HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210050 Ver 1_IP Comment Response_USACE_ REV FINAL_20210301
RALEIGH: 1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27603
OFFICE: 919.789.9977 / FAX: 919.789.9591 / WWW.SEPIINC.COM
March 1, 2021
Ms. April Norton
USACE – Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Northern High School Replacement Project (SAW-2019-01814)
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Norton,
The following includes responses to the additional information request received February 16,
2021 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
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.
The Preferred Alternative is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. The
Preferred Alternative avoids all impacts to wetlands as well as minimizes impacts to streams and
buffers.
Twelve (12) Off-Site Alternatives were reviewed for the proposed High School Replacement
project. Each site was evaluated for Basic Site Criteria required by the NC State Board of
Education, Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and Public Schools of North Carolina in the
School Site Planner (2010). Of the twelve (12) sites evaluated, the Hebron Road Site (Preferred
Alternative) and the Cub Creek Road Site (Site 5) met all Basic Site Criteria and could
accommodate the Full High School Program (described in detail below). As such, Sites 4 and 5
were evaluated as test fit sites for the school.
A full comparison of the two sites is provided in the revised “Off-Site Alternatives” matrix
attached. In summary, the Cub Creek Site (Site 5) preliminary site layout study suggests
topography, stream buffers and floodplain areas created a challenge for construction and
increased costs. These constraints result in school program facilities and amenities to be spread
out, and do not allow for desired program adjacencies.
Anticipated impacts to Waters of the US at the Cub Creek Site (Site 5) were estimated to be
1,800 linear feet of stream and 1.3 acres of wetlands compared to 639 linear feet of stream and
0 acres of wetlands at the Hebron Road Site (Preferred Alternative).
2
Furthermore, site development costs at the Cub Creek Site (Site 5) would exceed 30 million
compared to the Hebron Road Site (Preferred Alternative) of 16.5 million.
Following selection of the preferred alternative, three On-Site Alternatives were further
evaluated to determine the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. The
Preferred Alternative was designed to eliminate all impacts to wetlands as well as minimize
impacts to streams and buffers.
i. For the off-site alternative’s analysis, several siting criteria presented are not
adequately justified in the application:
The selection, planning and use of sites appropriate for school facilities is determined by
requirements set by the NC State Board of Education, Department of Public Instruction (DPI)
and Public Schools of North Carolina. Critical factors in the development of school sites are
thoroughly defined in The School Site Planner (DPI, 2010). Basic Site Criteria for the site
analysis, design and layout followed the guidelines and parameters set in the School Site
Planner.
Per DPI, proposed high school sites must meet the Basic Site Criteria including:
1. Size of the site- DPI size requirements are summarized below. For High Schools w/ 1,800
students, a minimum of 58 acres is required. DPI recommended between 65 and 75 acres for
Northern High School during the initial planning phases. All Off-Site Alternatives evaluated
met the minimum size criteria.
2. Topography – DPI requires sites that that are moderately to gently sloping with an elevation
and contour which will ensure good drainage. Excessive earth moving can cause continuing
problems. Some Off-Site Alternatives were characterized by steep topography resulting in
significant earth moving costs, poor drainage, etc.
3. Zoning – Schools must be located within ½ mile of existing neighborhoods where students
can walk to school. Adjacent zoning is required to promote residential growth at densities of 6
or more dwelling units/acre to encourage future walkability. All Off-Site Alternatives
evaluated were located in residential zones and met this requirement.
4. Site Access – Provide frontage for safe access from roads or streets approved by the Federal
Division of Highways and NCDOT. Whenever possible, locate new schools within ½ mile of
existing neighborhoods where students can walk to school. Be adjacent or readily accessible
to different modes of transportation (i.e private vehicles, public transportation, bicycles,
school buses). Some Off-Site Alternatives did not provide adequate site access or would
require significant off-site roadwork resulting in additional off-site impacts, cost and impacts
to neighboring properties.
5. Location –In addition to those general requirements described above, Northern High School
serves the student population in the northern portion of the County, north of I-85. A high
school student assignment map showing the “Northern” School District has been included as
part of this response. Sites located outside of the Northern school district were excluded from
further evaluation.
Furthermore, areas within the Northern HS District are further classified by City/County of
Durham as “M/LR-B Critical Watersheds (6% impervious)”. Development in these areas is
3
restricted to 6% impervious surface. The proposed high school exceeds the 6% impervious
threshold and, therefore, alternative sites located in these watersheds were excluded from
further evaluation.
