NC0089532_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20150223

fgcnggS3-LE0
(► 01041ki fv✓ I pwMIj cyCl-e
RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
- _ ' 3 2015
Water Quality
Permitting Section
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CASHIERS AREA WASTEWATER EVALUATION
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Y
OMcGfll
CONSU LTIN G ENGINEERS
A S H E V I L L E. NORTH CAROLINA

M
M
RECEIVEMENR/M
r t.8I, 3 2015
Water Quality
Permitting Section
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CASHIERS AREA WASTEWATER EVALUATION
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
N CAROL
p , SS/
L
22541 g
.� u �- Y ° °F,i1Gj°NE�;•°��
1, BV
12/29/20141 110
_ 0McGM
Engineering • Planning ° Finance
Asheville, North Carolina
December 2014
11.00424

I"
no
no
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................I
II. FLOW PROJECTIONS....................................................................................................2
III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.......................................................................................19
am IV. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY..........................................................................................39
up
n"
W"
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing WWTP Description......................................................................................... 3
mm Table 2-2: Cashiers WWTP Historical Flow Records.................................................................... 5
Table 2-3: Density Limits per Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance .......................... 10
Table 2-4: Wastewater Survey Information.................................................................................. 15
Table 2-5: Existing Development and Sewer............................................................................... 15
`M Table 2-6• Future Development and Desire for TWSA Sewer .............................. 16
. .......................
Table 2-7: Summary of Future Flows........................................................................................... 18
Table 3-1: Alternative No. 3 Land Application System Cost Estimate ........................................ 24
Table 3-2: Town of Highlands Sewer Connection Fees............................................................... 26
or Table 3-3: Alternative No. 5 Regional System Cost Estimate...................................................... 27
ow
Table 3-4: Monthly Average Effluent Limitations....................................................................... 33
Table 3-5: Influent Design Parameters......................................................................................... 33
Table 3-6: Alternative No. 6 New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the
07 Horsepasture River Cost Estimate................................................................................................ 35
Table 3-7: Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant to 0.695 mgd, with Discharge of 0.495
am
mgd to the Horsepasture River..................................................................................................... 37
Table 3-8: Alternatives Capital Cost Summary............................................................................ 38
0"
Table 4-1: Summary of Net Present Worth Analysis................................................................... 40
a"
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page i Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

am
so
O
Z2
f"
M"
no
fm
ow
MIR
oft
am
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Existing Cashiers WWTP Site.................................................................................4
Figure 2-2 Existing Cashiers Service Area................................................................................7
Figure 2-3 Future Cashiers Service Area...................................................................................9
Figure2-4 Slope Map..............................................................................................................11
Figure 2-5 Wastewater Survey Map .....................................
Figure2-6 Survey Responses..................................................................................................17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TWSA Speculative Limits for the Proposed Horsepasture River Discharge
APPENDIX B
TWSA Cashiers Sewer System Map from the
Jackson County Land Development Plan
APPENDIX C
TWSA Cashiers NPDES Permit
APPENDIX D
Current TWSA Flow Allocations
APPENDIX E
Wastewater Survey Cover Letter and Example
APPENDIX F
Jackson County Health Department Letter
APPENDIX G
USFWS Species List
APPENDIX H
USGS Flow Determination for the Horsepasture River
APPENDIX I
Net Present Worth Analysis Calculations
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page n Engineering Alternatives Analysis
MR Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

go
go
MR
am
am
am
RM
am
MR
am
MR
am
PM
MR
am
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD5
biochemical oxygen demand
CCA
Cashiers Commercial Area
CCALD
Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance
CDP
Census Designated Place
DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DLR
North Carolina Division of Land Resources
DMR
Discharge Monitoring Report
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DOA
North Carolina Department of Administration
DWI
North Carolina Division of Water Infrastructure
DWR
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
GPM
gallons per minute
GPD
gallons per day
I/I
infiltration and inflow
MGD
million gallons per day
mg/l
milligram per liter
MLE
Modified Ludzack Ettinger
NH3-N
ammonia -nitrogen
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
O&M
operations and maintenance
RAS
return activated sludge
SRF
State Revolving Fund
TSS
total suspended solids
TWSA
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
USCB
United States Census Bureau
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WAS
waste activated sludge
WWTP
wastewater treatment plant
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page iii Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

am
No
an
MR
so
MR
am
M
M
MR
am
.R
am
a"
I. Introduction and Summary
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) owns and operates a 0.200 mgd
capacity wastewater treatment facility in the unincorporated Cashiers area of Jackson County.
The facility discharges treated wastewater effluent to a tributary of the Chattooga River. Current
and requested wastewater flows (held allocations) are greater than 90% of the 0.200 mgd
capacity, and exceed the 0.200 mgd capacity when higher summer seasonal wastewater flows are
considered. Therefore, there is an immediate need for increased wastewater capacity in the
Cashiers service area.
Due to the Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) stream classification of the Chattooga
River, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has
indicated that it will not approve an expansion of this existing discharge. For this reason TWSA
has been actively pursuing another discharge option to supplement the current discharge to the
Chattooga River.
Flow projections for the future service area result in a projected total wastewater flow for
the 20 year planning period of 0.695 mgd. Therefore, in order to supplement the current 0.200
mgd discharge to the Chattooga River tributary for the existing Cashiers wastewater treatment
plant, this Engineering Alternatives Analysis has been prepared to support an NPDES permit
application to request an additional 0.495 mgd discharge of treated wastewater effluent in the
Cashiers area.
The proposed 0.495 mgd discharge is on the Horsepasture River in the eastern portion of
the Cashiers service area. Based on the results of a comprehensive present worth evaluation
performed in this document, construction of a new 0.495 mgd treatment facility is the selected
alternative. The facility is proposed to be constructed on the same property as the recommended
discharge location. Speculative permit limits for this location on the Horsepasture River have
been issued by NCDENR and are included in Appendix A of this report.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 1 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014
am

oft
II. Flow Projections
The community of Cashiers is an unincorporated region located in southern Jackson
County, North Carolina. The area is located in the proximity of the intersection of NC Highway
107 and US Highway 64. Jackson County has instituted a planning ordinance referred to as the
Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance which defines an area of
approximately 1250 acres as the Cashiers Commercial Area (CCA). The purpose of the
�+ development ordinance is to "promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community;
to provide for sound and orderly development; to facilitate the adequate provision of
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, and parks; to promote the economic prosperity of the
community; to preserve the community's unique scenic quality; to conserve the natural resources
M, and environmental quality of the community; and to protect and conserve the heritage of the
community."
F--1
The area generally consists of light commercial development (retail, office, restaurants,
no and related recreational support businesses) and higher density residential inside the CCA with
larger residential developments in the area surrounding the CCA. Elevations in the area range
MR from approximately 3,100 feet to over 4,000 feet. The topography in the core commercial area is
relatively mild; however, the surrounding land area includes very steep property with rock
am outcroppings and sheer cliffs and bluffs in some locations.
`" A portion of the CCA is currently served with public sewer service by the Tuckaseigee
Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA), which took over ownership of the existing Cashiers area
MR wastewater collection and treatment system from private developers in 1992. TWSA is a
publically owned water and wastewater management entity created to provide these services
ON
throughout Jackson County. It is not a development planning agency nor does it have a role in
how the communities in its service areas will grow. The Board of TWSA authorized the
am
preparation of this document as a response to the clear patterns of growth and demand in the
Cashiers area. A description of the existing wastewater system is documented below.
oft
..
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 2 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
•• Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

so
Existing Collection System
The collection system is primarily pump stations and force mains with a few short
sections of gravity sewer. There are a total of seven (7) pump stations in the system. The original
A•, collection system core was installed when the WWTP was developed by private interest.
However, due to noted aspects of topography, existing land use, and the nature of transportation
routes, any future sewer expansions will likely follow this pattern. A map of the Cashiers area
collection system from the Jackson County Land Development Plan is included in Appendix B.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
�+ The existing WWTP is an extended aeration biological process with circular clarifiers
and cloth media disk filters. The plant discharges to the Chattooga River under NPDES Permit
No. NC00063321. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix C. A new 200,000 gpd train
was added in 2005 to the existing 100,000 gpd treatment facility. The 100,000 gpd train
remained in place and is currently used as flow equalization. A summary of the capacity of the
treatment components is included in Table 2-1 below. A site plan of the existing WWTP is
included as Figure 2-1
so
am
MR
am
a"
Table 2-1: Existing WWTP Description
Component
Description
Flow Equalization
134,436 gallons, aerated.
Intermediate Pump Station
Suction Lift 347 gpm @ 32 ft TDH 2.5 peak on 200,000 d)
Aeration Basins
208,000 gallons total
Clarifiers
One (1)23 ft-9" diameter, One(l) 29 ft-9 inches diameter
Filters
200,000 gpd Cloth Media Disk Filters
Chlorine Contact
4,375 gallons, Sodium Hypochlorite Feed System
Dechlorination
1,450 gallons, Sodium Bisulfite Feed System
Sludge Holding
One (1) 17,000 gallon basin, One (1) 56,000 gallon basin, Total
Sludge Holding Capacity = 73,000 gallons. Sludge is hauled to
WWTP #1 for processing and disposal.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 3 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
-IM Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

I
I
0
I
R
0
r

Current Flows
.. The Cashiers WWTP currently serves approximately 250 customers consisting of
approximately 50% commercial and 50% residential. The community does not have a public
potable water system and therefore the majority of the customers are billed on a flat rate based
on specific uses of the structures connected. There are 12 metered customers that account for
- approximately 25,000 to 30,000 gpd over a 12 month average and the remaining 35,000 to
45,000 gpd is attributed to the non -metered users and infiltration and inflow (I/1) in the collection
system. Table 2-2 shows the average monthly flow for 2007 through August 2014. The Cashiers
area has a large resort/vacation area influence and seasonal flow increases are seen in the data. A
three month average for June -August was utilized as the base current flow since these months are
typically the highest flow period in the system.
Table 2-2: Cashiers WWTP Historical Flow Records
Month
2007
Flow
an d
2008
Flow
an d
2009
Flow
an d
2010
Flow
an d
2011
Flow
an d
2012
Flow
an d
2013
Flow
an d
2014
Flow
rad
January
0.071
0.047
0.05
0.062
0.053
0.068
0.078
0.068
February
0.046
0.054
0.041
0.063
0.052
0.048
0.072
0.058
March
0.052
0.063
0.047
0.045
0.073
0.055
0.055
0.043
April
0.053
0.060
0.055
0.046
0.070
0.069
0.065
0.065
May
0.054
0.057
1 0.069
0.062
0.065
0.085
1 0.099
0.083
June
0.062
0.063
0.067
0.078
1 0.072
0.091
0.086
0.097
July
0.078
0.070
0.074
0.074
0.077
0.112
0.140
0.108
August
0.067
0.070
0.079
0.070
0.061
0.105
0.081
0.100
September
0.060
0.060
0.097
0.059
0.066
0.080
0.052
October
0.063
0.053
0.084
0.059
0.050
0.073
0.051
November
0.054
0.047
0.078
0.054
0.052
0.045
0.041
December
0.043
0.045
0.067
0.059
0.063
0.045
0.066
Average
0.059
0.057
0.067
0.061
0.063
0.073
0.074
0.078
Peak
Month
0.078
0.070
0.097
0.078
0.077
0.112
0.140
0.108
.tune -August 2012-2014 Seasonal Average Floc
0.102
The W WTP was expanded from 100,000 gpd to 200,000 gpd in 2005 and additional
allocations based on requests from property owners were issued by TWSA for this expanded
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 5 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
- Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

OM
capacity. Currently, allocations totaling 104,277 gpd are being held by TWSA. A copy of the
current flow allocations held by TWSA is included in Appendix D.
,., Considering actual existing WWTP seasonal flow rates, allocations issued and requests
for allocations being held by TWSA the total flow that is currently served or has requested
service is 180,340 gpd, which exceeds the NCDENR ninety percent action threshold of the
200,000 gpd capacity of the facility.
The existing service area is shown on Figure 2-2 based on the location of existing lines
�+ and properties that could from an engineering standpoint be relatively easily connected if
capacity were available. The existing service area boundary includes approximately 537 acres.
MR However, it should be noted that most properties within the area do not currently have sewer.
Service to these properties cannot be provided currently due to the lack of allocable treatment
capacity. Based on a review of the aerial photography of the area, approximately 175 acres, 33%
of the current service area has no existing significant development.
go
r---A
M
a"
ON
am
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 6 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
+m Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r

am
am
Future Situation
.., The Cashiers area is expected to continue to grow similarly to the existing pattern of
primarily commercial and higher density residential in the Cashiers Commercial Area (CCA)
am with lower density residential in the surrounding area. The planning period for this evaluation is
a 20 year period from 2014 through 2034. Existing development, planning regulations, and
a, proposed projects all need to be considered in sizing future wastewater facilities to meet the
needs of the community. TWSA was created to provide water and sewer service to the Jackson
on County Area. TWSA does not have any planning authority and intends only to position itself to
respond to the needs of development in the area.
0"
Unsewered Areas/Future Service Area
A future service area was estimated to include the full CCA and some adjacent areas that
have mild topography and the potential to relatively easily connect to a sewer system. This
MR selection is consistent with reasonable development patterns and the history of the area. The
identified future service area is shown on Figure 2-3. The future service area totals
approximately 1,622 acres including approximately 1,250 acres in the CCA and an additional
372 acres adjoining.
am
rM
Oft
am
am
IM
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 8 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
an Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

am
fam
am
Im
M
am
am
M"
MR
M
om
M
MM
MM
OR
am
am
Ordinances/Planning/ORW restrictions
The two primary ordinances that address development in the Cashiers area are the
Jackson County, Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance (CCALD), and the
Jackson County, Mountain and Hillside Development (MHD) Ordinance. In addition, the State
of North Carolina administers programs that additionally limit development in some specific
portions of the project area, such as the Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watershed
designation and restrictions on development near surface waters designated as Trout Waters.
Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance
The CCALD ordinance established the Cashiers Commercial Area, which consists of the
Village Center District (VC) and General Commercial District (GC). Both districts have
similar uses consisting of retail, office, and residential uses; however, the density and
setback requirements are different based on the purpose. The VC is intended as a central
commercial area while the GC is intended to serve automobile traffic. Structure footprints
in the VC are limited to 2,500 square feet, and 5,000 square feet in the GC. Larger
setbacks from streets are required in the GC.
Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance
The MHD ordinance applies to areas with average slope greater than thirty percent.
Development density limitations for this ordinance are provided below in Table 2-4. The
purpose of the ordinance is to protect the natural conditions, prevent inappropriate
development, preserve the aesthetic and scenic qualities of such areas, and ensure the
public health, safety, and general welfare. Figure 2-3 is a map of slopes in the project
area. The majority of slopes in the CCA do not fall into the regulated categories;
however, there are some parcels which could be affected by the ordinance.
Table 2-3: Density Limits per Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance
Average Slope of Land to Be
Developed or Subdivided
Maximum Density
lots per acre
30-34%
0.5
35-39%
0.4
40-44%
0.2
45% or more
0.1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 10 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
an Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

