20210050 Ver 1_Standard Permit SOFEA 12-16-20_20210111

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of
Findings for the Above -Referenced Standard Individual Permit Application
This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines
Evaluation, as applicable, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings for the
subject application.
1.0 Introduction and Overview: Information about the proposal subject to one or
more of the Corps' regulatory authorities is provided in Section 1, detailed
evaluation of the activity is found in Sections 2 through 11 and findings are
documented in Section 12 of this memorandum. Further, summary information
about the activity including administrative history of actions taken during project
evaluation is attached (ORM2 Summary) and incorporated in this memorandum.
1.1 Applicant: Durham Public Schools, Mr. Bernard Hall
1.2 Activity location: 4804 and 4622 N. Roxboro Street, Durham, NC
1.3 Description of activity requiring permit: Installing culverts in jurisdictional streams
for the construction of access roads associated with the proposed high school.
1.3.1 Proposed avoidance and minimization measures: The current site was selected
after evaluating twelve sites (including the existing Durham High School location)
for the construction of the new Durham High School. See attached Table
included in EA. The current site was selected for various environmental and
constructability reasons. Three on -site build alternatives were investigated for the
current site. The preferred alternative impacts the least amount of riparian stream
buffers and avoids all wetland. Alternative 1 impacted 991 feet of stream and 1.8
acres of wetlands. Alternative 2 impacted 504 feet of stream and 0.6 acres of
wetlands.
1.3.2 Proposed compensatory mitigation:
oasea on ine amount or impacts io Waters of the U.S. from the proposed project,
compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation can be purchased from an
approved mitigation bank to offset stream impacts. If no credits are available
through an existing mitigation bank, mitigation can also be purchased through
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS). Mitigation will be secured once the amount is agreed upon.
Page 1 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
1.4 Existing conditions and any applicable project history: The selected property is
located on the east side of North Roxboro Street. Areas surrounding the property
include both single and multi -family residential development to the north and
west, undeveloped, forested land to the east, and a single-family residential
home and a gas station to the south. Improvements on the property include an
unoccupied, two-story residential home with associated outbuildings and
driveway, located in the southwest corner. Two (2) public sewer easements
transect the project study area in both the central portion as well as in the
southeastern corner of the property. All other areas are undeveloped and
forested. Based on the USGS map, the elevation of the project study area is
approximately ± 330-400 feet above mean sea level (msl).
1.5 Permit Authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
2.0 Scope of review for National Environmental Policy Act (i.e. scope of
analysis), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (i.e. action area), and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (i.e. permit area)
2.1 Determination of scope of analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
The scope of analysis includes the specific activity requiring a Department of the
Army permit. Other portions of the entire project are included because the Corps
does have sufficient control and responsibility to warrant federal review.
Final description of scope of analysis: Access to the site from North Roxboro
Road is required for the site to be feasible. Without the stream impacts, the site
could not be constructed.
2.2 Determination of the "Corps action area" for Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA): , ne Lorps action area is the entire area tnat wiii be impacted
ay construction activities (limits of disturbance). The limits of disturbance (LOD)
was selected as the action area because the site could not be developed without
the stream impacts. The site development is dependent on the stream impacts.
2.3 Determination of permit area for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA):
The permit area includes those areas comprising waters of the United
States that will be directly affected by the proposed work or structures , as well
as activities outside of waters of the U.S. because all three tests identified in 33
CFR 325, Appendix C(g)(1) have been met.
Page 2 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Final description of the permit area: The final permit area is the entire area that
will be impacted by construction activities (limits of disturbance). The limits of
disturbance (LOD) was selected as the permit area because the site could not be
developed without the stream impacts. The site development is dependent on the
stream impacts.
3.0 Purpose and Need
3.1 Purpose and need for the project as provided by the applicant and reviewed by
the Corps: The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a new high school
to replace the existing high school, which is in need of significant repairs with a
new facility that meets the Durham Public School (DPS) high school program as
well as future student capacity needs.
3.2 Basic project purpose, as determined by the Corps: Select N/A or basic purpose
nei
3.3 Water dependency determination: The activity does require access or proximity
to or siting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. Therefore, the
activity is water dependent. _)tream impacts result trom construction of the
access roaa. i ne stream impacts are unavoidable and necessary in order to
meet public safety standards under the City of Durham and NCDOT code and
design requirements which require the high school access road from N. Roxboro
Street to align with Wellington Drive.
3.4 Overall project purpose, as determined by the Corps: Describe here.
4.0 Coordination
4.1 The results of coordinating the proposal on Public Notice (PN) are identified
below, including a summary of issues raised, any applicant response and the
Corps' evaluation of concerns.
Were comments received in response to the PN? Select Yes or No
Were comments forwarded to the applicant for response? Select Yes, No or
Was a public meeting and/or hearing requested and, if so, was one conducted?
Select appropriate response Provide additional description/rationale here as
needed.
Comments received in response to public notice:
Page 3 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Comment 1:
Agency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here.
Comment 2: Agency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here.