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.
As off-site alternatives were identified and reviewed for the proposed High School replacement,
the size and location of the potential alternative sites were the primary consideration. In regard
to location, there are five (5) high schools in Durham County. Northern High School serves the
student population in the northern portion of the County, north of I-85. A high school student
assignment map showing the “Northern” school district has been included as part of this
response. Sites located outside of the Northern School District were excluded from further
evaluation.
Furthermore, areas within the Northern High School District are further classified by City/County
of Durham as “M/LR-B Critical Watersheds (6% impervious)”. Development in these areas is
restricted to 6% impervious surface. The proposed high school exceeds the 6% impervious
threshold and, therefore, alternative sites located in these watersheds were excluded from
further evaluation.
In regard to size, the existing Northern High School Site was determined to be significantly
undersized for the current high school program. Size requirements are generally based on the
school type (i.e. elementary, middle, high) and the number of students. Per the School Site
Planner, 30 acres plus 1 acre/100 students is required for high schools. An additional 10 acres is
required for stadiums and stadium parking (DPI, 2010).
Based on requirements in the School Site Planner, the usable site must be large enough to hold
the necessary buildings and spaces for outdoor instruction, recreation, parking and any future
expansion to buildings and recreation areas (DPI, 2010). Usable land at a potential site is
reduced by utility easements, environmental features, required zoning set-backs, adequate land
for parking buses and queuing space for parent pickup, etc.
Northern High School is anticipated to house 1,800 students. A stadium is also included in the
site plan. Therefore 58 acres is the minimum required usable area needed. Furthermore, DPI
required 65-77 acres, to account for zoning setbacks, adequate land for parking, and queuing
space for parent pick up, etc. All 12 Off-Site Alternatives investigated met the basic size
requirements.
b. “Zoning” is described but is not adequately explained. Only alternatives within the
school zone should be used and other alternatives should be excluded from the
alternatives analysis.
All 12 Off-Site Alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) reviewed for the proposed
project are located on parcels that meet the current City of Durham zoning requirements (RR,
RS-10 or RS-20). Schools are an allowable use in areas zoned residential, per the Durham
4
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed project meets Objective 11.2.2 of the Plan,
“…siting schools where they assist in providing community and neighborhood focal points” and
Objective 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”.
c. “Stream Buffers” is used as siting criterion; however this criterion is not
addressed at all alternative locations.
This has been added to the Off-Site Alternatives Comparison Table. An updated version of the
table is attached to this response.
d. “Utilities Sewer” is used as siting criterion; however this criterion is not addressed
at all alternative locations.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria, which
included Utilities Sewer, were eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted.
This has been noted in the attached revised table.
e. “Utilities Water” is used as siting criterion; however this criterion is not addressed
at all alternative locations.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria, which
included Utilities Water, were eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted.
This has been noted in the attached revised table.
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.
The “Minimum High School Program” requirements is defined in the School Site Planner (DPI,
2010) and is required to include a one-story school building, space for outdoor recreation,
parking, and stadium.
The “Full High School Program” requirements were based on the School Site Planner referenced
above as well as Durham Public Schools requirements for Northern High School. The “Full High
School Program” includes the following:
• 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
5
• Pasture, greenhouse, art patio and learning courtyard areas
• Bus and vehicle parking lots
• Roadways, retaining walls and stormwater control devices
• Safety fencing
• Separate entrances for bus and parent/student
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
g. “Design Flexibility” 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.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
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.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
i. “Cut/Fill” is used as a siting criterion; however, this criterion is not addressed at
all alternative locations.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
j. “Walls” is used as a siting criterion; however, this criterion is not addressed at all
alternative locations.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
k. “Site Access” is used as a siting criterion; however, this criterion is not addressed
at all alternative locations.
As part of the site evaluation methodology, sites that did not meet the Basic Site Criteria were
eliminated and no further evaluation of the site was conducted. This has been noted in the
attached revised table.
6
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 comparisons.
Of the 12 Off-Site Alternatives evaluated, Sites 4 (Preferred Alternative) and 5 (Cub Creek
Road) were determined to meet the Basic Site Criteria and further design evaluations of these
sites was conducted.
