basin streams are not
rated in the North Carolina Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates (NC DEQ, 2016) due to lack of habitat and flow cessation. The data collected for this
assessment are comparable to data collected during previous City of Durham watershed assessments completed
in the Triassic Basin.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-35

AECOM
Table 2-1 S. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches
LC2001
UT to Little Creek
Little Creek
1,190
5.6
0.7
1
Good
Restoration
LC2002
UT to Little Creek
Little Creek
785
6.8
0.9
1
Fair
E2
LC2003
UT to Little Creek
Little Creek
761
7.2
1.0
1
Good
Preservation
LC2004
UT to Little Creek
Little Creek
1,897
4.8
0.4
1
Fair
Restoration
LNHC1001
New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
3,043
30.1
1.4
1
Good
E2
LNHC1002
New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
7,219
31.0
1.5
1
Fair
Restoration
LNHC1003
New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
2,251
41.2
2.0
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC1004
New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,543
30.5
4.1
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC1005
New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
574
40.8
2.2
1
Fair
E2
LNHC1006
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,446
11.7
2.0
1
Fair
Restoration
LNHC1007
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
3,278
0.0
0.0
1
Poor
Restoration
LNHC1008
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,066
13.5
2.8
1
Fair
E2
LNHC1009
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
964
4.5
1.3
1
Fair
E2
LNHC1012
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
761
4.6
1.1
1
Fair
Preservation
LNHC1013
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,340
7.7
1.5
1
Poor
E1
LNHC1014
Sandy Creek Trib. A
Sandy Creek
1,395
23.1
2.8
2
Poor
Restoration
LNHC1015
Sandy Creek Trib. A
Sandy Creek
3,926
9.7
1.8
2
Fair
Restoration
LNHC1016
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,467
4.5
1.4
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC1018
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,351
6.3
1.5
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC1019
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,346
8.3
1.1
2
Poor
E1
LNHC1020
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
701
3.0
1.5
1
Fair
E2
LNHC1021
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,879
7.9
1.0
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC1022
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
609
6.8
2.1
1
Poor
Restoration
LNHC1023
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
880
5.9
1.1
1
Fair
E1
LNHC1024
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
949
12.5
1.8
1
Poor
Restoration
LNHC1025
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
789
10.2
2.0
1
Fair
E1
LNHC1026
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,629
12.0
2.1
1
Fair
E1
(1) "UT" indicates Unnamed Tributary
(2) RSAT Ratings are as follows: Excellent Condition
(42-50), Good Condition (30-41),
Fair Condition
(16-29), and Poor Condition
(<16)
(3) Three streams that were assessed were
not evaluated for RSAT due
to site conditions (e.g. backwater from beaver dam)
2-36 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-1 S. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches (continued)
LNHC2001
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
303
1.4
0.8
1
Poor
Restoration
LNHC2002
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
450
2.9
0.9
1
Poor
E2
LNHC2003
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,727
6.1
1.0
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2004
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
552
13.4
1.2
2
Poor
E1
LNHC2005
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,180
11.7
1.4
1
Fair
Restoration
LNHC2007
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,461
4.1
0.9
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2008
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
183
4.1
1.1
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2009
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
2,232
12.0
1.9
1
Good
E2
LNHC2010
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
409
16.9
1.9
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2013
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
901
2.7
0.7
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2014
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
768
3.7
1.0
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2015
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,253
3.9
0.7
1
Good
Restoration
LNHC2016
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
496
6.1
0.4
1
Good
Restoration
LNHC2017
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
2,222
4.0
0.8
1
Fair
E1
LNHC2018
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,644
5.1
1.2
1
Good
Restoration
LNHC2019
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,117
12.0
1.0
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2020
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,068
8.8
1.4
1
Fair
E1
LNHC2021
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
481
8.5
1.2
1
Fair
E2
LNHC2022
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
514
1.5
0.7
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
LNHC2023
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
466
3.4
0.9
1
Fair
Restoration
LNHC2024
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,614
6.1
1.2
1
N/A
Restoration
LNHC2025
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,344
4.4
0.9
1
Good
Restoration
LNHC2026
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
586
3.8
0.6
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
MC1003
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
213
7.1
0.8
1
Fair
E1
MC1004
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
789
6.9
1.2
1
Fair
E2
MC1005
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
468
8.4
1.7
1
Fair
E1
MC1006
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
3,121
12.2
2.2
1
Poor
E1
(1) "UT" indicates Unnamed Tributary
(2) RSAT Ratings are as follows: Excellent Condition
(42-50), Good Condition (30-41),
Fair Condition
(16-29), and Poor Condition
(<16)
(3) Three streams that were assessed were
not evaluated for RSAT due
to site conditions (e.g. backwater from beaver dam)
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report 2-37

AECOM
Table 2-1 S. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches (continued)
MC1007
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
1,882
13.6
1.5
1
Fair
Restoration
MC1008
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,830
14.7
1.1
1
Good
Preservation
MC1009
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,538
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
Restoration
MC1010
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
729
10.7
2.7
1
N/A
Restoration
MC1011
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
99
18.4
2.6
1
Fair
Restoration
MC1012
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
3,779
15.6
2.5
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
MC1013
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,079
14.7
2.7
1
Fair
Restoration
MC1014
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,047
16.0
1.8
2
Fair
Restoration
MC1015
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
6,313
15.7
1.9
2
Fair
Restoration
MC1016
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
935
3.7
0.9
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
MC1017
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,692
6.8
1.1
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
MC1018
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,605
3.9
0.9
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
MC1019
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
951
7.3
1.4
1
Good
E2
MC1020
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
1,033
14.3
0.7
1
Fair
E2
MC1021
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
538
7.7
1.8
1
Fair
E1
MC1023
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
1,342
6.4
1.3
1
Fair
Restoration
MC1024
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
3,396
7.1
2.0
1
Fair
Preservation
MC1025
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,185
9.5
1.4
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
MC1026
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,523
11.1
1.7
2
Fair
Restoration
MC1027
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,466
6.3
1.4
2
Fair
E1
MC1028
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
1,487
3.8
0.5
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC1001
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
957
6.2
0.7
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC1003
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,593
3.8
0.7
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2001
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
3,355
12.5
1.5
1
Good
Preservation
SC2002
UT to Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
1,256
9.0
1.2
2
Fair
Restoration
SC2003
UT to Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
354
7.6
1.4
1
Fair
Restoration
SC2004
UT to Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
2,151
7.1
0.7
1
Fair
E1
(1) "UT"
indicates Unnamed Tributary
(2) RSAT Ratings are as follows: Excellent Condition (42-50), Good Condition (30-41),
Fair Condition (16-29), and Poor Condition (<16)
(3) Three streams that were assessed were not evaluated for RSAT due to site conditions
(e.g. backwater from beaver dam)
2-38 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-1 S. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches (continued)
SC2005
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
2,269
11.4
1.9
2
Fair
Restoration
SC2006
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
1,797
13.5
1.6
2
Good
Bank Stabilization
SC2007
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
1,006
5.4
2.3
1
Poor
Bank Stabilization
SC2008
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,253
6.7
1.7
1
Fair
E1
SC2009
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
780
13.1
1.7
2
Poor
E2
SC2010
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
671
7.4
1.5
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2011
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
640
11.8
2.1
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2012
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,322
10.7
1.0
2
Fair
E2
SC2013
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,210
12.8
2.2
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2014
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,037
13.1
1.1
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2015
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
453
13.7
1.3
2
Poor
Bank Stabilization
SC2016
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
857
13.8
3.1
2
Poor
Bank Stabilization
SC2017
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,344
20.1
1.3
2
Fair
Restoration
SC2018
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,333
24.5
1.8
1
Good
Restoration
SC2019
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
365
5.1
0.6
1
Fair
E2
SC2020
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
39
4.7
1.1
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
SC2021
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
360
4.8
1.2
1
Fair
Restoration
SC2022
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
443
5.1
1.5
1
Fair
Restoration
SC2023
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
810
7.2
1.1
1
Fair
E2
SC2024
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
974
0.9
6.7
1
Poor
Restoration
SC2025
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
3,693
28.4
1.2
1
Fair
Restoration
SC2026
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,205
21.8
1.3
1
Fair
Restoration
SC2027
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
3,139
25.9
1.7
2
Fair
E2
SC2028
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,219
5.8
0.8
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
SC2029
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,267
9.6
1.4
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2030
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,334
3.4
1.0
1
Good
E1
SC2031
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,004
3.2
0.7
1
Good
Preservation
(1) "UT" indicates
Unnamed Tributary
(2) RSAT
Ratings are as follows: Excellent Condition
(42-50), Good
Condition (30-41),
Fair Condition
(16-29), and Poor Condition
(<16)
(3) Three
streams that were assessed were
not evaluated for RSAT
due to site conditions (e.g. backwater from beaver dam)
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report 2-39

AECOM
Table 2-1 S. Characteristics of field assessed stream reaches (continued)
SC2032 Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
5,319
28.6
1.1
2
Fair
Restoration
SC2033 UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,068
7.1
0.9
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2034 UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
952
13.0
1.3
1
Good
Restoration
SC2035 UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
3,228
6.9
0.8
1
Good
Bank Stabilization
SC2036 UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,316
9.8
1.3
2
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2037 UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,272
34.0
0.5
1
Fair
Bank Stabilization
SC2038 Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
5,186
25.3
1.8
2
Fair
Restoration
(1) "UT" indicates Unnamed Tributary
(2) RSAT Ratings are as follows: Excellent Condition
(42-50), Good
Condition (30-41),
Fair Condition
(16-29), and Poor Condition
(<16)
(3) Three streams that were assessed were not
evaluated for RSAT
due to site conditions (e.g. backwater from beaver dam)
2-40 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
2.7.1.4 Potential Water Quality Concerns
Field teams noted potential water quality concerns as part of the field surveys. The most common water quality
concerns observed were headcuts (see definition in Section 2.7.1.1) and exposed or threatened utilities. Headcuts
can be ongoing sources of sediment as they migrate upstream and continue lowering the channel bed. Exposed
or threatened utilities have the potential to discharge pollutants into streams. Field teams reported potential water
quality concerns to the appropriate City department for follow-up. Table 2-16 includes a summary of potential
water quality concerns identified during the 2020 stream evaluations. The data is also presented in Exhibit 12.
Table 2-16. Potential water quality concerns identified during
stream assessments
Potential sources of excess sediment 14
Suspect water appearance 9
Suspect odor 2
Sewer leak 0
Exposed or threatened utility(') 56
Headcut
55
(1) Most exposed or threatened utilities were not deemed immediately
hazardous. One instance of threatened or exposed utility was reported to
the City staff for follow up.
Field teams noted low -head dams during field observations. No man-made dams were assessed; however, three
beaver dams and four debrisjams were noted as low -head dams.
Field teams noted litter present during field observations. These observations were characterized by the relative
amount of litter and the apparent source of the litter based on judgement as described in Section 2.7.1.1. Sixty-
one reaches were observed to have litter present, and Moderate was the most common rating. Table 2-17
includes a summary of litter observed during the 2020 field evaluations. As described, this is a new metric for City
of Durham watershed assessments that has not been evaluated for its effectiveness. These results are subjective
and can be affected by factors such as recent weather and stream flow conditions.
Table 2-17. Litter observed during stream assessments
Heavy 9
Moderate 30
Light 12
None/Sparse 10
2.7.1.5 Vegetative Composition Observed
Field teams assessed the riparian vegetation communities along the stream reaches. The community composition
was characterized by the degree of vegetation disturbance based on the abundance of invasive vegetation
present. Invasive plants are typically opportunistic and will flourish in response to habitat disturbance. Over time,
with no intervening action, invasive vegetation will continue to expand through the surrounding landscape.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-41

AECOM
Invasive vegetation reduces the biological diversity of a riparian buffer and impairs its ability to provide ecosystem
services, such as water quality benefits. The type and density of invasive vegetation also provides insight into the
extent and timeframe of disturbance that occurred. Twenty-two reaches were observed to have a riparian
vegetative composition close to undisturbed and 23 were considered very disturbed. Fifty-three reaches were
observed to have riparian communities that were moderately disturbed but still composed of predominately
native species. Table 2-18 includes a summary of the vegetation composition identified during the 2020 field
evaluations. This is a new metric for City of Durham watershed assessments that has not been evaluated for its
effectiveness in characterizing and prioritizing stream corridor condition and prioritizing potential projects. This
data may be useful for identifying low disturbance riparian areas for preservation or high disturbance areas to
focus restoration efforts.
Table 2-18. Vegetative composition observed during stream assessment
Undisturbed Vegetation is close to undisturbed in 22
species present and their proportions
Vegetation indicated disturbance in terms
Moderately disturbed of species diversity or proportions but is 53
still largely composed of native species
Very disturbed Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms 23
of species diversity or proportion
2.7.1.6 Bank Erosion Hazard Index and Near Bank Stress
The Level 2 stream assessments included the BEHI and NBS evaluations to estimate erosion potential and shear
stress on the stream banks. The results of these assessments can be used to estimate annual bank erosion rate
and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for Non -point Source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS)
method (Rosgen, 2001; Schueler and Stack, 2013). Level 2 assessments were conducted on 28 stream reaches,
which totaled approximately 10 stream miles. Of these reaches, 11 (6.7 stream miles) were found to have
estimated sediment yields of more than 20 tons/year. Table 2-19 provides the estimated erosion rate and
sediment yield for Level 2 reaches, also presented in Exhibit 13. Erosion rates were estimated from the North
Carolina Streambank Erodibility curves (Doll et al., 2003).
Table 2-19. Sediment yields based on Level 2 BEHI/NBS assessments
LNHC1014
Sandy Creek Trib. A
Sandy Creek
Poor
1,395
0.082
115
LNHC1015
Sandy Creek Trib. A
Sandy Creek
Fair
3,926
0.009
35.8
LNHC1016
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
Fair
1,467
0.003
4.9
LNHC1018
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
Fair
1,351
0.009
11.6
LNHC1019
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
Poor
1,346
0.006
8.5
LNHC2004
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
Poor
552
0.007
3.7
MC1014
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
2,047
0.007
13.8
MC1015
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
6,313
0.01
64.9
2-42 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-19. Sediment yields based on Level 2 BEHI/NBS assessments (continued)
MC1025
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
2,185
0.002
5.2
MC1026
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
2,523
0.009
23.4
MC1027
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
2,466
0.044
108.2
MC1028
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
Fair
1,487
0.004
5.4
SC2002
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
1,256
0.033
41.8
Trib. D
SC2005
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
Fair
2,269
0.067
151.6
SC2006
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
Good
1,797
0.012
21.3
SC2009
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Poor
780
0.001
0.9
SC2010
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
671
0.006
3.7
SC2011
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
640
0.012
7.5
SC2012
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
1,322
0.007
9.8
SC2013
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
1,210
0.016
19.7
SC2014
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
1,037
0.006
6.3
SC2015
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Poor
453
0.036
16.3
SC2016
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Poor
857
0.005
4.4
SC2017
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
1,344
0.007
9.7
SC2027
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
3,139
0.009
29.6
SC2032
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
5,319
0.006
32.5
SC2036
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
2,316
0.005
11.6
SC2038
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Fair
5,186
0.063
328.3
Total
56,655
1,095.4
2.7.1.7 Large Woody Debris
Large woody debris (defined in Section 2.7.1.2 above) was counted along each Level 2 reach. Plentiful large woody
debris has multiple benefits to streams including slowing the velocity of water, creating shade, trapping organic
material, and creating diverse aquatic habitat. Numbers of large woody debris in the streams assessed ranged
from 0 to 50, though stream reach SC2015 was an outlier with 300 pieces of debris (Table 2-20).
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-43

AECOM
Table 2-20. Large Woody Debris based on Level 2 assessments
SC2009
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
780
Poor
0
SC2005
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
2,269
Fair
3
MC1025
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,185
Fair
4
MC1027
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,466
Fair
5
MC1014
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,047
Fair
5
MC1015
Mud Creek
Mud Creek
6,313
Fair
6
LNHC1015
Sandy Creek Trib. A
Sandy Creek
3,926
Fair
7
LNHC1016
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,467
Fair
7
SC2032
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
5,319
Fair
8
SC2038
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
5,186
Fair
8
SC2027
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
3,139
Fair
9
SC2006
Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
1,797
Good
10
SC2013
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,210
Fair
10
SC2016
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
857
Poor
10
SC2017
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,344
Fair
12
LNHC2004
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
552
Poor
14
MC1026
UT to Mud Creek
Mud Creek
2,523
Fair
18
LNHC1018
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,351
Fair
20
LNHC1019
UT to New Hope Creek
New Hope Creek
1,346
Poor
20
LNHC1014
Sandy Creek Trib. A.
Sandy Creek
1,395
Poor
20
SC2002
UT to Sandy Creek Trib. D
Sandy Creek
1,256
Fair
23
SC2036
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
2,316
Fair
25
SC2011
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
640
Fair
32
SC2012
UT to Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,322
Fair
45
SC2014
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
1,037
Fair
50
SC2015
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
453
Poor
300
2.7.2 Stormwater Control Measure Assessment Methods
The SCM assessment included a desktop review and field evaluation of existing SCMs (Section 2.1.2.1) as well as
prescreening and field evaluation of potential new SCM locations (Section 2.1.2.2).
2-44 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
2.7.2.1 Existing SCMs
Evaluation Methods
Desktop Evaluation
The City provided a geodatabase containing information on the 264 existing SCMs within the New Hope Creek
and Little Creek watersheds. These SCMs were evaluated during a desktop review to select sites for field
evaluation. A total of 205 existing SCMs were omitted during this prescreening from further evaluation in the field.
SCMs were omitted based on the following conditions:
• Recently constructed devices (around 5 years old or newer) with limited potential to route impervious area
• SCMs that had not been built at the time of the screening (SCM status was "Construction Drawing
Approved" or that appeared to be under construction in aerial photography)
• SCMs with limited room for expansion due to apparent topography, development, use, or utility conflicts
• SCMs with inherently limited opportunity for retrofitting including bioretention with internal water storage
(IWS), proprietary systems (such as Filterra), and underground facilities because these SCMs either already
achieve significant water quality treatment and/or are difficult and expensive to access.
Field Evaluation
Fifty-nine SCMs of the 264 SCMs were evaluated by field teams (Exhibit 14). Field work procedures and protocols
are outlined in the SCM Inventory and Assessment Field Plan in Volume III — Technical Appendices in the New
Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (City of Durham, 2019b). Field teams used tablets and
forms developed in ArcGIS Online to collect the following information for each SCM:
• The SCM ID, subwatershed code, date, surrounding land use, the hydrologic soil group, receiving
waterbody, and type of SCM
• Photographs of each component of the SCM and an overview of each SCM
• Physical measurements and information pertaining to specific components of the SCM, such as inlets,
outlets, riser structures, emergency spillways, etc.
Field forms based on the Eno River WIP were used to evaluate the SCMs in this watershed plan with the following
updates:
Recharacterizing land uses to correspond to the Stormwater Nitrogen and Phosphorus (SNAP) version 4.1
Tool.
— "Industrial" and "Institutional" were added as land use types and "Open Space" was updated to "Parks &
Open Space."
• Additional existing SCM options were included to accommodate the range of SCM types that exist within
this watershed.
— Sand Filter, Level Spreader, Bioretention, Bioretention without IWS, Erosion Control Device, and Existing
Water Retention Feature (i.e., farm pond) were added to the list of Existing SCM Types.
— Contributing Drainage Area Additions were revised to provide clarity for field crews. Devices that would
be more appropriate as a stand-alone new SCM, including Bioretention, Constructed Wetland, and Sand
Filter were excluded as additions. Treatment swales were distinguished between Treatment Swale — Wet
and Treatment Swale — Dry, to differentiate from the non-specific term, Grassed Swale, that was
previously used. Permeable Pavement and Green Stormwater Infrastructure were added as options for
Contributing Drainage Area Additions.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-45

AECOM
• Add -on Retrofit Recommendations were revised to better reflect feasible projects that would provide
nutrient credits. Options intended to primarily address maintenance concerns only were excluded as were
projects that would be considered Contributing Drainage Area Additions.
— Options removed from the list include Build/Replace Filtering Device, Add Riprap to Stabilize Inlet, Plant
Vegetation to Stabilize/Uptake Nutrients, Add Permeable Pavement, Add Bioretention Cell, Add Upflow
Filter to Pond, and Add Sand Filter Trench to Pond.
• Updating Site Constraints to be consistent with previous field work experience and simplify characterization.
— Site Constraint options were added to include all types of utilities, including Sanitary Sewer Lines, Gas
Lines, Power Lines, Telecom, and Water Lines. Other options added to site constraints include
Houses/Structures, Driveway/Road/Parking Lot, Inadequate Area, and Accessibility.
• Reducing the number of Site Constraints from three options to two options and Add -on Retrofit
Recommendations from five options to two options. This is intended to capture the most relevant and
useful information.
• Updating retrofit recommendation options to be consistent with the cost estimation tool.
— Volume Retrofit Recommendations were modified to match the cost estimation tool.
• Rewording SCM Structural Retrofits Recommendation options for clarity. For example, from "Redesign Wet
Pond" to "Redesign to Wet Pond."
The SCM Inventory and Assessment was completed during December 2019 and January 2020 by field teams
comprising staff from Kimley-Horn, Three Oaks Engineering, and the City. The key components of this field effort
included assessing the surrounding area of existing SCMs, evaluating retrofit opportunities, and identifying SCMs
with impaired functionality due to design or maintenance issues.
Characterization of Stormwater Treatment
The existing SCMs located within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds that were evaluated by field
teams consisted of dry ponds (19), wet ponds (36), bioretention cells (2), sand filters (1), and stormwater wetlands
(1) (Table 2-21). Table 2-22 lists the number of SCMs located in each surrounding land use type. Table 2-23
presents a further breakdown of SCM number based on the surrounding land use types and subwatershed. Figure
2-5 through Figure 2-8 provide examples of SCMs visited in this study. Several of the SCMs selected for field
evaluation were located in residential areas. A general trend observed was that neighborhoods in the northern
part of the study area tended to have fewer existing SCMs and those present were generally older or outdated
designs. The areas nearer to Duke University had newer apartment complexes. The SCMs in this area were much
newer and appeared to sufficiently treat runoff from the development.
2-46 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 2-21. Existing SCMs visited in the field
Little Creek 5 5 - - - 10
(NHC01_LC-NHC07_LC)
Lower New Hope
(N HC08_LNHC- 5 30 1 1 - 37
N HC32_LN HC)
Sandy Creek 7 1 1 - 1 10
(NHC33_SC-NHC46_SC)
Mud Creek
(N HC47_MC- 2 - - - - 2
NHC56_MC)
Total 19 36 2 1 1 59
Table 2-22. Existing SCMs visited by surrounding land use
Residential 38
Commercial 12
Institutional (schools, churches, etc.) 8
Parks & Open Space 1
Total 59
Table 2-23. Existing SCMs visited by surrounding land use and subwatershed
Residential
Commercial
Institutional (schools, churches, etc.)
Parks & Open Space
Total
(1) Subwatersheds NHC01-NHC07
(2) Subwatersheds NHC33-NHC46
(3) Subwatersheds NHC47-NHC56
(4) Subwatersheds NHC08-NHC32
9
4
1
24
1
1
-
10
-
4
1
3
-
1
-
-
10
10
2
37
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-47