I
L
0
0
0
Legend
J
Cashiers Commercial District i t
Percent Slope
ED 0-10
F-1 10-20
20-30
E-1 30-34
E] 35-39
40-44
=> 45
0 750 1,500 3,000
k6i
k r.
d
t
JF
r
r
NIN
k
P
4
v
S
S
Ar
L
IL
IN A
if

�I
am
Outstanding Resource Water Watershed Requirements
Development in Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watersheds are regulated under
15A NCAC 02H .1007 "Stormwater Management", which requires low density
developments of no more than 12% built upon area or single family homes with lot sizes
greater than 1 acre are required. Developments meeting low density requirements must
include components of passive stormwater management (natural drainage ways and other
best management practices for limiting polluted runoff). High density developments are
allowed if engineered stormwater systems are designed and approved by the Division of
Water Resources (DWR). All development projects must also provide a 30 foot vegetated
setback along all streams.
Designated Trout Waters
0 Designated Trout waters in the area are required to maintain a 25 feet undisturbed setback
under the rules administered by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources (DLR).
M" These regulations are aimed at protecting water quality and preventing excessive
sediment loss.
It should be noted, however, that due to development history and general existing project
composition in this area (larger lots in outlying areas with significant "open space" included in
the project design), it is not anticipated that any of these ordinances or restrictions will
significantly restrict growth or the wastewater flow generated from future development in the
CCA.
Service Population
am The distribution of commercial customers in Cashiers is higher than is typical of most
municipal wastewater systems since the main area served is the core service and retail area of
®,
Cashiers. Residential development in the area is generally distributed outside the CCA, and
typically consists of large lots serviced by individual septic systems. Based on this distribution,
typical population projections which look at growth in the population served to determine future
flows will likely be inaccurate and would lead to under estimation of demand. Although
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 12 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

am
00
Cashiers is not incorporated, an area at the intersection of US Highway 64 and NC Highway 107
is defined by the US Census Bureau (USCB) as a Census Designated Place (CDP). The area
defined by the USCB is smaller than the CCA defined by Jackson County. 2000 USCB data
,., indicates a population of 196 persons for this tract. 2010 USCB data shows a decrease in
population to 157 or 19.9% over the 10 year period. The population increases significantly
during the higher tourism months in the summer and early fall which is also not reflected in
census data. Due to the small area considered and commercial nature of the area, this data is not
considered representative of the anticipated growth in Cashiers.
Wastewater Survey
Since population growth was not considered an accurate basis for projecting wastewater
' flows, a questionnaire survey was developed and distributed to all property owners in the CCA
and property owners with more than 5 acres in a 2 mile radius of the center of the CCA. Figure
MAI 2-5 is a map of the CCA and the properties outside the CCA to whom the survey was distributed.
A sample of the survey form and cover letter is included in the Appendix E. Basic statistics for
the survey are shown in Table 2-4 below. Owners with multiple properties listed by the same
name were only sent one letter. The overall response rate to the survey was approximately 42%.
a,
M,
OR
am
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 13 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
�+ Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Table 2-4: Wastewater Survey Information
Cashiers Commercial Area
>5 acres outside the CCA
Total
Properties Identified
597
269
866
Letters Mailed
410
243
653
Responses Received
187
87
274
The survey requested information on existing development and sewer, and future
development and need for sewer. Table 2-5 below summarizes the response to the existing
situation questions. This information demonstrates the distribution of commercial development
in the commercial district as opposed to outside the commercial district for the parcels
responding to the survey.
Table 2-5: Existing Development and Sewer
Existing Development
Cashiers Commercial Area
>5 acres outside the CCA
None, Undeveloped
12%
24%
Single Family Dwelling
48%
73%
Multifamily Dwellings
2%
1 %
Commercial
3 8%
2%
Sewer Type
Cashiers Commercial Area
>5 acres outside the CCA
Sewer Not Applicable
13%
26%
Septic System
53%
67%
TWSA Sewer
33%
0%
Private Sewer
1 %
7%
Table 2-6 is a summary of the responses to plans for future development and the question
"If TWSA Sewer was available would you request service?" The majority of those with plans for
development in the CCA plan to begin in the next 5 years and desire connection to TWSA sewer.
M
M
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 15 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

no
00
MM
dw
G"
am
M
L Z
oft
FM
IM
F,
MM
F"
04
W
Table 2-6: Future Development and Desire for TWSA Sewer
Development Plan
Cashiers Commercial Area
>5 acres outside the CCA
No Plans
52%
58%
Residential
14%
41 %
Commercial
30%
0%
Other
5%
1 %
Timetable
Cashiers Commercial Area
>5 acres outside the CCA
0-5 Years
71 %
46%
5-10 Years
8%
22%
Unknown
21 %
27%
Desire Connection to TWSA
74% yes, 26% no
5 1 % yes, 49% no
Fifty-eight (58) parcels in the commercial area with a total area of 202.1 acres identified
significant plans for development in adequate detail to ..estimate future flows. Overlaps with
previous requests for allocations already considered were removed from this data and based on
the survey responses a flow rate of 137,516 gpd was estimated for the identified parcels. Figure
2-6 shows all parcels who responded to the survey request.
M
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 16 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

m
m

r�
In addition to the parcels that requested flow allocations or responded to the survey,
00 approximately 707 acres were identified within the future service area which appeared
underdeveloped from a review of existing aerial photography. These parcels are within the
commercial district and are likely to develop into commercial or higher density residential. It
was assumed that 50% of this acreage will develop in the 20 year planning period at 880
gpd/acre for non-residential per 15A NCAC 2T .0114. Therefore, a flow of 311,080 gpd is
attributed to these properties during the planning period.
am
M
M
on
a"
The total of the current wastewater flows, pending and requested allocations, planned
development from the survey, and under developed properties is 694,963 gpd and is summarized
in Table 2-7. The existing 200,000 gpd WWTP was expanded in 2005 and the equipment in the
facility is expected to have a remaining useful life of approximately 20 to 25 years with proper
maintenance. Therefore, TWSA needs to consider the expansion to serve an additional 495,000
gpd while maintaining the existing plant in service.
Table 2-7: Summary of Future Flows
Category
Flow d
Current Seasonal Flow
102,000
Allocated Flow
104,237
Allocations Requested
40,130 -
Planned Development from Survey
1375516
Underdeveloped Properties
3115080
Total
694,963
Existing Capacity
2009,000 '--
Additional Capacity Required
494,963
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 18 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
�► Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

r=
am
III. Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives Description
A total of seven (7) alternatives were considered to develop the best solution to meet
needs for public wastewater treatment capacity in the Cashiers area. The alternatives considered
M include the following:
0% 1. No Action
2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
3. Land Application
4. Reuse System
am 5. Regional System
6. New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the Horsepasture River
M 7. Upgrade Existing Treatment Plant to 0.695 MGD capacity and discharge 0.495 MGD
M
to the Horsepasture River
The feasible alternatives have been evaluated based on environmental issues, capital costs
am and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost. All alternatives are based on requiring an
additional 495,000 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity to supplement the existing 200,000 gpd
M-4 wastewater treatment plant.
Collection System
Cost estimates exclude construction of the collection system required to serve the
proposed service area. Costs for construction of the collection system would vary somewhat
between alternatives however the selected alternative likely has the lowest cost for collection
based on its location at the low oiq,�service area. The location where land could be
acquired for the land application alternative would have a significant effect on the collection
system cost associated with that alternative and a best case scenario has been assumed for
comparison. The Regional System alternative assumes all wastewater from the collection system
would continue to be conveyed to the current treatment plant site. The collection system cost
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 19 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
FM Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

so
rEM
would likely be greater than the preferred alternative to convey wastewater to this point and
IM hence this is also considered as a best case scenario.
Alternative No.1 No Action
TWSA has reached 90% of the capacity of the existing plant when existing flow
em allocations are considered in addition to the current flows experienced at the plant. TWSA has
also received additional requests for wastewater allocation that they are unable to grant due to
am this lack of capacity. Lack of adequate sewer service in the area is limiting growth and
encouraging the construction of numerous small wastewater systems for each additional
M development activity.
This alternative presents numerous environmental concerns due to the lack of adequate
sewer service and scattered wastewater management oversight. Small privately owned systems
can meet all State and Federal requirements, however, management is typically lacking and
DWR has identified this as a significant concern for continued development under this approach.
The use of individual and larger septic systems in the area for new development is also a cause of
concern because of the potential for groundwater or surface water contamination in the event of
failure. Both individually- and development -owned systems are often poorly maintained and can
cause water quality and public health issues. As noted in the letter from the Local Health
Department included in Appendix F there have been several septic system failures in the area
that had no option for repair or had to utilize substandard repairs due to site constraints.
Taking no action to provide public sewer service in the area could result in significant
am adverse environmental and economic impacts to the area. The alternative of No Action is
0"
am
therefore not considered appropriate or acceptable, and will not be evaluated further in this
report.
Alternative No. 2 Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
This alternative considers continued operation of the existing facilities at increased flows with no
changes to the process or basins sizes in use at the plant. The existing facilities may have some
ability to treat flows above the permitted flow of 200,000 gpd; however, the plant hydraulics,
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 20 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
VM Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

MM
pump sizes, and chlorine contact basins are sized for 200,000 gpd and are not anticipated to be
FM able to comply with the current effluent limits at flows above that level. As discussed in more
detail in Alternate No. 6, the expansion of the existing discharge permit is prohibited under
M-" existing regulations. Environmental considerations for this alternative would be similar to
Alternative No. 1 with the addition of the potential impacts to the Chattooga River from permit
M limit violations. Based on these limitations, Alternative No. 2 is not considered feasible and will
am
not be evaluated further in this report.
Alternative No. 3 Land Application
Im Alternative No. 3 includes the disposal of treated effluent by land application. It is
assumed that such a system would be constructed and operated under the 15A NCAC 2T .0500
a, rules for wastewater irrigation, and that the existing 200,000 gpd discharge to the Chattooga
River would remain in place. Large land application systems are rare in the mountains due to the
M+ challenges in soils, hydrology, and elevation changes. Guidance for Preliminary Engineering
Reports provided by the Division of Water Infrastructure (DWI) of the Department of
F+ Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) indicates that no municipal land application
systems exist in the Mountain Region. Although this alternative is likely infeasible a conceptual
'm design and cost estimate has been developed for comparison.
The actual treatment level and loading rates for this alternative would be dependent on
the soils and agronomic evaluation of a specific disposal field as well as detailed water balance
RM calculations for the local climate. For the purposes of this evaluation it is assumed that a typical
secondary level effluent could be sprayed, which specifies the minimum level of treatment for as
TSS <_ 30 mg/l, BOD5 < 30 mg/l, ammonia < 15 mg/l, and a fecal coliform < 200/100 ml.
Irrigation rates in western North Carolina are typically 1-inch per week or less. The
Cashiers area receives almost 90-inches per year average rainfall and is one of the wettest
climates in the eastern United States. At 1-inch per week approximately 160 acres, including
setbacks, would be required for land application of the 495,000 gpd design flow.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 21 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
,,., Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

C1
In addition to the raw land area required for the irrigation field, a water balance is
required to be completed to determine the amount of storage necessary to operate the system
with seasonal variations in rainfall and evapotranspiration. Typically, a minimum of 15 days of
M storage is required from a practical standpoint to allow for wet or freezing periods; however on
some sites over 90 days of storage may be necessary. Due to the cold winter temperatures and
wet periods typical of the Cashiers area, a 60 day requirement has been used for cost estimation
purposes. Approximately 30 million gallons of capacity is required to provide 60 days of storage
M at 495,000 gpd.
M Land values in the area are relatively high and, based on land values of large tracts
reported through the Jackson County Register of Deeds, are approximately $20,000 to $40,000
per acre on a gross average value. Utilizing the lower end of this range ($20,000 per acre) the
estimated property cost for land application is $3,200,000.
There are also several environmental considerations associated with construction and
operation of a facility of this type in the Cashiers area. This alternative would require the
clearing of vegetation from approximately 130 to 140 acres for installation of the spray irrigation
system. An alternative irrigation system, such as drip irrigation, could be considered without
clearing all vegetation; however, the construction cost would be significantly higher. If the
topography of the specific irrigation site vanes significantly (which should be anticipated)
additional pump stations, pressure zones, and/or alternative irrigation methods may be
unavoidable.
The impacts to surface waters would likely be less for this alternative than a surface
water discharge; however the significant clearing required has a higher potential for direct
.. construction impacts from sedimentation due to runoff. Maintenance of a large cleared area in
this geography would also be challenging and has potential for ongoing impacts from rainfall
runoff from the site. The United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) was contacted during
preparation of this document and provided an "Environmental Resource Analysis" for the
general area which is included in Appendix G. The only endangered species identified in the
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 22 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

am
area are terrestrial species and any large clearing project would have the potential to affect these
species.
,M-" We emphasize that in order to create a cost estimate for this comparison, many
assumptions have been made and the actual costs to construct a land application system, if it is
IM even feasible at all, could likely be higher. Table 3-1 is a detailed breakdown of the estimated
costs for Alternative No. 3 Land Application.
M"
M"
am
M"
00
M
M
am
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 23 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Ow Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