A full comparison of the two sites is provided in the revised “Off-Site Alternatives” matrix
attached. In summary, the Cub Creek Site (Site 5) preliminary site layout study suggests
topography, stream buffers and flood plain areas will create a challenge for construction and
increase costs. Furthermore, site development costs at the Cub Creek Site (Site 5) would
exceed 30 million compared to the Hebron Road Site (Preferred Alternative) of 16.5 million.
A comparison of impacts to Water of the U.S. has been included below for both sites.
Site #4 -
4616 N. Roxboro Road
(Hebron Road Extension)
Site #5 - 3819 Cub
Creek Road
Wetland Impacts (AC) 0 1.3
Stream Impacts (LF) 639 1,800
m. Please include a comparison table for threatened and endangered species, historic
properties.
This has been added to the Off-Site Alternatives Comparison Table. An updated version of the
table is attached to this response.
n. Please state what the minimum design requirements are for the on-site
alternatives (i.e. minimum total construction area required for school
construction).
The “Minimum High School Program” requirements is defined in the School Site Planner (DPI,
2010) and is required to include a one-story school building, space for outdoor recreation,
parking, and stadium.
Northern High School is anticipated to house 1,800 students. A stadium is also included in the
site plan. Therefore 58 acres is the minimum required usable area needed. Furthermore, DPI
required 65-77 acres, to account for zoning setbacks, adequate land for parking, and queuing
space for parent pick up, etc.
7
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.
Four on-site alternatives (including no-build) were evaluated to determine the LEDPA. The three
construction alternatives were designed to minimize impacts and losses of Waters of the US
through design practices that included grading, sizing and use of retaining walls. Details of the
alternatives and their impacts is presented below.
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 15A 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. Furthermore, On-Site Alternative 3 avoids all
impacts to wetlands. 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. Retaining walls were utilized in
order to minimize stream impacts. 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
8
and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Prior to construction, the contractor will install
tree protection fencing to delineate approved working limits. 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.
On-Site Alternative Comparison Table
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.)
The Hebron Road Extension is not included in the City-County of Durham Capital Improvement
Plan. It is not funded nor planned. Reference to the Hebron Road Extension, is not included or
referenced in the final Construction Drawings for this project.
No Build
Alternative
On-Site
Alternative 1
(Condensed)
On-Site
Alternative 2
(Full Site
Development)
On-Site
Alternative 3
(Preferred/L
EDPA)
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
9
The 70-foot wide right-of-way is a City of Durham requirement as well as the NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for the proposed high school entrance and is necessary to safely
accommodate traffic, pedestrians and bikers that will utilize this entrance.
The 70-foot wide right-of-way is a City of Durham requirement for the school entrance as well as
the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the proposed high school entrance and is
necessary to safely accommodate traffic and sidewalks for pedestrians and bikers that will utilize
this entrance. The entrance road is classified as a minor thoroughfare by the City of Durham. As
such the City of Durham requires a 70-foot right-of-way with 3 travel lanes (turn-lane,
storage/car-pool lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. (i.e. the width of the impact is
determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction-AHJ).
Furthermore, the NCDOT requirements from the district engineer listed in their review of the
Traffic Impact Analysis for the project, “in order to safely accommodate traffic at the proposed
school, the Wellington 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 (i.e.
car-pool), a shared left- through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane with 250 feet of storage
(i.e., car-pool). The egress shall also contain 100 feet of Internal Protected Storage (IPS) before
any parking or crossing maneuvers.” A copy of the June 17, 2020 TIA Review Comments from
NCDOT is included for your reference.
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.
Relocating Stream SE was evaluated as requested and determined not be practicable.
Approximately 110 LF of open channel could be provided north of the entrance by shortening
the culvert. However, this alternative was deemed not practicable due to constructability and
long term stability, maintenance and safety.
Furthermore, the owner, Durham Public Schools does not have the capacity to monitor and
maintain per the State design standards. The project team feels providing the pipe culvert to
the headwall as proposed is best both for construction, site stabilization and the ability for the
owner to provide long term maintenance and safety.
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.
A bridge was determined to be cost prohibitive in regards to construction and maintenance. It
was determined that bottomless culverts would not be functional alternatives for the proposed
crossings based on the lack of suitable sub-surface material, such as bedrock. Per geo-technical
due-diligence investigations performed for the development of the property, the project site is
located in the Triassic Basin within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Soils in the Triassic
Basin consist of silts, clay and clayey/silty sands that are often moderately to highly plastic.
10
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 (SAM).