AECOM
Figure 2-5. Example of a wet pond (SCM 13124) at Realm at Patterson Place
Apartments (3767 SW Durham Drive)
Figure 2-6. Example of a dry pond (SCM 00267) near the intersection of
Keohane Drive and Alman Drive
2-48 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Figure 2-7. Example of a bioretention area (SCM 00289) at the intersection of
Old Chapel Hill Road and Everwood Court
Figure 2-8. Example of a construction wetland (SCM 13345) at Lakewood
Elementary School at 2520 Vesson Avenue
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-49

AECOM
SCMs Requiring Maintenance
Nutrient and sediment loads can be effectively removed using structural SCMs. However, SCM performance can
be significantly reduced by poor design, construction, or maintenance. SCMs designed under older design
guidelines can have reduced stormwater treatment performance compared to current minimum design criteria.
During the SCM Inventory and Assessment, each SCM's general maintenance condition was evaluated to assess
the impact on its performance. Field teams identified 11 SCMs with potential maintenance needs to function
properly in Table 2-24. Examples of SCMs requiring maintenance are provided in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10.
These SCMs were reported to the City Stormwater Control Measure Inspection team for follow-up to ensure
compliance with appropriate operations and maintenance requirements.
NHC32_LNHC
NHC25_LNHC
NHC14_LNHC
NHC14_LNHC
NHC14_LNHC
NHC13_LNHC
NHC09_LNHC
NHC12_LNHC
Table 2-24. Existing SCMs with potential maintenance needs
00497 COM Dry Pond Riser clogged and impounded with trash and
sediment. Pond not constructed under current
design guidelines
00316
HDR
Wet Pond
Spillway has settled or was installed incorrectly
and is preventing the pond from properly
draining the water quality volume
00387
HDR
Wet Pond
Pond has converted to a wetland with vegetation
growing in the bottom
00464
COM
Wet Pond
Forebay deteriorated, has converted to wetland
00230
HDR
Wet Pond
Emergency drain is open lowering permanent
pool, fence at the outlet is partially blocking the
channel
00255
COM
Dry Pond
Unclear how SCM is intended to function, pipe
between old dry pond and newer SCM appears
blocked, couldn't find outfall pipe
00276
LDR
Wet Pond
SCM appears to need to be dredged back to
original volume, has converted to a wetland,
excessive algae growth
00103
HDR
Wet Pond
Water level appears to be below intended
permanent pool
COM = Commercial
HDR = High Density Residential
LDR = Low Density Residential
The majority of SCMs flagged as potentially needing maintenance were experiencing overgrown vegetation.
Improper vegetation maintenance can impact an SCM's storage capacity and reduce overall performance. SCMs
that have converted to a wetland may experience greater water quality treatment than originally intended, such as
a dry pond that has converted to a wetland; however, the SCM should be evaluated if any necessary water storage
volume has been compromised by the overgrown vegetation that was not part of the original design.
2-50 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

ti :''fi � ,k•I�;: � ?* }t`,�, I.� T! tit �'1F' ^ .r�,
�. ���` � i . i fig, � 4 ` �•- - .
I ► la
- � /' a •,1
f'ti�►9 .,.'mow-- �. �,� � � v�v � � �.d� �� �,r'
� - � ��_ :. ..tea � �-�. �4' f ,. r ` ♦�}� �C '� _. Ys'� . A
�F' ,h,� � � � � � - is 4.�R 1 •.

AECOM
Other Existing Features
During prescreening, several features were identified on the aerial map that appeared to be existing water
retention features, but these features were not present in the City's database. Twelve such features, listed in Table
2-25 were documented as having potential retrofit opportunities and visited in the field. For each of these
features, field teams recorded the same information that was recorded for existing SCMs. The 12 features included
dry ponds (4), wet ponds (6), and existing water retention features such as farm ponds (2). These features were
labeled as NHCO019 — NHCO025 and NHCMC0067 — NHCMC0071. Most of the features appear to have been
constructed for purposes other than stormwater benefits.
Table 2-25. SCMs and Existing Features identified that have potential
retrofit opportunities
NHCO019
LDR
Dry Pond
NHCO020
LDR
Existing Water Retention Feature
(e.g. farm pond)
NHCO021
HDR
Wet Pond
NHCO022
HDR
Wet Pond
NHCO023
IND
Dry Pond
NHCO024
HDR
Wet Pond
NHCO025
COM
Wet Pond
NHCMC0067
HDR
Wet Pond
NHCMC0068
HDR
Wet Pond
NHCMC0069
HDR
Existing Water Retention Feature
(i.e., farm pond)
NHCMC0070
HDR
Dry Pond
NHCMC0071
LDR
Dry Pond
LDR = Low Density Residential,
HDR = High Density Residential, IND = Industrial, COM =
Commercial
Water Quality Performance of Existing SCMs
A computer simulation model is being developed for the watershed to evaluate the benefit of existing SCMs.
Field -evaluated SCMs will be assigned removal efficiencies for sediment and nutrient removal. Performance of a
SCM is variable as it depends on multiple factors such as presence of forebay, overgrowth, and general
maintenance. Field data and observations by field crews will be used to develop water quality multipliers for each
SCM. These water quality multipliers will be applied to sediment and nutrient reduction rates to obtain a pollutant
removal efficiency of each SCM. In future condition modeling scenarios, a 1.0 water quality multiplier will be used
based on the assumption that design and maintenance issues will be corrected. The water quality multiplier for
existing SCMs will be applied as follows:
• 1.0 for optimal SCM performance
• 0.25 if the SCM was not functioning
The water quality multiplier may be adjusted as follows:
2-52 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
• 0.20 will be subtracted from the water quality multiplier if the SCM function was impeded by overgrown
vegetation and sedimentation
• 0.20 will be subtracted from the water quality multiplier if the SCM lacked a forebay. For SCMs not required
to have a forebay, no reductions will be made
2.7.2.2 New SCMs
Sites for potential new SCMs were identified prior to field work through a GIS prescreening analysis. The intent of
these sites is to provide stormwater treatment to developed areas that are not currently being treated. Typically,
these are areas where development occurred under historic regulations that did not require stormwater treatment.
Field teams visited 59 potential sites for new SCMs. During the field visit at each potential new SCM site, field
teams recorded the following:
1. Characteristics of the site — surrounding land use, suitability
2. Potential new SCM type — primary and secondary SCM options, length, and width of available area, and a
completed sketch of the potential SCM
3. Contributing drainage area additions — primary and secondary options for small-scale (parcel -level) SCMs
that can be implemented to create a treatment train (series of SCMs)
4. Site accessibility and other constraints not identified during the GIS prescreening
5. Characteristics of receiving waters — the type of receiving waterway or waterbody
These field observations were evaluated along with other site constraints to recommend a site for constructing a
new SCM as described in Section 3.2.2.
The field form used to evaluate the new SCMs was revised similarly to the existing SCM form as described
previously, with one additional revision.
• Recharacterizing land uses to correspond to the SNAP Tool, version 4.1.
— The options for the land use in the area of the proposed SCM were updated to Roof, Roadway,
Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk, Protected Forest, and Other Pervious/Landscaping.
2.8 Summary
Water Quality
Various water quality concerns are prevalent throughout the study area. Three segments of New Hope and Little
Creek within the study area are impaired for benthos, according to the 2018 North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired
waterbodies. Elevated levels of fecal coliforms, TN, TP, turbidity, and copper have been documented at monitoring
stations throughout New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds. Zinc does not appear to be a problem pollutant
in the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds. Water quality issues throughout the study area include:
• City benthic sampling resulted in mostly fair ratings for New Hope Creek, mostly poor ratings for Sandy
Creek, and a mixture of poor to good ratings for Mud Creek.
• Elevated fecal coliform was found to be present in all waterbodies throughout the sampled period. Fecal
coliform thresholds were exceeded in 36% of samples at New Hope Creek, 46% samples in Little Creek, 70%
of samples in Sandy Creek, and 49% of samples in Mud Creek. Because only 19% of fecal coliform samples
at the station upstream of the study area (NH3.ONHC) exceed the threshold, the larger exceedance rate
(45%) at the furthest downstream station (NHO.ONHC) on New Hope Creek indicates the presence of fecal
coliform sources within the study area.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 2-53

AECOM
• Average annual TN values exceeded the threshold in Little, Sandy, Mud Creeks in most of the years for
which samples were collected, while only about 8% of annual average TN values in New Hope Creek
exceeded the threshold. Average annual TP values exceeded the threshold in 42% of years sampled in New
Hope Creek, 100% of years sampled in Little Creek, 25% of years sampled in Mud Creek, and 71 % of years
sampled in Sandy Creek. Similar to fecal coliform, elevated nutrients in New Hope Creek appear to be
associated with sources within study area as evidenced by increased TN and TP concentrations and annual
averages between the upstream station (NH3.ONHC) and downstream station.
• Copper exceeded the CCC at least 1 month out of the year for stations in all subwatersheds. Copper
concentrations were elevated in Sandy Creek where 10% of samples exceeded the CCC for copper, and in
Little Creek watersheds 17% of samples exceeded the CCC for copper.
• Turbidity in Sandy Creek was a moderate concern, with 5.7% of annual average values exceeding the
standard. Turbidity appears to be a larger concern in Mud Creek where 16.7% of average annual values were
found to exceed the 50 NTU threshold. Turbidity was not a concern for New Hope and Little Creeks where
the average annual turbidity value was below the standard of 50 NTU for all years.
Land Use
The existing land use for the study area is mostly Residential (37%), located primarily within City limits, with Parks
and Open Space the second-largest land use (32%), consisting primarily of USACE and Duke Forest land. Most
residential land use is Low Density Residential, encompassing 13% of the study area. Medium Density Residential
encompasses approximately 10% of the study area, while Very Low Density Residential encompasses
approximately 7% of the study area and High Density Residential land use encompasses approximately 7% of the
study area. Based on future land use projects, the primary development trend is the conversion of Agriculture and
Open Space into Residential development. There is a projected 100% decrease in Agricultural land and 14%
decrease in Parks and Open Space, while High Density Residential land use is projected to increase by 37% and
Low Density Residential land use is projected to increase by 40%. Most of the change to residential land use is
anticipated to occur in the region south of Highway NC 751 and northwest of Highway NC 15-501.
Field Assessments
The most common water quality concerns observed during stream evaluations were headcuts and exposed or
threatened utilities. The results of the assessments indicate that the majority of streams assessed in the watershed
are in Fair to Good overall health, but that some stream reaches are Poor. Of the overall stream miles assessed,
18% were rated Good, 70% were rated Fair, and 9% were rated Poor. A total of 39 reaches were recommended for
restoration, 33 for enhancement, 37 for bank stabilization, and six for preservation.
Of the 59 SCMs that were evaluated by field teams, 11 SCMs were identified as having potential maintenance
concerns to ensure proper function. The main concern for the majority of the SCMs was overgrown vegetation,
which can impact their storage capacity and diminish their ability to retain stormwater. These SCMs were reported
to the City Stormwater Control Measure Inspection team for follow-up to ensure they are in compliance with
Operations and Maintenance requirements. During prescreening of the SCMs, 12 additional features were
identified as existing water retention features with retrofit potential.
2-54 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
3 Preliminary Project Opportunities
Results from field assessments were used to identify potential water quality improvement projects throughout the
watershed. These projects included new SCMs, retrofits to existing SCMs, and stream restoration, enhancement,
and preservation. The potential project opportunities discussed here have passed the initial feasibility criteria
described by a desktop and field assessment. These potential water quality improvement projects will be further
evaluated using computer simulation models and then scored and prioritized based on additional criteria and
implementation costs to develop a list of recommended projects as part of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek
WIP.
3.1 Stream Corridor Improvements
One of the goals of the stream inventory assessment was to identify stream reaches in need of restoration,
enhancement, or preservation. Opportunities to improve stream health through these types of projects were
identified during the field assessments. During February 2020, field teams assessed approximately 35 miles of
streams, split into 115 individual reaches (Exhibit 15; Table 3-1) (City of Durham, 2020b). Of the assessed streams,
approximately 31 miles were within City limits, 3 miles were outside City limits, and 1 mile bordered City limits.
Potential stream project opportunities considered for each reach included: Restoration, Level I Enhancement,
Level II Enhancement, Bank Stabilization, and Preservation.
These project opportunities are defined by the USACE as follows (USACE, 2003):
• Stream Restoration: Convert an unstable, altered, or degraded stream corridor, including adjacent riparian
buffers and floodplain, to a natural, stable condition. Includes restoring a naturally stable channel planform
pattern, longitudinal profile (riffle/pool sequence), and channel cross-section dimensions as well as
improving biological and water quality functions.
• Enhancement I (El): Improvements to the stream channel and riparian zone that restore channel stability,
water quality, and stream ecology. Re-establish channel cross-section dimensions and longitudinal profile,
but restoration of channel pattern is not feasible or warranted. May also include other practices that provide
improved water quality and ecological benefits.
• Enhancement II (Ell): Activities that improve channel stability, water quality, and stream ecology but do not
include re-establishing the channel profile or pattern. May include re-establishment of the channel cross-
section as well as practices to improve water quality and ecological benefits.
• Bank Stabilization: In -place stabilization of an eroding streambank. Techniques include sloping streambanks
to a less vertical and more stable angle, installing streambank revetments with natural materials such as root
wads or brush toe, and revegetating banks and riparian buffers without restoring cross-section dimensions.
• Preservation: Establishing protection of ecologically important streams (generally considered for high -
quality streams) in perpetuity through the implementation of protective mechanisms. Preservation may
include the protection of upland buffer areas adjacent to the stream necessary to ensure protection or
enhancement of the overall stream.
All stream reaches assessed were assigned one of the potential project types described above. Reaches with
constraints, such as utility conflicts, existing infrastructure, and no opportunity to raise the stream bed without
increasing flood risks, were designated as Enhancement II or Bank Stabilization regardless of stream condition.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-1

AECOM
Full Stream Restoration was proposed for stream reaches in need of modifications to cross -sectional dimensions,
stream bed profile, and channel realignment in order to create a stable, functioning stream (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1. Example of a potential Stream Restoration reach (SC2025)
that starts downstream of Cameron Blvd and flows through
the Duke University Golf Club in NHC40-SC
Reaches found to need improvements but not require complete channel reconstruction were categorized as
potential enhancement reaches (Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3). The techniques used in stream enhancement depend
on the level of intervention needed to return the channel to a highly functioning stream. These can include raising
the stream bed and adjusting cross -sectional dimensions (Enhancement 1) to minimal activities such as bank
stabilization and replanting riparian vegetation (Enhancement 11).
3-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
'44
J
Figure 3-2. Example of a potential Enhancement I reach
(SC2008) that flows between Anderson St and Cranford Rd in NHC41_SC
Figure 3-3. Example of a potential Enhancement II reach
(MC1020) that flows through Colonial Village at Deerfield in NHC55_MC
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-3

AECOM
Stream Preservation was recommended to protect stream reaches that have a high -quality riparian buffer and
minimal bank erosion and incision (Figure 3-4). All stream reaches recommended for preservation received a Good
overall RSAT score except for two reaches that received a Fair score. These Fair reaches had high -quality buffer
and minimal erosion.
Figure 3-4. Example of a potential preservation reach (Reach 1004)
located upstream of Cornwallis Road in Duke Forest in NHC56_MC
All 115 reaches assessed in the field are reflected in Table 3-1 below with the project opportunities type
(Exhibit 15). Approximately 32 miles of stream corridor improvement projects were recommended based on the
assessments. These results are based on a preliminary evaluation of conditions observed in the field. Potential
projects will be evaluated and prioritized for implementation in a later phase of the watershed planning process.
For potential project types for each reach, refer to Table 2-1 S.
Table 3-1. Potential stream project opportunities
Restoration
39
75,446
Enhancement 1
16
22,366
Enhancement II
17
19,483
Bank Stabilization
37
52,467
Preservation
6
12,102
Total
115
181,864
3-4 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
3.2 Stormwater Control Measures
The SCM inventory and field assessment identified opportunities to improve the current level of stormwater and
water quality treatment within the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watershed study area. These opportunities
(Exhibits 16 and 17) include retrofits or modifications to existing SCMs to improve their function and water quality
treatment performance, as well as developed areas that are not currently receiving treatment but are suitable for
new SCMs. Undeveloped areas of the watershed were not evaluated because future development will require on -
site stormwater controls that comply with the UDO administered by both the City and Durham County.
3.2.1 Existing SCM Retrofits
Field teams visited 71 existing features during the SCM inventory and field assessment, which included 59 existing
SCMs within the City's SCM database and 12 features located during the field work but not within the City's
database. All these existing features were visited to further evaluate them for potential retrofits or modifications.
Field teams noted constraints, such as nearby utilities or proximity to streams or wetlands, that could prevent
installation or required maintenance activities for potential retrofits.
SCMs were evaluated for different types of retrofits: structural, volume, and add -on retrofits. Structural retrofits
focus on modifications to the SCM's outlet structure. Structural retrofits can be simple, such as adding additional
weirs or orifices on the outlet structure to treat the water quality volume or reduce peak flows for a particular
storm event (simple control structure modification), or more complex, such as redesigning an entire SCM to
convert it to another type of SCM (e.g., converting a dry pond to a pocket wetland). Volume retrofits involve
increasing the storage volume of an existing SCM so that it can treat a larger volume of stormwater runoff or
provide a longer retention time. Volume retrofits typically require expanding the existing SCM's footprint or
excavating/dredging within the current footprint. Add -on retrofits can be implemented without changing the
storage volume or SCM footprint. These retrofits focus on enhancing the current water quality treatment
capability by adding components, such as a forebay, level spreader, or floating wetlands, to existing SCMs.
Of the 71 existing features visited, 29 were determined to be candidates for retrofits and recommended for further
evaluation (Table 3-2 and Exhibit 16). Of these 29 recommended sites, three are in the Little Creek watershed, 13
are in the Lower New Hope Creek watershed, eight are in the Sandy Creek watershed, and five are in the Mud
Creek watershed. The primary recommendations were to redesign the existing SCMs as constructed or pocket
wetlands or wet ponds. In most cases, this recommendation would involve a relatively minor redesign of an outlet
structure and vegetation with increased water quality credit.
Little Creek
SCM retrofit recommendations in the Little Creek watershed include redesigning the existing dry ponds to
constructed wetlands. Recommended add -on retrofits include adding level spreaders with filter strips and building
sediment forebays.
Lower New Hope Creek
Retrofits in the Lower New Hope Creek watershed include redesigning SCMs to wetlands and increasing storage
(by lowering permanent pool or increasing the footprint). Recommended add -on retrofits include building
sediment forebays, adding level spreaders, adding floating wetlands, and building a littoral shelf.
Sandy Creek
SCM retrofit recommendations in the Sandy Creek watershed include redesigning SCMs as a wetland or wet pond
and implementing a simple control structure modifications. A rainwater harvesting system is recommended at one
of the sites as a contributing drainage area addition.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-5

AECOM
Mud Creek
SCM retrofit recommendations in the Mud Creek watershed include redesigning SCMs as a wetland or wet pond
and implementing simple control structure modifications. One site was recommended for dredging to increase
storage volume. Recommended add -on retrofits at two sites include adding internal berms or baffles and building
a sediment forebay. Internal berms or baffles are recommended in situations where an SCM may be short-
circuiting because it wasn't designed with a high enough length to width ratio. A contributing drainage area
addition for riparian buffer restoration is recommended for one site.
3-6 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 3-2. Primary retrofit recommendations and potential add -on retrofits for existing SCMs and features evaluated by field teams
00054
NHC33_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
00072
NHC36_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
00100
NHC18_LHNC
Wet Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00103
NHC12_LHNC
Wet Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00111
NHC09_LHNC
Wet Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00255
NHC13_LHNC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00267
NHC47_MC
Dry Pond
Redesign Pocket Wetland ✓
00276
NHC09_LHNC
Wet Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00287
NHC26_LNHC
Wet Pond
Redesign Wet Pond ✓
00289
NHC26_LNHC
Bioretention w/o IWS
Add upturn pipe for internal water storage
00303
NHC36_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Pocket Wetland
00316
NHC25_LNHC
Wet Pond
Lower Water Level to Gain Storage ✓
00325
NHC30_LNHC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
00359
NHC36_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Pocket Wetland
00360
NHC36_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Pocket Wetland
00439
NHC06_LC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓ ✓
00446
NHC06_LC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓
00447
NHC06_LC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland ✓ ✓
00464
NHC14_LNHC
Wet Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-7

