HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100332 Ver 1_Application_20100505(so
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IS ft?te
P4 Y 0
5 1010
µ?,, °Fnsv.
"??M'OS RR,t1Wq?R
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRI71ARY
May 3, 2010
Mr. David Baker, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 100332
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 -
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
Subject: Nationwide 14 Permit Application
SR 1398 Morton Gap Road
Transylvania County
State Project # TBA, Permit Charge No 140.088023 (DWO Minor Permit
Fee $240.00)
Dear Mr. Baker:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace four
existing metal culverts under SR 1398, Morton Gap Road, in order to widen and pave
this road. SR 1398 is a secondary gravel road, which conveys local traffic.
I am enclosing a typical section of the road, drawings for pipe culvert replacements, a
marked county map, a USGS quad map and photographs.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of federally
threatened and endangered species. There are no records of threatened or
endangered species for the unnamed tributaries to Morton Creek or for Morton Creek.
Additionally, there are no records downstream within Morton Creek, South Fork Flat
Creek and Flat Creek within 5 miles of the project site. Morton Creek and the three
unnamed tributaries are small and do not have sufficient flow to support mussels. The
impact from these culvert replacements will be minimal. There are no records of
threatened or endangered species for the Morton Creek Watershed. Additionally, there
are no records for North Fork Flat Creek, an adjacent watershed. However, there is a
record for the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a federally threatened plant,
within approximately 1.2 miles of the project site in the adjacent Indian Creek
watershed. The area along Morton Gap Road near the intersection of Kim Miller Road,
SR 1304, is forested and may have the potential to provide habitat for the small whorled
pogonia. The USFWS was consulted concerning the potential suitability of the habitat
for small whorled pogonia. Based on the minimal disturbance and relatively thick
rhododendron understory, the USFWS was of the opinion that no specific survey for
small whorled pogonia was warranted. For these reasons, we believe there will be "no
effect" on threatened or endangered species.
The State Historical Office (SHPO) previously screened this project for historical
structures and archaeological resources. SHPO determined that the project would not
adversely affect any historical structures. However, there was a record of an
archeological resource in close proximity to the project. This project has been submitted
to the NCDOT Human Environment Unit for further investigation and site survey if
needed. NCDOT will not proceed with the project until the archaeological issues have
been resolved.
The best management practices will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and
erosion on this project. Water will be pumped around the work area to minimize erosion
and sedimentation from the pipe installation. The construction foreman will review all
sedimentation control measures during installation to ensure sedimentation is controlled
effectively. If the planned devices are not functioning as intended, they will be replaced
immediately with better devices. The sedimentation control devices will be in place prior
to pipe culvert removal and remain in place until the new pipe is in place.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The unnamed streams to Morton Creek are not shown on the USGS topographic map;
however, Morton Creek is shown as a perennial stream. The streams are approximately
1-2 foot in width with well-defined channels composed of sand and gravel substrate.
The channels lack vegetation. The unnamed tributaries of Morton Creek flow
approximately 166 feet to Morton Creek. Morton Creek flows approximately 1.5 miles to
South Fork Flat Creek. From the confluence with Morton Creek, South Fork Flat Creek
flows approximately 4.4 miles to Flat Creek. Flat Creek then flows approximately 1.2
miles to North Fork French Broad River. North Fork French Broad River meets the
definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons, we believe that the
unnamed tributaries of Morton Creek and Morton Creek are Relatively Permanent Water
and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to replace
these culverts, it will be necessary to impact waters of the United States in the French
Broad River Basin. Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace and extend three metal
culverts in unnamed tributaries to Morton Creek and one culvert in Morton Creek (DWO
Class: C; Tr). Listed below is a summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No.