-� Table 3-1: Alt. #3 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary Process Plant with Land Application
October 24, 2014
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
EXTENSION
1
Mobilization (3%)
1
LS
$ 302,300
$ 302,300
2
Influent Pump Station and Screens
I
LS
$ 410,000
$ 410,000
3
Flow Equalization Basin
1
LS
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
4
Flow Equalization Aeration and Pumps
1
LS
$ 160,000
$ 160,000
5
Secondary Treatment Process Basins
1
LS
$ 625,000
$ 625,000
6
Secondary Treatment Process Equipment
I
LS
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
7
Operations and Blower Buildings
1
LS
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
8
Chlorine Contact Basin
1
LS
$ 110,000
$ 110,000
9
Sludge Digester Basin
1
LS
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
10
Sludge Digester Equipment
1
LS
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
11
Site Work
1
LS
$ 525,000
$ 525,000
12
Bridge/Culvert over Horsepasture River
1
LS
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
13
Yard Piping
1
LS
$ 125,000
$ 125,000
14
Electrical
1
LS
$ 715,000
$ 715,000
15
Erosion Control
I
LS
$ 95,000
$ 95,000
16
Effluent Pump Station to Irrigation
l
LS
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
17
Force Main to Pond at Irrigation Site
5,000
LF
$ 60
$ 300,000
18
Irrigation Pump Station
1
LS
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
19
Spray Irrigation System
1
LS
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
20
30-Million Gallon Storage Pond
I
LS
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,000,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$ 10,377,300
a
Contingency (10%)
$ 1,037,700
b
Design and Permitting
$ 830,200
c
Construction Administration
$ 726,400
d
Treatment Plant Land Acquisition *
$ 650,000
e
Due Diligence Site Investigation - Treatment Plant Site
$ 17,800
f
Irrigation Site Land Acquisition (160 acres at $20,000 per acre)
$ 3,200,000
g
Due Diligence Site Investigation - Irrigation Site
$ 80,000
h
Legal/Administrative
$ 40,000
i
Testine
S 30,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$ 16,989,400
* W WTP Site cost based on contract price in option held by TW SA for property.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 24 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

a"
W"
Alternative No. 4 Wastewater Reuse
Ow This alternative considers the reuse of reclaimed wastewater for a beneficial purpose in
order to reduce or eliminate the need for disposal. Utilization of the wastewater for a dedicated
irrigation system was considered in Alternative 3, and it is anticipated that permitting a reuse
system in compliance with the 15A NCAC 2U rules would result in similar or higher project
costs than Alternative 3. Although the area has several golf courses within reasonable proximity
to the CCA, these courses are remote from the core area and have not expressed interest in using
M" reclaimed water for irrigation. Due to the topography in the area farming is limited to small plots
and similarly does not represent a significant market for the potential reuse of wastewater. In
M both of these instances, the high natural rainfall in the area generally limits the amount of
irrigation necessary for agronomic purposes. With no industrial or other large users of water in
S" the area, any resulting reduction in the wastewater discharge is anticipated to be insignificant
relative to the volume generated. Based on these factors wastewater reuse is considered
MR infeasible and will not be further evaluated.
MM Alternative No. 5 Regionalization
This alternative considers the potential of either creating a regional facility to serve the
area or connection to an existing system in the area. The nearest municipal facility to the CCA is
the Town of Highlands WWTP in Macon County, North Carolina, which has a capacity of 1.5
FM mgd. The nearest point in the Town of Highlands collection system is over 11 miles from the
CCA and approximately 750 feet higher in elevation. Connection to the Town of Highlands
system would require at least four (4) pump stations to overcome the total grade change and the
proper design of the pump stations and force main is critical to minimize long term maintenance
issues. Hydrogen sulfide gas will likely be a continual problem, particularly at start-up and
lower flow conditions due to the long detention times. Hydrogen sulfide will have to be
mitigated throughout the project to minimize odor and corrosion problems.
R"
Additionally, the Town of Highlands was contacted during the Stakeholders Process and
indicated that, although it appears that excess capacity is currently available based on existing
a"
flows, this connection would likely not be supported politically by the Town, specifically
because of the loss in capacity. Nevertheless, a cost estimate for this alternative has been
am
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 25 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
�+ Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

0"
MM
fm
IM
developed in the event that the Town of Highlands was to reconsider this position. In addition to
the up -front capital costs necessary to build the interconnection infrastructure, it is anticipated
that the Town of Highlands would charge a substantial connection fee to recoup the lost capacity
given to the CCA. Table 3-2 below provides the sewer connection fees for users inside the Town
limits.
Table 3-2: Town of Highlands Sewer Connection Fees
Connection Type
Fee
Single dwelling unit
$21,500
Multiple dwelling unit
$2,500 per dwelling unit
Single business
$3,500
Multiple business
$3,500 per business occupant
Hotels, motels, tourist homes
$3,000 initial fee, plus $500 additional for each room*
Restaurants
$5,000 initial fee, plus $100 additional for each seat*
*Highlands Sewer Connection Fee (Fee's outside Corporate Limit are 200%)
The actual number of dwelling units and businesses for connection in the Cashiers area is
�+ unknown. In order to arrive at a conceptual connection fee, we have calculated the following:
Assuming a typical dwelling has three bedrooms generating 120 gpd/bedroom, the $5,000
connection fee for a customer outside Town limits correlates to a fee of approximately $14.00
per gpd. It is further assumed that a more reasonable bulk rate could be negotiated; therefore for
the purposes of this evaluation we have used a conservative estimate of $10.00 per gpd.
M^
M
am
M
4M
am
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 26 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

M
Table 3-3: Alt. #5 - Regionalization with the Town of Highlands
October 24, 2014
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
EXTENSION
1
Mobilization (3%)
1
LS
$ 186,800
$ 186,807
2
Pump Station w/ Standby Generator
4
LS
$ 250,000
$ 1,000,000
3
Force Main
60,000
LF
$ 60
$ 3,600,000
4
Bore and Jack Road Crossing
900
1 LF
$ 250
$ 225,000
5
Chemical Feed Odor Control System
4
LS
$ 75,000
$ 300,000
6
Air Release Valve
15
EA
$ 3,500
$ 52,500
7
Road Repair
2,000
LF
$ 30
$ 60,000
8
Drive Repair
1,500
LF
$ 25
$ 37,500
9
Rock Excavation
5,000
CY
$ 90
$ 450,000
10
Select Backfill
5,000
CY
$ 15
$ 75,000
11
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
12
Electrical
1
LS
$ 275,000
$ 275,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$ 6,411,800
u
Contingency (10%)
$ 641,200
b
Design and Permitting
$ 512,900
c
Construction Administration
$ 448,800
d
Town of Highlands Connection Fee
$ 5,000,000
e
Pump Station Land Acquisition or Easements
$ 200,000
f
Legal/Administrative
$ 50,000
g
ITesting
$ 15,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$ 13,279,700-
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 27 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

A"
f"
Alternative No. 6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the
Horsepasture River
When evaluating the possible location of a discharge in the Cashiers area, it becomes
�+ immediately apparent that this portion of Jackson County is quite unique. Water quality in the
Cashiers area is overall very high and the stream classifications are representative of this water
�+ quality. The area consists of the headwaters of six significant rivers:
'� • Tuckaseigee
• Cullasaja
'�' • Chattooga
• Horsepasture
• West Fork Tuckasegee
• Whitewater
Evaluation of the various watershed basins and their sustainability for use as a wastewater
receiving stream is a critical exercise of this evaluation, and a summary of that research is
provided below.
Basin Evaluation
Out of the six basins, four were evaluated in detail. The main branch of the Tuckaseigee
and Cullasaja River Basins were not further evaluated due to the distance and elevation required
to reach them from the CCA. The remaining four basins (the Chattooga, Horsepasture, West
Fork Tuckasegee, and Whitewater Rivers) were reviewed based on stream flow, water quality,
and proximity of a suitable discharge site to the CCA. Stream flows in the area are generally low
due to this location high in the watersheds. The following is a discussion regarding the
characteristics of these four river basins and the ability to site the proposed wastewater
discharge.
am Chattooga River
The existing discharge is sited on an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River which is
IM classified as a B, Tr, ORW. Rules for waters with the supplementary classification of
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 28 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
t* Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

a.0
ORW state that "no new discharges or expansion of existing discharges shall be
�., permitted". Although rules specific to the Chattooga River allow expansion of
discharges with no increase in loading in some areas these are not applicable to the
MR existing Cashiers WWTP location. Based on conversations with the DWR no further
expansion will be permitted for this discharge. A drawing of the existing site plan is
provided as Figure 2-1 in Section II of the report. As shown on the site plan, even if an
increase in the discharge volume was possible at this site there is very little room
available on the current property for expansion of the plant. Based on this information,
expansion of the WWTP to achieve the needed 495,000 gpd of additional capacity with
discharge to the Chattooga River is not feasible and will not be further considered in this
report.
West Fork Tuckaseigee River
The West Fork Tuckaseigee River is found on the north side of Cashiers and is classified
as a WS-III, B, and HQW around Thorpe Reservoir. The nearest stream in this basin
with sufficient size to consider a discharge is Cedar Creek which is located upstream of
Thorpe Reservoir. Discharges directly upstream of a large reservoir can be problematic
due to a lack of mixing and potential for eutrophication in the reservoir from nutrient
loading. Also, since Thorpe Reservoir is classified as water supply by DWR, obtaining a
permit to discharge wastewater upstream of the reservoir would be difficult and strong
opposition from the public and federal and state resource agencies is likely. 7Q 10 stream
flow at the potential discharge location is estimated to be 1.9 mgd. The only existing
discharges that have been permitted upstream of Thorpe Reservoir are 2,500 gpd each
from Jackson County's Blue Ridge School and Trillium Links and Village, L.L.C. Due
to its location immediately upstream of the reservoir this location, was not further
considered. It is over eight (8) miles from the intersection of US Highway 64 and NC
Highway 107, the center of the proposed service area, to a suitable location in this
watershed below Thorpe Reservoir. Due to this excessive distance to convey the
discharge downstream of Thorpe Reservoir this was dismissed as a feasible option.
Therefore, discharge to the West Fork Tuckaseigee River basin was not further
considered.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 29 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

yen
a" Whitewater River
The Whitewater River Basin lies to the south of the CCA and is classified as a C, Tr
F" upstream of Little Whitewater Creek and HQW downstream of that point. Wastewater
discharges are permitted in HQW waters; however, they are more restricted than Class B
am or C waters to protect the water quality.
The only existing discharge in this basin is the Wade Hampton Club (NPDES No.
NC0062553) with a permitted flow of 0.125 mgd and it is located approximately 2 miles
a' south of the CCA boundary. The Wade Hampton Club discharges into an unnamed
tributary of Silver Run Creek classified as C, Tr. Summer 7Q10 flow for the Wade
Hampton Club discharge point is 0.37 CFS and the Wade Hampton Club Discharge is
approximately 35% of instream flow. If the Wade Hampton Club discharge were
expanded to include the additional Cashiers flow, the flow from Cashiers would increase
instream wastewater flow to 73%. A significant portion of the property downstream of
Wade Hampton Club is owned by the Nature Conservancy or the National Forest Service
and it is unlikely that property could be acquired from either entity for a wastewater
treatment facility.
A discharge location may be possible on Silver Run Creek which would have a drainage
area of approximately 2.28 square miles. Based on the 7Q 10 information from Wade
Hampton Club and United States Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2403, 'Low -
flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993) the estimated
summer 7Q 10 flow is 0.75 CFS/square mile drainage area. Therefore, the estimated
summer 7Q 10 flow at this site is 1.71 CFS(1.1 mgd). This location is upstream of the
HQW portion of the basin however it will likely receive similar limits due to its
proximity. Up to 50% of instream flow in the HQW can be wastewater flow so a
discharge of approximately 1.1 mgd would be possible at this location. The potential site
is located approximately three (3) miles outside of the CCA.
NOR
OM
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 30 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
fm Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

me
Horsepasture River
The east side of the CCA drains to the Horsepasture River Basin which was reclassified
in July 2009 with the addition of a supplementary ORW classification to its B, Tr class
from 0.6 miles downstream of NC Highway 281 to the NC/SC border. In the potential
project area the Horsepasture classification is C, Tr with an ORW Special Management
Strategy. The ORW Special Management Strategy adds restrictions in the upper
watershed to protect the downstream water quality in the ORW area. The rule does allow
the addition of new domestic wastewater discharges under Rule 15 NCAC 02B .0225 (e)
(13) which states:
OR "However, new domestic wastewater discharges and expansions of existing
wastewater discharges may be allowed provided that:
(A) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as
®' follows: BOD = 5 mg/1, and NH3-N = 2 mg/1;
(B) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids
(TSS) shall be limited to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 for Trout
Waters and to 20 mg/1 for all other waters except for mining operations,
which will be held to their respective NPDES TSSpermit limits;
(C) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a
concern, effluent limitations shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or
both; and
(D) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges
combined shall not exceed 25 percent of the total instream flow in the
designated ORW under 7Q10 conditions, which are defined in Rule
MR .0206(a)(1) of this Section. "
There are three existing discharges in this basin, all of which are privately owned. The
�* Cedar Creek WWTP, 0.0025 mgd, Resources Planning Corporation 0.1 mgd, and the
Fairfield Sapphire Valley WWTP, 0.6 mgd are in the Horsepasture River Basin.
Drainage Basin / Potential Discharge Location Summary
am The Horsepasture River and Silver Run Creek, which is a tributary to the Whitewater
River, each are estimated to have sufficient streamflow to receive the projected future
FA' wastewater discharge for the Cashiers service area. The center of the service area is
approximately the intersection of US Highway 64 and NC Highway 107, which is near the
highest point in the watersheds. In order to find a discharge location with sufficient background
stream flow it is necessary to move further downstream in the surrounding watersheds.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 31 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

me
oft
no Consideration should also be given to the projected future service area and the required
collection system. The potential discharge location on the Horsepasture River is located
downstream of the majority of the service area at the edge of the CCA. The potential discharge
location on Silver run Creek is located approximately 3 miles outside of the CCA and would
am require significant piping to convey the wastewater from the service area to the discharge point.
Effluent limits at both sites would likely be the same and require similar treatment technologies.
we Based on this information, the discharge location in the Horsepasture River Basin was selected
as the preferred discharge alternative.
00
Although the CCA includes land area in multiple basins it reaches its lowest point in the
no Horsepasture. TWSA has acquired an option on a property inside the CCA boundary at this
location to potentially site a wastewater treatment plant with discharge. A 7Q10 flow was,-
sW /o - 2-
amrequested from the USGS for this location and a copy of the determination is included in thL .-
Appendix H. The average estimated low flow for the proposed discharge point is 3.3 cfs fro m\ e4-1 ;
no their determination. In addition, speculative permit limits for a 0.495 mgd discharge at this
No
location have been issued by NCDENR and a copy of these limits are included in Appendix A.
Environmental Issues
The high quality of water in the Cashiers area will create similar environmental concerns
in any of the watersheds. The discharge will be required to be very high quality including tertiary
am filtration for treatment to minimize potential for impacts. There are no known endangered
species with habitat in the surface waters in .the area. TWSA has completed biological and
archaeological surveys of the proposed WWTP site and both surveys indicate no significant
findings. TWSA has also completed a stream and wetlands delineation so that the WWTP site
development can occur with no impact to existing features.
me
Treatment Technology
As mentioned above, speculative effluent limits were requested from DWR and are
provided in Appendix A for a location on the Horsepasture River. The speculative limits are
consistent with limitations set in 15 NCAC 02B .0225 (e) (13), for discharges to the ORW
Oft
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 32 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
�► Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