AECOM
Table 3-2. Primary retrofit recommendations and potential add -on retrofits for existing SCMs and features evaluated by field teams
(continued)
00497
NHC32_LNHC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
00503
NHC42_SC
Dry Pond
Redesign Pocket Wetland
00511
NHC31_LNHC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
00674
NHC34_SC
Bioretention w/o IWS
Simple Control Structure Modification
NHCO024
NHC26_LNHC
Other
Redesign Wet Pond
NHCMC0067
NHC46_MC
Wet Pond
Redesign Wet Pond
NHCMC0068
NHC47_MC
Wet Pond
Simple Control Structure Modification
NHCMC0069
NHC56_MC
Existing Water Retention
Riparian Buffer Restoration
Feature (i.e. farm pond)
NHCMC0070
NHC56_MC
Dry Pond
Redesign Wet Pond
NHCMC0071
NHC56_MC
Dry Pond
Redesign Constructed Wetland
3-8 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
3.2.2 New SCMs
Based on the field review, 36 of the 59 potential new SCM sites were recommended for further evaluation as a
new SCM (Table 3-3 and Exhibit 17). The main considerations for evaluating site suitability are identifying inlet and
outlet locations and determining whether significant impervious area runoff can be routed to the SCM. Potential
site constraints considered include topography, insufficient space, structures (e.g. retaining walls not readily visible
during desktop evaluation), existing utilities, or conflicts with current land use (e.g. discerning a dedicated
recreational field from an unused grassed area). Similar to the existing SCMs, new SCM sites were also evaluated
for contributing drainage area additions. Figure 3-4 lists the 36 potential new SCM types by subwatershed.
Twenty of the 36 recommended new SCMs are bioretention devices. Bioretention devices are generally smaller
devices but can provide efficient stormwater treatment and nutrient reduction. They can accommodate various
installation configurations (e.g. existing inlet structures) as they do not require a high ground water table to
maintain a wetted footprint (in contrast to constructed wetlands); however, they do require 3-4 feet of depth for
soil media, which can be a limiting factor.
Three of the 59 SCMs visited in the field are located in the Little Creek watershed. During desktop exercises,
engineers determined that most of the high -density development in this watershed is being treated by existing
SCMs but that field evaluations would be needed to assess opportunities at other residential and commercial
development in the watershed. During field evaluations, the field teams determined these sites to be infeasible for
new SCM construction. For this reason, SCM opportunities in the Little Creek watershed are predominately green
stormwater infrastructure practices, devices that would treat smaller -scale drainage areas, or future developments
that could provide increased treatment. The limited potential for new stormwater control measures outside of
existing residential and commercial areas is largely a result of land use and development patterns in this
watershed. Areas of the watershed that are currently developed have SCMs that were installed under previous
stormwater standards that provide some degree of treatment. As described in Section 2.7.2.1, these existing SCMs
were evaluated for modifications to provide additional stormwater treatment. New development that occurs in the
watershed would be subject to City/County development ordinances and required to meet stormwater
performance standards. Much of the undeveloped area of the watershed is protected as part of the Jordan Lake
Game Lands.
The area of Little Creek evaluated for this project was representative of the type of existing land use in the
watershed within the Durham city limits. Land use is concentrated around major transportation corridors as Low to
Medium Density Residential Development. Little Creek's headwaters lie within Orange County with Bolin Creek
and Booker Creek, two major tributaries of Little Creek, receiving drainage from the towns of Carrboro and Chapel
Hill (Town of Carrboro, 2012 and N.0 Division of Water Quality, 2012). Within Durham County and the City of
Durham limits, the Little Creek watershed is characterized as having a large amount of undeveloped floodplain
area dominated by bottomland hardwood forest wetlands of the National Wetland Inventory Classification:
Palustrine, Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, and Temporarily/Seasonally Flooded (Federal Geographic Data
Committee, 2013). Approximately 1% of the Little Creek watershed within the project study area is categorized as
Commercial. 3% is categorized as Institutional, 3% is categorized as High Density Residential, 4% is categorized as
Agricultural, 8% is categorized as Roadway, 12% is categorized as Low Density Residential, 13% is categorized as
Medium Density Residential, 14% is categorized as Very Low Density Residential, and 42% is categorized as Parks
and Open Space. Much of the area categorized as Parks and Open Space is owned by the US Army Corps of
Engineers for the purpose of protecting water quality in Jordan Lake. As previously described in Section 2.5.4 of
this document, several NCWRC Waterfowl Impoundments located in the Jordan Lake Game Lands are managed in
a manner to mimic natural wetlands, which provides treatment for stormwater entering the lake.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-9

AECOM
Of the existing sites visited, 36 were recommended for new SCMs (Table 3-4). Of these 36 sites, there are none in
the Little Creek watershed, 13 are in the New Hope Creek watershed, 16 are in the Sandy Creek watershed, and 7
are in the Mud Creek watershed. The primary recommendation was to construct bioretention basins.
Table 3-3. Potential new SCMs recommended for further evaluation
NHC09_LHNC
NHC0002
Treatment Swale - Dry
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC09_LHNC
NHC0003
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC09_LHNC
NHC0005
Treatment Swale - Dry
Other
NHC14_LNHC
NHC0006
Treatment Swale - Wet
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC23_LNHC
NHC0008
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC26_LNHC
NHC0009
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC26_LNHC
NHCO010
Treatment Swale - Dry
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC26_LNHC
NHCO012
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC26_LNHC
NHCO013
Bioretention
Parking/Driveway/Sidewalk
NHC27_LNHC
NHCO014
Treatment Swale - Wet
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC27_LNHC
NHCO015
Constructed Wetland
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC27_LNHC
NHCO016
Treatment Swale - Wet
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC27_LNHC
NHCO018
Constructed Wetland
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC34_SC
NHCSCO026
Stream Restoration
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC35_SC
NHCSCO027
Constructed Wetland
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC40_SC
NHCSCO029
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC40_SC
NHCSCO031
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC40_SC
NHCSCO032
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC43_SC
NHCSCO034
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC45_SC
NHCSCO035
Constructed Wetland
Protected Forest
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO036
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO037
Proprietary
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO039
Constructed Wetland
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO040
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO043
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO044
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO046
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO047
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO049
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO047
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
NHC46_SC
NHCSCO049
Bioretention
Other Pervious/Landscaping
3-10 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table 3-3. Potential new SCMs recommended for further evaluation (continued)
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0052
Bioretention
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0054
Constructed Wetland
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0055
Bioretention
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0056
Bioretention
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0057
Bioretention
NHC51_MC
NHCMC0058
Bioretention
NHC56
MC
NHCMC0062
Bioretention
Table 3-4. Potential new SCMs by subwatershed
Little Creek
(NHC01-NHC07)
Other Pervious/Landscaping
Protected Forest
Other Pervious/Landscaping
Other Pervious/Landscaping
Other Pervious/Landscaping
Other Pervious/Landscaping
Other Pervious/Landscaping
New Hope 4 2 1 3 3 - 13
(NHC09-NHC32)
Sandy Creek 10 3 1 - - 2 (Stream 16
(NHC33-NHC46) Restoration
and
proprietary)
Mud Creek 6 1 - - - - 7
(NHC47-NHC56)
Total 20 6 2 3 3 2 36
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 3-11

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
4 Pilot Study Areas
4.1 Selection Criteria
PSAs were evaluated through field investigation and modeling to determine water quality benefits associated with
implementing various SCMs and practices. Results of PSA modeling and SCM evaluations will be used to inform
watershed -wide modeling scenarios. With these goals in mind, the study area was divided into 56 subwatersheds.
The 56 subwatersheds were then categorized into seven groups based on similar characteristics, including land
use, imperviousness, soil type, projected development trends, location relative to city limits, and presence of
existing SCMs (Exhibit 18).
Ten candidate PSAs were selected from the 56 subwatersheds by first categorizing subwatersheds based on the
following features:
• Existing land use
• Projected development trends
• Percentage of impervious area
• Predominant hydrologic soil group
• Number and type of existing SCMs
4.2 Pilot Study Area Descriptions
Based on the selection criteria outlined in Section 4.1, the 56 subwatersheds were grouped into one of seven
categories as described below:
Parks and Open Space - Poorly Drained: Subwatersheds include NHCO2-LC, NHCO3-LC, NHC05-LC, NHC11-LNHC,
NHC14-LNHC, NHC15-LNHC, NHC28-LNHC, NHC37-SC, NHC39-SC, NHC40-SC, and NHC51-MC.
• Existing land use is primarily Parks and Open Space, Agricultural, and/or Very Low Density Residential
• Existing development includes areas with a low number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Low percent impervious
Parks and Open Space - Well Drained: Subwatersheds include NHC08-LNHC, NHC10-LNHC, NHC13-LNHC,
NHC16-LNHC, NHC19-LNHC, NHC23-LNHC, NHC27-LNHC, NHC53-MC, NHC54-MC, and NHC55-MC.
• Existing land use is primarily Parks and Open Space, Agricultural, and/or Very Low Density Residential
• Existing development includes areas with a low number of SCMs
• Predominantly well -drained hydrologic soil group B soils
• Predominantly low percent impervious
Low Density- Poorly Drained: Subwatersheds include NHC06-LC, NHC20-LNHC, NHC22-LNHC, NHC24-LNHC,
NHC26-LNHC, NHC29-LNHC, NHC36-SC, and NHC38-SC.
• Existing land use is primarily Low or Very Low Density Residential
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 4-1

AECOM
• Existing development includes areas with a low to medium number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Predominantly low to medium percent impervious
Low and Medium Density Residential — Poorly Drained: Subwatersheds include NHC04_LC, NHC09_LNHC,
NHC18_LNHC, NHC21_LNHC, NHC35_SC, NHC47_MC, and NHC56_MC.
• Existing land use is primarily Low and Medium Density Residential
• Existing development includes areas with a low to high number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Low to medium percent impervious
High Density Residential and Commercial: Subwatersheds include NHC25_LNHC, NHC30_LNHC, NHC31_LNHC,
NHC33_SC, and NHC46_SC.
• Existing land use is primarily High Density Residential and Commercial
• Existing development includes areas with a low to high number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Low to high percent impervious
Commercial: Subwatersheds include NHC12_LNHC, and NHC32_LNHC.
• Existing land use is primarily Commercial
• Existing development includes areas with a high number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• High percent impervious
New Development — Poorly Drained: Subwatersheds include NHC01_LC, NHC07_LC, and NHC34_SC.
• Existing land use is primarily Parks and Open Space and Very Low Density Residential
• Future land use projections show a significant change in land use from lower to higher density
• Existing development includes areas with a low number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Low to medium percent impervious
New Development — Well Drained: Subwatersheds include NHC48_MC, NHC49_MC, NHC50_MC, and NHC52_MC.
• Existing land use is primarily Parks and Open Space and Very Low Density Residential
• Future land use projections show a significant change in land use from lower to higher density
• Existing development includes areas with a low number of SCMs
• Predominantly well -drained hydrologic soil group B
4-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
• Low percent impervious
Institutional: Subwatersheds include NHC17_LNHC, NHC41_SC, NHC42_SC, NHC43_SC, NHC44_SC, and
N H C45_SC.
• Existing land use is primarily Institutional
• Existing development includes primarily areas with a low number of SCMs
• Predominantly poorly drained hydrologic soil group D soils, which limits the types of SCMs that can be
successfully implemented
• Medium to high percent impervious
• Consists predominantly of areas belonging to Duke University, Duke Forest, or Duke University Medical
Center. Subwatershed NHC17-LNHC includes B. Everette Jordan High School.
Ten candidate PSAs were identified based on the above analysis. Key factors in the selection of these PSAs include
the opportunity to intentionally engage and involve historically-underserved communities as described in the
project Equitable Community Engagement Plan (City of Durham, 2020c), the watershed location within the City,
water quality concerns, soil type, and predominant land ownership (Exhibit 19):
• Parks and Open Space— Poorly Drained: NHC40_SC
• Low Density— Poorly Drained: NHC24_LNHC
• Low and Medium Density Residential — Poorly Drained: NHC04_LC, NHC47_MC
• High Density Residential and Commercial: NHC30_LNHC, NHC25_LNHC, NHC46_SC
• New Development —Well Drained: NHC48_MC
• Commercial: NHC32 LNHC
• Institutional: NHC45 SC
The 10 candidate PSAs identified in the preceding section were discussed with the City on November 21, 2019.
Seven final PSAs were selected based on location within City limits and overall representativeness within the study
area. The final PSAs recommended for detailed field evaluation and modeling are provided below by
representative land use category:
• Parks and Open Space— Poorly Drained: NHC40_SC
• Low Density— Poorly Drained: NHC24_LNHC
• Low Medium Density Residential — Poorly Drained: NHC04_LC, NHC47_MC
• High Density Residential and Commercial: NHC30_LNHC
• Commercial: NHC32 LNHC
• Institutional: NHC45 SC
4.3 Future Monitoring and Modeling
A computer model application, PCSWMM (Personal Computer Storm Water Management Model), is being
developed for the study area to prioritize the potential water quality improvement projects identified in Section 3.
This model is being used to simulate the hydrology, channel hydraulics, and water quality to evaluate water
quality benefits associated with potential watershed improvement projects. Field assessments have been
completed, and the data collected by field teams are being used to support model development. Detailed data
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 4-3

AECOM
collected within each of the seven final PSAs is being used to model these areas in high resolution. The results of
this model will then be extrapolated to other subwatersheds with similar characteristics.
4-4 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
5 Next Steps
The New Hope Creek and Little Creek watershed assessment describes existing watershed conditions, provides a
list of potential project opportunities to improve watershed conditions, and identifies PSAs for detailed modeling
and SCM evaluation. The watershed assessment suggests that the New Hope Creek and Little Creek watersheds
are in Fair to Good health overall, but potential water quality improvement opportunities do exist within the
watershed. These projects include new SCMs to treat areas not currently receiving treatment, retrofits to existing
SCMs, in addition to Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation. Results of the watershed assessment will
be used to inform future monitoring and modeling of PSAs. These results will also be incorporated into the WIP to
help prioritize management strategies and recommend water quality improvement projects.
The next steps in the development of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP include:
1. Develop the PCWMM model for characterizing existing pollutant loads and evaluating future scenarios for
load reductions using a variety of pollution control measures.
2. Conduct a cost -benefit analysis of potential SCM projects using the City's cost estimation tool.
3. Prioritize the potential water quality improvement projects. Criteria used in the prioritization process
include water quality treatment and cost-effectiveness, habitat and biological integrity, stream bank
protection, community enhancement, implementation constraints, public safety and public property
considerations, and project location. Prioritization criteria are being reviewed as part of this project.
4. Update the Riparian Area Management Plan (RAMP) and Critical Area Protection Plan (CAPP) to identify
parcels in the watershed with high -quality stream and stream buffer area on public and private land that, if
preserved, may help contribute to sustaining watershed health.
5. Conduct public information sessions in -person or reach stakeholders via social media outlets to provide
updates on field assessments, potential projects, and watershed characterization and seek input for
developing the WIP recommendations. Public outreach opportunities will be contingent on social
distancing requirements due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
6. Develop the final WIP, describing watershed goals and characterization, watershed modeling and scenario
analysis results, and recommended water quality improvement projects with factsheets for the top 30 high -
priority projects.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 5-1

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
6 References
Carle, M., Halpin, P., Stow, C. 2007. Patterns of Watershed Urbanization and Impacts on Water Quality. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association, vol. 41, no. 3, 2007, pp 693-708.
City of Durham. 2010. Ellerbe Creek Watershed Improvement Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell. Accessed
April 22, 2020, at https://durhamnc.gov/954/Ellerbe-Creek-Watershed-Improvement-Plan.
City of Durham. 2011. City of Durham Trails and Greenways Master Plan. Durham Parks and Recreation
Department. Accessed April 22, 2020, at https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/3445/Durham-Trails-
and-Greenways-Master-Plan-2011-PDF?bidld=.
City of Durham. 2012. Durham Third Fork Creek Watershed Management Plan. Accessed April 22, 2020, at
https:Hdurhamnc.gov/970/Third-Fork-Creek-Watershed-Improvement-P.
City of Durham. 2013a. Northeast and Crooked Creek Watershed Improvement Plan. Prepared for the City of
Durham. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell.
City of Durham. 2013b. City of Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Durham Parks and Recreation
Department. Accessed March 4, 2020, at http://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/7496/DPR-Master-Plan-
2013.
City of Durham. 2016. Little Lick Creek Watershed Improvement Plan. Department of Public Works. Accessed
April 22, 2020, at https://durhamnc.gov/960/Little-Lick-Creek-Watershed-Plan.
City of Durham. 2017. Durham Comprehensive Plan. Durham City -County Planning Department. Accessed
March 4, 2020, at https://durhamnc.gov/346/Comprehensive-Plan.
City of Durham. 2018a. Eno River Watershed Improvement Plan. Department of Public Works. Accessed
April 22, 2020, at https:Hdurhamnc.gov/2890/Eno-River-Watershed-Improvement-Plan.
City of Durham. 2018b. State of our Streams. Public Works Department. Accessed April 10, 2020, at
http://durhamnc.gov/708/State-of-Our-Streams.
City of Durham. 2019. Sandy Creek Watershed Study Final Report (Project#16-001). Prepared by City of Durham,
Stormwater & GIS Services, Water Quality Unit, Durham, NC.
City of Durham. 2019. SCM Inventory and Assessment Field Plan in Volume Ill — Technical Appendices of the
Watershed Improvement Plan. Prepared by City of Durham, Stormwater & GIS Services, Water Quality Unit,
Durham, NC.
City of Durham. 2020a. Water Quality Data Web Portal. Public Works Department. Accessed April 4, 2020, at
http://www.durhamwaterguality.org/.
City of Durham. 2020b. Stream Assessment Field Plan in Volume 111 — Technical Appendices of the Watershed
Improvement Plan. Prepared by City of Durham, Stormwater & GIS Services, Water Quality Unit, Durham, NC.
City of Durham. 2020c. Equitable Community Engagement Plan. Prepared by City of Durham, Stormwater & GIS
Services, Water Quality Unit, Durham, NC.
City of Durham, Durham County, Orange County, and Town of Chapel Hill. (1991). New Hope Corridor Open Space
Master Plan. Accessed April 22, 2020, at https://www.dconc.gov/home/showdocument?id=10534.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 6-1

AECOM
Doll, B.A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton, and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic geometry relationships for
rural North Carolina Coastal Plain streams, NC. Stream Restoration Institute, Report to NC Division of Water
Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Accessed September 22, 2020, at
https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/wetlands/nwcs-2013
Galli, J. 1996. Rapid Stream Assessment Protocol (RSAT) Field Methods. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, D.C.
Gerbode, C., T. Sechley, N. Lauer. 2018. Duke Law Stream Litter Study [Memo]. Duke University Environmental Law
and Policy Clinic. Unpublished.
Harman, W.A., T.B. Barrett, C.J. Jones, A. James, and H.M. Peel. 2017. Application of the Large Woody Debris Index- A
Field User Manual Version 7. Stream Mechanics and Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, Raleigh, NC.
Miller, J., K. Karimi, S. Arumugam, and D. R. Obenour. 2019. Jordan Lake Watershed Model. Prepared for the North
Carolina Policy Collaboratory. Accessed March 4, 2020, at http://nutrients.web.unc.edu/resources/
N.0 Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and
Analysis of Benthic Macroin vertebrates. Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, NC
N.0 Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). 2020. Basic Stream Level Survey. Accessed July 19, 2020 at:
https://surveyl 23.arcgis.com/share/8dd01 bl fa93543e9a7ffd6ed8bbOa636
N.0 Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins, Version 4.77. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. Raleigh, NC
N.0 Division of Water Quality. 2012. Assessment Report.- Biological Impairment in the Little Creek Watershed. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. Accessed
September 22, 2020, at https://townofcarrboro.org/DocumentCenterNiew/1973/Little-Creek-Watershed-
Assessment-Report
N.C. Stream Functional Assessment Team (SFAT). 2013. North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM).
Accessed April 22, 2020, at
https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/2013/NCSAM Draft User Manual 1
30318.pdf.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2 d edition. Wildland Hydrology Books. Pagosa Spring, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 9-15.
Schueler, T., B. Stack. 2013. Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream
Restoration Projects. Accessed April 22, 2020, at http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-
content/uploads/dIm uploads/2013/10/stream- restoration -short-version.pdf.
Town of Carrboro. 2012. Bolin Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. Accessed September 22, 2020, at
https://townofcarrboro.org/280/Bolin-Creek-Watershed-Restoration
6-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Tuttle, J., B. Massa, O. Munzer, R. Shaw, S. Childs, and J. Randall. 2019. A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat
Connectivity in the Eno River and New Hope Creek Watersheds, North Carolina. Prepared in collaboration with
the Eno -New Hope Landscape Conservation Group. Accessed March 4, 2020, at
https:Hncbg.unc.edu/files/2019/12/EnoNewHopePlan December 2019.pdf
University of North Carolina (UNC). 2019. The University of North Carolina Jordan Lake Study. Final Report to the
North Carolina General Assembly.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Accessed April 22, 2020, at
https:Hsemspub.epa.gov/work/01/554373.pd .
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. 7995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents
for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water. Accessed April 2, 2020, at
https://www.epagov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/1995-updates-wqc-protection-al.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria —
Copper, 2007 Revision. Accessed April 22, 2020, at https://www.epa.gov/wqc/aquatic-life-ambient-freshwater-
quality-criteria-copper-2007-revision.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Regional Wetlands Concept Plan. Published by the U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed February 6, 2020, at
https://www.newhopecreek.org/pdf/usfws.pdf
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Metformin and Other Pharmaceuticals Widespread in Wadeable
Streams of the Southeastern United States. Accessed June 12, 2020, at
https:Hpubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70199782.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. The Southeast Stream Quality Assessment (SESQA). Accessed
April 22, 2020, at https://webapps.usgs.gov/RSQA/#!/region/SESQA.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Trends in Water Quality of Selected Streams and Reservoirs Used for
Water Supply in the Triangle Area of North Carolina, 7989-2073. Accessed June 12, 2020, at
https:Hpubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20l85077.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report 6-3

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A:
Exhibits

This page intentionally left blank.

