NC0039578_ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT_20080213

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIMG COVER SHEET
E
NPDES Permit:
NC0039578
TWSA WWTP #1
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
February 13, 2008
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reverse side

02/13/2008 WED 15:10 FAX [phone] TSWA 21004/004
NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
1
' USDA Rural Development, through its utilities programs (Rural Utilities Service), has received an
application for financial assistance from Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority. The proposed
project consists of the upgrade and expansion of the existing wastewater treatment Plant #1 to
' increase the capacity from 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 3.5 MGD. Included in the
upgrade and expansion is the construction a new laboratory/administration building, construction
of Sequencing Batch Reactors, construction of a new head works facility with mechanical
' screening and grit removal, replacement of the influent pumps, conversion of the existing
equalization basis to a sludge digester, and installation of residuals dryers.
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Rural Utilities Service has assessed the
potential environmental effects of the proposed project and has determined that the proposal will
not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared. The basis for this determination is a thorough review and analysis
of the environmental information reported in the environmental assessment (as supplemented by
addendum number one) including public and regulatory agencies' comments regarding the
proposed project. In order to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental impacts, the USDA
Rural Development will require Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority to incorporate the
following mitigation measures into the proposed project's design.
The potential impacts to important resources will be mitigated as described in Section 4.0 of the
Environmental Assessment such as the use of best management practices, implementation of an
' approved sedimentation and erosion control plan and meeting the conditions of all applicable local
and state permitting requirements. Potential impacts to biological resources and water quality will
be mitigated through system design and operation to achieve superior treatment of the wastewater,
resulting in anunonia and chlorine removal prior to discharge.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment can be reviewed or obtained at the USDA, Rural
' Development office located at 84 Coxe Avenue, Suite 1E, Asheville, NC 28801. For further
information, please contact Pamela H. Hysong at 828-254-0916, Ext. 7.
' A general location map of the proposal is shown below.
"USDA is an equal opportwuty provider, employer and lender." To file a complaint of
' discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
1
02/13/2008 WED 16:00 [TX/RX NO 59731 Q 004

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
ADDENDUM NO. 1
CENTRAL SYSTEM WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: David L. Honeycutt, E.I.
Reviewed By: Michael J. Waresak, P.E.
OMcGlAi
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Asheville, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
05734
SUN`li
C A
F� j
19950 =
%cy

11
i
1
1
1
1
Cl
Introduction
During the environmental review process for the above project comments were received from
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) including comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), National Heritage Program(NHP), and the Division
of Water Quality(DWQ). This document is submitted as an addendum to the Enviromnental
Report dated October 19, 2007 originally submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Administration State Clearinghouse on November 2, .2007. This additional information is
provided to address the concerns presented in these comments and provide clarification of items
presented in the Environmental Report. Several of the comments received are regarding similar
issues and therefore these comments are addressed by combined responses rather than
individually. Further comments are addressed individually as necessary within this Addendum.
In addition to the information provided in this addendum, references to the speculative limits in
the Environmental Report have been modified to prevent any confusion. These changes can be
found on pages 6, 26-27 and in Appendix 6.5 of the Environmental Report.
Flow Proiections
The Division of Water Quality requested justification for the wastewater flow indicated in the
report. Flow projections for the project were done as part of the Preliminary Engineering Report
prepared according to USDA guidelines. The justification for this flow is included as Appendix 1
to this Addendum and is based on the criteria given in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Guidance Document included as an attachment to the DWQ's comments with modifications
specific to the project location.
' Discharge
k
I
Updated NPDES Permit speculative limits issued March 1, 2006 were acquired for the design
flow of 3.5 mgd. As shown in Table I below the changes from the previous speculative limits
are the addition of an Ammonia Nitrogen limit of 22.4 mg/1 and the Total Residual Chlorine
limit has been revised from 17 µg/1 to 28 µg/l.
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates, P.A. Page 1 January 2008

I
i
[I
1
LJ
1
Li
1
I
Table l — Speculative NPDES Permit Limits at 3.5 MGD
Parameter
Average Daily Limit
Flow
3.5 MGD
BODS
30 m l
TSS
30 m /l
Ammonia Nitrogen
Summer 22.4 m /l
Total Residual Chlorine
28 /1
Fecal Colifonn
200/100 ml
Comments received from the USFWS and NCWRC indicated concerns regarding the impact of
the additional discharge to the Tuckaseigee River and its sensitive environmental habitat. As
these agencies noted the river is critical habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel and several
other rare aquatic species are known to exist in the project vicinity. Specifically the concerns
raised are the impact of chlorine and ammonia on freshwater mussels.
The comments cite studies that suggest "concentrations of chlorine below 20 µg/l are not acutely
toxic to juvenile freshwater mussels." but raise concerns about the impact of long tern exposure.
At a maximum the proposed project will raise discharge from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd at the
maximum permit limit of 28 µg/l. This discharge should be quickly assimilated into the river
flow to a level below the 20 ug/1 residual chlorine concentration at 3.6% of the summer 7Q10
flow, once a complete mix is achieved the ambient chlorine concentration may increase by a
maximum of 1.01 µg/l as compared to 0.43 µg/l increase at the current permitted flow. The
typical impact would be significantly lower with the normal flow levels for the Tuckaseigee
River. Therefore it is predicted there will be no significant impacts due to increased chlorine
levels. USFWS also commented that "dechlorination processes can also result in discharge of
chemicals toxic to freshwater mussels." The proposed dechlorination method for the TWSA
WWTP is the use of equipment which injects sulfur dioxide gas into water. The sulfur dioxide
reacts with the chlorine rapidly (sulfonation) to eliminate free and combined chlorine in the
effluent. An automatic control system will be installed to continuously measure the chlorine
content and inject only the amount of sulfur dioxide that is necessary to eliminate the chlorine.
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates, P.A. Page 2 January 2008

G
1
i
C
1
1
1
I
11
USFWS and NCWRC both suggest the use of UV disinfection instead of chlorine to prevent any
chlorine from being discharged to the Tuckaseigee River. UV disinfection is not typically
recommended for treatment plants without filtration. UV light cannot penetrate solids or
wastewater with a low transmissivity and therefore is less reliable following secondary treatment
without filtration. The additional capital cost for using filtration and UV instead of chlorine in
the SBR alternative is estimated at $3,236,000. An itemized cost estimate is included in the
appendix of this document. Due to this significant additional cost and limited benefit the use of
UV disinfection does not appear necessary for mitigation of impacts from the increased
discharge.
The comments also cite studies regarding the ambient concentrations of ammonia and indicate
that chronic toxicity levels may be as low as 0.4 mg/l. The speculative limits issued by DWQ
March 1, 2006 for 3.5 mgd indicate an ammonia limit of 22.4 mg/l monthly average may be
imposed on the facility. Typical effluent from an SBR facility as proposed in the selected
alternative is less than 1 mg/l, therefore assuming complete mix in the river at 7Q10 flow levels
the discharge may. increase ambient ammonia levels by 0.04 mg/l. Ammonia is monitored in the
existing treatment plant effluent and typically averages approximately 5 mg/l. The proposed
treatment process will actually reduce the total amount of ammonia discharged to the
Tuckaseigee River from current levels and provide a positive impact.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
DWQ comment 7. questions impacts of the project on the Western Carolina University (WCU)
campus and if WCU has any type of guidance policy for dealing with any secondary and
cumulative impacts. The proposed project is intended to serve growth that WCU is currently
planning for as a "focused growth institution". Without the expansion of the treatment plant
TWSA would not be able to provide sewer service for any significant expansion at WCU and
WCU would have to consider other alternatives for wastewater treatment and disposal. These
alternatives would be similar to those TWSA has considered for Plant No. 1 but on a smaller
scale. If connection to TWSA's regional facility was unavailable the most economical solution
will most likely be the construction of a separate discharging treatment facility. This alternative
will be more costly than service provided by TWSA and would create an additional discharge in
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates, P.A. Page 3 January 2008

[1
' the Tuckaseigee River basin. The proposed project should result in a positive impact on the
' environment compared to other alternatives for providing sewer service for WCU's expansion.
' As described in the flow projections the proposed project will expand TWSA Plant No. 1 from a
capacity of 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd. However the impact of this expansion is not a 133% increase in
treatment capacity for the service area as the estimate is based on the decommissioning of Plant
No. 2 which currently has a capacity of 0.5 mgd. Therefore the increase in available wastewater
' treatment capacity for the service area is from 2.0 mgd to 3.5 mgd or a 75% increase. The
"natural" growth accommodated by this expansion is further reduced by the flow projected to be
' required by the growth at WCU. Flow based solely on additional enrollment and staff is a total of
687,680 gpd with an additional 137,592 gpd from families of the staff who are anticipated to
relocate to the area. The result of this breakdown shows a remaining 33.7% increase from
currently permitted capacity for "natural" growth during the 20 year planning period. This 33.7%
' increase represents an additional capacity of 674,728 gpd allocated to "natural" growth which is
anticipated to consist of residential and commercial growth in and around the current service
area. This growth includes both serving existing homes and businesses outside the current
service area and some new construction.
' USFWS included comments regarding the impacts of future development as a result of the
' proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion. The wastewater flow projections that have been
prepared to support the proposed facility expansion can be divided into several main categories.
' First, as discussed above, a significant portion of future flows will be generated by planned
enrollment increases at Western Carolina University. Since WCU is a state university, it is
' anticipated that any additional structures or site development on WCU property will be closely
monitored by State and Federal regulatory agencies to minimize any adverse impacts. Secondly,
' future wastewater flows will include other normal projected growth within the current TWSA
service area. And, finally, the third type of wastewater flow increase is expected to occur
' through the extension of new sewer lines to areas outside of the current TWSA service area. The
actual impacts of. this development are difficult to predict, but development impacts could
' actually be less since the availability of sewer service for these properties may encourage multi-
family or cluster developments. The North Carolina State Planning Office makes projections
' Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates, P.A. Page 4 January 2008

for future growth, and much of this growth will occur whether or not public sewer service is
available. If public sewer service is not available, property owners often utilize private onsite
sewer treatment systems, which are generally considered to be less reliable over the long term
' than public sewer systems. If private sewage treatment systems are provided due to the lack of
public sewer service, adverse impacts to the enviromnent could occur when the private systems
' fail to operate as intended.
' The impacts of constructing new sewer lines are also difficult to predict without knowing their
locations, but often sewer lines are constructed within drainage corridors. Since most streams in
the service area are designated as trout waters, new construction will maintain a minimum 25
feet undisturbed buffer from the trout streams to protect the streams from sedimentation.
' The NCWRC comments indicated the potential rare terrestrial species in the area could include
the Eastern small -footed myotis, the Northern long-eared myotis, and the Indiana myotis. The
habitat for thesespecies generally includes wooded areas. Since the locations of future
development and the sewer lines to serve the future development cannot be predicted, it is
' unknown whether the species are present or whether the project would have any adverse impacts.
' Stream and Wetland Buffers
A large number of the streams in the project area are designated as trout streams by DWQ and
"shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible
' siltation within the twenty-five percent of the buffer zone nearest the land -disturbing activity,
whichever is greater." In addition, Jackson County has adopted an ordinance to protect all
' streams within public water supply watersheds including density limits and a vegetated buffer
within 30 feet of the stream. A copy of the requirements from the ordinance is attached to this
Addendum. Watershed areas encompass approximately 1/3 of Jackson County according the
Land Development Plan and the vast majority of this area is upstream of WWTP No. 1. The
adoption of 200 ft buffers for perennial streams and 100 ft buffers for intermittent streams are
impractical in mountainous areas. Due to slopes in the project area the elevation change over
horizontal buffers of this size may be 50 ft or more which makes the construction of roadways
and or sewer lines near these drainages difficult or impossible.
' Addendum No. I to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates, P.A. Page 5 January 2008

Development in the area governed by the Jackson County Mountain and Hillside Development
ordinance is limited to 6,000 SF of impervious area for single family dwellings or the "minimum
necessary to develop the property for its intended use" for lots other than single family homes.
Biosolids Treatment and Disposal
' Comment 6. in the DWQ memorandum questioned the biosolids treatment and disposal
information presented in the report. DWQ misquotes the Environmental Report in its response.
' The Report states there is not a long term contract for "landfill" disposal not land disposal as
quoted. The proposed drying process will produce a different type of biosolid that is more
' marketable. As stated in the report the lime stabilization currently used produces a biosolid that
is difficult to spread and increases the volume of biosolids to be distributed. The proposed
' biosolids dryer will produce a spreadable product with lower water content thereby reducing the
volume of biosolids produced per pound of waste sludge from the facility. Based on this
' information the dryer process was chosen as the most viable alternative for biosolids distribution.
' Specific Comments and Clarifications
' DWQ comment 1. refers to a sentence identifying the affected area in the executive summary of
the Environmental Report. The intention of this sentence is to say that the affects of the project
include direct impacts at the treatment plant site and secondary and indirect impacts in the
surrounding service area. The project will have no direct impacts outside of the existing WWTP
property boundaries.
' Comment 2. in the DWQ memorandum asks about management of mitigative measures since
TWSA does not have governing authority within its service area. The mitigative measures
' referenced in the report are already in place and are managed by the local governments and state
agencies as implemented. There are currently no additional mitigative measures discussed as
' being implemented as part of this project.
Comment 3. in the DWQ memorandum asks for more detail regarding the decommissioning of
' WWTP No. 2. TWSA has not set a specific date for the decommissioning of WWTP No. 2. The
flow projections for the project indicate a total wastewater flow for the system at the end of the
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates, P.A. Page 6 January 2008

C
1
1
I
1
F
L
1
U
1
20 year planning period of 3.5 mgd. The proposed project is therefore intended to provide a total
treatment capacity for the sewer system of 3.5 mgd after the decommissioning of WWTP No. 2.
DWQ comment 5. requests additional information on the potential impacts to a stream on the
WWTP property. The necessity for the culvert mentioned on pages 7 and 9 cannot be determined
until a complete design for the facility is completed, however it should be assumed for purposes
of the evaluation of this Environmental Report that it will be necessary. The impacts from this
culvert, if required, will be limited to approximately 20 linear feet of stream on the project site in
order to provide access to one of the SBR basins. This crossing will need to be permitted through
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality.
DWQ comment 8. asks for a description of best management practices that will be used for
erosion control on the project. An erosion control plan for the project has not been prepared yet
and the measures required will be based on the specific plan. These measures may include,
temporary sediment basins, silt fence, diversion ditches, rip rap outlet protection, temporary
check dams, and drop inlet protection as necessary on the wastewater treatment plant site. In
addition disturbed areas will be required to be reseeded within 15 days after finished grade is
established. Erosion control for sewer line construction typically includes silt fence, temporary
check dams and drop inlet protection as necessary.
DWQ comment 11. indicates that the engineering alternatives analysis is inadequate. Flow
justification was prepared as part of the PER for this project. This information is discussed in
detail above in this Addendum and the applicable pages from the PER are included as an
appendix. The alternatives analysis in the Environmental Report does include itemized budgets
for all alternatives in Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-5. These alternatives include an alternative for
spray irrigation of the additional flow. This alternative was conservatively estimated by making
several "best case" judgments and had the highest capital cost. All the variations mentioned in
the comment (drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, combination of alternatives) would result in
increasing the capital cost above the alternative considered and were therefore dismissed as
having excessive costs.
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates, P.A. Page 7 January 2008

[J
1
1
1
1
C
I.I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
11
1
1
USFWS commented on concerns about the introduction of invasive exotic species. Disturbed
areas at the treatment plant site will be reseeded per North Carolina Erosion Control Standards.
The standards include the use of specific grass mixtures in denuded areas and native species for
stream or riverbank stabilization. Therefore no invasive species are anticipated to be introduced
as result of this project.
Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates, P.A. Page 8 January 2008

' C) GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS
' 1. CURRENT POPULATION AND FLOWS
' The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority central sewer system
currently serves approximately 1,841 residential customers and 466
' commercial customers. Commercial users may include some subdivisions
on master meters and other unconventional commercial use. Therefore the
' total population served was estimated based on the total water
consumption data from water billing reports.
The area served by TWSA's central sewer system includes several
' municipalities and the main campuses for Western Carolina University
and Southwestern Community College. This area is a popular location for
' vacationers and seasonal residents during the late spring through fall
seasons. Based on a review of recent water billing data the highest
' seasonal flows appear to occur in the fall when Western Carolina
' University and Southwestern Community College are in session and there
are still a large number of tourists in the area. Therefore average water
' consumption for September, October and November of 2004 and 2005
was used as a base flow rate for projection of future flows. The average
' consumption for these months gives an average daily use of 702,323 gpd.
Removing 10% for consumptive uses gives an anticipated average
' wastewater flow rate of 632,091 gpd. This value was used to estimate the
population served based on 70 gpd per capita residential use and 15 gpd
' per capita commercial use, giving a estimated service population of 7,436
persons. Western Carolina University does not receive water service from
e TWSA and their contribution is therefore estimated based on the
University's water consumption. During the same period Western
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. PG. 5 October 2007

I
Carolina University's wastewater flows are estimated to be 244,112 gpd
for a total wastewater flow for the central sewer system of 876,203 gpd.
Plant No.I and Plant No.2 are currently treating wastewater from
the central sewer collection system and flow is occasionally pumped from
' Plant No. 2 to Plant No. 1. TWSA does not keep separate water billing
data for customers tributary to the separate plants and it is therefore
Idifficult to determine what flow is tributary to which treatment plant.
During the planning period TWSA plans to abandon Plant No. 2 and pump
all flow to Plant No. 1, therefore for the purposes of this report it is not
necessary to separate these flows.
' 2. FLOW ALLOCATIONS
TWSA currently has flow allocations to future developments and
tother users in the amount of 87,480 gpd. Based on NC CG&L criteria
these flows can be considered as current flows and are therefore included
in year one of the planning period.
In addition to these currently allocated flows there are three large
developments being planned by property owners south of the Cullowhee
in the Glenwood area. Although these developments are not currently
within the TWSA service area it is assumed that they will be served within
the 20 year planning period. The estimated total flow at build out from
these developments is 650,000 gpd according to correspondence received
by TWSA. It is unlikely that they will reach more than 2/3rds of build out
during the planning period and therefore a total of 400,000 gpd has been
included from these developments for planning purposes.
L►
I
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. PG. 6 October 2007

I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
3. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL GROWTH
Residential and commercial growths are expected to occur during
the planning period at rates similar to historical rates. The Town of Sylva
is by far the largest municipality served by the TWSA central sewer
system. The Town of Sylva experienced growth rates of 2.97% between
US Censuses conducted in 1990 and 2000 and, according to information at
the State Data Center, is estimated to have continued at that rate between
2000 and 2004 when the most recent data was collected. This growth does
include some annexations in the area but areas which are annexed are
typically also served by an expansion of the sewer system. Therefore the
increase in service population is estimated based on the historical growth
rate for the Town of Sylva which includes sewer extensions to serve
previously unsewered areas and growth within the current service area.
Based on NC CG&L criteria, 70 gpd per capita residential and 15 gpd per
capita commercial are used to determine increases in wastewater flow due
to increases in service population. See Table 11-1 for population
projections during the planning period.
TABLE II-1: TWSA CENTRAL SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year
Population
Growth
Rate %
Year
Population
Growth
Rate
2005
7,436
2.97
2018
10,943
2.97
2006
7,660
2.97
2019
11,273
2.97
2007
7,891
2.97
2020
11,613
2.97
2008
8,129
2.97
2021
11,963
2.97
2009
8,375
2.97
2022
12,324
2.97
2010
8,627
2.97
2023
12,695
2.97
2011
8,887
2.97
2024
13,078
2.97
2012
9,155
2.97
2025
13,473
2.97
2013
9,432
2.97
2026
13,879
2.97
2014
9,716
2.97
2027
14,298
2.97
2015
10,009
2.97
2028
14,729
2.97
2016
10,311
2.97
2029
15,173
2.97
2017
10,622
2.97
2030
1 15,631
1 2.97
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. PG. 7 October 2007

I
1 4. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION GROWTH
The two major educational institutions in the service area are also
expected to experience significant growth during the planning period.
Western Carolina University has recently purchased land more than
' doubling the size of the current campus and has been identified as a
"focused growth institution" by the University of North Carolina System.
Western Carolina does not publish any long range planning information'.
Upon request a projection was provided by the University for growth
through 2015. Applying a linear regression model to the most recent five
years of data available an estimate was formed for our planning period to
2030. The linear regression model generated data similar to projections
provided by WCU for 2015. Direct impacts of the University include the
additional enrollment and employees which are projected to increase by
109% and 120% respectively by 2030. In addition to these direct impacts
it is likely that the increase in staff will promote additional population
growth in the area. This growth is accounted for by assuming the
additional staff will move to the area with their households at 2.3 persons
per household based on US Census data for the area. The increases in
student enrollment and general population including employees and their
families are accounted for at 70 gpd per capita which is projected to result
in a total impact to the sewer system of 825,272 gpd by 2030.
1 5. INFILTRATION AND INFLOW
IPer Section IL A, infiltration and inflow during the wettest three
(3) months of 2005 (June, July and August) was an average daily flow of
445,027 gpd, which is not excessive based on criteria set by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Construction Grants and Loans Division. This value is
Iassumed to remain constant during the planning period as expansion of the
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. PG. 8 October 2007

I
Msewer system takes place and older lines contributing I/I are replaced and
repaired.
6. INDUSTRIAL RESERVE
The final component of the flow projections is a 10% industrial
reserve per CG&L guidelines for Engineering Reports. This reserve will give
TWSA the flexibility to serve future industrial growth in the area.
Table I1-2 gives a yearly summary of all components of the projected
flows for the TWSA Central Sewer System.
G
1
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. PG. 9 October 2007

M! I=: �, M ,tom M. 'm � m r M r mow no ems, w
TABLE II-2: WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS - TWSA CENTRAL SEWER SYSTEM
Year
90% Current
Water Billing
Flows
Allocated Flows
as of May 2006
Glenwood
Area
Developments
Residential
Growth
Commercial
Growth
Educational
Institution
Growth
1/1
Industrial
Reserve
(10%)
Total
2005
876,203
87,480
0
0
0
445,027
96,368
1,505,078
2006
876,203
87,480
15,701
3,364
33,011
445,027
98,275
1,559,060
2007
876,203
87,480
31,875
6,830
66,022
445,027
100,239
1,613,675
2008
876,203
87,480
48,537
10,401
99,033
445,027
102,262
1,668,942
2009
876,203
87,480
65,701
14,079
132,044
445,027
104,346
1,724,880
2010
876,203
87,480
83,384
17,868
165,054
445,027
106,493
1,781,509
2011
876,203
87,480
20,000
101,599
21,771
198,065
445,027
108,705
1,858,851
2012
876,203
87,480
40,000
120,364
25,792
231,076
445,027
110,984
1,936,927
2013
876,203
87,480
60,000
139,696
29,935
264,087
445,027
113,331
2,015,758
2014
876,203
87,480
80,000
159,610
34,202
297,098
445,027
115,749
2,095,369
2015
876,203
87,480
100,000
180,125
38,598
330,109
445,027
118,241
2,175,782
2016
876,203
87,480
120,000
201,258
43,127
363,120
445,027
120,807
2,257,021
2017
876,203
87,480
140,000
223,030
47,792
396,131
445,027
123,450
2,339,112
2018
876,203
87,480
160,000
245,457
52,598
429,141
445,027
126,174
2,422,080
2019
876,203
87,480
180,000
268,562
57,549
462,152
445,027
128,979
2,505,952
2020
876,203
87,480
200,000
292,363
62,649
495,163
445,027
131,870
2,590,755
2021
876,203
87,480
220,000
316,882
67,903
528,174
445,027
134,847
2,676,516
2022
876,203
87,480
240,000
342,141
73,316
561,185
445,027
137,914
2,763,265
2023
876,203
87,480
260,000
368,161
78,892
594,196
445,027
141,074
2,851,032
2024
876,203
87,480
280,000
394,967
84,636
627,207
445,027
144,329
2,939,848
2025
876,203
87,480
300,000
422,581
90,553
660,218
445,027
147,682
3,029,743
2026
876,203
87,480
320,000
451,028
96,649
693,228
445,027
151,136
3,120,751
2027
876,203
87,480
340,000
480,333
102,929
726,239
445,027
154,694
3,212,905
2028
876,203
87,480
360,000
510,522
109,398
759,250
445,027
158,360
3,306,240
2029
876,203
87,480
380,000
541,622
116,062
792,261
445,027
162,137
3,400,791
2030
1 876,203
1 87,480
1 400,000
1 573,659
122,927
1 825,272
1 445,027
1 166,027
1 3,496,595
Note: All values are in gallons per day (gpd)
Preliminary Engineering Report Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. PG. 10 October 2007

B. No building or other permits shall be issued for erection of a structure on any lot not of record
at the time of adoption of this Ordinance until all requirements of this Ordinance have been met. The
subdivider, prior to commencing any work within the subdivision, shall provide the Watershed
Development Administrator with an opportunity to inspect the site.
Section 205. Penalties for Transferring Lots in Unapproved Subdivisions.
Any person who, being the owner or agent of the owner of any land located within the
jurisdiction of Jackson County, thereafter subdivides land in violation of this Ordinance or transfers or
sells land by reference to, exhibition of, or any other use of a plat showing a subdivision of the land
before the plat has been properly approved under this Ordinance and recorded in the office of the Register
of Deeds, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The description by metes and bounds in the instrument of
transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring land shall not exempt the
transaction from this penalty. The county may bring an action for injunction of any illegal subdivision,
' transfer, conveyance, or sale of land, and the court shall, upon appropriate findings, issue an injunction
and order requiring the offending party to comply with this Ordinance.
ARTICLE 300: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Section 301. Establishment of Watershed Areas.
' The purpose of this Article is to list and describe the watershed areas herein adopted. For
i purposes of this Ordinance the County is hereby divided into the following areas, as appropriate:
' WS-I
WS-II-CA (Critical Area)
WS-II-BW (Balance of Watershed)
WS-III-CA (Critical Area) .
WS-III-BW (Balance of Watershed)
Section 302. Watershed Areas Described.
A. WS-I Watershed Areas. (Dills Creek, Allen Creek, UT Fisher Creek and Fisher, Creek) The
intent is to provide maximum protection for water supplies within essentially natural and undeveloped
watersheds in public ownership by allowing only low intensity uses. No residential or non-residential uses
are allowed except those listed below. Impacts from non -point source pollution shall be minimized.
1. Allowed Uses:
a. Agricultural activities subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 and all rules and
regulations of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
b. Silvicultaral activities subject to the provisions of the Forest Practices
Guidelines Related to Water Quality (I SNCAC 1I.6101-.6209).
c. Recreational activities.
d. Water withdrawal, treatment and distribution facilities.
I
r