Additional discussion of submitted comments, applicant response and/or Corps'
evaluation: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
4.2 Were additional issues raised by the Corps including any as a result of
coordination with other Corps offices? Select Yes or No
If yes, provide discussion including coordination of concerns with the applicant,
applicant's response and Corps' evaluation of the response: Select N/A or
provide discussion as appropriate.
4.3 Were comments raised that do not require further discussion because they
address activities and/or effects outside of the Corps' purview? Select Yes or No
If yes, provide discussion: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
5.0 Alternatives Analysis (33 CFR Part 325 Appendix B(7), 40 CFR 230.5(c) and
40 CFR 1502.14). An evaluation of alternatives is required under NEPA for all
jurisdictional activities. An evaluation of alternatives is required under the
Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines for projects that include the discharge of dredged
or fill material. NEPA requires discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives,
including the no action alternative, and the effects of those alternatives; under the
Guidelines, practicability of alternatives is taken into consideration and no
alternative may be permitted if there is a less environmentally damaging
practicable alternative.
5.1 Site selection/screening criteria: In order to be practicable, an alternative must
be available, achieve the overall project purpose (as defined by the Corps), and
be feasible when considering cost, logistics and existing technology.
Criteria for evaluating alternatives as evaluated and determined by the Corps:
Describe evaluation criteria here
Page 4 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
5.2 Description of alternatives
5.2.1 No action alternative: The option to leave the school where it is without building a
new school or associated facilities was not evaluated in detail. It was determined
that the existing location of the school is inadequate due to soil conditions and
space constraints, and that without expanding the current school building and
facilities, the goals of the school program cannot be reached.
5.2.2 Off -site alternatives
Off -site alternative 1: Numerous sites were evaluated and rejected for various
reason. The attached table presents the results of the off -site evaluations.
Off -site alternative 2: Description of off -site alternative 2
5.2.3 On -site alternatives
On -site alternative 1 (applicant's preferred alternative): on -site alternative 3 is the
Preferred Alternative for the purpose of this document.
On -site alternative 1: In this alternative, the entirety of the high school program
would be located between the two stream and wetland systems on the property.
This would reduce the development footprint with the goal of reducing site
development costs associated with the grading of the rocky area on the
northwest side of the property. Access to the site would be provided at two drives
along the proposed Hebron Road extension. The loading/unloading area for
students from both bus and parent vehicles would be located centrally at the
main entrance to the building. Student parking would be located west of the main
building. Staff parking would be at the front of the building along the Hebron
Road extension and west of the main entrance. Student and staff parking would
be located and designed so that they would not interfere with loading/unloading
operations. The competition and recreational fields would be located on the north
portion of the site. The track, football field and possible future stadium would be
located east of the building. These fields would be located in close proximity to
the building allowing for ease of daily use by the students. The drive provided
around the building would act as a fire lane which could be gated at both ends to
allow for safe pedestrian use as necessary. Closing the gates would eliminate
pedestrian vehicular conflict as pedestrians would have vehicular -free access to
these areas. On -Site Alternative 1 would result in the placement of stormwater
control measures in Waters of the U.S. and regulated riparian buffers. On -Site
Alternative 1 would also result in significant impacts to the large wetland complex
as well as the perennial stream located along the western boundary of the
Page 5 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
property. This would cause considerable loss of hydrological, chemical and
biological connectivity to downstream waters.
On -site alternative 2: ): In this alternative, the majority of the high school program
is located between the two perennial streams and associated riparian buffers on
the property. Similar to the On -Site Alternative 1, the primary school building
would be located between the two stream and wetland systems on the property
site. Athletic facilities such as the football field/stadium and competition field,
however, would be sited west of the perennial stream located in the central
portion of the property. Access to the site would be provided by two drives along
the proposed Hebron Road extension. The loading/unloading areas for students
from both bus and parent vehicles would be located centrally at the main
entrance to the building. Student and staff parking would be located to the west
of the main building and would not interfere with loading/unloading operations.
The rear of the building would open to green, athletic field, and recreation space.
This would eliminate conflict between pedestrians and vehicles as pedestrians
would not have to cross a drive to obtain access to these areas. On -Site
Alternative 2 would result in considerably less impacts to the large wetland and
stream complex on the eastern boundary of the property. In addition, this
proposed Alternative more closely resembles the ingress and egress
requirements for the school. However, On -Site Alternative 2 would also result in
the placement of stormwater control measures in regulated riparian buffers. The
orientation of the buildings in this alternative was also predicted to impact
stormwater features on the site.
On -site alternative 3 (applicant's preferred alternative): This alternative follows a
very similar configuration as on -site alternative 2, with the majority of the high
school program located between the two stream buffers. The football
field/stadium would be located on the west side of the stream buffer, and the
primary building would be located on the east side of the site. Having the football
field and stadium on the west side of the property was most practical, as fields
will require less grading than a building. Access to the site would be provided by
one drive along the access road to eventually be the Hebron Road extension with
a bridge over the stream from N. Roxboro Street. A second point of access would
be located off North Roxboro Street, 600 feet north of the first access drive. A
third access drive from Old Well Street at the north of the site would allow access
for bus staff only. Parking lot configuration in this option would be the same as in
on -site alternative 2. The main difference is in the configuration of the tennis
fields and baseball diamonds to allow for the multi -purpose field to be located
further west in avoidance of the river buffers on the east side of the site.