No
00
Special Management Strategy area in the Horsepasture River Basin and are shown in Table 3-4
fft below. To meet these limits, an advanced tertiary treatment process will be required. Several
treatment technologies will be evaluated during the facility design phase.
fm
am
Table 3-4: Monthly Average Effluent Limitations
Parameter
Limit
BOD5
5 m /l
TSS
10 mg/1
NH3-N
2 m /l
Fecal Coliform
200 per 100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1
Note: DO is a daily minimum limit.
o' Based on a review of the influent sample data for the existing Cashiers WWTP and a
review of relevant literature, the values in Table 3-5 were selected as a basis for preliminary
me design.
M
ow
MR
Table 3-5: Influent Design Parameters
Parameter
Average
Peak
Flow
0.495 m d
1.24 m d
BOD5
250 m /l
350 mg/1
TSS
250 mg/1
300 mg/1
TN
40m 1
55m 1
TP
7m 1
9m 1
NH3-N
25 mg/1
35 m
Influent Screeninam
An influent mechanical screen with manual bypass is proposed. The screen will be
installed in a cast in place concrete channel for removal of large solids and inorganics to
ow
protect the downstream processes.
Flow Equalization
A flow equalization basin will be required to reduce peak flows into the main process
portion of the treatment plant. A capacity of 25% or 125,000 gallons is proposed and will
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 33 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

oft
oft
0"
MR
LLJ
IM
IM
M
am
am
include a diffused air aeration system. Variable speed pumps will transfer flow from the
flow equalization basin to the treatment process.
Tertiary Treatment Process
To meet the required discharge limits, an advanced tertiary treatment process will be
utilized for the biological process. Several treatment technologies will be evaluated
during the facility design phase. The specific treatment technology that is ultimately
selected will determine the required treatment components in the process.
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
Disinfection will utilize an ultraviolet (UV) light system to kill viruses and bacteria. In
accordance with State standards for HQW watersheds chlorination based disinfection is
not permitted.
Based upon the selected watershed basin of the Horsepasture River and the treatment
technologies listed above, the following cost estimate has been prepared for this alternative.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 34 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

M
M
M
M
r
Table 3-6: Alt. #6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Plant with
Discharge to the Horsepasture River
October 24, 2014
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
EXTENSION
1
Mobilization (3%)
1
LS
$ 158,300
$ 158,300
2
Influent Pump Station and Screens
1
LS
$ 375,000
$ 375,000
3
Flow Equalization Basin
1
LS
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
4
Flow Equalization Aeration and Pumps
1
LS
$ 160,000
$ 160,000
5
Tertiary Process Basins
1
LS
$ 735,000
$ 735,000
6
Tertiary Process Equipment, Installed
1
LS
$ 1,400,000
$ 1,400,000
7
Operations and Blower Buildings
1
LS
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
8
Dual Train UV Disinfection
1
LS
$ 160,000
$ 160,000
9
Sludge Digester Basin
1
LS
$ 210,000
$ 210,000
10
1 Sludge Digester Equipment
I
LS
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
I I
Site Work
1
LS
$ 525,000
$ 525,000
1'_
Bridge/Culvert over Horsepasture River
1
LS
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
I
Yard Piping
1
LS
$ 110,000
$ 110,000
14
Electrical
1
LS
$ 595,000
$ 595,000
15
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$ 5,4339300
a
Contingency(10%)
$ 543,300
b
Design and Permitting
$ 434,700
c
Construction Administration
$ 380,300
d
Land Acquisition *
$ 650,000
e
Due Diligence Site Investigation
$ 17,800
f
Legal/Administrative
$ 40,000
g
ITesting
$ 30,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTSI
$ 7,529,400
* W WTP Site cost based on contract price in option held by TWSA for property.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 35 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

P"
Alternative No. 7 Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant to 0.695 mgd, with
Discharge of 0.495 mgd to the Horsepasture River
Alternative No. 7 also requires a new 0.495 mgd discharge to the Horsepasture River.
However, instead of the construction of a new treatment facility near the proposed discharge
point, this option includes an upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment plant to a capacity of
0.695 mgd, and conveyance of 0.495 mgd of treated effluent to the new Horsepasture River
�+ discharge. A maximum of 0.200 mgd would be discharged through the existing outfall to the
Chattooga River tributary. Due to the limited space available at the existing treatment plant site,
conversion of the facility to a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) facility appears to be the only
currently feasible treatment technology available to expand the capacity to 0.695 mgd. In
addition, this alternative includes upgrades to the influent pump station and screens, expanded
flow equalization, an ultraviolet disinfection system, and an additional sludge digester basin.
Since the discharge to the Chattooga River tributary is limited to 0.2 mgd, the other 0.495 mgd
would be conveyed to the Horsepasture River via a dedicated effluent pump station and
approximately 20,000 linear feet of effluent force main between the existing treatment plant and
the proposed Horsepasture River discharge location.
MR
M
M
M
Oft
oft
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 36 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
*� Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Table 3-7: Alt. #7 - Upgrade Existing Plant to 0.695 MGD Membrane Bioreactor Plant
with 0.495 MGD Discharge to the Horsepasture River
October 24, 2014
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
EXTENSION
]
Mobilization (3%)
1
LS
$ 190,700
$ 190,700
2
Influent Pump Station and Screens
1
LS
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
3
Additional Flow Equalization Basin
I
LS
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
4
Additional Flow Equalization Aeration
and New Pumps
I
LS
$ 135,000
$ 135,000
5
Process Basin Modification to Accept
MBR's
I
LS
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
6
MBR Process Equipment, Installed
I
LS
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,000,000
7
Operations and Blower Buildings
1
LS
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
8
Dual Train UV Disinfection
I
LS
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
9
Sludge Digester Basin
I
LS
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
10
Sludge Digester Equipment
1
LS
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
11
Site Work and Basin Demolition
1
LS
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
12
Discharge on Horsepasture River
1
LS
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
13
Yard Piping
I
LS
$ 125,000
$ 125,000
14
Electrical
1
LS
$ 650,000
$ 650,000
15
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
16
Effluent Pump Station to Discharge
Point
1
LS
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
17
Effluent Force Main to Horsepasture
River Discharge Site
20,000
LF
$ 60
$ 1,200,000
18
Rock Excavation
1,500
CY
$ 90
$ 135,000
19
Select Backfi11
2,000 1
CY
$ 15
$ 30,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$ 6,545 700
a
Contingency(10%)
$ 654,600
b
Design and Permitting
$ 523,700
c
Construction Administration
$ 458,200
d
Discharge Point Land Acquisition or Easement
$ 150,000
e
Due Diligence Site Investigation
$ 17,800
f
Legal/Administrative
$ 40,000
e
Testing
$ 30,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$ 8,420,000
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 37 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 38 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

OM
PM
am
am
L
M,
no
0"
e"
MO
Om
OM
4"
f,
Oft
Summary
In summary a total of seven (7) alternatives were considered and estimated costs were
developed for four (4) of these options. The capital costs for these alternatives are provided in
Table 3-8 below. The alternative with the lowest capital cost is Alternative 6 - New 0.495 MGD
Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the Horsepasture River.
Table 3-8: Alternatives Capital Cost Summary
Alternative
No.
Description
Capital
Costs
1
No Action
Not Feasible
2
Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
Not Feasible
3
New 0.495 MGD Secondary Process Plant with Land Application
$16,989,400
4
New 0.495 MGD Secondary Process Plant with Reuse System
Not Feasible-
5
Regionalization with the Town of Highlands
$13,279,700
6
New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Plant with Discharge to Horsepasture River
$7,529,400
7
Upgrade Existing Plant to 0.695 MGD Membrane Bioreactor Process
and Discharge 0.495 MGD to Horsepasture River
$8,420,000
a"
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 38 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Im
0"
am
am
MR
M"
a"
R1,
rM
P"
am
ow
0%
IV. Economic Feasibility
Present Worth Analysis
In order to compare the full costs of the alternatives, a present worth analysis is
performed factoring in not only the capital costs, but also the anticipated operations and
maintenance costs (O&M) over the 20 year planning period. A spreadsheet prepared by the
NCDENR Infrastructure Finance Section (IFS) was used to assist with the present worth
analysis. The present worth analysis includes the use of a 2.13 percent annual inflation rate,
calculated as the September 2013 to September 2014 Municipal Cost Index increase. The 2014
discount rate used is 3.50%, as promulgated in the November 12, 2013 Federal Register, page
67393.
Generally the most expensive O&M costs considered are the ongoing costs of the
operation of any proposed or modified treatment systems. Wastewater treatment O&M costs for .
Alternatives No. 3, 6, and 7, which all involve varying new additions or modifications to the
existing treatment systems, have been estimated by analyzing the actual costs incurred by
TWSA's operation of their other four (4) treatment facilities. Financial and flow data from fiscal
year 2013-2014 was used to generate an operations cost per gallon ($0.00127 per gallon) to
represent the anticipated cost of operations, maintenance, power, chemicals, testing, and sludge
disposal. Flows were projected to grow linearly over the 20 year life from 25,000 gpd to full
capacity of 495,000 gpd.
Operations and administrative labor costs were evaluated separately and were estimated
based on the need for additional staff at a cost of $50,000 per full-time equivalent. Staff was
added at discrete points in the anticipated life cycle.
O&M costs for Alternative No. 5, Regional System, primarily consists of the bulk rate
paid to the Town of Highlands of $5.00 per 1,000 gallons. In addition to these user charges,
O&M charges were added as a function of anticipated power and chemical costs, and additional
operational and administrative staff added at discrete points in time.
a,
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 39 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

No
404
MIq
am
0,
MR
MR
M"
AM
0"
no
om
MO
A copy of the present worth analysis for each project is included in Appendix I, and a
summary of the present worth analysis is included in Table 4-1 below.
Table 4-1: Summary of Net Present Worth Analysis
Capital
Operations &
Total Present
Alternative
Costs
Maintenance
Worth
P
Alt. # 1 — No Action
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Alt. #2 - Optimum Operation of Existing
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Facilities
Alt. #3 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary
$16,9899400
$61,7721,705
$23,7621105
Process Plant with Land Application
Alt. #4 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Process Plant with Reuse System
Alt. #5 - Regionalization with the Town of
$1392791,700
$101,5509,910
$2398305610
Highlands
Alt. #6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Plant
$7,5299400
$257419991
$1092715,391
with Discharge to Horsepasture River
Alt. #7 - Upgrade Existing Plant to 0.695
MGD Membrane Bioreactor Process and
$8,4209000
$299439624
$111,36__39624
Discharge 0.495 MGD to Horsepasture River
Based on this analysis Alternative No. 6, New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with
Discharge to the Horsepasture River is the selected alternative based on its significantly lower
present worth.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 40 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

No
MM
V. Conclusion
OR
A total of seven (7) alternatives were considered to develop the best solution to meet
MI9 needs for public wastewater treatment capacity in the Cashiers area. The alternatives considered
include the following:
1. No Action
2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
3. Land Application
4. Reuse System
5. Regional System
6. New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the Horsepasture River
7. Upgrade Existing Treatment Plant to 0.695 MGD capacity and discharge 0.495 MGD
to the Horsepasture River
R° The feasible alternatives have been evaluated based on environmental issues, capital costs
and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost. All alternatives are based on requiring an
fm additional 495,000 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity to supplement the existing 200,000 gpd
wastewater treatment plant.
Alternatives 1 and 2 were eliminated as infeasible. These alternatives did not meet the
MM
need for additional public sewer service.
am
An alternative for both land application (Alternative 3) and a reclaimed wastewater reuse
system (Alternative 4) were considered; however, the feasibility of these systems, particularly of
this size, in the Cashiers area is questionable at best. The area receives high average annual
rainfalls, has steep topography, and high land costs which all contribute to the high estimated
costs for these alternatives.
The Cashiers area location, at the top of the watershed for several significant river basins,
gives numerous considerations to the location of a surface water discharge. The current
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 41 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
am Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

MR
nm
development ordinances, stream classifications, 7Q 10 flows, and proximity to the CCA were
considered in selecting the most appropriate location for a discharge. The potential for
expansion at the existing discharge location was eliminated due to the ORW classification of the
Chattooga River and restrictions against expansion placed on the facility by NCDENR.
Locations in the Whitewater River Basin and West Fork Tuckaseigee River basin were
considered; however, their location away from the CCA and other environmental concerns made
a discharge on the Horsepasture River (Alternative 6) the preferred option for a new discharge.
The estimated capital cost for the proposed project is $7,529,400 and the present worth is
$103,2719391.
Alternative 7 is considered a somewhat creative approach, and evaluated the option of
constructing the necessary additional treatment capacity on the existing WWTP site, while
pumping the effluent to the same discharge point as selected with Alternative 6. Due to the
I
increased capital and O&M costs, however, this alternative was not as attractive as Alternative 6.
M
M
ZZI
am
M
M
OM
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 42 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
I+ Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

APPENDIX A
TWSA Speculative Limits for the Proposed Horsepasture River
Discharge
�1

=A74L)
FIR OwdE R
RC2�D
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
"9 April 28, 2014
Mr. Dan Harbaugh, Executive Director
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
1246 West Main Street
Sylva, NC 28779 .
John E. Skvarla, Ili
Secretary
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authortity
Jackson County
Savannah River Basin
Dear Mr. Harbaugh :
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for 0.125 MGD, 0.25 MGD and 0.496 MGD for a
proposed wastewater treatment plant to serve the Cashiers area. The Division received the
speculative limits request in a letter dated February 7, 2014 horn Harry B. Buckzler, PE of McGill
Associates. Please recognize that speculative limits may change based on future water quality
initiatives, and it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the speculative limits with the
Division's NPDES Urut prior to any engineering design work.
I-M Receiving Stream. Horsepasture River is located within the Savannah River Bashi. Horsepasture
River has a classification of C, TR +, which is subject to special management strategy specified in
15A NCAC 2B .0225 (13), the Outstanding Resource Wastewater Rule. All new or expanding
'm discharges to this section of Horsepasture River shall comply with the following requirement:
(A) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD = 5 mg/1, and NH3-'
'N" N w 2 mg/1;
(B) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids CISS) shall be 1united to effluent
concentrations of 10 rng/1 for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all other waters except for mining
operations, which will be held to their respective NPDES TSS permit limits;
(C) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, effluent limitations
shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both; and
(D) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined shall not exceed
25 percent of the total instrearn flow in the designated ORW under 7Q10 conditions.
Im Horsepasture River has a.sununer 7Q10 flow of 2.0 cfs, a winter 7Q10 flow of 3.0 cfs, and an
annual average flow of 16 cfs. Including the maximum proposed flow of 0.496 MGD the total
volume of treated wastewater for all combined discharges is 24% of the 7Q10 conditions.
Horsepasture River is currently not listed as an unpaired waterbody on the 2012 North
Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Based upon a review of information available from the
1617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: 9IM07-MM I Internet: www.nmvaterquallty.org
•An Equal Oppatunity l AF6rmathe Action Employer-- Made In part by recycled paper