A 1:1 mitigation ratio is proposed for Stream SE impacts. This is based on the NC Stream
Assessment Method (NCSAM) Rating of “Low”. A 2:1 ratio is proposed for all other streams in
the project area. A copy of the NCSAM forms and site photos taken at the impact locations have
been included for reference.
Statement of Authorization Letters have been received from private mitigation banks and are
included as part of this submittal.
D. Response to Public Comments:
A postcard was mailed to property owners within a ½ 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. Comment
letters were received by Neisha Reynolds, Julius Bartell and Diane Bartell. These comments were
addressed in the Environmental Assessment submitted previously.
Following the most recent public notice, December 18, 2020, comments from Mr. and Ms. Bartell
and Ms. Reynolds are addressed again below.
i. Neisha Reynolds Letter received 1/21/21.
In response to citizen’s concern regarding public engagement: Three (3) public notices have
been issued for this project, including the Durham Town Board of Adjustments meeting,
which was open to the public, held January 2020. Public comments were received and taken
into consideration in the development of the project.
In response to the citizen’s concern regarding continued access to clean water: Stormwater
management controls will be implemented in adherence to local and state stormwater design
and water supply protection guidelines. 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
11
Sediment Control and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction
stormwater management regulations.
Responses to Ms. Reynolds previous comment letter, dated 8/20/20 were also included in the
Environmental Assessment previously submitted.
ii. Julius and Diane Bartell
In response to additional Off-Site Alternatives the citizen references: Twelve sites were
evaluated for the proposed Northern High School Replacement. Project. Mr. Bartell suggests
the Carver Street Extension site. The Cub Creek Road Site (Off-Site Alternative #5) is located
on Carver Street and was investigated as a test fit site. Based on preliminary analysis, the
Cub Creek Road Site would result in considerably more environmental impacts and cost to
develop the site. See attached Off-Site Alternatives Matrix.
In response to the American Indian artifacts that the citizen references: 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.
In response to citizen’s concern regarding 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. Stormwater management controls will be
implemented in adherence to local and state stormwater design and water supply protection
guidelines. 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.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at areusche@sepiinc.com.
Sincerely,
Anna Reusche, PWS
Environmental Project Manager
SEPI, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 1
REVISED OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
SITE FEATURES
Existing Site
117 Tom
Wilkinson Road
Site #1
5433 Guess
Road
Site #2
6221 Guess Road
Site #3
6014 N. Roxboro
Road (Divided
Watershed)
Site #4
4616 N. Roxboro
(included 4804,
4616 & 4622 N.
Roxboro Road)
Site #5
3819 Cub Creek
Road
(Under Contract)
Site #6
6901 Russel
Road
Site #7
308 Orange
Factory Road
Site #8
421 Orange
Factory Road
Site #9
7001 Roxboro
Road
Site #10
1100 Mason
Road
Site #11
1301 Goodwin
Road
ACREAGE* 37.98 89 91.07 (Potential) 156.20 87.30 92.84 107.60 82.40
(Potential) 116.57
227.25
(Purchase
109.6)
111.70 70 (Potential)
LOCATION* E-B & FJ/B E -B E -B & M/LR -B FJ/B & M/LR -A E-B & FJ/B FJ/B
M/LR-B
Critical
Watershed 6%
M/LR-A
Critical
Watershed 6%
M/LR-A
Critical
Watershed 6%
M/LR-A
Critical
Watershed 6%
M/LR-A
Critical
Watershed 6%
F/J -B
TOPOGRAPHY*
Poor soils in new
building location
(piles req. for
bldg.)