Similarly, the orientation of the stadium and competition field on the west side of
the site are shifted slightly from alternative 2, to avoid buffer impacts. As per
requested by the City, the site plan includes a 70-foot wide land reservation for
Page 6 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
future right-of-way shall the Hebron Road extension ever be constructed. This
70-foot land reservation would allow for a 3-lane road with bike lanes and
sidewalks on both sides of the road as required for minor thoroughfares in the
City of Durham. A 30-foot wide private drive is being proposed for school use
only, specifically the staff and parent ingress/egress.
5.3 Evaluate alternatives and whether or not each is practicable under the Guidelines
or reasonable under NEPA Based on the decision not to construct the Hebron
Road Extension in addition to the significant proposed impacts to Waters of the
U.S., regulated riparian stream buffers and downstream water
quality/connectivity that would result from the construction of On -Site Alternative
1, this alternative was determined not to be feasible or practical.
Based on the decision not to construct the Hebron Road Extension in addition to
the significant proposed impacts to regulated riparian stream buffers and
downstream water quality that would result from the construction of On -Site
Alternative 2, this alternative was determined not to be feasible or practical.
5.4 Least environmentally damaging practicable alternative under the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (if applicable) and the environmentally preferable alternative under
N E PA:
Despite impacts projected to streams, wetlands and river buffers associated with
the stream crossing in on -site Alternative 3, it was determined that these impacts
are unavoidable and necessary in order to meet public safety standards under
the City of Durham and NCDOT code and design requirements. Despite impacts
requiring an IP, on -site Alternative 3 avoided stormwater feature impacts that on -
site Alternative 2 would not, avoided extensive grading that would be required if a
building was located on the northwest side of the site (as in Alternative 2), and
avoided stream impacts that Alternative 1 would have involved. On -Site
Alternative 3 was carried forward as the preferred alternative as it was
determined to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) and was used in further field investigations conducted as part of the
Phase 1 ESA by SEPI, Inc.
6.0 Evaluation for Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The
following sequence of evaluation is consistent with 40 CFR 230.5
6.1 Practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge consistent with 40 CFR
230.5(c) are evaluated in Section 5. The statements below summarize the
analysis of alternatives.
In summary, based on the analysis in Section 5.0 above, the no -action
alternative, which would not involve discharge into waters, is not practicable.
Page 7 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
For those projects that would discharge into a special aquatic site and are not
water dependent, the applicant has demonstrated there are no practicable
alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites.
It has been determined that there are no alternatives to the proposed discharge
that would be less environmentally damaging. (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.10(a)).
The proposed discharge in this evaluation is the practicable alternative with the
least adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and it does not have other
significant environmental consequences.
6.2 Candidate disposal site delineation (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.11(f)). Each disposal
site shall be specified through the application of these Guidelines:
Discussion:
6.3 Potential impacts on physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic
ecosystem (Subpart C 40 CFR 230.20). See Table 1:
Table 1 — Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Physical and
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Chemical
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Characteristics
Term)
Term)
Substrate
X
Suspended
X
particulates/ turbidity
Water
X
Current patterns and
X
water circulation
Normal water
X
fluctuations
Salinity gradients
X
Discussion: There will be a minor short-term effect to stream substrates during
construction of the culverts. The effect is considered minor and short term
because the culverts will be buried per NCDEQ requirements.
An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed and implemented to
avoid effects from suspended particles/turbidity, water, current patterns and
water circulation and normal water fluctuations.
There are no saltwater features located on the project site.
Page 8 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
6.4 Potential impacts on the living communities or human uses (Subparts D, E and
F):
6.4.1 Potential impacts on the biological characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem
(Subpart D 40 CFR 230.30). See Table 2:
Table 2 — Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Biological
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
characteristics
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Threatened and
X
endangered species
Fish, crustaceans,
mollusk, and other
X
aquatic organisms
Other wildlife
X
Discussion:
Federally protected species listed for Durham County.
Scientific
Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephal
us
Bald eagle
BGPA
N
No Effect
Noturus furiosus
Carolina madtom
PE
N
No Effect
Necturus lewisi
Neuse River waterdog
PT
N
No Effect
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
PT
N
No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
N
No Effect
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Y
MA-NLAA
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Y
No Effect
BGPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
E — Endangered
PE — Proposed Endangered
PT— Proposed Threatened
MA-NLAA — May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Bald Eagle
Page 9 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Habitat Description: The bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in
proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are
utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. Bodies of water
typically need to be at least 2 acres or larger to be able to support a bald eagle
population. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the
area within a 1 mile radius of the project limits, was performed on May 31, 2019,
using 2010 color aerials. The Eno River is the only water body large enough to
support foraging habitat within one mile of the project study area and is 0.5 miles
north of the project study area, and Falls Lake is located 5 miles to the east. The
bald eagle survey area designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife is a 660-foot buffer
around the project study area. Land use within and in the 660 feet surrounding
the project study area is highly urbanized and does not contain water bodies
large enough to support bald eagle habitat. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP
database on May 31, 2019, revealed no known occurrences of this species within
one mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known
occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina madtom
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Carolina madtom prefers shallow sand-, gravel-, and detritus -bottomed riffles
and runs with little or no current over fine to coarse sand bottom in small to
medium rivers. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records
generated on May 23, 2019 document no occurrences of Carolina madtom within
one mile of the project study area. Streams were assessed in study area on June
12, 2019. No suitable habitat was observed during surveys. Streams were
determined to be severely unstable and eroding.