M"
Mr. Dan Harbaugh
April 24, 2014
Page 2
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online Map Viewer, there are not any Federally
Listed threatened or endangered aquatic species identified within a 5 mile radius of the
proposed discharge location.
Division review of receivingstream conditions and
water mode alive limits for the proposed lnased discharge of 0.125
p p g
MGD, GD, and 0.496 MG presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these
'ts oriitoirig-'iequiie for metals and other toxicants, as well as potential
inshea rutoiulg requrremen s JYitl be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit
�'1»it{�•,fni.y..:+�.r�r►sx..•n•ar:wJ f
applYc
� �'MFttWv.•s�.ws.•+twvr.+v.+.w•>.s.....:
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for TWSA PJWTP
MR
R"
�l
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly
Avery a
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow
0.125, 0.25 or
0.495 MGD
BOD5
5.0 m /L
7.5 m /L
NH3 as N
2.0 m /L
6.0 rn /L
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
6.0 m /L
TSS
10m /L
15m /L
Fecal coliform (geometric
mean
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Enh-Leering Alternatives Ana%(EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that
an NPDES permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative
limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal
permit application for the new/expanded discharge. In accordance with North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most environmentally sound alternative
should be selected from all reasonably cost effective options. Therefore, as a component of all
NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows mid provide an
NO analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the Division guidance for
preparing EAA documents is attached.
MM State Enviromnental Policy Act SEPAS Re uirements. A SEPA EA/E1S document
EA EI
must be prepared for all projects that: 1) need a perm#; 2) use public money or affect public
lands; and 3) miglit have a potential to significantly impact the environment. For new or
IM expanding discharges, sign ' 'cant impact is defused as > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since
the T'WSA is not proposing a discharge greater than 500,000 gpd, is not necessary to prepare
a SEPA document.
am
am

1W. Dan Harbaugh
April 24, 2014
Page 3
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting
requirements, please feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] or Tom BeInick at
[phone].
Res ectfull ,
Toin Belnick, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Peamittulg Unit
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
Hardcopy:
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Blectroiuc Copy:
Harry B. Buckner, PE, McGill Associates, P.A.
DWR/Asheville Regional Office
NPDES Server>Specs

2"
M
am
am
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NOTE: The N.C. Division of \Vatcr Resources (DWR) will not accept an NPDES application for a new or
expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge unless all the required application rcquirements arc
submitted. A complete NPDES application will include the following items:
NPDES Application Form (in triplicate)
Application Fee
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (in triplicate)
Local Goverivuent Review Form (non -municipals only)
Failure to submit all of the required information will result in return of the incomplete package. If you have
any questions about these requirements, contact the NPDES Unit staff. Contact naives, application forms,
applicable fees, and guidance documents are available on the NPDES website at
htig://12ortal.ticdcnr.org/web/­waIgM2ZmJnndes. Completed applications should be mailed to:
NCDENR/DWR/NPDES Complex Permitting Unit,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
fm Background
The NPDES permit program was enacted in 1972 as part of the Clean Water Act. The original goal of the program
Was to eliminate all point source discharges to surface waters by 1985. Although this goal was not achieved, the
NPDES program continues to strive toward it. In that light, .an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is
required with any NPDES application for a new or expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In order for an NPDES application to be approved, the EAA must
provide complete justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative, and demonstrate that direct discharge
is the most environmentally sound alternative selected from all reasonably cost-effective options [per 15A NCAC
21-1.0105(c)(2)].
mo
The purpose of this EAA Guidance Document is to provide guidance to the regulated community for the evaluation of
wastewater disposal alternatives. The impetus behind tliis comprehensive guidance was based on the following. 1) a
00 majority of new NPDES applications were being returned as incomplete duc to inadequate FAA submissions; and 2) a
few recent court cases resulted in unfavorable rulings for the NPDES discharger due in part to inadequed EAAs.
DWR most frequently returns FAAs as incomplete due to inadequate flow justification, inadequate alternatives
evaluations, and/or lack of documentation/references used to design and cost alternatives.
om
Please note that this guidance document is designed primarily for domestic wastewater discharges. For other proposed
discharges such as water treatment plant discharges from ion exchange and reverse osmosis units, some alternative
om disposal options may not be technologically feasible. Within this guidance document, we have attempted to point out
where such technological limitations may exist You are urged to review NPDES permitting guidance documents on
the NPDES website, which discuss some of the limited disposal options for some discharges.
Please note that if a proposed municipal expansion is subject to SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA)/Eavironmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, the FAA requirements should be incorporated into the
SEPA document. In addition, the NPDES Unit cannot accept an application for a new/expanding NPDES discharge
until departmental review of the SEPA document is complete and a Finding -of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has
been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation. '
am The following step-bTstep outline should be used for the preparation of all FAA submissions. If an FAA submission
lacks any of these basic elements, the NPDES application will be returned as incomplete.
„ EAA Guidance Document Revision: Apri12014
Page 1 of 8

am
STEP 1. Determine if the proposed discharge will be allowed
Before beginning any engineering evaluation of alternatives, you must first determine if the proposed wastewater
discharge will be allowed. Otherwise, time and money may be spent needlessly for an EAA preparation that will
ultimately be rejected on the basis of existing water quality restrictions. There are several potential.restrictions to a
wastewater discharge to surface waters, including.
Zero flow stream restrictions [15A NCAC 2B.0206(d)(2)] apply to oxygen -consuming waste in zero -flow
streams. In order to determine stteamflow at the proposed discharge location, contact the U.S.
Geological Survey at 919-571-4000.
Receiving stream classification restrictions [e.g., ORNV, NV- S, SA, NSW, and HQ class waters have various
discharge restrictions or require stricter treatment standards]. Stream classifications are available on the
the DWR Classification and Standards/Rule Review Branch website:
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu), while wastewater discharge restrictions for various stream
classifications are presented in state regulations [ 15A NCAC 2B.0200].
■ Basinwide Water Quality Plans. These basin -specific plans list NPDES permitting strategies that may
limit wastewater discharges to particular streams within the basin due to lack, of stream assimilative
capacity, etc. Basin plans are available on the' DWR ,%vebsite, or you may contact the DWR Basinwide
Planning Branch (httl5://portal.ncdent.org/web/wq/ps/bpu)..
a Impaired waters and TMDLs. Certain waterbodies listed as impaired on the 303(d) list and/or subject to
impending TMDLs may have wastewater discharge restrictions. The list of 303(d) impaired waters is
located on the DWR website, or you may contact the DWR Modeling and Assessment Branch
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/,%veb/wq/ps/mtu).
■ Presence of Endangered Species. If endangered species are present in the proposed discharge location,
there may be wastewater discharge restrictions. Endangered species information may be included in die
Basinwide dater Quality Plan, or you may contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (919-856-4520),
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (919-733-3633), or the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (919-733-
7701).
No Munich at a mlicants.
As a public service, the NPDES Unit will evaluate whether a proposed municipal discharge is considered allowable.
The municipality needs to initiate this review by submitting a letter request for Speculative Effluent Limits to the
an NPDES Unit. You must obtain streamflow estimates for the proposed discharge location to ensure that the receiving
stream is not subject to zero flow restrictions. Low flow data (specifically, drainage area, summer and winter 7Q10,
average flow and 30Q2 flow statistics) can be obtained for a nominal fee from die U.S. Geological Survey in Raleigh at
f, 919-571-4000. The low flow data must be submitted with the speculative limits request letter. If the proposed
discharge appears to be allowable, the NPDES Unit will prepare speculative effluent limits for a maximum of 2 flows
and 2 discharge locations using water quality models. The municipality can then use the speculative limits to prepare
preliminary engineering design and cost estimates for the direct discharge alternative within the EAA. In limited
instances where comple.t water quality models are necessary to develop speculative limits and determine potential water
quality impacts, some municipalities have undertaken the modeling effort (with DNMt review) in order to expedite this
portion of the NPDES permit review process.
Non-mm ici ,gal awlicants.
Due to staff constraints, the NPDES Unit cannot prepare speculative limits for non -municipal applicants. Thus, it is.
your responsibility to make your own determination as to whether the proposed discharge might be allowed by the
Division, by evaluating the water quality factors listed above. It is highly recommended that you discuss the proposed
discharge with the applicable DWR Regional Office and/or NPDES Unit staff, who may be able to provide input on
the likelihood of a new/expanding discharge. As a first step, you must obtain streamflow estimates for the proposed
discharge location to ensure that the receiving stream is not subject to zero flow restrictions. Low flow data
(specifically, drainage area, the summer and winter 7Q10, average flow and 30Q2 flow statistics) can be obtained for a
nominal fee frotn the U.S. Geological Survey in Raleigh at 919-571-4000. The low flow data must be submitted with
the EAA, and will be used by the permit writer to develop permit limits. You must also verify that the proposed action
EAA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
""' Page 2 of 8

(i.e., construction of a wastewater treatment plant and its appurtenances) is consistent with local zoning and/or
subdivision ordinances. You will need to request the local governments) to complete a Local Government Review
Form (Attachment A), and include the signed and notarized form with your NPDES application package.
All aiplicants.
If you conclude that the proposed discharge will pass the "allowable discharge" criteria, then begin the EAA
preparation by summarizing the following general information about the proposed project:
A Provide a description of the proposed project. If the project will be constructed in plisses, provide a
em schedule for constructing each additional phase, and provide the projected flow per phase (see STEP 2).
■ Applicant name, mailing address, phone number, contact person
a Facility naive, address, county, phone number, contact person
am a EAA preparer's name, mailing address, phone number, contact person
fm STEP 2. Provide reasonable projections for population and flow
E„ Residential PonWation Projections.
Facilities requesting an NPDES discharge permit for new or expanding domestic wastewater discharges must
document the population to be served within the service area over a 20-year planning period. The NC State
Demographics unit provides population data for each county and municipality and can be accessed on the Internet at
�' http://,%vww.dernog.state.nc.us. If 20-year population projections for specific areas acre not available, a linear
extrapolation of population trends from the past decade should be used. Any deviation from a linear projection
method must be clearly justified. If population projections include future annexations, include a proposed annexation
`m schedule as well as any annexation requirements that must be met.
Municipal Plow Projections.
�•e Justification of flow as well as a demonstration of need shall be provided. Mere speculation is not sufficient. Flow
projections should represent average anticipated flows, since permit flow limits are based on monthly averages.
Peaking factors used to design various components of the wastewater collection system (e.g., collector sewers,
interceptor sewers, pumping stations) should not be used in the justification of the average anticipated flow. For
municipal wastewater dischargers, flow must be justified using the Clean Water Loan Program (CWLP) Guidance for
Preaparing Engineering Reports available on the Internet at http://portal.ncdenr.oig/web/wi/cleanNvater/cr.
Exceptions to these flow criteria inay be approved on a case -by. case basis provided adequate justification is supplied
• Current Flow- Provide current flows including residential, commercial, industrial, and infiltration/inflow
(1/I) based on actual flow data or water billing records. Current residential flow and current commercial
MR flow may be based on water billing records minus a 10% consumptive loss. Current industrial flow may
be based on dual metering to determine consumptive losses.
• Future Residential Flow- Provide 20-year residential flows based on projected residential growth.
FAR Multiply the projected growth in residential population by 70 gallons per day per capita.
■ Euture Commercial Flow- Provide 20-year commercial flows based on projected residential growth.
Multiply the projected growth in residential population by 15 gallons per day per capita.
a Futurc Industrial Flow- Provide flow for future documented industrial flow. A nominal allowance for
future unplanned industrial expansions may be considered by the Division, provided the basis is clearly
justified and current land -use plans and local zoning allow for such industrial growth.
Non-Municival Plow Proiecctif ns.
Flow may be justified in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0219(1) for various activities (e.g., new subdivisions, new
schools, various com:nercial activities). For other proposed discharges (e.g., groundwater remediation, water
treatment plant filter backwash, industrial facilities), the flow projections will be based on engineering design
considerations and/or production projections rather than population projections.
RAA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
Page 3 of 8

an
00
me STEP 3. Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives
Since a goal of the Clean Water Act is to minimi2e or eliminate point source discharges to surface waters, any
proposal for a new or expanding wastewater discharge must include evaluation of wastewater disposal alternatives in
addition to direct discharge. Particularly for dischargers of domestic wastewater, this evaluation should investigate the
feasibility of the following wastewater disposal alternatives:
■ Connection to an existing wastewater treatment plant (public or private)
■ Land application alternatives, such as individual/conununity onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation,
spray irrigation
■ Wastewater reuse
■ Surface water discharge through the NPDES program
■ • Combinations of the above
In order for the applicant to eliminate a wastewater disposal alternative, you must either show that the alternative is
technologically infeasible, or that it would be cost prohibitive to implement relative to a direct discharge alternative.
Please note that for some alternatives, it might be easier to prove an alternative is not viable based on high cost rather
than technological feasibility. For example, for a large municipal expansion that would require several hundred acres
for a land application alternative, it might be easier to suuply assume that the required acreage could be purchased and
calculate the present value costs (including current market land costs) for this option, rattier than evaluating whether
land application is technologically infeasible due to lack of available land and/or poor soil conditions. For those
alternatives identified as technologically feasible, you must develop and compare costs, based on a prel'uuinary level
design effort (see STEP 4).
The Division recognizes that wastewater disposal alternatives may be limited for some non -domestic wastewater
scenarios, and a full alternatives evaluation may not be warranted. If there is some question as to whether an alternative
may be eliminated, contact the NPDES Unit staff. Some scenarios that might not require a full alternatives evaluation
include:
Water Treatment Plant Discharges. Discharges Emm water treatment plants (WMs) that utilize a
mcmbrane technology (e.g., reverse osmosis, nanofilttation) or ion exchange system tend to generate
highly concentrated wastestreams. These wastestreams are not amenable to land application and do not
have to be evaluated for this alternative. However, since these wastestteams can also have a toxic impact
on a receiving freshwater system, proposed new discharges frgm these WI`Ps to freshwaters will not be
considered for an NPDES permit unless you can demonstrate that the environmental impacts would be
minimal based on dilution modeling. You should investigate whether the wastewater can be piped to a
stream with sufficient dilution, or whether a local W\VI'P might accommodate this discharge. Please
note that discharges from WTPs that utilize greensand filtration or conventional technology produce a
wastestream that is not saline, therefore no disposal alternatives can be automatically ruled out as
■"' infeasible for these other WrPs. Refer to the NPDES website for permitting strategies for reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, greensand filtration, and conventional WTPs.
■ Groundwater Remediatiou System Dischareees. You will need to evaluate whether W1M connection,
land application, infiltration galleries, in -situ groundwater rremediation wells, or dosed -loop groundwater
remediation wells are viable disposal alternatives. While land application might be a feasible alternative in
rural areas, it would not be a feasible alternative in downtown Charlotte, where there is no land available
for wastewater application. In this instance, you may simply state that land application is infeasible based
on land constraints within the city. You will also need to evaluate connection to an existing WVVTP (in
accordance with Alternative A), since there are some municipalities that have accepted this wastestream
in the past. If the municipality will not accept the wastestream, the connection alternative is also
EAA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
.A Page 4 of 8