Station Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Impacts
Site 1 40'x 15" CMP 50'x 15" CMP 10'
Site 1A Free Flowing Channel Flow Diversion 75'
Site 2 55'x 18" CMP 60'x 18" CMP 5'
Site 2A Free Flowing Channel Flow Diversion 85'
Site 3 30'x 24" CMP 40'x 24" CMP 10'
Site 3A Free Flowing Channel Flow Diversion 65'
Site 4 30'x 36" CMP 40'x 36" CMP 10'
Site 4A Free Flowing Channel Flow Diversion 65'
Total Impact in Linear Feet
35
Temporary Impact for Impervious Dikes and Flow Diversion in Linear Feet
290
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for
the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Mr. David
McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning this 404 Nationwide
Permit request.
I am also requesting authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). In addition, I am asking Mr. McHenry and Mr. Ed Ingle, Roadside
Environmental Field Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me
concerning this permit request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (828)
891-7911 or Lori Jones at(828)891-7911.
Sincerely,
1' 6.5 .
Mark T. Gibbs, P
District Engineer
Enclosures
iC2b r-Pe
E.
cc: Mr. Brian Wrenn, DWQ, DENR, Raleigh (4 copies)
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, NCWRC
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, Asheville
Mr. Troy Wilson, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. J. B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer, NCDOT
Mr. Mark Davis, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. E.L. Ingle, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
Ms. Lori M. Jones, P.E., Transylvania County Maintenance Engineer, NCDOT
File
Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name _SR 1398 Morton Gap Road
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant; NCDOT
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: N/A
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Morton Gap Road Transylvania CountX
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Lake Toxaway
8. County: Transylvania
9. Lat. 35.13850 Long: -82.9012°(Coordinates at Morton Creek) (Decimal Degrees Please )
10. Quadrangle Name: Lake Toxaway
11. Waterway: Morton Creek and UTs to Morton Creek
12. Watershed: French Broad River
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit# 14
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Begin Date
Authorization: _ Section 10 _ Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
\O/??/F, W A??y r?Fyy\O1G
o<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
I
Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
tb. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: NW 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le- Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:
? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from. mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ® Yes ? No
1g_ Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ®No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: SR 1398 Morton Gap Road Road
2b. County: Transylvania
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Lake Toxaway
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: State Project # TBA, Permit Charge No 14C.088023
3. Owner Information _
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: District Engineer
41b. Name: Mark T. Gibbs
4c. Business name
(if applicable): North Carolina Department of Transportation
4d. Street address: 4142 Haywood Road
4e. City, state, zip: Mills River NC 28759
4f. Telephone no.: 828-891-7911
4g. Fax no.: 828-891-5026
4h. Email address: mgibbs@ncdot.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A .
5b. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
5c. Street address: N/A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): @ Morton Creek Site
coordinates with attached photos Latitude: 35.1385 Longitude: - 82.9012
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Morton Creek and UTs to Morton Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C Tr
2c. River basin: French Broad
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
General landscape is primarily deciduous forest. Area along road is rural with Isingle family residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
N/A
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To upgrade the existing unimproved gravel road to a paved road that meets current NCDOT secondary road standards.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Widen, grade, drain and pave. Track hoes, dump trucks, bulldozers, water pumps, diversion pipe, various hand tools will
be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
? yes ®No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ? preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): N/A Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ? No ® Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
I a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ N/A
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W5 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W6 ? P ? T ? No ?DWQ
2S. Total wetland impacts N/A
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
Unnamed ? PER M Corps
S1 M P ? T Culvert Tributary of ®INT ®DWQ 1 10
Morton Creek
S1A ? P M T
Flow Diversion Unnamed
Tributary of ? PER
M INT M Corps
® DWQ
1
75
Morton Creek
Unnamed ? PER M Corps
S2 M P ? T Culvert Tributary of ®INT ®DWQ 1 5
Morton Creek
S2A ? P M T
Flow Diversion Unnamed
Tributary of ? PER
®INT M Corps
®DWQ
1
85
Morton Creek
Unnamed ? PER M Corps
'
'
S3 M P ? T Culvert Tributary of ®INT ®DWQ 1 10
Morton Creek
S3A ? P M T
Flow Diversion Unnamed
Tributary of ? PER
®INT M Corps
®DWQ
1'
65'
Morton Creek
S4 M P ? T Culvert Morton Creek M PER
? INT M Corps
M DWQ 2' 10'
S4A ? P M T Flow Diversion Morton Creek M PER
? IN M Corps
M DWQ 2' 65'
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 35
3i. Comments: Total Temporary Impacts for Impervious Dikes and Flow Diversion is 290 linear feet
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 1 0, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, p'6nds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number- (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ? T N/A N/A N/A N/A
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
41'. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, th" n complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres] N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian' buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
e
s
B1 ? P ? T N/A N/A e
0 N N/A N/A
?Yes
B2 ?P?T ? No
?Yes
B3 ?P?T ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts N/A N/A
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The culverts are being extended only to the length to provide the minimum width needed to bring this road up to current
secondary road standards Headwalls will be installed to limit the need for additional culvert length.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
An impervious dike will be installed in the channel to minimize the water flowing into the work area. The water will be diverted
around the site during pipe installation to limit downstream habitat and water quality degradation. Appropriate BMPs
according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on the project prior to culvert installation.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ® Yes ? No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank
®Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantity N/A
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ®cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 N/A N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ®No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness, of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
Project is Covered by Individual NPDES Permit NCS000250
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ® DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
El NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
41b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
lb- If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The road is being widened only to secondary road standards. The road is in a rural part of Transylvania County and is a
dead-end road. Much of the area along the road is already built upon; therefore, it is not expected that this road would
have any significant effect on development patterns.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or M Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act M Yes ? No
impacts?
? Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
ville
h
M A
s
e
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Also consulted with USFW S on the potential for project to impact the Small
Whorled Pogonia. Based on the scope of the project and habitat in question, the USFWS advised that no further survey
was warranted.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes M No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A-There are no marine or estuarine communities within the Blue Ridge Province
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation M Yes ? No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
During screening of this project, SHPO advised that they had mapped an archeological site within or near the project
footprint. The project is being reviewed more extensively to determine the significance and extent of the resources.
Based on the recommendations of the NCDOT Human Evnironment Unit, surveys and other measures will be taken prior
to beginning work on this project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Ba. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes M No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping
t44 Ile? T ?, g8s 41301,
?? T. Ttt? r ?
ApplicanUAgent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the 1D Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SR 1398 Morton Gap Road Road
State:NC County/parish/borough: Transylvania City: Lake Toxaway
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1385°N, Long. 82.9012°W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Morton Creek (DWQ Class C; Tr)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Morton Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105020010
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas Ware available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form. -
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: April 15, 2010
M Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION If: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
r ?r_v
There "navigable waters of the U.S:" within Rivers and Harbors Act (P HA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
R Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
El Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CPR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): n
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Q Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 Wetlands adjacent to non=RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Q Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 200 linear feet: 2 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
'e. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established' by,OliWM
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):''
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section BI below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
typically 3 months).
'' Supporting documemation is presented in Section HIT.
SECTION III: CN'A ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section II LA.land Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section 111.13 below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetlandad,jacentto TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapaaos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically now year-round or have continuous now at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IILD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section ID.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus witha TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and ofTsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: iPick Lis[
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:.
? Tributary flows directly into "fNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are PickkLis'i river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Picff`Gisi river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick-Lis[ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
T Via. ..
Project waters are, Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West
' plow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary it, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary h, which thou flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributirv Characteristics (check all that aoolv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Typel%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Ciek-list
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pik-=List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: PiekList: Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick.Lis[. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.r Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
71h.d.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick Lisi. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface Flow: FN-LLisi. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(e) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting:
? Discrete wetland Hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berin/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick?I:ist aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pic List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pck'List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) _
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/NJ Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being perfomaed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limitedto the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination With its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
I. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TN Ws. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: -
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD: ,
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Q Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year'-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Morton Creek is shown as a perennial stream on the USGS topographic map. The unnamed tributaries
are not shown on the USGS map as streams but have well defined channels and were flowing on several site visits..
Q Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 200 linear feet 2 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Q Tributary waters: linear feet width (0).
Q Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Q Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is,
directly abutting an RPW:
Q Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.R and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
EJ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
E] Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rate, the impoundment of ajurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Q Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
n Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):to
0 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
Q from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain: -
?'- Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 11I.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
"' Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Fallowing Rapanas.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (R).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
K NON-.IURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
EJ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
.+? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not tneet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required forjurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, shears): linear feet width (ft).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
F1 Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
_ and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Q Daia sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
?Q Corps navigable waters' study:
Q U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
s? U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: _
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
Q FEMA/FIRM maps:
0 I00-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):Culvert Site, Dec. 2009.
^?-: Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
0 Applicable/supporting case law:
0 Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
n Other information (please specify):
B: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Site # 1 Sta. 5+15 Coordinates 35.13633° N / 82.90096° W
SR 1398
Morton Gap Road
Transylvania County
Existing & Prop. Center Line
2 1
-- ------------- ----------- --------- --
------
Oulet Invert Elev. Replace Existing Perched Inlet Invert Elev.
990.4 40',15" CMP 993.2
with 50', 15" CMP and headwalls
Thalwegs Approximately 20' from shoulder of existing road
1 1001.0
2 986.0
See plans for erosion control Drawing not to scale
Site # 2 Sta. 10+00 Coordinates 35.13736° N / 82.90028° W
SR 1398
Morton Gap Road
Transylvania County
Existing & Prop. Center Line
2 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oulet Invert Elev. Replace Existing Perched Inlet Invert Elev.
996.6 55', 18" CMP 994.8
with 60', 18" CMP and headwalls
Thalwegs Approximately 20' from shoulder of existing road
1 995
2 980.0
See plans for erosion control Drawing not to scale
Site # 3 Sta. 10+72 Coordinates 35.13773° N / 82.90001 ° W
SR 1398
Morton Gap Road
Transylvania County
Existing & Prop. Center Line
2 1
---- ------------- ----------- ---------
----
Oulet Invert Elev. Replace Existing Perched Inlet Invert Elev.
988.8 35,24" CMP 990.2
with 45', 24" CMP and headwalls
Thalwegs Approximately 20' from shoulder of existing road
1 991.1
2 977.5
See plans for erosion control Drawing not to scale
Site # 4 Sta. 15+65 Coordinates 35.13853° N / 82.90018° W
SR 1398
Morton Gap Road
Transylvania County
Existing & Prop. Center Line
2 1
---- ------------- ------------ -------- -
----
Oulet Invert Elev. Replace Existing Perched Inlet Invert Elev.
994.3 30', 36" CMP 995.5
with 40', 36" CMP and headwalls
Thalwegs Approximately 20' from shoulder of existing road
1 995.6
2 993.1
See plans for erosion control Drawing not to scale
Transylvania County
SR 1398 Morton Gap Road
NW 14 Sites
Site 2 35.13736°N 82.90028°W Sta. 10+00
Inlet Outlet
Inlet Outlet
Transylvania County
SR 1398 Morton Gap Road
NW 14 .
Inlet Outlet
Inlet Outlet
?rof
`` \
f
?
j
rj? ? Q '
? I V]1 ?
II{ w? '.?
? 1 -
?;IT?.\
? i?t
, f ? Yi ?,
G
l f L,
'
7
(,1
t lo,
\ Oft~
(
= i A
l
. !
1
?
?
\
? ? 00,
/
3
/
?? Y
77 ?? l- F
<
?.1
1 l
1?4? ? ff
W ?y
fl 31`, ?'
.? ?
oll 11
0? /
r
1
( I?l r ? :3 <
'pia x "' \i. \.` r ?
? 1l l /"' Fes` _ x
f p
-?.s
tree ! al
-\ \ \ ` (G 4 < j'_ OOBt ?. \ p n ^ -vim. ! ?`? ?e .. '?2 G0
9 6 ? 1 f w 3 N ?J?
N / Y p??. 1 l? / l? : 10"
? \w? ?Y ?' `/ .? \? 1 \ Jam' ? C\"\\ , ? tf } Z• : i ?I?7i, L ? sa
// ?` f? ? rye s •. / t ?}:! r?i r/ x ! ar,?7 1
N
Y
U)
r
H
M
N. cn
a