L—,' , 1 dcz,\I__ — r / 1--i 1 Li-,-1
Watershed Boundaries
The watershed boundary outside Durham County was delineated with ArcSWAT using a 3-meter Digital Elevation z Exhibit 1
T OWN OF.HILLSBOR000H Mode!(DEM)from the National Elevation Dataset(2017). The subwatersheds were delineated with ArcSWAT using Watershed Overview Map
a 4-foot hydrologically enforced DEM provided by the City of Durham. The Third Fork Creek watershed outer
boundary was provided by the City of Durham(2007). S
CITY OF DURHAM
I NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
4 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
! CITY OF DURHAM ..i
I"
u�te/h Streams
f
•
Q►ne �co r► Lakes and Reservoirs
��L / x i New Hope and Little Creek
Hop 000, Watersheds
■ 5ubwatersheds
i
ie
' .4
�g'F f `"� ] Durham City Limits -2019a�Vt �aCtee� ! *� c Other Municipal Limits
N- �� .r .'Fia� i- — _i County Boundary
pia Church3"anch a�
o ■� f *Cree k
�� ii. 4 Third T •`
,r \is. `� Ncv4 ' �„
....41,dit.
-'1:01.,e
NP
0 ►i
444 o*
I
irij 0.,
a 41 I
iii h
Ny, L;'ije c r
ei--5
. 071 tor',
TOWN OF CARRBORO
A
1 c
TOWN OF CHAPEL`HILLiillililt I�iil�c
6 if__
Tzr
, r c-) .
i C
***
i 2: DURHAM
- - ----- - _ O"'�NGE J_ — — - - - - - - - - - CITY OF
--- --- _ _ _ __ - ----- --� I DURHAM
�HgTH - Y - ~ ~ - �� � 1 AECOM,the City of Durham,and C of Durham shall not be held
A • I Jordan Lake liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request.This
includes errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the content
of the data,and relative and positional accuracy of the data.The data
i _ i cannot be construed to be a legal document.Primary sources from
4 which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of
/
the information contained in this data.

The study area was delineated with ArcSWAT using a 4-
85
foot hydrologically enforced DEM provided by the City of Exhibit 2
Durham.
70 �, Study Area
��, 412-1
L� CITY OF ❑URHAM
51 ' NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
i —frill
■ 1 \54c WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
�� �u� I © Durham Public Libraries
..1_ " . 1111111111111.111111111 r Durham Public Schools
�' 1 �� _ I ,, 1.
I�lllll�so■n Major Roads
Z I)CZ } • =- Roads
Crilf.. .1.
Streams
CI.
—
— ' / 1 Ponds and Lakes
% l i Parks
itaal 0 �.. Jordan Game Lands
>. 14 Study Area
al
c New Hope and Little Creek
t-'1±
} 1 Watersheds
a co AP Su bwatersheds
� ! r ... pea
Sandy Creek Park 0r Lakewood — ; Durham City Limits 2019
` • Middle L - i County Boundary
J
i *H .,.\. : =73- I ____A—.....
iir Lakewood
g/ ri2r\l' . '1/4' it / Elementary
,t
MI: , . ' .
El i
4°
ell Southwest Library'
pie
R Creekside \ • o
Elementary I
on
\:
L ■
1 ? Sherwood Githens Middle) f
-_, • ... ./,
� - jJ /
7i
�� i IT_ C E Jordan High' A+
• i f
� ` A
,.71 l ti . ir
-► sa
Leigh Farm Parkl 1
.1 Z . _
o 0.5
1 Miles
IJ "4-4 4D
=mob � ■ �r
.14 I . ,, -.7
.. .. ,1,- i (,. „..k.**
, LH,-" ),.......
., , HT-- .„,_
i ...____:
f ) ,t.—i t, .. I CITY OF
i - n�. E�1lRHAM
i x AE_COM
11: l' ,._ ( Jo-- . .
i i
r_ x-y ....... AECQM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
_ 1 shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
? @ { provided as a result of this request. This includes
I n et errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
1 (p r -11 content of the data, and relative and positional
0 ' i, accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
' -y I
I be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
I -- — . data have been compiled must be consulted for
--...l
. -r •�--- .. J'°'
I5 J
virlkite
f N 85
r •51 • OUR' I
�C r f 46
CHATHAM ii
1 • 40
Jordan Lake +
a 5 10
„Az- t
��Miles

\1/4
4
E, rI 44\%44
15i Exhibit 3
i
Geology
r
f CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
111:1
Major Roads
Streams
Ponds and Lakes
Study Area
`� m .7ib ciNew Hope and Little Creek
A� 0 Watersheds
d MX 0 I=1 Subwatersheds
>' Durham City Limits - 2019
73
. . 1 r,
. L_ --- County Boundary
—�~ Geology
_ Carolina Slate Belt
I �; Triassic Basins
, / 0
t
1 - _ 0 El I
f � �11,"41.1.1
It 4. . ...II
5
A
1
40 +- cr-
'LT
W
n
el
to
7..X
�;
A'
1 ,t1 '','., . i
rq.-. I. 1 rf-f'
\l iv
54
0 HIIIIIIIIIIglgilliIlljillL litift.,....
A
0.5 1
1 'Miles
40
b. 1
It _ - l CITY OF
r DURHAM
j f _ A=—COM
l + i
AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
r) r. shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
,_. provided as a result of this request. This includes
0
+� I � errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
L ' ��� content of the data, and relative and positional
Qaccuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
N + n be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
Ri +T" data have been compiled must be consulted for
0 +f r\----, , ..
-
tk . ,,
I A. ' rj.7 DUR h k
N. f' 1lAikIIIIIIIIII :.
5 (�
L _---------- --
• � -�- - ----_"__ -- --------- —"---- -'------ ------ ---�-. CHATHAM
Jordan Lake 1 Miles

4
[, r' \\\ILLior.
15 Exhibit 4
Hydrologic Soil Groups
\lip •
I CITY OF DURHAM
e\N NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
tillen
Al° lbw
r �. \l11\: Major Roads
Streams
I i" J ''� ; Ponds and Lakes
�r� Study Area
>r 1 *� New Hope and Little Creek
to
Watersheds
�� /� Subwatersheds
11U �=� Durham City Limits - 2019
1
L- ___1 County Boundary
114-: ,
= Hydrologic soil Group
I IU A- Rapid Infiltration (<1%)
t ' r{ i� AID - (DrainedlUndrained
Areas) (2%)
- ¢i
A (.1-. P. — l. B-Medium Infiltration (16%)
I)
BID - (DrainedlUndrained
it \ c
ZAreas) (1510)
' • • le
Air. C- Slow Infiltration (2%)
:::?....11
ts ' / r CID-(DrainedlUndrained
.T•4 5, Areas) (7%)
t
D -Very Slow Infiltration
I - r (55%)
rr .� Gullied Land (<1%)
40 • Urban Land (2%)
'lid0 Water(<1%)
rf%
45
co
m
Jam ea-P at
4
41 Ole
N
10
1 t ' 54
OA :JO
0 0.5 1
10 . .i.. it
I Miles
40
A 41111r-i. ft•--....
***A.*
CITY OF
r �' DURHAM
i+ Ilir 1 ►4_'+C1DM
' --/-
r++ AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
V - shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
.9 provided as a result of this request. This includes
I L errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
11 content of the data, and relative and positional
7)
Qa.
accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
N i IX n be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
0 ? data have been compiled must be consulted for
i — —i r-L'(I: ' '-, a
' t n
j 5 r as
ID
ORj� x-"- DUR h k '
i N. \ i.
-_I 46
r
---_- — — — - - -
- — — CHATHAM � dr 40
5
Jordan Lake 1 0 5 10
Miles

pi �- _. Exhibit 5
�� FEMA Floodplains
I _� =�� , CITY OF DURHAM
��' NEW FiQPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
�■r"II
��� WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
. gir Allipli
111111�
111111
--... • \\"---. k ; lial
t JH1IJ 1IJ!: Major Roads
Roads
111)4 a)
Streams
Ponds and Lakes
1141 Study Area
A New Hope and Little Creek
, Elf [7 I IMAlirtiliWO4111
, Watersheds
>' Subwatersheds
I SH c Durham City Limits -2019
r L__—__i County Boundary
Flood Zones
+ FEMA 100-yr Floodplain
1 • Q7
(effective 2019)
Co
FEMA Floodway
[effective 2019]
aa
.I
1
i Y 4.• .4111/
ao
y
0
n •
al
1 m
r -: I
szi. NIS\ '\--- '--- •
4.
N
,/ . ...• .4) A.., ,, .
r
1.
' 11110- ` ,.�" 0 0.5 1
- Alt ' 1 Miles
., ill tx--, . ...- 443
1/1 /i
.. ,s, wadi iiiiihaia 17 i, _ ____., 404
CITY OF
r ./ •_, 4-r-'") ,-------- ------.
DURHAM
/
i .r
A='COA►1
AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
Fshall not be held liable for any errors in the data
_ " iCt _- provided as a result of this request. This includes
Z `` R. _ — errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
1 .... content of the data, and relative and positional
_ �J �+ accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
�Qy 'r Q �r _ be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
to f Ri } } i data have been compiled must be consulted for
14101 •I
j • `.. . r 0 "
JtJr •
. DUR + i
N. JIII - 111111111w
�5
-
Ll+ CHATHAM
— ,fit ,
Jordan Lake
�i ', Miles

NINksitoop
51
Exhibit S
►�� NCDCIa55E[�ifiCatinnS Stream
4 CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
r , ! WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
•
C
•
//1 Major Roads
Roads
Streams - WS-V, NSW
II* Streams - WS-IV, NSW
m --
I Ponds and Lakes
4 isi L
G Study Area
q
1=I
5ubwatersheds
' f -a
¢ I IMINew Hope and Little Creek
::Wit.. Watersheds
ifikz_
• , r CO Durham City Limits 2019
_ -,. ,. am , ._ L--_--: County Boundary
! i r' 11.1 • �i.----. Falls/Jordan District A Critical
L
• 4 F� H
Falls/Jordan District B
a ' Protected Area
f ,..- $A
•
if
ry
as
y
o
to
0
f, .. r
PI
N
-______7—fiiii;
5a
\ A
0 0.5 1
'Miles
011 \I
*
CITY OF
DURHAM
AECOM
W
0 ? -ti AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
ZI44Z r shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
1 .,t•
• provided as a result of this request. This includes
►y errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
Cr , ` Al r content of the data, and relative and positional
Aiti accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
V ...7
be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
data have been compiled must be consulted for
LD� til a"
— a —. 5n
- DIJR a
' • 46
+'r (51
-- ---- --------- _ — CHATHAM , dI' ,,a^ , 40
Jordan Lake 0 5 10
' Miles

+ \
s ii ,$ Exhibit 7
_" Monitoring Stations
f \ CITY OF DURHAM
•
( p NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
-
i
' '35 36 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A I ki,' , i
Major Roads
r Roads
34 32 33 31 Streams
Ponds and Lakes
,4 ' 28: 29 ..
:� ilk ;� Study Area
�, 30 27 111
I A • 1=1Su bwatersheds
}� L AR 26
Q — J. 4 taa ' 0 25 " �� lalNew Hope and Little Creek
7+ Q� .23 Watersheds
�� 2 Durham City Limits - 2019
21 c
A County Boundary
■. ■� 15 L_ - �
■w `�
Z-` 20 SAP, 19 Stations
14 1 f/I Iv
'w 8 City of Durham
+ (-d ','-.-1 ri Q) 1 ...N.,V 1 •
North Carolina Department of
- 13 t -L Water Resrouces
s.. Upper Cape Fear River Basin
l a Association
r
, 12 f USGS
■■
j r
11
I !i �. 5J
11 4
r 0 10
8
MBill IL
0
n
-1 7i \� 0 al '`. •
7 x
1 ID Station
1 3040000/BB238
ryill 2 02097314
P 3 LITC1.5LITC
r _ _ 4 BB085
a, .Th, i - \ -
5 B3020000
` 6 BB090/BF057
Eli ii #
? i -- 7 NHO.ONHC N
hie. C 8 NHI.OSC
1 111' 54 � � 1 -
i litk ■ i
-- ti 1 9 NH1.7SCTA
• ' 10 NH1.8SCTA
_ 1,,.. tg
L 11 NH1.6SC ° �5
12 SCSN 01 Miles
�'.� 13 NH2.3MC
1. _•.- Ix F y. 14 NH3.0NHC
t - - l 15 NH3.3SC
4 i 16 0209722970 ****
j -- --- -- - _ 17 NH3.4SCTD
i l i CITY OF
- _ 18 N H 3.4SC DURHAM
0 + _ --- 19 SCSN 21 AECOM1 ;�'� Ti �,r j 20 SCSN 03
a + Q (- 21 SCSN 04 AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
�� � shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
x r' -j --;7--_. " 1.1 22 NH4.4SCTD provided as a result at this request. This includes
D i �,_
fg
. 3 `� � t�;�� errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
1 ff c 2 SCSN 17 content of the data, and relative and positional
t CI �■2 �� is Li
___ accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
+ Q J �,, I .+� ■w — 24 N H8.8N HC be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
1 '� ' 25 SCSN 18 data have been compiled must be consulted for
'� --� i 26 NH5.0SCTD275
r — 27 NH4.8SCTDT
+ - - " 28 NH4.3SC as
1
29 SCSN 13 t DUR h
I 46
f- Tr 30 SCSN 11 -
/ �i ,s I 31 SCSN 15
t ;..- -r.' * — —• 32 SCSN 10
— — — — — — — — 33 SCSN
----------- — — C HAT HA Ilrl
I
34 NH4.75C "
Jordan Lake I /I( 35 SCSN 06 0 s 10
r—�
36 SCSN 07 Miles

i
$' + Exhibit 8
11-:' 1,!.. 1 Existing Land Use
r Ilitipii. s. • CITY OF DURHAM
Nithi NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
• ef41-64 .0 43
•
s I fall
�11-I Major Roads
111111116)4/114:
f i��� Roads
�. Streams
Ponds and Lakes
m
A r ii:f: Study Area
i *' 1 f ,Ti =pew Hope and Little Creek
atersheds
I ■u. f
4'+ - "Cs _ _ Subwatersheds
C It S - ,
# �*+ 1* r+s a L y— County Boundary
ti
} f gm illb., 4ilipi, Land Use
Ilil { �i �` F' Very Low Density Residential
-- I. F Low Density Residential
E
:' r., Medium Density Residential
V
P.
81i. - High Density Residential
�� Institutional
1/ IIIV'S \ ,
1
i+y ' Industrial
q
. r r
1 5� - Commercial
40
11111N,Aio V....:: Parks and Open Space
7 ;'} - Agriculture
I i 111111* pm 1(0 Ai ...
40 Li
Of , l;1; 4,i.„..
�� Roadway
-
...s:.
- 1.14,4
N . ,
,.._ ,
I ... "- k
az:
(ilk
1 •
4,
0 0.5
__.I.,, , 54
I. • � ' 'Mlles
40
11111111
. . ' '-'*.:1:1 1**7 -.44i
NN1111.1111.411 ifi#11111-milli 1
`y
lk 4:4e. /1/4,
illilli ittigg *****
I 4 •: • *i CITY OF
j r _ DURHAM
I itt-,; • di- AECOM
I `¢
z
/i r AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
r, — - shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
j �`t.
provided as a result of this request. This includes
I
+r. @ errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
Q content of the data, and relative and positional
X 1 n accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
Or { •._ data have been compiled must be consulted for
iCII r-y
85
N. .. DUR a 1
`
i 4t '-'
S
1 I
•
.- _ ---------- - - - - ) CHATHAM f ,: _.
/), ______ ,,,r.,„ ir-‘,
a
Jordan Lake 0 5 10
��Miles

$' + Exhibit 9
r CEi�'L
_ 15
! f° ,� Future Land Use
I �'. CITY OF DURHAM
I♦ NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
if
f WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
4. . ) 11.• \\1'. , it
jajill111
\1. Nei
•
sI Major Roads
�. i � Roads
1 Streams
1 _ ■
zo....741
Ponds and Lakes
t fy
A r o ;_++' Study Area
lli
' V 111�,: laliNelAti Hope and Little Creek
� • -• ersheds
>' rur ,,
I - ! Q Su bwatersheds
# do" _ F IP County Boundary
iv
1 w yi } Land Use
el itak
II`�' VeryLow Density Residential
1 r re ,." -t 1 I 1 rr` . Y
r •4.,,. •. . r •
-i
, r; Low Density Residential
rr'' 0iialipliet: Medium Density Residential
11
5 r
High Density Residential
Institutional
l i
� Industrial
x1111
4 - -1, 44,,,r
5� Commercial
Parks and Open Space
�y, 7 n} Agriculture
I / 411A Illtija 1t K70 r ...p' U Roadway
40 .le F
er
�w�
iD
k__ Ws !� Y
—
t
. ..._ . ,
.r•l_
-__- M
lr
N
' A 54
ft_
es tg _,,,4:igoli
el.,
l x-i
_i 0 0.5 1
` ' 'Mlles
It
?z '�" + ,
CITY OF
i
jp,. _,..,. ' ` DURHAM
i , AECOM
i �i.
LIJ � z i 1:1 � AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
C7r, shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
j provided as a result of this request. This includes
r +r. @ errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
ICC �4 content of the data, and relative and positional
+ C1 L ■ accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
O r be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
CD '* V data have been compiled must be consulted for
1111111111
I I S5 c
N. D U R a
f 46
------------ ----------- - CHATHAM °t,,.`
Jordan Lake (,), ____- 4`12 i
0 5 10
��Miles

51 iI .wI. NPFIONAL. Exhibit 10
rv: Impervious Area
..,h 0. _.-' , 'rn it I.
1 4- 4: ;s:.. CITY OF DURHAM
rili NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
W •e tt,S -.Att., ," "Tor-,,, '----- ...
• .414,17 -.-.L.•-•,-_,./ -4- i!,-.1::..E- '__ .', Nil
' 7 r A'-r1 A'
-.‘ Major Roads
,.- . - Roads
. co-
, i.r-a. .;� Streams
• . I 2144
fonds and Lakes
.ti'60iwiim ��
Study Area
A z;
_ �'�, '� L�� b �' i, mg? ICrew Hope and Little Creek
Q4 . Vi�+� C4 ` '`'! s4 atersheds
t: : �; . . (( 4,41s. = ' Subwatersheds
1"-OF y V ;.-i Y
....:''' .%,.,,S.:,....:.4
®; - Durham City Limits 20 l9
1-1
_ ? • ,,, ilki.‘,.p.1. __,
+• r , County Boundary
n
'`: 6 .tr.:
qt -..:•4 • �� ;. Impervious Area
• 4111,23 Gy.,-...p40 ,..... i ..:.;, , oftl.' ' . Op ---
_::• i r ► ;.• . , i. ,.., 41. / elf4;:i .? ...-:'' 44 . ..
Impervious area in study area: 18%
t :a _Ca - . 4i- ' q' � Impervious area in city limits- 25%
t '+ sj
.#: II
t :.C;� r 51
p ICE-: ir. r L
\ • 'tse Op ilea - ,- -il;
. +1 A
.„. __., .
�� t .� ?
.. t. r my
. "T . r , .te4
tii -. . -:.cby.,
• -.�� ffr •dS e.q 4.
•
' 5 .- -
-44ill
. i4
N
,. .. ...„. b. d' 4 ic•
A
, „. .t. :
,r_ , ift, OP t9
•
4. _ 0 0.5 1
'Miles
ti.,
�.a Z•C- c' %'. . .' "_ - __`- 40
4• r - - r•
• ,w.-3 CITY OF
ti IL' DURHAM
i•i p:' ;Ili ...-,. '
1,.. x�• AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
Naa ' shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
-" '. ' "f provided as a result this request. This includes
errors of omission,commission,errors concernin the
Z11' -• _ : content of the data, and relative and positional
I 0 '�'', e I accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
Cr 1r + {� 1 be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
4 data have been compiled must be consulted for
7C .�
r \ I � _ Via'
ti
f6. J� L lCHATHAM /1111;JR
i
151
, ,
Jordan Lake I '-� 0 5 10
Miles