Critical Habitat Carolina madtom
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
USFWS has proposed critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog within
Durham County. The nearest proposed critical habitat is the Eno River
approximately 3/4 mile downstream of the study area.
Neuse River waterdog
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Neuse River waterdog inhabits well oxygenated medium to large rivers and
streams with high water quality. They prefer eddies and backwaters with large
amounts of leaves and woody debris. NCNHP records generated on May 23,
2019 document no occurrences of Neuse River waterdog within one mile of the
project study area. Streams were assessed in study area on June 12, 2019. No
Page 10 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
suitable habitat was observed during surveys. Streams were determined to be
severely unstable and eroding.
Critical Habitat Neuse River waterdog
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
USFWS has proposed critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog within
Durham County. The nearest proposed critical habitat is the Eno River
approximately 3/4 mile downstream of the study area.
Atlantic pigtoe
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Atlantic pigtoe requires fast flowing, well oxygenated high quality
riverine/large creek and is restricted to fairly pristine habitats. It is typically found
in headwaters or rural watersheds. The preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe is
coarse sand and gravel at the downstream edge of riffles. NCNHP records
generated on May 23, 2019 document no occurrences of Atlantic pigtoe within
one mile of the project study area. Streams were assessed in study area on June
12, 2019. No suitable habitat was observed during surveys. Streams were
determined to be severely unstable and eroding.
Critical Habitat Atlantic pigtoe
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
USFWS has proposed critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe within Durham
County. The nearest proposed critical habitat is the Eno River approximately 3/4
mile downstream of the study area.
Dwarf wedgemussel
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known from the Neuse and Tar
River drainages. The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas
must be well oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with
extensive root systems holding soils in place. NCNHP records generated on May
23, 2019 document no occurrences of dwarf wedgemussel within one mile of the
project study area. Streams were assessed in study area on June 12, 2019. No
suitable habitat was observed during surveys. Streams were determined to be
severely unstable and eroding.
Michaux's sumac
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac most commonly grows in highway rights -
of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. NCNHP
records generated on May 23, 2019 document no occurrences of Michaux's
sumac within one mile of the project study area. Suitable habitat consisting of
Page 11 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
maintain rights -of way were surveyed on May 21, 2019 and no individuals were
found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Smooth coneflower
Habitat Description: Optimal habitat for the smooth coneflower consists of
periodically disturbed woods/roadside areas with abundant sunlight available.
Habitat for smooth coneflower does exist within the project study area. NCNHP
records generated on May 23, 2018 documented an occurrence of the smooth
coneflower within 1 mile of the project study area. Surveys for smooth coneflower
were performed within the study area on May 21, 2019 and no individuals were
found.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
There will be a minor short-term effect to fish, crustaceans, mollusk, other
aquatic organisms and other wildlife during construction of the culverts and other
construction activities. The effect is considered minor and short term because the
culverts will be buried per NCDEQ requirements.
6.4.2 Potential impacts on special aquatic sites (Subpart E 40 CFR 230.40). See Table
3:
Table 3 — Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Minor
Minor
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Special Aquatic Sites
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Sanctuaries and
X
refuges
Wetlands
X
Mud flats
X
Vegetated shallows
X
Coral reefs
X
Riffle and Pool
X
Complexes
Discussion: There are no aquatic sanctuaries, refuges, mud flats, vegetated
shallows or coral reefs within the study area.
The preferred alternative will avoid all wetland impacts.
Page 12 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
There will be a minor short-term effect to riffle and pool complexes during
construction of the culverts. The effect is considered minor and short term
because the effect will occur only during construction and the culverts will be
buried per NCDEQ requirements.
6.4.3 Potential impacts on human use characteristics (Subpart F 40 CFR 230.50). See
Table 4:
Table 4 — Potential Impacts on Human Use Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Human Use
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
N/A
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Municipal and private
X
water supplies
Recreational and
X
commercial fisheries
Water -related
X
recreation
Aesthetics
X
Parks, national and
historical monuments,
national seashores,
X
wilderness areas,
research sites, and
similar preserves
Discussion: The current properties are private residential properties. There are
no municipal and private water supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries,
water -related recreation, aesthetics, parks, national and historical monuments,
national seashores, wilderness areas, research sites, and similar preserves
located on the property.