I
' e. Restricted road access.
f. Power transmission and distribution lines.
1 2. Density and built -upon limits do not apply.
B. WS-II Watershed Areas - Critical Area (WS-II-CA). (Big Creek and Indian Creek
(Pheasant Creek)) In order to maintain a predominately undeveloped land use intensity pattern, single-
family residential uses shall be allowed at a maximum of one dwelling unit per two acres. All other
residential and non-residential development shall be allowed at a maximum six percent (6%) built -upon
area. New residuals application sites and landfills are specifically prohibited.
1. Allowed Uses:
' a. Agricultural activities subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of.1990 and all rules and
regulations of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
b. Silvicultural activities subject to the. provisions of the Forest Practices
Guidelines Related to Water Quality (I SNCAC II.6101-.6209).
' Q. Recreational activities.
d. Residential development including customary home occupations.
e. Non-residential development, excluding 1) the storage of toxic and
hazardous materials unless a spill containment plan is implemented, 2) landfills, and 3)
' sites for land application of residuals or petroleum contaminated soils. New industrial
development is required to incorporate adequately' designed, constructed and maintained
spill containment structures if hazardous mate _r_ials are either used, stored or manufactured
' on the premises.
2. Density and Built -upon Limits:
a. Single Family Residential --development shall not exceed one dwelling unit
per two acres on a project by project basis. No residential lot shall be less than two acres
(80,000 square feet excluding roadway right-of-way), except within an approved cluster
' development.
b. All Other Residential and Non -Residential --development shall not exceed six
' percent (6%) built -upon area on a project by project basis. For the purpose of
calculating built -upon area, total project area shall include total acreage in the tract on
which the project is to be developed.
' C. WS-II Watershed Areas - Balance of Watershed (WS-II-B W). (Big Creek and Indian Creek
(Pheasant Creek)) In order to maintain a predominantly undeveloped land use intensity - single family
residential uses shall be allowed at a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre. All other residential and
non-residential development shall be allowed a maximum of twelve percent (12%) built -upon area. In
addition, new development may occupy ten percent (10%) of the balance of the watershed which is
outside the critical area, with up to seventy percent (70%) built -upon area when approved as a Special
' Intensity Allocation (SIA). The Watershed Development Administrator is authorized to approve SIA's
consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. To the maximum extent practicable, projects must
minimize built -upon surface area, direct stormwater away from surface waters and incorporate Best
I

Management Practices to minimize water quality impacts. Non -discharging landfills and residuals
application sites are allowed.
1. Allowed Uses:
1 a. Agricultural activities subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of
1955 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 and all rules and
regulations of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
b. Silvicultural activities subject to the provisions of the Forest Practices
Guidelines Related to Water Quality (ISNCAC 1I.6101-.6209).
c. Recreational activities.
' d. Residential development, including customary home occupations.
e. Non-residential development excluding discharging landfills and the storage
of toxic and hazardous materials, unless a spill containment plan is implemented.
2. Density and Built -upon Limits:
' a. Single Family Residential --development shall not exceed one dwelling unit
per acre on a project by project basis. No residential lot shall be less than one acre (or
40,000 square feet excluding roadway right-of-way), except within an approved cluster
1. development.
b. All Other Residential and Non -Residential --development shall not exceed
�. twelve percent (12%) built -upon area on a project by project basis except that up to ten
percent (10%) of the balance of the watershed mad be developed to seventy percent (70-
%) built -upon area on a project by project basis ' For the purpose calculating built -upon
' area, total project area shall include total acreage in the tract on which the project is to be
developed.
D. WS-III Watershed Areas - Critical Area (WS-III-CA): (Pigeon River, Campbell Creek,
' Cullasaja River, Tuckasegee River and Jonathan Creek) In order to maintain a predominately
undeveloped land use intensity, single family residential uses shall be allowed at a maximum of one
dwelling unit per acre. All other residential and non-residential development shall be allowed at a
maximum twelve percent (12%) built -upon area. New residuals application sites and landfills are
specifically prohibited.
1. Allowed Uses:
' a. Agricultural activities subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 and all rules and
' regulations of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
b. Silvicultural activities subject to the provisions of the Forest Practices
' Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15NCAC 11.6101-. 6209).
c. Recreational activities.
d. Residential development, including customary home occupations.

e. Non-residential development, excluding 1) the storage of toxic and
hazardous materials unless a spill containment plan is implemented, 2) landfills, and 3)
sites for land application of sludge/residuals or petroleum contaminated soils. New
industrial development is required to incorporate adequately designed, constructed and
maintained spill containment structures if hazardous materials are either used, stored or
manufactured on the premises.
2. Density and Built -upon Limits:
a. Single Fanuly Residential --development shall not exceed one dwelling unit
' per acre on a project by project basis. No residential lot shall be less than one acre (or
40,000 square feet excluding roadway right-of-way), except within an approved cluster
development.
' b . All Other Residential and Non -Residential --development shall not exceed
twelve percent (12%) built -upon area on a project by project basis. For the purpose of
calculating built- upon area, total project area shall include total acreage in the tract on
which the project is to be developed.
E. WS-III Watershed Areas - Balance of Watershed (WS-III-BW) (Pigeon River, Campbell
' Creek, Cullasaja River, Tuckasegee River and Jonathan Creek) In order to maintain a predominantly
undeveloped land use intensity single family residential uses shall be allowed at a maximum of two
dwelling units per acre. All other residential and non-residential development shall be allowed a
maximum of twenty-four percent (24%) built -upon area. In addition, development other than single
' family residential development may occupy ten percent (10%) of the balance of the watershed which is
outside the critical area, with a seventy percent (70%) built -upon area when approved as a Special
Intensity Allocation (SLQ). The Watershed Development Administrator is authorized to approve SIA's
consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. Projects must minimize built -upon surface area, direct
stormwater away from surface waters and incorporate Best Management Practices to minimize water
quality impacts. Non -discharging landfills and sludge application sites are allowed.
1. Allowed Uses:
a. Agricultural activities subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of
' 1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 and all rules and
regulations of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
b. Silvicultural activities subject to the provisions of the Forest Practices
Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15NCAC 11.6101-.6209).
c. Recreational activities.
d. Residential development, including customary home occupations.
e. Non-residential development excluding discharging landfills and the storage
of toxic and hazardous materials unless a spill containment plan is implemented.
' 2. Density and Built -upon Limits:
a. Single Family Residential --development shall not exceed two dwelling units
' per acre on a project by project basis. No residential lot shall be less than one-half acre
and not less than 20,000 square feet excluding roadway right of way, except within an
approved cluster development.

I
1
1
rl
J
I
I
11
11
R
I
I
I
11
I
Cl
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TUCKASEIGEE WATER 8r SEWER AUTHORITY
3.5 MGD SBR WWTP EXPANSION FILTERS AND UV
JANUARY 2008
PHASE 1 - WWTP NO. 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Headworks upstream of Infl. PS Mechanical Bar Screen, Grit/Grease Removal
$825,000
2
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Headworks
$176,000
3
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$100,000
4
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank One basin
$650,000
5
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120,000
6
SBR Equipment
$550,000
7
Install SBR Equipment
$250,000
8
IConvert Existing Aeration Basin to Pre and Post Flow EO Basins
$330,000
9
Other Silework
$50,000
10
Stream Relocation -
$110,000
11
Yard Piping and flow control valves
$300,000
12
Electrical
$350,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
$3 811,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2008 DOLLARS AT 3% INFLATION
$3,925,000
Preliminary Engineering Phases 1 and 2
$25,000
Design, Permitting and Construction Administration Phase 1
$263,700
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 1
$125,000
Legal Phases 1 and 2
$75,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 1
$393,000
Environmental Assessment Phases 1 and 2
$10,000
Biological, Geotechnical and other surveys Phases 1 and 2
$65,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - FIRST PHASE
$4,882,000
PHASE 2 - WWTP NO. 1 - EXPANSION TO 3.5 MGD
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Replace Pum s at Influent Pump Station
$250,000
2
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank One basin
$650,000
3
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120,000
4
SBR Equipment
$550,000
5
Install SBR Equipment
$250,000
6
Convert Existing Aeration Basin to Post Equalization Basin
$100 000
7
Tertiary Filter Tanks
$450,000
8
ITertiary Filler Equipment Installed
$1,150,000
Disinfection
$900000
Convert Existin E ualization Basin to Di ester
$150,000
New Laborato /Administration Buildin
$350,000
Allowance for Laborato Furniture and E ui ment
$130,000
PUV
Other Silework
$500,000
As hall Pavin
$110,000
Yard Pi in
$300,000
Skid Mounted Residuals D er - Installed
$1,500,000
Residuals Conveyors
$125,000
18
iMetal Building for Dryer - adjacent to existing Sludge Processing Building
$200,000
19
Covered area for Residuals storage
$75,000
20
lEffluent Water System
$70,000
21
1 Electrical
$600,000
SUBTOTAL- PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
$8530000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2009 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$9,049,000
Design, Permitting and Construction Administration Phase 2
$564,658
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 2
$150,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 2
$905,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - SECOND PHASE
$10,669,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED.
$15,551,000
Bond Anticipation Interest (Phases 1 and 2) - 2.5 yrs @ 4.25%
$1,850,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$17,401,000

I
I
i
11
I
I
1
The projected TWSA service area wastewater flow for the planning period
is approximately 3.5 mgd. For the purpose of this evaluation, it has been assumed
that, at some point in the planning period, existing WWTP No. 2 will be
decommissioned. Two of the alternatives presented in this section are options
which expand WWTP No. 1 from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd. At the request of TWSA,
NCDWQ issued speculative limits in 2006 to increase the discharge at WWTP
No. 1 to 3.5 mgd.
TABLE 2.1-2: Speculative NPDES Monthly Average Permit Limits — TWSA
Plant No. 1 As Issued by NCDWO
Parameter
Limit
Flow
3.5 mgd
BOD5
30 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids
30 mg/1
Dissolved Oxy en
Monitor only
Ammonia Nitrogen
22.4
Total Residual Chlorine
28 ug/1
Fecal Colifonn
200/100 ml
This section will also evaluate an alternative which includes the
construction of a new 2.0 mgd wastewater treatment in the Cullowhee area, while
maintaining the capacity of WWTP No. 1 at 1.5 mgd. It is assumed that the
proposed Cullowhee WWTP in this option will also discharge to the Tuckaseigee
River, and that the speculative NPDES pen -nit limits shown above remain valid.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: NO ACTION
The performance of the existing wastewater treatment facility indicates
that improvements are necessary in order to consistently achieve compliance with
the current NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, the projected wastewater
Envirotniental Report PG. 6 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. January 2008

C
11
i
1
11
I
1
i
r
I
Tuckaseigee River Basin, NC Wildlife Resources Commission 2001). Game
fish include several species of Trout, small mouth bass, rock bass and sunfish.
Wildlife native to the area include white tail deer, black bear, wild turkey,
bobcats, coyotes, beavers, river otters, and many other mammals.
3. Vegetation
In the area where the existing treatment plant is currently located vegetation
surrounding tanks and buildings is maintained grass. There are woodlands
located on the treatment plant site outside of this area mostly consisting of
hardwoods. There are a wide variety of woodlands within the service area
typical of western North Carolina including both hardwoods and softwoods.
3 5 2 Environmental Consequences
1. Threatened or Endangered Species
Construction of the proposed project on the existing wastewater treatment
plant site will require the clearing of approximately 0.5 acres. Impacts on
wildlife from this clearing are expected to be minimal due to its location
bordering to the existing WWTP.
The proposed project will pennit an increase in the volume of treated
wastewater discharged to the Tuckaseigee River from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd.
This a relatively small percentage of the river's summer 7Q10 of 149.6 cfs at
the TWSA Plant No. 1 discharge point. The permitted wastewater discharge is
currently 1.6% of the 7Q10 flow and will increase to 3.6 % with the proposed
project. The Speculative Effluent Limits issued by DWQ in 2006 for 3.5 mgd,
indicate that discharge limits will be identical to the current limits with the
exception of the addition of an armnonia nitrogen limit of 22.4 mg/l. The
chosen alternative utilizes a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process
which will provide a higher quality effluent than the existing WWTP. With
' Environmental Report PG. 26 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. January 2008

the exception of ammonia nitrogen permit limits will remain the same,
however the effluent quality is expected to be increased significantly from the
existing WWTP which has been in noncompliance with its permit. The
'
proposed plant will be conservatively designed to meet the pennit limits by
typically producing effluent concentrations of approximately 50% of the
'
permitted concentrations for BOD and TSS. The SBR process provides a high
degree of operational flexibility for aerated and anoxic cycles in the biological
process which will reduce nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations. Scoping Continents dated June 5, 2007 from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service reference particular concerns for ammonia and chlorine
concentrations and their potential effects on the mussel population. Arrunonia
is reduced in the wastewater by nitrification biological process which occurs
as the ammonia is oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate. This process requires a
longer detention time than BOD oxidation and is typically difficult to achieve
in a short detention time as occurs in the existing treatment plant. Anunonia
'
reduction is not required by the permit but is typically achieved by a
conservatively designed WWTP. The proposed SBR treatment plant will
include a significantly longer hydraulic and solids retention time and therefore
will reduce the effluent armnonia concentrations on a more consistent basis.
'
Chlorine feed for disinfection will be flow paced to prevent overdosing more
chlorine than is necessary for disinfection. The effluent will be de -chlorinated
'
prior to discharge with sulfur dioxide injection paced by a residual chlorine
analyzer and flow reading. This equipment should minimize the impacts of
chlorine and de -chlorination byproducts on the receiving stream. Based on
this information the impact on shellfish or fish and their habitats from the
'
increased discharge volume is expected to be insignificant.
' Indirect impacts from development in the area may cause the depletion of
' some natural areas currently being utilized as habitat for terrestrial species.
The extent of these impacts cannot be determined without knowing the actual
locations of future development.
' Environmental Report PG. 27 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. January 2008

' Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment
The USDA, Rural Utilities Service has received an application for financial assistance from Tuckaseigee Water
and Sewer Authority. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Rural Utilities Service Has
prepared an Environmental Assessment that evaluated the potential environmental effects and consequences
of the proposed project. This notice announces the availability of the Environmental Assessment for public
review and comment.
The proposed project consists of the upgrade and expansion of the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
Number 1 to enable the treatment plant to provide treatment capable of meeting NPDES permit limits and
comply with the conditions required by the Special Order by Consent under which the plant is currently
operating. The proposed improvements will enable the plant to consistently meet the discharge limits specified
in the permit. The proposed improvements will increase the facility capacity from 1.5 million gallons per day
(MGD) to 3.5 MGD to enable to the Authority to meet current and future demands over the 20 year planning
period. The proposed construction and improvements will be limited primarily to the site of the existing
wastewater treatment plant Number 1 located on North River Road (SR 1359), Sylva, Jackson County, NC and
include the following:
1) Construction of new Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR's) which utilize the activated sludge treatment
process in a phased batch mode of operation. Included are two new concrete batch reactor tanks.
' 2) Construction of a new headworks facility, including mechanical screening and grit removal, to be located
upstream of the existing influent pump station and includes replacement of the influent pumps.
3) Conversion of the, existing aeration basin to a post -equalization basin downstream of the SBR's,
conversion of the existing rectangular clarifier to a chlorine contact basin, and conversion of the existing
' equalization basin to a sludge digester. The effluent will be dechlorinated prior to discharge. The residuals
disposal facilities will be upgraded with a proposed residuals dryer.
' 4) Construction of a new laboratory/administration building.
The proposal includes the incorporation of best -management construction practices including sedimentation
'and erosion controls in order to minimize any temporary direct environmental impacts during construction. Any
potential indirect impacts will be mitigated by enforcement of local and state land use and development
regulations. Alternatives to the proposed project were explored including 1) No action, 2) Expand/Upgrade
Plant No. 1 to extended aeration, 3) Construction of a new 2.0 MGD WWTP near Cullowhee and Upgrade
' plant No. 1, 4) Land application of reclaimed water, 5) Regional system.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for review at Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
elocated at 1246 West Main Street, Sylva, NC 28779 or the USDA Rural Development Area Office located at 84
Coxe Avenue, Suite 1 E, Asheville, NC 28801. For further information contact Pamela H. Hysong at the above
Rural Development Office or by calling 828-254-0916 Extension 7. Any person interested in commenting on
'this proposed project should submit comments to USDA Rural Development, 84 Coxe Avenue, Suite 1E,
Asheville, NC 28801 not later than December 2, 2007.
'"USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender." To file a complaint of discrimination write
USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call
[phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
' A general location map of the proposal is shown below.
1

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CENTRAL SYSTEM WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION - SITE PLAN
TUCKASEIGEE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
v /
PROPOSED
SBR TREATMENT
\ \ UNITS (2 BASINS)
I� '` 510RI.LE
MG 0 I
CONVERT CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN TO
DE -CHLORINATION BASIN °
CONVERT EXISTING AE To 1 BASIN
TO NEW POST EOUAGIZAZ T N BASIN
PROPOSED CONVERT EXISTING CLARIFIERSTO
OFFICE / LAB $ I'. �� NEW CHLORINE FACILITY CONTACT BASIN ,
I� EXISTING SLUDGE BELT PRESS / >
\\v�� INFLUENT PUMP TO REMAIN IN SERVICE
� '
STATION UPGRADE I SEPTAGE RECEIVING STATION
(completed in earlier project)
r� EXISTING DIGESTER / Q`'
PROPOSED TO REMAIN IN SERVICE
HEADWORKS WITH 1 SETBACK
BAR SCREEN AND <. \ CONVERT EXISTING
GRIT REMOVAL EQUALIZATION BASIN / Q�
\ \ 3o TO NEW DIGESTER
v
of ao
NOT TO SCALE N
y
SYLVA ,. North River Road
Y\` DILLSBOROY NCSR 1359
60' Right of Way
% 7 NORTH
/ RIVER ROAD
23 PROJECT '
-V J LOCATION i
�17t1
TUCKASEIGEE
RIVER _

I
I
1
I
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
CENTRAL SYSTEM WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: David L. Honeycutt, E.I.
Reviewed By: Michael J. Waresak, P.E.
@McGfllA
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Asheville, North Carolina
October 2007
05734
\\`\\0% I ICI 1111 ////i
S A =
019950 e
/�1-;Ie i i ii i P����

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' The proposed project will increase the discharge volume of the Tuckaseigee
Water and Sewer Authority Plant No. 1 (NPDES Permit NC0039578) from
' 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd. The project is needed to improve the existing treatment
' facilities that are operating under a Special Order by Consent and to provide
service to the growth occurring in and around the current service area for
' TWSA based on 20 year flow projections.
Six (6) alternatives to the proposed project were considered including
alternate treatment technologies, building a new plant to serve one portion of
the service area with upgrades to the existing plant and land application
' systems. Based on this evaluation the sequencing batch reactor technology
was chosen based on the lowest capital cost and present worth due to the
utilization of existing basins.
' The affected environment includes the direct impacts from construction of the
proposed treatment plant on the existing treatment plant property and the
esurrounding service area. Direct impacts from construction on the project site
are expected to be minimal requiring only 0.5 acres to be cleared and grading
' work. The direct impact of the increased discharge flow is expected to be
insignificant as it will only increase discharge flow from 1.6% to 3.6% of
t
I
11
7Q10 stream flow. Furthermore, the proposed project will upgrade the
treatment technology from the existing plant, constructed in the early 1970's
to a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process. This treatment process
will reduce the effluent concentrations of several constituents and provide a
more consistent quality effluent.
The project will potentially encourage some indirect impacts such as increased
development in the service area due to wastewater treatment availability. The
actual impact of the availability of sewer service on development in the area
cannot be accurately quantified. The TWSA does not have the authority to
regulate these developments. Impacts from development in the area will be
Environmental Report PG. 1 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

' mitigated by Jackson County who has recently passed new ordinances and
' operates a local erosion control program, and other local municipalities. Based
on this analysis, impacts from the proposed project on the surrounding
environment are expected to be insignificant when properly mitigated.
[1
1
I
1
1
Environmental Report PG. 2 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
lJ
1
1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will expand the wastewater treatment capacity for the
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Plant No. 1 from 1.5 mgd to 3.5
mgd. The project includes the construction of a new headworks facility,
upgrades to the influent pump station, two basin sequencing batch reactor
treatment process, modification of the existing basins to provide post
equalization, chlorine contact, dechlorination, and sludge storage, and
upgrades to the residuals processing train. A map of the current central
sewer system service area is included in Figure 1.1-1.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT
The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade the existing facilities to
' provide treatment capable of meeting NPDES permit limits and serve growth
in the area for the 20 year planning period. TWSA Plant No. 1 is currently
operating under a Special Order by Consent due to difficulties meeting its
current permit limits. The existing facilities were constructed in the early
1970's and are no longer capable of meeting permit limits. The WWTP will
need upgrades to several treatment components to bring the plant into
' consistent compliance. Due to the scope of these upgrades and flow
projections for the service area it is most cost effective to upgrade the plant
' and increase capacity concurrently.
tThe consequences of taking no action to upgrade and expand the existing
W WTP include continued violations of the NPDES Permit and potentially a
' moratorium on new connections to the wastewater system. The impacts of a
t moratorium would be dependant on the alternatives utilized for wastewater
treatment such as small packaged wastewater treatment plants, and onsite or
' septic systems.
Environmental Report PG. 3 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

1-1
1
lI
I
1
I
I
1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A total of six (6) alternatives were considered to provide the additional treatment
and disposal required to meet the demands projected above for the central sewer system.
It is outside the scope of this document to evaluate all sewers within the central collection
system and therefore development of sewer extensions and line capacities have not been
considered in this report. The six (6) alternatives considered include:
1. No Action
2. Expand/Upgrade Plant No. 1 to Extended Aeration
3. Expand/Upgrade Plant No. 1 to Sequencing Batch Reactor
4. Construct New 2.0 MGD W WTP near Cullowhee and Upgrade Plant No. 1
5. Land Application of Reclaimed Water
6. Regional System
2.1 EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
The TWSA existing Plant No.1 was designed and installed in the early
1970's. These facilities are inadequate to consistently meet its NPDES Permit
limits and are discussed in detail in the Preliminary Engineering Report. Due to
this noncompliance the plant is currently operating under an SOC with modified
permit limits as listed in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2.1-1: Modified SOC Limits
Parameter
Permit Limits
Modified Limits (SOC)
Monthly Avg.
Weekly Avg.
Monthly Avg.
Weekly Avg.
BOD5
30 mg/l
45 mg/I
50 mg/I
75 mg/I
Total Suspended Solids
30 mg/l
45 mg/1
50 mg/l
75 mg/l
Fecal Coliform
200/100ml
400/100ml
400/100m1
2000/100ml
Environmental Report PG. 5 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

n
I
I
1
1
I
The projected TWSA service area wastewater flow for the planning period
is approximately 3.5 mgd. For the purpose of this evaluation, it has been assumed
that, at some point in the planning period, existing WWTP No. 2 will be
decommissioned. Two of the alternatives presented in this section are options
which expand WWTP No. 1 from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd. At the request of TWSA,
NCDWQ issued speculative limits in 2002 to increase the discharge at WWTP
No. 1 to 3 mgd. These speculative limits are assumed to remain valid for 3.5 mgd
and would become effective upon completion of the selected alternative.
TABLE 2.1-2: Speculative NPDES Monthly Average Permit Limits — TWSA
Plant No. 1 As Issued by NCDWO
Parameter
Limit
Flow
3.0 mgd
BOD5
30 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids
30 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen
Monitor only
Ammonia Nitrogen
Monitor only
Total Residual Chlorine
17 ug/1
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
This section will also evaluate an alternative which includes the
construction of a new 2.0 mgd wastewater treatment in the Cullowhee area, while
maintaining the capacity of WWTP No. I at 1.5 mgd. It is assumed that the
proposed Cullowhee WWTP in this option will also discharge to the Tuckaseigee
River, and that the speculative NPDES permit limits shown above remain valid.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: NO ACTION
The performance of the existing wastewater treatment facility indicates
that improvements are necessary in order to consistently achieve compliance with
the current NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, the projected wastewater
Environmental Report PG. 6 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
' flows for the planning period total approximately 3.5 mgd, which far exceeds the
' combined 2.0 mgd capacity of the two existing wastewater treatment plants, No. 1
(1.5 mgd) and No. 2 (0.5 mgd). In addition Plant No. 1 is currently under a
Special Order by Consent due to multiple violations of its NPDES permit limits
and is not capable of meeting these limits at the design capacity. Therefore, taking
no action is not a feasible alternative.
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 2: EXPAND/UPGRADE PLANT NO. 1 TO
EXTENDED AERATION
' Alternative No. 2 includes upgrading and expansion of the existing
wastewater treatment plant No. 1 to increase the facility capacity from 1.5 mgd to
3.5 mgd. It is assumed that at some point in the future, WWTP No. 2 will be
decommissioned, with all wastewater being conveyed to WWTP No. 1. The
' proposed treatment process for the expanded facility for Alternative No. 2 is an
extended aeration process to provide approximately 20 to 24 hours of hydraulic
' retention time in the aeration basins.
' The existing wastewater treatment plant property presents significant site
challenges. Topography, hydrologic features, available property, and subsurface
' rock material limit expansion options, and increase site construction costs. This
alternative also may require a culvert to be installed on the stream located at the
north side of the site, requiring that associated regulatory issues be addressed.
This alternative includes the construction of a new headworks facility,
including mechanical screening and grit removal, to be located upstream of the
' existing influent pump station. Locating the headworks upstream of the influent
pumps should reduce the maintenance required for the influent pumps, and extend
the life of the equipment. This option also includes replacement of the influent
pumps, construction of a new flow equalization basin, conversion of the existing
' equalization basin to a sludge digester, conversion of the existing aeration
basin/clarifier structure to an aeration basin, construction of new concrete aeration
Environmental Report PG. 7 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
' basins, construction of two (2) new circular secondary clarifiers with a sludge
pump station, and expansion of the existing chlorine contact basin. The effluent
' will be dechlorinated prior to discharge. A new laboratory/administration building
is also proposed.
' In addition to the treatment modifications the residuals train must also be
improved. The plant is currently disposing of residuals by dewatering on a belt
filter press and contract hauling to a landfill. The plant also has the capability of
producing Class A biosolids through a lime stabilization process. The lime
' stabilization process has not been operated in since early 2005 due to a lack of
market for this product. The lime stabilized product was difficult to spread, often
contained inorganic material due to poor screening, and the process of lime
stabilization increased the volume of residuals to be disposed of by approximately
100%. TWSA has informally discussed with the public the potential for producing
a dried residual and received a positive response. Based on these discussions and
' the lack of a long term contract for landfill disposal, the chosen improvements
include a residuals dryer and associated appurtenances.
The proposed project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase is
proposed to bring the treatment plant capacity up to 1.5 mgd to allow the plant
continue to receive new connections while permitting is completed for the
' expansion. The second phase is will include improvements to increase the plant
capacity to 3.5 mgd and residuals train improvements. The total estimated project
cost for Alternative No. 2, in 2009 dollars, is $15,621,000. A detailed preliminary
cost estimate is provided at the end of this section, along with a map showing the
' proposed improvements.
ALTERNATIVE NO.3: EXPAND/UPGRADE PLANT NO. 1 TO
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR
Alternative No. 3 includes upgrading and expansion of the existing
wastewater treatment plant No. 1 to increase the facility capacity from 1.5 mgd to
Environmental Report PG. 8 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October2007