I
\ III I
as W CARVER ST Z Exhibit 11
� • • m Stream Quailty Rating
In LTi \ ' �1] (RSAT)
+r - _ \ .4,1 / \ 501 CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
���� \ �� 1 �� WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
dr
E , * IIPLE-iI�iiksi1� ,
ori 1 4.
, . ���111�1 r� ® Durham Public Libraries
Atil,'Apoir-sl ► ��lIt11111111111 1114��a111•Y1111111IIIIipulli : Durham Public Schools
WZi
Y NIIIIIIIIII11111mi
0 - � ���I 1 IN Major Roads
Z = ! iNo
II� Roads
�i tj i•
m Ponds and Lakes
-4 ‘i
r
O � \. -- - = r IA Parks
1 S � Study Area
)
o 501 V �� ell" New Hope and Little Creek
Watersheds
>, _ 4
�. �/ LiIp
� 4 _ Subwatersheds
f ���• cam /� V DurhamCityLimits-2019
1O M, r ��1 County Boundary
, / , , � IRSAT Rating
Sandy Creek Park I ►w �r ‘ Lakewood
Good Condition (30-41)
• i� ae ��• Middle �
_ •��10 6 I ���` ` Y �I Fair Condition (16-29)
ii tr �1 ♦ �j�_ Lakewood / `I`I _Poor Condition (< 16)
tElementary ,/ Streams(Assessed but no RSAT)
401 . 111; 1)111; [ i 01
•
41111P Illhe;• /' i - 111 -1 misill lia \
, .- , qj
# 'i. 'VP. a sh*
gal
3 � ,� •a t\ outhwest LY
Creekside �A -111
' ir
I I'
Elementary 4�1��►'�� �� ��
1 �N alto / I
it - , 0 4:4vii, if
I iiik \:4 0 ( 1 ' 1� III
f'� i
j PIASherwood •Githens Middle I -�,
ti# ,A4\ '
% 16 ,)T:414; ,/
Vi -weal -4
it 'IN bit ,_ _ 1";-(' 1,10-
C E Jordan High
4 ...._1, \ 4
j_-____ ___x____ 1 ,cL ti,_ 0 " .
p
.6)' -401114., _
- Leigh Farm Park
\ lir 0 0.5 1
1 . I Miles
.fr-- 4
illk
--- t li AM- 4710,40
ilft ,..
. c z.V
a 11" .114ir
j r11.1�/• IJpØ
' t � CITY OF
DURHAM
5,1 A
I •44. ,
�; I, 3 )44\
I a .4-I AECOMji ��� -�U � AECOM,the City of Durham,and County of Durham
I / , shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
r V
1 provided as a result of this request. This includes
/ errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
- content of the data, and relative and positional
41 CC V.1 /, — � `1 accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
1 liVie
be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
data have been compiled must be consulted forG: if -
R
1 0 C �/�, "I 140111" as .
04k. lir
f �i1 )111.11111rDUR
.:? 2 -
— -. — — — — — — - — - CHATHAM /
f f
40 4
1 .14-0
Jordan Lake I -
1 0 5 10
n Miles

I
111
z )
as W CARVER ST p� Exhibit 12
El '� 11441 . m_ Observed Water
\ , I, , ,r Quality Concerns
+, \ IF
\ 501 CITY OF DURHAM
/� �_�� ^\ / / : 1111.3L
,- i NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
r WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Jj --t-%, 67 ecl il r • MN
I ii . 4 A2
, - WO ---‘1,1
_IrECIalilifmaim �rilki �y © Durham Public Libraries
� ntammuA,,,, ern � Durham Public Schools
W ir
r. „.i.iilll IIHHIflhi .....l'"„H„"I' Major Roads
0 7� j tA4‘t �' 6
Roads
Q �� 0 : , �, C _...„i%, =� Ponds and Lakes
O 1aa \ .:: Tf , / Parks
.4 Study Area
V, d ` p \. New Hope and Little Creek
/�..
501 Watersheds
o *� 0 /0 0 i _ Subwatersheds
r *� 0 , * 4'il�� `>�/ �■■ , Durham City Limits-2019
) R ` ,111% I. . 41
ri
* �� �� V �`." r, �� _ County Boundary
Ali I(
NM
III Potential sources of excess
sediment
(Sandy Creek Park 1 `� m rr Lakewood
0 1 Suspect water appearance
�, i� ��NI, Middle
�, (� 11 �' _�� ' 11 1 Y Suspect odor
a /
Alr%— �) .%4 0 Low-head dam
♦ �( **1 Lakewood
*E ! �. *� Elementary 0 Exposed or threatened utility
. \ \j) A‘ A „ * Headcut
r • 0 Litter Observed
I r , • IL
, -: .61],, , \,41 A
IP
Olt 0
ao P d Southwest Library
11
•. \ !en 111 & ,,a tO ei _
id
1 Creekside A.7'41
Elementary 471 �►� r , I±1
� * �NAbe / �7 _ 1
\~ a"1
\Iv • : _
7 �� * ', �1 $ r/ l , 4/0
i WI
l fipi Sherwood Githens Middle' i
—�,
'14;c1F,41t 7
:i ' a q - ' _ ::-14,0 ,/
i 1m, * C E Jordan High
L. � � �i \ �,Q ���� . ' tl c
& ..,
0 C . • ` Leigh Farm Park
0 0.5 1
� J I I Miles
if
--.-ASIIHIIIIIIIIIIIII -
.,::
i, _ fir• �Ai'i % ***
i
� 7411solormri
5, ,.... ,
j ,� gird,�)17 �! Llla . DURHAM
I ••♦ t,
1 � r
j la AECOM,the City of Durham,and County of Durham
it) shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
rt_ 1 , , provided as a result of this request. This includes
:I: 0 \ <: ' r IM
errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
To0 — content of the data, and relative and positional
41 CC i / — � `1 accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
1. 1 Cil ?I fie
= be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
data have been compiled must be consulted for -
R
1 C ai "I + N 14Ni" as
... I' �i1 I ir , / w
)111.11111rDUR k
..'? 2 -
- - - - - - - - — CHATHAM /
f
f
# 40 A
I .iqii 7:1
Jordan Lake t -
? 0 5 10
n Miles

. -( ,� , ►-
85 w GA`vE I sT • o Exhibit 13
• 4 ■ m Stream Bank Erosion
7U
_ e\ JIPI /
CITY OF DURHAM
41111
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
• •
—1_'—� _ \r, 4� lir vr, WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
er •. i?ci ■ .��
+ �� ,1 .�� .innommi •
It'_•,_ © Durham Public Libraries
1 ~� �,J�11A11111/1111,■■ Durham Public Schools
Major Roads
0 T/Q' ill, = MIINIIIM Roads
Z •
5, xA I tie f .-- Streams (Not Assessed for Bank
�� Erosion)
oro F
Ponds and Lakes
‘‘.>-- -i-
Parks
-II
4.
4 + a 40 501 V OP ��.( Study Area
1 >i" 1__� �M. New Hope and Little Creek
r Iit. = r ►` �� r� ���■f ��� ••Watersheds
'} ` ♦�;rlifig ♦ .4111111111
,111,��� m Subwatersheds
, �� ri•
in
CO . ,�Lor,4
�� Durham City Limits 2019
I _ 7
Sandy Creek Park 1 11w r m1- /r , f �; County Boundary
e LakewoodIIS . 0sa' 141
�,.� ��it�� Middle Sediment Yield (tons/year)
V �y r� �� OF
Li MM 1-10(tons/year)
—i)�. �l \ Y
a
1 ��' L of Lakewood Al �•` - 10-20(tons/year)
1r�; rJJJ' -----5 Elementary f‘ 20-100(tons/year)
�I / Is. 100-300 (tons/year)
I ...416.4. ,,,,e -J� ( 8 >300(tons/year)
Amer i •� ,
�-
Lt f blow/ a
ao y , Al:, a 't Southwest Library)
ilitrIWN
�\-,
-\___ CI+ Creekside t.��� i 1, ;�
Elementary1 dia, EFF Al
/�� Z
4 11
lit, it rt
1 v. 1
fter
vaA
ilL •
Sherwood Githens Middle )
-iii, 4 \‘ ' ifik:_j'
_ 'V kl , -g -
Yilei,.11-n
w , 1--,, - )
1 l C E Jordan High telik
• Wi N„ /1,) \.ge47-
<! 7 PIIII"' -4 ifilik- ,Ill 41P •
-1 Leigh Farm Park —iI
dpr �
0 0.5 1
f �� .4 ,lir It f r Miles
411661111)
iartp,:
4. 1 Ihra '
7.1 .r.Ar
OW kl#114
CITY DF
DURHAM
`�/ � �� 11 t AECOM
M "It
i triIIT
AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
I I/ -
Rt r/ t
N\
'ilii' ,...:.
r Q ` , shall not be held liable for any errors ino
the data
provided as a result of this request. This includes
errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
A / alfl
�p content of the data, and relative and positional
accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
1 • Wei
be a have
document.Primaryd besourceso from which the
\ data have been compiled must be consulted for
Cil f iii a
..) . IIIIIjbpiu6-4.
I 1 .1r1 DURH
— —' � - — — � � Y —r — — — I ao
? - - � - - - - — —. _____ — CHATHAM ;�
C till
11
I ,AV0 40 A
Jordan Lake '�
r
0 5 10
•
I � Miles

.Mr ♦ Lkiz Exhibit 14
\ rmisp„._
W:A-RV-ER ST o Existing Stormwater
i_l_
r'r I m Control Measures
I • 'far
�� .; 1 Evaluated
i --Y1 jo / 501 CITY OF DURHAM
* I - - NHCMC00704' •ki-
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTPLAN
NHCMC0071071.11181411411 --"gl L'Illii
iii-
rirpa l 11,' , © Durham Public Libraries
• ,111111,111�
W �� ��q� �� � ;��a11�w1111" "1J
11 r
W ` J Durham Public Schools
.� l / NHCMC0067 \ III,III 11
Z u ■■ Major Roads
• �` `44 E"� Roads
0 0 IC g� f �1V,,„ �� ,mor Streams
11000 - d �� T, b., Ponds and Lakes
a 4 '� V �telfavoisIL
0�03 1111011111p Parks
f '00107 �.. �t ...T Ir11• :`�+� Study
104,...r.- ,il111 ki*Ige
ij R0 ��V���11 / �� New Hope and Little Creek
+ 00303 Uj •� � �-�`�� ' ��, Q Watersheds
a� 00360 f , , T33�5 ; �;� I -
Land Creek Park ' I/ �` ' ♦00359 1 f�� — ' ,, Subwatersheds
y a, A 11 r . Lakewood
1 00267� 00072 '� r.� Middle -
` �.k �� 00674r , 007,07"N \�� ONO
Durham City Limits2019
,a ,
A .......
I o097d3168 ' ��M Lakewood / `MIL-----� County Boundary
l 004 l � 00073 Elementary �/ Existing SCM Type
�� NH;MCoo68 An j , di is Biorentention w/o IWS
�r ' �i
�0o199 'I� ,` Cw Constructed Wetland
Ij j ■■�will li �� 11411%.` �� Dry Pond
� 10051.1 �� 11�� • Sand Filter
I 1231 00325 -�.
40 NHC0025 �� r •
O Wet Pond
I r-,y •.,Southwest Library
�� ExistingWater
r o � � � Retention
1312,7 ,b irifirdill%_/ ® Feature (i.e. farm pond)
Creekside NN 13124 NHC0024,A, `
Elementary `fit ) 0,
��
4 00316 00�8i' ihrti, • ,
��
0028.7 � ,
orb• fili_, drikAarr • , ,�
Bank .
00369, i Sherwood Githens Middle kiboro'l
i' 00370 * 0 6�
it00368 `, \ I ' M1 —rYlr •
_00240 00415 illitlik 'w � F - P:
0043 0 C E Jordan Hi
0446 I High! • 4111
0044;7� 00756 , ,,
00507# \ i
♦ ip .4 4 . A
,` (11%1
4 '\ 00363 1 00221 ' ® �,� r
�� 00230 Leigh Farm Park — �-� -� �
00091 N�HC002.1 ♦ r
` f 0 0.5 1
• u 00464�NHC0023 �� 1 Miles
00387� 46, � _
1 �� èHCOO '22 0 20 5 00256 1.3239" ' ` 40
.. it ,
t
. �� =� 00246 00-186 A. . • .
`rL 00429I
- - -- 00613 #100"
****
0 i -ch. 0004 32 411 *UP 0•0041 13265 �'
1 _ NHC0020 � 276 _ . DURHAM022 *� CITY OF
0021�3�00111 4 A AECOM
♦ JUlL
I r, \ /� •� �M w Kimley}}Horn
7 13316 O. 7101104.
�Y AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
? �� ` , , provided as a result of this request. This includes
11116
I , errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
(0 NHC0019 r 00052 ` content of the data, and relative and positional
CD �' accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
I 4 .r 00 y �b M �] A be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
+;� data have been compiled must be consulted for
i -.A I ill a 6.
(is 1011116pw
r'I Il 85
I L
/ . DUR
---- — — — —_— Ilir CHATHAM
II
' i f a .aUA
Jordan Lake
j .;.
I 0 5 10
0
I ' Miles

Nk 85 �
' o Exhibit 15
W GA`VER ST
Z-
70 \ Potential Stream Projects
\. ..4004
Illif ' 'i 1,',if/ et -1
+ - V' . OOPINIL _ 501 CITY NEW HOPE CREOF EKAND LITTLE CREEK
• ��� 4� �1� ` WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
„ ,,,
int
similL —0•41„,
;�
MITEM L '*1-
© Durham Public Libraries
��� �% II111"ni ■ ,1 Durham Public Schools
r ifiri,
...numI1111111mW t ■�' Major Roads
� , 'ft
q � 11111111z = `}p �' Roads
Q Cri " ` 1Ponds and Lakes
0 it ( L Parks
pro � �� f
Study Area
Il gift i a)
�� `lam_ New Hope and Little Creek
: .f Q 501 V �r•' • 1pp r �� ��. • al
Watersheds
•
�� r. t� •eel iL
�`\
Subwatersheds
r _ ♦� LIIIIIIp.� Durham City Limits 2019
;4 ,., dr,. I\\:),
co %Nig <
y �r .r-1 , County Boundary
�" ` .�/ 411 ) IN i,' i �-__ Stream Project Potential (Number
(Sandy Creek Park ` ;r� Al1 f Lakewood of Reaches)
ta► #.14rik, ` Middle Restoration (39)
c, il ~r~ r \ U Stream Enhancement I (16)
a
1 ♦I r J 1 Lakewood :r;I` Stream Enhancement II (17)
1� i i Elementary f -Bank Stabilization (37)
- r 1011 0 WI \ \---\ // / #• Preservation (6)
� �� ' ------)9 . *
ti f ill- .0, 6 �a fi' I
501 •.,���
40
ill
� y � �� L •t Southwest Library
Creekside �r �'°� ��ni,���Mr,7 I, i 1, ;r
Elementary
f I Ni
ft
-44
Vivi _ .4
r� •.
r rp Sherwood Githens Middle )
1 Iv
_ kL--1 %Iikt� vvirr
•
11111Paia., — C E Jordan Hight .'
4
10 Ir J I 0 N
le
4
,-/ 1,,,. A
IL ir 0._ '411111
Leigh Farm Park' W A"r�0 '�'�4 la 1 4400X0000000; f
�� 0 0.5 1
r Miles��.
slims.
frIl - 01' --Aitat," . 40
t ��
4.0 10!iii '
i c J syA , 0•7
L. r! z iigo _ CITY OF
. DURHAM
`1 �, s �1 . Il AECOM
cf__ ..„. �~ ,1v
AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
7
40Fort ",4, 11)
in , shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
Q ' provided as a result of this request. This includes
III
errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
�o
p - content of the data, and relative and positional
�D /, 1 accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
1 1 � = de a have
document.Primaryd be sources from which the
\ � data have been compiled must be consulted for -
. Il
NOISII6W '-'s
C �1 I S
RH .1
I 1 _. — — —
- - - - - -- - — — . — —. �_� — CHATHAM ;f
II
0 40 .
I ,i14,
Jordan Lake 74
r
•
0 5 10
•
? � Miles

•
'-
85 J ♦ p z_ Exhibit 16
Nk w CARVER ST o Potential Retrofits
c
Iti 411
■ m to Existing Stormwater
\-7
' cn
k ' '�-w q Control Measures
-� ill / �_ �501� CITY OF DURHAM
�� NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
,51 NHCMCOOr70 �.. : R 1 ►h `. WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1 r NHCMC0071 ,
— ��� �HCMC0069 � ,. .
? 11 • ger....111,1,
u . 7 © Durham Public Libraries
�t i44111111,1011411111praniginkinil��4. r� ,�L� a1111111IIIIIIii1 Durham Public Schools
LLI �� _ I � �,l 11111 ■■�V ���litty NHCMC0067 \ 111
z = I
Major Roads
Cr �� � 1 Iff�� f ,-K Roads
y
, 1
O Q am, — Streams
IV'
/
,p /
% Ponds and Lakes
1'4 ris 00503 Parks
> s
...�
� � � :::: .�\ Study Area. - • �!! j.` R 11114411. ../..1114.11.4-0i � r �,��1,�� New Hope and Little Creek
kj*��� 00303 C,) `��11 / I� Watersheds
% 0
�� 00360 , �
Sandy Creek Park 1 ��. 0359 Millr7.41f
j Subwatersheds
w it 41, i� Lakewood
00267 ` 00674 00072 1 L
444 Middle .1 Durham City Limits - 2019
ht
i a I W, ���"- ' ,` rL--- J County Boundary
1 ., �00497 i Lakewood �_I ExistingSCM Type
� � - / Yp
z) -00054 _ ` Elementary
�~kHcM8 O Existing Water Retention
���7 �� Features
�� � �� ile t Existing SCMs (SCM ID)
i II � •
--- ' ' vii400rfr �r. � IF i�
S. 11111111.p.
00325
ao j r •�j Southwest Library
i.
I - fill".„111tew ;
r Creekslde NHC0024 �0 I '' WElementary f ' �'
`00316 002891 �' ahr
�I` �287 elliti.I 4 41
iffle i
ii sir__, .. iro_ .. lift
viA
' ' , Mirmak 00100'� 1
,� 0 , ��o ilmrSr
herwood Githens Middletri - ,
mid_J ) (7,____
00439 04�6 , lip* - 1 , 11.111 E Jordan High i
00447 1i)i•4A 4v\
•• di 4A
4l-.e1k
i .I..I% . •
AN
.,
t 0
t:i
iw_ r �� Leigh Farm Parkf
ii,
� i / 0 0.5 1
:i -
Miles
�i. 00464 :00;103 i��
j 1 ►�' 40
r t 1 raw., 00255 `
di
I *A-,****
IV --.4100 .
0),..-da es .
i c - *.- t
i t d � c J pow'
CITY OF
1
DURHAMdi
\- 10,, * 4
27 it
1 �, 00111 I*.
� AECOM
�N r \ Kimley*Horn
fi AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
�_ shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
111provided as a result of this request. This includes
4errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
i content of the data, and relative and positional
�C accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
I 4 .r � �� � . be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
_ data have been compiled must be consulted for
I .1h fl
1j� 11
�'�J
r C fa 85
Igo,. .
' , i
�
'..
A .or
/ i
- - - - -
- - - - , - - CHATHAM . if
IS
jr .40 A
Jordan Lake .'.
I 0 5 10
I Miles

i 1Nrii I z
Exhibit 17
tlX NHCSC0040 ik W CTARVER ST o Potential New
.\ NHCMr C0052 NHCSCO f I I C
Z,/ ' m Stormwater Control
bp\\. or .; H Measures
AO
iiiii40\‘,..1.
' CITY OF DURHAM
HN CSC0044 ra � NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
N \ WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I NHCSC0043 NHCMCO - 111, ,1
NHCMC0054 �/ .0 4 caa � it
/I//Cw NHCSC0032 NHCSC0049 r , • marad ",i, d © Durham Public Libraries
NHCMC0055 --`tNHCSC0046 i". , I ♦� 4k -��A::::::„",■
�� tj NHCSC0047 41,
Ityr
V• r • HCSC0037 r i 11.11111111.1
" r Durham Public Schools
NHCMC0056 NHCSC0031 e �`NHCSC0
NHCMC0057 jip
Cw 4 Ih` nr H`C0034Major Roads
NHCMC0058
' Roads
im. ,
AIIII"' fTrZil:
.� NHCSC003 . Streams
, A i NHCSC0029 1 inch = 1,500 feet
a' A al0p,...111%,:i4,01.4 , Ponds and Lakes
ha
//(�e11 ram. .\
' q
C)� / j� ♦�� Parks Study
___ tii -4
! ipti:4 \
>,
.0
C jigiallY411.1111144
�. ./ New Hope and Little Creek
�` Rk`:171.111,41111811411:r „", �� Watersheds
III
'�� 'r+ , , : %; Subwatersheds
Landy Creek Park fft. I/ a3 Jr �11 , .�� 0 Lakewood '�J
J �NHCSC0027 (' ,► J�/i Durham City Limits- 2019
� �' cw ���\t� !r ` Middle j � __
V •
„ �r �,,a� � �r County Boundary
WI
rl �I i NHCSC0026 ��• / `_•� L -
, �/ 11P Lakewood • * Potential New SCM Type
z j ,Q tt g' / / / `� I Elementaryr��
Bioretention
j i����� 101
}� �/ # N ow Constructed Wetland
I �� SI `�' t 0 Regenerative Stormwater
I. ei/aIllinii
.it �� �� Conveyance
H� � �1� •
Treatment Swale- Dry
50140 '` :,� ,," Treatment Swale-Wet
illy,
14 Southwest Library
. ofpWet Pond
Creekside ♦
le 11 �� H
+ Elementary ""' z•, n 01, t ' O Other
1� , NHC0008 r, • 11 . , 1
1A - 7:04rakk
#..41\
t � -�`�le...WTJ �� ' -I
Fa
to
"A
A r v Sherwood Githens Middle! -v..-- '
a
194 / r
� _
:14igki
1 �� C E Jordan High I i
11 Air
41
NHC00�14 Vfe 1 L
N
opilli
111 11141... • go 1.• ‘,4,
NHC0015 vaor,..._,,,,,,A,
' Leigh Farm Park' 60 f 0 0.5 1
Cw �„ ill ea, 1
ora ,_ 4\ Miles
NHC0018cw imo
NHC0010 /1 i� •► lP40
i`'N. C0012NHC0016 NHC00090006NHC001311 in = 800 feet /A •�
CITY OF
i DURHAMiik.
' ' ' ' i ll • A..
/'�
+ l ) iP$
ICimley}7 Horn
-NHC0003 N•
11C0002AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
JJJJ HC05 provided as a result of this request. This includes
errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
�pcontent of the data, and relative and positional
accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
be a legal document.Primary sources from which the
� data have been compiled must be consulted for
I t4. I OW
4171.
it �` Ir � 85
i `� 1DURi jpt .
_t CHATHAM - ir - 40
it
i / ♦40 1
Jordan Lake
i 0 5 10
0
I ' Miles