6.5 Pre -testing evaluation (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230.60):
The following has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of
possible contaminants in dredged or fill material. See Table 5:
Table 5 — Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material
Physical characteristics
X
Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants
X
Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the
vicinity of the project
X
Page 13 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Table 5 — Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material
Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or
X
percolation
Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 331 of CWA)
X
hazardous substances
Other public records or significant introduction of contaminants from
X
industries, municipalities, or other sources
Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances which
could be released in harmful quantities to the aquatic environment by
X
man -induced discharge activities
Discussion: SEPI, Inc. conducted a Phase I ESA for the property located at 4622
North Roxboro Street and 4804 North Roxboro Street (Target Property) in
Durham, North Carolina. The Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with the
scope and limitations as outlined in American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standard Practice Designation E 1527-13 and presented in the May 15,
2019 proposal. The assessment did not revealed evidence of RECs, HRECs, de
minimis conditions, or other environmental concerns on the Target Property.
It has been determined that testing is not required because the proposed
material is not likely to be a carrier of contaminants because it is comprised of
sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert material.
6.6 Evaluation and testing (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230-61):
Discussion: The 1-'nase i t5N ala not reveaiea evlaence of RECs, HRECs, de
minimis conditions, or other environmental concerns on the Target Property.
Therefore, no testing was performed.
6.7 Actions to minimize adverse impacts (Subpart H). The following actions, as
appropriate, have been taken through application of 40 CFR 230.70-230.77 to
ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed discharge. See Table 6:
Table 6 — Actions to Ensure Adverse Effects are Minimized
Actions concerning the location of the discharge
X
Actions concerning the material to be discharged
X
Actions controlling the material after discharge
X
Actions affecting the method of dispersion
X
Actions affecting plant and animal populations
X
Actions affecting human use
X
Page 14 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Discussion: The location of the discharge will be the minimum required to
complete the project. As presented above several alternatives were evaluated.
The preferred alternative minimizes the discharge required. All required
engineering and construction practices (including erosion and sedimentation
control) were and will be followed to minimize effects to plants animals and
human uses.
6.8 Factual Determinations (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.11). The following
determinations are made based on the applicable information above, including
actions to minimize effects and consideration for contaminants. See Table 7:
Table 7 — Factual Determinations of Potential Impacts
Minor
Minor
Site
N/A
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Physical substrate
X
Water circulation,
X
fluctuation and salinity
Suspended
particulates/turbidity
X
Contaminants
X
Aquatic ecosystem and
X
organisms
Proposed disposal site
Cumulative effects on
the aquatic ecosystem
X
Secondary effects on
the aquatic ecosystem
X
Discussion: There will be a minor short term effect to suspended
particulates/turbidity and aquatic ecosystem and organisms during construction
of the culverts. The effect is considered minor and short term because
construction will follow the approved erosion and sediment control plan and the
culverts will be buried per NCDEQ requirements.
There will be no effects from contaminates. The Phase 1 ESA did not identify any
potential contaminants and construction activities will the approved erosion and
sediment control plan.
Page 15 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
There will be no secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Stormwater control
measures are included in the design to control the discharge of stormwater form
the completed site to the aquatic ecosystem.
6.9 Findings of compliance or non-compliance with the restrictions on discharges (40
CFR 230.10(a-d) and 230.12). Based on the information above, including the
factual determinations, the proposed discharge has been evaluated to determine
whether any of the restrictions on discharge would occur. See Table 8:
Table 8 — Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge
Subject
Yes
No
1. Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that
would be less damaging to the environment (any alternative with
less aquatic resource effects, or an alternative with more aquatic
X
resource effects that avoids other significant adverse environmental
consequences?)
2. Will the discharge cause or contribute to violations of any
X
applicable water quality standards?
3. Will the discharge violate any toxic effluent standards (under
X
Section 307 of the Act)?
4. Will the discharge jeopardize the continued existence of
X
endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat?
5. Will the discharge violate standards set by the Department of
X
Commerce to protect marine sanctuaries?
6. Will the discharge cause or contribute to significant degradation
X
of waters of the U.S.?
7. Have all appropriate and practicable steps (Subpart H, 40 CFR
230.70) been taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the
X
discharge on the aquatic ecosystem?
Discussion: Several alternatives were evaluated. The selected preferred
alternative was determined to be the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
7.0 General Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09)
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its
intended use on the public interest as stated at 33 CFR 320.4(a). To the extent
appropriate, the public interest review below also includes consideration of
additional policies as described in 33 CFR 320.4(b) through (r). The benefits
which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal are balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
Page 16 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
7.1 All public interest factors have been reviewed and those that are relevant to the
proposal are considered and discussed in additional detail. See Table 9 and any
discussion that follows.
Table 9: Public Interest Factors
Effects
O
CU
O
_0
m
FU
V
m
-0
O
z
E
�
N Z_
_-
03
C
O U
z Q
�C
a�
0
z E
z
m
Q
1. Conservation: Select option, enter discussion here
or delete if explanation is not warranted.
2. Economics: The project will create temporary
X
construction jobs and permanent jobs with the DPS.
3. Aesthetics: Select option, enter discussion here or
delete if explanation is not warranted.
4. General Environmental Concerns: Select option,
enter discussion here or delete if explanation is not
warranted.
5. Wetlands: All wetland impacts were avoided.
X
6. Historic Properties: NCSHPO stated the project
X
would not affect historic or archaeological sites.
7. Fish and Wildlife Values: Select option, enter
discussion here or delete if explanation is not
warranted.
8. Flood Hazards: The project is not located in a
X
FEMA regulated area.
