20210050 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20210216

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
February 16, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2019-01814
Mr. Bernard Hall
Durham Public Schools
211 Hamlin Road
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Dear Mr. Hall:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to permanently discharge dredged or fill material into a total of 639 linear
feet of stream channel associated with developing a new high school and associated
infrastructure. Roadway improvements associated with this project are proposed along
the entrance at Wellington Drive and US-15/501. The project area is located at 4622
and 4804 North Roxboro Street, in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) advertised your
proposal by public notice dated December 31, 2020. Comments in response to the
notice were received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources (NCDNCR), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and adjacent property
owners, Ms. Neisha Reynolds and Mr. Julius Bartell. The comments received are
enclosed for your information and to provide you with the opportunity to address any of
the stated concerns. Thank you for providing written responses to NCDWR on February
2, 2021. If additional information is requested from NCDWR regarding your responses,
please provide additional responses to those comments as well. Additionally, please
provide written responses to the comments from Ms. Neisha Reynolds and Mr. Julius
Bartell. Specially, please address Ms. Reynolds concerns regarding water quality,
increased traffic, and safety and walkability. Please address Mr. Bartell’s concerns
regarding the National Historic Preservation Act, alternatives analysis, public meeting
options, stormwater concerns, and the possibility of providing City water and sewer
services to affected parties.
-2-
Please note that the USFWS, in a letter dated January 21, 2021, stated that the
action is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and
that they have no objection to the activity as described in the permit application.
NCDNCR stated that they are not aware of any historic properties that would be
affected by the project; and therefore, have no comment on the project as proposed.
Furthermore, the NMFS, in a letter dated January 4, 2021, stated that the proposed
project would not occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
or the NMFS, and that they are neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of
the proposed work.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to
comply with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides
for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least
damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to reduce
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for remaining unavoidable
impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process your
application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following
additional information:
A.Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available
only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other alternatives,
including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have applied and
provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or
wetland areas.
i.For the off-site alternative’s analysis, several siting criteria presented
are not adequately justified in the application:
a.The terms “size and location needs” were used but not
adequately explained, and it is unclear what the size and
location requirements are for the off-site alternative
selections.
b.“Zoning” is described but is not adequately explained.
Only alternatives within the school zone should be used

-3-

and other alternatives should be excluded from the
alternative’s analysis.

c. “Stream Buffers” is used as a siting criterion; however,
this criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

d. “Utilities Sewer” is used as a siting criterion; however,
this criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

e. “Utilities Water” is used as a siting criterion; however, this
criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

f. “Meets Full High School Program” is used as a siting
criterion; however, this criterion is not addressed at all
alternative locations. The minimum and full high school
program requirements are also not adequately addressed
for comparison.

g. “Design Flexibility” is used as a siting criterion; however,
this criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

h. “Site Development Cost” is used as a siting criterion;
however, this criterion is not addressed at all alternative
locations. Please provide a quantifiable cost for all off-
site alternatives.

i. “Cut/Fill” is used as a siting criterion; however, this
criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

j. “Walls” is used as a siting criterion; however, this criterion
is not addressed at all alternative locations.

k. “Site Access” is used as a siting criterion; however, this
criterion is not addressed at all alternative locations.

-4-

l. If practicability cannot justify eliminating one or more off-
site alternatives, please provide an estimate of impacts to
waters of the U.S. to enable comparison with impacts
proposed for the Preferred Alternative. This analysis
needs to include the methodology of estimating the
extent of waters of the US for those properties.

m. Please include a comparison table for threatened and
endangered species, historic properties.

n. Please state what the minimum design requirements are
for the on-site alternatives (i.e., minimum total
construction area required for school construction).

B. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to
minimize losses of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all
that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.

i. Please provide additional information regarding the 70-foot wide right-
of-way (ROW) proposed for Stream SE. Specifically, please clarify if
the ROW is needed for the construction of the school (i.e., for bike
lanes, turning lanes, etc.).

ii. In addition, you need to justify why Stream SE needs to be filled and
cannot be relocated on either side of the proposed road.

iii. Finally, you need to provide justification as to why bridging and/or
construction of a bottomless arch culvert are not viable alternatives to
filling of the stream channels.

-5-

C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required
for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has
employed all appropriate and practicable minimization. Please indicate your
plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or
provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.

i. The application did not specify proposed compensatory mitigation to
impact ratios for the proposed impacts to streams. The Corps
generally requires compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio unless
otherwise justified based on resource quality through the completion of
the appropriate functional assessment, such as North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NCSAM).

Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing t o process your
permit request:

1) Please provide your responses to the public comments received.

2) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional
information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project.

The above requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forward this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919)
554-4884 extension 57 or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Scott C. McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Copies Furnished w/enclosures:

-6-

Ms. Anna Reusche
SEPI, Inc.
One Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

Copies Furnished w/o enclosures:

Mr. Todd Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Rick Trone
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617