Severe
(100 feet across
site)
Moderate/Severe
restricted near
power lines
Moderate/Sever e
Avg. 7 -8% Site
Moderate
Avg. 5.5% site 14% at
stadium
Severe across
portions of site
only
Severe
(80 feet
across site)
Moderate Moderate Severe Severe Moderate
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS* RR RR RR RR & RS-20 RS-10 & GC RS-20 RR
CC(D), PDR
2.240, RS -20,
RR
RR RR RR RR & RS-10, PDR
SITE ACCESS * 3
1 – Will need to
acquire
additional
parcel for 2
2 with road
connection to
Milton
2 3 with road
extension
2 off Carver
Street extension NE NE NE NE NE 2 with connection
to Torredge Road
DEVELOPMENT
TIER Suburban Suburban Suburban & Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Rural Rural Rural Rural Suburban
FEMA
FLOODPLAIN
Not in Flood
Plain
Partially in
Flood Plain
Not in Flood
Plain
Not in Flood
Plain
Not in Flood Plain Partially in Flood
Plain
Not in Flood
Plain
Partially in
Flood Plain
Not in Flood
Plain
Partially in
Flood Plain
Not in Flood
Plain
Partially in Flood
Plain
STREAM
BUFFERS 1 1 – At site
entrance
2 – At north and
south of site 1 – Bisects Site 1- Bisects Site 3 – Bisects Site 3 –Bisects
Site 3 NONE 2 – Bisects Site
2 – At north
and south of
site
3 Floodplain and
Buffer Crossings,
Bisects Site
ESTIMATED
STREAM LENGTH
(LF)
200 500 2000 3300 3,775 3000 2000 4500 0 3200 2400 15,000
ESTIMATED
WETLAND AREAS
(AC)
1 0 0 1.5 2.45 2.5 0 12 0 0 0.2 30
HISTORIC
RESOURCES
No recorded
features
No recorded
features
No recorded
features
2 surveyed
features on
property
2 surveyed features
on property
No recorded
features
No recorded
features
No recorded
features
One (1)
recorded
feature
One (1)
recorded
feature
No recorded
features
2 surveyed
features on
property
ENDANGERED
SPECIES HABITAT
PRESENT
(YES/NO)
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
UTILITIES –
SEWER At Site At Site Extend 3,000 LF Extend 1,500 LF At Site At Site NE NE NE NE NE At Site
UTILITIES –
WATER At Site At Site At Site At Site At Site
At Site
(Provided with
Carver St. Ext.)
NE NE NE NE NE At Site
MEETS FULL
HIGH SCHOOL
PROGRAM
NO – Stadium
and Field #2 NE Yes Yes Yes Yes NE NE NE NE NE YES
DESIGN
FLEXIBILITY
NO
Site must be
phased during
construction
NE
NO
Site constraints
restrict options
Restricted due to
impervious
limitations
Yes
NO
*Site constraints
restrict options
NE NE NE NE NE
NO – Stream
buffers and flood
plains restrict
development
SITE
DEVELOPMENT
COST
+/- 12.7 Million NE NE NE
+/-15.2 Million Site
+/- 1.3 Million Off-
Site Roadwork
+/-15.9 Million
Site
+/-14.2 Million
Off-Site Roadwork
NE NE NE NE NE NE
CUT/FILL NE NE NE NE +/-210K Cut
+/-168K Fill
+/-275K Cut
+/-220K Fill NE NE NE NE NE NE
WALLS
Yes – between
building wings
and at main
entry
NE NE NE 13,500 SF Site
21,000 SF Stadium 25,200 SF NE NE NE NE NE YES
STEPS & RAMPS NE NE NE NE $150,000Site
$150,000 Stadium $450,000 NE NE NE NE NE
DISTANCE FROM
BUILDING TO
MOST REMOTE
FIELD
600 LF NE 800 LF 500 LF 700 LF 1,200 LF NE NE NE NE NE 1,300 LF
OTHER FACTORS No swing space ,
Phasing NE
D esired program
adjacencies not
met, remote
fields
Seller will not
sell NE
Under contract
on Jan 19 Board
Agenda
NE NE NE NE NE
Build offsite road
connection to
Torredge Road
TEST FIT? YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES
* Notes basic criteria needed to meet the proposed high school requirements. Alternative sites that did not meet these basic criteria were excluded from further evaluation.
NE - denotes sites that did not meet this basic criterion and were excluded from further detailed design analysis.
Highlighted text denotes critical flaws
ATTACHMENT 2
DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT MAP
nmNorthern
Hillside
Jordan
Northern
Riverside
Southern
High School Student Assignment Zones
Hillside
Jordan
Northern
Riverside
Southern
nmNorthern High School
Northern Students
Northern High School StudentsDay 20 2018/29
ATTACHMENT 3
NCSAM RESULTS
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): DPS Northern High School 2. Date of evaluation: 2/19/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: Durham Public Schools 4. Assessor name/organization: Anna Reusche, SEPI
5. County: Durham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Eno River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.031, -78.9031
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SE 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 150
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species: Michaux's sumac, Smooth coneflower
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No
1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area , leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single spec ies or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Buffer is comprised of ealy successional and invasives. Stream was observed to be significantly incised.