i- • \
qr51 ; ,$ Exhibit 18
l
r I PSA 5ubwatersheds
I
? N, I HHCSfi MC CITY OF DURHAM
_
NHC55 MC r� ��/� NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
• [— �'• WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
tr. NHC4fi_SC *a'
4_MC- /��' II
—..,- )') NHC5
� Major Roads
NHC53_MCwit
+ Streams
1lr,M /4 NHC43_SC f +�j -A : Ponds and Lakes
•NHC52_MC In NHC51_MC NHC44'Sc / NHC45 5C ' Study Area
Lf —
1\ f� W �4� Crew Hope and Little Creek
NHC5D_MC ,/�I y `t /// atersheds
41., r5ubwatersheds
f � NHC41 SC NHC42 SC MI
NHC4D_SC �7+
13 PSA 5ubwatersheds
r NHC48±MC, NHC49_MC :1 _ ��� Candidate PSAs
fib *I/
•NHC36+SC %`G?. NHC39_SC County Boundary
• �+ NHC38_SC
� L —
r 114NHC37-5C Durham City Limits - 2019
d
� CLI
• A pliM6
i'
. • 1 illir • •
eZ NHC34 5C , ��}—
NHC29_LNHC 'r� NHC32+LNHC
NHC47•MC NHC33_5C •
/ $
00.0 off
NHC31_LNHC
NHC28_LNHC "Or N
0 f NHC30_LNHC
40
NHC27—LNHC 'S'
�% o
— ,4rNHC26_LNHC
NHC25+LNHC�� � i7
/�NHC23 LNHC ,p
NHC21_LNHC N : ,
• NHC22•LNHC ry
NHC24�LNHC• a
NHC18 LNHC fff.
�- r' _ NHC2D_LNHC
NHC19 LNHC
NHC06 LC y
NHC15_LNHC / NHC17 LNHC
_ N
NHC07'LC •- NHC16_LNHC..'
' , ;� _ 54
0 0.5 1
45 ' NHC14_LNHC, At ' 'Miles
NHCDS LC • • • 40
NHC04_LC
/4°' .- • AIONAJW I *-
' I NHC12_,LNHC
I /�
NHC1/ LNHC-
CITY OF
_' ,
1. , /7 DURHAM
�' _- NHCD3_LC ` ' ; _
i HHCD2_LC l�� I � �—C�
1 AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
1 NHC1D_LNHC i shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
CD )1 r_- provided as a result of this request. This includes
Z r Q r YNHCO9 LNHC errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
— LD — content of the data, and relative and positional
r.,,._ -7 /
+ NHCO1 LC i-: accuracy of the data.The data cannot be construed to
�► 1 r. �c NHCD8_LNHC .—' be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
O + • �� — data have been compiled must be consulted for
•
❑ B5
J
$-. DURa
i• • 40
�f Tht.
.5 I / j.
- - - CHATHAM
Jordan Lake 1 --{ 0 10
j Miles

I
Exhibit 19
E' + 'j\ PSA Subwatershed
i Categories
! \10110:1 bri , ..„. . CITY OF DURHAM
yii ` NEW HOPE CREEKIMPROVEMENT
DMEET CREEK
# WATERSHED fMPRDVEMENT PLAN
��HC4fi•SC ' ,
ot
- _ /��� Major Roads
i //
Streams
// r -—
Ponds and Lakes
NHC45_5C r/ Study Area
Ili 4NHC40SCj
jai. rNew H❑ a and Little Creek
CI
10 D3ubwatersheds
PSA Subwatersheds
r NHC-48•MC,
Candidate PSAs
/. : A.
[ ] County Boundary
l „/// Durham City Limits - 20199
'�� �' PSA Subwatershed Categories
Z'
/1
ViliamookiumsjOillaii ilk Parks and Open Space -
Poorly Drained
/ . ‘ / 8141/1" P' . ',/, ' . - . rt.' .:(
Parks and Open Space Well
• xNHC32�LNHC Drained
�/ //, Low Density- Poorly Drained
NHC47j MC
i r 5, Low and Medium Density
Residential - Poorly Drained
/ High Density Residential and
I
Commercial
r`- ,g od 7 NHC3D LNH/
A
Commercial
40 � New Development- Poorly
0 Drained
�' New Development- Well
NHC25!LNHC _ m - Drained
0Institutional
co
rNHC24±LNHC
10".
N
tidliL / �. 54
A
.. .
0 0.51
. ..„
�� � ' Miles
,,,....„___ ,.._.....
:),,,,•./ .
� � 40
•HC04•LC ' 1111111411ftair /
_4
ip is 4,1
+' + A CITY OF
DURHAM
I ► ECOM
I
W I AECOM,the City of Durham, and County of Durham
0
I �• shall not be held liable for any errors in the data
1111* provided as a result of this request. This includes
1 Q errors of omission,commission,errors concerning the
i 2 content of the data, and relative and positional
ict 411\
accuracy of the data-The data cannot be construed to
0 be a legal document. Primary sources from which the
X iO LLD data have been compiled must be consulted for
i Q ar —�
1401 -.. ....
i 05 c
y' DUR a t
N. as
J
*illi�51 Is 0
--._______._ HAT HAM .
•
Jordan Lake 0 5 10
�1 ."'Miles

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix B:
Data Catalog

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
Table B-1. New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP data catalog
Boundaries
Durham City Limits
8/12/2019
North Carolina Counties
8/12/2019
Existing Land Use
8/12/2019
Future Land Use
8/12/2019
Durham Parcels
9/9/2019
Impervious Area
8/12/2019
New Hope Creek Watershed Boundary
11/1/2019
New Hope Creek Watersheds
12/4/2019
New Hope Creek WIP Subwatersheds
12/4/2019
Durham Public Libraries
8/12/2019
Durham Public Schools
5/19/2016
Durham Parks
8/12/2019
Durham County Buildings
8/12/2019
Environmental
Geology
8/12/2019
Soils
8/12/2019
Jordan Game Lands
02/03/2020
City of Durham Water Quality Monitoring Stations
3/15/2020
NCDEQ Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Stations
3/15/2020
UNRBA Water Quality Monitoring Stations
3/15/2020
USGS Stream Gages
3/15/2020
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
3/21 /2019
Hydrology
Streams
7/012019
Durham Streams
8/12/2019
(1) "8/12/2019" indicates the date received from the City and for which
the last update is unavailable.
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency
NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDOT = North Carolina Department of Transportation
NC FRIS = North Carolina Flood Risk Information System
NCGS = North Carolina Geological Survey
NCWRC = North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NRCA = Neuse River Compliance Association
UNRBA = Upper Neuse River Basin Association
USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
USGS = United States Geological Survey
City
NC One Map
City/AECOM
City/AECOM
City
City
AECOM
AECOM
AECOM
City
City
City
Durham County
NCGS
City
NCWRC
City
NCDEQ
UNRBA
USGS
City
USDA/NRCS
City
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report B-1

AECOM
Table B-1. New Hope Creek and Little Creek WIP data catalog (continued)
Hydrology (continued)
Ponds and Lakes
7/01/2019
Floodplains
12/6/2019
NCDEQ Stream Classifications
8/12/2019
Stormwater Infrastructure
Stormwater Pipes
5/19/2016
Stormwater Channels
5/19/2016
Stormwater Nodes
5/19/2016
Existing Stormwater Control Measures
9/9/2019
Topography
2-foot Contours
8/12/2019
10-foot Contours
8/12/2019
3-meter DEM
1/1/2017
Hydro -Enforced DEM
8/12/2019
Transportation
Major Roads
8/12/2019
Roads
3/1/2019
Durham Streets
8/12/2019
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
Septic Systems
1/4/2013
Sand Filters
1/4/2013
Water Main
8/12/2019
Water Lateral
8/12/2019
Sewer Gravity Main
8/12/2019
Sewer Force Main
8/12/2019
(1) "8/12/2019" indicates the date received from the City and for which
the last update is unavailable.
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency
NCDEQ = North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDOT = North Carolina Department of Transportation
NC FRIS = North Carolina Flood Risk Information System
NCGS = North Carolina Geological Survey
NCWRC = North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NRCA = Neuse River Compliance Association
UNRBA = Upper Neuse River Basin Association
USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
USGS = United States Geological Survey
USDA/NRCS
NC FRIS/FEMA
NCDEQ
City
City
City
City
City
City
USGS
City
City
NCDOT
City
Durham County
City
City
City
City
City
B-2
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

Appendix C:
Summary of Existing Water Quality Data

This page intentionally left blank.

Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data
LITCI.5LITC - Little Creek at Farrington Road
AECOM
2013 12 - 58 17% 6.7 25% - - - - - 19 0% 156
2015 1 12 i 72 372 33% 6.3 9% 3.5 0.87 0.09 1 33% 1 0% 29 8% 143
NHO.ONHC - Lower New Hope Creek at Chapel Hill Road
2004 13 85 259 25% 7.7 0% 2.1 0.82 0.07 8% 0% 23 9% 158
2005 12 82 189 17% 6.9 17% 2.6 0.77 0.07 0% 0% 35 8% 182
2006 13 86 306 36% 8.1 8% 2.2 0.74 0.07 8% 0% 38 23% 154
2007 11 67 214 40% 4.2 64% 2.8 0.73 0.08 0% 0% 30 18% 194
2008 12 79 302 25% 7.2 17% 2.2 0.62 0.08 0% 0% 23 0% 155
2009 12 87 121 8% 7.3 17% 2.1 0.62 0.04 8% 0% 22 8% 182
2010 12 85 205 25% 7.3 25% 2.7 0.66 0.08 0% 0% 22 0% 166
I
2011 12 79 271 33% 6.2 42% 2.7 0.75 0.11 0% 0% 31 25% 198
2013 12 92 103 17% 8.3 0% 2.3 0.55 0.05 8% 0% 20 17% 143
2015 12 80 477 50% 8.1 18% 2.0 0.64 0.06 0% 0% 17 8% 202
2017 13 79 568 50% 7.4 17% 2.2 0.60 0.10 8% 0% 21 8% 174
2019 12 79 737 67%_1 8.0 0% 2.2 0.73 0.17 8% 0% 44 17% 147
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than 200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the water quality standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report C-1

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH1.OSC - Sandy Creek at Garrett Road
2004 12 80 564 50%
9.2
0%
2.1
1.22
0.13
25%
0%
27
18%
300
2005 F12 82 377 50%
8.2
0%
2.8
1.24
0.09
0%
0%
38
17%
248�
2006 13 79 486 42%
8.9
0%
2.6
0.96
0.08
17%
0%
56
31%
220
2007 11 79 224 30%
6.6
27%
3.0
0.79
0.09
10%
0%
26
18%
237
2008 12 84 234 25%
7.8
8%
2.0
0.68
0.08
8%
0%
17
8%
225
2009 12
89
104
8%
8.2
17%
2.0
0.64
0.05
8%
0%
41
17%
243
2010
11
85
309
27%
8.8
0%
2.4
0.79
0.08
9%
0%
16
0%
254
2011
12
83
267
42%
8.2
8%
2.8
0.76
0.10
8%
0%
26
17%
286
2013
12
88
104
17%
9.3
0%
2.2
0.82
0.07
25%
0%
21
25%
228
2015
12 82
770
62%
8.9
0%
2.3
0.67
0.06
25%
0%
16
8%
289
2017 12 86
419
36%
8.2
0%
2.1
0.62
0.10
17%
0%
18
8%
258
2019 12 71
1201
64%
8.5
0%
2.8
1.36
0.12
8%
0%
28
8%
207
IN 1.6SC - Sandy Creek at Larchmont Road
2018 7 - - -
8.2
0%
-
1.23
0.12
-
7
0%
240
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of
human health
and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean
is less than
200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples
during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more
than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric
mean
of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the
standards presented
in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing
the impacts
of fecal
coliform bacteria within
the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the
water quality
standard or criteria.
C-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH1.7SCTA - Sandy Creek Tributary A at Ivy Creek Boulevard
2009 12 - 1107 67% 6.8 17% - - - - - 24 17%
343
2010 12 67 1082 75% 6.0 33% 3.4 1.07 0.06 8% 0% 15 0%
384
2011 12 70 710 67% 5.5 42% 2.6 1.09 0.10 0% 0% 14 0%
408
2013 12 70 434 42% 6.2 33% 2.9 1.01 0.09 8% 0% 18 0%
330
2015 12 65 2455 100% 5.9 36% 2.8 1.07 0.07 17% 0% 22 8%
381
2017 12 54 3518 85% 5.3 42% 3.7 1.19 0.15 33% 0% 21 0%
355
2018 4 - - - 6.7 0% - - - - - 20 0%
391
2019 12 62 1787 85% 5.7 33% 2.3 1.17 0.11 8% 0% 25 8%
331
NH1.8SCTA - Sandy Creek Tributary A at MILK Parkway
2018 8 - - - 8.6 0% - 1.25 0.10 - - 19 0%
429
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than 200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the water quality standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report C-3

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH2.3MC - Mud Creek at Pickett Road
2004 12 88 248 i
2005 11 89 152
25%
9%
9.1
8.1
0%
9%
2.0
0.86 1
0.07
8%
0%
20 9%
38 18%
138
154
2.1 1.06 0.05 0% 0%
2006 13 88 174
27%
9.2
0%
2.3
1.18
0.07
0%
0%
54 31 %
142
2007 7 65 511
50%
7.6
43%
4.5
0.92
0.07
0%
0%
116 50%
126
2008 10 86 253
30%
9.0
0%
2.0
0.66
0.08
10%
0%
34 20%
127
2009 12 84 373
33%
8.8
0%
2.3
1.16
0.08
10%
0%
47 20%
146
2010 12 89 293
40%
9.3
0%
2.2
0.80
0.05
0%
0%
22 0%
146
2011 11 84 152
36%
6.7
18%
2.4
0.82
0.07
0%
0%
17 0%
166
2013 12 89 129
25%
7.6
8%
2.1
0.70
0.04
8%
0%
22 8%
145
2015 10 81 462
67%
8.4
11 %
2.0
0.76
0.04
0%
0%
23 10%
162
2017 10 80 343
18%
7.8
10%
2.1
0.65
0.08
20%
0%
34 20%
158
2019 11 82 360
38%
8.8
9%
2.2
0.67
0.10
9%
0%
41 9%
124
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health
and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean
is less than
200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more
than 20% of the sample collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table
are the geometric
mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the
standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing
the impacts of fecal
coliform bacteria within
the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either
the average
concentration or a considerable
number of individual samples for the year exceed the
water quality standard or criteria.
C-4 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH3.ONHC - New Hope Creek at Erwin Road
2004 12 - 51 8%
9.2
8% - - - - -
12
9%
121
2005 12 - 30
0%
7.7
8% -
-
- - -
8
0%
131
2006 13 - 37
18%
9.4
0% -
-
- - -
9
0%
117
2007 10 - 54 11 % 6.0
30%
-
-
-
-
-
14
10%
136
2008 12 - 57
8% 8.6
8%
-
-
-
-
-
10
0%
124
2009 14 92
64
7% 8.2
14%
2.0
0.52
0.04
17%
0%
7%
124
2010
13 96
33
0% 9.4
8%
2.0
0.56
0.04
18%
0%
6
0%
121
2011
12
94
28
8% 7.2
17%
2.1
0.62
0.03
0%
0%
7
0%
133
2013 12 94 58
17% 9.8
0%
2.0
0.43 0.03 0%
0%
13
0%
122
2015 12 86 213 29% 8.8
18%
2.3 0.43 0.03 8%
0%
8
0%
128
2017 12 88 141 1 13% 8.0
0%
2.1 0.43
0.07 8%
0%
20
8%
130
2019 12 88 169 29% 8.0
17%
2.1 0.47
0.05
0% 0%
17
0%
116
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health
and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than
200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric
mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the
standards presented
in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing
the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the
water quality
standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report C-5

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH3.3SC - Sandy Creek at Cornwallis Road
2008
12 85 379 33%
8.2
0% 2.0 0.77
0.08
17%
0%
15
0%
269
2009
14 87 325 31 %
34 84 262 36%
0% 2.3 0.83
3% 2.4 0.90
0.04
0.08
8%
8%
0%
0%
31
22
7%
9%
270
262
8.1
2010
8.4
8.5
2011
23 84 388 42%
0% 2.8 1.16
0.10
25%
0%
20
9%
398
8.0
2012
12 88 186 25%
0% 2.3 0.74
0.09
8%
0%
16
8%
255
12
83
167
33%
8.3
25%
=264
2013
0% 2.3 0.91 0.10 8% 0% 21
2014 12 78 769 58% 8.2 0% 2.7 0.85
0.11
42%
0%
58
33%
243
2015 12 75 1665 69% 8.3 0% 2.6 0.97
0.14
25%
0%
64
17%
305
2016 12 80 521 69% 8.1 0% 2.3 1.04
0.09
8%
0%
22
17%
264
2017 12 79 688 54% 7.7 0% 2.4 1.12
0.10
17%
0%
16
8%
279
2018 13 70 1060 69% 8.1 0% 2.6 1.37
0.16
17%
0%
42
25%
240
2019 12 73 1300 64% 7.1 0% 2.1 0.99
0.12
8%
0%
19
8%
224
2020 1 81 252 0% 12.1 0% 2.0 0.99 1
0.11
0%
0%
12
0%
255
NH3.4SC - Sandy Creek upstream of confluence with Sandy Creek Tributary D
2018 1 - - - 6.4 0% - -
-
-
-
-
-
291
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean
is less than
200 colony forming
units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more
than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the
standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within
the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the
water quality standard or criteria.
C-6 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH3.4SCTD - Sandy Creek Tributary D upstream of confluence with Sandy Creek
2018 1 - - - 5.4 0% -
-
- -
- 7220
NH4.3SC - Sandy Creek at Erwin Road at Duke Center for Living
2008 12 - 422 58% 8.4 0% -
10
8%
347
NH4.4SCTD - Sandy Creek Tributary D at Academy Road
2004 12 - 562 67% 8.9 0% - - - -
- 20
9%
266
2005 12 - 688 83% 7.7 8% - - - -
- 14
8%
230
2018 7 - - - 8.3 0% - 1.48 0.09 -
- 17
0%
314
2019 12 77 425 64% 7.2 17% 2.0 0.99 0.10 17%
0% 20
8%
243
NH4.7SC - Sandy Creek at Morrene Road
f
2018 8 - - - 7.6 0% - 1.27 0.12 -
- 15
0%
350
NH4.8SCTDT - Sandy Creek Tributary D at Duke University Road
2006 13 - 758 58% 8.2 0% - - - -
- 14
0%
253
2007 10 - 733 56% 6.5 0% - - - -
- 9
0%
268
2008 12 - 523 67% 6.8 8% - - - -
- 11
0%
251
2009 12 - 1020 67% 7.3 0% - - - -
- 16
17%
232
2010 12 - 607 75% 6.2 33% - - - -
- 12
0%
355
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean
is less than 200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the standards presented
in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year
exceed the water quality
standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report C-7

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
NH4.8SCTDT - Sandy Creek Tributary D at Duke University Road (continued)
2011 12 75 647 42% 7.3
0% 4.1 1.20 0.12 17% 0%
11
9%
364
2013 12 84 136 25% 7.6
0% 2.6 0.93 0.10 8% 0%
8
0%
300
2015 12 77 812 71 % 7.4
9% 2.3 1.00 0.10 8% 0%
8
0%
384
2017 12 73 865 71 % 6.8
8% 2.1 0.84 0.15 8% 0%
14
8%
364
NHS.OSCTD - Sandy Creek Tributary D at Anderson Road
2006 13 - 1037 50% 8.9
0% - - - - -
10
0%
224
2007 8 - 537 57% 8.4
0% - - - - -
10
0%
209
2008 11 - 702 45% 8.7
0% - - - - -
7
0%
258
2009 10 - 816 70% 9.5
0% - - - - -
62
20%
230
2010 11 - 1437 64% 8.2
9% - - - - -
11
0%
395
2011 11 82 537 55% 8.1
0% 2.6 0.79 0.09 18% 0%
12
0%
307
2013 12 89 159 25% 9.5
0% 2.1 0.68 0.07 8% 0%
14
0%
302
SCSN 1 - Sandy Creek near Waterbury Street
2018 1 - - - 2.8
100% - 1.63 0.07 - -
22
0%
128
SCSN 3 - Sandy Creek at Welcome Drive and Tryon Road
2018 1 - - - 2.7
100% - 1.42 0.21 - -
49
0%
239
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health
and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than
200 colony
forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during
a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the
standards
presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration
or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the
water quality
standard or criteria.
C-8
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan
- Watershed Assessment
Report