9. Floodplain Values: Culvert installation will have a
X
negligible effect on floodplain values.
10. Land Use: The project complies will all local land
X
use policies.
11. Navigation: There are no navigable waters within
the project limits.
X
12. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion: There are no
X
shorelines within the project limits.
13. Recreation: The project will create recreation
X
opportunities with the construction of athletic fields.
14. Water Supply and Conservation: Select option,
enter discussion here or delete if explanation is not
warranted.
Page 17 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Table 9: Public Interest Factors
Effects
O
O
0
-0
V
m
-0
Z
(B
N �_
_�
03
c
O U
Z Q
0
Z
Z
m
Q
15. Water Quality: An approved sediment and erosion
control plan will be followed during construction. The
X
final design will include SCM to control stormwater
runoff from the final site.
16. Energy Needs: Select option, enter discussion
here or delete if explanation is not warranted
17. Safety: Select option, enter discussion here or
X
delete if explanation is not warranted.
18. Food and Fiber Production: Select option, enter
discussion here or delete if explanation is not
X
warranted.
19. Mineral Needs: Select option, enter discussion
here or delete if explanation is not warranted.
20. Consideration of Property Ownership: The property
was sold willingly to DPS. A 10' building setback will
X
be implements across the site as required by the City
of Durham.
21. Needs and Welfare of the People: The project will
benefit the needs and welfare of the people by
X
constructing a needed state of the art public high
school.
Additional discussion of effects on factors above: Select N/A or describe the
above factors as appropriate.
7.1.1 Climate Change. The proposed activities within the Corps federal control and
responsibility likely will result in a negligible release of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere when compared to global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse
gas emissions have been shown to contribute to climate change. Aquatic
resources can be sources and/or sinks of greenhouse gases. For instance,
some aquatic resources sequester carbon dioxide whereas others release
methane; therefore, authorized impacts to aquatic resources can result in either
an increase or decrease in atmospheric greenhouse gas. These impacts are
considered de minimis and are negated through compensatory mitigation.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Corps federal action may also
occur from the combustion of fossil fuels associated with the operation of
construction equipment, increases in traffic, etc. The Corps has no authority to
regulate emissions that result from the combustion of fossil fuels. These are
Page 18 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
subject to federal regulations under the Clean Air Act and/or the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program. Greenhouse gas emissions from the
Corps action have been weighed against national goals of energy independence,
national security, and economic development and determined not contrary to the
public interest. ADD, if determined appropriate, otherwise delete The applicant
voluntarily provided the Corps with an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that
they produced for other local, state, and/or federal requirements, entitled
[INSERT NAME], dated [Insert DATE]. The portions of that document pertaining
to the actions within the Corps federal control and responsibility are incorporated
by reference.
7.2 The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or
work:
There is a public need for the new high school. The existing high school, which is
in need of significant repairs with a new facility that meets the Durham Public
School (DPS) high school program as well as future student capacity needs.
7.3 If there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use, explain how the practicability
of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the
objective of the proposed structure or work was considered.
Discussion: There are no unresolved conflicts as to resource use. Initial public
comment was solicited from the residents surrounding the project site. The
comment period ended August 1, 2020.
7.4 The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the
proposed work is likely to have on the public and private use to which the area is
suited:
Detrimental effects are expected to be minimal and temporary.
Beneficial effects are expected to be -pore than minimal and permanent.
Detrimental effects to public and private uses will be minimal and temporary only
associated with construction activities.
Beneficial effects to public and private uses will be more than minimal and
permanent. The project will result in a new state of the art public high school.
8.0 Mitigation (33 CFR 320.4(r), 33 CFR Part 332, 40 CFR 230.70-77, 40 CFR
1508.20 and 40 CFR 1502.14)
Page 19 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
8.1 Avoidance and Minimization: When evaluating a proposal including regulated
activities in waters of the United States, consideration must be given to avoiding
and minimizing effects to those waters. Avoidance and minimization measures
are described above in Sections 1 and 3.
Were any other mitigative actions including project modifications discussed with
the applicant implemented to minimize adverse project impacts? (see 33 CFR
320.4(r)(1)(i)) Select Yes or No
Describe here.
8.2 Is compensatory mitigation required to offset environmental losses resulting from
proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States? Yes
Provide rationale: The project will result in the permanent loss of stream function
for 563 feet of stream channel. The stream will be culverted.
8.3 Type and location of compensatory mitigation
8.3.1 Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank?