I
h
f1
I
1
11
3.5 mgd. It is assumed that at some point in the future, WWTP No. 2 will be
decommissioned, with all wastewater being conveyed to WWTP No. 1. The
proposed treatment process for the expanded facility for Alternative No. 3 is the
construction of Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs), which utilize the activated
sludge treatment process in a phased batch mode of operation. A major advantage
of the SBR alternative for this site is that it allows the existing structures to be
utilized in the process, minimizing the number of new structures required.
As discussed for Alternative No. 2, the existing wastewater treatment plant
property presents significant site challenges. These same challenges related to
topography, hydrologic features, available property, and subsurface rock material
also exist for Alternative No. 3. This alternative also may require a culvert to be
installed on the stream located at the north side of the site, requiring that
associated regulatory issues be addressed.
As with Alternative No. 2, this alternative includes the construction of a
new headworks facility, including mechanical screening and grit removal, to be
located upstream of the existing influent pump station. Locating the headworks
upstream of the influent pumps should reduce the maintenance required for the
influent pumps, and extend the life of the equipment. This option also includes
replacement of the influent pumps.
SBRs provide influent flow equalization inherent to their design, in that
after each batch is discharged from a tank, the full tank volume is available to
provide for influent flow equalization. SBRs, however, typically require a post -
equalization facility to reduce the flow rate to the downstream treatment facilities.
This alternative includes the construction of two (2) new concrete
sequencing batch reactor tanks, conversion of the existing aeration basin to a post -
equalization basin downstream of the SBRs, conversion of the existing
rectangular clarifier to a chlorine contact basin, and conversion of the existing
Environmental Report PG. 9 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

11
i
1
1
C
I
lJ
i
1
equalization basin to a sludge digester. The effluent will be dechlorinated prior to
discharge. A new laboratory/administration building is also proposed. Residuals
disposal facilities will be upgraded with the proposed residuals dryer as discussed
in Alternative No. 2.
The proposed project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase is
proposed to bring the treatment plant capacity up to 1.5 mgd to allow the plant
continue to receive new connections while permitting is completed for the
expansion. The second phase is will include improvements to increase the plant
capacity to 3.5 mgd and residuals train improvements. The total estimated project
cost for Alternative No. 3, in 2009 dollars, is S14,165,000. A detailed preliminary
cost estimate is provided at the end of this section, along with a map showing the
proposed improvements.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4: CONSTRUCT NEW 2.0 MGD WWTP
NEAR CULLOWHEE AND UPGRADE PLANT NO. 1
Alternative No. 4 includes the construction of a new wastewater treatment
facility near Cullowhee with a rated capacity of 2.0 mgd, and upgrades to the
existing wastewater treatment plant No. 1 to utilize the extended aeration process,
while maintaining Plant No. 1 at its current capacity of 1.5 mgd. This provides
for the total 3.5 mgd capacity that is required for the planning period. As with the
other alternatives, it is assumed that at some point in the future, WWTP No. 2 will
be decommissioned, with all wastewater being conveyed to WWTP No. 1 and the
new Cullowhee WWTP. The proposed treatment process for the Cullowhee
facility for Alternative No. 4 is the construction of Sequencing Batch Reactors
(SBR's), which utilize the activated sludge treatment process in a phased batch
mode of operation.
As discussed previously, the existing wastewater treatment plant No. 1
property presents significant site challenges. These same challenges related to
topography, hydrologic features, available property, and subsurface rock material
Environmental Report PG. 10 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

also exist for the WWTP No. 1 upgrades included in Alternative No. 4. This
alternative also may require a culvert to be installed on the stream located at the
north side of the site, requiring that associated regulatory issues be addressed.
The upgrades to WWTP No. 1 includes the construction of a new
headworks facility, including mechanical screening and grit removal, to be
located upstream of the existing influent pump station. Locating the headworks
upstream of the influent pumps should reduce the maintenance required for the
influent pumps, and extend the life of the equipment. This option also includes
conversion of the existing aeration basin/clarifier structure to an aeration basin,
construction of a new concrete aeration basin, and construction of two (2) new
circular secondary clarifiers with a sludge pump station. A new
laboratory/administration building is also proposed. Residuals disposal facilities
will be upgraded with the installation of a residuals dryer as discussed in
Alternative No. 2 to serve both WWTP No. 1 and the new plant near Cullowhee.
The new WWTP near Cullowhee is based on a 2.0 mgd Sequencing Batch
Reactor facility, with headworks, influent pump station, post equalization basin,
chlorination/dechlorination facility, and post. aeration facility. A
laboratory/administration building will also be provided. A belt filter press has
been included for sludge dewatering. No additional sludge treatment facilities
have been included.
The proposed project will be constructed in two phases. The first.phase is
proposed to bring the treatment plant capacity up to 1.5 mgd to allow the plant
continue to receive new connections while permitting is completed for the
expansion. The second phase is will include improvements to increase the plant
capacity to 3.5 mgd and residuals train improvements. The total estimated project
cost for Alternative No. 4, in 2007 dollars, is $21,191,000. A detailed preliminary
cost estimate is provided at the end of this section, along with a map showing the
proposed improvements.
Environmental Report PG. I 1 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

ALTERNATIVE NO. 5: LAND APPLICATION OF
RECLAIMED WATER
An alternative to increasing discharged flow at the current Plant No. 1
location or seeking a new discharge permit near Cullowhee is to use the additional
wastewater for irrigation purposes through a reuse or land application permit.
Typically in this area irrigation rates are approximately 1-inch per week which for
the additional 2.0 mgd of flow would require a disposal area of over 500 acres.
The disposal area would need to be purchased or utilized based on an agreement
with the property owner.
Additional treatment beyond the secondary treatment included in other
alternatives would be required to meet reuse standards. If the system could not be
operated as a conjunctive reuse system where discharge is permitted when
irrigation is not feasible, effluent and upset storage would be required. In
accordance with State regulations, storage tanks would also need to be
constructed as part of the land application system to store effluent when irrigation
was not possible due to rainfall, freezing temperatures, or effluent which does not
meet reuse treatment standards. At a minimum storage would likely include 5
days of side stream storage for effluent not meeting the reuse requirements (10
MG) and 14 days of storage (28 MG) for holding when conditions do not allow
for irrigation. Actual effluent storage volume is required to be based on a water
balance analysis.
The costs of storage facilities, additional treatment for 2.0 mgd, land
acquisition, and the irrigation system would be in addition to the cost of
secondary treatment outlined in the above alternatives. If property could be found
nearby and purchased by TWSA, and a conjunctive reuse permit issued that did
not require large storage facilities this would represent the ideal situation and
lowest potential cost for this alternative. Similar to the other alternatives the
project would be constructed in two phases. The estimated cost for this ideal
Environmental Report PG. 12 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

i
11
1
E
1
situation is $27,678,000 in 2009 dollars. If the reclaimed water system is non -
conjunctive, requiring storage, the estimated cost will be well in excess of the
above estimate. Based on the large difference in capital cost between these and
other alternatives and certain higher operations cost, land application will not be
considered further.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6: REGIONAL SYSTEM
TWSA Plant No. 1 is the only plant of comparable size in Jackson County
and serves several municipalities and two colleges currently. There are no current
plans in the area to consider a larger regional system. Therefore connection to a
regional system is not a feasible alternative.
Environmental Report
McGill Associates P.A.
PG. 13 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
October2007

1
2.3 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for Alternative Into. 2 (Extended
Aeration) and No. 3 (SBR) should be similar, with the 0&M costs associated with
the SBR alternative being slightly less than the O&M costs for the Extended
Aeration alternative. The cost of operations and maintenance is anticipated to be
higher for Alternative No. 4 due to the additional equipment required for two
separate plants and operator requirements. Testing requirements will also be
duplicated in order to operate the two plants. Alternative No. 5 (Land Application
of Reclaimed Water) will also experience higher O&M costs than Alternatives
No. 2 and 3 due to the additional treatment requirements, as well as the O&M
costs associated with the land application system. 0&M costs were estimated
based on current costs for O&M adjusted for inflation, historical data, and
increased residuals disposal cost. Salvage values were included for all structures
and yard piping assuming a 50 year life for these components. Equipment was
considered to be at the end of its useful life at the end of the 20 year cost period.
All costs were estimated in or converted to 2009 dollars for comparison purposes.
The table below is a summary of these costs and the calculated present worth
amounts for the alternatives, utilizing a 5.1 % discount rate.
Environmental Report
McGill Associates P.A.
PG. 14 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
October 2007

11
t
CJ
1
1
TABLE 2.3-1: Operating Costs and Present Worth — Alternatives Analysis
Construction
Non-
Average
Salvage
Present
Forth in
Alternative
with
Construction
Annual
Value
2009
Contingency
O&M
Dollars
No. 2 - WWTP No. 1
Expansion — Extended
Aeration Process
$12,801,000
$2,820,000
$950,000
$2,979,000
$24,381,000
No. 3 - WWTP No. 1
Expansion — SBR
process
$11,530,000
$2,635,000
$950,000
$1,770,000
$24,134,000
No. 4 - Construct
WWTP near
Cullowhee and
upgrade WWTP No. 1
$17,493,000
$3,698,000
$1,050,000
$3,954,000
$30,212,000
No. 5 — Construct
WWTP and Land
Application of Reuse
Water
$18,299,000
$9,379,000
$1,100,000
$1,770,000
$39,501,000
The results indicate that Alternative No. 3 has the lowest estimated 20 year
present worth. Alternate No. 3 is also preferable due to the reduced footprint on the
treatment plant site requiring less land disturbance. The SBR treatment process will
also provide a more flexible treatment process with a higher effluent quality than the
other alternatives. Alternative No. 4 has the second highest 20 year present worth and
would result in the most environmental impacts due to the addition of a second
treatment plant site. Based on this evaluation Alternative No. 3 "WWTP No. 1
Expansion — SBR Process" has the lowest present worth and the most positive non -
monetary factors. Therefore Alternative No. 3 is the chosen alternative.
Environmental Report
McGill Associates P.A.
PG. 15 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
October 2007

I
1
n
1
11
TABLE 2.3-2
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TUCKASEIGEE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
3.5 MGD EXTENDED AERATION WWTP EXPANSION
Ortnhpr 2nn7
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Headworks upstream of Infl. PS Mechanical Bar Screen, Grit/Grease Removal
$825,000
2
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Headworks
$176,000
3
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$100,000
4
Flow Equalization Basin
$450,000
5
Two 2 Secondary Clarifiers
$1.250,000
6
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Secondary Clarifiers
$95.000
7
Sludge Pump Station between and integral with clarifiers
$225,000
8
1 Other Silework
$275.000
9
Stream Relocation
$110,000
10
Yard Piping
$300,000
11
Electrical
$370.000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
$4,176,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2008 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$4,301,000
Preliminary En ineerin Phases 1 and 2
$25,000
Engineering Basic Services (Design and Contract Administration Phase 1
$292,600
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 1
$125,000
Legal Phases 1 and 2
$75.000
Construction Contingencies Phase 1
$430,000
Environmental Assessment Phases 1 and 2
$10.000
Biological, Geotechnical and other surveys Phases 1 and 2
$65.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - FIRST PHASE
$5,324,000
1
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$250,000
2
Rectangular Concrete Aeration Basins
$1,925,000
3
lConvert Existing Aeration/clarifier to single aeration basin
$325,000
4
1 New Aeration Blowers
$185,000
5
IChlorine Contact Basin
$220,000
6
lNew Laborato /Administration Building
$350,000
7
Allowance for Laboratory Furniture and Equipment
$130,000
8
Convert Existing EQ Basin to Digester
$150,000
9
Yard Piping
$375,000
10
Asphalt Paving
$110,000
11
Other Sitework
$225,000
12
Electrical
$700,000
13
Skid Mounted Residuals Dryer Installled
$1,500,000
14
Residuals Conveyers
$125,000
15
Metal Buildinq for Dryer Adjacent to Existing Sludge Building
$200,000
16 lCover
for Residuals Storage Area
$75,000
17
Effluent Water System
$70,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
$6,915,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2009 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$7,336,000
Engineering Basic Services (Design and Contract Administration Phase 2
$417,200
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 2
$150,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 2
$734,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - SECOND PHASE
$8,637,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$13,961,000
Bond Anticipation Interest (Phases 1 and 2) - 2.5 yrs @ 4.25 %
$1,660,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$15,621,000
i

I
1
1
1
1
I
n
1
[1
1
1
1
I
r
1
1
TABLE 2.3-3
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TUCKASEIGEE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
3.5 MGD SBR WWTP EXPANSION
October2007
PHASE 1 - WWTP NO. 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Headworks upstream of Infl. PS Mechanical Bar Screen, Gnt/Grease Removal
$825,000
2
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Headworks
$176,000
3
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$100,000
4
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank One basin
$650,000
5
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120,000
6
SBR Equipment
$550,000
7
Install SBR Equipment
$250,000
8
jConvert Existing Aeration Basin to Pre and Post Flow EO Basins
$330,000
9
1 Other Sitework
$50,000
10
Stream Relocation
$110,000
11
Yard Piping and flow control valves
$300,000
12
Electrical
$350,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
$3,811,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2008 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$3,925,000
Preliminary Engineering Phases 1 and 2
$25,000
Design, Permitting and Construction Administration Phase 1
$263,700
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 1
$125,000
Legal (Phases 1 and 2)
$75,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 1
$393,000
Environmental Assessment Phases 1 and 2
$10,000
Biological, Geotechnical and other surveys Phases 1 and 2
$65,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - FIRST PHASE
$4,882,000
PHASE 2 - WWTP NO. 1 - EXPANSION TO 3.5 MGD
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$250,000
2
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank One basin
$650,000
3
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120,000
4
SBR Equipment
$550,000
5
Install SBR Equipment
$250,000
6
Convert Existing Aeration Basin to Post Equalization Basin
$100,000
7
Convert Existing Clarifiers to Chlorine Contact Basin
$150,000
8
Convert Existing Equalization Basin to Digester
$150,000
9
New Laborato dministration Building
$350,000
10
Allowance for Laboratory Furniture and Equipment
$130,000
11
Other Sitework
$500,000
12
Asphalt Paving
$110,000
13
Yard Pipin2
$300,000
14
Skid Mounted Residuals Dryer - Installed
$1,500,000
15
Residuals Conveyors
$125,000
16
Metal Building for Dryer - adjacent to existing Sludge Processing Building
$200,000
17
Covered area for Residuals storage
$75,000
18
Effluent Water System
$70,000
19
Electrical
$600,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
$6,180,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2009 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$6,556,000
Design, Permitting and Construction Administration (Phase 2)
$415,600
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 2
$150,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 2)
$656,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - SECOND PHASE
$7,778,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$12,660,000
Bond Anticipation Interest (Phases 1 and 2) - 2.5 yrs @ 4.25 %
$1,505,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$14,165,000
11

TABLE 2.3-4
' PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TUCKASEIGEE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE NO.4
2.0 MGD SBR WWTP NEAR CULLOWHEE, AND
PLANT NO. 1 -1.5 MGD EXTENDED AERATION UPGRADE
Oct 2007
L
1
I ,
F
Cl
I
I
1
Item
Estimated Cost
Parts - Plant No. 1Upgrade to Extended Aeration
1
Headwmks upstream of InO. PS Mechanical Bar Screen. GnVGrease Removal
$715,000
2
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Headworks
$143,000
3
Convert Existing Aeration/clarifier to 0.75 MG aeration basin
$165,000
4
Rectangular Concrete Aeration Basin w/ Diffusers
$935,000
5
New Aeration Blowers
$132,000
6
Two 2 60' Dia. Secondary Clarifiers
$413 000
7
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Secondary Clarifiers
$33,000
0
Sludge Pump Station between and inte ral with clarifiers
$132,000
9
New LabormorylAdministrabon Building
$330,000
10
Allowance for Laboratory Furniture and Equipment
$110000
11
Other Silework
$330,000
12
Asphalt Paving
$110,000
13
Stream Relocation
$110,000
14
Yard Piping
$330.OW
15
Electrical
$385,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
$d 373 000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2008 DOLLARS AT 3% INFLATION
$4,504,000
Preliminary Engineering Phases 1 and 2
$25,000
Eng,n.eHnq Basic Services (Design and Contract Administration Phase 1
$295,000
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 1
$125,000
Legal Phases 1 and 2
$75,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 1
$450,00D
Environmental Assessment Phases1 and 2)
$i0,000
Biological, Geotechniwl and other suwe s Phases 1 and 2
$65,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - FIRST PHASE
$5,549,000
Phase 2 - 2.0 MGD SBR W WTP at Cullowhee
1
Access Road and Site Preparation Allowance
$300,000
2
Headworks, including mechanical screening and grit removal
$700,000
3
Influent Pump Station
$350,000
4
SBR Basins- Two basins, 1.0 MG each
$1,100,000
5
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for new structures Allowance
$500,000
6
SBR Equipment (Aqua Aerobics
$850 000
7
Install SBR E ui ment
$375,OW
8
Post Equalization Tank 0.2 MG
$300,000
9
Chlonne Contact Basin
$200,000
10
Chlorination/Dechlonnation Equipment and Building
$175,000
11
Post Aeration Facility
$150,000
12
Aerobic Digester Tank 0.4 MG
$500,000
13
Aeration System for Aerobic Digester
$125,000
14
Belt Filler Press Facility, including building
$600,000
15
1 New Laboratory/Administration Building
$300,000
16
Allowance for Laboratory Furniture and E ui merit
$100.000
17
1 Other Snework. including Fencing. Access Road, etc.
$500,000
18
Yard Piping
$850.W0
19
Electrical
$800.000
Residuals Dryer at Plant No. 1
1
Skid Mounted Residuals Dryer Installed
$1,500,000
2
Residuals Conveyers
$125.0DO
3
Metal Building for Dryer Adjacent to Existing Sludge Building
$200,000
4
Cover for Residuals Storage Area
$75.000
5
Effluent Waters stem
$70,000
SUBTOTAL- PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
$10,745000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2009 DOLLARS AT 3%INFLATION
$11.399.000
Engineering Basic Services (Design and Contract Administration) Phase 2
$703.300
Resident Pro ect Representative Services Phase 2
$150.000
ConsncSon Contin encies (Phase 2)
$1,140,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST -SECOND PHASE
$13,392,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
E10,941,000
Bond Anticipation Interest (Phases 1 and 21 - 2.5 yrs 4.25%
$1 ,250,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
$21,191,000

I
1
11
I
TABLE 2.3-5
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
TUCKASEIGEE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
3.5 MGD SBR WWTP EXPANSION WITH RECLAIMED WATER
October2007
PHASE 1 - WWTP NO. 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Headworks upstream of Infl. PS Mechanical Bar Screen, Grit/Grease Removal
$825,000
2
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for Headworks
$176,000
3
Replace Pumps at Influent Pump Station
$100,000
4
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank One basin
$650 000
5
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120.000
6
SBR Equipment
$550,000
7
Install SBR Equipment
$250,000.
8
Convert Existing Aeration Basin to Pre and Post Flow EO Basins
$330,000
9
Other Sitework
$50000
10
Stream Relocation
$110,000
11
Yard Piping and flow control valves
$300,000
12
Electrical
$550,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
$3,811 000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2008 DOLLARS AT 3 % INFLATION
$3,925,000
Preliminary Engineering Phases 1 and 2
$25 000
Design, Permitting and Construction Administration Phase t
$263,7DO
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 1
$125.000
Legal Phases 1 and 2
$75,000
Construction Contingencies Phase 1
$393,000
Environmental Assessment Phases 1 and 2
$10,000
Biological, Geotechnical and other surveys Phases 1 and 2
$65.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - FIRST PHASE
$4,882,000
PHASE 2 - WWTP NO. 1 - EXPANSION TO 3.5 MGD WITH RECLAIMED WATER
Item
Estimated Cost
WWTP Expansion
1
Replace Pumps m Influent Pump Station
$250,ODD
2
SBR Basin - Prestressed Concrete Tank iOne basin
$650 000
3
Earthwork and Rock Excavation for SBR Basin
$120,000
4
SBR Equipment
$550.000
5
Install SBR Equipment
$250.000
6
Convert Existing Aeration Basin to Post Equalization Basin
$100.000
7
Convert Existing Clarifiers to Chlorine Contact Basin
$150,000
0
Convert Existing Equalization Basin to Digester
$150,000
9
New Laboratory/Administration Building
$350.000
10
Allowance for Laboratory Furniture and Equipment
$130,000
11
Other Sitework
$500,000
12
Asphalt Paving
$110,000
13
Yard Piping
$300,000
14
Skid Mounted Residuals Dryer - Installed
$1,500,000
15
Residuals Conveyors
$125,000
16
Metal Building for Dryer - adjacent to existing Sludge Processing Building
$200.000
17
Covered area for Residuals storage
$75,000
18
Effluent Water System
$70,000
19
Electrical
$600.000
WWTP EXPANSION SYSTEM SUBTOTAL
$6180 000
2.0 MGD Reclaimed Water System
1
2.0 MGD Traveling Bridge Filters
$1,300,000
2
Effluent Pump Station to Irrigation Site
$3D0,000
3
18-inch Force Main to Irrigation Site Assume 2 miles
$900000
4
Four 4 Irrigation Pump Stations
$800,000
5
Spray Irrigation System for 500 acres 560 irrigation Guns and onsite in
$2 500,000
RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM SUBTOTAL
$5,800,000
SUBTOTAL - PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
$11 980,000
CONSTRUCTION COST IN 2009 DOLLARS AT 3% INFLATION
$12,710,000
Design Perrnitting and Construction Administration Phase 2
$415,600
Resident Project Representative Services Phase 2
$150,000
Construction Contingencies (Phase 2)
$1,271,000
Property Acquisition
$5.309.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST -SECOND PHASE
s79,856,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
s24,738,000
Bond Anticipation Interest (Phases 1 and 2) - 2.5 yrs 4.25 %
1 $2,940,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 1 AND 2 COMBINED
1 $27,678,000

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The affected environment includes the existing wastewater treatment plant site
which will be directly impacted, and the surrounding service area to be indirectly
impacted. Direct impacts can be clearly delineated and are confined to the project site and
the receiving surface water. Indirect impacts will be caused by development in the area
utilizing the sewer service. Although population projections include an over 8,000
additional persons to be served, this growth is not solely contributed to the expansion of
the wastewater treatment plant. Some portion of the population to be served will be
existing dwellings, another portion will be new construction that would have utilized
onsite wastewater systems or utilized a separate discharge if they could not be served by
TWSA. It is likely that some development will occur at a higher density than would have
otherwise been possible due to the availability of sewer service. TWSA is not a
governing body and does not have the authority to institute zoning or otherwise regulate
development in its service area. Jackson County has recently passed new regulations to
protect the environmental resources in the area. Ordinances in place include a Mountain
and Hillside Development Ordinance, Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance, Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance, and a Land Development Plan composed in cooperation
with local municipalities, educational institutions, the TWSA and other partners. The area
municipalities are in favor of preserving the mountains natural, visual and historic
character. The provisions of the Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance are
"intended to prevent developments that will erode hillsides, result in sedimentation of lower
slopes and bodies of water, cause damage from landslides or create the potential for damage
from landslides, flood downhill properties, or result in the severe cutting of trees or the
scarring of the landscape. " The following paragraphs describe the specific environmental
resources in the area and what affects the proposed project may have on them both
directly and indirectly.
Environmental Report PG. 16 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

L
I 1
11
1
3.1
LAND USE/ IMPORTANT FARMLAND
/ FORMALLY CLASSIFIED LANDS
3.1.1 Affected Environment
The proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion will be constructed on the
existing wastewater treatment plant site. The site is adjacent to the
Tuckaseigee River south of Sylva and Dillsboro.
Land use within the service area is typical of a small urban area with a mix of
residential and commercial uses. Commercial areas are concentrated along the
main roadways and around "downtown" areas of Sylva, Dillsboro, and
Webster. Residential areas surround these higher density commercial areas.
The Village of Forest Hills is 100% residential.
Western Carolina University (WCU) is located within the current service area.
WCU's campus is typical of a university and consists of residence halls,
classroom buildings and sports facilities. The area surrounding the University
is a census designated place, Cullowhee, and has a large percentage of
apartment buildings housing students living off campus. According to 2000
census data 69.6% of occupied housing units where renter occupied in
Cullowhee compared to the national average of 33.8%.
1. Topography
The wastewater treatment plant site has mild slopes in the center of the site
located between two small ridges. The existing plant lies in this area and the
proposed improvements will be centered around. The sides of the ridges have
relatively steep slopes of 40 to 50% with ridge lines sloping at about 20-30%.
The service area topography is typical of the southern Appalachian
Mountains. Elevations range from less than 2000 ft along the Tuckaseigee
River to over 3000 ft at Kings Mountain near the center of the service area.
Environmental Report PG. 17 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

11
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Slopes in the service area vary from well over 50%, mostly at higher
elevations, to gentle slopes along stream and river valleys where most existing
development is currently concentrated. Slopes in Jackson County are
distributed as shown in the Table IV-1 based on data from the National
Cooperative Soil Survey, Web Soil Survey 1.L
Table IV-]: Jackson County Slopes
Slope
Percent of
Jackson
County
0-15%
10.6%
15-30%
24.1 %
30-50%
33.7%
>50%
28.7%
2. Soils
Soils on the wastewater treatment plant site consist of loamy Udorthents
around the existing plant area and Evard Cowee Complex on the surrounding
ridges. Urdorthents are typical of an urban area where significant grading has
occurred mixing subsoils and Evard Cowee Complex is a fine loamy mesic
soil.
Soils in the project area include a wide variety of soil types such as fine sandy
loams, clay loams, and gravelly loams. Many of these soils are classified as
stony according to data from the National Cooperative Soil Survey, Web Soil
Survey 1.1.
3. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
A small percentage of the wastewater treatment plant site is classified as
prime farmland with Evard Cowee Complex soils with slopes of 8-15%.
A total of 5.6% of the area defined as the current service area is classified as
prime farmland according to data from the National Cooperative Soil Survey,
Web Soil Survey I. L An additional. 8.1 % of the area is classified as farmland
Environmental Report PG. 18 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
of statewide importance. The remaining 86.3 % is not prime or unique
' farmland.
4. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
' The existing wastewater treatment plant is located on property owned by the
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer District. The proposed project will utilize this
site.
Jackson County includes portions of the Nantahala National Forest to the
' south and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the northern part of
the County. According to the Jackson County Land Development plan
' approximately 25% of the County is public lands such as national forest,
stated owned or public utility owned property. As shown in the "Jackson
' County Protected Areas" map included in the appendix most of this land is
located outside of the current service area. The Tuckaseigee River provides
' recreational opportunities including fishing and rafting.
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences
The proposed project will not require change in the land use on the project
site. The project is not expected to cause any significant increase in noise or
odors in the area and will maintain the vegetative buffer around the treatment
'
works. Therefore the proposed project is not expected to have any direct
impact on land use.
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority does not have the authority to
implement zoning or land use plans in its service area. Secondary impacts of
the proposed project will include some development in the area. The
'
availability of sewer service will encourage development to be located in
areas that currently have sewer service available or can be easily served. This
'
is expected to provide some reduction of sprawl.
Environmental Report PG. 19 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

1. Topography
The proposed project will require some grading on the existing wastewater
treatment plant site to install new headworks, wastewater treatment basins and
office/lab facility.
Due to the topography of the service area, development of any kind generally
requires some grading work. It is expected that the indirect impacts could
occur in this form due to increased development.
2. Soils
Soils on the proposed project site will be disturbed during construction due to
' the grading necessary to install new headworks, wastewater treatment basins
and the office/lab facility. Any excess soil cut from the site will be removed
' by the contractor in a manner to be consistent with surrounding topography
and minimize erosion.
Similarly, it is anticipated that soils in the TWSA service area will be
indirectly impacted by the development in the area. This impact cannot be
quantified as it is impossible to determine how much of the future
development in the area is caused by the proposed project.
3. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
A small percentage of the wastewater treatment plant site is classified as
prime farmland with Evard Cowee Complex soils with slopes of 8-15%.
These lands have been previously committed to other uses and are no longer
considered important farmland. Therefore, no significant impacts to prime or
unique agricultural lands are expected to occur as a direct result of the
proposed project.
Indirect impacts to prime or unique agricultural lands may occur as
development utilizes land that is more gently sloping and easier to develop.
Environmental Report PG. 20 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
L
u
[]
All soils in the area are classified as "very limited" or "somewhat limited" for
purposes of septic systems. Approximately 30% of the prime or unique
agricultural land in the service area is classified as "somewhat limited" for
septic systems and is likely to, develop regardless of the expansion of the
treatment facilities. A total of 13.7% of the current service area is defined as
prime or unique agricultural lands. It is anticipated that any impacts to these
lands will be insignificant due to the relatively small amount of prime or
unique farmland in the area.
4. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
The proposed project will be constructed on public lands which are currently
being used as a wastewater treatment plant site. The impacts from
constructing additional facilities on this site will not affect the use of these
public lands and is therefore not considered a significant impact.
The wastewater from the proposed wastewater treatment plant will discharged
to the Tuckaseigee River which is used for recreational purposes downstream.
The Tuckaseigee River is the largest waterway in the area with a summer
7Q10 of 149.6 cfs at the TWSA Plant No. 1 discharge point. The permitted
wastewater discharge is currently 1.6% (1.5 mgd) of the 7Q10 flow and will
increase to 3.6 % (3.5 mgd) with the proposed project. The impacts from the
increased discharge are expected to be insignificant due to the relatively small
portion of wastewater to be discharged compared to the background stream
flow.
3.1.3 Mitieation
Direct impacts on the project site due to erosion will be mitigated by
utilization of best management practices. The selected alternative includes the
minimum land disturbance of any of the alternatives considered. Direct
impacts to the project site have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Environmental Report PG. 21 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

i
II
11
1
C
1
New developments in the area will be required to follow best management
practices for erosion control during land disturbing activities under Jackson
County's Sediment Control Ordinance. The Mountain and Hillside Protection
Ordinance states that "Earth moving shall be limited to the minimum required
for building foundations, driveways, drainage control structures and immediate
areas surrounding the building, structure, road driveway, or drainage structure
required by this Ordinance."
3.2 FLOOD PLAINS
3.2.1 Affected Environment
All surface waters in the project area are located in the Tuckaseigee River
watershed, a tributary of the Little Tennessee River watershed. The project
site borders the Tuckaseigee River and the lowest portion of the site is located
within an area designated as Zone A by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). As noted in FEMA 81-93 Standard Flood Hazard
Determination all proposed buildings on the WWTP site are outside of the
Special Flood Hazard Area. The 500 year flood elevation for this area has not
been mapped by FEMA.
FEMA has mapped floodplains on the Tuckaseigee River and several of its
larger tributaries in the TWSA service area.
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
As all proposed improvements are to be constructed outside of the 100 year
flood (Zone A) area there will be no direct environmental consequences from
the proposed project.
Development within the service area will increase impervious area and may
therefore increase runoff from the area. Approximately one third of Jackson
County is located in a public water supply watershed which limits impervious
Environmental Report PG. 22 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

area. It is impossible to accurately estimate the amount of increased runoff
' and/or changes to the flood characteristics due to the indirect impacts of the
proposed project.
3.2.3 Mitigation
'
No mitigation is necessary for the project construction since there are no
direct impacts of the project. The Jackson County Flood Damage Prevention
'
Ordinance regulates construction in flood plain areas and is expected to
minimize impacts of future development on the flood plain and flood damage.
'
The Ordinance permits no new construction, fill, substantial improvements
etc. in floodway areas or within 30 ft of streams where base flood elevations
'
and/or floodways have not been established. The Ordinance also requires all
residential development to have a finished floor elevation a minimum of 2 feet
above the base flood elevation and non-residential to meet the same
requirement or in Zone A areas be "flood -proofed".
3.3 WETLANDS
3.3.1 Affected Environment
'
There are no wetlands located on the project site according to US Fish and
Wildlife Service wetlands mapping software. The site borders the Tuckaseigee
River. No wetlands will be directly impacted by the proposed project.
' There are very few wetlands located in the project service area. There are no
large wetland areas within the project area but there are some smaller wetland
' areas located at the headwaters of and along streams. Wetlands that do occur
in the area are mostly freshwater emergent and freshwater forested/shrub. See
' wetlands map in the exhibits section.
t
Environmental Report PG. 23 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
No wetlands will be directly affected by the project. Wetlands in the project
area may be affected by construction of roads and other development
' subsequent to the W WTP expansion.
3.3.3 Mitigation
There are State and Federal regulations applicable to the protection of
' wetlands. If these rules are adequately enforced they should prevent any
significant impacts to wetlands in the project area and/or require replacement
' of any wetlands that are impacted.
' 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
' 3.4.1 Affected Environment
The existing wastewater treatment plant site has already been disturbed and
' any additional disturbance caused by the proposed project is therefore not
expected to have any archaeological or historical value.
There may be many areas of archaeological and historical value within the
' service area of the proposed project. These areas will not be directly affected
by the project and therefore their existence has not been researched for this
' project.
' 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
There are no direct impacts to cultural resources anticipated as part of this
' project. Indirect impacts may be caused by development in areas where
archeological sites have not been previously studied.
1
3.4.3 Mitigation
' Cultural resources in the area are protected by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and NC GS 121-12(a). In the Jackson County Land
1
Environmental Report PG. 24 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
Development Plan all of the municipalities have expressed interest in
' preserving the historic landmarks in their communities. The Town of
Dillsboro is considering the establishment of a Historic District as part of
' working toward their goal to "Preserve Historic Treasures" established at a
visionary meeting held in the fall of 2005.
1 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1 3.5.1 Affected Environment
' 1. Threatened or Endangered Species
According to a Fish and Wildlife Website updated December 11, 2006, there
are 52 species with habitat in Jackson County listed as endangered,
threatened, species of concern or candidates. These include a total of 18
vertebrate species listed counting 15 federal species of concern, 1 candidate
' and 2 endangered.
' There are 20 vascular plant species listed as species of special concern or
threatened, an additional 6, nonvascular plants listed as species of special
' concern and a species of lichen listed as endangered.
Streams in the project area provide habitat to several animal and plant species
that have received critical designations by the State of North Carolina, and by
' the Federal Government. The Tuckaseigee River is critical habitat for the
Appalachian Elktoe which is listed on the Endangered Species List. Several
fish of interest with habitat in the area include the Olive Darter, Smokey Dace,
' Sicklefin Redhorse, and Wounded Darter.
1 2. Fish and Wildlife
A total of 55 fish species have been recovered during surveys in the
' Tuckaseigee River basin (Fisheries and Wildlife Management Plan for the
Environmental Report PG. 25 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
F
1
Tuckaseigee River Basin, NC Wildlife Resources Commission 2001). Game
fish include several species of Trout, small mouth bass, rock bass and sunfish.
Wildlife native to the area include white tail deer, black bear, wild turkey,
bobcats, coyotes, beavers, river otters, and many other mammals.
3. Vegetation
In the area where the existing treatment plant is currently located vegetation
surrounding tanks and buildings is maintained grass. There are woodlands
located on the treatment plant site outside of this area mostly consisting of
hardwoods. There are a wide variety of woodlands within the service area
typical of western North Carolina including both hardwoods and softwoods.
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
1. Threatened or Endangered Species
Construction of the proposed project on the existing wastewater treatment
plant site will require the clearing of approximately 0.5 acres. Impacts on
wildlife from this clearing are expected to be minimal due to its location
bordering to the existing W WTP.
The proposed project will permit an increase in the volume of treated
wastewater discharged to the Tuckaseigee River from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd.
This a relatively small percentage of the river's summer 7Q10 of 149.6 efs at
the TWSA Plant No. 1 discharge point. The permitted wastewater discharge is
currently 1.6% of the 7Q10 flow and will increase to 3.6 % with the proposed
project. The Speculative Effluent Limits issued by DWQ in 2002 for 3.0 mgd,
indicate that discharge limits will be identical to the current limits with the
exception of residual chlorine which is reduced from 28 ug/l to 17 ug/l. The
chosen alternative utilizes a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process
which will provide a higher quality effluent than the existing WWTP. With
Environmental Report PG. 26 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
1
I
1
I
I
[J
r
1
the exception of the lower chlorine limit permit limits will remain the same,
however the effluent quality is expected to be increased significantly from the
existing WWTP which has been in noncompliance with its permit. The
proposed plant will be conservatively designed to meet the permit limits by
typically producing effluent concentrations of approximately 50% of the
permitted concentrations for BOD and TSS. The SBR process provides a high
degree of operational flexibility for aerated and anoxic cycles in the biological
process which will reduce nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations. Seeping Comments dated June 5, 2007 from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service reference particular concerns for ammonia and chlorine
concentrations and their potential effects on the mussel population. Ammonia
is reduced in the wastewater by nitrification biological process which occurs
as the ammonia is oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate. This process requires a
longer detention time than BOD oxidation and is typically difficult to achieve
in a short detention time as occurs in the existing treatment plant. Ammonia
reduction is not required by the permit but is typically acheived by a
conservatively designed WWTP. The proposed SBR treatment plant will
include a significantly longer hydraulic and solids retention time and therefore
will reduce the effluent ammonia concentrations on a more consistent basis.
Chlorine feed for disinfection will be flow paced to prevent overdosing more
chlorine than is necessary for disinfection. The effluent will be de -chlorinated
prior to discharge with sulfur dioxide injection paced by a residual chlorine
analyzer and flow reading. This equipment should minimize the impacts of
chlorine and de -chlorination byproducts on the receiving stream. Based on
this information the impact on shellfish or fish and their habitats from the
increased discharge volume is expected to be insignificant.
Indirect impacts from development in the area may cause the depletion of
some natural areas currently being utilized as habitat for terrestrial species.
The extent of these impacts cannot be determined without knowing the actual
locations of future development.
Environmental Report PG. 27 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
1 2. Fish and Wildlife
' The only potential for direct impacts from the proposed project is due to the
increased discharge volume to the Tuckaseigee River. This increase is only
from 1.6 % of the 7Q10 flow to 3.6% of the 7Q10 flow and therefore this
impact is expected to be insignificant. A detailed description of the impacts of
' the proposed project on effluent quality was provided in item 1. under this
section.
' Indirect impacts to fish and wildlife may occur due to increased development
in the area. Due to the large area nearby the service area that is currently
national forest land it is unlikely to significantly affect terrestrial species.
Aquatic species may be affected by the increased runoff due to more
impervious areas and sediment load during construction of development in the
' area.
' 3. Vegetation
Construction of the proposed project will require approximately 0.5 acres of
woodland to be cleared on the existing wastewater treatment plant site.
Although it is anticipated that the contractor will sell usable timber, it is
possible that some burning of cleared debris will occur. Impacts from the
small area of woodland to be cleared are expected to be insignificant.
3.5.3 Mitigation
Mitigation of the direct impacts of the proposed project on the biological
' resources in the project area will be achieved through superior treatment of the
wastewater, resulting in ammonia and chlorine removal prior to discharge.
' The indirect impacts of the proposed project are entirely related to increased
development in the project area. The TWSA does not have the authority to
' implement zoning or other mitigation techniques in the service area. Jackson
County has established new ordinances to address development in the area.
Environmental Report PG. 28 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
'
The impacts of this additional development will be mitigated by compliance
with erosion control best management practices as required by the State. In
individual developer be by State Federal
addition, each should required and
regulatory agencies to identify the presence of habitat for endangered or
impacts
special concern wildlife and take measures to mitigate to the wildlife
'
as appropriate.
'
3.6 WATER QUALITY ISSUES
3.6.1 Affected Environment
The project area is located in the Little Tennessee Watershed. The
Tuckaseigee River is the largest waterway in the area with a summer 7Q10 of
149.6 cfs at the TWSA Plant No. 1 discharge point. The Tuckaseigee River is
classified at this location as a Class C Trout stream by the Division of Water
Quality. Most other streams in the area are classified as Class C with the
'
exception of those in a water supply watershed.
' There are no named groundwater aquifers in this portion of the state. Wells in
the area had an average static water depth of 79 ft with a median of 50 ft.
Yield for the same group was an average of 19 gpm with a median of 10 gpm.
This data was collected from well permits listing Dillsboro, Sylva or Webster
' as the nearest town with a total data set of 1,141 wells.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
During construction of the project grading work and excavation will be
' required for installation of the new headworks, wastewater treatment basins
and office/lab facility. Best management practices will be utilized during this
process to minimize any sedimentation and associated impacts on water
quality. The impervious area on the treatment plant site will be increased by
less than 0.5 acres on the 21 acre site. The majority of this area although
impervious will not contribute to runoff because rains falling onto the
Environmental Report PG. 29 Tuckaseieee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
11
I
I
treatment basins will not runoff but will be discharged with the treated
wastewater to the Tuckaseigee River.
The proposed project will also permit an increase in the amount of treated
wastewater discharged to the Tuckaseigee River from 1.5 mgd to 3.5 mgd.
This a relatively small percentage of the river's summer 7Q10 of 149.6 cfs at
the TWSA Plant No. 1 discharge point. The permitted wastewater discharge is
currently 1.6% of the 7Q 10 flow and will increase to 3.6 % with the proposed
project. Although not required by the Speculative Effluent Limits issued by
DWQ, the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process will provide a
higher quality effluent than the existing WWTP. Based on this information the
impact from the increased discharge volume is expected to be insignificant.
No impacts to groundwater are expected as a direct result of the proposed
proj ect.
There is potential for some indirect impacts to water quality due to increased
development in the area. The availability of public sewer service is expected
to encourage development near the existing municipalities. These areas have
lower slopes and therefore less land disturbing activity is required for
development than in the mountainous areas. Densities in the mountainous
areas are regulated by Jackson County's Mountain and Hillside Development
Ordinance(MHDO) which does not allow increased density with the
availability of sewer service. Increased erosion and runoff may occur on some
sites near existing municipalities due to higher densities enabled by the
construction of this project.
3.6.3 Mitigation
No significant impacts are expected on water quality due to direct impacts of
the proposed wastewater treatment plant. Increased effluent quality provided
Environmental Report PG. 30 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

1
1
I
11
1
L_
1
by the modem treatment technology implemented will further reduce the
concentrations of contaminates discharged from the W WTP.
Indirect impacts from development in the project area will be mitigated by the
local erosion control program and the MHDO implemented by Jackson
County. The MHDO limits development density based on slope as shown in
the table below.
Table 3.6-1: Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance Densities
Average Slope of Land to
Be Developed or
Subdivided
Minimum Lot Size (in
acres)
Maximum Density
(lots per acre)
30-34%
2
0.5
35-39%
21/2
0.4
40-44%
5
0.2
45% or more
10
0.1
Note: Ref. Table from Jackson County Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance.
There are also stream buffers in place within the public water supply
watershed (30 ft vegetative buffer) and for streams designated as trout streams
by the Division of Water Quality (25 ft from top of bank).
3.7 COASTAL RESOURCES
There are no coastal resources located in the project area.
3.8 SOCIO-ECONOMIGENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES
3.8.1 Affected Environment
The majority of the Jackson County is 0-10% minority by block according to
EPA Enviromapper with some areas of 10-20% minority. The large area to the
north of Sylva that is represented as 40-100% minority is the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians(EBCI) Reservation. The EBCI own and operate wastewater
Environmental Report PG. 31 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

11
1
I
1
1
systems on the reservation. The area directly around the wastewater treatment
plant is also 0-10% minority as shown on the map included in Section 6.0.
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
The only potential for direct impacts of the proposed project on minority
communities is the increased discharge to the Tuckaseigee River. The EBCI
owns property downstream of the facility nearby the Tuckaseigee River. This
impact is anticipated to be insignificant due to the proportionally low increase
compared to the flow in the river and the higher treatment quality provided in
the proposed project. A Civil Rights Impact Analysis (RD 2006-38) was
prepared by the Rural Utilities Service and indicates the opinion that no major
civil rights impact is likely to result from this project.
3.8.3 Mitigation
There are no significant socio-economic impacts expect from the project and
therefore no mitigation is necessary.
3.9 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
3.9.1 Air Ouatity
The project area is not currently a non -attainment area for any pollutants
under the Clean Air Act. The Great Smokey Mountains are the nearest non -
attainment area and are classified as subpar for 8-hour ozone standards. Air
' quality near the site may be affected slightly during construction. Although it
is anticipated that the contractor will sell usable timber, it is possible that
some burning of cleared debris will occur, resulting in smoke entering the
atmosphere. Dust will also likely increase in the area during construction.
This degradation in air quality will be temporary and will cease after
construction is complete. The potential ongoing impacts to air quality are due
' to the larger quantity of wastewater being treated at the plant site and the
proposed residuals dryer. The dryer will not incinerate solids but is used to
Environmental Report PG. 32 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
' McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
evaporate water to create a drier final biosolids product. Emissions from the
' residuals dryer will be treated by a biological filter and are not expected to
cause any significant impact to air quality. Similarly although the quantity of
' odor may increase somewhat at the plant site it is not expected to have any
significant impacts off of the project site.
' 3.9.2 Noise
' Noise levels will be increased during construction at the project site and
remain somewhat higher afterwards due to the increased blower capacity
' required for treatment. Noise at the plant site is expected to be mitigated by a
forested area, maintained on three sides of the WWTP while the forth side
' borders South River Road.
' 3.9.3 Transportation
Traffic around the project site will be increased slightly during construction
' due to the contractor's staff and delivery of equipment to the site. These
impacts will cease after construction is completed and are therefore expected
ito be insignificant.
1 4.0 SUMMARY OF NIITIGATION
' Measures that will be taken to minimize the impacts of the proposed project
are limited to those measures taken at the project site. Erosion control will be
' designed and constructed taking into account best management practices to
prevent sediment from leaving the project site. Impacts from the additional
discharge are expected to be mitigated by the provision of a wastewater
treatment technology that provides a better and more consistent level of
' treatment.
' The TWSA is not capable of implementing, zoning or other mitigative
' measures related to the secondary or indirect impacts of the proposed project.
Environmental Report PG. 33 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
These impacts will be mitigated by the regulations put in place by the
municipalities served by the TWSA and state regulations enforced by North
Carolina. Jackson County has recently passed new regulations with the
intention of protecting the significant resources of the mountain areas. These
ordinances set maximum densities and limit disturbance for developments in
sensitive areas with steep slopes. Other state and local regulations include
protections for places with historic or archeological importance, erosion
control, 25' buffers on trout streams and other protections.
Environmental Report PG. 34 Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
1 McGill Associates P.A. October 2007

I
I
I
1
LJ
i
11
J
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 5, 2007
Mr. David L. Honeycutt, E.I.
Engineering Associate
McGill Associates
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Dear Mr. Honeycutt:
Subject: Scoping Comments, Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Upgrade of Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 1, Jackson County, North Carolina
On May 1, 2007, we received your request for comments on the subject project. The following
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act; Fish,and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to your letter, the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) is proposing to
upgrade Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 on the Tuckaseigee River in Jackson County, south
of the City of Sylva. The purpose of the project is to increase the capacity of the plant from
.1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 3.5 MGD. The TWSA has entered into a Special Order by
Consent with the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to perform
improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to allow compliance with permit limits. The
proposed project will result in an increase in the discharge into the Tuckaseigee River from 2.32
cubic feet per second (cfs) to 5.41 cfs. This more than doubling in discharge would account for
less than 4 percent of the river's summer 7Q10 flow (149.6 cfs) at the plant's discharge point.
The current permit allows for only 1.6 percent of the 7Q10 flow.
We are concerned about the potential impacts this project could have on area streams, wetlands,
and, in particular, the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana). As
correctly pointed out in your letter, the Tuckasegee River is critical habitat for this species.
When preparing you biological assessment for this project, it is important that you consider the

I 1
following constituent elements that are considered essential to the conservation of the
Appalachian elktoe:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
2. Geornorphically stable stream channels and banks;
e 3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel;
4. Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more
than low amounts of fine sediment;
t5. Moderate to high stream gradient;
6. Periodic natural flooding; and
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
' Your assessment of project impacts should include the effects of any chemicals discharged at the
' facility (ammonia, chlorine, etc.) and any other changes expected (biochemical oxygen demand,
flow, etc.) at and downstream of the discharge point. Mussels are known to be sensitive to
numerous pollutants, including, but not limited to, a wide variety of heavy metals and high
' concentrations of nutrients, ammonia, and chlorine —pollutants commonly found in many
domestic and industrial effluents. Effluent from sewage treatment facilities can be a significant
source of pollution that can severely affect the diversity and abundance of aquatic mollusks. The
' toxicity of chlorinated sewage effluents to aquatic life is well -documented (Bellanca and Bailey
1977, Goudreau et al. 1988, Tsai 1975), and mussel glochidia (larvae) rank among the most
sensitive invertebrates in their tolerance of toxicants present in sewage effluents (Goudreau et al.
' 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) also found that the recovery of mussel populations may not occur
for up to 2 miles below the discharge points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
In addition to the potential direct impacts of the proposed project, we are concerned about the
potential for indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts. Of particular concern is the fact that
the proposed project will not only facilitate but also will encourage development in the future
' service area.
We remind you that when you are assessing the potential impacts of this project, secondary (i.e.,
future connecting sewer lines, housing developments, commercial development) and cumulative
impacts must be taken into account. Future development that will occur because of the
' availability of the subject sewer service or at a higher density because of the availability of the
subject sewer service is considered interrelated/interdependent activities under section 7 of the
Act. An interrelated activity is an activity that is a part of the proposed action and depends on the
' proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no
independent utility apart from the action under consultation. A determination of whether other
activities are interrelated to, or interdependent with, the proposed action under consultation is
' made by applying a "but for" test. That is, it must be determined that the other activity under
question would not occur "but for" the proposed action under consultation.' In the context of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation
Handbook — Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Washington, D.C.
' 2
J

I
1
1
11
e
1
1
proposed expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1, the construction of new sewer lines
(that will connect to the proposed facilities) is an action that would not occur without the subject.
project. Thus, the construction of these lines is an interdependent activity, and the impacts of
these new lines must be analyzed with the effect of the expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant
No. 1. In turn, the availability of municipal sewer service is a prerequisite for some development
projects. Consequently, because these projects depend on the construction of sewer lines, which
must be connected to Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1, these developments are interrelated to
the original proposed action and must be analyzed in conjunction with the action. Therefore,
before we can conclude section 7 consultation under the Act, you must either provide us with
information showing that the expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 is not interrelated
to, or interdependent with, future development, or you must provide us with more information
regarding the impacts of the additional sewage treatment capacity and any secondary impacts
(i.e., housing developments, commercial development) made possible by its construction. For
example, the paths of any connecting sewer lines, commercial development, and impacts to any
sites that are currently known to harbor federally listed species can and should be addressed.
Similarly, future developments that plan to connect to the subject sewer service should be
surveyed for federally listed species before any ground -disturbing activities occur (before being
allowed to connect to the subject sewer service).
Enclosed is a list of federally endangered and threatened species and federal species of concern
for Jackson County. In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal
agency or its designated representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any
such activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If
it is determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated. Please note that
federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them.
It is also important that the assessment of this project include a full range of alternatives.
Alternatives are often only compared based on economics and without regard for environmental
concerns. The environmental impacts of each alternative need to be included in the assessment.
When comparing alternatives, it is also critical that the net impacts to area water quality be
considered; the goal of a sewer system is to maintain area water quality. The assessment should
therefore carefully consider the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with all
alternatives. In our experience, the combination of the increase in development and increases in
the density of development that accompany expanded sewer service will result in poorer area
water quality after project completion unless proper stream protection measures are in place
before the project is implemented. This is particularly true with gravity sewer lines because of
their traditional close proximity to waterways. The assessment should clearly show how the
proposed expansion (and accompanying development) would result in improved area water
quality over existing conditions (septic systems).
3

I
1
1
1J
1
Stream and Wetland Buffers
One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect stream health is the
preservation of riparian buffers. For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or
establishment of a minimum 100-foot native forested buffer along each side of perennial streams
and 50-foot native buffers along each side of intermittent streams and wetlands throughout the
present and future service areas of the entire municipal jurisdiction (Stewart et al. 2000). We
additionally encourage the implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important
functions they provide as headwater streams (Alexander et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 2001). For
the subject project, and all other projects potentially affecting waterways with federally listed
species, the above recommended buffer widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent
streams and 200 feet for perennial streams). Buffers should be measured horizontally from the
edge of the stream bank (Knutson and Naef 1997), which may result in wider buffers at higher
gradients, and must be provided over the entire length of the stream, including headwater
streams. Further, we recommend leaving 30 percent of the development area as green space,
which would include buffers and wetlands and ensure that the green space is connected to natural
resources.
Your assessment should also consider that if any future sewer lines that connect to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 are placed within 200 feet of perennial streams or within
100 feet of intermittent streams, the water quality benefits of providing the sewer service (if the
assessment shows there are any) could be negated by the impacts to the stream of having an
inadequate buffer zone. Additionally, if any future sewer lines are constructed within the
100-foot and 200-foot buffer zones, it is likely that adjacent development will be placed similarly
closer to streams or wetlands.
Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have greater and more flexible potential than other options to
maintain biological integrity (Homer et al. 1999) and could ameliorate many ecological issues
related to land use and environmental quality (Naiman et al. 1993). Riparian buffers serve to
protect water quality by stabilizing the stream banks, filtering storm -water runoff, and providing
habitat for aquatic and fisheries resources.
Storm -water Management
We also have concerns regarding storm -water management in the project area. Increased
development will contribute to the quantity and quality of storm water entering all of the project
area's creeks and streams. The adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is
essential to the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. The
expansion of urban areas is creating more impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking
lots), which collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit
them to receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this
nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the United States and is
linked to chronic and acute illnesses from exposure through drinking water, seafood, and contact
recreation.
1d
C

I
1
Best management practices can reduce, but not eliminate, the loading of common storm -water
1 pollutants. Designs that collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil have the highest
documented pollutant -removal efficiency, eliminating nearly all lead, zinc, and solids and more
than 50 percent of total phosphorous. Ponds and wetlands, which allow contaminants to settle
1 out of the water column or to be broken down by sunlight and biological activity, can remove
more than 70 percent of bacteria. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has
developed a "Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative
1 Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality" that we support and
encourage you to use; it can be accessed via the Internet as follows:
1 http://www.ncwildlife.orglpg07 wildlifespeciesconlpg7c3_impacts.pdf.
1
1
i
1
I
d
1
1
1
I
1
Land -clearing and disturbance activities carried out without proper sedimentation and
storm -water control pose a significant threat to the Appalachian elktoe and other freshwater
mussels. Mussels are sedentary and are not able to move long distances to more suitable areas in
response to heavy silt loads. Natural sedimentation resulting from seasonal storm events
probably does not significantly affect mussels, but human activities often create excessively
heavy silt loads that can have severe effects on mussels and other aquatic organisms. Siltation
has been documented to adversely affect native freshwater mussels, both directly and indirectly
(Aldridge et al. 1987, Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Siltation degrades water and
substrate quality, limiting the available habitat for freshwater mussels (and their fish hosts),
thereby limiting their distribution and potential for the expansion and maintenance of their
populations. Siltation also irritates and clogs the gills of filter -feeding mussels, resulting in
reduced feeding and respiration; smothers mussels if sufficient accumulation occurs; and
increases.the potential exposure of the mussels to other pollutants. Ellis (1936) found that less
than 1 inch of sediment deposition caused high mortality in most mussel species. Sediment
accumulations that are less than lethal to adults may adversely affect or prevent the recruitment
of juvenile mussels into the population. In addition, sediment loading in rivers and streams
during periods of high discharge is abrasive to mussel shells. Erosion of the outer shell allows
acids to reach and corrode underlying layers that are composed primarily of calcium, which
dissolves under acid conditions. Though Jackson County has made significant strides in
controlling sediment and erosion, agricultural practices and land development continue to stress
riparian areas and remain a source of fine sediments downstream.
Floodplains
We also remind you that Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to consider and protect
floodplain functions; the loss of woody vegetation affects floodplain function. A considerable
portion of the potential future service area is within the 100-year floodplain. We believe the
recent examples of flooding throughout North Carolina highlight the importance of avoiding the
"long- and short-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains"
and that we should "avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development." To help
prevent floodplain development, development within the floodplain should be discouraged by not
1

allowing any residential, commercial, or industrial facility built within the 100-year floodplain to
connect to current or new sewer lines (this does not preclude existing residences or businesses
from connecting).
Invasive Exotic Species
We are also concerned with the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species in association
with the proposed project. Without active management, including the revegetation of disturbed
areas with native species, project corridors will likely only be sources of (and corridors for) the
movement of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic species are a major contributor to species
depletion and extinction, second only to habitat loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the
endangered or threatened status of more than 40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic
plant species and 2,300 exotic animal species are now established in the United States, costing
more than $130 billion a year to control. Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs
and laws in place to combat invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov) and thus cannot
spend money to counter these efforts. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 -
Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or carry out
actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive
species in the United States or elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion -control benefits,
many exotic species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are established,
thereby preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotics plants2 are
also aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing already
established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that only native plant species be
used in association with all aspects of this project, including secondary impacts (i.e., connecting
sewer lines).
At this stage of project development and without more specifics about construction locations or
' techniques, it is difficult for us to assess potential environmental impacts (direct, indirect, or
cumulative). Additional potential impacts that should be addressed include any additional
development(s) that will use the expanded sewer line service. We recommend that any
environmental document prepared for this project include the following (if applicable):
1. A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (including a
' no -build alternative).
' 2. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and required
additional rights -of -way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
' 3. The acreage and a description of the wetlands that will be filled as a result of
the proposed project. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be
' 'Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http:// v .tneppc.org/and hitp://xwv.invasive.org/eastern/srs/ on
the Internet.
' 6

mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine the need for a
Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Avoiding and minimizing wetland
impacts is a part of the Corps' permitting process, and we will consider other
potential alternatives in the review of any permits.
4. The extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project. A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
'
biotic resources.
5. The acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because
'
of the proposed project.
6. A description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental
'
impacts associated with this proposed work.
7. A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
'
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts.
' 8. Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riverine, and upland) associated
with any phase of the proposed project.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you
have any questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-07-220 to this
' project; please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
'
Sin erely,
'
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
' cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
County Species List for North Carolina
' Following is a list of counties in North Carolina within which federally listed and proposed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species and federal species of concern are either known or are considered probable
(but not yet documented). It has been compiled by the USFWS from a variety of sources, including field
' surveys, museums and herbaria, literature, and personal communications.
'This list contains information that is also found in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's (NCNHP)
database of rare species information. However, the list is likely to include additional information that is not
reflected in the NCNHP database.
' This list is intended to assist those conducting surveys in proposed project areas, but it is not intended to serve
as a substitute for field surveys. The list is subject to change as new information is received. For the most
current version, please consult the website for the USFWS North Carolina Ecological Services Division at
http://nc-es fws.gov/es/.
Other notes:
Critical habitat is noted for the counties where it is designated or proposed. This notation is either accompanied
by a description of the approximate areas affected by this designation, or a Federal Register citation where a
' more detailed description of the boundaries can be found.
Sea turtles our in North Carolina's coastal waters and nest along its beaches. They are listed here in the
counties where they are known to nest. The USFWS has jurisdiction over sea turtles in terrestrial systems; the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters.
'Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters, and they are listed here in the counties where there
are known concentrations of them. The USFWS has jurisdiction over manatees.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
MMMMUMMMM
Jackson County
Critical Habitat
Invertebrate
Appalachian elktoe
I
1
Pi
Alasmidonta raveneliana
The main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State
Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the N.C.
Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina. Within these areas,
the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
(ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle, and run sequences
within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no
E

I
i
1
1
U
more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic
natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for
them. September 27, 2002, Federal Register, 67:61016-61040.
Species
Vertebrate
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Bog turtle %
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Eastern small -footed bat
Green salamander
Hellbender
Indiana bat
Northern pine snake
Northern saw -whet owl (Southern
Appalachian population)
Olive darter
Pygmy salamander
Red crossbill (Southern Appalachian)
Sicklefin redhorse
Smoky dace
Southern Appalachian black -capped
chickadee .
Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat
Southern rock vole
wounded darter
Yellow -bellied sapsucker (Southern
Appalachian population)
Invertebrate
a harvestman
' Appalachian eMoe
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
' French Broad crayfish
Southem Tawny Crescent butterfly
'Whitewater crayfish ostracod **
Vascular Plant
Blue Ridge Ragwort
Butternut
Cuthbert turtlehead
Thryomanes bewickii altus
FSC
Clemmys muhlenbergii
T (S/A)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
E
Myotis leibii
FSC.
Aneides aeneus
FSC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
FSC
Myotis sodalis
E
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
FSC
Aegolius acadicus pop. 1
FSC
Percina squamata
FSC
Desmognathus wrighti
FSC
Loxia curvirostra
FSC
Moxostoma sp. 1
C
Clinostomus funduloides ssp.
FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus
FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
FSC
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis
FSC
Etheostoma vulneratum'
FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis
FSC
Fumontana deprehendor
FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana
E
Speyeria diana
FSC
Cambarus reburrus
FSC
Phyciodes batesii maconensis
FSC
Dactylocythere prinsi
FSC
Packera millefolium
FSC
Juglans cinerea
FSC
Chelone cuthbertii
FSC
' 2

.1
1
1
I
Darlington's spurge
Fraser fir
Fraser's loosestrife
Gorge filmy fern
Granite dome goldenrod
Gray's saxifrage *
Lobed Barren -strawberry
Mountain bitter cress
Mountain catchfly
Mountain Thaspium
Radford's sedge
Small whorled pogonia
Southern Oconee -bells
Swamp pink
Sweet pinesap
Tall larkspur
Torrey's Mountain -mint
Nonvascular plant
a liverwort *
a liverwort *
a liverwort *
a liverwort *
'a liverwort *
Gorge moss
Lichen
Rock gnome lichen
' KEY:
Euphorbia purpurea
Abies fraseri
Lysimachia fraseri
Hymenophyllum tayloriae
Solidago simulans
Saxifraga caroliniana
Waldsteinia lobata
Cardamine clematitis
Silene ovata
Thaspium pinnatifidum
Carex radfordii
Isotria medeoloides
Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia
Helonias bullata
Monotropsis odorata
Delphinium exaltatum
Pycnanthemum torrei
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Plagiochila sharpii
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gymnoderma dineare
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
T
FSC
T
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
E
'Definitions of Species Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
,T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing. (Formerly "Cl" candidate species.)
I
' 3

FSC = federal species of concern. A a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing).
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with another listed species and is therefore listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not
tbiologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon whose is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
' P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or
"PT", respectively.
' Threatened due to similarity of appearance (T(S/A))•
In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle
' (from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A)
designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the
'southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private
landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official
status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as
a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
_Denotation of county records:
' % A percent symbol (%) indicates that the species is regarded as probable but as of yet
undocumented in this county due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat and/or the
proximity of confirmed observations of the species in adjacent counties.
(S) Summer habitat (Indiana bat county records only)
* Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
*** Incidentat/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Historic and obscure record.
***** Obscure and incidental record.
r1
1
' 4

I
I
' .April 27, 2007
' Mr. Brian Cole
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
' RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades
Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
Jackson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cole:
The Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority (TWSA) is in the process of performing an
environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development, to assess the environmental impacts of
proposed upgrades to its Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 in Jackson County, North Carolina.
The proposed upgrades will improve the treatment capability of the existing facilities, and allow
a capacity increase from 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 3.5 mgd. The facility currently has
an NPDES pennit to treat and discharge 1.5 mgd to the Tuckaseigee River, a Class C Trout
"cream. Enclosed is an U.S. Geological Survey map indicating the project location:
The TWSA has entered into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) with the North Carolina
' Environmental Management Commission to perform improvements to the wastewater treatment
plant to allow compliance with the permit limits.
' The proposed project will result in an increase in the amount of treated wastewater
discharted to the Tuckaseigee River from 2.32 cfs ('1.5 mgd) to 5.41 cfs (3.5 mgd). This is a
relatively small percentage of the river's summer 7Q10 of 149.6 cfs (96.7 mgd) at the TWSA
Plant No. 1 discharge point. The permitted wastewater discharge is currently 1 .6°ro of the 7Q1.0
Flow and will increase to only 3.6 % with the proposed project.
The Tuckaseigee River is critical habitat for the Appalachian Elktoc which is listed on the
Endangered Species List. The proposed facilities will include a dechlorination system to prevent
chlorine from entering the river. Mitigation measures during construction will include erosion
and sedimentation control measures to prevent sediment from entering the river.
n 'e c r i n P l a n n i n g F i n a it c e
i lu C;iil Jx_ ✓m'. 1..'I. ' AU. U. P _"59 �I ch �i lo. NC _'hn0i ?? kr d,Cnzwi.Ad.r•cilh ,t'/'

1
Mr. Brian Cole
. April 27, 1007
Page 2 of
The TWSA requests the assistance of your office in identifying any additional Federally -
listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and designated or proposed critical habitat
that may be present in the project area. In addition, please advise us of any present concerns you
may have related to possible effects of the subject project on such species or critical habitat, as
well as any other wildlife concerns. Particularly any concerns related to Endangered Species
Act, Pub. L. 93-205 or Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub, L. 85-624 should be included.
We would appreciate a response within 30 days. Ifyou require additional information, or
would like to discuss the project, please contact us. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
DAVID L. HONEYCUTT, E.I.
Engineenng Associate
Enclosure
cc: Joe Cline, TWSA
Yam 1-Tvsong, USDA Rural Development
Ned Gillispie, USDA Rural Development
Jeff Bishop, McGill Associates
Mike Waresak, McGill Associates
05',34.1etiers/usfws-27apr07.doc

. f
C1 , ci �41�•.. 'S � �t WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATION MA
t "j • 1 Y�'S� ii � TUCKA
n � /�
SEIGEE WATER
AND SEWER AUTHORITY
°
SCALE 1"=2000' C JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.. N j Ne.��al� l � �4t
-�'��% �� , `.I.r �ll,J try �'.,r�%��, �! i( �, f • � s q "py �,�,� `"��
01
,r�'_F� � f �'. ;,° fis fr'!" e t "• t`� ±' TTflsi§ � • F ' '-. .Rl � l
f J
! /,1 ,1 f (j�frj�✓°� %{ , 'r � �t:, ` I `� '�, t, '$Ar
�; � , a (�•_ ,'i � iY c?. yam,,
!1'IAF --i}! f- ,,,,7 ..,;:` f `[ j¢ a r'l ..:: y .�. • . "_` J . •3• •y _ -�.,� 1 `` I
j i �i r�p �'iµ � �..1. � . f1. F� �,(7 .E � _ - t J� � ,�a � �.. f J ,�+�'.��� � t � +,.'-�. .. `, •
,..11 (.,-°`F, �f '::� - .r� t1, S (.kk. , i [ ,�d _ •f•� •t `r r P ��� 2; �f �, ` ai • �_ i
d) :,, . j J.. #F`� �, - r -dr \ ,f, ✓ � � .C,s .r , ( / ' o . Y ' + ,' r,r,;
' \{� r l i �.. e�^ +ems '' .f � .� ` `►?q^ •ry t . _ti'_'."s �ii '='�. ,
�°- � > i � � � - �• '� i ~,-- �, . r ../%✓ Sw� .^ !? � s` f r df to
f ti
iVt� .f"I,i. I C' 1 1 ff t ,. + OY�^��'\•.'+• pEyf� —�(''_ r
�. �1, ���'•r � Y•fr i. � 1 •13 /. II _ -1--,ti�,•'� 'ra •�i �"'�r ,,f �� -r!' � �I
. � �• r •_ * L f Ix •' F If- `" M. V 3fJ �\ • • �° I
�'Q'yT• TF' If( F �, t .--r h} a • ` iF >e� - a r .f / r(/rf,. 1: !.{ Ir _�� r
Wit`` F - + �•'�' �b r ?` a pR i/ tl j;l 'j, ;°w y ; J - .4m
a FL tt�', j •y,, !d-� _4 , •^Qr�$.,` ?�}�I �) -1 ilk? )r IPV.
y: w. .� "�' SP �`%�`• 1 !rill+, r,, �* ��� f C
ly��( f,Ar.•.~�rl yj a`y r 11• s��r
Sl I N� •! 1 r �. r �V iTi "'y �r `' .�r ` i I #
l ifs' 'I ��'� ( �`c,;ti` �tr;Sj� ��-.,'.-°�""'_"'^`'�t'i'; r ` '`/�'�-a""'li.�'`,%tijr�. ;,_ j�� � l I f - ✓t ''�.>� . !�,°
G'-
`t TWSA WASTEWATER�`t'
;TREATMENT PLANT NO 1
��� , _,�✓, i ~f r ( :, r�ro' A .r,.rr I' i 7" r.' ,r t , 1.r�r Y � i""*y-,.•n �j
• s.,_�s.4i .,.. t F"�Pp "w, -/ ti',i..�. i ✓ t� tt a` • i r 4 „ r'�;' .�/ ..1 � A t � f'.`✓' .. .- �,� . d. ''�
r ir v
i� * `r: � ��;,� � •,-.: � E'� ., r ` { J'V, :iF � � � � +.• (' ' ,. s•i��.��,•i. �, '� ,'"�1i . ; F ;:, , i.. .
e 1 a • ! i.st rYf- yx r -;✓'t4 � _ r(' III a.;
rttikJ •/py
t�.f �(i ��� 4C } 4 ..'x` �.E+f,•j
r✓� ff44 tc, itC Pt . Fr. ti l,.�4; figi$`.Ijsi
�-, f�?lt �\ 1 i,�1. ��(S. S Q�•.. r i q �r rn`s.. � I ri l� l r �:. ��n r`f.iA j + �� .. 1� _i,,'r i�: ,1: �*�'r�
" a >. 1f �..il ` � i � i � - r `r. e� "' �g . Yc a t. '� j i 11. � .�i \•„�� e � ` Nr fj '�:- �
"�i .^,. =r, rcr� " 't� s t / •'%` [!�•-�._� � '. p d r 4 � 7. / 1 "�'j ; L.. ftr! :., r �� � d`-xi f �:'.,.
♦ ri�>� ,f �dr � �, �� f �� y.,,�+�" S" i."° t ' t d i'. yl.�- �..i6 Z'�r � , ` _�^
rL. ':�r•L''J ski. �}I�w�dti ✓�` r���. ,.'1'. � � ! •r �� �1T'wp ��:4a r� �..t-/', j�•
`wit ! mot;tiJ- F�flti, 1' 6� fry. �grt!Y mot. 4 fs�"��W
+� ~ Jir�9 w°; • v of tY, >.�. •, t t �.'�✓,/ i; � �_d�i'� � R-,,,�aa tYY�^^, ." �a• '41k.
~ r'l�.b"t�� lgkti"�(� i :_.,! �`, w+. A� `i �, ",. ��J . -`+� lr- �1,ti,�• � �_ •�a4' f
i . �! 4 (! ' a • tl i.( ,,f., e,.g���F A ( rt "'` /4 ss _ j L _r '%r j f
h . _, �' � a1►u ^"` FCy� , r t( I / t i' ° f f � •o-`•,"rl �+U�i 4f � f,. � •(
!% (�blrul�4�J, t 3 �.�s•" a
A S S O CIA ,
TES t �''a } '� . = f,�+ r i
EN GINEERING-PLANNING -FIN ANCE !Q.
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVrLLE, NC PH. [phone] t
^FF , i �Iv 'j�jf••�Qw�lF• + rt 1, , /tili L gym` ?"-p;'.

I
i
1
11
F
1
USDA >r�
Rura—1,
Development
United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
State Office
(Exh. A. - SI 1794-1)
October 30, 2007
SUBJECT: Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Proposed Wastewater Treatment System Improvements and Expansion
Acceptance of Environmental Report as EA
TO: Rural Development Processing Office
Asheville, NC
Attn: Pamela H. Hysong, Area Specialist
' I have reviewed the environmental documentation (October 2007 revision) for the proposed
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Wastewater Treatment System Improvements and
Expansion project prepared by McGill Associates for the applicant and USDA Rural
Development and have made the following determinations. In accordance with 7 CFR Part
1794, Rural Utilities Service's Environmental Policies and Procedures, the proposed project
' meets the classification criteria for an Environmental Assessment. The environmental
report/environmental documentation is acceptable for use by Rural Development as the
Environmental Assessment for the project.
tPlease notify the applicant to publish the Notice Announcing the Availability of the
Environmental Assessment. The notice should be prepared in accordance with the RUS
' Bulletin 1794A-602 Guide. There is a sample of the notice on page 48 of the Guide. This
guide should be followed, inserting the appropriate information relative to the project. A
combination notice will be not be required which includes "preliminary notice" language
' (for floodplains, wetlands, and important farmland, etc.) since potential adverse impacts will
be successfully mitigated. The potential adverse impacts to important resources will be
mitigated as described in Section 4.0 of the report and by incorporating "best management"
construction practices into the project plans and specifications.
Additional information about publishing the notice is found at the top of page 40 of the
' guide. Newspaper notices should be of reasonable size and prominence and not be placed in
the classified or legal section or an obscure portion of the newspaper. The public notice will
be published in newspaper(s) of local circulation in the area affected by the proposed
' project. The publication frequency shall be 3 consecutive days for daily newspapers or 2
consecutive weeks in weekly newspapers. Public review dates shall be computed from the
initial publication date of the notice. Proof of publication shall be provided to Rural
Development either as an original copy of the advertisement or the publisher's affidavit.
4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone] " Fax: [phone] - TDD: [phone] " Web: http://www.wrdev.usda.gov/no
Committed to the future of rural communities.
"USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender."
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Offce,of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD).

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
11
The applicant must also provide a copy of the Notice of Availability and copies of the
assessment to the NC State Clearinghouse and other agencies or individuals outside the
clearinghouse process who have a substantial interest in the proposed project. The NC
State Clearinghouse should be sent the "Notice of Availability..." and 16 complete copies
(all attachments and exhibits) of the Environmental Assessment for their distribution to state
regulatory agencies participating in the Clearinghouse Process. Federal Regulatory
Agencies with jurisdiction over environmental resources described in the report should also
receive a copy of the "Notice of Availability..." and copies of the Assessment. You should
ask the applicant for acknowledgement that the distribution of copies was made and include
that documentation in the RD EA file.
The Public Review period shall remain open for 30 days. The Notice will direct the public
to respond to the RD processing office (your office). Copies of all comments (including
those unsolicited) if received by the applicant should be forwarded to the RD processin¢
office as soon as possible. RD and the applicant shall review and address all comments, and
changes shall be made to the EA as appropriate. As State Environmental Coordinator, I will
be available to assist in reviewing any comments received.
When the Public Review period is complete and all public comments and outstanding issues
have been addressed and resolved to the extent practicable, a copy of the published notice
(or publisher's affidavit) along with all comments received, responses to comments,
acknowledgement that appropriate distribution of copies was made as directed above, and
any revisions made to the EA should be forwarded to me for final review. If no comments
are received you should document the same for inclusion with the EA. When all comments
have been satisfactorily addressed and any needed revisions made, I will recommend the
FONSI to the State Director and then advise you of the final steps to complete the EA
process including publication of the FONSI notice.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help in any way.
Ned W. Gillispie
Environmental Protection Specialist
cc: Dennis R. DeLong
1

301 800
30721
ov
r �
ij
Jf
oil
Al
Ak
bol
914
f� �: .11. Jam` � T.• - .��,�i •y ,���-ICI y � r
1
y'
1 't
-7
�� . it `*°` -lid it
D
A-1

FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION RATING FOR JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Farmland Classification
(No Aggregation Necessary, &IQ Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
QNot Prime fam,land Web Soil Survey URL http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
QAII areas are prime farmland Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
QPrime farmland if drained g II
QPrime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently Bf�B §Wl�ny Area: Jackson County, North Carolina
9 equently flooded during the 9Spa
�1lal Version of Data: 1
QPrime farmland if irrigated
QPrime far: mland if drained and either protected from Flooding or not frequently fl Soil Map Compilation Scale1:12000
coded during the growing season
QPrime fam land if irrigated and drained
QPrime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently Flooded during the growing season
QPrime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting sail layer
QPrime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60
QPrime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium
QFarmland of statewide importance
QFarmland of local importance
QFarmland of unique importance
QNot rated or not available
Soil Map Units
coties
QDetailed Counties
IDetailed States
-interstate Highways
-Rails Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates:
(Water 1993; 1995; 4/3/1995
-Hydrography
(Oceans
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and
digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.
As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Nmural Reaouree
> --
� fo¢urvation Serviee
Web Soil Survey I.I
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 2 of 6

Farmland Classification
TWSA Central Service Area
Tables - Farmland Classification
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Survey
Map Unit Name Rating
Total Acres in Percent of AOI
Area Map
AOI
Unit Symbol
j BaA
.:Biltmore;sart 0 to 3' Not prime farmland
55.9 - 0.6'
:,.percentslopes;frequently
BkB2
Braddock clay loam, 2 to 8 All areas are prime
45.7 0.5
percent slopes, eroded farmland
kC2' Braddock clay loam,,8'to Farmland of stalewide 190.1, 2.2
15 percent slopes, eroded importance
BkD2 Braddock clay loam, 15 to Not prime farmland 250.8 2.8
30 percent slopes, eroded
IBC Brad,comdex,,2t 15im land Not prim farmland SIZ.I' S
,,complex,,Zto IS percent
slopes.
CaE Cashiers gravelly fine Not prime farmland 173.4 2.0
sandy loam, 30 to 50
percent slopes
!aF , Cashiers gravelly fine Not prime farmland 71.9 0:8.
sandy loam, 50 to 95
percent slopes
ChF Cheoah channery loam, 50 Not prime farmland 3.4 0.0
to 95 percent slopes
CpF ,"Cleveland°Gheslnut-Rock No4primvl'arinland L ,"d3.2 ' 0.
outcrop complex, - -
windswept,,50, to 95 -
percent slopes
CrD Cowee-Evard-Urban land Not prime farmland 646.3 7.3
complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes
CuC, --'Cullasaja-Tuckasegee Not prime farmland' 211 0 2 -
complex, 810 15 percent
slopes stony
CuD Cullasaja-Tuckasegee Not prime farmland 28.2 0.3
complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, stony
'wA Cullowhee.fine 'sandy Pei me'farmland if 170t5, 1.91
loam, 0 t62 percent slopes,drained, - - -
occasionally flooded -
DfA Dellwood gravelly fine Not prime farmland 25.6 0.3
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes, occasionally
flooded
Dillard loam, I to 5,,; All'areasare prime ' 47.7 0.5
.'percenrslopes, rarely .farmlantl' - -
flooded
USDA Namnt Res..nvn Web Soil Survey 1.1 12/19/2006
eonenation Seniae National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 6

Farmland Classification Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating Total Acres in Percent of AOI
Area Map AO1
Unit Symbol
,B Ddltiborodoam, 210 8, All, areas arc prime 16A _.. `0 2.
percent slopes farmland f
DsC Dillshoro loam, 8 to 15
Farmland of statewide 34.2 0.4
percent slopes
importance
Eg62 Elli.lay silty clay loam, 2 to
Not prime farmland 34'.0 0:4;
- 8 percent slopes, eroded
EgC2 Ellijay silty clay loam, 8 to
Not prime farmland 54.4 0.6
15 percent slopes, eroded
D2 Ellijay silty clay loam, 15 Not prime farmland 98.1 (.I
.. tal0percent slopes; ..
•. eroded.
EvC Evard-Cowee complex, 8 Farmland of statewide 208.3 2.4
to 15 percent slopes importance
HvD�" Evard Cowee complex, 15 Not prime farmland 585.0 6:6
to 30 percent slopes
EvE Evard-Cowee complex, 30 Not prime farmland 1,426.7 16.2
to 50 percent slopes
EvF . Evard Cowee complex. 50 Not prime farmland 631.8 7.2
.to 95 pacent slopes.
FaC Fannin fine sandy loam, 8 Farmland of statewide 101.1 I.I
to 15 percent slopes importance
"Fannin fine sandy loam; l5 No1. prime farmltuuf 94:T 4.5
to 36 percent,slopes -
FaE Fannin fine sandy loam, 30 Not prime farmland 742.7 9.4
to 50 percent slopes
FuF Fannin fine sandy loam. 50 Not prime farmland 44.6 0.5
^T to 95 percent slopes
HpA Hemphill clay loam, 0 to 3 Farmland of statewide 3.2 0.0
percent slopes, rarely importance
Flooded
ff
::7175to
usky-Tsah complex, . Noyprimc farmland, 17.1 0.2 '
30 percent slopes
RE Junaluska-Tsali complex, Not prime farmland 30.6 0.3
30 to 50 percent slopes
F Junaluska=Tsali complex, Not prime farmland21.80.2
50 to 95. percent slopes
NkA Nikwasi fine sandy loam, 0 Not prime farmland 13.4 0.2
to 2 percent slopes,
frequently Flooded
�Pt Y � Pits, quarries Not prime farmland' 8'2, p l
USDA Namrul tt e.ur,. Web Soil Survey 1.1 12/19/2006
�� Cnmemulinn Serrlae National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 6

Farmland Classification Rating
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating
Area Map
Unit Symbol
TWSA Central Service Area
Total Acres in Percent of AOI
AOI
Ro_A Rosman, .fine sandy -loam, 6 'Prime'farmland if 814 619".
to 2 percent slopes, protected from
occasionally hooded flooding, or not. ,
frcqucntly.flooded
" during the growing
season
SaB Saunook gravelly loam, 2 All areas are prime 59.2 0.7
to 8 percent slopes farmland
rSaC Saunook gravelly loam, 8 Farmland of statewide , 174'.I 2.0,
to 15,percent slopes - '.:importance
SaD Saunook gravelly loam, 15 Not prime farmland 113.0 1.3
to 30 percent slopes
ShD. ,_Saunook gravelly loam, 13 Not prime -farmland '7,0:,l " 01.8'.
to 30 percent slopes, stony "
SrD Spivey-Santeetlah Not prime farmland 8.1 0.1
complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, stony
Sept Sl 1tler Imam, I to 5 percent All areas are prime 35.0 - 0.4
;slopes,rarelyflooded, ,farmland'
TrE Trimont gravelly loam, 30 Not prime farmland 110.4 1.3
to 50 percent slopes, stony
TrF 'Trimont.gravelly loam, 50 . Not prime farmland 125.1 ..1:4
to 95 percent slopes; stony
Ud Udorthents, loamy Not prime farmland 506.2 5.7
UfB Udorthems-Urban land Not prime farmland 5935 6.7
complex OtoS percent '
. slopes rarely Flooded
W Water Not prime farmland 180.0 2.0
W1B Whiteside-Tuckascgee• Alf areas are prime, 44t9: O.St
complex, 2 to 8 percent farmland - - -
slopes
USDA N.W.1 ne mn�n
rnmer.am� s.ra,�
Web Soil Survey I.I
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 5 of 6

Farmland Classification
TWSA Central Service Area
Description - Farmland Classification
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local
importance, or unique farmland. Farmland classification identifies the locution and extent of the most suitahle land for
producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Parameter Summary - Farmland Classification
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-hreak Rule: Lower
USDA Nxoml Ne.onn'en Web Soil Survey 1.1 12/19/2006
r„a,.r.atirn Senico National Cooperative Soil Survey Pa e 6 of 6
6

" ,•
4
�
jr,r.-
771
'1
as ram_•
,( � ..'1i�i��� }k �=..
':`
T
tw
1

SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS RATING FOR JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Septic Tank Absorption Fields
{Dominant Condition, &gt;}
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
_ Very limited
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Q Somewhat limited
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
- Not limited
Q Not rated or not available
Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map units
Spatial Version of Data: 1
Soil Map Compilation Scale: 1:12000
o Cities
Q Detailed Counties
C3 Detailed States
Interstate Highways
Rails
Water
— Hydrography
Oceans
Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates:
1993, 1995; 4/3/1995
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and
digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.
As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Niltural Rcmer,, s
F.K .fim Service
Web Soil Survey LI
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 2 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
I
H
1
1
1
1
1
1
LJ
1
1
Tables - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
A, "';° `Billllmore sand' 0 to
Very,,,
, Bilunore (80%),
Flooding �55 9 0.6 "'-
r3:perccnt slopes,
imiled.
^. - ...
a. '.. •. , , ' _. -
„
' '- "frequently flooded'
-
j;
I
Seepage
Ii
botl'omlayer.>
} - - •
.t
^
Filtering
capacity .,
^
d
_
'
s tuna to -
zone
Tozaway,'`
I boding -
-'^midramed'(5%n)
_
aPonding,
saturatedzone -
-
Seepage
.p.
..
�•+ �.
. bottom layer ,.
Slow. water
BkB2 Braddock clay
Very
Braddock,
Seepage, 45.7 0.5
loam, 2 to 8
limited
moderately
bottom layer
percent slopes,
eroded (80%)
eroded
Slow water
movement
BkC2; Braddock clay, p .> Very. Braddock, Seepage, - Igiol 2'2
s loam;,,8 to IS,.'; ;. limited' moderately - bottom layer;
„percent slopes;; . 'eoded'(80%). , .
Slope
Slow water -
movementl
USDA N.mr.l Rewvr,e
C.—r,.r.n s.r,wr
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 3 of 15
11

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
BkD2 Br ddock'clay'Very Braddock, Slope 250.8 2.& `
loam;. 15 to.30 limited "moderately
',percenlsloP& „eroded(85%) - -
eroded ,
Seepage
bottom layer -
Slow water
movement .
BrC Braddock -Urban Very Braddock (40%) Seepage, 517.1 5.9
land complex, 2 to limited bottom layer
15 percent slopes,
Slow water
movement
Slope
'CaE . Cashiers gravelly = Very Cashiers (80%) Slope 173.4' 10'
linesandy.loatw limited. _ -
30 to 50�percent
slopes
Stcoage
bottom layer,
�aF Cashiers gravelly Very
fine sandy loam, limited
50 to 95 percent
slopes
Cashiers (80%) Slope 71.9 0.8
Seepage,
bottom layer
°ChF Cheoah channery Very 'Chcoah (80%). Slope 3.4 0:0'
=Ioam;.,50 to 95 . '` limited
.. percent slopes
. ' Seepage, '
. .bottom layer - -
Depth to
bedrock t ,....
USDA N.rvn1 Rv,.o,.
r...v".r.. seraee
Web Soil Survey If
National Cooperative Sort Survey
12/19/2006
Page 4 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in A01
Area A01
Map
Unit
Symbol
Bkl>2 Braddock'elay Very Braddock, Slope 250.8 2.8 '
loam; 15 to.30 limited "moderately• '
percent slopes. - ,.eroded(85%)'
eroded
.. Seepage, ..
. bottom layer.
'Slow water - -
movement
BrC Braddock -Urban Very Braddock (40%) Seepage, 517.1 5.9
land complex, 2 to limited bottom layer
15 percent slopes,
Slow water
movement
Slope
'GaL' Cashiers,
< tine sand
30 to 50.,
slopes
Very Cashiers (80%)' Slope 173.A' 210,
limited
-. - Seepage,
bottom layer
CaF Cashiers gravelly Very
fine sandy loam, limited
50 to 95 percent
slopes
Cashiers (80%) Slope 71.9 0.8
Seepage,
bottom layer
'Clll­� Chcoah channecy Very Chcoah:(80%), Slope 3.4 0:0
-'loam,.50 to 95 limited
percent slopes
Seepage;
,bottom layer ,...
Depth to
tbedrock' J
USDA N.mnl R..,.,on
c..m.a.. S,rdki,
Web Soil Survev I.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 4 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
t
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
GpE) Cleveland k ,Y Very
Cleveland;
Defiftbo 13.2 0.1
Chestnw-Rock limited
'windswept
bedrock
-p''�; outcrop com&x' -
..(45%)
windswept, 50 to"'I',
`95'percenlslopiis
Slope.- ,
Seepage,
` -
bottom layer -
a, .« IT .
-
Chestnut'',
. ._
D'efit h'lo -
s ..
Windswept
bedrock ,
,.,3.5%o
,•' a
..
��.
Slope . .
. •k. ,,
,. Seepage, ,
..,bouom layer -
' CrD
11
Cowee-Evard- Very Cowee (40%) Depth to 646.3 7.3
Urban land limited bedrock
complex, 15 to 30
percent slopes
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Urbanland Slope
(20%)
Evard (20%n) Slope
Slow water
movement
CuC
Cullasaja .. ; - Very
Cullasaja, stony
,' Seepage,' ;. 221I'. 0:2, -
, r
Tuckasegee ; limited
(50%),
bottom layer -
ciimplex, 816 15
percc6l Slopes„
stony
Large stones
..
content
µ
,
i
.
Slope .
-
"fuckasegee,
Seepage, -
' -
stony (30°!o) "
b6uon9 layer -
M'
Slnpc r
USDA Naanat nv.00ron
r'oo.er,.noo s�ra��
Web Soil Survey LI
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 5 of 15
t

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AO1
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
k a' pogo * v +.
CuD Cullasala Very Cullasalaisiou- +aSlopc ! i 2812. O R ',
Tuckasegcc 11m1cd (50%")K ' ptIZAcomplex I5 to 30 * - 'r s ?sf ,., ' Epercent slopes;,
stony
r , %- S�cepage
layer,00
Tuckasegce'' .;:` SloJ..
c�epage
ol
CwA Cullowhee fine Very Cullowhee Flooding 170.5 1.9
sandy loam, 0 to 2 limited (85%)
percent slopes,
occasionally
flooded
USDA Natural nr,,ouro,<
ramrnarion 4arim
Depth to
saturated zone
Seepage,
bottom layer
Fla, undrained Flooding
(5%)
Pending
Depth to
saturated zone
Seepage,
bottom layer
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 6 of 15

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
Dfd,:
Dellwood gravelly , Very
Del lwood (85%n)
Flooding ' 215.61 03
flne'sandy Ioam,:0 .limited'
' to,. fperc6t slopes
��°� n -'.r , - • -
occasioflally
flooded
r
Depth to
saturated zone'-
Seepage
'bottom layer, ,-
`
Filtering.
capacityones
content
,Nikwasi,
Flooding - °• ,
. ,
u td amcdT(5%In).
ro
Ponding
...
�'�,
..;., a...,, ,
c, � - - - �
.. �. :e '
Depth to
n
satuFrated cone .'
Seepage,
bottom layer,
DrB Dillard loam, I to Very
5 percent slopes. limited
rarely flooded
Dillard (80%) Depth to 47.7 0.5
saturated zone
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Flooding
Hemphill,
Slow water
undraincd (5%)
movement
Ponding
Depth to
saturated zone
Flooding
T
DsB - D111shoro loaq ,2 , Somewhat
Dillsboro (85%n)
Slow water 16:4 {1.2
to 8ipercc,nt slopes limited
movement
USDA Natural Hn.ano s
f narration Serrire
Web Soil Survey I.I
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 7 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
DsCt Di sboro loam,;8° Somewhat Dillsboro (85,^/n) Slope,,;, i442`
a
l0 1'S,percenl
limited
Slow Ewa er,
-
movemi,nl.
q, _
EgB2 Ellijay silty clay Somewhat Ellijay, Slow water 34.0 0.4
loam, 2 to 8 limited moderately movement
percent slopes, eroded (85%)
eroded
EgD2 Ellijay silty clay Very Ellijay, Slope 98.1 1.1
loam, 15 to 30 limited moderately
percent slopes, eroded (85%)
eroded
Slow water
movement
EvC' EvardCowees
Smne-whal
Evard(55%)
v�slope - 2083 24"
complex` 8rtor1�5*
funned(
"s
a percent slopes
�
' i'� I
t i4't
Slow wafer >x
EvD Evard-Cowee Very
complex, 15 to 30 limited
percent slopes
USDA Natural Rv,.,o,,
fonsenatinn Seniee
Evard (55%) Slope 585.0 6.6
Cowee (25%)
Slow water
movement
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Web Soil Survey LI
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 8 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Pei cent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
EVE Evard Cowca Very '.Evard (55'%) Slope, I',426.7 16.2
complex, 30 io•50 limited
percent slopes .
- ..Slow water
movement'
Cowee (25%) Depth. to - .
bedrock
„'.Slope:
y.
.. seepage
.bottom layer
EvF Evard-Cowee Very
complex, 50 to 95 limited
percent slopes
Evard (55%) Slope 631.8 7.2
Slow water
movement
Cowce (25%) Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
FaC Fannir fine sandy Somewhat Fannin(80`70) Slope 101.1 Lf
loatny8 to 15 limited
,percent slopes
Slow water ..
movement
FaD Fannin fine sandy Very Fannin (80%) Slope 394.7 4.5
loam, 15 to 30 limited
percent slopes
Slow water
movement
FaE Fannin line sandy Very Fannin(80`7r,) Slope 742.7 8.4
loam. Vic, 50. limited
percent slopes - ..
Slow water .
movement
USDA Nalnral Rn.,,a
Cnmenatinn Se wi
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/192006
Page 9 of 15

septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons
Area
Map
Unit
Symbol
TWSA Central Service Area
Total Percent of
Acres in AOI
AOI
FaF Fannin fine sandy Very Fannn (80%) Slope ' -44'6 0.5
-lbam, 50 to 95 limited
percent slopes
. Slow water
incvemerit
HpA Hemphill clay Very Hemphill, Slow water 3.2 0.0
loam, 0 to 3 limited undraincd (60%) movement
percent slopes,
rarely flooded
USDA Natural Re , a,u r..
MilliM ranarratinn Serrlre
Hemphill.
drained (20%n)
Pending
Depth to
saturated zone
Flooding
Slow water
movement
Depth to
saturated zone
Flooding
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 10 of 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
Junaluska Ts31i " ' VeryJutiuluska (65%)t,
to 3060.3
.
COI oplex x0 to,50 lunrte� '
,Depth
.. ,
. bedrock
pcicenl slopesE -
.l
Slope
1
Trsali,(25%n).
Dep(h,to
bedrock r
�, k
r
' •)" �" '>:., °�"'
�
Slope.,. -
Seepage,
bottom layer
JtF Junaluska-Tsali Very Junaluska (65%) Depth to 21.8 0.2
complex, 50 to 95 limited bedrock
percent slopes
Tsali (25%)
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
NkA NikwasPlincsandy Very Nikwasi, Flooding '13.4 0:2 '
loam„0 to,2� limited undrained (80%)
Percent slopes,
frequently, flooded
;a 'Pouting
° ..DCPth to
. - SalllfatL`d 'J.OtIC
Seepage, -
__�: bottom layer.
Pt Pits, quarries Not rated Pits, quarry
(95%n)
8.2 0.1
USDA Norllral Re ouro,, Web Soil Survey I.1 12/19/2006
S Gmcerrelinn service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page I I or 15

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
RoAy
Rosman fine sandy , Very
Rosman'(80%)
Flooding 81.1 0:9
loam 0 to 2 limited
"•-
percent slopes;'
• .. „
occasionally,.- ...
- ..
•
flooded
Seepage,
,
" hoftom" layer'
Depth to
..
saturated+zone
r
'Hemphill
"
Flooding
undraincd (5%)
-
''�'
r
Slow wand-
..
movement.
Pondmg . - -
v
Depih:lo
saturated zone
SaB Saunook gravelly Very Saunook (85%) Seepage, 59.2 0.7
loam, 2 to 8 limited bottom layer
percent slopes
Slow water
movement
s. .
Sat.
Saunook giavedly Very:. Saunook (85 Seepage, 174 I "` 2.0:
_ J6am;.8 to 15 limited bottomilayer ,
percent slopes.
r
.,.. Slope'
- Slow water
movement -
SaD Saunook gravelly Very
loam, 15 to 30 limited
percent slopes
USDA Natural Ntsnurrx
.� c�r.r...no. Srr,w�
Saunook (85%) Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Web Soil Survey LI
National Cooperative Sail Survey
113.0 1.3
12/19/2006
Page 12 of 15

' Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in AOI
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
SbD Saanook gravelly
Very
Saunook,slogy,
Slope `70.1 0`8
loam I5 to 30'..
limited'„
'(80%a) .:
, '.;.,. ,'..• ,
percent slopc,ti'f
r
;
..
stony
' ,.''..•. .,,,:
..
..'
Seepage, ..:
..
-
bottom layer
„.; .,.1, •,.,
,..:.,`,
.. ',.; .
Slow, °water
;.'• ,.,,, - ,...
-
movement
SrD Spivey-Santeetlah
Very
Spivey, stony
Slope 8.1 0.1
complex, 15 to 30
limited
(45%)
percent slopes,
stony
Seepage,
bottom layer
Large stones
content
Santeetlah, stony Slope
(35 %)
Seepage,
bottom layer
Av6 §tad'cr learn to 5 Very Stt(lec'(85%), Depth to 35.0 0I4
. percent slopes;. limited - saturated none
=rarely flooded. M
- Slowewaler t'
movement
Flooding
' Hemphill;., Slow water '
+ ° undm raedl(5%n} movement
.. _ Pending.
Depth to
saturated zone
Floi>iiitig' P, '
TrE Trimont gravelly Very
loam, 30 to 50 limited
percent slopes,
stony
' USDA rvmunl Raamas
i� fain rvtion Senire
Trimont, stony Slope 110.4 1.3
(85%)
Slow water
movement
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 13 of 15
1

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Map Unit Name Rating Component Rating Total Percent of
Survey Name (Percent) Reasons Acres in A01
Area AOI
Map
Unit
Symbol
I'rE„ Trimonl gravelly Very Tnmon4 stony Slope.. 125.1 1.4'
a loam, 50 ta95' limited' (85%n) -
percent slopes.'.. , .
Slow water. .
movement.' ... -
Ud Udorthents, loamy
Somewhat
Udorthents,
limited
loamy (85%)
Ut13 Udorthents Urban
Very
Udorthents,
land -complex, &to
limited -
(60%) .
-- 5 percent slopes,.
--
-rarely flooded
W Water
Not rated
Water(100%)
Slow water 506.2 5.7
movement
Flooding 593.5 "6.7
Slow water .,
. movement. .3..
180.0 2.0
"Whiteside- Very .
'I'uckasegce
Seepage, 44:9 OyS
. Tuckasegee limited
(40%)
bottom layer
'.complex' T o:8
percoittslopes,-,.
Whiteside (40%n)
Depth to -
saluratcdrone.,
Seepage -
,.
bottom layer,' :..
Slow water. .
. . ,.
movement � ..
Sylva, undramcd
Vondin g '
( )
•
Depth to
,a
„"
7
Seepage;, ..
bou6rnIay6r
USDA Natural Ra..rt
ram,rvmma sx.d��
Web Soil Survey LI
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 14 of 15

' Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Rating Value
' Rating Total Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Vciy Iuniled 7,(86!0,..... 87:1':,'
'
Somewhat limited 954.5 10.8
of rated :, -_ .'. 1882 ", a. .. Z p. .,
Description - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles
or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is evaluated. The ratings are based on the
soil properties that afYcct absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, pending, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect
' absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders. ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence
interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in
downslope areas.
' Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the distribution
lines. In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filler the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a
result, the ground water may become contaminated.
Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. "Not
limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low
maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat firnited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the
specified use. The limitations can he overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance
and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are
' unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special
design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Parameter Summary - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff:
Tie -break Rule: Higher
t
1
USDA Natural Rn.wa,.
S fonsmratinn Srnire
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 15 of 15

IN

REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE RATING FOR JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Representative Slope
{Dominant Component, &gt;}, [percent]
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0o-s
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
05-15
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
015-30
E30-45
Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, North Carolina
�45-so
Spatial Version of Data: 1
Not rated or not available
Soil Map Compilation Scale: 1:12000
Soil Map Units
o Cities
❑ Detailed Counties
❑ Detailed States
— Interstate Highways
Rails
Water
— Hydrography
Oceans
Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates:
1993; 1995, 4/3/1995
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and
digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.
As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA \.mnl R. re Web Soil Survey I.1
Co...enadon ierrice ag National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 9/2oe 2 off 5
5

Representative Slope Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Tables - Representative Slope
Summary by Map Unit- Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating (percent) Taal Acres in Percent of AOI
Area Map AOI
Unit Symbol
aA B111rnnfesand 0to'3 2.0 55.9'' 0.6.
' percenuslopes, frequently.
❑ooded.
BkB2
Braddock clay loam, 2 to 8
5.0
45.7
0.5
percent slopes, eroded
'BkC2 `.
Braddock clay loam, 8 to 15
.12.0 `
190:7
2.2
percent slopes eroded
BkD2
Braddock clay loam, 15 to
23.0
250.8
2.9
30 percent slopes, eroded
BrC�
^Braddock -Urban land
9.0
51t7.li:' _
.5t9"--'
-
complex,..2 to IS,,percent
-
,.
v
.slopesi
:.
..
CaE
Cashiers gravelly fine sandy
40.0 _..._
173.4 �.
2.0
loam, 30 to 50 percent
slopes
CaE
Cashiers gravelly'finc sandy
73.0P
71.9
0.8
Ioam;,50 to 95 percent
-. - .. •'
-'
- - . ,'" . ,
slopes.
�Cheoah
..
-...
ChE
channery loam, 50
73.0
3.4
0.0
to 95 percent slopes
CpF "Cleveland=Chestnut=Rock 73'.6 13':2 0:1
ul . .. _ocrop;contplcz, .. • - ...: .
windswept, 50 to 95 percent
CrD Cowee-Evard-Urban land 23.0 646.3 7.3
complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes
Cuc Cullasafa Tuckasegee 12.0 2216 Ott
complcz-810 15 percent -
_. slopes stony, ,t .,
CuD Cullasap-Tuckasegee 23.0 28.2 0.3
complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, stony
CwA Cullowhce fine candy loam 1.0 "` 170.5 . I
0lla2 percenbslopes, ..
occasionally, flooded... ,.
Dt'A Dellwood gravelly fine 3.0 25.6 0.3
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
D'r,B DillarclJoam;I!to5percent .,.:3.0 47.7
L slopes, rarely 9looded!.
DsB Dillsbom loam, 2 to 8 5.0 16.4 0.2
percent slopes
USDA Narnral Rc ourrcv Web Soil Survey 1,1
fonunvtinn tienia'e National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2106
Page 3 of 5

'
Representative Slope Rating
TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County,
North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name
Rating (percent)
Total Acres in
Percent of AOI
Area Map
AOI
'
Unit Symbol
d DsC, ptllsboro loam, 8 to 15
� .Percent slopes, -
12.0•
..
34.2 .
0 4
EgB2 Ellijay silty clay loam, 2 to
5.0
34.0
0.4
8 percent slopes, eroded
EgC2 silty clay loam; 8 to
12.0^
54.4'
6.6
'
�Ellpay
15 percent slopes eroded .
EgD2 Ellijay silty clay loam, 15 to 23.0 98.1 1.1
30 percent slopes, eroded
EvC ' Evard Cowec complex, 8 to 12.01 208.3 2.4
1'5+percent slopes
' EvD Evard-Cowee complex, 15 23.0 585.0 6.6
to 30 percent slopes
- - ..
Evfi �` , Evard-Co-.,--'-wce comI Tax; 30 ' 40.0j - 1,426:7 16 2
to 50 percent slopes
EvF Evard-Cowee complex, 50 73.0 631.8 7.2
to 95 percent slopes
1
FaC,' Fannin fine sandy loam; 8, 12.0
IS
�:to percctit slopes''°�
FaD Fannin fine sandy loam, 15 23.0 394.7 4.5
to 30 percent slopes
to peine rcent sandy loam, 310 40.0
50w'
FaE to 50 p rcent slopes... - • 742.7 8.4 . .
FaF Fannin tire sandy loam, 50 73.0 44.6 0.5
to 95 percent slopes
i
HpA ; Hemphill.clay loam, 0 to•3 2.o 3.2 0.0
percent slopes, rarely
flooded
RD Junaluska-Tsali complex, 23.0 17.1 0.2
5 to 30 percent slopes
JIF Junaluska-Tsali complex, 40.0 30:60.1
30 to 50 percent slopes -
RF Junaluska-Tsali complex, 73.0 21.8 0.2
50 to 95 percent slopes
i
NkA. Ntkwasi fine sandy loam, 0� 1.5 13'A. " 0.2
to,2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded'
Pt Pits, quarries 100.0 8.2 0.1
`Rosmair line sandy.loam,•0 1.0 ; ";" 811.1 F 0 9
- 1o;2.perceutslopes,
6ccasionally flooded
SaB Saunook gravelly loan, 2 to 5.0 59.2 0.7
8 percent slopes
USDA Nsavnl Nrsm,rrrs Web Soil Survey 1,1
r'ourr,olion service National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 4 of 5

Representative Slope Rating TWSA Central Service Area
Summary by Map Unit - Jackson County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating (percent)
Area Map
Unit Symbol
Sac .Saunook gravelly loam'8 to, 12 0`,
SaD Saunook gravelly loam, 15 23.0
to 30 percent slopes
Total Acres in Percent of AOI
AOI
113.0 1.3
�S6D Saunookgravelly]oam75 2i.0' y�70�lgp r 08r
'to 30 pc�ceni slopes^tstoriy'�d
SrD
Spivey-Santeetlah complex,
23.0
8.1
15 to 30 percent slopes,
stony
r
SvB',
Staticr loam; 1 to 5 percent'
.3.0
,
35.0',
'
- slopes,.rarely flooded
TrE
Trimont gravelly loam, 30
40.0
110.4
to 50 percent slopes, stony
TrF
Trimont'gravt.11yjloam'; 50;
J73 0,,'u�, , ,• r:: , ^I 1{
Ud Udorthents, loamy 7.0
506.2
0.1
'0 4
1.3
----77
5.7
UFB� Udorthutts Urban land 3 0
5935 b d,rb j m�q t
s
complt.x''0`to";rSaperccnt�"�"
slopc5rarely flooded ' "`t•.r A' '•'ry ° y �`°�;k 4 'Y' +
' Water
0.0
180.0 2.0
VtB Whilesid6-Tuckase
beeo-
complex 2 to 8 p%recnt slopes
Description - Representative Slope
Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points, expressed as a percentage of the distance between those
points.
In the underlying database, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values. A low value and a high value indicate
the range of this attribute for the corresponding component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this
attribute for the corresponding component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.
Parameter Summary - Representative Slope
Units of Measure: percent
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Component Percent Cutoff:
Tic -break Rule: Higher
Interpret Nulls as Zero: No
USDA NmnnJ Rc,.u,re, Web Soil Survey I.I 12/19/2006
'P� cnmena�ion 9enia National Cooperative Soil Survey page 5 of 5

SOIL SURVEY OF JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
v Meters
0 5001,000 2,000
TWSA Central Service Area
Feet
0 2,0004,000 8,000 12,000 16,000
USDA Nalunl Resanres
fonsmalbu Senirr
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page I of 5

M M ' M M M M ! M M i M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN S M ! M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
SOIL SURVEY OF JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Soil Map Units
e cities
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0 Detailed counties
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Detailed States
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
—�� Rails
Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, North Carolina
Water
Spatial Version of Data: 1
— Hydrography
Soil Map Compilation Scale: 1:12000
i oceans
A►A►A►O Escarpment, bedrock
vnvnvnv. Escarpment, non -bedrock
�..�v Gulley
Illlllunmu Levee
.......... Slope
v Blowout
® Borrow Pit
x Clay Spot
♦ Depression, closed
Eroded Spot
X Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Gulley
A Lava Flow
® Landfill
6 Marsh or Swamp
Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates:
® Miscellaneous Water
1993; 1995; 4/3/1995
v Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
.. Sandy Spot
A Slide or Slip
0 Sinkhole
q Sodic Spot
■ Spoil Area
o Stony spot
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and
m very stony spot
digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.
As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
► Wet Spot
USDA It sourr.
a—
foaarverion Servire
Web Soil Survey 1.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Page 06
Pof
Page oof 5

Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina TWSA Central Service Area
Map Unit Legend Summary
Jackson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Map Unit Name
Symbol
Acres in A01 Percent of AOI
BaA Bihmore band, 0'io 3 percent ;';. t 55.9 0.6 1
- slopes, frequently flooded ;I
BkB2 Braddock clay loam, 2 to 8 percent 45.7 0.5
slopes, eroded
BkC2 Brdddpck clay loam, 8 to 15 percent '111 90:1 212
.slopes; eroded.,
BkD2 Braddock clay loam, 15 to 30 250.8 2.8
percent slopes, eroded
i BrC'. Braddock=Urban land complex; 2,m 517.1 5.9
l5putent slopes;
CaE Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam, 173.4 2.0
30 to 50 percent slopes
[Ca "Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam; 71.9 p:8
50 to 95 percent slopes
ChF Cheoah channery loam, 50 to 95 3.4 0,0
percent slopes
r-pr
Cleveland-Chestnut-Rock outcrop 112 0.1
complex, windswept, 50 to 95 .
,percent slopes
CrD Cowee-Evard-Urban land complex, 646.3 7.3
15 to 30 percent slopes
CuC Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex, 8 to 211' 0.2
.'I.5 percent slopes, stony
CuD
Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex, 15
28.2
0.3
to 30 percent slopes, stony
CwA
Cullowhee fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
1.70.5
1.9 - -
percentslopes, occasionally flooded
'
DfA
Dellwood gravelly fine sandy loam,
25.6
03
0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
'DrB
Dillard ioarri;1•.to 5 percenCslopes;.
47.7 "
0.5 -
•rarely flooded' -
DsB
Dillsboro loam, 2 to 8 percent
16.4
0.2
slopes
D'sc
Dillsboro loam; 8 l0 15 percent `:
34:2.
0.4
,.
.slopes
EgB2
Ellijay silty clay loam, 2 to 8
34.0
0.4
percent slopes, eroded
EgC2'
t Elhlay, silly°clay loam, 8�1o•15'
54:4' -
0:6
.;percent slopes, eroded
USDA Natural R. ouiro< Web Soil Survey 1.1 12/19/2006
'— f,msrrmion Seniee National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5

' Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina TWSA Central Service Area
Jackson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Symbol
'
EgD2
Ellgay3ilty clay loam IS to 30:
98':C'
I.li
percent slopes, eroded
EvC
Evard-Cowee complex, 8 to 15
208.3
2.4
percent slopes
EvDr
Evard.Cowee complex, 15 to 301
585:0
6:6
percent's 0
,
EvE
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50
1,426.7
16.2
percent slopes
' rEvF ,
Evard-Cowee complex, 50 to 95
631.8
7.2
rcenl slopes
FaC
Fannin fine sandy loam, 8 to 15
101.1
1.1
percent slopes
FaD .
Fannin fine sandy, loam, 15, to 30 t
�394':7
4.5, r
percent slopes
FaE
Fannin fine sandy loam, 30 to 50
742.7
8.4
percent slopes
tannin firic sandy loam 50 to95
44.6 .
0.5
'
percent slopes.
}
HpA
Hemphill clay loam, 0 to 3 percent
3.2
0.0
slopes, rarely flooded
IJID,,
JUnaIuskaTsalil'complek,PSto•301•
17.1,
0,2. 's
^
percent slopes
RE
Junaluska-Tsali complex. 30 to 50
30.6
0.3
percent slopes
JtF
Junaluska Tsali complex, 50 to 95
21.8
Oil
NkA
Nlkwasi fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
13.4
0.2
percent slopes, frequently flooded
Pt
Ats,'ydi rics
8:2
0 1`
RoA
Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
81.1
0.9
percent slopes occasionally Flooded
Su13"
Saunook.grav IlyJoam,,2 to8
59:2
0:7"
percent slopes
SaC
Saunook gravelly loam, 8 to 15
174.1
2.0
percent slopes
SaD -
'.
Saunook gravelly ]barn;. I S to,30,,
Ii13.0
(3,- .
percent 'slopes -
SbD
Saunook gravelly loam, 15 to 30
70.1
0.8
percent slope~ stony
SFD
sorIS
elph x to
8.1
0 I
30 percent sopes; stony
USDA N.M.1 Nesnurrra
Gmser.mion ti.r.ia'e
Web Soil Survey If
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/19/2006
Page 4 of 5

Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina TWSA Central Service Area
Jackson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of'AOI
Symbol
Slallerloam I to5�percc,nlslb`;&`,
350r
°
rarely hooded
TrE
Trimont gravelly loam, 30 to 50
110.4
1
percent slopes, stony
TrF Trinonl'grnvelly/loam 50,lo95 n
11251;1
Pe�ccnLs]Amstgny,-.
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
506.2
U113
UdorthentOrban tand complex 0�
593.5,
to 5 percen0slopes`t rarelySOaided,
W
Water
180.0
W113 wz n'I
WhrtesidL,Iuckascgcecomplex°2 449„:
y
slopes
to 8 peri;cm slopes
■
Icy
1.3
5.7
2.0
USDA N,Wral Newurra Web soil Survey 1.1 12/19/2006
t'rmenmion Smlwe National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5

SOIL SURVEY OF JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TWSA Plant No. 1
Meters
0 20 40 80
Feet
0 50 100 200 300 400
USDA newel RL aarzna
fon.erratinn Service
Web Soil .Sur,,, I.I
Nalional Cooperaii%c Soil Sure}
12/18/2006
Page I of

USDA Natural Resoerces
Conveination Service
SOIL SURVEY OF JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAPLEGEND
Soil Map Units
O
Cities
Detailed Counties
Q Detailed States
Interstate Highways
Roads
Rails
Water
-
Hydrography
I!
Oceans
ATATATO
Escarpment, bedrock
vnvnvn,
Escarpment, non -bedrock
Gulley
111111111111111
Levee
..........
Slope
W
Blowout
®
Borrow Pit
■
Clay Spot
♦
Depression, closed
Eroded Spot
X
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Gulley
A
Lava Flow
®
Landfill
6
Marsh or Swamp
®
Miscellaneous Water
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
..
Sandy Spot
D
Slide or Slip
O
Sinkhole
#
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
d
Stony Spot
OO
Perennial Water
1
Wet Spot
TWSA Plant No. 1
MAP INFORMATION
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
Soil Survey Area: Jackson County, North Carolina
Spatial Version of Data: 1
Soil Map Compilation Scale: 1:12000
Map comprised of aerial images photographed on these dates:
1993
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and
digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps
As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident_
Web Soil Survey I.1
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/18/2006
Page 2 of 3

Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend Summary
Jackson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO1
Evard-Cowee complex, S,lo l5
percent slopes��, „ 7
EvE Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 5.7
percent slopes
Ud' Udbrihents, loamy' 6.3
45.9
5P2,..,'
TW SA Plant No. I
USDA Namrl Nrsmrz<c Web Soil Survey I.I
(*.......lion ser.ice Page
3 3 of3
National Cooperative Soil Survey Ppage of 3

83'14'45'W 83'1430'W 83'14'15"W 83"14'0'W 83'13'45'W 83'13'30'W
�N
0�44�
83' 14'45"W
USGS
science for a changing world
Q
83'1430'W
�\j:_•--
16,
7,
44
4
83'14'15"W 83'14'0"W 83"13'45"W 83'13'30'W
35'21'2-rN The
National
83'14'47"W Map Extent 1183'13'28"W Map
YgIJ/n>I�uln>t/.pr/
35'20'40"N
Geographic Coordinate System (WGS84)

= = M M ! M = = = = = M = = = = = = r
JPOGRAPHIC MAPS HYDROGRAPHY
USGS Raster Graphics (Topo Maps)
No legend available
JUNDARIES
US States
/V National Atlas States
A/ National Atlas States
/1f National Atlas States
1ANSPORTATION
County Road Labels (USGS)
No legend available
North Carolina Roads (BTS)
BTS Roads -North Carolina
Ferry Crossings
a BTS Roads -North Carolina
Interstates
o BTS Roads -North Carolina
Local Roads
— BTS Roads -North Carolina
Local Roads (Small
Scale)
— BTS Roads -North Carolina
Secondary Roads
BTS Roads -North Carolina
Trails
aa� BTS Roads -North Carolina
US/Major State Highways
State Highway Labels (USGS)
No legend available
US Highway Labels (USGS)
No legend available
US Road Labels (BTS)
No legend available
Wetland Polygons (USFWS)
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
_
Estuarine and MarineWetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested7Shrulb Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Ct lver i ne
ELEVATION
1/3 AreSecond NED, CON -US

TWSA Central Service Area
OJ14 VY tlJ•'[ W 83-10 W
N
23
Whittler ! Yda,_
Z Oarµ ylva North
or
- -00,
SY[VA.-
2 W
z
2
DI tal
nrth
V — N
23 1 7
116 ylva South
Z
i
Y 4
83-lo W
ip center: 35e 21' 26" N. 83e 12' 1" W
RMMIK�s IL
Wmewilit H^.
'■
Legend
A, Interstate
Major Roads
Other Road
Ae Interstate
N State highway
N US highway
Roads
is Cities
- USGS Goad Index 24K
Lower 48 Wetland Polygons
Estuarine and Marine Doopwater
Estuarine and Marine Welland
Freshwater Emergent Welland
® Freshwater ForeatedrN,mb Wetland
Freshwater Pond
- Lake
Other
Rivarina
Lower 48 Available Wetland Data
Non-0Igital
Digital
No Data
Scan
NHD Streams
Counties 100K
Urban Areas 300K
Q States 100K
C:] South America
O North America
{--�--} Scale:1:100,000

Printable Map Title
rl
Page 1 of 1
1
Wayne vi le {
1
1 �
YIva
1 �
1 Franklin
3iEPA,L�ir f, , I Y u
II
.►EPA
-- cr qj a r a rFe e rl,e ar' a nrr Fl e I errtin aI,r��
r.h- rl mean n 1. rand sfi allr rpe ral Ur. -, locs .i inoul
r. al!ir g iron relianr.e ijpc,rt the infer, rrt atior, :fir. in,
1
1
1
1
1
1
http://epamapl3.epa.gov/ej/pfintPage.html
1
Kenl ucky
Percent MI
ti by 61ockproup
NOW 30
la m
1 m An
eak a0 . teD
Cities
\
County seat
®
stab Capital
®
Washington DC
O
Water bodies
Streams
Counties
I fnafmi\lapper for U
4/9/2007

+ t,—.-
7EM1Q!!!Q ,
1110K h
Bepr�ylrr tt
Percent Ne
by Block
0A • 10
10-30
29 - 30
30 - 40
49 -100
cities
Streets
Major roads
Local streets
Water bodies
Streams
Q Counties
-PIER
EnviroMapper for EI
� EPA
EPA does not guarantee the accuraey, oompletertess. or timeliness
of the information shown, and shall not be liable for any foss or injury
resulting from reliance upon the information shown.

Oct 22 07 09:15a USDA -Rural Development 828-891-3275 p.2
Form RD 2006-38
(Rev. 07-07)
'
Rural Development
Environmental Justice (EJ) and Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA)
Cmification
I . Applicant's time and proposed project description: Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
2. Rural Development's loan/grant program/guarantee or other Agency action: Rural Utilities Sevice,
Water and Waste Disposal program
3. ✓' Attach a map of the proposal's area of effect identifying location or EJ populations, location of the proposal,
area of impact or
'
❑ Attach results of EJ analysis from die Environmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) EnviroNfapper with
proposed project location and impact footprint delineated.
'
d. Does the applicant's proposal or Agency action directly, indirectly or cumulatively affect the quality and/or level of
services provided to the community?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
5. Is the applicant's proposal or Agenev action likely to result in a change in the current land use patterns (types of land
use, development densities, etc)?
❑ Yes❑ No ❑ NA
6. Does a demographic analysis indicate the applicant's proposal or Agency's action may disproportionately affect a
t
significant minority and/or low-income populations?
❑ Yes ✓❑ No ❑ N/A
'
if answer is no, skip to item 12. If answer is yes, continue with items 7 through 12.
7. Identify, describe, and provide location of EJ population
S. If a disproportionate adverse affect is expected to impact an EJ population, identify type/lcvel orpublic outreach
implemented.
9. Identify disproportionately high and adverse impacts on E.1 populations.
1
1
10. Are adverse impacts appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse impacts expected on non-
mi nority/lovv- income populations? --II
Yes ❑ No LJ N/A
11. Are alternatives and%or mitigation required to avoid impacts to EJ populations?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If yes, describe
12. 1 certify that I have reviewed the appropriate documentation and have determined that:
No major EJ or civil rights impact is likely to result ifthe proposal is implemented.
A major FJ or civil rights impact is likely to result if the proposal is implemented.
Pamela H. Hyso� cl Area s c.10-22-2007
Name and Title of Certifying Official Date
1 10/22/2007 MON 09:12 tTX/RX NO 51821 a 002

ATTACHMENT TO
FORM RD 2006-38 CIVIL RIGHTS IMPACT ANALYSIS CERTIFICATION
FOR TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
DATED 10/16/07
This project will receive Federal.grant monies to upgrade and expand the Tuckaseigee
Water and Sewer Authority's wastewater treatment plant No. 1 to comply with its
NPDES Permit and serve the project area during the 20 year planning period. The
treatment plant is currently operating under a Special Order by Consent with the
Environmental Management Commission due to multiple violations of its NPDES
Permit. Upgrades to the plant in order to bring it into consistent compliance with the
permit, will require significant improvements to the plant and it is therefore most
economical to expand concurrently.
The project includes the construction of a new headworks facility, upgrades to the
influent pump station, two (2) basin sequencing batch reactor treatment process,
modification of the existing basins to provide post equalization, chlorine contact,
dechlorination, sludge storage, and upgrades to the residuals processing train. These
proposed improvements will allow the plant to consistently meet the effluent
requirements and treat up to 3.5 MGD to serve the growing service area.
The expansion will be made on the site of the existing wastewater treatment plant and
additional impacts on the surrounding area are expected to be minimal. The site is located
between two ridges and is therefore has limited visibility from surrounding properties.
Sound from treatment equipment such as blowers may increase slightly due to the larger
size of the proposed equipment but these impacts are expected to be minimal and are
unlikely to be noticed off -site.
This project does not include expansion of collection lines; therefore, the project will not
create opportunity to make changes to current land use patterns in unsewered areas of
Jackson County.
Racial makeup of the municipalities that are served by the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer
Authority's central service area are as follows.

Native
Two
Hispanic
American
Hawaiian
Some
or
Area
White
Black
Asian
Other
Latino
Indian
Pacific
Race
More
of an Y
Islander
Races
race
S Iva
2,17t
114
39
32
0
20
59
61
Dillsboro
190
2
0
7
0
0
6
2
Webster
457
10
0
5
0
2
12
5
Cullowhee
3,182
259
34
48
3
19
34
47
Forest
317
8
1
2
0
1
1
4
Hills
Jackson
28,378
552
3,379
169
6
181
456
577
County
The proposed project will provide improve effluent quality for Plant No. 1 and hence
water quality in the Tuckasegee River. The additional capacity will be of benefit to all
persons in the surrounding area by providing sewer service. The construction of the new
facilities will not be significantly more visible or obtrusive than the existing treatment
plant. The location of these improvements is dictated by the location of the existing
treatment plant due to the collection system configuration and use of existing treatment
basins.
For these reasons it is my opinion that no major civil rights impact is likely to result from
this project.

-ALE: V= 2000'
l
r`
Ijjl��
� • i
�
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATION MAP
TUCKASEIGEE WATER
a AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
n.. ,. 5♦ a -, � •� f `...�src✓r -c... .... -.
i
D
Yd _ ��+ 1j56� .. � � -� � � . I �1.tr-. 1. 'ii , ��` • .:
' �'� y\ � y � •%;}�l'i 1%'ele9-�l``e`�� ` �. —� �I. a-- ` 'r. ¢�
-j. y 8 {{ ` ' Oi • .^ r ,/ Ifyf
41�l A✓�.\\
¢ 11
isI
w i - c•' v..,, r I
\v�I�Iy,
ff„I TWSA WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT NO.
;>
it � i_\ i i� f i ( � I ..� ` >�•I � \ r � i nIi1 e. \, ,
I1 ww2w
1�17�'a �•"'�t'�i... 7 /� 'r �4' :; �s'��\`�,I a .`•'\ I ;,A � r �.
le
I�� /.-: : •'.�`�,i.�• \� if�4��.�.�:r; �.`'I l" '�••i �-' �,I of l��lr� � )
Mc G ill ior
ASSOCIATES,.>>R'` t `+
ENGINEERING•PLANNING-FINANCE j
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE. NC PH. [phone] � t. _ (I I�' �r��;, •a _ � ` ���V ��;, �: \

H
LJ
P
I
1
1
i
1
1
i
I
1
1
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
See The Attached
O.M.B. No. 040
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
I
nstructions
T
STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION
er 31, 200
Expires October 1, 008
SECTION
I - LOAN INFORMATION
1. LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS
2. COLLATERAL (Building/Mobile Home/Personal Property) PROPERTY ADDRESS
(Legal Description may be attached)
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 8
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
HORSE SHOE, NC 28742
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BLDGS.
3. LENDER ID. NO.
4. LOAN IDENTIFIER
5. AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED
5
SECTION II
A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) COMMUNITY JURISDICTION
1. NFIP Community
2. County(ies)
I
3. State
I
4. NFIP Community
I
Name
Number
B. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) DATA AFFECTING BUILDING/MOBILE HOME
1. NFIP Map Number or Community -Panel Number
2. NFIP Map Panel Effective/
5. No NFIP
(Community name, if not the same as "A")
Revised Date
3. LOMA/LOMR
4. Flood Zone
Map
❑ yes
370282 0043 C
MAY 17, 1989
A
Date
C. FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY (Check all that apply)
1. ® Federal Flood insurance is available (community participates in NFIP). ® Regular Program ❑ Emergency Program of NFIP
2. ❑ Federal Flood insurance is not available because community is not participating in the NFIP.
3. ❑ Building/Mobile Home is in a Coastal Barrier Resources Area (CBRA) or Otherwise Protected Area (OPA), Federal Flood insurance may not
be available.
CBRA/OPA designation date:
D. DETERMINATION
IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
(ZONES CONTAINING THE LETTERS "A" OR "V")? ❑ YES [A NO
If yes, flood insurance is required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
If no, flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
E. COMMENTS (Optional):
This determination is based on examining the NFIP map, any Federal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it, and any
other information needed to locate the building/mobile home on the NFIP map.
F. PREPARER'S INFORMATION
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER (If other than Lender)
DATE OF DETERMINATION
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
55 BROAD STREET
10/11/2007
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
moomm
FEMA Form 81-93, DEC 05 This form may be locally reproduced.

Jaa. i)290 S„0:17!1 1'88A
No, 0910 P, 2
UN, i c0 STATc3 EWRCW?,ENTAL PROTECTION AG€fi IV
' : ATiI.NTA FSPEaAC MEMTER
�C'_ 61 FTi-SYTH STi7eEr
^c nm� - AT,Urt'A GGDRGu 703UM960
CFiTG7E DINAR NZ kCBEi' 7 X 4 �1b0 WO-2 5 j_ 4 92
_-ZE,13q�I RF„ CJ 1L jZ UES- F.)
' lair. Stan Bryson, W:rstcsvalLx Cperstions Superinirndcni .i'A3t 18 A'$ .
"illcl-a.cci�cc Winer and Seurcr 4utharity
Pont Cf E= Box 1051
Sylva, Nordr Carolina 2M9
SUW; Tnfoimstien Rcqucnt - Section 308 of thn Clcau Watcr !ic.
' NUDES PcrmiL No. NC2039578
-Dickisci„gee WalcrnndSawrxAuthority- JAN 2 4
Wastcwzwr'Trrahneat Plant 0J
Deac
Pumumt to Section 309(2)(1) of the Clcmi W=r Act (CWX), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(axl), thr
' Llniied Stalns.F_n^nmrtmrr:talP>.otcz-dnn A3nncy (EPA) naoficd [he Tuckascigrc W3vr: nd
Sewn Authorityy (thc Alnhozit}') on hay 15T 2004 that It has viularcd its Na[ionalPol'.uL=
Dischm'goElirnkitiouSysrrnt(-%a1DF.S)-I'm&t:Yo."4C0039575for iizWas' 5tm"ptnatuLeiu
Fl wt ;il- Thin ro respandmcc rcgrc x, purscmt,to Sn ion 303 cQ d e CWA, 33 U.S.C. $ 1319,
the'Au[hority to provide the irifor=aEon set fat in Encicsmn A and Euclesme 13. Encicsuro A
rtgncsts information rgsrding wastcwatm T=&ncut Plant dl and Enclosuina H regl;e
Lnfczmatmi regarding the x missy sewer wEccboa sysicun. The Authofiri is rcgttird to zE,tpond
ro this infu,,mution request widniu thirty (30) dar- of its receipt of this L-rcr- Tl>°. rc- Jxmsc
ahould be di=cLed to:
Ms. YvotmoMartm
' writer Progrnne Etlfamemcut Branch
TJmwd States Euvimumcwal.Ptnk:dion A„•cncy
6I Fotuyth Sx et SW
Atlanta, GcorVa 30303
nc Authority's response to this information zequcst should specifically rdcrenc the
particul.w scctdoq and number of the tequeet and should be orgaaizcd for the pw-pose of cLtaty.
la addition, all information Submitted must be accmrgmnicd by the following certification signed
by A xeuponsible Authority offlcial in mcord,'mce with 40 C.FR. § 122.22:
htwnA+ddrn+.a (l1rLU+htfy�lf'.wK.oF�fW" ' � t�, l.� Is u � I�
P.or[IrrMl,a^�d+61+.P/M�d v1h V^sp[.YW l4 Nra,rl mlu an itwe�d PyMl ^� ^I 1I ' III III 11
U I4I Y Lt,I:J
Y\I,4TL=N (iU!tLITY SECTIQ;d
'Ar_Ll 'ILIF'F_f�NAI. OFFIC

P. _
NSA
Ito, 0910 ?,
2
I ar",fy underpc,talty of law that :hia ticcnment yid all
of ach nca v acra pr_Yazd under my dij=t,)n or auperv' on in
'
anmrd=cC with s S}Ntem dNiF;ed to as= that qualified
yMtumul ptzPcrly gather and cvnluert; the infotnution subr_ittcd, .
Basc3 on myingtriry of the pecan or persons who manage the
'
mnv syste, or tlwsc pctsodirectly lurponsible for gathering dx
infon- adort, I :crffy t1)at the uifoimation subtL&t cd is, to the best
of my knawindpe and heiief txttc, acClratc, and cprnolerc. I am
aware that there arc ApIficant penalties for.nil7jrd ung false
'
information, including the possitlity of fine andimpiisont t fo
mowin,° viola&p0 .
Fai]ltte to comply with this iufai>;ntion rzqu __tt My:csn;t iu anfatccatcnt proa.-edmgs
'
Under Sccdon 309 of tttc C"WA, 33 U.S.C, § 13.19, which could crztdt in tbeiodiial impo_ition
-
Of Civil cr ctiminal,pcnaltics m the adutidiskativc impottidoa of civil pcnaitics. 10 n7ditfon, [hare
'
i9 potentialcriminal liability for the f11nificatiev of any ecpon,6 to Chc rtLlocstcd infrntmatinn.
If you believe that any of t}td rr"
eamdinformation constiNt confidcntiN buainesa
information, YaL mny esscn a cmfid,=mi"'Ety claim wtrh respect to such infornmden,'r�ccpt Pi
CM=t data., Furdtcr dchnil.a, including Low to mnlco a busincu confidenIiDNLY clam, are found
'
in F.nclusuro C.
Also Cncloscd is a dcctanoll Cutit ed L'. S. LPA Sma1i 17u nts peso rrCa 7njUr tiun
sheet which may assist You is ❑n&ML1 xtng cue :anlpliance--V&5tauG; moumes and tools
.,
available Co the, Au-ct;ority. "However, any dc"a.sim ro seek comp[iaace asaistsncc atthis limo
dqq n(7t xcEc'vo the Authodry of its obligatirm to EPA or the State, deco not cv� ato any
new
0ghts or dofcnsns and will not effectFPA's d�Ciaion to ptasue cnfpr mmtalt action, fn addition,
rate Sc=rid cs and EIchmge CotnzaL ott (SEC) tequiren its regimaltta to perbxlinall) di,,clo,�
environm =,,,I ]cynl pra:rrdings in statemr lta filed With the SEC. To assist you, EPA has also
ort astd a dxt„T,cut entided Notice of Secus-{ Ies and F-tdranga Commission RH sisrrants' Dtdy
to DiZCIOSe ESn4rbnmental Legal proceed ngs_
[1
1
LJ
1

ao.2i, 2005 S:5v.m T'k^
Na, 991n P.
3
If yov have yienti its r eatL ng this Tcr�aCcn ccqucst p rant f_ 1 ft to rontyct ivin. biartiz� -d (4C4) 562-9756.
5inc��ty,
7amcsD. Glatrirsgbi'`crct
1✓atnr �n+gc mmtDivision
adwr uva
cc' Ccleen Sullins, Divis!on of water nu,tHry
Non}i C,vnlina 7:epm':Z nc Of?ntiicvnmcut and Natursl a=uma,

LI
L
1
S
1
1
1
Jag, "' ?0v5 3:51P11 ISi�?.
h )910 P, 5
1' pzo �de copies cia11 NPT�LS pc']in
held by the Audaorits'durins ihePe.Y;od;iu.rut
"at7'-"000 tLrcugh TJece-.n 2034.
2. P:evidr a copv of rht Autho t 'a Ta(ie of C gwiz t1on.
or3aniT�tion:tl unit, a dusaipticn ai ear.4 or Iriclad: tfic n.mm, of each erev, pO9uurs '°�'°`=..non: l onjcR rciasiou, and the number ci
c.;c1z or fin`=etc uGciFia p,Muon is filled or vac�n];
o- i�`.at.iorz71 =4 Also inctnd, ttrc name of the that am i.;s ,uteri to
orv:tnizational uuit.pooc:'blo petsou far each
3' i'tDy O' . a co
Zwa t7uneab Dc+;ratb,r 2U0 Y Of.Di-s6argeMeru S Report, (nMks) tSeperiod iron, .lantta,
4. nature nPded yitSrSpecttoNPL PcrmitNo.NC00395'78.
Frrnidn all cttp, S iecumaaiatiun wb ich Wa,s.-died on to prep,'c'e sad
lnfcrn a non tiro D v1Rs including, but not 1j its ya ab'0 Prt
Cl IRS
andreist,dsrnco�from xPort 1a.c
_ _ f rcporty, bend[ a
cgnlpumt use tcir Iftnuary
a 2�5� , ac]ude cam nond ng c lih a i m records for 00 [ugh
should be artrchcd to tho relative Db ' t.c, TPiC, t1ow-, DO, and pH. T11"e recon4s
5. TRs, as appmpriate
�1,0
Provide topics ZI lmd air.tcjau roP or ether docwwcotstien indicating tit,. d.�.tc aad the
type cioperudnn and ma tcnaoce Perfarmcd at the Authority's Wartcwalt Ile
Plant "1 during the Past rive y,sn;,
f\ attrient
0- 1 c Au here s yrt lunr9ng b of rru caioty ex
PCncnccdr-u;y c[y ucut v ola or s
ovcrtbc ast'"
C rr i . �a dcmaa j
'4ovc hLr >Q0 6 ;evst ttu ntptt Nose u r1200c; Fchru v, Apr l Oc Ixr and
fanuary, Mascb L' a th 2Y,t ov'ZI a d Sap:,'mbcr 200d; fceN calitorm is
l Novetub=2003; Y, Y hrau- Nov mbct2002r Apnl. Vla Ltd. pril, hrly, utd 3epL�-rnbc2004; ntal nss Y. and 7triY>>unug
( Y threuvb �iovten�c: ID0" l7chruzIry, O Paeidul solids in J�ayt},
i Sa't�nbcr 2004; end pH n ] mua y and 7 n c h4 and Nm umber 2003 and JuIY and
Pebnaury 2003. aypW.., vie rcawons far iae v oLno�Dt cembcr2002; Q laan,� aid
taken by tb, AtrtboritCr to catsEct the ptohlemq and 11 ptvt�id, a aummuy of action
Autltotitylta,s:ecordade'nons�atva .Frevcncfirttseviolauens..ritltc
surcbmit those ards fer he pad Jan mplisoce with Che abova patnme ,please
7 u Y 2600 through Doc�ber 20C4.
P d f o doctuncntrs (Wdresar e smdt�' dcsi�ts, ttcc =Cndnzions, cte.) prParcdin
tLo 1 (S) yeses o ad
Iarojectcd topi*,,d antl violations idcnrlfed ir, tllic ]erel'. PLMIgde any
operations a t' o, NC.0039 {O 8c .�� costs necessary to meet the
re<7uuctttcnts of the Ni'bFS Pcr:nit No, NC0039578.
8. Pl—scprovido a adaecrati,; and bnctly describe the operutio„al Wprtwr3tern-eumentplaw7- Also SCheroeofthoAuthohry's
complinrec sampling loc.m�,�(s), , tndtctle on tl:e schematic *cpreti ntative/
r

LJI
1
e
1
1
Cl
1
1
i
Jan 21, 2505 8:§iP,141 TIdSA
10.0919 P. 6
9 lndlca the nrrmbc of b•
acnt ¢nit;-passca of 4 r. Au her r/'s SVas c •a cr Trcanncn[ P1.4nt 7, Ile for
rc r l' ovidc Llc
Discvss the ci., dose, dzlr,,tit3T1, location and volume of each bypass,
tcumstnnees anal any r¢medial TLcamirca taL-en to prevent fad bypat,,es.
10. Ruddick e cmt ?aan ai n� lad disoc:al c!_lion(;;)'D d by ,hc Awhc4ity for m3,
sludge Xcne.�ted,
11. Pl aac ptmida a namhve dcncript on of, he tntal au nber of nett' cc c�nnca ous and he
fatal umb¢Y of lr_iid neat ensmc,r e ry e V•3stca•.'ltcr Tnn(ment Plant FI. Specify the
to4tl num
tQcal nuznbcr of indus4'iul e. e•'vicc ccanCc,ion& for wAntewater 3=-Ze and tlro
cic.,ncL•c, etc,'; ( 8• tcitilc tnilJB) and commercial (aP••. ePar;lnrncs• tlTy
mernervice eotmecdo❑s.for wastewntersGryica Alrp includs Y
number of Si,cpd]lcarn 1 h,q6yi ]J,= (SNs), d c sve age ds 7y AaWAlo;O ine of
sv�stc vnt-T diachsrged irate tilt A¢
SIU:uldtotnidvcra,c diotrty'aWasmwaterTmntmc,phnta1l*rrrn.;uh
. doily dommtic wsstmcnt inr7utnt flow•/vcltiIDc•
U.., - pN•,�, infiYm.,a 4C 6n tha
iTidu. �i irate Gttucturo far tilt Au[ilaci[y'= waccew uc• scrvicx�
" al, couunarisl,.rld.ceyideztl.•tin>,v:ernerg.
Tlrr. AutSedry shall p=scrve until
wLi¢h exist at Cla t]rpe ftrrthcr notice :ill rccotdv (tither a•cn
this 1nfarr>12cfon zrxp[c• The ly tfila letter that rclnte tv ¢uyof the matt= set fortk In
iach[de information of,. 'twatds" sh aL be sGagrcted in the brOnf'�st .eer,.sc to
ayst Y [y so t. Tl[c zapeny w h n i:^fomantion regucst shall include
lraticc flat the r_•cad protection movj eons wecz Fnzt in place, nv TcgUired. No arch
7 mid^ sha I Sc disposed often nter �,JMJOnanthorimticn is recivcd fmm the bin �
Scaicnt I)i,vJ.aon, U.S. EPA, Regions.

No. �i10 P.
Pico id, the following:
a Size of It c tpn ate saai ary sewer system (SSS) (]i,ncar fcct);
b A list of the srsiions in chr, SSS, including size (gpn,) and wbat ry e ot'bark
IT Pow, if any, h>9 the c�acit o : o cr e
c. T�stn e t Jan ' Y `ullv P rho P; s 1Ran;
n F tts) aJeragc dc,5ign.flcw;
d• Tk'=mcni PZant(s) Peak design flow;
e' P.t�n vcatmcnt Pcak design flow; and
f. Population s�vcd
2 P ovlde a',.iat ng of aLT suni ary acwcr ovci Ows (SSoa) inr the past f rc (S) /e us. A
SSOiss n q .., n

I
1
11
1
Jan eei, [Cui 3:52 Y I'W3A
5. z
Phtro m a et'.PY OF an ezpt..:nnrinn of the Authortty's ptri'ediire icr dncttmcn ring
�l..o pzo�jck tie naysx af'r„hc ]r:sana :cspon:ablc fur such procedu;c and r ,.
nnI tnmin SSOs.
$ptVvic�d'�7[h tesnec?'0 such �cedui,- he c'••uls.pf
G• Ptivvide n copy er . ezp]a"at o❑ of the rluchor;tti s 'rCccdurc f or csdmalir.R SS
vo7um c. -"'so prooic`e the namP
ea of the persons responssble for such ptr_cdurn end the
dctaiLs of any w;:h r,p=t to such prncedurc.
7. _Rovldc a copy or art ��urirnt of 6ic.lurhor'tY'9 Pro=cd to dctacrdne is ultima;c
ca asc of an S5-'Z 4� sucSEC)(alsa cnUed "RootforTuCaueu Anil , _ pcZsons tc<pmn�C,M,. ch . ruc-"=te and the dotal]& of ny ttsining Fro'ridcdwith ,
The Author cy %h 1] pnr.;c.-i,c lknt l f trthcr and c nll rc ctt3s (c he v ricn or clr
Sv.ileh czir, ,u the ✓i:rn et receipt of thia J a that inlate to any. of
into=t r rUic)
oa squc,St. T7tc tCrtn „�ordc'• shall be 1nSa �`' a7aG,crr,a.^t rorL4 in
nc udc nfoMat Cn of mcrY Solt rprcfrli ill the IM'jdcat senst to assvcancc out the recerr] protection is Forssc to t}ns infru5nation rz'gucs[ shaj] inc.'ud:,,
records eli'dl bo dtsperve=' of until tuns V : put in place, as rtquircd- No .¢slob
Warn y fmran-melt Divii Wn.tten authnsi:n iara•.1 vcd im 4S
:nc Dir_-,cmr,
o t U.S. A, Regjcn 4.
1

W.,
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
2
LL 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Monthly Average Discharge
"a t �"Z
IF
i4
k
WIN
A
...............
... ...... "1 141 11-
Z
M
V"
F!"
M
&
Date

Monthly Average pH
10.0
9.0
8.0
x
a.
7.0
3.1
5.0
& a& && & O� 00 00 00 00 60 Off` Off` Off` Oa Off` Oa Oy 00 OD OD Oh
�aO mac �a� �J\ le )ac �a� �J\ le �a� �J\ 5eQ �a�" �a1 le
Date

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
45
40
35
30
25
U)
H 20
15
10
5
0
Monthly Average Total Suspended Solids
x — —
v, 5 ��� t r� .x � its i, i L Y-' "l'r'' ��.3*'{ �' J „�` i�X s r 1 ,g� ✓ r
i I
�<WIMM��
..tn _ A' a i 3 .d C. fry L� i Y 0.r ♦ x -i .Y
A a -: a ysx.r:c.. � .3..:: £- �.. _,-tro a... f.. ?k ♦ Y <.t. � .*'9, ... -4
,.
4 `�' Y r ro Y i Vlrf Fi
Jfec. x -t 4 +{s a r iy -w) �`. ty ✓s r ,4, ti i `^r a h � +fie i h+a,,. i t
s,-%i'.F� + tr _ •�i se > t " tce a � tt1;4 �x _,., ^ v <'r tr`. v� R. � 7'kJ Etr> �S-f.i'.i e,* 5 _yrt-
,� t .i sro � J 1 t' i Fn k 3 r u�' t [Y,. k � •s e S `T r '
. ..i ?' J �,f x #H4 � ♦ 'u..,,. s �` f4 r .a1 >,i.r ¢.�, �o- � y b S� � + 4 5
:--, r , h -. K l `• ,. s _ ', S 7 a '� 3�4 y.2 :. x-.`1<�4, 7�z 5 ra`fixi .y S�vri Ryh., l,.� y d k d, ,a„ S r dry f
v4
d
,._ Y .,...-� ,._.._.+ .: `i': .. .r'v„ .., r. s.y�; . • _, ..a, vc_- �' S.. .N a�'t<.- �i, G
& Q^� of O5 l� (Z�J (�5 Off` Off` Off` Off` Off` Off. (CD (4D (Z 7 ((D O4j
�ox lac sae'mac' � 5�Q< ,/ ,mac - �x1 �J 5�Q
Date

M M11=1 w M a M M M M M M M M M M M M M
[Y1]
50
m
£ 30
6
O
M
10
0
0
Monthly Average Biological Oxygen Demand
N
i 'y
}l2 k ✓j
'/2 )v21 ./� 3
/yY
- 9 E. Yt 1 I
_
1
..
Y
/
r SIR !'
/
'
r. 9 rV
11 VMS
'.,^
+
£ (�!
`h Y� •�' 4 t`i, S il{ i{fibi
�L9�� ����d. T 2�y` i
RUN
; �(]'[�{PYtlN�.{�
k f
yd
L � L
f
k. 4Sj �„ �.. Y i
c y X
r F fj x 4 z{'E i
.�
`Q,W. t' d
,. i
�19,
}
<
t 5 opt Q Q �a'�' T ! ` r� �'1 '�' •Y+• „y ! ,y? I Kst �+1
X`i3;f%.0
l� tya3gXt"i<'�y
Off' Off' Off' Off' Off' Off' 00 00 00 00 00 00 Oa OQ OQ Off` Off` O� O� 05 00 00 O�
C2Q'
Date

M MW Mw �W MM �m M� M M MM M M
A
500
A
E 400
300
P41111
100
0
Monthly Fecal Coliform
M:
vT 'S a, a,
ESION Too
"�N
V-
V" Hat
""Mays-V .0g-w", va- AM 'KAM
OAK to P
Z7 iv i 411AVVI :'Inw, e "'-c-
P�
2
-4 1'
j�
71 Ell,
17
5K-'-
�^Vi 7
qh'
way "wA
N.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .............
-W win
o
i!sb RON? %-2
Ce Ce I �p A, Q,
5p
Date

0
3
0
LL
Weekly Average Discharge
i7[i
0.5
0.0
Off' Off' Off' Off' & & 00 00 O5 ' 00 O� Oa Off` Ot` Ot' Off` Off` OD O�
�O��O O�saw �a 4a �O
Date

io�o
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Weekly Average pH
Y,
R"
AtK
ff`
4�x
& Oa OD (Z�D �D
Date

m m m m m m m mw'm,mlmm m tm m m m
100
90
80
70
60
E 50
in
U)
40
jo
20
10
Weekly Average Total Suspended Solids
7
Ant
OR
-90 do
154".
2,50
Iw
.............
................
................................
I !YIP'!1! ,yj_'V stolen
L �L� ITS
yss
"gnu CIA IW
r9m
ONO
Th
At
is ......... I
scot
top..
f'
IX
0
'P �
Of
<Q)ff` Q
Date

M M M M M M r M r M M M M M M A M M s
Weekly Average Biological Oxygen Demand
100
90
80
70
.e,
J
E 50
O
O
[fl
40
30
20
10
0
6' Off' Off' Off' Off' & C�' O� O03 O� 03
IfmOa O`er Off` Off` Off` Off` O O O O O
ac 1 a0 1O\ le lam°, Sao � a� 1O\ eQ o�
5 �
Date

Ml I• M� m m w m m m m m m m m v" m m r
MI]
[cXir]
3000
2500
J
1500
1000
500
n
Weekly Fecal Coliform
r
Y
X
�eQ
Date

Total Enrollment
Fall Ten -In ^
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
O All Students ❑ Resident Credit O Distance Learning
Total Resident Credit Enrollment and Student Credit I3ours
SENTES'l1 R
Fall 2005
Fill 2004
Spring 2005
Full 2003
Spring 2004
Full 1001
Spring 2003
Fall 2001
Spring 2002
Fall 2000
Spring 2001
UERG DUAF'FE
1-lUN
dcutASCIeaun
6,388
93,415
6,197
90,515
5,637
81,852
5,682
81,914
5,304
75,794
5,372
76,415
4,939
70,519-
5,345
76,080
4,851
68,879
5,448
76.561
4,925
69.759
GRADUATE
headcount
SChI
1,226
5,224
1,297
8,392
1,389
7,471
1,269
5,419
1,157
2,548
1.169
7,916
I, 110
7,415
1,094
7,205
1,078
7,141
1,001
6,249
985
6,457
TOTAL
Iculcount
SCI-1
7,614
101,639
7,494
98,907
7,026
89,323
6,951
90,333
6,461
83,342
6.541
S4,331
6,049
77,934
6,439
83,285.
5,929
76,020
6.449
82,810
5,910
76,216
*lbtal Headcount does not equal the sum of Distance Learning and Resident Credit Headcount because
some students are enrolled in both resident credit and distance learning credit courses.
Sourer PBR021: Enrollment and Full -Time Equivalency (FTE=Tot l): SDF/SCl7Vcrify
Factbook Table Reference: Spring, Pall and Annual Avernge Enrollment (15)

d5t
dot
35C
300
r 250
goo
150
I00
50
0
Full -Time Employees
13eacut1 VC, Inslructiun:d Other 'Technical secretarial Skilled & Scrvicc
Administrative .Faculty' Professionals
112003 O 2004 02005
See glossary for definition ofjob tiller.
'Employees whose specific assignment is customarily made for the purpose of teaching ;md/or research, as
hosed on Occupational Activities Categories, not budgeted FTE.
Source: University Planning
Fuctbouk Table R-fercnce: Full -'Dime Employees (,12)
Rank & Gender of Fall -Time Faculty
Fall 2005
rrutcssur Assoeiam Pmfessur Assistant Professor Instructor Other Ronk
❑ Male p Pcnmle
Source: University Planninf;
Factbook -rub Ic Reference: Faculty by Raniti Cendcr and I IiIII est Earned Degree (45)
57

J ',5,�� �!�'. Ij" t ;�.r. � r +a��. _ f ^v.- �i r y •rm.�y. Y.� �
r 1
It.
it v
W
"� rL'' /, l•F'""F �� d .� , � y.. �) rr °i', ` o ,'.fb ,:F-; FA �[ ?�•`�� / .z{/L� ''\ 3 e 'n .t�) :-
Al
' ��_ ''- ••"a-: , _ .y. ` '`s.„,\'a. ..r �� \��� _ ^v 'Wr'��1 ��'�1 t _ `,� s . vor j R `° , :'( F�: i • '( �•�. {s!JAIN
,y;-r_, n I ' !
T�. s r`.-.
y sA
' "tom � f• �(, I - ' y \, a9 _ 6' 1 �`+
�•
.pi�.a I `; If
?�^ 14r4io [- f
l (•
f ✓ fc. ` - ) /" (� 1^� '2 r iy l��/_-��ti '.+' a. .,*..ti 't -��3 - -y,>• r ) � �.� ,�� �/ , `�"
l,i/+fi / !P`i 8��tl.\. r /♦-1,. _" 1 14
-' d -,7 a.., i� _ f - S ♦ ('� / tfY
try
R � ,
w '
n^-L 1' x ." fy.. j • • //�' \4,
.. 8
-Z`
i
_-� I i -�. + ,' ---�,.-• Ir' `'' r�,- a �.7 ` � 7,
L y �I \/� •" x '�� � I )'% .z- • ` ;�t` 'Yr'} �` � ro iF � �y. a �,pJP_ �(� � i.
• /L � _ ..` J / 1 l � v`k .^ l ,'T i +' _ g.� r �(y x
%
`C t=
x �r t k Q�.�,.Ssr.- rvL';,• <`� _. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF
n "t- ,r•i y, 1TRAL c FR SYSTs
y /9
.. , .. 1` /)\\ 'i• ,� -. -:.-' / -,. •' . 3 1r -. _I� } v��-. //��s5.�. �. -';_' l .. _ r"R ,' 4G� I I 1
�',' -' `�_ _ - F r x+ ~�' i) -> P's y
v 144 "` Y ! .,' TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND �Y - FIGURE 1.1-1 ' �+
cF NER AUTHORITY PLANT NC
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND J <"' - •+ r+� ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
y ER 2007
y t f ir!w SEWER AUTHORITY PLANT NO. 2 , — — — r; s 1 — - -- CTOB ' c
:��r.�A'\ �` \ .�f i �r�44��j•-ti����:>i��.i�M7s n.� �_..ikl 8"� : _ I i� v `y�.1 �J 1> '
R
CENTRAL SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA
McGffls,)��qb= TUCKASEIGEE
w�
A S S O C I A T E S `,� ' WATER &SEWER AUTHORITY
ENGINEERING•PLANNING-FIN ANCE --
' 55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE, NC PH. (828)252-05T5 x s ,. ` � ~'�r ` f ',� �+� JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.r 1.O

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONVERT CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN TO
DE -CHLORINATION BASIN
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
OFFICE / LAB FACILITY
INFLUENT PUMP STATION UPGRADE
HEADWORKS WITH BAR SCREEN
AND GRIT REMOVAL
McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
ENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE, NC PH. (8281252-0575
CLARIFIERS (2 BASINS) W/ NEW
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
AERATION BASIN
(2 BASINS)
K`
EQUALIZATION BASIN
iDO
C NVEE�RRf EX16ING--
NACLAAIFJE
/yew de arld gAS
1, 6 j EXIggT(NG SLUDGE BEeT F4E
TO IN INSE VICE/
S / SEPyAGE RECEIVING ST010V
(Bbombblele� in eeEdipr prolefl) I I
I Tb\ EMA�111TIER
N INSE`RVI�EI\ \/
a
I, I CfTERT E2XISTAC,
11 \ a \
I \ \70 kEW DTION SIN
tQES
50' SETBACK
y, :North Ri\ er Road
NCSR 1159
00 RiPht of Way
EXTENDED AERATION ALTERNATIVE
TUCKASEIGEE
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
OCTOBER 2007
FIGURE 2.3-1
SCALE: 1"= 200'

CONVERT CHLORINE
1 CONTACT BASIN TO
DE -CHLORINATION BASIN
1
1
OFFICE/LAB
i
1 INFLUENT PUMP STATION UPGRADE
1 HEADWORKS WITH BAR SCREEN
AND GRIT REMOVAL
1
1
1
1
McGiff
1 A S S O C I A T E S
ENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE
' 55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE. NC PH. [phone]
SBR ALTERNATIVE
TUCKASEIGEE
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
/ OCTOBER 2007
SBR TREATMENT UNITS FIGURE 2.3-2
.¢ 4\ ` (2 BASINS)
IqN CAE y 1 . O\ \
EN�PQSE5¢�LITh ON N, 'W\
1 6 , �� I ING SLUDGE BELT P1 9
p/T�,%O'REI�KIN IN R�ICE/
1 I I (EoletedGE nearllere�l I�
pro T REINNGEST
INI I i
RVICE
C%WERT EZOANG,,
1 6 \EQUALRTIOIPBASIN.
\ 70 NEW DIQESTEA-�
50' SETBACK
\. orth River Road SCALE: 1'= 200' N
NCSR 1359
\ 60' Right of Way

771
Alt
.� .Try' - ,/,�.!.. / >. -i iiF•��ti _��!¢•• i�', e. 1d l..;�.:
4
' � '�. • r `.: Y .'^', /'a � ` � R F/ •' "� � ti � ? �y3'tr �j it
Ii�u +:'+
♦ ''
r' 1ti r e y` • kr ',
1,+ �•• L R�3 • { �A
�, . - .M � • • rye .: . r �_ � �...
r1iW/J� .P � � • 5 � • ij f� / :'��'yi1�'6isf? �t �}�
.:':_ +.,1 S 1� •-'%, _ i .} y .`,ram' al "y„+f i%�4.o r
{' '(1i�' � .h ram_.\ - .� •�•, �17� 1� r rr.I. Wit/
rcr a , �`�, Sri- ". , :'\`f-` !,• �i,�Ly�irrr' 's e'k�'iT.
s.�iti, to • � I f � j ✓��V . � k, ���t�` � , - .''r'�yi� ,`.
r� u r�� '��� +' �' �f ''«� P ram" � •{- q - ..-
r 4: `li ;�;n•, � � 'y�� .. _ ,,$1 j .f . _iaFla
VA
Nef
,ys byc _ r� try
36
-a i2l

=1 M M M M M= M i, == M w M M M
Jackson County Protected Areas
Map 2
* Ridgeline i
** Flood lay,
Hazard MO
for accurate
Legeni
— Ma
---- Prl
WE
_ Frr ,
- Occasional Flooding
- Rare Flooding
- Public Land
0 Cherokee Indian Reservation
County Boundary
The data represented on this map are interpretation
of documents of record and externally supplied
GIS data. Jackson County is not responsible for
the accuracy of the data represented.