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
SCSN 4 — Sandy Creek near Evans Street
2018 1 - - -
5 100% - 1.8S 0.02 - - 14 0%
207
"ndy
20181 0.70 0.22 ]710
2.2 100% 24 0%
625
- - - - - -
SCSN 7 — Sandy Creek downstream of NC-147 in Duke Manor Apartments off LaSalle Street
2018 1 - - - 6.1 0% - 2.23 0.10 - 12
SCSN 10 — Sandy Creek near Circuit Drive
2018 1 - - - 7.8
0% -
1.11 0.05 - - 1 0%
222
SCSN 11 — Sandy Creek near Parking Lot on Fuqua Drive
2018 1 - - - 6.8 0% - 0.92
SCSN 13 — Sandy Creek near Nasher Museum Parking Lot off Campus Drive
2018 1 - - - 4.6 0% - 1.28 0.06 - - 6 0%
267
SCSN 14 — Sandy Creek near end of Hull Avenue
2018 1 - - - 7.8 0% - 1.70 0.36 - - 5 0%
381
SCSN 1 S — Sandy Creek near Campus Drive downstream of NC-147
2018 1 - - - 5.5 0% - 1.24 0.07
- - 3 0%
613
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than 200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the water quality standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report C-9

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
SCSN 17 - Sandy Creek upstream of Morehead Drive
2018 1 - - - 1.7 100%
- 7.84 0.33 - -
7
0%
635
SCSN 18 - Sandy Creek off Brooks -Pascal Drive below Stadium
2018 1 - - - 7.0 0%
- 4.24 0.17 - -
23
0%
458
SCSN 21 - Sandy Creek near Pierce Street and Prince Street
2018 1 - - - 3.1 100%
- 1.43 0.16 - -
5
0%
246
B3020000 - Lower New Hope Creek at NC-54
2000 14 - 206 33% 5.9 7%
- 0.29 0.07 - -
20
11%
145
2001 19 - 110 25% 5.8 11 %
- 1.14 0.15 - -
26
8%
160
2002 17 - 123 33% 5.8 24%
- 0.76 0.08 - -
23
8%
170
2003 17 - 139 33% 6.2 18%
- 1.03 0.08 - -
33
25%
135
2004 17 - 440 50% 7.3 12%
- 1.16 0.10 - -
50
8%
179
2005 17 - 100 0% 6.0 35%
- 0.79 0.09 - -
26
8%
168
2006 17 - 110 25% 6.5 12%
- 0.60 0.10 - -
28
17%
147
2007 17 - 128 25% 5.2 53%
- 0.57 0.11 - -
22
8%
159
2008 17 - 334 50% 5.9 35%
- 0.78 0.09 - -
29
8%
144
2009 17 - 130 17% 5.9 24%
- 0.54 0.04 - -
20
0%
131
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than
200 colony
forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period,
and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of
all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of
the standards
presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts
of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed
the water quality
standard or criteria.
C-10
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan
- Watershed Assessment
Report

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
B3020000 - Lower New Hope Creek at NC-54 (continued)
2010 17 - 526 42% 5.8 29% -
0.58
0.18 - -
32
17%
133
2011 17 - 76 17% 4.6 53% -
0.79
0.10 - -
25
8%
158
2012 17 - 103 33% 4.9 35% -
0.87
0.10 - -
22
0%
139
2013 17 - 190 25% 5.8 18% -
0.72
0.08 - -
22
0%
141
2014 9 - 164 20% 6.4 12% -
0.39
0.06 - -
17
0
142
2015 17 - 101 12% 6.2 35% -
0.61
0.06 - -
16
6
160
2016 17 - 123 12% 6.4 6% -
0.52
0.04 - -
15
6
132
2017 17 - 59 6% 5.7 24% -
0.43
0.04 - -
15
6
156
2018 17 - 523 35% 5.8 12% -
0.94
0.04 - -
29
24
114
B3040000 - Lower New Hope Creek at Stagecoach Road (SR 1107)
2000 28 - 282 33% 7.1 0% -
2.24
0.22 - -
33
14%
-
2001 28 - 162 24% 7.0 0% -
4.71
0.37 - -
22
5%
-
2002 31 - 129 26% 7.8 0% -
4.45
0.30 - -
26
8%
-
2003 29 - 146 17% 7.5 0% -
3.13
0.30 - -
32
21 %
-
2004 29 - 293 46% 7.4 0% -
3.10
0.35 - -
30
13%
-
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than
200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period,
and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample
collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of
the standards presented
in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual
samples for the year exceed
the water quality
standard or criteria.
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report C-11

AECOM
Table C-1. Summary of existing water quality data (continued)
B3040000 - Lower New Hope Creek at Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) (continued)
2005 25 - 117 12% 8.1 0% - 3.88
2006 43 - 98 17% 7.6 2% - 4.78
2007 42 - 102 13%
2008 44 - 143 13%
2009 43 - 121 14%
2010 43 - 180 25%
7.2
3%
- 5.25
- 4.22
7.4
0%
7.5
0%
-
4.96
7.4
2%
-
4.36
2011
43
-
131
13%
7.2
2%
-
5.12
2012
42
-
206
26%
7.1
0%
-
6.15
2013
43
-
134
13%
7.3
0%
-
3.72
2014
33
-
160
8%
7.5
0%
-
3.84
2015
20
-
181
27%
7.9
0%
-
4.44
2016
25
-
193
25%
7.1
4%
-
2.93
2017 18 - 255 31 % 7.3 0% - 3.38 0.17 - - 45 21 %
2018 12 _ 390 J 44% 7.5 10% - 2.62 0.13 - - 28 0%
(1) The fecal coliform standard for the protection of human health and freshwater aquatic life requires that the geometric mean is less than 200 colony forming units per 100
ml (200 cfu/100 ml) based upon 5 consecutive samples during a 30-day period, and does not exceed 400 cfu/100 ml in more than 20% of the sample collected during the
same period. Values presented in bold the table are the geometric mean of all samples collected in each year. Thus, exceedances of the standards presented in bold are
not true standard violations, but can still be useful for assessing the impacts of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
(2) WQI = Water Quality Index (unitless)
(3) BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Values shown in bold indicate that either the average concentration or a considerable number of individual samples for the year exceed the water quality standard or criteria.
C-12 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

Appendix D:
Land Use and Impervious Area by
Subwatershed

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
Table D-1. Existing, future, and projected land use change by subwatershed
NHC01_LC
0
0
0
0
2
1
44
66
11
31
0
0
0
0
2
7
44
8
11
84
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
6
0
-58
53
NHCO2_LC
78
0
0
0
0
24
18
134
16
3
0
0
0
0
0
103
18
134
16
2
-78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
0
0
-1
NHCO3_LC
I 0
6
42
0
3
33
82
210
39
32
0
6
42
0
3
66
82
196
39
14
n/a
0
0
n/a
0
33
0
-15
-18
NHC04_LC
I 0
17
10
0
3
96
62
158
63
32
0
17
95
0
3
86
59
117
63
0
n/a
0
85
n/a
0
-10
-2
-41
-32
NHC05_LC
0
0
19
0
15
3
20
228
21
42
0
0
53
0
15
6
15
200
21
38
n/a
n/a
34
n/a
0
3
-5
-28
-4
NHC06_LC
I 0
0
0
0
25
104
33
98
30
47
0
0
0
0
25
136
33
92
30
21
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
0
32
0
-6
-26
NHC07_LC
I 0
0
0
0
13
10
20
33
8
137
0
0
87
0
13
86
8
19
8
0
n/a
n/a
87
n/a
0
76
-12
-13
-137
NHC08_LNHC
10
0
2
0
0
0
31
145
18
7
0
0
2
0
0
11
31
132
18
9
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
n/a
11
0
-13
2
NHC09_LNHC
I 58
0
5
0
0
33
192
117
66
19
0
0
5
0
0
82
192
71
66
75
-58
n/a
0
n/a
0
49
0
-47
55
NHC10_LNHC
I 19
14
6
0
5
29
23
382
18
41 !
0
14
6
0
5
62
23
372
18
38
-19
0
0
n/a
0
33
0
-10
-3
NHC11_LNHC
6
143
4
0
2
17
26
246
40
0 I
0
155
4
0
0
23
23
239
40
0
-6
12
0
n/a
-2
6
-4
-7
0
NHC12_LNHC
22
278
84
0
8
36
92
35
121
13
0
314
78
0
7
61
86
23
121
0
-22
36
-6
n/a
-1
25
-7
-12
-13
NHC13_LNHC
0
24
0
0
0
0
13
84
62
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
84
62
0
n/a
13
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
-13
0
n/a
NHC14_LNHC
0
61
73
0
4
1
32
234
97
6
0
79
80
0
2
1
18
231
97
0
n/a
18
7
n/a
-1
0
-14
-2
-6
NHC15_LNHC
0
52
1
1
35
29
48
142
65
65
0
64
39
23
35
66
36
110
65
0
n/a
12
38
22
0
37
-12
-33
-65
NHC16_LNHC
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
143
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
27
2
134
2
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
0
-8
-7
NHC17_LNHC
0
6
0
0
53
52
40
69
15
4
0
16
0
0
52
56
32
69
15
0
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
-1
4
-8
0
-4
NHC18_LNHC
10
0
4
0
0
41
52
33
42
14
0
0
4
1
0
88
51
0
42
0
n/a
0
0
1
0
47
-1
-33
-14
NHC19_LNHC
I 0
0
0
0
16
19
23
152
9
34
0
0
0
0
16
61
23
144
9
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
42
0
-9
-34
NHC20_LNHC
I 0
0
0
0
0
100
22
33
22
31
0
0
0
0
0
149
22
15
22
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
49
0
-17
-31
NHC21_LNHC
I 0
1
28
0
12
88
67
12
55
42
0
1
28
0
12
100
67
10
55
31
n/a
0
0
n/a
0
12
0
-2
-10
NHC22_LNHC
10
1
5
0
6
39
35
20
17
44
0
1
6
0
6
95
34
5
17
3
n/a
0
1
n/a
0
57
0
-16
-41
NHC23_LNHC
10
0
0
0
26
22
14
119
9
11
0
0
0
0
26
32
14
119
9
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
10
0
0
-10
NHC24_LNHC
0
0
0
0
0
181
22
60
40
51
0
0
0
0
0
240
22
52
40
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
59
0
-8
-51
NHC25_LNHC
25
88
49
0
18
11
47
23
71
42
0
88
152
0
18
2
24
0
71
18
-25
0
103
n/a
0
-9
-23
-23
-24
NHC26_LNHC
I 0
17
25
4
7
173
54
31
58
43
0
39
24
0
7
206
56
17
58
5
n/a
21
-1
-4
0
33
2
-14
-37
NHC27_LNHC
39
28
86
0
3
0
16
177
22
2
0
29
136
0
3
0
16
168
22
0
-39
1
49
n/a
0
0
-1
-9
-2
NHC28_LNHC
0
78
32
0
0
0
16
227
48
14
0
79
83
0
0
20
2
180
48
2
n/a
0
51
n/a
n/a
20
-14
-47
-12
NHC29_LNHC
0
0
1
0
18
113
31
117
32
21
0
0
1
0
18
120
31
108
32
23
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
0
7
0
-9
2
NHC30_LNHC
0
89
104
0
3
11
24
15
29
11
0
110
112
0
2
11
19
3
29
0
n/a
21
8
n/a
-1
0
-5
-12
-11
NHC31_LNHC
0
42
65
0
6
51
39
0
25
3
0
43
70
0
5
52
36
0
25
0
n/a
1
5
n/a
-1
1
-3
n/a
-3
NHC32_LNHC
0
210
72
0
25
13
66
32
99
7
0
249
80
0
0
10
60
25
99
0
n/a
39
8
n/a
-25
-3
-5
-7
-7
NHC33_SC
0
74
90
0
30
43
4
88
79
2
0
82
88
0
30
43
6
82
79
0
n/a
8
-2
n/a
0
0
2
-6
-2
NHC34_SC
0
4
0
0
38
35
25
47
31
33
0
10
3
0
37
74
29
29
31
0
n/a
5
3
n/a
-1
39
5
-17
-33
NHC35_SC
I 0
28
13
1
55
111
58
46
52
10
0
26
11
22
49
118
58
38
52
0
n/a
-1
-2
20
-6
8
0
-8
-10
NHC36_SC
I 0
0
0
0
17
106
20
67
29
20
0
0
0
0
17
122
20
66
29
5
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
0
16
0
-1
-16
NHC37_SC
0
12
6
0
11
14
35
60
36
6
0
11
6
9
11
16
36
55
36
1
n/a
-1
0
9
0
2
1
-6
-5
NHC38_SC
I 0
0
0
0
5
125
10
125
29
28
0
0
0
0
5
154
10
125
29
0
n/a
0
n/a
n/a
0
28
0
0
-28
NHC39_SC
10
1
7
0
16
47
27
83
19
8
0
1
7
0
16
52
30
83
19
0
n/a
0
0
n/a
0
5
3
0
-7
NHC40_SC
0
9
13
0
70
0
0
263
40
0
0
0
13
0
78
0
0
263
40
0
n/a
-9
0
n/a
9
n/a
n/a
0
0
"n/a" indicates that the land use type was not present in the existing or future land use coverage.
All values rounded to the nearest acre. Individual totals and percentages may not sum to column totals due to rounding.
AGR = Agriculture, COM = Commercial, HDR = High Density Residential, IND = Industrial, INT = Institutional, LDR = Low Density Residential, MDR = Medium Density Residential, POS = Parks and Open Space, VLR = Very Low Density Residential
NHC = New Hope Creek, LC = Little Creek, LNHC = Lower New Hope Creek, SC = Sandy, and MC = Mud Creek
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report D-1

AECOM
Table D-1. Existing, future, and projected land use change by subwatershed (continued)
N H C41_SC
0
9
2
0
90 39 23
97
26
20
0
0
2
0
99
55
25
97
26
1
n/a
-9
0
n/a
9
17
2
N H C42_SC
I 0
30
39
0
84 5 27
6
26
0
0
39
36
0
79
0
36
1
26
0
n/a
9
-3
n/a
-5
-5
10
N H C43_SC
10
0
0
348 0 0
0
19
0
0
5
0
0
353
0
0
0
19
0
n/a
-5
0
n/a
5
n/a
0
N H C44_SC
10
0
1
10
0
188 0 0
8
35
0
0
0
10
0
189
0
0
8
35
0
n/a
-1
0
n/a
2
n/a
0
N HC45_SC
0
38
29
8
122 15 41
55
61
13
0
10
33
0
177
7
33
54
61
9
n/a
-29
4
-8
54
-8
-8
N HC46_SC
0
121
154
9
32 8 36
18
138
3
0
92
169
60
29
5
22
4
138
0
n/a
-30
15
52
-3
-3
-14
N HC47_MC
67
17
93
0
0 133 96
108
64
49
0
17
93
0
0
242
96
100
64
15
-67
0
0
n/a
n/a
108
0
N H C48_MC
75
0
0
0
24 91 18
23
30
23
0
0
0
0
24
128
18
11
30
72
-75
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
38
0
NHC49_MC
46
0
0
0
1 81 32
171
30
40
0
0
0
0
1
118
32
21
30
200
-46
n/a
0
n/a
0
37
0
NHC50_MC 80
0
0
0
0 22 14
82
9
84
0
0
0
0
0
22
14
0
9
246
-80
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
NHC51_MC 0
3
11
0
15 0 2
453
52
0
0
3
11
0
15
0
2
453
52
0
n/a
0
0
n/a
0
0
0
NHC52_MC 171
0
0
0
0 1 7
123
10
60
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
141
10
213
-171
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
0
NHC53_MC 31
2
0
0
0 16 12
123
9
18
0
2
0
0
0
16
12
106
9
67
-31
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
NHC54_MC 0
0
4
0
0 2 0
148
7
6
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
148
7
6
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
n/a
0
0
N H C55_MC 0
0
12
0
0 75 14
190
21
0
0
0
12
0
0
60
36
183
21
0
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
n/a
-15
22
N H C56_MC 0
7
89
4
3 182 88
57
110
16
0
2
80
39
0
183
91
50
110
0
n/a
-5
-8
36
-3
0
3
"n/a" indicates that the land
use type was not present in the existing or future land use coverage.
All values rounded to the nearest acre.
Individual totals and percentages may
not sum
to column totals due to rounding.
AGR = Agriculture, COM = Commercial,
HDR =
High Density Residential, IND
= Industrial, INT
= Institutional,
LDR
= Low
Density Residential, MDR = Medium Density
Residential,
POS =
Parks and
Open Space,
VLR
= Very
Low Density
Residential
NHC = New Hope Creek, LC
= Little Creek, LNHC
=
Lower New Hope Creek, SC = Sandy,
and MC = Mud Creek
0
-6
n/a
0
-1
-14
-8
-12
-151
-82
0
18
-17
0
-7
-7
-19
n/a
n/a
n/a
-4
-3
-33
49
160
162
0
153
49
0
n/a
-16
D-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report

AECOM
Table D-2. Existing impervious area by subwatershed
NHC01 LC
156
10
7%
NHC29 LNHC
333
48
15%
NHCO2 LC
273
12
4%
NHC30 LNHC
286
107
37%
NHCO3_LC
448
53
12%
I� NHC31—LNHC
231
84
36%
NHC04 LC
439
70
16%
r
NHC32 LNHC
524
269
51%
NHC05 LC
348
29
8%
NHC33 SC
409
117
28%
NHC06 LC
337
44
13%
NHC34 SC
212
35
17%
NHC07 LC
221
9
4%
NHC35 SC
375
92
25%
NHC08 LNHC
203
7
4%
NHC36 SC
259
38
15%
NHC09_LNHC
491
66
13%
II NHC37_SC
180
25
14%
NHC10 LNHC
537
23
4%
NHC38 SC
323
43
13%
NHC11 LNHC
484
46
9%
NHC39 SC
208
32
15%
NHC12 LNHC
689
265
39%
NHC40 SC
394
46
12%
NHC13 LNHC
183
26
14%
NHC41 SC
305
77
25%
NHC14 LNHC
508
96
19%
NHC42 SC
217
75
35%
NHC15_LNHC
437
43
10%
II NHC43-SC
377
170
45%
NHC16 LNHC
165
3
2%
NHC44 SC
242
95
39%
NHC17 LNHC
240
33
14%
NHC45 SC
384
106
27%
NHC18 LNHC
187
30
16%
NHC46 SC
523
235
45%
NHC19 LNHC
254
13
5%
NHC47 MC
627
96
15%
NHC20 LNHC
209
34
16%
NHC48 MC
284
37
13%
NHC21_LNHC
305
47
15%
I NHC49_MC
402
28
7%
NHC22 LNHC
167
27
16%
NHC50 MC
291
8
3%
NHC23 LNHC
201
15
8%
NHC51 MC
536
34
6%
NHC24 LNHC
354
62
17%
NHC52 MC
373
10
3%
NHC25 LNHC
373
117
31%
NHC53 MC
211
5
3%
NHC26 LNHC
410
99
24%
NHC54 MC
168
4
3%
NHC27_LNHC
373
50
13%
II NHC55_MC
312
29
9%
NHC28 LNHC
415
86
21%
NHC56 MC
556
130
23%
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan — Watershed Assessment Report D-3

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix E:
Subwatershed and Ambient Monitoring
Station Drainage Density

This page intentionally left blank.

AECOM
Table E-1. Drainage density by subwatershed in study area
NHCO2 LC
Little Creek
0.82
0.43
1.9
NHCO3 LC
Little Creek
0.78
0.70
1.1
NHC04 LC
Little Creek
0.65
0.69
1.0
NHC05 LC
Little Creek
0.40
0.54
0.7
NHC06 LC
Little Creek
0.74
0.53
1.4
NHC07 LC
Little Creek
0.00
0.35
0.0
NHC08_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.61
0.32
1.9
NHC10_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
1.09
0.84
1.3
NHC11_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.79
0.76
1.0
NHC13_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.39
0.29
1.4
NHC14_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
1.44
0.79
1.8
NHC16_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.00
0.26
0.0
NHC17_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.83
0.38
2.2
NHC19_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.74
0.40
1.9
NHC20_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.00
0.33
0.0
NHC23_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.90
0.31
2.9
NHC24_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.33
0.55
0.6
NHC26_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.40
0.64
0.6
NHC27_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
1.38
0.58
2.4
NHC28_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
0.33
0.65
0.5
NHC29_LNHC
Lower New Hope Creek
1.79
0.52
3.5
NHC33_SC
Sandy Creek
1.36
0.64
2.1
NHC34_SC
Sandy Creek
0.18
0.33
0.5
NHC35_SC
Sandy Creek
0.46
0.59
0.8
NHC36_SC
Sandy Creek
0.00
0.41
0.0
NHC37_SC
Sandy Creek
0.70
0.28
2.5
NHC38_SC
Sandy Creek
0.00
0.50
0.0
NHC40_SC
Sandy Creek
1.52
0.62
2.5
NHC43_SC
Sandy Creek
0.03
0.59
0.0
NHC46_SC
Sandy Creek
0.78
0.82
1.0
NHC47_MC
Mud Creek
1.60
0.98
1.6
NHC48_MC
Mud Creek
0.00
0.44
0.0
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report E-1

AECOM
Table E-1. Drainage density by subwatershed in study area (continued)
NHC49_MC
Mud Creek
1.14
0.63
1.8
NHC51_MC
Mud Creek
0.37
0.84
0.4
NHC52_MC
Mud Creek
0.58
0.58
1.0
NHC54_MC
Mud Creek
0.78
0.26
3.0
NHC56_MC
Mud Creek
1.01
0.87
1.2
Table E-2. Drainage density for each ambient water quality monitoring station
LCTC1.5LITC
Little Creek
4.2
23.8
0.2
NH2.3MC
Mud Creek
4.3
5.4
0.8
B3020000
New Hope Creek
23.9
56.1
0.4
B3040000
New Hope Creek
27.9
76.2
0.4
NHO.ONHC
New Hope Creek
21.2
52.3
0.4
NH3.ONHC
New Hope Creek
16.3
31.3
0.5
NH1.OSC
Sandy Creek
4.8
6.9
0.7
NH1.6SC
Sandy Creek
4.1
6.7
0.6
NH3.3SC
Sandy Creek
2.4
4.8
0.5
NH3.4SC
Sandy Creek
2.3
2.1
1.1
NH4.3SC
Sandy Creek
1.2
1.5
0.8
NH4.7SC
Sandy Creek
0.8
0.9
0.9
NH1.7SCTA
Sandy Creek Trib. A
1.3
1.4
0.9
NH1.8SCTA
Sandy Creek Trib. A
1.4
1.1
1.3
NH3.4SCTD
Sandy Creek Trib. D
2.3
2.7
0.9
NH4.4SCTD
Sandy Creek Trib. D
1.3
1.6
0.8
NHS.OSCTD
Sandy Creek Trib. D
0.7
1.0
0.7
NH4.8SCTDT
Sandy Creek Trib. D
0.6
0.3
2.0
E-2 New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan - Watershed Assessment Report

Appendix F:
Pilot Study Area Factsheets

This page intentionally left blank.