If yes, does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? Yes
8.3.2 Is the impact in the service area of an approved in -lieu fee program? Yes
If yes, does the in -lieu fee program have the appropriate number and resource
type of credits available? Yes
8.3.3 Selected compensatory mitigation type/location(s). See Table 10:
Table 10 — Mitigation Type and Location
Mitigation bank credits
In -lieu fee program credits
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation, on -site and in -kind
Perm ittee-responsible mitigation, off -site and/or out of kind
8.3.4 Does the selected compensatory mitigation option deviate from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6)? elect Yes, No, or N/A
If yes, provide rationale for the deviation, including the likelihood for ecological
success and sustainability, location of the compensation site relative to the
Page 20 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
impact site and their significance within the watershed, and/or the costs of the
compensatory mitigation project (see 33 CFR §332.3(a)(1)): Select N/A or
provide rationale here
8.4 Amount of compensatory mitigation: Enter amount here
Rationale for required compensatory mitigation amount: Provide discussion here
8.5 For permittee responsible mitigation identified in 9.3.3 above, the final mitigation
plan must include the items described in 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (c)(14) at a
level of detail commensurate with the scale and scope of the impacts. As an
alternative, the district engineer may determine that it would be more appropriate
to address any of the items described in (c)(2) through (c)(14) as permit
conditions, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan. Presence
of sufficient information related to each of these requirements in the applicant's
mitigation plan is indicated by "Yes" in Table 11. "No" indicates absence or
insufficient information in the plan, in which case, additional rationale must be
provided below on how these requirements will be addressed through special
conditions or why a special condition is not required:
Table 11 — Perm ittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan Requirements
Requirement
Yes
No
Objectives
Site selection
Site protection instrument
Baseline information
Determination of credits
Mitigation work plan
Maintenance plan
Performance standards
Monitoring requirements
Long-term management plan
Adaptive management plan
Financial assurances
Other
For any "No", provide rationale on how the subject component(s) of the
compentatory mitigation plan will be addressed as special conditions or why no
special conditions are required: provide discussion here
9.0 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
Page 21 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
(40 CFR 230.11(g) and 40 CFR 1508.7, RGL 84-9) Cumulative impact is the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor direct and indirect but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time. A cumulative effects assessment should consider how the direct
and indirect environmental effects caused by the proposed activity requiring DA
authorization (i.e., the incremental impact of the action) contribute to cumulative
effects, and whether that incremental contribution is significant or not. .
9.1 Identify/describe the direct and indirect effects caused by the proposed activity:
A review of potential cumulative impacts to Waters of the U.S. from the
construction of the Proposed Northern High School, indicates that the proposed
development would not have significant adverse effects on the aquatic
ecosystem. The rationale for this presumption is based on the following
considerations:
• All stormwater devices will be located outside of jurisdictional streams and
wetlands and protected stream buffers.
• The proposed stormwater management systems, including numerous stormwater
treatment and retainage structures, are planned to capture and treat all
stormwater on -site before discharge to surface waters.
• Adequate Erosion & Sediment Control systems will be in place and maintained
during construction.
• No untreated stormwater or construction runoff will be discharged into Waters of
the U.S. (wetlands and streams); therefore, the water quality of downstream
receiving waters, specifically the Eno River, will not be impaired.
The proposed impacts to the Waters of the U.S. from construction of the
proposed Northern High School should have no cumulative effects on the quality
of other jurisdictional waters occurring beyond the Preferred Alternative Site. This
presumption is based on the review of environmental documentation regarding
known current and past federal and non-federal actions in the area. Projects in
the planning phase were also considered, including reasonably foreseeable
(rather than speculative) actions that have the potential to interact with the
proposed action. To have reasonable assurances that there would be cumulative
effects to projects when considered together or incrementally, the projects
needed to occur within similar time frames and within a geographic area,
coinciding with the proposed action.
9.2 The geographic scope for the cumulative effects assessment is:
Describe here.
9.3 The temporal scope of this assessment covers: Describe here.
Page 22 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
9.4 Describe the affected environment: Describe here.
9.5 Determine the environmental consequences: Describe here.
9.6 Discuss any mitigation to avoid, minimize or compensate for cumulative effects:
Provide discussion here
9.7 Conclusions regarding cumulative impacts:
When considering the overall impacts that will result from the proposed activity,
in relation to the overall impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future activities, the incremental contribution of the proposed activity to
cumulative impacts in the area described in section 9.2, are not considered to be
significant . Compensatory mitigation will be required to help offset the impacts
to eliminate or minimize the proposed activity's incremental contribution to
cumulative effects within the geographic area described in Section 9.2.
Mitigation required for the proposed activity is discussed in Section 8.0.
10.0 Compliance with Other Laws, Policies, and Requirements
10.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Refer to Section 2.2 for
description of the Corps action area for Section 7.
10.1.1 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with Section 7 of the ESA with the Corps designated as a cooperating agency
and has that consultation been completed?
If yes, identify that agency, the actions taken to document compliance with
Section 7 and whether those actions are sufficient to ensure the activity(s)
requiring DA authorization is in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA:
If yes, identify agency and provide description here. The Corps has reviewed the
documentation provided by the agency and determined it is sufficient to confirm
Section 7 ESA compliance for this permit authorization, and additional
consultation is not necessary.
10.1.2 Are there listed species or designated critical habitat present or in the vicinity of
the Corps' action area? No. The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its
responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
Effect determination (s), including no effect, for all known species/habitat, and
basis for determination(s): See section 6.4.1 above.
10.1.3 Consultation with either the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated and completed as required, for any
Page 23 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
determinations other than "no effect" (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet
for begin date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Provide
additional discussion here as needed to describe consultation(s) with the
Service(s) Based on a review of the above information, the Corps has
determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA. The documentation of the consultation is incorporated by reference.
10.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -
Stevens Act), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). N/A, there is no essential fish
habitat in this district's area of responsibility
10.2.1 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act with the Corps designated
as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been completed?
If yes, identify the agency, the actions taken to document compliance with the
Magnuson Stevens Act and whether those actions are sufficient to ensure the
activity(s) requiring DA authorization is in compliance the EFH provisions.
Identify agency and provide description here Select appropriate conclusion.
10.2.2 Did the proposed project require review under the Magnuson -Stevens Act? No
10.2.3 If yes, EFH species or complexes considered: Enter EFH species or complexes
considered here
Effect(s) determination and basis for that determination(s). Provide
determination(s) and rationale here.
10.2.4 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated and
completed as required (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet for consultation
type, begin date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Enter
auumunai aiscussion nere as neeaeu. Based on a review of the above
information, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under
EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act.
10.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106): Refer to
Section 2.3 for permit area determination.
10.3.1 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead federal agency for
complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the
Corps designated as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been
completed?
Page 24 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
If yes, identify that agency, and whether the undertaking they consulted on
included the Corps undertaking(s). Briefly summarize actions taken by the lead
federal agency.
Identify agency and provide description here . Select appropriate conclusion.
10.3.2 Known historic properties present? No. The Corps has reviewed the
documentation provided by the agency and determined it is sufficient to confirm
Section 106 compliance for this permit authorization, and additional consultation
is not necessary.
Effect determination and basis for that determination: March 12, 2015 letter from
NC State Historic Preservation Office, ER 15-0387, determined "the project as
proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures".
10.3.3 Consultation was initiated and completed with the appropriate agencies, tribes
and/or other parties for any determinations other than "no potential to cause
effects" (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet for consultation type, begin
date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Provide additional
discussion here as needed or delete it not needed. Based on a review of the
information above, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its
responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. Compliance documentation
incorporated by reference.
10.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities
10.4.1 Was government -to -government consultation conducted with Federally -
recognized Tribe(s)?
Provide a description of any consultation (s) conducted including results and how
concerns were addressed. rovide additional discussion here as needed of
delete if nor neec, The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its tribal trust
responsibilities.
10.4.2 Other Tribal including any discussion of Tribal Treaty rights?
10.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act — Water Quality Certification (WQC)
10.5.1 Is a Section 401 WQC required, and if so, has the certification been issued,
waived or presumed? An individual water quality certification is required, and has
not been issued or waived to date. A provisional permit will be issued for this
activity.
10.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Page 25 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
10.6.1 Is a CZMA consistency concurrence required, and if so, has the concurrence
been issued, waived or presumed? N/A, a CZMA consistency concurrence is not
require
10.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
10.7.1 Is the project located in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for
possible inclusion in the system?
If yes, summarize coordination and the determination on whether activity will
adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status.
additional discussion here as needed. The Corps has determined that it has
fulfilled its responsibilities under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
10.8 Effects on Corps Civil Works Projects (33 USC 408)
10.8.1 Does the applicant also require permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (33 USC 408) because the activity, in whole or in part, would alter,
occupy or use a Corps Civil Works project? No, there are no federal projects in or
near the vicinity of the proposal.
If yes, provide date that decision was made and whether permission was granted
or denied : Enter date received or delete this box if no 408 is required.
Provide additional discussion here as needed or delete.
10.9 Corps Wetland Policy (33 CFR 320.4(b))
10.9.1 Does the project propose to impact wetlands?
10.9.2 Based on the public interest review herein, the beneficial effects of the project
outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project.
10.10 Other (as needed): The preferred alternative avoids all impacts to wetlands.
11.0 Special Conditions
11.1 Are special conditions required to protect the public interest, ensure effects are
not significant and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws
above?
If no, provide rationale: Describe rationale
11.2 Required special condition(s)
Page 26 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
Special condition(s): Enter specific condition(s)
Rationale: Enter rationale here
12.0 Findings and Determinations
12.1 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The
proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to
regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been
determined that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed
deminimis levels of direct or indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its
precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect
emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing program responsibility
and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons
a conformity determination is not required for this permit action.
12.2 Presidential Executive Orders (EO):
12.2.1 EO 13175, Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians: nis action has no substantial effect on one or more Indian tribes,
Alaska or Hawaiian natives.
12.2.2 EO 11988, Floodplain Management: This action is not located in a floodplain.
12.2.3 EO 12898, Environmental Justice: The Corps has determined that the proposed
project would not use methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race,
color or national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or
low-income communities.
12.2.4 EO 13112, Invasive Species: here are no invasive species issues involved in
this proposed project.
12.2.5 EO 13212 and EO 13302, Energy Supply and Availability: The proposal is not
one that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy, or
strengthen pipeline safety.
12.3 Findings of No Significant Impact: Having reviewed the information provided by
the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental
impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be required.
12.4 Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines: Having completed the
evaluation above, I have determined that the proposed discharge complies with
the Guidelines
Page 27 of 28

CE SAW- 2019-01814)
12.5 Public interest determination: Having reviewed and considered the information
above, I find that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
PREPARED BY:
Date:
Project Manager
REVIEWED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level reviewer
APPROVED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level approver
Page 28 of 28