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name DPS Northern High School Date of Assessment 2/19/2020
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Anna Reusche, SEPI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same prope rty, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Northern High School 2. Date of evaluation: 2/19/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: Durham Public Schools 4. Assessor name/organization: Anna Reusche, SEPI
5. County: Durham 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Eno River 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.063, -78.9016
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SD 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 0150
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species: Michaux's sumac, Smooth coneflower
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No
1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates , debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access , disruption of flood flows through streamside area , leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contribute s to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single spec ies or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Northern High School Date of Assessment 2/19/2020
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Anna Reusche, SEPI
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH
Photolog –Northern High
School Durham County, NC
1
View of SE at entrance to the Site.
View of SD at entrance to Site.
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION STATEMENT OF AVAILABILTY LETTERS
EBX Buffer Mitigation Banks
Statement of Availability February 18, 2021
NC Division of Water Resources
Rick Trone
512 N. Salisbury St.
Archdale Building, 9th floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Project: Northern High School Replacement Project
This document confirms that Durham Public Schools (Applicant) for the Northern High School
Replacement Project (Project) has expressed an interest to utilize 72,190.50 Square Feet of Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Credits from the EBX sponsored Upper Neuse Riparian Buffer Umbrella Mitigation
Bank or EBX-Neuse I, LLC sponsored Bucher Mitigation Bank. The specific bank site to be debited will
either be Cedar Grove, Hatley or Bucher all located in HUC 03020201 and in the Falls Lake watershed.
As the official Bank Sponsor, EBX and EBX-Neuse I, LLC, attests to the fact that mitigation is available
for reservation at this time.
These mitigation credits are not considered secured, and consequently are eligible to be used for alternate
purposes by the Bank Sponsor, until payment in full is received from the Applicant resulting in the
issuance of a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the Applicant has
fully secured credits from the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation
obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate within three (3) days of receipt of the
purchase price. Banker shall provide to Applicant a copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate and
a documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger(s), indicating the permit
number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificate, with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
Please contact me at 919-209-1075 or cparker@res.us if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Best Regards,
Caitlan B. Parker
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
701 E. Bay Street, Suite 306
Charleston, SC 29403
Bank Sponsors – Environmental Banc & Exchange (EBX) and EBX-Neuse I, LLC
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC · Wildlands Engineering, Inc · 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Statement of Availability
February 18, 2021
Durham Public Schools
Construction and Capital Planning
2011 Hamlin Rd.
Durham, NC 27704
RE: Availability of Stream Credits for the “Northern High School Replacement Project” project
Bank Name: Falling Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank (UMB)
Bank Site: Grantham Branch Mitigation Site / Falling Creek Mitigation Site
Bank Sponsor: Wildlands Holdings III, LLC
USACE Action ID No. 2017-00549 / 2015-00940
Stream Credits Needed: 1,126 LF
Stream Credits Available: 274.90 LF
Neuse 03020201 River Basin
Durham Public Schools:
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC has the above-mentioned stream credits from the Falling Creek Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank: Grantham Branch Mitigation Site to partially satisfy the mitigation
requirements related to the above-mentioned project. The project is located within the service area
(HUC 03020201) of the Bank. Wildlands Holdings III, LLC anticipates an additional 1,805 LF of stream
credits to be released from the Falling Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Falling
Creek Mitigation Site in February 2021 and can possibly meet your full requirement at that time.
Credits may be reserved for a period of 12 months upon the receipt of a non-refundable deposit of 10%
of the purchase price. Should credits not be reserved, they will be sold on a first come, first serve basis.
Credit prices will be guaranteed for a period of 6 months from the date of this letter and are then
subject to change.
An invoice for this transaction will be sent upon your request and we will reserve the credits and price
for a period of 30 days from invoice. This letter is a Statement of Availability as of the date provided – it
is not a reservation of credits nor a guarantee of price. Credits will be sold on a first come, first serve
basis.
Final transfer of credits will occur upon completion of the Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form within
the 404 permit.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your mitigation requirements. Please contact me at
(704) 332-7754 x124 or ayarsinske@wildlandseng.com if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC · Wildlands Engineering, Inc · 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Sincerely,
Ashley N. Yarsinske
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Marketing & Credit Sales
ayarsinske@wildlandseng.com
O: (704) 332-7754 ext. 124
M: (757) 572-5269
Cc: Ms. Anna Reusche, PWS, Senior Environmental Project Manager | SEPI