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC04_LC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC04_LC is located in the
southwest portion of Durham County in the Little
Creek watershed. NHC04_LC has a drainage area
of 440 acres (74% within Durham City limits), is
comprised primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils,
and has 10% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Falconbridge Subdivision
• Woodland Acres
• North Carolina Highway 54
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
parks and open space and low density residential.
Very Low Commercial High Density
Density 4% Residential
Residential_ _ 296
7% ----- Institutional
1%
Roadways Law Density
14% Residential
FF 22%
Medium
Parks and Density
Open Space Residential
36% 14%
Future: The future land use is predominately
residential with a decrease in parks and open space
and a substantial increase in high density
residential.
Commercial High Density
4% Residential
22%
Roadways
14%
Parks and
Open Space
27% Low Density
Medium Residential
Density 19%
Residential
13%
Institutional
1%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Sand Filter (4): 00671, 00088, 00043, 00679
• Rain Harvesting System (1): 13748
• Dry Pond (1): 00091
Potential SCM Locations
• Dry Swale (1): NHCLC0001
Stream Assessments
• Preservation (1): LC2003
• Restoration (2): LC2004, LC2001
• Stream Enhancement 11 (1): LC2002
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC04_LC

t—
r
i�
•
Existing SCMs
®
Dry Pond
Wet Pond
y�
Constructed Wetland
w I
` �
Pocket Wetland
`'v
4
Level Spreader
• _
Level Spreader - Engineered
/'. ;
Filter Strip
Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
QUnderground Storage
Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
r
Stormwater Pipes
_ Lakes and Ponds
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Outside Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
1 - LOW DENS. RES.
MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
- INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
- % PARKS/OPEN SPACE
Y N AGRICULTURAL
ROADWAYS
0,45 0.9
= City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
ccurac ,the
and ositionaI accuracydata. The data cannot be constructed to be a le al document. Primary sources from which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of the information contained in this data
City of Durham
Subwatershed NHC04_LC
9 Stormwater & GIS Services Division
pilot Stud Area Ma
y p
�L=Com
9 Public Works Department
' 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701
a DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
,July 2020

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC24_LNHC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC24_LNHC is located entirely
within City limits in the Lower New Hope Creek
watershed. NHC24_LNHC has a drainage area of
355 acres (100% within Durham City limits), is
comprised primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils,
and has 12% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Garrett Road
• Mary Dell Subdivision
• New Hope Creek
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately low
density residential, followed by parks and open
space.
Very Low Density
ResWritia_l
14% \
Roadways Low Density
12% Residential
51%
Parks and
Open Space
17%
8;0
Medium Density
Residential
6%
Future: The future land use is predominately low
density residential as well, with a conversion of very
low density residential to low density residential and
a slight decrease in parks and open space.
Roadways
Parks and 11%
Open Space
15%
Low Density
Residential
68%
Medium Density
Residential
6%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• None
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Bank Stabilization (3): LNHC2007, LNHC2008,
LNHC2010
• Stream Enhancement II (1): LNHC2009
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC24_LNHC

Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
. Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
• Pocket Wetland
Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
. Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
Underground Storage
- Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
Stormwater Pipes
_ Lakes and Ponds
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
_ ROADWAYS
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
City of Durham Subwatershed NHC24_LNHC
Stormwater & GIS Services Division pilot Stud Area Ma
Public Works Department y p
�L=Com
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor CITY OF DURHAM
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701 NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK ,July 2020
a DURHAM WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC25_LNHC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC25_LNHC is located in the
central region of the study area along the Orange
County border, within the Lower New Hope Creek
watershed. NHC25—LNHC has a drainage area of
374 acres (85% within Durham City limits), is
comprised primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils,
and has 24% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Sayward Drive
• Interstate 40
• US Highway 15 501
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
commercial and roadways.
Very Low
Density Agriculture Commercial
Residential F7g° �24%
11%
Roadways
19%
Medium
Density
Residential
12%
Parks and High Density
Open Space Residential
Low Density Jnstitutinnal 13%
Residential 5%
3%
Future: The future land use is predominately high
density residential and commercial, with a projected
increase in high density residential areas.
Very Low Densitv
Medium
Density
Residentia
6%
Institutio
5%
Residential
41%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Constructed Wetland (2): 00433, 000432
• Wet Pond (3): 00316, 00431, 13123
• Pocket Wetland (1): 00001
• Underground Storage (2): 13787, 13786
• Sand Filter — Underground (3): 13902, 13901,
13785
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Stream Enhancement 1 (2): LNHC1025,
LNHC1026
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC25_LNHC

I
E►
'
•,
Existing
•
��
Dry Po
® Dry Pond
y
® Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
f yr
Pocket Wetland
•
-
Level Spreader
_
Level Spreader - Engineered
r�
Filter Strip
_
0 Sand Filter
• �'
Filterra
' r
f
i
Bioretention with lWS
•
� Bioretention withautlWS
Mill
r
_
Underground Storage
'
■
- Proprietary Device
•�
_
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
-
'
Stormwater Pipes
�'
F •�' -
Lakes and Ponds
yy
Stormwater Channels
�rr.
Streams
Major Roads
L
4
Outside Durham City Limits
t
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
1 "
LOW DENS. RES.
MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
Ar• _ INSTITUTIONAL
_! INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
- .. - . _•1 r y PARKS/OPEN SPACE
^N AGRICULTURAL
1 ,\ ROADWAYS
N
0 0.3 0.6
= City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
ccurac of the data. The data cannot be constructed to be a le al document. Primary sources from which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of the information contained in this data
and ositionaI accuracy
City of Durham
Subwatershed NHC25_LNHC
9 Stormwater & GIS Services Division
pilot Stud Area Ma
y p
�L=Com
9 Public Works Department
' 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701
a DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
,July 2020

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC30_LNHC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC30_LNHC is located completely
in City limits in the Lower New Hope Creek
Watershed. NHC30—LNHC has a drainage area of
286 acres (100% within Durham City limits), is
comprised primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils,
and has 33% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• University Drive
• Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway
• Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
commercial and high density residential.
Medium
Density
Residential
8%
V
Low
Density
Residential
4%
Institutional
1%
Parks and Very tow Density Commercial
Open Space Residential 31%
5% x 4% 1
•Residential
37%
Future: The future land use is predominately high
density residential and commercial.
Medium Parks and
^ _ ^ Density rOpen Space
High Density
Residential
39%
commercial
38%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Dry Pond (2): 00325, 00069
• Sand Filter — Underground (1): 13344
• Level Spreader (1): 13879
• Constructed Wetland (2): 13878, 13430
• Permeable Pavement (1): 13612
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Bank Stabilization (1): LNHC1016
• Restoration (2): LNHC1014, LNHC1015
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC30_LNHC

Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
. Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
Pocket Wetland
® Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
0 Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
QUnderground Storage
- Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
Stormwater Pipes
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
_ ROADWAYS
93MMUE Ulm
rV,f
1_
i�
0 0.175 0.35
Miles
= City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
andpositions,accuracy
ccurac of the data. The data cannot be constructed to be a le al document. Primary sources from which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of the information contained in this data
City of Durham
Subwatershed NHC30_LNHC
9 Stormwater & GIS Services Division
pilot Stud Area Ma
y p
�L=Com
9 Public Works Department
' 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITYOF Durham, North Carolina 27701
a DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
,July 2020

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC32_LNHC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC32—LNHC is located completely
in City limits in the central region of the study area
within the Lower New Hope Creek Watershed.
NHC32—LNHC has a drainage area of 525 acres
(100% within Durham City limits), is comprised
primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils, and has
43% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Durham -Chapel Hill Boulevard
• University Drive
• Durham Academy Middle School
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
commercial and roadways.
Parks and
Open Space
5% Roac
I 1�
i
Medium
Density
Residential
13%
I
Low Density)
Residential
2%
Very Low Density
Residential
1%
Institutional
5%
Commercial
40%
I
isity
Residential
14%
Future: The future land use is predominately
commercial and roadways, with a small projected
increase in commercial areas.
Parks and
Open Space
5%
1
Medium
Density
Residential
11%
Low Density/
Residential
2%
AECOM
High Density
Residential
15%
commercial
48%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Dry Pond (3): 00073, 13395, 00497
• Sand Filter — Underground (3): 13445, 13860,
13313
• Underground Storage (3): 00300, 00647, 00025
• Wet Pond (2): 13168, 13587
• Filterra (3): 13329, 13331, 13330
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Stream Enhancement 1 (1): LNHC1013
• Stream Enhancement 11 (2): LNHC1009,
LNHC2002
• Preservation (1): LNHC1012
• Restoration (1): LNHC2001
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC32_LNHC

r
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
,PAO
J0
t4lo-4ro
Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
. Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
Pocket Wetland
Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
4 Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
Underground Storage
- Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
- Stormwater Pipes
- Stormwater Channels
- Streams
Major Roads
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
_ ROADWAYS
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
City of Durham Subwatershed NHC32_LNHC
Stormwater & GIS Services Division pilot Stud Area Ma
Public Works Department y p
�L=Com
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor CITY OF DURHAM
CITYOF Durham, North Carolina 27701 NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK ,July 2020
DURHAM WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC40_SC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC40_SC is located completely in
City limits in the northern region of the study area in
the Sandy Creek watershed. NHC40_SC has a
drainage area of 394 acres (100% within Durham
City limits), is comprised primarily of hydrologic soil
group D soils, and has 9% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Sandy Creek
• US Route 501
• Duke University Golf Club
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
parks and open space.
Commercial High Density
Z% Residential
3%
Roadways
1f)% Institutional
18%
Parks and
Open Space
67%
-000
Future: The future land use is predominately parks
and open space.
High Density
`Residential
3%
Roadways
10% Institutional
zD%
Parks and
Open Space
67%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Bioretention with IWS (2): 13167, 13166
• Rain Harvesting System (1): 13890
• Dry Pond (1): 13499
Potential SCM Locations
• Bioretention (3): NHCSC0029, NHCSC0031,
NHCSCO032
Stream Assessments
• Bank Stabilization (1): SC2020
• Restoration (7): SC2017, SC2018, SC2021,
SC2022, SC2024, SC2025, SC2026
• Stream Enhancement II (2): SC2019, SC2023
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC40_SC

Existing SCMs
®
Dry Pond
.
Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
Pocket Wetland
®
Level Spreader
_
Level Spreader - Engineered
—
Filter Strip
0
Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
QUnderground
Storage
-
Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
—
Stormwater Pipes
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_
MED. DENS. RES.
_
HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
_
COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_
AGRICULTURAL
ROADWAYS
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
City of Durham Subwatershed NHC40_SC
Stormwater & GIS Services Division pilot Stud Area Ma
Public Works Department y p
�L=Com
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor CITY OF DURHAM
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701 NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK July 2020
a DURHAM WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC45_SC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC45_SC is located completely in
City limits in the northeastern region of the study
area in the Sandy Creek Watershed. NHC45_SC
has a drainage area of 385 acres (100% within
Durham City limits), is comprised primarily of
hydrologic soil group D soils, and has 20%
impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Duke University — Main Campus
• Duke University — East Campus
• Durham Freeway
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately
institutional.
Very Low Commercial
High Density
Density 10% Residential
Residential_____ 8%
3%
Roadways Industrial
16% 2%
Parks and
Open Space
14% Institutional
32%
Medium
Density
Residential Low Density
31% Residential
4%
Future: The future land use is predominately
institutional.
Very Low Density High Density
Residentia Commercial Residential
2% 9%
Roadways
16% 2%
Parks and
Open Space
14%
Medium
Density
Residential
9% Low Density
Residential
2%
Institutional
46%
J00
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Bioretention without IWS (3): 00384, 00660,
00661
• Constructed Wetland (2): 13438, 00537
• Filterra (1): 00833
• Sand Filter (1): 00832
• Underground Storage (2): 13569, 00831
Potential SCM Locations
• Constructed Wetland (1): NHCSCO035
Stream Assessments
• Preservation (1): SC2001
• Restoration (3): SC2002, SC2003, SC2005
• Stream Enhancement 1 (1): SC2004
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC45_SC

4
I
441
tot
•
�4ik S \
4 •
�� y
Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
. Wet Pond
LL Constructed Wetland
® Pocket Wetland
® Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
. Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
Underground Storage
- Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
Stormwater Pipes
_ Lakes and Ponds
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
_ ROADWAYS
_ I
_ �y •mil
_ V
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
City of Durham Subwatershed NHC45_SC
Stormwater & GIS Services Division pilot Stud Area MaCom
Public Works Department y p
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor CITY OF DURHAM
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701 NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK July 2020
a DURHAM WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC46_SC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC46_SC is located completely in City
limits in the northern region of the study area in the
Sandy Creek Watershed. NHC46_SC has a drainage
area of 523 acres (100% within Durham City limits), is
comprised primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils, and
has 36% impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Durham Freeway
• Duke University Hospital
• Crest Street
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately high
density residential areas and roadways.
Parks and
Open
Space
Density
Residential
7%
Le
1% 6%
Very law Density
Residential
1%
2%
CommerciaF
23%
30%
Future: The future land use is predominately high -
density residential areas and roadways, with a
projected increase in industrial areas.
Parks an d
Open Space
196 4
Medium
Density
Residentlal.�
4%
Low Oe nsky:
Residential
1% lnstitutlenal
S%
CPmmer[ la
18%
High Density
industrial Residential
12% 32%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Underground Storage (4): 13812, 13814, 00550, 00521
• Sand Filter— Underground (3): 13813, 13815, 13695
• Sand Filter (1): 00494
• Permeable Pavement (1): 13816
• Bioretention with IWS (3): 13520, 13559, 13558
• Bioretention without IWS (2): 00485, 13898
• Grassed Swale (1): 13568
• Level Spreader (1): 00664
• Constructed Wetland (1): 00665
Potential SCM Locations
• Bioretention (7): NHCSC0036, NHCSC0043, NHCSC0044,
NHCSC0046, NHCSC0047, NHCSC0048, NHCSCO049
• Constructed Wetland (1): NHCSCO039
• Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (1): NHCSCO040
Stream Assessments
• Bank Stabilization (6): SC2010, SC2011, SC2013, SC2014,
SC2015, SC2016
• Restoration (1): SC2017
Stream Enhancement II (2): SC2009, SC2012
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC46_SC

R
CA
All
'�•� it � � ;�•"�` �.
r�
Nofro-
r.
rA
40
j
Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
. Wet Pond
LL Constructed Wetland
® Pocket Wetland
® Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
. Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
Underground Storage
A Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
Stormwater Pipes
_ Lakes and Ponds
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
ROADWAYS
115
= City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
ccurac of the data. The data cannot be constructed to be a le al document. Primary sources from which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of the information contained in this data
and ositionaI accuracy
City of Durham
Subwatershed NHC46_SC
9 Stormwater & GIS Services Division
pilot Stud Area Map�L=Com
y
9 Public Works Department
' 101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701
a DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
,July 2020

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC47_MC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC47_MC is located in the central
region of the study area in the Mud Creek
watershed. NHC47_MC has a drainage area of 631
acres (72% within Durham City limits), is comprised
primarily of hydrologic soil group D soils, and has
11 % impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Pickran Estates
• Pickett Road
• Mud Creek
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately low
to high density residential areas, followed by parks
and open space.
Very Low Density
Agriculture
Residential
11% Commercial
5% \
3%
High Density
Roadways
Residential
10%
15%
Parks and
Open Spare
17%
Low Density
Medium
Residential
Density
Residential
Zl%
15%
Future: The future land use is predominately low to
high density residential areas, with a projected
increase in low density residential areas and
decrease in agriculture.
Very Low Density Commercial High Density
Residential _3% Residential
2% 15%
Roadways
Parks and 10%
open Space
16%
Low Density
Medium Residential
Density 39%
Residential
15%
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Wet Pond (5): 00495, 13824, 13684, 13683,
13682
• Dry Pond (1): 00267
• Underground Storage (1): 00198
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Restoration (2): MC1014, MC1015
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC47_MC

Existing Land Use
'r t
l
r 0125 r.
Miles
Existing SCMs
® Dry Pond
® Wet Pond
Constructed Wetland
Pocket Wetland
Level Spreader
_ Level Spreader - Engineered
Filter Strip
0 Sand Filter
Filterra
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
QUnderground Storage
- Proprietary Device
Subwatershed
QNHC Watershed Boundary
Stormwater Pipes
_ Lakes and Ponds
Stormwater Channels
Streams
Major Roads
Outside Durham City Limits
Land Use
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
_ HIGH DENS. RES.
INSTITUTIONAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
_ COMMERCIAL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
_ AGRICULTURAL
ROADWAYS
Future Land Use
A
r U.325 r.
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission, errors concerning the content of the data and relaive
City of Durham Subwatershed NHC47_MC
Stormwater & GIS Services Division pilot Stud Area Ma
Public Works Department y p
�L=Com
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor CITY OF DURHAM
CITY OF Durham, North Carolina 27701 NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK ,July 2020
a DURHAM WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CANDIDATE PILOT STUDY AREAS
New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC48_MC
Overview
Subwatershed NHC48_MC is located in the north-
eastern region of the study area in the Mud Creek
watershed. NHC48—MC has a drainage area of 284
acres (100% within Durham City limits), is comprised
primarily of hydrologic soil group B soils, and has 9%
impervious cover.
Landmarks
• Lochnora Subdivision
• Erwin Road
• Mt. Sinai Road
Land Use
Existing: The existing land use is predominately low
density residential and agricultural areas.
Very Low Density
Residential Agriculture
8% 26%
Parks and
Open Space Roadways
8% 11%
Institutional
Low Density 9%
Residential
32%
Medium
Density
Residential
6%
Future: The future land use is predominately very
low to low density residential areas, with a projected
decrease in agricultural areas.
Park
Open
4%
VeryLow
Density
Residential
25%
Residential
6%
Institutional
i 9%
Low Density
Residential
45%
01
Subwatershed Location Map
Stormwater Features
Existing SCM Locations
• Sand Filter — Underground (1): 13778
• Dry Pond (1): 00107
Potential SCM Locations
• None
Stream Assessments
• Bank Stabilization (2): MC1025, MC1028
• Restoration (2): MC1014, MC1026
• Stream Enhancement 1 (1): MC1027
AECOM New Hope Creek Subwatershed NHC48_MC

Existing SCMs
Dry Pond
_ -• •.
® Wet Pond
•
f` ti q
_y
Constructed Wetland
t
Packet Wetland
Level Spreader
f '• •�
Level Spreader -Engineered
i
Filter Strip
+ �
�
0 Sand Filter
Filterra
•?' �'
Bioretention with lWS
Bioretention without IWS
�.
Underground Storage
Proprietary Device
--
Subwatershed
r I
Q NHC Watershed Boundary
�1
'
-
Stormwater Pipes
'
Lakes and Ponds
-
— Stormwater Channels
a
*
Streams
E.�
d
,+
t
Durham City Limits
o
a
Land Use
I
F
VERY LOW DENS. RES.
to
4 . of
.•��,
LOW DENS. RES.
_ MED. DENS. RES.
UI
HIGH DENS. RES.
=
INSTITUTIONAL
Z
INDUSTRIAL
d
�
-
COMMERCIAL
i>
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
m
y
N
AGRICULTURAL
IL
^
,\
ROADWAYS
y
N
0 0.425
0.85
Miles
Q
L
E
IL
N
N
N
N
F
N
O
U
r
U
F
O
O
r
7
IL
U
Z
0
O
T
T
�I
M
N
Z
W
1
1
r
U
N
O
IL
rn
U
0
d
�—'
`o
0
0.275 0.55
Miles
0 0.275 0.55
Miles
City of Durham and County of Durham shall not be held liable for any errors in the data provided as a result of
this request. This includes errors of ommission, commission,
errors concerning the content of the data and relai is
E
0
and ositional accurac of the data. The data cannot be constructed to be a le al document.
Prima sources
from which the data have been compiled must be consulted for verification of the information contained in this data
U
o
City of Durham
Subwatershed NHC48_MC
cq
Stormwater & GIS Services Division
pilot Stud Area Ma
y p
�L=Com
Public Works Department
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF DURHAM
CITY OF
Durham, North Carolina 27701
NEW HOPE CREEK AND LITTLE CREEK
,July 2020
DURHAM
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN