The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210050 Ver 1_DRAFT EA 12-17-20_20210111DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS Northern High School Replacement Project DPS Project 356-12 Durham, Durham County North Carolina Draft Environmental Assessment Prepared under NEPA December 2020 Prepared for Durham Public Schools by SEPI, Inc. S =;) I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction / Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Current Study.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Background............................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.3 Regulatory Context.................................................................................................................................................8 2. Proposed Action / Project Description...........................................................................................................................8 3. Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Project Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................9 3.2 Project Need...........................................................................................................................................................9 4. Alternatives Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................9 4.1 No Build Alternative / No Action.............................................................................................................................9 4.2 Existing/Old Site Alternative................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Off -Site Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................10 4.3.1 DPS-Owned Sites...........................................................................................................................................10 4.3.2 Additional Off -Site Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 10 4.4 On -Site Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................13 4.4.1 On -Site Alternative 1 (Condensed)............................................................................................................... 14 4.4.2 On -Site Alternative 2 (Full Site Development).............................................................................................. 14 4.4.3 On -Site Alternative 3 (Preferred).................................................................................................................. 14 5. Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences...............................................................................................15 5.1 Natural Resources.................................................................................................................................................15 5.1.1 Geology and Topography.............................................................................................................................. 15 5.1.2 Soils...............................................................................................................................................................16 5.1.3 Terrestrial Communities............................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.4 Waters of the United States.......................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.5 Riparian Buffers............................................................................................................................................. 19 5.1.6 Floodplains / Flood Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.7 Surface Water............................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1.8 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................20 5.1.9 Rare and Protected Species.......................................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Human Environment.............................................................................................................................................23 5.2.1 Environmental Justice...................................................................................................................................23 5.2.2 Public Lands, Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas........................................................................ 26 5.2.3 Prime and Unique Agricultural & Farmland.................................................................................................. 26 December 2020 Page 2 5.2.4 Hazardous Materials..................................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................ 26 5.2.6 Land Use........................................................................................................................................................27 5.2.7 Noise............................................................................................................................................................. 27 5.2.8 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................................... 29 6. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................................................29 7. Permits and Certifications.............................................................................................................................................30 8. Mitigation......................................................................................................................................................................31 8.1 Avoidance and Minimization................................................................................................................................31 8.2 Compensatory Mitigation..................................................................................................................................... 32 9. Comments and Coordination........................................................................................................................................32 9.1 Agency Coordination.............................................................................................................................................32 9.2 Public Comments..................................................................................................................................................33 10. References....................................................................................................................................................................................34 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Off -Site Alternatives Comparison (prepared by CLH Design)..................................................................................11 Table 2: On -Site Alternatives Summary Impacts..................................................................................................................15 Table3: Soil Types.................................................................................................................................................................16 Table 4: Streams in Project Study Area.................................................................................................................................18 Table 5: Federally Protected Species for Durham County....................................................................................................20 Table 6: Race Composition in Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1 Compared to Durham County ....................................... 24 Table 7: Race Composition Across Block Groups Near Existing High School........................................................................25 Table 8: Typical Sound Levels for Construction Equipment..................................................................................................28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Figure 2: Existing High School Site Figure 3: Off Site Alternatives Figure 4: Environmental Resources Figure 5: On Site Alternative 1 Impacts Figure 6: On Site Alternative 2 Impacts Figure 7: On Site Alternative 3 Impacts December 2020 Page 3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Figures Appendix 2: Demographic Data Appendix 3: Natural Environment Appendix 4: NRCS Farmland Figure Appendix 5: Agency Comments Appendix 6: Citizen Comments Appendix 7: Traffic Impact Analysis Approval Letter and Sketch December 2020 Page 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACS American Community Survey CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CO Carbon Monoxide CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Plan CWA Clean Water Act DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DPI Department of Public Instruction DPS Durham Public Schools EA Environmental Assessment E-B Eno River District B EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FJ/B Falls Lake/Jordan District B FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FR Federal Register HC Hydrocarbons HUC Hydrologic Unit Code HQW High -Quality Waters IP Individual Permit LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative LF Linear Feet MSL Mean Sea Level Mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter M/LR-A Lake Michie/Little River District A Watershed Overlay M/LR-B Lake Michie/Little River District B Watershed Overlay NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code NCEPA North Carolina Environmental Policy Act NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NCDNR North Carolina Department of Natural Resources NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCDMS North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources NCGS North Carolina Geologic Survey NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NC SAM North Carolina Stream Assessment Method NCSHPO North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office NC WAM North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOx Nitrous Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters December 2020 Page 5 Pb Lead % Percent PJD Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination PM2.5 Fine particulate matter PM10 Particulate matter SF Square Feet PPM Parts per million SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO4 Sulphur dioxide SOFEA Statement of Findings Environmental Assessment SR State Road UDO Unified Development Ordinance USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCB U.S. Census Bureau USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service µg /m3 Micrograms Per Square Meter USGS U.S. Geological Survey WS Water Supply 1. Introduction / Summary 1.1 Current Study Durham County Public Schools (DPS) is proposing the replacement and relocation of Northern High School, currently located in the City of Durham, to a new location, two miles south of the current Northern High School (see Figure 1). The current school is located at 117 Tom Wilkinson Road between Milton and North Roxboro Road. It is approximately 38-acres in size and consists of classroom space, tennis courts, a track field, baseball field and parking areas. The chosen new location of the school includes two adjacent parcels located at 4804 and 4622 N. Roxboro Street, combined to form an approximately 76-acre site, double the existing high school's current acreage. The proposed development will consist of state-of-the-art high school buildings and classrooms, multiple outdoor learning spaces, athletic fields, a track field, a stadium and parking areas. As detailed in the following report, 11 off -site alternatives were thoroughly evaluated for the proposed replacement project. Once a suitable site was selected, three on -site alternatives were evaluated until the Preferred Alternative was selected. Of the three on -site alternatives evaluated, the Preferred Alternative (On -Site Alternative 3) was selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), given it meets the public safety standards under the City -County of Durham, Department of Public Instruction and NCDOT code and design requirements, will avoid riparian buffer impacts demonstrated on On -Site Alternative 2 (despite impacts to Waters of the U.S.); will avoid extensive grading that would be required if a building was located on the northwest side of the site, (as in On -Site Alternative 2), and will avoid stream impacts demonstrated in On -Site Alternative 1. On -Site Alternative 3 would also meet the size and suitability requirements for the proposed high school and is in line with the Durham Public School's 5- year strategic plan. As such, On -Site Alternative 3 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. 1.2 Background The original Northern High School was constructed in 1956 and is currently the oldest operational school building in the District. The existing building has deteriorated over time and is in need of significant repairs. Among numerous issues December 2020 Page 6 cited, the building currently has significant ventilation issues as well as mold, and is no longer considered a healthy environment. Based on the anticipated cost of the repairs, the District and Durham County Board of Commissioners determined that the school would need to be replaced entirely. The original Northern High School site, located at 117 Tom Wilkinson Road, was deemed unsuitable following multiple detailed constructability analysis. The original site was determined to be too small to meet the proposed school's program requirements or associated amenities. Furthermore, it was determined that poor soils and steep topography present at the original site would not accommodate the proposed school development. Eleven alternative sites were evaluated for the proposed replacement project. Each site was closely evaluated for suitability based on numerous criteria including, but not limited to: size, sensitive environmental areas, constructability, potential site development cost, accessibility, etc. A more detailed comparison of each site based on the determined selection criteria is included in the Alternatives Analysis section of the report. The Preferred Alternative was chosen based on the criteria referenced above including its large size, accessibility and consistent land use. As noted throughout this document, detailed technical studies and reports have been completed in support of the project since 2019, including, but not limited to: geotechnical evaluations, natural resource assessments, protected species surveys, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, detailed surveys of Waters of the U.S. and traffic impact analysis. All preliminary environmental and site plan approvals have been garnered for the Preferred Alternative. The entrances from North Roxboro Street to the Preferred Alternative Site were designed and situated to meet City - County of Durham, Department of Public Instruction, federal highway, NCDOT, and public safety standards. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been approved for the proposed project and all recommended roadway improvements have been developed to accommodate the site -generated traffic safely, while protecting the existing function and capacity of the adjacent roadways. A copy of the NCDOT TIA approval letter and recommendation summary is provided in the appendix. Per NCDOT recommendations in the TIA and in order to match the lane configuration of the future Hebron Road extensions, the Wellington Drive Entrance will be constructed with one ingress lane and three egress lanes. The egress lanes shall consist of one exclusive left -turn lane with 150 feet of storage, a shared left -through lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane with 250 feet of storage. The Argonne Drive entrance includes the installation of channelized southbound/northbound left turn lanes on US 501, one ingress and one egress lane. Argonne Drive will be restricted to a right -turn lane only. The location and alignment of the entrance at North Roxboro Street across from Wellington Drive, is further dictated by Department of Public Instruction's (DPI) Public Schools of NC Facilities Guidelines. The guidelines require at least two entrances to the school be accessed from a public road. NCDOT also requires that entrances be at least 600 feet apart to comply with public safety standards. The Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization, in combination with the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT), has requested that a 70-foot easement along the southern boundary of the Preferred Alternative Site be granted to them for future right of way and future Hebron Road Extension. The extension is anticipated to run from Denfield Street to Wellington Drive. In order to meet public safety requirements, set by NCDOT and the City -County of Durham, the connection at Wellington Drive and U.S.-15/501 must also be aligned. The roadway extension project is currently not included in the City -County of Durham Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) nor has it been scheduled or funded. Despite this, the City -County of Durham and NCDOT are requesting that the proposed Northern High School site plan reflect a 70-foot wide land reservation for future right-of-way. December 2020 Page 7 1.3 Regulatory Context Given the potential impacts of the project to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., an Individual Permit (IP) and associated Water Quality Certification are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) under Sections 401 and 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act, respectively. Under the USACE's NEPA Guidance (30 CFR §230) and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), the project's IP Application must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts of the proposed actions and a range of reasonable alternatives to those actions. By default, approved NEPA documents automatically satisfy the requirements of the NCEPA (NC State Environmental Policy Act). This Environmental Assessment (EA) has therefore been prepared in compliance with guidance from USACE, in accordance with NEPA and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. The purpose of this EA document is to determine whether the proposed actions have the potential to significantly affect the human and natural environments. An EA is intended to be a concise public document that briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is determined. The EA for this project details the background for the USACE's Statement of Findings -Environmental Assessment (SOFEA), which will help form supporting evidence for the USACE to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project in the selection of the LEDPA. 2. Proposed Action / Project Description The new Northern High School Campus will serve as a modern school facility that meets the priorities of the District's 5- year strategic plan and is intended to be a point of pride for the community. The proposed project will include the construction of a new Northern High School Campus that will house the following amenities: • Three-story, 292,500 SF. high school building • Football stadium with football field, track, high jump and shotput areas, concession and restroom buildings, stands and lights • Additional track and field areas, including competition field and discus areas • Baseball field • Softball field • Multipurpose field • Eight tennis courts • Pasture, greenhouse, art patio and learning courtyard areas • Bus and vehicle parking lots • Roadways, retaining walls and stormwater control devices The Alternatives Analysis section describes the various options studied to provide the above amenities either on the proposed site or off -site. The final site layout was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment to the greatest extent possible. The majority of the high school improvements will be located between the two streams at the selected site, significantly minimizing impacts to the natural waterways and associated stream buffers. Athletic fields, which require less cut and fill, were strategically located in areas with steeper topography in order to minimize grading. Surface water at the site and downstream from the site will be protected through the installation and careful placement of multiple stormwater control measures. Further information is provided in the Alternatives Analysis section which describes the various options studied to provide the above amenities either on the proposed site or off -site. December 2020 Page 8 3. Purpose and Need 3.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing Northern High School, which is over 64 years old and is in need of significant repairs, with a new facility that will provide a safe and healthy environment for students and faculty as well as meet the current Durham Public School (DPS) high school program requirements. 3.2 Project Need The original Northern High School, built in 1956, is in need of significant repairs. The existing school building has deteriorated over time and currently has significant ventilation issues as well as mold and mildew, a serious health and safety concern. Other issues reported include, but are not limited to: numerous ceiling leaks with water dripping into the hallways, lack of modern safety features for students and staff during the event of an emergency, significant HVAC and electrical issues, flooding and poor site drainage. Based on the level of maintenance and repairs needed at the existing school, and the fact that the existing site cannot accommodate the current high school program requirements which includes providing a safe school environment, DPS has determined that a full school replacement is required. 4. Alternatives Analysis To evaluate where the Northern High School should be built, a detailed analysis of several alternatives was performed, including the existing/old school site, several existing DPS properties, 11 off -site alternatives and three on -site alternatives. For clarity, the terms "existing site" and "old site" refer to the current high school location on Tom Wilkinson Road, "on -site" is used to refer to the new/proposed N. Roxboro Road location, and "off -site" is used to refer to additional locations evaluated by DPS. Firms involved in this analysis included Ratio Architects, CLH Design and Barnhill Contracting. The following sections summarize why the preferred site was selected, and why some alternatives were not feasible or reasonable for the proposed development. 4.1 No Build Alternative / No Action The option to leave the school as it is without building a new school or associated facilities (i.e., the No Build or No Action Alternative) was not advanced because it would not satisfy the project needs, including meeting the current high school program requirement to provide students and faculty a safe and healthy learning environment. As previously discussed, the existing Northern High School was constructed over 64 years ago and has deteriorated over time. Numerous maintenance and repair issues have been reported including the presence of mold/mildew, ventilation issues, lack of necessary security features, etc. A no build option would result in further threats to the health, safety and welfare of the students and faculty at Northern High School as the high school and its current amenities will continue to deteriorate. 4.2 Existing/Old Site Alternative Replacement of Northern High School at its existing 37-acre location on Tom Wilkinson Road was evaluated through constructability and environmental suitability analyses by Barnhill Contractors, Ratio Architects and CLH Design. One alternative for rebuilding on the existing site was evaluated (see Figure 2), which would include building the new high school building south of its existing location, with ball fields and parking lots constructed where the existing high school is currently located. Several negatives were determined regarding the feasibility of rebuilding the existing high school on the current site, including: December 2020 Page 9 • Environmental Constraints o Steep topography and poor soils across nearly 50% of the property o An existing underground stream would require major areas of undercut and mitigation • Insufficient Buildable Area o Not all necessary amenities would fit, including football stadium and parking • Extensive Cost o Extensive site work (extending outside of the current parcel limits) would be required to accommodate the necessary retaining walls and grading o Deep foundations would be required to mitigate the site's poor soils o Work on occupied site would be costly due to predicted safety and phasing logistics DPS concluded that the existing parcel was too small and the environmental site constraints and potential costs too great to rebuild on the current site, and that a larger site was required to meet the project purpose and need. The Existing/Old Site Alternative was therefore deemed not feasible or reasonable, so it was not carried forward for consideration and evaluation. 4.3 Off -Site Alternatives 4.3.1 DPS-Owned Sites Faced with the limitations of the current Northern High School site, other existing DPS-owned properties were explored as alternative school sites (see Figure 3). Although one site initially looked promising (the Duke Homestead property at 2900 Duke Homestead Road (Stadium Drive), the location was outside of the school district and the size was small (57- acres). The other existing DPS sites were also eliminated as options due to size and location needs, based on student assignment zones. It was therefore determined that additional, larger alternative sites were needed. 4.3.2 Additional Off -Site Alternatives When the existing DPS-owned sites were eliminated, CLH Design then completed a suitability analysis of 11 additional off -site alternatives (also shown on Figure 3) to assess whether they were feasible or reasonable. These 11 off -site alternative sites were evaluated using multiple selection criteria, such as topography, utilities, site access, flood zones, stream buffers, zoning and the ability to fit the proposed amenities on the site with some design flexibility. A matrix was created (see copied as Table 1 below), which helped prioritize the selection criteria. December 2020 Page 10 TABLE 1: OFF -SITE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (DATA PREPARED BY CLH DESIGN) Site #4 4616 N. Roxboro Site #3 Road Site #5 Existing Site Site #1 Site #2 6014 N. (Hebron Road 3819 Cub Creek Site #6 Site #7 Site #8 Site #9 Site #10 Site #11 SITE FEATURES 117 Tom 5433 Guess Roxboro Road 6901 Russel 308 Orange 421 Orange 7001 Roxboro 1100 Mason 1301 Goodwin 6221 Guess Road Extension) Road Wilkinson Road Road (Divided Road Factory Road Factory Road Road Road Road included 4804, (Under Contract) Watershed) 4616 & 4622 N. Roxboro Road 227.25 ACREAGE 37.98 89 91.07 (Potential) 156.20 87.30 92.84 107.60 82.40 116.57 (Purchase 111.70 70 (Potential) (Potential) 109.6) M/LR-B M/LR-A M/LR-A M/LR-A M/LR-A WATERSHED E-B & FJ/B E-B E-B & M/LR-B FJ/B & M/LR-A E-B & FJ/B FJ/B Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical F/J-B Watershed 6% Watershed 6% Watershed 6% Watershed 6% Watershed 6% Poor soils in new Severe Moderate/Severe Moderate Severe building location Moderate/Sever TOPOGRAPHY (100 feet across restricted near Avg. 5.5% site 14% at Severe (80 feet Moderate (piles req. for Avg. 7-8% Site site) power lines stadium across site) bldg.) CC(D), PDR ZONING RR RR RR RR & RS-20 RS-10 & GC RS-20 RR 2.240, RS-20, RR RR RR RR & RS-10, PDR RR DEVELOPMENT Suburban Suburban Suburban & Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Rural Rural Rural Rural Suburban TIER FEMA N/A Partially in Not in Flood Not in Flood Not in Flood Plain Partially in Flood N/A Partially in N/A Partially in N/A Partially in Flood FLOODPLAIN Flood Plain Plain Plain Plain Flood Plain Flood Plain Plain 3 Floodplain and STREAM 1 — At site 2 — At north and 3 —Possible 1 — Bisects Site 1- Bisects Site 3 — Bisects Site Buffer Crossings, BUFFERS -- entrance south of site Bisects Site -- - -- __ Bisects Site UTILITIES - At Site At Site Extend 3,000 LF Extend 1,500 LF At Site At Site At Site SEWER -- — — — -- At Site UTILITIES - At Site At Site At Site At Site At Site (Provided with At Site WATER Carver St. Ext.) MEETS FULL NO —Stadium HIGH SCHOOL and Field #2 an -- YES YES YES YES — -- -- — YES PROGRAM NO NO — Stream NO Restricted due NO DESIGN Site must be buffers and flood Site constraints to impervious Yes *Site constraints FLEXIBILITY phased during -- plains restrict construction restrict options limitations restrict options development +/-15.9 Million SITE +/-15.2 Million Site DEVELOPMENT +/- 12.7 Million +/- 1.3 Million Off- Site +/-14.2 Million -- - - - -- COST Site Roadwork Off -Site Roadwork December 2020 Page 11 Site #4 4616 N. Roxboro Site #3 Road Site #5 Existing Site Site #1 Site #2 6014 N. Roxboro (Hebron Road 3819 Cub Creek Site #6 Site #7 Site #8 Site #9 Site #10 Site #11 SITE FEATURES 117 Tom 5433 Guess 6901 Russel 308 Orange 421 Orange 7001 Roxboro 1100 Mason 1301 Goodwin 6221 Guess Road Road (Divided Extension) Road Wilkinson Road Road Road Factory Road Factory Road Road Road Road Watershed) included 4804, (Under Contract) 4616 & 4622 N. Roxboro Road +/-210K Cut +/-275K Cut CUT/FILL -- -- _ +/-168K Fill +/-220K Fill -- - -- - -- Yes — between building wings 13,500 SF Site WALLS 25,200 SF YES and at main -- -- -- 21,000 SF Stadium _ entry $150,000Site STEPS & RAMPS -- -- -- 150,000 Stadium $450,000 -- -- -- -- DISTANCE FROM BUILDING TO 600 LF 800 LF 500 LF 700 LF 1,200 LF 1,300 LF MOST REMOTE FIELD 1— Will need to 2 with road acquire 3 with road 2 off Carver 2 with connection SITE ACCESS 3 additional connection to 2 extension Street extension — — -- to Torredge Road Milton parcel for 2 Desired program Under contract Build offsite road No swing space, adjacencies not Seller will not Hebron Road OTHER FACTORS Phasing -- met, remote sell Extension on Jan 19 Board v _ _ v connection to Agenda Torredge Road fields TEST FIT? YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO No NO NO YES NOTE: YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED CELLS INDICATE CRITERIA THAT DETERMINED THAT THIS SITE WAS NOT SUITABLE. December 2020 Page 12 Several of these off -site locations were determined to be unreasonable sites for development due to watershed issues, grading, stream and wetland crossings and landowner's lack of interest in selling their property. The highlighted site features in the table illustrate why some sites were determined to be unreasonable. Sites 4 (Hebron Road Extension) and 5 (Cub Creek Road) were determined to be 'test fit' sites for the high school. Site 3 (6014 Roxboro Road) was also included in the three preferred sites, but because the current owner refused to sell the property, it was not carried forward as a feasible alternative. Site 5 requires two stream crossings and there is floodplain on and adjacent to the site. It was determined that Site 4 would have significantly fewer development costs associated with it than Site 5. Site 4, originally composed of three parcels located at 4804, 4616 and 4622 North Roxboro Road, was determined to be the Preferred Site, as discussed further below. 4.4 On -Site Alternatives As noted previously, Site 4 from the Off -Site Alternatives Analysis (the three parcels that total 86 acres located at 4804, 4616 and 4622 North Roxboro Road) was selected as the Preferred Project Site. When it was selected, the most southern parcel of the three which originally composed the site, 4616 North Roxboro Road, was removed from the site, reducing the size to 76 acres. As it was a requirement to align the main entrance with the future Hebron Road extension, and to the reduce the footprint of the site, it was determined that this parcel was not required for the proposed project. See Figure 4 for an aerial photo of the Preferred Site with existing environmental resources. Following the initial site selection, DPS evaluated different building and campus layouts to avoid sensitive resources and meet other project needs. Three On -Site Alternatives have, therefore, been carried forward for detailed analysis throughout the remainder of this document. Each of the three On -Site Alternatives reflect an entrance from North Roxboro Street that is aligned with Wellington Drive. This entrance is mandated based on requirements from the DPS in conjunction with the State Board of Education, the City -County of Durham and the N.C. Department of Transportation. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been approved for the proposed project and all recommended roadway improvements have been developed to accommodate the site -generated traffic safely, while protecting the existing function and capacity of the adjacent roadways. A copy of the NCDOT TIA approval letter and recommendation summary is provided in the appendix. Per NCDOT recommendations in the TIA, the Wellington Drive Entrance will be constructed with one ingress lane and three egress lanes. The egress lanes shall consist of one exclusive left -turn lane with 150 feet of storage, a shared left -through lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane with 250 feet of storage. The Argonne Drive entrance includes the installation of channelized south bound/northbound left turn lanes on US 501, one ingress and one egress lane. Argonne Drive will be restricted to a right -turn lane only. The location and alignment of the entrance at North Roxboro Street across from Wellington Drive, is further dictated by DPI's Public Schools of NC Facilities Guidelines. These guidelines require that at least two entrances to the school be accessed from a public road. December 2020 Page 13 4.4.1 On -Site Alternative 1 (Condensed) On -Site Alternative 1 (see Figure 5) would situate the entirety of the high school improvements in the eastern portion of the site. 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 extending from 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, on top of the wetland and stream system. 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. 4.4.2 On -Site Alternative 2 (Full Site Development) Within the On -Site Alternative 2 (see Figure 6), the majority of the high school improvements are located between the two perennial streams and associated riparian buffers on the property. Similar to 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 a new drive opposite Argonne Drive and the other from the extension of Hebron Road. 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. 4.4.3 On -Site Alternative 3 (Preferred) The On -Site Alternative 3, determined to be the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 7), follows a very similar configuration as On -Site Alternative 2, with the majority of the high school improvements 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 is most practical, as fields will require less grading than a building. Access to the site would be provided in three places — two drives from N. Roxboro Street (one across from Argonne Drive and one 600 feet to the south, at Wellington Drive with the Future Extension of Hebron Road), and a third to the north, connecting to Old Well Street and the Old Farm subdivision. As state previously, per NCDOT recommendations in the TIA, the Wellington Drive Entrance will be constructed with one ingress lane and three egress lanes. The egress lanes shall consist of one exclusive December 2020 Page 14 left -turn lane with 150 feet of storage, a shared left -through lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane with 250 feet of storage. The Argonne Drive entrance includes the installation of channelized south bound/northbound left turn lanes on US 501, one ingress and one egress lane. Argonne Drive will be restricted to a right -turn lane only. Upon completion of Hebron Road Extension, that entrance will become the primary entrance to the High School for parents and students, the access across from Argonne Drive will be for student drivers and service vehicles, and the Old West Street entrance will be for buses, bikes and pedestrians. Both main drives will cross the large stream on site. 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 to avoid the riparian stream 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 On -Site Alternative 2, to avoid buffer impacts. 5. Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences The following sections discuss the affected environment, the anticipated environmental impacts of the three On -Site Alternatives. Table 2 below summarizes these impacts. TABLE 2: ON -SITE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY IMPACTS No Build Alternative On -Site Alternative 1 (Condensed) On -Site Alternative 2 (Full Site Development) On -Site Alternative 3 (Preferred/LEDPA) Total Construction Area (acres) 0.0 44.6 51.9 53.32 Impervious Area (acres) 0.0 24.8 28.4 19.9 Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.0 Stream Impacts (linear feet) 0.0 991 513 639 FEMA Floodplain Impacts (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neuse Buffer Impacts (acres) (Z1 & Z2 combined) 0.0 2.24 1.86 1.3 Meets Project Purpose and Need? (Y/N) N Y Y Y 5.1 Natural Resources 5.1.1 Geology and Topography The project study area is generally situated in the north -central part of the North Carolina, Ecoregion Level IV Triassic Basin, within the Raleigh Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province'. Topography at the project study area is described as rolling, with some steep areas parallel to the major instream systems. Based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Northwest Durham, North Carolina Quadrangle 7.5-minute series topographic map elevation of the project study area is approximately ± 320-440 feet above mean sea level (msl)". The project study area is gently sloping with the general topography sloping December 2020 Page 15 towards the two drainages located in the western and eastern sections, respectively. All surface water on the project study area flows north to the Eno River. The proposed project will have no effect on the local geologic features at the property but will alter the topography as contours will be redesigned to complete the proposed site activities. Alterations to topography are not anticipated to be significant, as the site has undergone previous disturbance. A geotechnical due -diligence and subsurface investigation was completed for the project study area in 2019 by Falcon Engineering. Based on findings of the investigation, the site spans three mapped geologic formations of the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina including the Carolina Terrane (oldest formation), the Triassic Basin, and the Intrusive Diabase (youngest formation). Based on findings, no geotechnical issues were identified that would deem development of the site prohibitively expensive. Geo-technical issues identified at the site include, unstable and moisture sensitive soils, foundations from old structures that are present and areas of difficult excavation from boulders, rock ledges, etc. Findings of the geotechnical report have been incorporated into the final layout of the proposed high school and amenities, as shown on the final site plan. For example, the main building is proposed in the center of the site to avoid areas of difficult excavation. Areas underlain by boulders or rock masses have been utilized for playing fields, which require less excavation. 5.1.2 Soils As per the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Soil Survey for Durham County (1976), dominant soil series at the project study area are presented below in Table 3"' Among the six (6) soil types that occur with the project study area, two are listed as hydric map units (NRCS, 2020) including Chewacla and Wehadkee loam as well as Iredell loam. Depth to the water table is typically less than 1 % feet for those hydric soils at the project study area. iv TABLE 3: SOIL TYPES MAP UNIT SYMBOL MAP UNIT NAME HYDRIC CLASSIFICATION Ch Chewacla and Wehadkee Loam, frequently flooded Hydric HrB, HrC Herndon silt loam Non-hydric IrB Iredell loam Hydric MfB, MfC Mayodan sandy loam Non-hydric NaD Nason silt loam Non-hydric WsB, WsC White Store sandy loam Non-hydric Hydric soils at the project study area are generally located immediately adjacent to the stream systems that bisect the property. The Preferred Alternative for the proposed high school and amenities has been strategically located outside of these areas, to minimize impacts to sensitive environmental areas such as stream buffers and wetland areas. As such, no significant impacts to hydric soils are anticipated from the proposed project. December 2020 Page 16 5.1.3 Terrestrial Communities Existing improvements on the project site include two sewer easements that transect the property as well as a residential home with associated buildings and drive, located in its southwestern corner. The home is not currently occupied. Improved areas comprise approximately 7% (-5 acres) of the overall project study area. Improved areas are grassed and maintained. All other areas are forested and undisturbed. The dominant, upland terrestrial forested communities at the project study area are classified as Mixed Pine -Hardwood Forest -Piedmont Subtype, according to the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina Third Approximation (1990)". Within the canopy and subcanopy, species typically observed in this community primarily included mid to early -successional species consistent with past disturbance such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Forested wetland communities are located directly adjacent to streams, within the project study area, and are classified as bottomland hardwood forest. The canopy stratum of the upland hardwood forest communities are primarily comprised of loblolly pine, sweetgum, American elm (Ulmus americana), black walnut (Juglans nigra), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) and white oak (Quercus alba). Herbaceous and vine layers were sparse and were limited to false nettle (eoehmeria cylindrica) honey- suckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodenron radicans). The Preferred Alternative minimizes tree clearing to the greatest extent possible, compared to other on - site alternatives described above. The Preferred Alternative site layout is configured to avoid critically important vegetative riparian areas along the stream channels. The Preferred Alternative is in compliance with both State and local riparian/stream-side setbacks, ensuring that any tree clearing is minimized. All tree clearing for the proposed project will be limited to areas within the project boundary and will not extend into adjacent areas. No critical habitat/protected species habitat will be affected. Wildlife potentially displaced include limited terrestrial and aquatic species, typical to the area. 5.1.4 Waters of the United States 5.1.4.1 Wetlands Waters of the U.S., including ponds, streams and wetlands are defined by 33 Part 328.3 et al. and are protected by Section 404 and other applicable sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S. Code (USC} 1344). Impacts to regulated resources under Section 404 of the CWA are administered and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington District. A wetland and stream delineation (see Appendix) was completed by SEPI biologists on May 21, May 22, and May 29, 2019 for the approximate 76.5-acre project study area. Jurisdictional streams and wetland areas encountered during the site assessment were marked sequentially with flagging and a GPS point was taken at each flag. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands were identified by using applicable methods as defined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manual and the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Supplement (Version 2.0, November 2010) of NCDWR's Stream Identification Manual (Version 4.11, 2010)"' December 2020 Page 17 A request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) was submitted to the USACE Raleigh Field Office for the delineated wetland areas, within the project study area. Mr. Joshua Deal, of the USACE, conducted site inspections on September 19, 2019. Email verification was received from Mr. Deal on September 23, 2019. Based on the PJD, two potentially jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project study area. Wetland A (WA) is a bottomland hardwood riparian system located along the eastern boundary of the project study area, adjacent to an intermittent stream. WA is forested throughout and totals 2.4 acres, within the project study area. Wetland C (WC) is entirely located within the project study area and comprises 0.045 acres. WC is located adjacent to a perennial stream in the southeast corner of the project study area. The riparian system is forested and is also classified as a bottomland hardwood forest community. The USACE Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland Determination Data forms for these wetland areas were included in the PJD request package previously submitted to the USACE. Wetland impacts in the other alternatives were calculated using delineated wetland areas and GIS generated site plans for all of the on -site alternatives. On -Site Alternative 1 (Condensed Site Plan) was anticipated to impact approximately 1.8 acres of wetlands, and On -Site Alternative 2 (Full Site Development) was anticipated to impact approximately 0.6 acres of wetlands. As On -Site Alternative 3 no anticipated impacts to wetlands, it was preferred. 5.1.4.2 Streams Potential jurisdictional streams for the project study area were evaluated in accordance with the USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High -Water Mark Identification for Streams and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR's) Stream Identification Manual (Version 4.11, 2010)" Jurisdictional streams encountered during the site assessment were marked sequentially with flagging and a GPS point was taken at each flag. Water resources in the project study area are part of the Neuse River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. Five streams were identified in the project study area, including two Unnamed Tributaries to the Eno River (see Table 4). TABLE 4: STREAMS IN PROJECT STUDY AREA Map ID Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Total Length in Study Area (ft.) Classification River Basin Buffer SA 167 9 0 1,130 Intermittent Subject SB 0 0 0 27 Intermittent Subject SC 588 265 0 120 Intermittent Subject SD 59 59 90 2,181 Perennial Subject SE 177 180 177 317 Perennial Subject Total 991 513 267 3,775 As noted in Table 2 above, each alternative would have varying impacts on streams within the study area. Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, would have stream impacts at 639 linear feet of impacts, December 2020 Page 18 versus Alternative 1 which would impact 991 linear feet of streams, and Alternative 2 which would have 540 linear feet of impacts. 5.1.4.3 Open Waters No jurisdictional ponds or lakes are present on the Preferred Site. 5.1.5 Riparian Buffers Streamside riparian zones within the project study area are protected under provisions of the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233) as administered by NCDWR. In addition, the project study area is located in the Eno River Protected Area, regulated by the City of Durham. All local and state buffers are shown on the attached construction drawings. For the purpose of this application, Neuse Riparian Buffer Impact amounts have been quantified on the attached impact maps. It was determined that On -Site Alternative 1 would impact approximately 2.24 acres of Neuse River Buffers and On -Site Alternative 2 was predicted to impact approximately 1.86 acres of Neuse Buffers. On -Site Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) impacts the least amount of riparian stream buffer area of all three alternatives considered. Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) will result in impacts to approximately 1.29 acres of Neuse Buffers. Floodplains / Flood Hazards Based on a review of the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) panel 3720082400K (effective 10/19/2018), the project study area does not include any areas of flood hazard. 5.1.6 Surface Water Water resources in the study area are part of the Neuse River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. All surface water in the project study area flows north to the Eno River, approximately 0.6 miles. There are no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present in the project study area. There are no designated High -Quality Waters (HOW) within one mile downstream. However, the Eno River is classified as WS-IV and NSW by NCDWQ. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. This classification of the Eno River includes the section of the river from U.S. Highway 501 to a point 0.5 mile upstream of the City of Durham Emergency Pumping Facility Raw Water Intake. The 2018 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters does not include the Eno River or any streams within the study area. On -Site Alternative 1 would result in approximately 24.8 acres of additional impervious surface, and On - Site Alternative 2 would result in approximately 28.4 acres of additional impervious surface. The Preferred Alternative, On -Site Alternative 3, will result in approximately 19.9 acres of additional impervious surface. Application of appropriate stormwater management controls consistent with the State Stormwater Design Manual, Water Supply Watershed Protection Program, Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy (i.e. Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules) and City -County of Durham Riparian and Wetland Buffers Protection Standards will address potential water quality and runoff quantity changes resulting from the additional impervious surfaces. Protection of downstream drinking water sources will be further ensured through appropriate adherence to the City -County of Durham's design requirements set forth in the UDO. Furthermore, the project will be constructed consistent with State erosion and Sediment Control and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System December 2020 Page 19 (NPDES) construction stormwater management regulations. Post construction, annual inspection is recommended. 5.1.7 Groundwater Groundwater refers to the water present beneath the Earth's surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of the rock formations. A unit of rock or an unconsolidated deposit is called an aquifer. The depth at which soil pore spaces or fractures and voids in rock become completely saturated with water is called the water table. Groundwater is recharged from the surface; it may discharge from the surface naturally at springs and seeps and can form wetlands. Groundwater can be withdrawn for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use by constructing and operating extraction wells. In the Piedmont of North Carolina, two major aquifer systems exist. The surficial materials form the unconfined aquifer and the fractured rock beneath, is the unconfined to semi -confined bedrock aquifer. Usually, the surficial aquifer feeds the fractures in the bedrock aquifer (NCDNR, 2005)." The proposed project does not involve the removal of groundwater from subsurface sources. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the surficial aquifer or the fractured bedrock aquifer. 5.1.8 Rare and Protected Species As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for Durham County (see Table 5)'x. A brief description of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the project study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS. TABLE 5: FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR DURHAM COUNTY Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Habitat Present Biological Conclusion Haliaeetus leucocephalus 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 December 2020 Page 20 Bald Eagle USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round Habitat Description: The bald eagle habitat 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 one 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 one mile radius of the project limits, was performed on May 31, 2019, using 2010 color aerials. The Eno River and the quarry are both nearby water bodies that are large enough to support foraging habitat within one mile of the project study area. The Eno River is 0.5 mile north of the project study area, and the quarry is 1,400 feet away from the study area. Falls Lake is located five miles to the east of the Eno River. 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 USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round Habitat Description: 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. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Critical Habitat Carolina madtom 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 (north) of the study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Neuse River waterdog USFWS optimal survey window: late fall to early spring Habitat Description: 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, December 2020 Page 21 2019. No suitable habitat was observed during surveys. Streams were determined to be severely unstable and eroding. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Critical Habitat Neuse River waterdog SFWS 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. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Atlantic pigtoe USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round Habitat Description: 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. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Critical Habitat Atlantic pigtoe 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. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Dwarf wedgemussel USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round Habitat Description: 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. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Michaux's sumac USFWS optimal survey window: May - October 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 maintained rights -of way were surveyed on May 21, 2019 and no individuals were found. December 2020 Page 22 Biological Conclusion: No Effect Smooth coneflower USFWS optimal survey window: late May - October 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 one 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 5.2 Human Environment 5.2.1 Environmental Justice In compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 Federal Register [FR] 7629), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, an Environmental Justice analysis was conducted. The results of this analysis are intended to assess any disproportionately high adverse impacts to human health and the environment in minority and low-income populations resulting from the proposed project and its alternatives. Minority populations are defined as non -white and Hispanic populations that are also white. Hispanic or Latino populations are not defined as a racial designation, but rather an ethnic population.x Hispanics or Latinos may be white, black or any race. Low- income populations are defined as those below the federal poverty thresholds, identified using statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census. A low-income or minority population is identified when an area has a poverty rate or minority population percentage that is substantially greater than the poverty rate or minority population percentage in the general population, or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.' SEPI examined 2010 and 2016 United States Census Bureau Data from the 2010 Decennial Census and the American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016) to determine minority and low-income population percentages at the existing site, as well as in the new study area to facilitate the qualitative assessment of potential environmental justice impacts of the relocation of the school. Demographic Tables with more detail can be found in the appendix of this report. The existing high school site is located within Zip code 27712. It is located within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 2, Census Tract 16.01, Block Group 3 as well as Census Tract 16.03. The Preferred Site for the Durham Northern High School Replacement Project is located within Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1, within Zip Code 27704. 5.2.1.1 Existing Site Within the existing site vicinity, the total white, non -Hispanic population of Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 2 is 1,522, which is 52.8% of the total population. The minority population (which includes non- white and Hispanic populations that are white) is 1,363, which is 47.2% of the total population of this Census Tract and Block Group. This is not greater than 10% above the County figure. Therefore, the minority population within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 2 does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA guidance. December 2020 Page 23 The total white, non -Hispanic population of Census Tract 16.01, Block Group 3 is 901, which is 59.4% of the total population. The minority population (which includes non -white and Hispanic populations that are white) is 616, which is 40.6% of the total population of this Census Tract and Block Group. This is not greater than 10% above the County figure and therefore the minority population within Census Tract 16.01, Block Group 3 does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA guidance. The total white, non -Hispanic population of Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 3 is 955, which is 78.9% of the total population. The minority population (which includes non -white and Hispanic populations that are white) is 255, which is 21.1% of the total population of this Census Tract and Block Group. This is not over 10% over the county figure and therefore the minority population within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 3 does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA guidance. The total population of Durham County is 294,618 based on 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) Census Data Estimates. The percentage of the population that is white, non -Hispanic is 42.0%. The percentage of the population that is considered minority is 58.0%. The percentage of race within Durham County compared to the Census Tract and Block Groups within the vicinity of the existing school site is summarized in the table below: TABLE 6: RACE COMPOSITION IN CENSUS TRACT 17.08, BLOCK GROUP 1 COMPARED TO DURHAM COUNTY Race CT 16.03, BG 2 CT 16.01, BG 3 CT 16.03, BG 3 Durham County Caucasian 58.7 59.4 78.9 51.0% Black or African American 29.2 20.7 15.9 37.6% American Indian or Native Alaskan Alone 0 0 0 0.4% Asian 7.1 0 0 4.7% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0.0% Other Race 1.6 19.9 0 3.5% Two or more Races 3.4 0 5.2 2.8% The number of persons living below the poverty level within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 2 is 6.2%, within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 3 is 6.3% and within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 3 is 6.0%. The number or persons living below the poverty level in Durham County is higher at 17.4%. The State percentage of persons living below the poverty level is 16.8%. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level within Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 2, Census Tract 16.01, Block 3 and Census Tract 16.03, Block Group 3 is lower than the County and State poverty figures and, therefore, does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community. The same trend is true for the community groups located within the vicinity of the new high school, as the poverty level within Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1 is lower than the County and State poverty figures. Combining the data from the aforementioned Census Block Groups near the existing high school site, it is observed that the vicinity of the existing high school site does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice Community. The combined population of the 3 Block Groups is 5,612. The percentage of race within the 3 Block Groups is as follows: December 2020 Page 24 TABLE 7: RACE COMPOSITION ACROSS BLOCK GROUPS NEAR EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL Race Percentage Caucasian 63.3% Black or African American 24.0% American Indian or Native Alaskan Alone 0.0% Asian 3.6% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0% Other Race 6.2% Two or more Races 2.9% The average number of persons living below the poverty level within the 3 Block Groups is 6.2%. The number of persons living below the poverty level in Durham County is higher at 17.4%. The State percentage of persons living below the poverty level is 16.8%. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level within the 3 Block Groups is lower than the County and State poverty figures and therefore does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community. One of these block groups, Census Tract 16.01, Block Group 3 has 22.5% of persons living below the poverty level, which is higher than both the County and State percentages. This block group meets the criteria for an Environmental Justice community. 5.2.1.2 Preferred Site In the new study area, Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1, the total Minority population is 4,805, which is 91.3% of the total population of Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1. This figure is more than 10% over the County figure for minority population, which is 58% and higher than the state percentage of 36%. The percentage of minority population within Census Tract 17.08, Block Group 1 meets the criteria for an Environmental Justice community according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA guidance. In the vicinity of the new high school site, the total Minority population (which includes non -white and Hispanic populations that are white) is 10,818, which is 82.9% of the total population. This figure is more than 10% over the County figure for minority population, which is 58% and higher than the State percentage of 36%. The percentage of minority population within the 3 Block Groups surrounding the new high school site therefore meets the criteria for an Environmental Justice community according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA guidance. In the area surrounding the new high school site, the number of persons living below the poverty level within the 3 Block Groups in that area is 22.8%. This is higher than both Durham County and State percentages of people living below the poverty level, and therefore does meet the criteria for an Environmental Justice community. The proposed project actions will occur entirely within the property of Durham Public Schools and will not extend to the surrounding communities. No adverse impacts to vehicular, bicycle or foot traffic access to medical facilities or employment are anticipated to the communities near the new site. Any impacts to the identified Environmental Justice communities near the new site will likely be positive (by increasing access to the school by walking). Relocating the school from the existing site, however, may have adverse impacts to Environmental Justice communities (due to percentage of persons living below December 2020 Page 25 the poverty level in Census Tract 16.01, Block Group 3) identified near the existing high school site, by decreasing their access to school when they can currently walk to school. No disproportionately high adverse impacts to human health or environment of minority or low-income populations is expected either within the communities near the preferred site, or the existing high school site. No conflicts with known (documented) residential communities are anticipated. 5.2.2 Public Lands, Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas According to North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) mapping"there are no state -managed lands or natural heritage natural areas within the Preferred Site. There are also no state-owned lands, according to NC OneMap mapping.""' However, the West Point on the Eno (City of Durham Park) is located 1,000 feet to the north of the Preferred Site. This park is part of the Eno River State Park which is a 6(f) resource, sponsored by the Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources and designated by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This project will not impact this site, however so no replacement lands are required for this resource. Other nearby parks, including Turtle Hole park and River Forest Park, will also not be impacted by this project due to proximity to the project study area. 5.2.3 Prime and Unique Agricultural & Farmland In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549, an Individual Permit by itself is not considered subject to the rules under FPPA"'v Therefore, a prime farmland screening and associated NRCS AD 1006 form is not required. There are no Voluntary Agricultural Districts within the project vicinity. Further data from the Farmland Conversion conducted to determine this can be found in the appendix of this report. 5.2.4 Hazardous Materials A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed by SEPI, Inc. for the project study area in accordance with the scope and limitations as outlined in American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice Designation E 1527-13. The assessment revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) at the project study area. Environmental databases and records maintained by federal, state, and tribal agencies were reviewed in an effort to determine if, when, and to what extent environmental incidents had been reported at the project study area as well as on properties in the vicinity of the project study area. Sixty-two surrounding properties were identified in the database review. Of the sixty-two surrounding sites identified, none represented a REC to the project study area. 5.2.5 Cultural Resources The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the project and responded on August 15, 2019 that they are not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. As such, no further investigation is needed. A copy of agency correspondence received, including from SHPO, is included in the Appendix of this report. December 2020 Page 26 5.2.6 Land Use The Preferred Site for the proposed new high school is consistent with the Durham Comprehensive Plana" and existing zoning. The Future Land Use Designation for the site is Residential and the current zoning is RS-10 (Residential Suburban, 10,000 sq. ft. min lot size). These planned residential areas are acceptable areas for schools, according to the Durham Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed project complies with Objective 11.2.2 of the Plan, siting schools where they assist in providing community and neighborhood focal points and Policy 11.2.2e — in that the potential for children to walk or bike to the school was included as a consideration in its site location and design. As shown in this EA, the proposed high school will also not be located on a site with severe environmental constraints to development or significant historic resources (Policy 11.2.2b). It is not known what DPS plans to use the current school site for once its students are moved to the proposed new location. However, it is anticipated that DPS will comply with Policy 11.2.2e of the same Comprehensive Plan to consider reusing it for other education purposes. 5.2.7 Noise The major construction activities for this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling grading, and paving. Temporary and localized construction noise impacts will likely occur as a result of these activities. Temporary speech interference for passersby and individuals living or working near the project can be expected. Noise levels in the project area will be increased during construction. The sound levels resulting from construction activities at nearby noise -sensitive receivers will be a function of the types of equipment utilized, the duration of the activities, and the distances between construction activities and nearby land uses. Typical sound levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 8 below. December 2020 Page 27 TABLE H: TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTxvi NOISE LEVEL (MA) AT 50 FEET 60 70 so 90 100 110 Compactors (Rollers) 0 Front Loaders c" Backhoes Vl w 2 7 O = Tractors z w 0 a w Scrapers, Graders M M Pavers 0 Trucks x ? z J Concrete Mixers < Concrete Pumps o (n Cranes (Movable) w w Cranes (Derrick) a CC Pumps x 0 Generators a r Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches �y LU aa Jack Hammers, Rock Drills —a w Pile Drivers (Peaks) Vibrators w� x ° Saws Note: Based on limited available data samples. If meeting the project schedule requires that earth removal, grading, hauling, and / or paving must occur during evening, nighttime and / or weekend hours in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods, the Contractor shall notify DPS as soon as possible. In such instance(s), all reasonable attempts shall be made to notify and to make appropriate arrangements for the mitigation of the predicted construction noise impacts upon the affected property owners and / or residents. Generally, low-cost and easily implemented construction noise control measures should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications to the extent possible. These measures include, but are not limited to, work -hour limits, equipment exhaust muffler requirements, haul -road locations, elimination of "tail gate banging", ambient -sensitive backup alarms, construction noise complaint mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community communication. December 2020 Page 28 5.2.8 Air Quality The impact resulting from a new project ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns is a primary concern when determining the impact of a new traffic generator. Automobiles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb), listed in order of decreasing emission rates. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants". The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter (PM10), Particulate Matter (PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3), and micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3). EPA has also recognized emissions of air toxics from mobile sources as a potential environmental and health concern. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations shall be governed by the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction as issued by the NC State Construction office and as amended by the most recent applicable supplements. All construction equipment shall be maintained, repaired and adjusted to keep it in full satisfactory condition to minimize pollutant emissions. Also, during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This project will not add substantial traffic or create a facility that is likely to significantly increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of the study area. 6. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Assessment of indirect and cumulative effects of projects is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Council on Environment Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1976 (NCEPA), which generally adopted the federal definitions of indirect and cumulative impacts. In addition to the NEPA and NCEPA guidelines, rules for the 401 Water Quality Certification Program (15A NCAC 2H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4)) require that the Division of Water Resources (DWR) determine that a project "does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards." In addition, the USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment, including the effects of cumulative impacts. As defined by NEPA (40 CFR § 1508.8), indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Cumulative impact, as defined by NEPA (40 CFR § 1508.7) is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, December 2020 Page 29 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including impacts that result from individually minor direct and indirect but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 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. 7. Permits and Certifications Construction of the Preferred Alternative (On -Site Alternative 3) will require the following permits and certifications: • An Individual Permit by USACE under Section 404 and a Water Quality Certification by NCDWR under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, given anticipated impacts to 599 linear feet of stream. • A Riparian Buffer Authorization, given anticipated impacts to 1.29 acres of stream buffers. • Site Plan Approval from Durham City -County Planning, which will also include Erosion and Sediment Control approval and Stormwater Management Plan approval. December 2020 Page 30 8. Mitigation 8.1 Avoidance and Minimization On -Site Alternative 1 would result in the placement of stormwater control measures in Waters of the U.S. (i.e., wetlands, streams) and regulated riparian buffers. This Alternative would also result in significant impacts to a large wetland complex as well as the perennial stream located along the eastern boundary of the property. This would cause considerable loss of hydrological, chemical and biological connectivity to downstream waters. Due to the projected impacts on streams and stream buffers, this alternative was not Preferred, as it would likely result in the degradation of downstream water quality, which is prohibited based on NC General Statute 1SA NCAC 02H 0.100 (Procedures for Permits: Approvals). On -Site Alternative 2 would result in considerably less impacts to the large wetland and stream complex on the eastern boundary of the property than Alternative 1. 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. As a result, this alternative was not Preferred either, as it would likely result in the degradation of downstream water quality. Despite impacts projected to streams, and riparian stream buffers associated with the two stream crossings needed for On -Site Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative), it was determined that these impacts are unavoidable and necessary in order to meet public safety standards under the City of Durham, Department of Public Instruction and NCDOT code and design requirements and meets level of service requirements in and out of the school. On -Site Alternative 3 was therefore identified as the Preferred Alternative, as it was determined to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). In addition, DPS has further shifted grading and disturbance limits for the Preferred Alternative, in places to minimize impacts to the wetlands, streams and buffers. The configuration of the tennis fields and baseball diamonds in the Preferred Alternative allows for the multi -purpose field to be located further west in avoidance of the riparian stream buffers on the east side of the site. Similarly, the orientation of the stadium and competition field on the west side of the site have been shifted slightly from previously assessed on -site alternatives, to further avoid buffer impacts. In order to prevent the potential for secondary impacts, all erosion and sedimentation control practices, including the application of silt fences and erosion control matting, will be constructed and maintained according to the standards and specifications of the current North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Prior to construction, the contractor will install watershed fencing to delineate approved working limits. Temporary silt fencing, wattles and dewatering devices will be installed to treat runoff from the work area. All impacted areas will be restored to the pre -construction conditions, including stabilization of the slopes and other disturbed areas. The contractor will maintain erosion and sedimentation control measures until groundcover or vegetation is well established. December 2020 Page 31 8.2 Compensatory Mitigation Based on the amount of impacts to 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). 9. Comments and Coordination 9.1 Agency Coordination A Start of Study Letter was sent to key review agencies on May 27, 2020. A list of the agencies contacted, as well as copies of agency responses can be found in the Appendix of this report. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were received on June 17, 2020 in response to the Start of Study Letter. These comments noted that it appears that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) at these sites. The USFWS also stated that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for this project. The USFWS recommended that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species, including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control measures. It was recommended that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be submitted to and approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction, and that erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, USFWS recommended maintaining natural, vegetated buffers adjacent to all streams and creeks at the project site. Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 were received on June 26, 2020, in response to the Start of Study package. In their comments, they noted the presence of 2 unnamed jurisdictional streams in the Study Area as well as several acres of riverine wetlands. Due to this presence, the EPA recommended that any contractor working on -site should use best management practices and should address any potential impacts to off -site streams and waterways. The EPA also recommended that site grading, excavation, and construction plans should include implementable measures to prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the project site during and after construction. Under Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act, avoidance and minimization of placement of fill into jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent possible was recommended, as placement of fill in waters of the U.S. would require authorization from USACE. The EPA also noted that they are supportive of the stormwater management system proposed for this project, as the project will increase impervious surface area. The recommendations have been incorporated into the overall project design, and minimization measures recommended will be implemented. December 2020 Page 32 9.2 Public Comments A postcard was mailed to property owners within a % mile buffer of the project site on June 26th, 2020 to ensure that they were notified of the project and were provided contact information for project managers. Three citizens provided feedback on the project: The first citizen responded through a phone call and follow up sharing of resources via email to Michelle Suverkrubbe on August 2, 2020. This citizen voiced concerns about the proposed storm water pond that is close to their home, and about what would happen to a Durham drinking water source (a quarry, also near their home) if the stormwater pond failed. These concerns were brought forth to the stormwater group at SEPI, Inc., to ensure they were taken into consideration. In response to these concerns, an additional surface water section was added to this report which elaborated on stormwater management controls to be implemented in adherence to local and state stormwater design and water supply protection guidelines. This section also noted that the project will address potential water quality and runoff quantity changes resulting from the additional impervious surfaces and that protection of downstream drinking water sources will be further ensured through appropriate adherence to the City of Durham's design requirements set forth in the City's Unified Development Ordinance. Furthermore, the project will be constructed consistent with State erosion and Sediment Control and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater management regulations. The second citizen provided comments on August 8, 2020 through a phone call to Michelle Suverkrubbe. This citizen explained that they live near the old quarry (Roxboro and Monk Streets) and is concerned that a new high school will attract children to trespass into the quarry, which is very dangerous. They noted that children have drowned and there have been suicides at this quarry. Although police are trying to prevent this trespassing from occurring by giving tickets, neighbors are having to step in to chase kids away or call the police. The question was posed as to what the City is planning to do to prevent trespassing/accidents at the quarry? This comment was taken into consideration, and further consultation with the City of Durham was initiated to ensure that proper security fencing will be built and police enforcement provided at the quarry prior to construction of the new high school to prevent trespassing. The third citizen provided comments on August 26, 2020 through an email to Michelle Suverkrubbe. The resident is a resident of Old Farm Neighborhood (which abuts the Preferred Site to the north) and is concerned about the impact of the project on the Eno River watershed, how light and noise pollution will be managed throughout the proposed development and how the greenspace will be preserved as a buffer to the development. She was also interested to know how and whether walkability and bike/pedestrian planning is being integrated with the preservation of greenspace to protect the quality of life for her family and elderly neighbors. This comment was taken into consideration in the development of this report. December 2020 Page 33 10. References USEPA. North Carolina Level Ecoregions Map. https://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-north-carolina- ecoregions-l4-map.php (accessed 5/19/2020). Geologic Map of North Carolina. 1985. United States Geological Survey (USGS), Northwest Durham, North Carolina Quadrangle 7.5-minute series topographic map. "' United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service. (NRCS) Soil Survey for Durham County 'v NRCS, National HydricSoils List. https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/nreseprd1316620.html (accessed 5/19/20) "NCNHP, Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina Third Approximation. (1990). Schafale and Weakley. "'USACE, Manual and the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Supplement (Version 2.0, November 2010) of NCDWR's Stream Identification Manual (Version 4.11, 2010). "" USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05: Ordinary High -Water Mark Identification for Streams, and NCDWR, Stream Identification Manual (Version 4.11, 2010) ""' NCDNR, North Carolina Aquifers. (2005). Accessed online at: http://geodata.lib.ncsu.edu/stategov/gws/2010/Aquifer%20Characteristics.htm 'x USFWS, Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Candidate Species, Durham County, North Carolina (July 17, 2020). x US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race." A CEQ, "Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act,"1997. " North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer map. Accessed online on 09/16/2020 at: http://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/map x"' NC NCOneMap, NC OneMap Open Data: Land Ownership, State -Owned Lands mapping (02/03/2020). Accessed online on 06/21/2020 at: https://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/state-owned-lands-1?geometry=- 79.062%2C35.970%2C-78.735%2C36.018 AV USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Accessed online, 6/22/2020 at: https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detai1/?cid=nres143 008275#:-:text=With%20this%20in%20mind%2 C%20Congress,XV%2C%20Section%201539%2 D 1549. x"Durham City -County Planning Department, Durham Comprehensive Plan, Last amended Nov. 6, 2017. xvl USEPA, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances" NTID 300-1. 1971 x " USEPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from The Clean Air Act (last amended 1990). Accessed online at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naags-table December 2020 Page 34 r= qa umstead Rd Cer� Rd Existing School Site I -'_l a a ,rst H ebron Rd 4 p o �On,Oy e � � o Z p �arVefsr 1% Proposed School Vicinity Croasdaik Country Club V (;1 Ge+ 1y Blv feae� 147 Hp = w Aa d 1 W Club 6 Rd m` ouwe Unl arsity Q- S d` ' pr�Ehm sp Fr�It 98 _w d o E st 4 d s Eno River s West Point on the p Eno Park se P �o of +Ra Chateau Rd L N Legend Stream City of Durham Parks Proposed School Study Area N 0 1,500 r o` P.-W. o o boo DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS Figure 1 Project Vicinity Durham Public Schools Northern High School Replacement Project Durham County, NC August 2020 Saddle Ridge A, N O a Old Drr:hard,y e eer Quarry -Owned by City of Durham (Offline Emergency Water Storage) w V o Unnamed tributary to Eno Rive' 3,000 i rV mnt unrcabon pr - - - ` �eePin9 `f'lillow Or �, C G a 7 N f = A � G p Summer Breeze Dr Hebron Rd I - Qo o"x 6,000 Feet B J f 4 _T -n- Rd�-ORI J `� / �' /' �\ � I �\�4�-- /% / i- Walsen / , - --- -------- --- ---- -- STREET YARD 51 a( 7 L J T Lf-- t ------------- + I VRA�L FIEFIELq I ENTRANCEiml I 4M 0 i. R-1 .6 4 -0-6-dw-inIb 0� C� -- - ------- J - ---------- mrERsEcTmm"iii r It L 4 ENTRAJMCEI�N[04 T Dom L SOT III SE -T Ok6e—f�; ct Azz J T > Al Q CES \d Legendenrtwuci V, s ceiTt J Dr RAM Stream ENTRANCE FORR�REKM �I*T icy, ANDFAFF ji Poor Soils 0 Severe Grading YAJW l: I --' 0 O J �4 ox - 777 /0 Stream Buffer \ \ '9.1 - Io ", - -- ,, 001IMILOIL z Wetlands ROR711111ATEPtIONIULMEASURE Z 25 ft Property Setback A II 2ADWLFST--- Property Line W %" 11 -- ------- 21 tT 11%,14AD�l _�F Roads IV% --- UIC K — _ -- � ��Ii �i\\ \/� t 7 7 Parcels Hill This Exhibit i for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requi'rements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording Figure 2 - Existing High School Site Alternative or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from the sources listed below. Durham Public Schools Sources: 0004 *7*0 NC OneMap, ESRI, Durham County Public Schools, Durham County Northern High School Replacement Project Environmental Assessment 0 200 400 800 Durham County D U R H A M Feet August 2020 PUBLIC SCHOOLS This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from the sources listed below. Sources: NC One Map, ESRI, Durham County Public Schools, Durham County, CLH Figure 3 - Off -Site Alternatives Q Durham Public Schools 0'.3p'--o Northern High School Replacement Project o101bb Durham County, NC DURHAM Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS August 2020 SEPI I •. / � 1 �F fig. �•apt�d„� ;=+o a��r� - a'`v G Air 41 SIOW IPA ZZ Z a '► t � � "�yy" §i- ➢yam t`r ,1I..'k>� .i1.. (�,ry � � I V' _.. � -+� RY , h ,i, ..4 Y "t6.t9`� t � Y .�_ �'JY}✓.� �tw j E" r �� ; .� y, ��y Y ��F.r '%—�� ' .cep ��.. • � 1' IIIIII�� .r LL �. .�.-:' r '<' fit. 'F, � ✓, �� yP' b�'� I�`�- ��_ 9fT' t „ y '� i • � I � .� JrbB'1 �. y4_yy :fig. �_ N 4p�a go )URHAh 'UBLIC SCHOOL rr t �` 4 � _ n I I / � s 1Q V .1 i � / / i 1 / / A A � A, A A ♦ A �v A � �� A �� A A I i I � I �/'n - / "� / _ � / j _ _/ / / I � lA, ,I 11 10AAV��A��.,�, y�'; � � 'I I ! I I I I I r I'/ �A � vVA�VA\ V AA 1' I I i 1 / / / / / /i/ i )/✓,/tiQ./ / � // � .� � �.. �� v / / ,> �,I II I i \ I{ i', i III I / / ///,'//��/ / /� � � .• r � j i � / / L� AL J/_ Bonne Dr17, 1 Legend ,�%s - M NEPA Study Area ✓/,, � i � , / � , 1 / /'l / i f '/ �tl�H �, I I � I II � � � / / / Stream Impact II\II\ �Il l�`�'. I �- ( � J r � I,' r i �� h irl w�, r �+'Q°/ °v �' v , -�. '�-�J+,� ,�`� I. � . •a ��I'lil � � � / �I�I�II / v ///i Disturbance LJ I Impervious I j i i "j I 1 II �r ® Neuse Zone 1 Impact 1; 1� i�l� , 1 ! ��,` l 1 �l lI �'� - - / Impact Neuse Zone 2 Im r� ® p �Jp . Durham 1 OOft Stream Buffer Impact LU / ® Durham 25ft Wetland Buffer Impact / .�j Wetland Impact �/� Roads Parcels This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording Figure 5 - On Site Alternative 1 - Condensed Site Development �o or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information ,� ` obtained from the sources listed below. Durham Public Schools � Sources: � M NCOneMop,ESRI. Durham County Public Schools, Durham County Northern High School Replacement Project l��/ Environmental Assessment O 0 200 400 800 Durham county DURHAM Feet August 2020 PUBLIC SCHOOLS .7 #711 /,' r( 'yam. , )tea 1k9 t _ ! y a / PAS ' ; rv. j J �._ yper - re •_ /ii� 'a �. N..� t � - _J Legend z r NEPA Study Area O' • i Stream Impact Disturbance' Impervious G I 1 ® Neuse Zone 1 Impact �.� _a ��, �� ri'F r, n ��, %/ ® Neuse Zone 2 Impact - - - ® Durham 25FT Wetland Buffer Impact77 Durham 1 OOFT Stream Buffer Impact y1lzm Wetland Impact p Roads Parcels This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC Figure 6 O n Site Alternative rn a ti ve 2 - Full I I Site Development I o p m e n t or transfer Requirements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording - �A �� or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information T` obtained from the sources listed below. Durham Public Schools Sources: � goNCOneMap,ESRI.DurhamCountyPublicSchools,DurhamCounty Northern High School Replacement Projectl Environmental Assessment O 0 200 400 800 Durham county DURHAM Feet August 2020 PUBLIC SCHOOLS - `.. r +nit rvme - —_ ---.. $ 10 u-a--• LL I 1 _ 1� J .j�'�� i /! \ \ / gee .v■,■w / L / r COAMt i Jir r i ii \\i/ r ' �ex V / /WU,,�� / WMAW it RfT.IIIy r �DMEVALlT _ lift \ r' ----- f �, \\ b!`�/�! ':1 jl wr'�"■� Oil yaw I 1 'tt7AMIC WAt[ \ \ i . ti :.r\F• \ -----------1 !/ Ir NQrS 1K1Mri1�. , ; �O7srAalcp, 1 I I , , - , 1/ ;•.,�. N8{722I.H' ``. 1 / / .AO' ll: / i - C2o2d2dSJe' \\ ! N/egp 0 — — ---i il/ ' fgp / Sr MWA78t \ �� •• '• •��'•F:•,\`\, 1`� . \\ j Molly �----- — _— LMB& 2 i! / ' /' 3,31 — �RF � \\11 :1`.i,::•�Y�� • ��,\ Y 1PE57RO, 726 sf 1 \ •, \\ ---_.__---_ — \ � \ WAU \ �...----AET•1I'BMCW � / � ,' Ili / S)CMMWA7� \ \ \\ _7�.•.`\�i .' 1 Will r---- -- ailUeMi I i I 1•I ` � �\ \\\ ` PAWC I or, �/Ali � / � -J 1— _; I 00, 1� ,,, i s�+�rrq� � � ►Asr� 1 ®---- I It '"-1 I its, it I it t>rAM�WAtt T^ , J I 1 1 {r/ <\ �/ +It YAW (� �� I/1 jl I i l•X. �� ' I t 11 I Saill ARrPAWAW Legend 1 /�_ �, z ,� : 1 11 I _ ^� ,I _ '/ 1 � l l � � �• ��—= '� ll — — NEPA Study Area \`, / ;';f%;/ „' / >�`"it 1 ► �l li „' Stream Impact \� ° \ ' p f Disturbance Impervious ® Neuse Zone 1 Buffer Impact srArre,,,�� ' ` _ �� fiAFPAReeNC "` rr ® Neuse Zone 2 Buffer Impacto n nr _ — _ — — _ _ _ _ _ _ — • _ �I ��; /� ! +f 1 �`/ellington Dr Durham 1 OOFT Stream Buffer Impact ' s i?`' ;\ 1 �t t \\� Hebron Road Ext Roads ��_!- Parcels \ \ ,\\ \ :\�`---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------- --- ----__-_--`-___—_ ---NE Da till ro -------- r� This Exhibit is for panning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC Figure 7 O n Site Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative or transfer Requirements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording - �A �� or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information T` obtained from the sources listed below. Durham Public Schools Sources : / go Northern High School Replacement Project NC OneMap, ESRI, Durham County Public Schools, Durham County — Environmental Assessment 0 200 400 800 Durham County DURHAM Feet August 2020 PUBLIC SCHOOLS Demographic Data Table 1: Race Composition Near Existing School Site Geography Total Population White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races Total Non -White CT 16.03, BG 2 2,885 1,694 58.7% 843 29.2 % 0.0% 204 7.1 % 0.0% 45 1.6% 99 3.4 % 1,191 41.3 % CT16.01,BG3 1,517 901 59.4% 314 20.7% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 302 19.9% - 0.0% 616 40.6% CT 16.03, BG 3 1,210 955 78.9% 192 15.9% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 63 5.2% 255 21.1% DSA 5,612 3,550 63.3% 1,349 24.0% 0.0% 204 3.6% 0.0% 347 6.2% 162 2.9% 2,062 36.7% Durham city 251,761 120,591 47.9% 100,583 40.0% 946 0.4% 12,873 1 5.1% 125 0.0% 9,093 3.6% 7,550 3.0% 131,170 52.1% Durham County 294,618 150,067 50.9%1 110,777 37.6% 1,091 0.4% 13,849 1 4.7%1 125 0.0% 10,377 3.5% 8,332 2.8% 144,551 49.1% North Carolina 9,940,828 6,882,915 69.2% 2,137,131 21.5% 117,479 1.2% 254,550 1 2.6%1 6,588 0.1% 298,795 3.0% 243,370 2.4% 3,057,913 30.8°/ Source: US Census Bureau, American CommunitySurvey5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B02001, "Race." Table 2: Minority Composition Near Existing School Site Geography Total Population White, Non -Hispanic Minority Population* Meets NCDOT Thresholds # % # % 50% 10 /oover County CT 16.03, BG 2 2,885 1,522 52.8% 1,363 47.2% No No CT 16.01, BG 3 1,517 901 59.4% 616 40.6% No No CT 16.03, BG 3 1,210 955 78.9% 255 21.1 % No No DSA 5,612 3,378 60.2% 2,234 39.8% NO NSA Durham city 251,761 97,126 38.6% 154,635 61.4% Durham County 294,618 123,833 42.0% 170,785 58.0% North Carolina 9,940,828 1 6,361,438 64.0% 3,579,390 36.0% * Minority population includes all races that are Non -White and Hispanic populations that are also White. Source: US Census Bureau, American CommunitySurvey5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race." Table 3: Poverty Composition Near Existing School Site Poverty Total Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined Below Poverty Level Very Poor: Under 50% of Pove ty Level Near Poor: Between 100% and 149%of Poverty Level Meets NCDOT Thresholds # % # % # % 25% 5/oover County CT 16.03, BG 2 2,885 180 6.2% 114 4.0% 173 6.0% No No CT 16.01, BG 3 1,517 95 6.3% - 0.0% 341 22.5% No Yes CT 16.03, BG 3 1,210 73 6.0% 16 1.3% 68 5.6% No No DSA 5,612 348 6.2% 130 2.3% 582 10.4% No j N/A Durham city 242,390 44,776 18.5% 21,829 9.0% 23,235 9.6% Durham County 281,786 48,907 17.4% 23,622 8.4% 1 26,690 9.5% North Carolina 9,685,511 1,631,704 16.8% 709,029 7.3% 1 1,043,9221 10.8% Source: US Census Bureau, American CommunitySurvey5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months." Figure 1. Race American Native Total White Black or African Indian and Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Some Other Two or More Total Non -White Geography American Alaska Native Islander Race Races Population Alone CT 17.1, BG 1 3,022 1,284 42.5% 1,360 45.0% 12 0.4% 319 10.6% - 0.0% 17 0.6% 30 1.0% 1,738 57.5% CT 17.08, BG 1 5,260 1,125 21.4% 3,800 72.2% 13 0.2% 92 1.7% - 0.0% 131 2.5% 99 1.9% 4,135 78.6% CT 17.09, BG 3 4,769 1,313 27.5% 2,944 61.7% 26 0.5% 174 3.6% - 0.0% 28 0.6% 284 6.0% 3,456 72.5% Total 13,051 3,722 28.5% 8,104 62.1% 51 0.4% 585 4.5% - 0.0% 176 1.3% 413 3.2% 9,329 71.5% Durham city 251,761 120,591 47.9% 100,583 40.0% 946 0.4% 12,873 5.1% 125 0.0% 9,093 3.6% 7,550 3.0% 131,170 52.1% Durham County 294,618 150,067 50.9% 110,777 37.6% 1,091 0.4% 13,849 4.7% 125 0.0% 10,377 3.5% 8,332 2.8% 144,551 49.1% North Carolina 9,940,828 6,882,915 69.2% 2,137,131 21.5% 117,479 1.2% 254,550 2.6% 6,588 0.1% 298,795 3.0% 243,370 2.4% 3,057,913 30.8% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B02001, 'Race." Figure 2. Minority Geography Total Population White, Non -Hispanic Minority Population" CT 17.1, BG 1 3,022 949 31.4% 2,073 68.6% CT 17.08, BG 1 5,260 455 8.7% 4,805 91.3% CT 17.09, BG 3 4,769 829 17.4% 3,940 82.6% Total 13,051 2,233 17.1 % 10,818 82.9% Durham city 251,761 97,126 38.6% 154,635 61.4% Durham County 294,618 123,833 42.0% 170,785 58.0% North Carolina 9,940,828 6,361,438 64.0% 3,579,390 36.0% Minority population includes all races that are Non -White and Hispanic populations that are also White. Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race." Figure 3. Poverty Poverty Total Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined Below Poverty Level Very Poor: Under 50 /° of Poverty Level Near Poor: Between 100% and 149 /° of Poverty Level CT 17.1, BG 1 2,994 644 21.5% 279 9.3% 335 11.2% CT 17.08, BG 1 5,243 693 13.2% 166 3.2% 505 9.6% CT 17.09, BG 3 4,610 1,598 34.7% 714 15.5% 936 20.3% Total 12,847 2,935 22.8% 11159 9.0% 1,776 13.8% Durham city 242,390 44,776 18.5% 21,829 9.0% 23,235 9.6% Durham County 281,786 48,907 17.4% 23,622 8.4% 26,690 9.5% North Carolina 1 9,685,511 1 1,631,704 1 16.8% 709,029 7.3%1 1,043,922 1 10.8% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months." Natural Environment SEPI m mom Roy Cooper, Governor ■� NC DEPARTMENT OF 5usi Hamilton, Secretary ■moms NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES s mom Walter Clark, director, Land and Water Stewardship NCNHDE-9058 May 23, 2019 Robert Lepsic SEPI, Inc. 1 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 RE: Northern High School Site Dear Robert Lepsic: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our records. The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: https://www.fws.ciov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area. If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodnev.butler@ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603. Sincerely, NC Natural Heritage Program DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES fl 121 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH. NC 27699 OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX 919.707,9121 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area Northern High School Site May 23, 2019 NCNHDE-9058 Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank Date Rank Freshwater 31079 Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell 2007-08-14 E 3-Medium --- Special G3 S3 Bivalve Concern Freshwater 31122 Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel 2007-08-14 E 3-Medium --- Endangered G3G4 S3 Bivalve Freshwater 31143 Lampsilis radiata Eastern Lampmussel 2007-08-14 E 3-Medium --- Threatened G5 S3 Bivalve Freshwater Fish16478 Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass 2003-10-01 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G3 S2 Rare Freshwater or 1310 Somatogyrus Panhandle Pebblesnail 2013-06-22 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G2G3 S2S3 Terrestrial virginicus Rare Gastropod Liverwort 22665 Plagiochila ludoviciana A Liverwort 1937-03-02 H 2-High --- Significantly G5 S1 Vascular Plant 17531 Baptisia aberrans Prairie Blue Wild 1993-07-07 F Indigo Vascular Plant 119 Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower 2014-09-25 F Vascular Plant 22519 Liatris squarrulosa Earle's Blazing -star 2005-10-20 D Vascular Plant 3779 Lithospermum canescens Vascular Plant 1787 Parthenium auriculatum Vascular Plant 23905 Solidago ulmifolia Vascular Plant 22475 Symphyotrichum concinnum Hoary Puccoon 1993-07-07 Glade Wild Quinine 1993-07-07 Elm -leaf Goldenrod 1970-09-22 Narrow -leaved Smooth 2005-10-20 Aster D AB H CD Rare Peripheral 2-High --- Endangered G5T2 S2 2-High Endangered Endangered G2G3 S1S2 2-High --- Significantly G4G5 S2 Rare Peripheral 2-High --- Threatened G5 S2 2-High --- Significantly G3G4 S3 Rare Throughout 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 Si? Rare Disjunct 2-High --- Threatened G5T4 S2 Page 2 of 4 Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating Middle Eno River Bluffs and Slopes R2 (Very High) C3 (High) NEU/Eno River Aquatic Habitat R2 (Very High) C2 (Very High) Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area Managed Area Na....wn Owner Durham County Open Space Durham County: multiple local government Local Government Hebron Road Plant Conservation Preserve NC Department of Agriculture, Plant State Conservation Program Hebron Road Plant Conservation Preserve NC Department of Agriculture, Plant State Dedicated Nature Preserve Conservation Program Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on May 23, 2019; source: NCNHP, Q2 Apr 2019. Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database. Page 3 of 4 I'arkview Dr v"�n �:ooask+e ciao "0 Wo ah n Argonne D, '1 , O` owe to rgm� nnr _ c` a Wellington Ur Noll °,b:,k Ro Va II,Y �` School Horton Rd Afe' FrI S19� �ar.ia qve _ .snrc °j Rr, �n D'a: m - o� CIYa Ik Level Rd Mill Grove P:,ns Ln o Rd ..rosby Rd N _ New<,a5` Fr 0101 5y - - Fautied Rd on v 5- �'' i911�acAw P e May 23, 2019 Project Boundary Buffered Project Boundary NHP Natural Area (NHNA) Managed Area (MAREA) NCNHDE-9058: Northern High School Site Gserloa/� Ave �moga xJ � "'9 Sls O Carnage A- c WOO Wneat M` 4 m � GW Barn P�" \ on_�aks v Felicia St ow-o° o - Nee _ Hancock St � O Dr o w �i h Just- St d --- -- --- Hebron Bria rep" V' - oll�ck D, 1 odd St Fannlrg t ay a feel Ur G 0 GI _ G n,yea�cal Park u' Weaver _ rd % E Carver 51 1:23, 547 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 km Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NIPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Page 4 of 4 Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Candidate Species, Durham County, North Carolina Updated: 07-17-2020 Common Name Scientific name Federal Record Status Status Vertebrate: Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA Current Carolina madtom Range by Basin Noturus furiosus ARS Current Neuse River waterdog Range by basin Necturus lewisi ARS Current Invertebrate: Atlantic pigtoe Range by Basin Fusconaia masoni ARS Current Dwarf wedgemusselRange by basin Alasmidonta heterodon E Current Green floater Lasmigona subviridis ARS Current Septima's clubtail Gomphus septima ARS Historical Vascular Plant: Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Current Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Current Nonvascular Plant: Lichen: Definitions of Federal Status Codes: E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.) BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below. ARS = At Risk Species. Species that are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered Species Act. Consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for Candidate or Proposed species; although a Conference, as described under Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA is recommended for actions affecting species proposed for listing. T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below. EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land. P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT", respectively. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA): In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de -listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit http://www.fws. og v/mi r too birds/baldea 1 Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S/A)): In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss. Definitions of Record Status: Current - Based on NC Natural Heritage Program information, this taxon is considered to be extant in the county. Historical - Based on NC Natural Heritage Program information, this taxon is considered to be historical in the county, meaning that all recorded occurrences are either extirpated, have not been found in recent surveys, or have not been surveyed recently enough to be confident they are still present. Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain. Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat. Probable/potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both. NRCS Farmland Conversion :IjI/III ,1' ��'I �� Legend Parcels Farmland _ farmland . - . - nd if drained and either p notected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season - 1100 ° ° �I °t. �A s��l�\ \� •. ► • ��. IFor -'ic St NEWS 'Alm . `�� .• �► /, � ram. ILI _ z NRCS Farmland Figure e � b Durham Northern High School Replacement db SEDURHAM Durham County, N.C. 0 0.25 0.5 1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS June 2020 Mlles Agency Comments SEPI North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Roy Cooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton August 15, 2019 Anna Reusche SEPI One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Office of Archives and History Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry Re: Northern High School Replacement, 4804 North Roxboro Street, Durham, Durham County, ER 15-0387 Dear Ms. Reusche: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 2019, concerning the above project. We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, 6namona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599 Ashley Gallaugher From: Young, Patrick <Patrick.Young@durhamnc.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:14 PM To: Anna Reusche Cc: Egan, Sean; Michelle Suverkrubbe; Bernard Hall; Dobrzenski, Bo; Williams, Marvin; Armstrong, Maie; Judge, Bill; Manns, Peri Subject: RE: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Ms. Reusche: Thank you for your recent (May 27, 2020) letter. The information you've requested will be addressed through the City and County review process of your (currently pending) site plan for this site and subsequent construction drawing review. These reviews will coordinate City and County comments as they pertain to the local (City and County) requirements pertaining to environmental impacts of the proposed high school. There are supplemental issues regarding the transportation system and nearby roadway access that have been raised by the City and that are not entirely within the purview of the site plan and/or construction drawing review. Development Services Center Senior Manager Bo Dobrzenski will be convening a group to discuss these issues and will provide a separate response after internal (City and County) coordination by June 27, 2020 as requested. Thanks much and advise with any questions or concerns — regards, Pat M:0 I R IHAM r� MUUTV Planning Patrick O. Young, AICP Director Durham City -County Planning Department 101 City Hall Plaza, Ground Floor, Suite G500 Durham, NC 27701 919-560-4137 ext. 28273 Durham City -County Planning Department Please note that e-mail correspondence to and from this sender may be subject to the provisions of North Carolina Public Records Law and disclosed to third parties. From: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:17 AM To: Young, Patrick <Patrick.Young@durhamnc.gov> Cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe <MSuverkrubbe@sepiinc.com>; Bernard Hall <Bernard_Hall@dpsnc.net> Subject: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Dear Mr. Young, On behalf of Durham Public Schools, the attached information has been provided to solicit comments for any potential concerns regarding the proposed Northern High School Replacement project located at 4622 and 4804 North Roxboro Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. The proposed project will consist of a new high school, athletic fields, track and stadium, parking areas and stormwater management. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 27, 2020. Please direct your comments and/or questions to: Anna Reusche, PWS SEPI, Inc One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Thank you, ANNA RI:USCHE i-w -SenmProjilecf Manp9ef "YGU Atruc-, Sulro'W, RaWgr. ',K: - MO cftnct "IPJ47S5865 E u9:49P-816.77s5 € sWGnc.€om We Are Here Same Service, Uninfemlohecf (919) 747-5865 AReusche@sepiinc.com Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. Ashley Gallaugher From: Egan, Sean <Sean.Egan@durhamnc.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:54 PM To: Anna Reusche Cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe; Young, Patrick; Judge, Bill; Dobrzenski, Bo; Thomas, Earlene; Bernard Hall Subject: Re: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Attachments: RE: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Dear Ms. Reusche, Please find attached a related response on this inquiry from City -County Planning Director Patrick Young. As described in the response, Planning will take the lead in coordinating the response, with support from the Transportation Department. Thanks, Sean Sean C. Egan Director of Transportation City of Durham Department of Transportation 101 City Hall Plaza, Ste. 4200 Durham, NC 27701 P: (919) 560-4366 From: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:28 AM To: Egan, Sean <Sean.Egan @durhamnc.gov> Cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe <MSuverkrubbe@sepiinc.com>; Bernard Hall <Bernard_Hall@dpsnc.net> Subject: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Dear Mr. Egan, On behalf of Durham Public Schools, the attached information has been provided to solicit comments for any potential concerns regarding the proposed Northern High School Replacement project located at 4622 and 4804 North Roxboro Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. The proposed project will consist of a new high school, athletic fields, track and stadium, parking areas and stormwater management. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 27, 2020. Please direct your comments and/or questions to: Anna Reusche, PWS (919) 747-5865 SEPI, Inc AReusche@sepiinc.com One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Thank you, ANNA REUSCHE rws Senfar EnvlronrnerrfoF Pro)ecf Manager ONE v Cmz G(D nwvas.i A+ MiC. S4-r15 60G. Roth, MC 216W v,'SaYc}•Lltr'_i. nkreh4iP-{a7-S9G5 € Cif:#�4816.77t5 € s�P��rii e A fe Here Sarr-O $PH++,Ce Mlntem,ohed Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. Ashley Gallaugher From: Young, Patrick <Patrick.Young@durhamnc.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:14 PM To: Anna Reusche Cc: Egan, Sean; Michelle Suverkrubbe; Bernard Hall; Dobrzenski, Bo; Williams, Marvin; Armstrong, Maie; Judge, Bill; Manns, Peri Subject: RE: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Ms. Reusche: Thank you for your recent (May 27, 2020) letter. The information you've requested will be addressed through the City and County review process of your (currently pending) site plan for this site and subsequent construction drawing review. These reviews will coordinate City and County comments as they pertain to the local (City and County) requirements pertaining to environmental impacts of the proposed high school. There are supplemental issues regarding the transportation system and nearby roadway access that have been raised by the City and that are not entirely within the purview of the site plan and/or construction drawing review. Development Services Center Senior Manager Bo Dobrzenski will be convening a group to discuss these issues and will provide a separate response after internal (City and County) coordination by June 27, 2020 as requested. Thanks much and advise with any questions or concerns — regards, Pat M:0 I R IHAM r� MUUTV Planning Patrick O. Young, AICP Director Durham City -County Planning Department 101 City Hall Plaza, Ground Floor, Suite G500 Durham, NC 27701 919-560-4137 ext. 28273 Durham City -County Planning Department Please note that e-mail correspondence to and from this sender may be subject to the provisions of North Carolina Public Records Law and disclosed to third parties. From: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:17 AM To: Young, Patrick <Patrick.Young@durhamnc.gov> Cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe <MSuverkrubbe@sepiinc.com>; Bernard Hall <Bernard_Hall@dpsnc.net> Subject: Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Dear Mr. Young, On behalf of Durham Public Schools, the attached information has been provided to solicit comments for any potential concerns regarding the proposed Northern High School Replacement project located at 4622 and 4804 North Roxboro Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. The proposed project will consist of a new high school, athletic fields, track and stadium, parking areas and stormwater management. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 27, 2020. Please direct your comments and/or questions to: Anna Reusche, PWS SEPI, Inc One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Thank you, ANNA RI:USCHE i-w -SenmProjilecf Manp9ef "YGU Atruc-, Sulro'W, RaWgr. ',K: - MO cftnct "IPJ47S5865 E u9:49P-816.77s5 € sWGnc.€om We Are Here Same Service, Uninfemlohecf (919) 747-5865 AReusche@sepiinc.com Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. Ashley Gallaugher From: Somerville, Amanetta <Somerville.Amanetta@epa.gov> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:20 PM To: Anna Reusche Cc: Kajumba, Ntale Subject: EPA Start of Study Comments on the Northern High School Replacement on Roxboro Street in Durham County, North Carolina Dear Ms. Reusche: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Northern High School Replacement project on N. Roxboro Street in Durham County, North Carolina. In response to your May 27, 2020, environmental assessment scoping notice, the EPA has reviewed the provided information and used geospatial and environmental quality data analysis tools (please see links to online databases and tools provided at the end of this email for reference) to provide the following technical comments and recommendations: Waters of the United States: A review of the proposed project area shows the presence of two unnamed jurisdictional streams. The GIS analysis of the National Wetlands Inventory identified several acres of riverine wetlands located in the proposed project area as well. The EPA recommends that any contractor working on -site should use best management practices and should address any potential impacts to off -site streams and waterways. The EPA also recommends that site grading, excavation, and construction plans should include implementable measures to prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the project site during and after construction. Consistent with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the project should avoid and minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, placement of fill into jurisdictional waters of the United States, which include wetlands and streams. Any fill material in waters of the United States will potentially require permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Any wetland or stream losses allowed under a COE Section 404 permit, should be mitigated by the applicant. This mitigation can be designed and implemented by the applicant or procured by the purchase of wetland and stream mitigation credits from a commercial wetland mitigation bank. Stormwater: The proposed construction of Northern High School replacement will increase impervious surface area, thereby increasing stormwater runoff during times of precipitation. The EPA supports the development of a stormwater management system proposed in the scoping notice. Additionally, the site grading, excavation, and construction plans should include implementable measures to prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the various project sites during and after construction. The EPA appreciates the opportunity to submit scoping comments. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me by phone at 404-562-9025 or via email at somerville.amanetta@epa.gov. Links to online resources used in this analysis: • FWS Wetlands Mapper: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html Amanetta Somerville U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 61 Forsyth Street SW. Atlanta, Ga 30303 National Environmental Policy Act Section Strategic Programs Office Phone: 404-562-9025 E-mail: somerville.amanetta@epa.gov Ashley Gallaugher From: Mann, Leigh <leigh_mann@fws.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 4:54 PM To: Anna Reusche Subject: UPDATED LETTER Fw: [EXTERNAL] Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Attachments: 20200617_LTRSNT_FWS_SEPllnc_NorthernHighSchoolReplacement. pdf Mrs. Reusche, My apologies but I just realized the first letter didn't have the signature so here is the correct one. Respectfully, Leigh Mann Office Automation USFWS Raleigh ES FO 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Office: 1-919-856-4520 ext. 10 Fax: 1-919-856-4556 leigh mann(aD-fws.gov NOTE. This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Mann, Leigh <leigh_mann@fws.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 4:32 PM To: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Mrs. Reusche, Please find the attached pdf letter for the above listed project. If you need anything additional please let me know. Respectfully, Leigh Mann Office Automation USFWS Raleigh ES FO 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Office: 1-919-856-4520 ext. 10 Fax: 1-919-856-4556 leigh mann(@-fws.gov NOTE. This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Jordan, Gary <garyJordan@fws.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:53 AM To: Mann, Leigh <leigh_mann@fws.gov> Cc: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com>; Michelle Suverkrubbe <MSuverkrubbe@sepiinc.com>; Bernard Hall <Bernard_Hall@dpsnc.net> Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Leigh, Please assign this to the appropriate staff. It is not an NCDOT project, so I won't be working on it. Thanks. Gary Jordan Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Liaison to NCDOT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Phone:919-856-4520 x.32 Email: garyJordan@fws.gov From: Anna Reusche <AReusche@sepiinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:38 AM To: Jordan, Gary <garyJordan@fws.gov> Cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe <MSuverkrubbe@sepiinc.com>; Bernard Hall <Bernard_Hall@dpsnc.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Northern High School Replacement Project Review Request Dear Mr. Jordan, On behalf of Durham Public Schools, the attached information has been provided to solicit comments for any potential concerns regarding the proposed Northern High School Replacement project located at 4622 and 4804 North Roxboro Street in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. The proposed project will consist of a new high school, athletic fields, track and stadium, parking areas and stormwater management. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 27, 2020. Please direct your comments and/or questions to: Anna Reusche, PWS SEPI, Inc One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Thank you, (919) 747-5865 AReusche@sepiinc.com = ANNA REUSCHE 1yvs .SertW Enyhrolm.menM fto)ect Mon o9ef ONE kip.:.: - -'!kTrmzqU Awtnue-, Sulfo 60D, k 3h. ',K' +76(yq ¢1¢_747_5865 E crR:9?v816.77195 1 sW9ne.com We Ate Xere Sorr o Srq V; ve. * • k Unlntemjohed Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh ES Field Office 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 June 17, 2020 Anna Reusche SEPI, Inc. One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Re: Northern High School Replacement — Durham County Dear Mrs. Reusche: This letter is to inform you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a federally -listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For future projects, please visit the Raleigh Field Office's project planning website at https://www.fws. ovg /raleigh/pp.html. If you are only searching for a list of species that may be present in the project's Action Area, then you may use the Service's Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) website to determine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species may be present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed at https://ecos.fws.goy/ipac/. The IPaC web site contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources. Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or 'The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to federal species of concern. evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the web site often for updated information or changes. If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles. With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action. However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species, including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction. Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality. We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary). We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at (919) 856-4520 ext. 26. Sincerely, Pete Benjamin Field Supervisor "R " D U R H A M Construction and Capital Planning �� boo 511 Cleveland Street / Durham, North Carolina, 27701 PUBLIC SCHOOLS 919-560-2000 Date: May 26, 2020 To: [NAME] [ADDRESS] Subject: NEPA Scoping for Proposed Northern High School Replacement Dear [NAME], Durham County Public Schools (DPS) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) document under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed Northern High School Replacement project in the City of Durham, Durham County. The location of this project (see attached Vicinity Map) includes two adjacent parcels located at 4804 and 4622 N. Roxboro Street. Proposed development will consist of a new high school, athletic fields, track and stadium, parking areas and stormwater management. To date, a Phase 1 ESA, Natural Resources Report and associated wetland delineation, buffer determination, aquatic assessment and threatened and endangered species habitat assessments have been completed (see attached Environmental Resources Map). Due to projected impacts on Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., an Individual Permit and associated Water Quality Certification are required by the USACE under Sections 401 and 404 of the US Clean Water Act, respectively. SEPI, Inc. is assisting DPS in preparing this Individual Permit application as well as a Statement of Findings - Environmental Assessment (SOFEA) under USACE's NEPA Guidelines. By default, approved NEPA documents, such as the proposed SOFEA, automatically satisfy the requirements of SEPA (State (NC) Environmental Policy Act). This notification letter will act as a Start of Study/Agency Scoping letter under NEPA for this project. We would greatly appreciate any information that you can provide that would be helpful in the further evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the project. Given prior scoping comments received on the project from several agencies (including the State Historic Preservation Office), scoping through the State Environmental Clearinghouse is not proposed. There is also no plan to hold a scoping meeting. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 26, 2020. Please direct your comments and/or questions to: Anna Reusche, PWS (919) 747-5865 SEPI, Inc AReusche@sepiinc.com One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27603 Sincerely, Bervi arr� 4fxt t Bernard Hall, Project Manager Durham Public School Construction & Capital Planning Attachments: Vicinity & Environmental Resources Maps, Agency Notification Contact List Citizen Comments SEPI October 30, 2003 Ms., Nancy L. Newell, P.E. 11 Environmental Programs Engineer City of Durham Department of Environmental Resources 101 City Hall Plaza Durham, NC 27701 Re: Teer Quarry Feasibility Study —Final H&S Project No. 3Q556 Dear Ms. Newell: Report Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. 4011 VJestChase Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27607 919 833-7152 Fax. 919 833-1828 ...Hazen and Sawyer is pleased to transmit herewith to the City of Dur Department of Environmental entitled Feasibility Study, "Tee Resources, ten (10) copies of our final report ham, r Uuarry Off -Line Raw Water Storage Reservoir. if Our report concludes that', based on existing geological information, it Is feasible for t public water f note that our analyses o he City t supply. concern and, to define i Pleaseparameters for pro'ect designt im Mow eservoir yield were co pleted i'r:n 2,00020# the record drought of 2002. design should evaluate the impact of this drought on. the quarry project and the 1, prior to & Studies to be conductdc in conjunction with project City's water supply general. Durham. We would like fo express out thanks to you and other City staff for much valuable assistance Provided during the study. It has been our pleasure to complete this important study for the City of Very truly yours, ir t _bJ 1 1 —.—S dF qr SE ames McCart Y5 13,007 Senior Associate GIN P C N Y e, A r m o n k, %1Y 0 Woodbur�,, NY * Cie-i-rm'- 10 r %K a Charlotte. W'U�, is Atlanta, Fa`rfax, VA * Hodywolod, FL P Boca Ra"on, FL 1w Fort Pierce, Ft Sa.rdasota. R Miami, FL * Ph"11113del hia PA. I J6 I the quarry's hydraulic influence. To the north, outside. of this influence in the shallow acquirer will quarry, as a water supply r groundwater in the deep aquifer may flow toward the Eno River, probably not be affected significantly by use of the eservoir.Filling the reservoir wit Flow direction h water. on the other hand, will increase the hydraulic head adjacent to the quarry and the flow in t T I tend to direct he deep aquifer away from the quarry. This influence w ill vary di depenng on the level to whichthe quarry is filled and or water level fluctuations during operation,, Groundwater flow direction is normally the dominant driving, rorce Denma contaminant niume miaration: hciiftusi1n will tend to ower or rp 9 1 ip r mitigate any contamina aquifers. IF --up, - - - - - .1 tion that may occurs from: either the I 2.5 Recom,mendations and Concli.,is-i"onA 2.5.2 Conclusions Ah EN=O 1. Existing geological information indicates that it is feasible to develop the quarry as a water supply reservoir. However, there exists some potential, as yet unquan#ified, that exfiltration from the quarry will affect the stability and function of the reservoir and will contaminate nearby water supply wells. Additional investigation and testing is needed to quantify these impacts. Local geology is quarryfavorable for stablequarry walls. Loss of water from the quarry through, the diabase and rock formations is expected to impact be relatively minor, Direct- on the Eno River is also not anticipated. Exfiltration through Triassic Formation materials that form the southern and eastern boundaries of the quarry is likely. The extent of this exfiltration will be dependent on the level of storage to which the -quarry is developed. Impacts are expected to be small provided that the storage level is maintained at or near r e development abovewill involve eLelevation 265-ft.. Sto: ag level progressively increasing risk of impacting adjacent groundwater levels. _ Addtional udies are necessary to quantify such impacts. 2. Based on reports by on treatment of groundwater contamination that has resulted from operations, on-siteprevious residual contamination does not appear to represent a serous engineering obstacle to the development of the quarry as a water supply reservoir. However, it is probable that the existing recovery and treatment system, while effective in limiting migration of the contamination plumes, will not el!mir!ate ;;II of the contaminants f�!�nd in oil the groundwater.Totalelimination of these contaminants is probably not i* the specifics of this case.ShouldeCityractical ven procure the quarry site, it would have the option of continuing Lrecoveryto o erate the system, placed even afterf the uar Y CLOinto service as a watersupply, until such tithat concerns byState, an - or t e put) ic are satiSfl(i e. e iy, ine The pumping system could be used to lower the water table in the impacted area to minimize the risk of migration. The �groundwater tha is remove, could be treated on -site or,pumped to the sanitary sewer.,Once groundwater levels in the vicinity ofi the quarry have been stabilized, the influence of the 4. 2-7 ,ZL AML�- 4 0 r a jF MOO id i . � i i � I � I � _ � � � a � � � � i The study considers diversion rates ranging from 5 through 50 mgd from the Eno River, with owns realmbeing OWSmaintained in accordance with thabove requirements. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table S-1 and Figure S-1. Figure Mill shows comparative results when e quarry is supplied alternatively rom the- Eno River, Lake ic ie and/or Little River Lake. The following are summary comments pertaining to these analyses: Ir Q1. At a diversion rate from the Eno River of 5 mgd, safe yield of the City's supply couldbe increased by 7.3 mgd to 9.0 mgd, depending on the level of quarry storage utilized. & fiow the 2 If the State were to permit the C'ity to ive from Eno River at a maximum rate of up to mgd, while maintaining minimum downstream flows in accordance with the Capacity Use Investigation,safe yield could be increased by up to 11.8 mgd utilized. ependoing on the level of quarry storagt Table S-1 Safe Yie{d of TWith Alternative Levels of Quarry Storage 49 and Dfrom The Eno River S - 3 `t r sot "%"i! " 0 3,. Diversion from the Eno River at a rate higher than 5 gd would, in addition to increasing safe yield, also reduce the length of time that Teer Quarry would remain less than full. As listed in the column titled "Longest Drought Days" in Table S-1, with..,.rveridiversion limited to 5 mgd, the quarrywould take from 28 toRP months to refill during t e lonrest drought, depending on the level of quarry storage utilized,,. Increasing the rate of diversion to 50 oad would shorten thQ�maxim�am9uarry fil! time to less than one year, which i's very desirable from the standpoint of water supply r lanni*nq and management. 4. The Column titled "% Days Q Pumped from Quarry" lists the percentage of total days during the record drought that flow would be pumped from the quarry to. the Cjwty s WTPs. In accordance with criteria discussed in- Section 3, the model assumes. that one half of the quarry safe yield is pumped when either of the, City's reservoirs is one foot or more. below normal level and that the full quarry safe yield is pumped when both reservoirsare one foot or, ore below norm.al. 5. Assuming that the State were to limit withdrawals from the Eno River to 5 M rni(I, the rate C f withdrawal from the quarry could b e lowered (equivalent to educing safe yield) to. a level that would ensure that it would refill within r 12-month period', even during the longest drought Ot record.H owever, analysis indicates that,, 1f, the quarry were operated in this manne any r, storage utilization during severe droughts would be' limited to less that 500 million gallonsthe and net gain in safe yield would be reduced to approximately 4.2 gdo This translates to a red- uction of more than 3 mg,d from the gain in Safe yield that could be achieved if the reservoir were developed to the 1.32 billion gallon storage level (refer Table S-1, Row 1). increasing the rate of withdrawal to utilize mere storage within the quarry; while holding the maximum fill rate fn 5 mgd, would inevitably lengthen the time required to replenish the reservoir during a drought. 6. The safe yield values listed in Tab -le S-1 for the individual reservoirs are of less importance than the total values listed for all sources. The safe yield of the quarry is higher than might be expected, and even exceeds the indicated rates of diversion, rom the Eno River because. in accordance wish the operating rules listed in Section 3, Table 3-4, raw water iDs pumped from the uarry only during those periods -when the levels of Lake Mj'ch'ie and Little River Lake are more than one foot below their respective normal levels. During the remaining, relatively wet, periods, all raw water i's assumed to be supplied by the existing reservoirs. 7. The safe yield results summarized in the table and figures are based on idealized hydraulic conditions, in which all river flow above the required minimum downstream flow is diverted to the quarry up to the indicated maximum diversion rate. As is discussed in report Section 4, i will probably S #EW 5 not be possible t 0 16 o achieve such idealized conditions in practice due to pracucaj limitations Lion of the river intake. These limitations, which may effectively reduce safe yield from the values shown will vary depending on intake and related con stage, in design and opera the design and level of sophistication of the river trols but -should be fully assessed during the design that could bedeveloped84, F*igure S-2 shows that the safeyieldby filling the quarry with water pumping from Lake Michie/Little Hive mgd to 10 mgd would be from 2.4 mgd to 3.3 mgd f t a rate of 5 -011-- �,-'rian coul..d bo achieved by diverting flow at the same rate from the Eno River. 9. Figure S-2 also shows that supplying the quarry at a rate of 5 mgd from Little River Lake in addition to a 5 mg... supply from Lake Michie would not result in an appreciable increase in safe yield over that achieved by pumping solely from -Lake Michie at 5 mad,, in 10. Although drought durationn is not reflected Figure S-2, the quarry would a 0 .9 0 a MI remain less tnan ruii for considerably longer periods ff filled from Lake Ri��er. example,and/or Llwttle Ri'ver Lake i'nstead of the Eno Pt a rate comparative fill of 5 mgd during the longest, period of drought, the quarry would not completely refill for a period of over 4'/Z years if filled from W versus, less Lake Michie than 2'/2 year's if filled from the Eno River, 11. Analysis indicates that lowering the instream fl Use Investigati by t ne cno rover Capacity increase W in safe yield. Conceptual Deslwgn ow below tine levels required on would not result in a substantial ,Report Section 4 discusses conceptual designs for a new structure on the, Eno River to divert flow into the quarry and for a quarry intake and pumping facility that would deliver flow from the, quarry to the City's Brown and/or Williams WTPs. For development of quarry storage u to 265 feet, the Eno River diversion 1 gravity fiow structure can 'De aesignec as a iniaKe and connection io ihe yuary. This connection, at a depth of 40 feet below grade, would either be tunneled or constructed as a pipe installed in a deep trench. Flow diversion could potentially be controlled by a simple weir and gate arrangement, However, preliminary analysis indicates that a more sophisticated approach will be necessary to I& achieve the level of flow control required to maximize the quarry safe yield,, Detailed studies v.1ill be necessary to determine parameters for intake design. An 1111D I I t I Ljotherintake arranQement that does not in, Dlviz:; Cii!D CtI 1) 0 a weir or structure /(D f across the river is recommended in order to avoid thneed fa Section 404 permit. S-6 yield of 28 mgd, is approximately $1.6/gal. It should be noted that the actual sale yEeld that can be developed may be affected bpermit conditions for withdrawals of water from the Eno River and/orlimitationsby practical nn �A��nn n arnt", f* and the river intake. otal Ll� Table S-2 Estimated for Project Design and Construction roject iel Table 6-2 is a summary of. estimate nriA 0►..,�.. _ _ jc:L HI U rur,W t:ccsis for equipment %Wr %W.-Frental and -ronczJ r,on quire,Op"MepUrrtrn, out the existing i,ntt e d to stored thli,_4uarry. Ta -le 6-2 does not include r,..%,,r)s s for operato water extension t 10n and maintenance orfor of an service if motor -driven b-OI I in Pu, cire proviC eu ciesel-c ri\, r- In ni im `0Geu of Table S-3 Summary o Estimated Costs for Pumping Out Existing Water Stored in Quarry These that ~� ��-u �� uudrry rrom either existing ..noRiver retake and/or fro La e ic ie/ i t e River Lake at a, rate of are included for purchase of tral. er--mounted constant-s eed UMID";It F 11� 1111,111110111 ofcapacityThese 1i S CO required. Se an auled to the 1111,,illiillllyof seve-redrought. uar unn eno s k M h Lt I the 5 P Mp uld be P d in torao Pd h P the q d Q Pd pumps Would also be an option --though the Cost of this item would probably A increase several gold --as wouldEstimated6 rental. costs related I 6-2. Costs HFI"V c HnE c Dons are as no ed CI'kin 1110111111111111for engineeringV VUevaluaticns any rinc, . 6 f estimated order -of -magnitude consrnQtQ f„rhe quarry as a water�supply reservoir.water would hr ni irnrnr,q + +k .0 Table, S-3 is a Summary o III interim use of t - -- ��-�y� � comI �e e a Is of CZZ:) Y would private wells and septic systems rn thevicinthequarry using its own forces and that threcommended geotechnicaf v investigations would be completedby outside consultants, S-9 ity of I 4 r U in than 3 ad fro the cain safe yield that could be achieved if the reservoir were -,i,eveloped Increas;i'ng to the 1.32 billion gallon storage level (refer Table 3-6, Row 1). 0 lb tne rate or witnarawai to utiuze more storage witnin tne quarry, wniie holding the maximum fill rate to 5,mr91d, would inevitably to replenish the reservoir during a drought. lengthen the time required The safe, yield values listed in Table 3-6 for the individual reservo irs are of less sted for all sources. The f P. yield of the quarry and even exceeds the indicated rates of diversion fromthe Eno River because. in accordance with the operating rules listed importance than the total values is higher than might be expected in Table 3-4, raw water is pumped IF from t the evel's of Lake Michie and Little River respecLive i�0rr Purina t " e r water is supplied by t he 9 Pnquarryonlydurin those eods when Lake are more than one foot below their emaining, relatively wet, periods, a,, raw ne existing reservo i rs. 70 The results summarized in Figure 3-3 and Table 3-6 are based on idealized hydraulic conditions," in whichall river flow above the required, minimum downstream flow is diverted to the quarry up to the indicated maximum diversion no nS�i�rt ��'�iiOfl Aii e��SSi��E'lvaLwr�%. 'S discussed ik" I -I &-t Yvill PIU N such idealized conditions in gractice due to practical limitations in design and intake. operation of the river These yield from the values shown, will vary P de,&kend.ing on the design and level of limitations, which may effectively r sophistication of the river intake and related controls but should be fully assessed during the design stage. Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the impacts on safe yield of supplying the quarry from Lake Michie and Little River instead of from the Eno River. The following are comments on the results of these analyses, which are summarized in Figure 3-4. These analyses are all based on a quarrystorage volume of 1320 MG6 1. The safe yield tha-t couici ae developed by fiiiing the quarryL i r�W't, i wilier put-nping from Lake Michie at a rate of 5 mgd 10 mgd, would be from 2.4 mgd to 3.3 mgd less than could be achieved by diverting flow at the same rate from the Eno River. �, !niiarry ;:;t aCatg of 5 mnc� �from Little River Lake in a�ldjtipn to a 5rinn thin.WNIMArPPY'0qP V VA.F"ft Ift M mgd supply from Lake Michie would not result in an appreciableincrease in safe Yield over that achieved 1-pumping zso e y rom a e iC, iie a Uy 3m Although drought duration is not reflected in Figure 3-4, the quarry would remain less than fa!! fer cons], erably Ienger periods if filled from, Lake Mich;e and/or Little River Lake *Instead of from the Eno River. For example, at a comparative fill rate of 5 mgd during the longest period of drought, quarry would not completely rea period of over 4'/2 years if filled from a- Ichie versus MONAML dk. n R." less ear's ifi"�itf�tfrm-th oaver. ------------� 3-14 11 he operating A final set of analyses was.per'formed to evaluate the impacts of changing t assumptions and rules as. listed in Table 3-4. The findings of these additional analyses are summarized below. 1,r Modify Eno River instream raised t normal flow recuirement: a. Lowering the insiream flow recuirement during March through May from 30 Cts per the Eno RiverCapacity Use Study to 10 cfs would result in no theinstream appreciable increase in safe yield ?or increase of the instream Op maximum b. Lowering flow recuirement of 10 for the other months of the year was not evaluated because this flow is considered to be a minl'mum �„nct conditions anal}�zP� and an a 2. Safe yield would be increased only very marginally if.,instead of quarry solely from the Eno River at a diversion pu ped from Lake Michie at a rate of 5 mgdo 3. Pursuant to Rule 2B in Table 3-4, the quarry rats o,f 5 gd supplying the TIOW wern also is filled from the existing reservoirs until the lake level(s) fall to one foot below normal. Evaluation of transfers from ff Lake Michie IS that safe yield would not be affected if the trigger depth was 0 0.5 feet below normal, While lowering the trigger depth to 2 feet below would marginally decrease safe yield. 4. Pursuant to Rule 3AI"n Table 3-4, during wet weather periods, all raw water is supplied. from the existing reservoirs; each reservoir supplies half of the water normall, supplied from the during drought periods. Analysis indicates that safe yield would not be affected by ado usting the percentage of flow supplied by Lake Michie during these periods. 5. Pursuant to Rule 3B in Table 3-4, pumping from the,,quarry commences when the level of Lake Mici�ie or Little River fake falls to- _.ore than 1 foot below.. normal level. Adjusting this "trigger" depth upwards to 0.5 feet does not appreciable affect safe yield, while adjousting! the trigger downward to 2 feet marginally decreases safe yield. 6. The safe yield model also includes an adjustable setting, referred to as supplementary pumping from Lake Michie, to evaluate the impacts on safe yield of increasing the rate of pumping from Lake Michie when its level is hig,,her, than that in Little River Lake. This feature was added in recognition of the fact that the water supply POtential equ,ivalent to average streamflow) of the 16,7,square mile Lake Michie drainage is considerably greater than that ava,ilable from the 98 sauore mile Little River Lake drainage. As a result, during drought conditions,, the water level of 3-15 Body Conducting This Public Hearing Planning Commission ,an Timed Date of Public Mearing5@30 P on Nove ber 122019 Location of Public Hearing Council Chambers at 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC 27701 Property Address or Location of Subject 4728 Cyr„'ielld Street, Property Residential Suburban-20 (RS-20), Residential Existing Zoning Suburban-10 (RS-10), Eno Rower District B (E-8), Falls/Jordan District B (F/J-B) Planned Development Residential 5.117 (PDR Zoning 5a117) Eno R' Ver, Dii-str ct B E B F 311s/fil�11�11 r��d,111111111Requested District B (F/1-B) Dear Property Owner,, As a recipient of this letter you either own a proPerty er ;;;;p P y near anothro. ert for which a Zoningne Map change (ZMC) has been requested, oryour nro-Perty is included *in the requested change. A description of zoning. of Zoning is a series of laws hat rpgula h n it iocat*ion, size, an ype buildings t <;? te t e de s Y., d t allowed. f erother on parcels of land. A Zonigh Mop chonfle, r to nror%Ane9 e s the as by which an owner or proponent requests to parcel e chan9 the zoning designation for a Particular or set of parcels, often resulting in a different set of uses, densities, intensities', and other site characteristics than those currently allowed. Prase naie that most ZiJiC reyuest5 require two pubiic bearings. i ne 7'-irst puoiic iiearingis conductea by the Planning Commission, a 14-member citizen advisory board appointed by the City Council and the , Board of County Commissioners to advise the elected boards on land use and planning matters. The final decision to approve or deny anyrequested ZMC request rests with the Council (for properties within city jurisdiction) or the Board of County Commissioners (for ro erties within county jurisdiction). Any P P a interested partyn may appear and speak at either hearing. Rlease be advised that substantial changes to theproposed acti*on may be made duri*ng and followiong a, public hearing,prior to the final decision. P twillIf you would I*ke additional information on the proposed action, the agenda and staff r& or be posted on our website approximately one week before the hearing at the following link. http://durhamnc.gov/PC. You may also contact me at Emily.Struthers@DurhamNC.gov or at 919.560.4137 ext. 28263. >t wiih 18 roses — one for each of 1 yp 1 I= Co,un.c11,a,p.proves,, S. to stud., les By D&cmUL BmSECKER STAFF WRITER DURHAM am With Durham I*n ther; gnp of a prolonged drought dedw s 'te the cold ral*n fafl,i*;ng, Mow ,pi day night the'Ci Council inched. closer to using an ol,d. rock quarry or matt. dees@ newso hervercomO I stream by Orange CoUn and the river's flow can slow to a Is V. .9 & tficme,in extremelyd eondiIIft tions, '! G111 6 , My City fficillals the q; could retain water pum-ped out of the neuby Eno during the Once the current study is com- iplete, the City Council s consi*dm ered hkely to spend the money to Put the plan into action — esti- mated to be more than, $11 I 5-6-20; 9 am; Phone call received from Mrs. Layman, who lives near the old quarry (Roxboro and Monk Streets). She is concerned that a new high school will attract even more kids to trespass into the quarry, which is very dangerous. Kids have drowned and there have been suicides. The city police are trying to keep them out, giving tickets lately, but the neighbors are having to step in to chase kids away or call police. Very worried that it will become even more of an attractive danger with the new HS next door. She asked what the City is planning to do to prevent trespassing/accidents at the quarry? She indicated she would follow up with an email for the official record. From: Neisha Reynolds To: Michelle Suverkrubbe Subject: Proposed Northern High School Replacement Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 3:58:37 PM I am a resident of Old Farm Neighborhood. I am interested in the environmental impact study related to placing Northern Highschool Campus in close proximity to the neighborhood where I reside. I understand that there are concerns about the impact on the watershed being in close proximity to the Eno River watershed. I share those concerns in addition to concerns as a resident about how light and noise pollution will be managed throughout the proposed development - in general how the greenspace will be preserved as a buffer to the commercial development. I am also curious to know how and whether walkability and bike/pedestrian planning is being integrated with the preservation of greenspace to protect the quality of life of my family and elderly neighbors, throughout the development planning? I can be reached for follow up at the following: 5102 Partridge Street Durham, NC 27704 Neisha Reynolds, MPA (m) 917-287-4007 neishadrn,gmail.com Thank you and best regards! Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love." - Martin Luther King, Jr. H o Seven Oaks Road a LEGEND 0 Unsignalized Intersection i • Signalized Intersection Me Traffic Install Trac Signal o- Existing Lane i Improvement by Developer x, Storage (In Feet) * Channelize a 3 1 x onne o Site 1 1 1 Drive RESTRIPE Z • �� Drive 11 1 ; * 1 1 a 1 1 a ; SITE 'C 250' 1 1 y r 150' 1 Hebron Telliri ton • Site 1 ; Road - Drive Drive ®` Drive 21 1 1 * 1 1 a a 3 H y Monk Road 'ing forward. Recommended Northern High School Lane Configurations - 1</kw Replacement NCDOT/City Durham, NC k.MEY KEMP ASSOCIATES Scale: Not to Scale STATEn, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Roy COOPER ERIC BOYETTE GOVERNOR SECRETARY June 17, 2020 Mr. Joshua Reinke, PE Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis for Northern Durham High School - Addendum Dear Mr. Reinke: The NCDOT has completed its review of the updated Traffic Impact Analysis for Northern Durham High School sealed on April 9, 2020. In order to accommodate the site -generated traffic safely and efficiently, while also attempting to protect the functional integrity and operational capacity of the adjacent roadway facilities, the below noted improvements and/or restrictions are required. US 501 at Argonne Drive/Site Drive 1 • Install channelized southbound/northbound left turn lanes on US 501. • Install a left -over traffic signal that will coordinate with the signals at Site Drive 2 and at Seven Oaks Road • Site Drive shall be constructed as a limited movement intersection with one ingress lane and one egress lane. The egress lane shall consist of 100 feet Internal Protected Storage (IPS) before any parking or crossing maneuvers and consist of one right turn lane. • Argonne Drive will be restricted to a right -turn lane only. • Advisory note: The proposed driveway is subject to meeting NCDOT sight distance requirements. US 501 at Wellington Drive/Site Drive 2 • Site Drive shall be constructed with one ingress lane and three egress lanes. The egress lanes shall consist of one exclusive left -turn lane with 150 feet of storage, a shared left - through lane, and an exclusive right -turn lane with 250 feet of storage. The egress shall also contain 100 feet of Internal Protected Storage (IPS) before any parking or crossing maneuvers. • Install a conventional traffic signal to coordinate with signals at Site Drive 1 and at Seven Oaks Road. • Restripe US 501 for a northbound and southbound left -turn lane • Advisory note: The proposed driveway is subject to meeting NCDOT sight distance requirements. Mailing Address: Telephone: 919-220-4750 Location: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: 919-560-3357 815 STADIUM DRIVE DIVISION 5/DISTRICT 2 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 DURHAM, NC 27704 815 STADIUM DRIVE DURHAM, NC 27704 Website: www.ncdot.gov Page 2 of 2 All improvements proposed on state -maintained roadways shall meet all applicable NCDOT design requirements. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (919) 220-4750. Sincerely, \�DocuSigned by: A8A3F36AF75A4F7... John Sandor, PE District Engineer Ec: Earlene W. Thomas, PE, City of Durham Transportation Clarence Bunting, PE, Congestion Management Jeremy Warren, PE, Division Traffic Engineer Doumit Ishak, Congestion Management John Grant, PE, Regional Traffic Engineer