'R considered technologically infeasible. Please note that in -situ and closed -loop groundwater remediation
wells are permittable well types and further guidance is available through the Aquifer Protection Section.
Aside from these exceptions, you should proceed with the alternatives evaluation in accordance with the following
requirements. If you have any questions about these requirements, contact the NPDES Unit staff.
em Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater'Treatxnent Svs9 tern.
You must evaluate the feasibility of connecting to an existing wastewater treatment systein served by a municipality or
other entity holding a valid NPDES or Non -Discharge Permit. All connection options should include an evaluation
of a gravity line acid/or force main with pump station(s).
�' 1. Existing Sewerage S
(a) Identify whether there are existing sewer lines within a five -mile radius, or consider a greater radius if
cost effective for the project size.
(b) Provide a preliminary indication of flow acceptance from existing municipal or private NKAVrPs
under consideration for connection. If a municipal or private NV\VrP cannot accept the wastewater,
indlude a letter docunhctnting such and consider this''altcrna'dve technologically infeasible.
e� (c) If an existing sewerage system will accept the wastewater, evaluate the piping/pumps/resources
necessary to connect to the existing wastewater treatment plant. Attach it topographic reap or a site
diaNving showing the physical route of this alternative. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per
STEP 4.
2. Planned Sewerao Svc, stem; Determine if a regional sewerage system within a five mile radius is projected
to be available within the next five years to receive waste from the project site. If applicable, determine
availability date and flow acceptance projection from appropriate authority.
Alternative B. Land'A�Iication.
Land application disposal alternatives include individual./community onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation, and
Splay irrgadon.
1. Provide an estimate of the best case hydraulic loading gate based on County Soil Surveys or from a soil
evaluation performed by a soil scientist. Include calculations showing the hydraulic loading rate
and the total area of land needed for the land disposal system, including buffers.
2. Assess die availability of land. If insufficient land is available onsite, assume that the necessary land can
be purchased and estimate the land purchase cost based on local real estate prices. Alternatively, provide
documentation to demonstrate that insufficient land is available for sale in the project area (include
letters from adjacent property owners indicating no interest in selling property).
3. Provide a description of the wastewater treatment system and the non -discharge application system.
Include a site plan showing the proposed layout, the application area, any existing structures, proposed
structures, and other uses within the site.
4. Explain the proposed reuse plan if reclaimed watei',vill be used by a third party.
5. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per STEP 4. For the reclaimed water system include the
�+ potential revenue generated by selling the water.
6. Provide all calculations, documentation and maps as necessary to support assumptions and conclusions.
7. Note: The design of land application systems must meet the treatment and design requirements specified
in 15A NCAC 2T .05 or 15A NCAC 18A.1900.
8. Note: Proposed discharges from groundwater recnediation systems must evaluate the potential for an
infdttation gallery treatment alternative.
Alteniative C. -Wastewater Reuse.
You must evaluate reusing all or it portion of the wastewater generated. Some municipalities are currently reusing
wastewater within the confines of their NY VTP property for irrigation, toilet flushing, backwashing, etc., while other
municipalities have established progressive reuse programs for residential irrigation. Reuse applications might include
golf course irrigation, crop irrigation (e.g., hardwood or pine plantation, grasses), athletic field irrigation, landscape
uses, and commercial/industrial uses. Some of these reuse applications will be evaluated under Alternative B, Land
Application. The design of reclaimed water systems must meet the treatment and design requirements specified in
15A NCAC 2U.
1;AA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
.. Page 5 of 8

fm
Altemative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Waterrs.
1. No new or expanding (additional) discharge of oxygen -consuming waste will be allowed to surface waters
"' of North Carolina if both tine summer 7Q10 and 30Q2 streamflows are estimated to be zero, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206(d). Private applicants must contact the USGS in Raleigh at 919-
571-4000 and obtain (generally for a nominal fee), the receiving sttearnflow data (s7Q10, 30Q2, annual
�+ average streamflow) at the proposed discharge location. This information must be included in the EAA,
and will be used to develop permit limits.
2. All direct discharge systems of oxygen -consuming wastes should be evaluated both with tertiary filtration
[BODS= 5 ing/l, NH3-N=1 mg/q and without, and assuming a weekly sampling regime.
• 3. Provide a description of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, including a schematic diagram of
the major components and a site plait of the tteatuient facility with outfall line(s).
4. Provide documentation of the availability of required land and/or easement agreements.
S. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per_STEP 4.
6. Note: All direct discharge treatment systems must comply with Reliability Requirements specified in 15A
NCAC 2H.0124. .
Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives.
You should evaluate the possibility of a combination of wastewater alternatives that would mrniim* a or eliminate a
rm direct discharge alternative. For example, consider whether the facility can operate a land application system during
the chy season when streamflows are at their lowest and provide less dilution, and operate an NPDES discharge
system during the wet season when soils may not be as amenable to land application and the receiving stream
M, provides its greatest dilution.
Im STEP 4. Evaluate economic feasibility of alternatives
To provide valid cost comparisons among all technologically feasible wastewater alternatives identified in STLP 3, a 20-
year Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) must be performed. A preliminary design level effort is considered
appropriate for comparing feasible options and their associated costs. For the PVCA cost comparison, all future
expenditu:.•es are converted to a present value cost at the beginning of the 20-year planning period. A discount rate is
used hi die analysis and represents the time value of money (the ability of money to earn interest). Present value is also
referred to as "present discounted value" or "present worth".
The PVCA should include all monetary costs associated with construction, startup and annual operation and
maintenance of a facility. All unit cost information must be provided, and costs must be referenced. Costs can be
referenced in paragraph format by summarizing the sources utilized (e.g., vendor quotes, realtor land quotes, past
bids, Means Construction Index, etc). Vender quotes received for treatment units or other components, as well as
realtor land quotes, shall be included as well. For each treatment alternative identified as technologically feasible,
costs should include, but not be limited to, the following:
W' Capital Costs
■ Land acquisition costs
■ Equipment costs
M Labor costs
a Installation costs
• Design costs
Recurring Casts
■ Operation and maintenance costs (with replacement costs)
EAA Guidance Doctunent Revision: April 2014
Page 6 of 8

Oak
FAR n Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime for discharge systems and a monthly regime' for
non -discharge systems
s Operator and support staff costs
0 Residual disposal costs
a Connection fees and subsequent user fees
Permit and compliance fees
s Utility costs (power, water, etc.)
Lost Oppottunuty costs
'9' PVCA. Calculation Method.
The following standard formula for computing the present value must be used in all cost estimates made under this
evaluation:
" C
PY=C�+� '
Where:
PV = Present value of costs.
Co = Costs incurred in the present year.
R` Ct = Costs incurred in trine t. •
t = Time period after the present year (The present year is t = 0)
min n = Ending year of the life of the facility.
r = Current EPA discount rate. EPA adjusts this rate annually on October 1, and it can be accessed from
the Internet at http:/www.nccgl.net/fop/cwsrf/201gui.htnil.
MIR If recurring costs are the same in years 1 through 20, then Ct =C and the formula reduces to:
(1 + r)" —1
CO 4 1-0 + I. " -1
MM As an example, assuming capital costs (Co) of $2 nnillioin, annual recurring costs (C) of $40,000, and a discount rate W
of 5.625%, the 20-year (n=20) present value of costs would equal:
f1M PV= capital costs + recurring costs Xi [(1+0.05625)20 —1] / [0.05625(1+0.05625)"]
PV= $23,000,000 + $40,000 x [1.98/0.168)
PV= $2,000,000 + $471,428
PNT= $22471,428
PVCA Suminaty Table,
The EAA must include a Summary Cost Table, which summarizes present worth costs developed for all technologically
feasible wastewater alternatives. The summary should include it breakdown of capital costs and recurring costs. In
some situations, the Division may require the applicant to refine cost estimates for some alternatives, or possibly collect
actual soil data to better characterize the land application alternative. Ultimately, the final determination on cost
'� effectiveness is made by the Division with consideration of monetary costs as well as potential environmental iinpacts.
a"
EAA Guidance Document Revision; April 2014
' Page 7 of 8

SM
MIM Attachment A. Local Government Review Form.
General Statute overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the issuance
MM of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for anew non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jtuisdicdon over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is vi effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility wl-ich a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local governments) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postihark on the certified
r� mail cards), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified nail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local governments) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local govexument(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Insttuctions_ to the Local Government The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
Oil any part of the land on wluch the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant wid-dn 15 days of receipt The form must be signed and notarized.
MR
MR
Name of local government
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [ ] No j ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ ] No j ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Date Signature
(City Manager/County Manager)
State of , County of
On this day of , , personally appeared before me, the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
llriy Commission expires .(Signature of Notary Public}
Notary Public (Official Seal) -
DAA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
Page 8 of 8

fm
FM
APPENDIX B
on TWSA Cashiers Sewer System Map from the Jackson County Land
Development Plan
r"
R"
fRM
OM
M
fm
LLA
Im
OW
OW

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
TWASA Infrastructure
Cashiers Commercial District
W 64
S
Legend
® Municipal Sewer Treatment
W Sewer Pump
® Municipal Discharge Point
- - - - • Sewer Pipes
Main Roads
County Boundary
0 Cashiers Commercial District

APPENDIX C
TWSA Cashiers NPDES Permit
i

ow
NCDENIR
•' OCT 18 2012 '4
am North Carolina Department of Environment and Natu`ral'*Re`soui ces - -��-
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Charles Wakild, P.E. Dee Freeman
Governor
Director Secretary
October 9, 2012
Mr, Stan Bryson
TWASA
1246 W Main St
Sylva, N.C. 28779
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO063321
Cashiers WWTP #3
Class WW-2
Jackson County
Dear Mr. Bryson:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-216.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently
amended).
This final permit includes the following major changes from the draft permit sent to you
on August 1, 2012:
➢ The toxicity test requirement has been removed, as you requested. The presence of ammonia
effluent limits negates the need for an effluent toxicity test,
➢ The odor control condition has been removed from the permit, as you requested.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(6714 Mail. Service Centex, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this
decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
�' mquirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local
governmental permit that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please
0M contact Charles Weaver at telephone number [phone].
smcerr ly,
Charles Wakild, P.E.
cc: Central Files Asheville Regional OfcelSurface Water Protection NPDES Unit
No 1617 Mail Servke Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 One
North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 l�or�hCarOlina
Phone: [phone]M / FAX 919 807-V951 hhPY1portal ncdenr orgfWelAYq ys
�► An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer— 50V* R cted/10% Post �9i& it Y ecY Consumer Paper

Permit NCO063321
go
0"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143�-215.1, other
lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, the
Tuckaseigee water & Sewer Authority
(TwSA)
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Cashiers Plant # 3 WWTP
852 Cashiers Lake Road
Cashiers
Jackson County
to receiving waters designated as the Chattooga River in subbasin 03-13-02 of the
Savannah River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
am This permit shall become effective November 1, 2012.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on August 31, 2017.
Signed this day October 9, 2 -12.
Ch s Wakild, P.E., Dir ctor
Di lion of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
no

Permit NCO063321
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER, SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein,
M The Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority is hereby authorized to:
fm
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.2 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the
following components:
• 100,000 gallon equalization basin
• 30,000 gallon equalization basin
15,100 gallon digester
•' Two 104,000 gallon aeration basins
,�, • 15,678 gallon and 49,706 gallon clarifiers
• Rotating disc panel filters
• 25,000 gallon digester
• Dual train liquid chlorine/ liquid dechlorination contact chambers
• Post aeration
This facility is located at Cashiers WWTP #3 (852 Cashiers Lake Road in
Cashiers, NC) in Jackson County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map to an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River, currently classified B--
Trout HQW waters in hydrologic unit 03060102 of the Savannah River Basin.
MR
we
am

Ow
m"i
1
1
i
mm
0"
NCO063321- TWSA Cashiers Plant #3 WWTP Facility
Latitude: 360 06, 11" N _State Grid: Cashiers
Location
Lora ; ude: 83° 06' 26n W River B ,asi :: Savannah
Stream Class: ,.,*out ORW Sub -Basin: 03-13.01
�Recelvin Stream: Chattooga River
Jackson County
Map not to scale

M
Permit NCO063321
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORINGr REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge 0.2 MGrD of treated
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
wastewater from outfall 001.
specified below:
Such
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[PCS Code]
Monthly Weekly Dally
Measurement
Sample Type
Sample
Average Average Maximum
Frequency
Locadonl
Flow
50050
0.2 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
BOD, 5 day (200C)2
[00310)
15 mgil 22.5 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Influent &
Effluent
Total Suspended Sollds2
[ ]
30 mg1L 45 mglL
Weekly
Com osite
p
influent &
�+
N (April 1-October 31))
Effluent
Q�610
2.2 mgfL 6.6 mgfL
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
N (November 1-March 31)
00610
4.8 mgiL 14.4 mglL
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
1Dissolved Oxygen
1003001Y
Dali average > 5.0 m iL
0 _ 9
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
�+
Dissolved Oxygen
[003001
Weekly
Grab
U & D
Fecal liform (geometric mean)
[3161Fecal
200/100 mL 4001100 mL
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Coliform (geometric mean)
Weekly y
Grab
U & D
Total Residual Chlodne3
22 pgn
21Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C) (000101
Dally
Grab
Effluent
I50060
-Temperature °C) [000101
Weekly
Grab
U & D
Total Ni en 00600
Semi-annually
composite
Effluent
Total Phos horns fOO6651
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
_pH 1004001>
6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
I. U: at least 50 feet upstream from the outfall. D: at least 500 feet downstream from the outfall.
MR 2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The Permittee shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC -certified laboratory
[including field -certified). Effluent values < 50 µg/L will be treated as zero for compliance
am purposes.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
M"
A. (2) SEWER LINE CONNECTIONS
Sewer lines serving more than one building, crossing property under separate ownership,
or crossing rights of way, shall not be made tributary to the collection system serving this
facility unless a permit for the construction and operation of the tributary line has been
issued by the Division.
W"

APPENDIX D
Current TWSA Flow Allocations

Sylva, NC 28779
MEMORANDUM
-- FROM: Dan Harbaugh `4
Executive Director( t'
TO: TWSA Board
DATE: 20 October 2014
REF: TWSA Business Meeting 10/21/2014
Agenda Item 1-
a, Final Review of Cashiers WWTP Flows
& Recommendations on Release of Sewer Allocation
As per prior discussions with the TWSA Board at last week's Workshop Meeting, TWSA
staff has been continuing the additional data collection concerning this matter as has been
performed for the past two years. We have performed a final review of the data received
for the 12 months through September 2014 and the Sewer Allocation records on file and
meetincrl
• The data for plant flows has been reviewed and found valid. Except for some high
flows in timeframes when there were spikes in precipitation, the overall trend does
appear more normal overall at plant 3 as depicted in attachment (Item 1.A.x.).
o The 2013-14 running Annual Average daily flows ended at 0.072 MGD
_ including the 12 months ending with September 2013,
o This is down from high of 0.079 ending in Oct. 2012.
• On the other hand, additional review of records at TWSA the "Unrealized
Allocation" total has been revised to reflect most current information. Prior analysis
didn't include information on several minor historical (pre 2012) holdings which are
now included along with the 2012 and 2013 releases made by the Board but not
yet connected. Any prior allocation that is now connected is netted out also,
o The review validates that there remains the 4,760 GPD reserved for Failing
_ Systems.
o The final adjustments on the "Unrealized Allocation" side of the ledger result
_ in a Corrected "Allocation Held" for the system of 104,237 GPD as shown
attached (Item 1.8.x) (Note - Account holders names omitted for privacy),

Om
on o This change in the Allocation Held brings the Flow Management to
180,340 GPD, which is 100% of the amount we are allowed through the
plant at this time.
no
o Prior summary and updated summary of flows are attached also (Item
(M, 2.C.x).
o This means that we will not be recommending a further release of
capacity for Residential or Commercial uses in 2014-15.
TWSA Board Discussion-
►
TWSA Staff Recommendation- Whereas NCDENR Rules prevent additional releases,
no action is possible at this time. Recommend further work on I&I and on developing
methods to get existing capacity held back into the market through Transfer Policy or
consideration of Capacity Buy Back program?
M
em
fm
MA
MR
fm
fm
em
NM
am

om
.... - DATE
5/9/2005
�+
5/10/2005
5/17'/2005
6/21/2005
'�►
7/5/2005
11/9/2005 s.
11/24/2005 .'
11/2/2006
Unknown
9/20/2007►
11/16/2007 t
UnknownRol "
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
11/27/2012
11/13/2012
11/6/2013
FMR
CASHIERS APPROVED ALLOCATIONS
CUSTOMER GALLONS
PER DAY
290
3,525
2,400
30,600
25,185
480
9,000
1,000
300
81617
1,800
4,,680
1,080
1,000
11,400
240
600
2,040
Total: 104,237 gpd
AGENDA ITEM

TWSA Plant S 3 Dally.Flows Yearly Monthly Avg. M072
12 Month Avg Yearly Daily Avg. 06072
A
m
z
0
a
m
9

Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant #3 (Cont.)
• 200,000 GPD Total Permit (Expansion Completed in
2008).
• Flow Management up to 80% - NORMAL (160K)
• Flow Management up to 90%- PLANNING
(180K)
• Flow Management up to100%- CONSTR. (200K)
2013-14 Avg. Daily Flow 72,000 GPD
Reserve(Failing Sys.) 41760 GPD
m I. Allocation Held 100,700 GPD
0 �\ 2014 Flow Management 177,460 GPD
_+ Available Allocation 25540 GPD
rn
• 2012-2014 requested but Un-Met Demand- 38,500
GPD

I I I I I I I I I 1 _1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant ##3
(Updated 10/20/14)
200,000 GPD Total Permit -- Flow Management up to 90%-
PLAN NING (180K)
2013 Avg. Daily Flow 72,000 GPD
Reserve(Failing Sys.) 41760 GPD
Allocation Held (Prior Reported) 1003700 GPD
Allocation Held ( Prior Added) 657 GPD
2012 Release (2 Accts) 840 GPD
2013 Release (1 Acct) 29040 GPD
Corrected Allocation Held 104 ,237 GPD
2014 Flow Management 180.9340 GPD
=100% of available allocation!
Revised Recommendation- No Additional release at this time'.
• 2012-2014 requested but Un-Met Demand- 40,130
GPD (86401 residential, balance commercial)

APPENDIX E
Wastewater Survey Cover Letter and Example

Oft
no
TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
SERVING JACKSON COUNTY
1246 West Main Street
Sylva, NC 28779
em August 13, 2010
No
im
Dear Property Owner:
Phone [phone] • Fax: [phone]
RE: Cashiers Area
Wastewater Planning Survey
Jackson County, North Carolina
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) is moving forward with
more specific plans for providing future sewer service in the Cashiers area. As part of this
planning process TWSA will have to estimate future development that could be served by
public sewer. You have received this letter because your property is within or in close
proximity to the area being considered for future service. TWSA requests that you
complete the attached survey to assist us in this planning effort. Your participation is
critical to the Authority as we are seeking to establish actual demand for service and
trying to develop specific requirements for a wastewater management system. If we do
not know about future demand, it cannot be planned for. The availability of actual future
service is based on many variables and all identified potential sewer service demand will
FM certainly be considered but availability cannot be guaranteed.
Please return the survey by mail in the enclosed pre -addressed, postage included
envelope. Alternatively you may complete the survey online at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TLJD5WM. Survey information should be
completed online or sent by mail no later than September 10, 2010.
We sincerely appreciate your assistance with this important project. If you have
any questions please contact me at 828-586-5189.
no
�,
Enclosure
me
a"
Sincerely,
WT
Joe Cline, Executive Director
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
a"

P"
W
ow
rim
ow
ow
fm
014
am
M
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Cashiers Area Wastewater Planning Survey
(please return by: September 10, 2010)
Owner Information
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Property Information
Street Address:
PIN Number:
Acreage:
Existing Improvements
❑ None, Undeveloped
❑ Single Family Dwelling(s) or lots, Number of Lots or Dwellings,
❑ Multifamily Dwelling, Number of Units
❑ Commercial, Describe
Current Sewer
❑ Not Applicable (undeveloped or not required)
❑ Septic System
❑ Private Sewer System, Sewer Provider
❑ Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Future Development
❑ No Plans for Future Development
❑ Residential Development, Approximate Units Planned
❑ Commercial Development, Describe
❑ Other, Describe
If development is planned on your property do you have an estimated service flow
needed ❑ yes ❑ no, Amount of flow on a daily basis if yes
If development is planned on your property when do you plan to begin:
❑ 0-5 years ❑ 5-10 years ❑ Over 10 years ❑ Unknown
If Public Sewer was available to your property would you request service?
❑ Yes, ❑ No,
Other Information:
we

MR
APPENDIX F
Jackson County Health Department Letter

so Jan.14, 2009 10;14AM Jackson
No.5583 P. 2
am
am
,qaJ."4V
COMMUNM SERVICE CBMR - s38 SCOM CREEK ROAD, SUITE 100 - SYLVA. NC 28779
TEL [phone] - FAM. 828-5663493
PAU LA 0. CARDEN
DMEC?OR
aM January 14, 2009
Re: Expansion of Municipal Sewer
Cashiers Community, Jackson County, NC
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached are copies of some of the sewage system repair permits that bave been issued by this
agency in the Cashiers community. There have been numerous repairs for which the only
alternative was to connect to the existing municipal sewer (some letters attached)_ A
considerable number of the lots in this community have very limited space as well as systems
installed before regulations were enforced. Jackson County began this enforcement in and
around 1976. In addition, some of the repairs installed in this community were substandard
systems because of limited space, setback requirements, unsuitable soil conditions, etc. Any
expansion of a municipal sewer in this community would be of great public health significance
and an asset to the community.
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me,
Sincerely,
Charles L. Stephens, R. S.
Environmental Health Supervisor
Attachments
am
Ma
0M
fm
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [T%/RX NO 79301 2002

an. 14. 2009 0141.0MOON `v 0114TY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEPAI-i�n3 P. 3
EN JGF UW�E6G OPERATIONS PERMIT DAME 03.17.06 702-52-7025
�pu IKLEY E)ALDWYN %WkLEY, BALDWIN-28UNKLEY, PAM LA
21 GULF BREEZE DR 21 GULF BREEZE AR
CRAWFORDVILLE FL 32327--4652 CRAWFORDVILLE FL
547_ 9917 32327-46 32
TELEPN0NF_:
go
r
m
am
Am
me
am
oft
TO EXISTING 2 BEDROOM SYSTEM
IONS:
RS L ON 64 2D 8TATE RD ON R 1ST HSE ON L (91 MONTE VISTA RD
RECEIPT I d SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AU HOMED AGENT:
TM ahava alanaWre indkatas that I have read. Undwstmd And ccncUr wllh all
SZ.TANK
REMARKSc j5
TYPE.SYS
SZ.CHAMB
as cutllned On the b=14
NITRIFx OPSR.REA pL-0-
0
MAIN
ONE
■�v■■■■■■■■■■fin■��■�NE101110m,
f�N�
m
MEN
On
MONEESS
Ommoommilm
ME-0
110
IIIN
MONONA
ME
_"46�ftBN_
Vis
MENNEN
"mw
il,
WLI
WE
MENNEN
"am
��N"Uffim
■■�■�O�N■■■0���ii�9R%�J�O
LIM
am DATE.ISSUED
DATE„ APPROVED
jdcoMw (10101)
ENV HEALTH SPEC
iAte_ vFj4st I c
ENV HEAL .-
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 9003

me
ON
so
Jan, 14. 2009 10:15AM Jackson JGZALI
No-5583 P. 4
aJAI JJ u�.0 c�
. COMMU YY SERVICE CENTER - 538 5COTTTS CREEK ROAD. SLU'I'E 100 •• SYLVA, NC 26779
T9t-: 828-586-8994 ' FAX: [phone]
PALuA G. CARDEN
DIREMR
October 24, 2006
Tuckaseigee Witter and Sewer Authority
1246 W. Main Street
Sylva, NC 28779
Dear Mr. Kline,
This letter is in regards to Lots 8 and 9 Chestnut Square in Cashiers, North Carolina. The
septic system is currently failing. The system was repaired in 2002. The Jackson County
NO Department of Public Health cannot repair the system again. The current site, soil and space
conditions will not allbw an onsite wastewater system.
fft We recommend that lots 8 and 9 be considered for municipal sewer as there are no other
options available to the property owners at this time.
am Please call 587-4105 if there are any questions regarding this failing system.
Sincerely,
Tonya NL Howell RS
Cc: Scott Sylvester
Thomas Sawyer
go
am
me
am
am
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 @004

Jan. 14. 2009 10:1�Af 41�ackson ,VTY DEPARTMENT' aF PUBLIC HL°;�5831 P. 5
3&F8R8NOEMFDATE
��4W OPERATIONS �L�� Vdq�7o�J 1-2—61W
o Vip�
ARPu�j/N'�T�.nA j C r,/�R S DI'' 8&L.L, 1 A ° MCC ` �'WE DO
{'fl.ij.✓J'iL�1YY I..rI'17-Jii��t7 L� �!"�t`1R����✓ �" 1 fL.rLrA�4+ o UV�1Lw��1Jl.1LYN
PO BOX 2283 RS eQX 2283
"" CASHIERS NC 28717 CASH 15RS ANC .
TELEPHONE: • -1 3-- I f 7 i 28717
SPECIFICATIONS:
REPAIR TO E X I ST I NA SYSTEi" N
LOCATIMQIRECTIONS;
CASHIERS
so
=EE:
— RECEIPT
OF OWNER OR
Tha above elgrpture Indicates wat I have road, underftooa and concur with all prcvlelone and Information as 4v0ned on %he back
few
;pd Bl— DBMS TYPE. SYS
.
I t
SZ Y TANK �vc.}.....1ot Z a CHAMEs ..w,� .�..ww..
REMARKS
YMYr YYNI wr • ..Y..Ww.Y
3
No
an
ON
fa �ry nr p �j
g1►►11vN:.N� � RE
DATE. ISSUED
DATE r APPROVED __. ..6..D.4......
.lcpw"Q.5w (10101) .
NV TR I F I OPER . RED
owl,,
rr...a.R. r.•Y.•�.rwaw.YY.r�wYwrrYw.r- -- r�r.__
ENV HEALTH SPEC .�, ......�... _ _ —
N=NV HEAI...TH SPEC •
y
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 IA005

so
Jan.14. 2009 10:16AM Jackson --- No.5583 P, b
OOMMUNUY MRVYCS CMMR • 538 SCOTTS CR13EK ROAD. SUITE 106 - SUVA. NC 28779
TEL 848-58&8994 & FAX: [phone]
PAMA Cz. C.AIZDEN
DMEC FOR
July 10, 2008
Tames O°Berry
P. O. Box 243
FJO Cashiers, NC 28717
Dear Mr. O'Eerry:
On June 19, 2008, Pam Moses, Environmental Health Specialist from the Jackson County
Department of Public Health visited your property to evaluate for the repair of your septic
system. She has concluded that there is no place suitable for the installation of a repair system
due to soil wetness and space. As a result, you will need to pursue an area offshe or connect to
the municipal sewer if available.
Please contact this office when you decide which one of the above options you 'wish to pursue.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (M)587-8247.
Sincerely,
Charles L. St e s S.
„q Environmental Health Supervisor
A"
s,
fm
so
am
am
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 iTX/RX NO 79301 IM006

Jan. 14. 2009 1v�koftsolma% vus4TY DEPARTMENT, OF PUBLIC HEA 55P P, ?
:;)D BOX 232
"ASH I EI;!$ NC '8717
828.586- 3995 MJLS...oWiyw-.
E OWNTO EXISTING SYSTEM ---PINE GROVE APT$.
f�
_ 1 siGNATURE OF OWNER QR AU 140RUED AGENT:
,, .•....W, FM .
Po BOX 2132
CASHIERS NC
28717
#6 EDRMS 'TYPE . eY5
z .TANK z .CHAMB NTTRIFT 10 6 6 flo QPER.REQL I
REMARKS z dw#4-
I ail
cat Gc� ,
'e w'' ~
ow
j♦ i 14
I t i
_ [JI
1 1
1 �
1
1 •�_i1r r.I••-►w-..iijj�.•r� � rrr�r�•rrrr• rrrl-r��i
1 1 • : ' : 1 1
DATE . ISSUED
)ATE _ A P PP Q V E G
,>
jCtM . 200 (10/961
NV HEALTH SPEC: _��.._ �---•
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 IM007

APPENDIX G
USFWS Species List

Environmental Resource Analysis
Asheville Field Office Project Review Assessment
Analysis Shape Type: Point
Analysis Timestinttp: 0425201102:03:39
Shape Name: Unnamed point located at-83.033194 0, 35.03997 0
Boundary Area: 0 acres
Buffer Area: 50265.4 acres
Total Area: 50265.4 acres
County
County
county Name
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
JACKSON
19,175.68
3S 13 vo
TRANSYLVANIA
13.772.69
27A %
MACON
6899
0.14 %
TOTAL
33.017 36
65.69 %
Asheville Field Office Reviewed Project History
Reliewed Project Points
Project
Name
Year
#Features
NWP
Deen Day Sanders Sediment
2009
1
NWP
Lake Jeoel Dredge
2008
1
DO-356
Watershed Restoration along Scotsman Creek
2000
1
98-173
Offend Tract N 1041 Non Federal
1998
1
1
TOTAL
5
ReNiewed Project Lines
Project lED
Name
Year Total Length (meters)
05454
Chattooga Rive Recreation
2007 5 999
00-349
Road Pavmg Project
2000 Sol
97-095
Nopsed Accesss Route, Chzttooga-ERicon Commuwty Ass_
1997 10 —6
TOTAL. 17.326
Re3iewed Project Polygons
Project ID
Name
Year
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
05-254
White Bull Project
2005
156.30
031 %
03-192
Foxier Cre& tmdes ribed pmj
20D3
86.63
0 17 %
03-206
281 Mote Site Project
2003
7 15
0 01 %
99-089
Highlands Pine Plait
1999
2,400.57
4.78 %
99-105
Duke exchange
1999
40.94
0.08 `:
984)06
No Data
1998
16.421 15
32.67 %
98-058
Loyd Cove Timber Sale
1998
2,224,25
4.43 %
98-163
Constriction of gold course and health spa, Jackson Co.
1998
8427
0 l7 %
TOTAL:
21.421 15
42,62 %
Landcover and Solis
Ecological Zones of the Southern Appalachians
Name
Tolal Ana (acres)
Percent of Area
Acidic Cove
58.60425
35.54 S:
Dry and Dry-Mcnac Oak Hiciary
57.579.30
34.92 %
Mc;x Oak Hidmq
24,487.39
14.85 %
White Pine -Oak Heath
9.442.58
5.73 %
Xmc Pine -Oak Heath and Oak Heath
5599.36
339 %
Shordeaf Pine -Oak Heath
2.335.29
IA2 %
Chestnut Oak Heath
454 17
028 %
Rich Cove
302-93
0.19 %
TOTAL:
159,794.17
96.3 %
Ecoregions (Omernik)
Name Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
Blue Rrdee 49 613.95
I00 -.

Physiographic Region
Division Province Section
Total Area (arm)
Percent of Area
APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS BLUE RIDGE SOUTHERN
49.63395
100°6
TOTALS
4R633.95
100 %
Southeast GAP LSndc0ver
Class Name
Iotal As" (acres)
Percent of Area
Southern and Central Appalachian Oak Forest
10,506 00
1_0 9 ° a
Southern and Central Appalachian Oak Forest - Xenc
6.443.10
12,82
Southern and Central Appalachim Cove Forest
4,688.77
9.33 %
Central and Southern Appalachian Montane Oak Forest
3,938.69
7.64 %
Appalachian Hemlock -Hardwood Forest
3,330.18
6.63 %
Developed Open Space
1,160.02
2.31 %
Southern Appalachian Montane Pine Forest and Woodland
1.122.55
2.23
South -Central Interior Small Stream and Riparian
705.92
1.4 %
Southem .4ppalachun Low Mountain Pine Forest
505.07
1 %
Pasture/Hay
321.57
0.64 %
Successional Shrub/Scrub (Utility Swath)
197.54
0.39 %
Other - Herbaceous
55.42
0.11 %
Open Water (Fresh)
53.54
0.11 %
Low Intensity Developed
34.49
0-07 %
Row Crop
32.55
0.06 %
Southern Appalachian Moutaue Cliff
22,68
0.05 %
Clearcut - Grassland'Herbaceous
15.35
0 03 %
Quarry/Smp Mine/Cmvel Pit
6.75
0.01 %
Medium Intensity Developed
L56
0%
Southern Appalachian Rocky Summit
1.56
0%
Central and Southern Appalachian Northern Hardwood Forest
0.67
0%
Southern Appalachian Grass and Shrub Ball - Herbaceous Modrficr
0.44
0%
TOTALS
31044.43
65.74 %
SSLRG4D Soils
Name
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes
L999.26
3.98 %
Fannin fate sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes
1,897.55
3.79 %
Cleveland-Chestout-Rock outcrop complex windswept. 50 to 95 percent slopes
1,811.38
3.6
Ashethesmut complex 50 In 95 percent slopes, very rocky
1,55328
3.09 %
Cull"a-Tuckasegm complex. 15 to 30 percent slopes. stony
1.442.86
2.87 %
Famin fare sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes
1.295-43
2.58 %
C'haodler gravelly fate sandy loam. 15 to 30 percent slopes
1.14737
2.28 %
Evad-Cowee complex 30 to 50 percent slopes. stony
1,06521
112 %
Ashe-Edueyville complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very rocky
1,059.29
2.11 %
Watauga sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
1.024.91
2.04 %
Chandler-Micavdle complex_ 30 to 50 percent slopes_ stout'
977.05
1.94 %
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 50 to 95 percent slopes
948.40
1.89 %
Tuckascgre-R'hiteside complex 8 to 15 percent slopes
94501
L98 %
Watauga loam 15 to 30 percent slopes
901.91
1.79 %
Rock outcrop -Cleveland complex, windswept- 30 to 95 percent slopes
945.27
1.68 %
Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam 30 m 50 percent slopes
938.67
1.67 %
Cullasap-Tuckasegee complex 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
836.75
1.66 %
Chestnut-Edneyvi0e complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes. stony
771.67
1.54 %
Edoeyville-Chestnut complex 30 m 50 percent slopes. story
723.83
1.44 %
Clnrlud-Chestnut-Rock outcrop complac windswept, 30 to 50 percent slopes
693.43
139 %
Cleveland-Chestwt-Rock outcrop comptim windswept. 15 to 30 percent slopes
648.27
129 %
Whiteside-Turkx.gm complx 2 m 8 percent slopes
631.15
126 %
Ednevvi0e-Chestnut complex 15 to 30 percent slopes. story
612,72
L22 %
Chandler-Micaville complex 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony
519.13
1.03 %
Ashe-Cleveltnd-Rock outcrop complex 30 to 95 percent slope. very bouldery
418.59
0.83 %
Evud-Cowee complem 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
396.43
0.77 %
Toecane-Tusquilee complex 15 to 30 percent slopesvery bouldery
377,04
0 75 %
Pion fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes. stony
362A7
0-72 %
Cashiers gravelly fate sandy loam 50 to 95 percent slopes
351.77
0.7 %
Ashe-Edoeyvdle coupler 15 to 30 percent slopes, rocky
321-96
0.64 %
Sawook loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
315.33
0.63 %
Evard loam 15 to 30 percent slopes, story
299.74
0.6 %
Saunook loam 15 to 30 percent slopes. stony
255.69
0.51 %
Tare fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
250.17
OS %
Evard loam. 30 to 50 percent slopes. stow
225.29
0.45 %
Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex, 8 to IS percent slopes, stony
223.72
0.45 %
Toecane-Tusquitee complex 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery
216.55
0.43 %
Toecane Tusgmtec complex, 30 m 50 percent slopes, very bouldery
211.36
0.42 %
Chestnut-Edneyyille complex- 30 to 50 percent slopes, story
208.72
0.41 %
Waauga Imam 8 m IS percent slopes
206.42
0.41 %
Nikwasi fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes- frequently flooded
20439
0.41 %

Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
200.37
0.4 ° e
Tate fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes
190.93
0.38 %
Chandler-Micaville complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
189.08
038 %
Edrimille-Chestnur complex 8 to 15 percent slopes, stony
18L09
0.36 %
Edneyville-Chesmm complac 50 to 95 percent slopes. stony
179.85
036 %
Unaka-Porters complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes. very rocky
169.53
0.34 %
Dellwood gravelly fare sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
134.72
027 %
Sylva-g4mirside complex 0 to 2 percent slopes
126.43
0.25 %
Evasd loam, B to 15 percent slopes, stony
126.30
0.25 %
Brevard loam 10 to 25 Percent slopes
121,15
0.24 %
Chtstm-Edneyville complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
134.36
023 %
Cullowhee-Eh complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
110.79
0.22 %
Water
10829
022
Rosman fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes. frequently flooded
8825
0.18 %
Rock outcrop-Clnelaod complex, 30 in 95 percent slopes. very boddery
67413
0.17 %
1-dortherim loamy
95.42
0.17 %
Augusta fine sandy loam, cool vaunt, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded
B2.74
0.16 %
Ashe-Chestnut complex 30 to 50 percent slopes, very rocky
8160
0.16 %
Chestnut-Edneyvifle complex, win wept, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
7132
0.14 %
Unaka-Porters complex 30 to 50 percent slopes, very rocky
66AI
0.13 %
Ashe-Edoeytilk complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes- rocky
4720
0.09 %
Braddock loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
46.83
0.09 %
Bracswont-7umluska complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
4352
0.09 %
Plon fare sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
4216
0.08 %
Tooraysay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently floored
33.46
0.07 %
Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes
3L66
0.06 %
Plots fare sally loam, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony
30.92
0.06 %
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes, wiridswept
3051
0.06 %
Cidimpi very cobbly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes, extremely bouldery
3037
0.06 %
Hayesville clay loam 15 to 30 percent slopes. moderately eroded
3034
0.06 %
Hayesville loam 15 to 30 percent slopes
2615
0.05 %
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes, windswept
2150
0.04 %
CuRowhee fur sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, ocnsionally flooded
1737
0.03 %
Fannin fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
16.61
0.03 %
Chestnut-Edneyville complex windswept 8 to 15 percent slopes, stony
14.8E
0.03 %
Dillard loam 1 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded
13.41
0.03 %
Pmtets-Uwka complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, rocky
12.68
0.03 %
Tate fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
11.70
0.02 h
Pits-eparries
11.69
0.02%
Braddock loam 2 to 8 Percent slopes
9.31
0.02 %
Cdlanja-Tuckasegee complex, 50 to 90 percent slopes, stony
7.49
0.01 %
Udorthews-Urban land comPkz. 0 to 5 percent slopes. rarely flooded
034
0.01 %
Rode outcrop -Cleveland complex 30 to 95 Percent slopes
624
0.01 %
Climmm-EdnM-We complex, B to 15 percent slopes, smog
6.11
0.01 %
Hayesville loam 30 in 50 perunt slopes
3.49
0 01 %
TOTAL:
33,091.07
65.83 o.
Conservation Lands
Managed Lands
Name
OWNER
Total Area (acreslPercent of
Namahala National Forest - FFiglibuds Ranger District
US Forest Service
17,361.81
34.54 %
Nannhala National Forest - Ellicott Rock Wildemess
US Forest Service
2,191.96
436 %
Silver Run Preserve
The Nature Consenaocy
1,576.90
3.14 %
Clvmaoga River GorgcE licon Rock RHA
UB Forest Service
855.80
1.7 %
Toxawav Game Land
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
460.92
0.92 %
Tin away Game Land DNP
NC Wildlife Resources commassism
40930
0.81 %
WIwewater River Falls and Gorge RHA
US Fount Service
304.56
0-61 %
Nannhala National Forest - Wlinewater Falls Scenic AreaUS Forst Service
29723
0.59 %
Carolina Momtaias Land Constancy Easement
Carolina Mountains Land Comervzncy
127.86
025 %
Dulany Bog Plant Conservation Preserve
NC Department of Agtieniture, Plans Conservation Progran133.13
0,07 %
Chanooga National Wild and Scenic River
US Forest Service
16.52
0.03 %
Horsepasnue State Natural and Scenic River
NC Division of Pallet and Recreation
14.21
0.03 %
Horsepasmre National Wild and Scenic River
US Forest Service
14.21
0.03 %
Delany Bog RHA
Highlands Biological Foundation
8.05
0.02
Frank Dulany Bog Special Research Area
Highlands Biological Foundation
8.05
0.02 S.
Sanson Wildlife Sanctuary
Humane Society, Wildlife Land Tenn
0.74
0 %
TOTAL.:
23.68223
47.115:
Species and Habitat Occurrence
-NHEO Point
Scientific Name Common Name Last Federal EO

Obsetz'attan Status
Status
Features
Aquatic In%e
Carnbarus chaugaensts
Chauga Crayfish
2001-07-25
Extant
I
lcbmte
Annl
Invertebrate
Aquatic Cambams ciau aensis
Aq Awl g
Cluu pp Crayfish
2001-07-23
Extant
1
Aquatic A, u<brate Cambarus chaugaensis
Chauga Crayfish
1988-08-09
Extant
2
c Imembnte Cambarus reburms
Aquati Animal
French Broad River Crayfish
YFnh
2001-07-25 FSC
Extent
t
A uatic Im'enebrate Druxt lata
q Animal
a mayfly
1994-07-25
Fxtant
I
Aquatic Nom'ascular Plant Ephebe solida
A Roclahag Lichen
2007-11-19
Extort
a
Aquatic Nonvascular Plant Ephebe solida
A Rorkabaa Lichen
2007-09-04
Extant
t
Aquatic Nonvascular Plant Wamstorfia Buitans
floating Sickle -moss
1949-08-22
Histonc
1
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Etheostorna ms:nptum
Turquoise Darter
2000-07-15
Extant
1
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Hybopsis mbrifrom
Rosyface Chub
19954)9-18
Exton
1
Aquatic Vertebrate Annual Microptems coosac
Redeye Bass
2000-07-15
Extant
I
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Notropts hstgmmas
Yao%fin Sharer
1991-PRE
Extant
3
Natural
7enestrial
Commurnry, Acidic cove forest
2000-07-26
Extant
3
TerreslnalNatural
Acidic cove form
1999-05-31
Extant
1
�ry
TmestrialComm,, Acidic cove forest
1992-08-I8
Extant
1
TerrestrialNatural . Acidic cove forest
19874)619
Extant
1
Terrestrial NNa��ty Canada hemlock forest
1993-11
Extant
1
Terrestrial Natural ry Canada hemlock forest
Communi
1992-08
Extnt
I
Tear v-rCan� Carolina hemlock bluff
Commtmtry
2007-09-05
Fxtanr
I
Terr.W.INC 4ry, Carolina hemlock bluff
1993-08
Extant
I
Natural
Terrestrial
Commumly Chestnut oak foray
2000-07-26
Extant
7mattia114.ry Heath bald
1993-08
Extant
I
TmestrlalNarural devotion
gh gramme dome
1993-08
Extant
I
Cvmmumry
Tenresw.4Natural High elevation granitic dome
1992-MIS
Extant
1
Commutarty
Natural
7mestrialCommurry High elm mon granitic dome
1992-04-20
Extant
1
TerrestrialNaturalHigh elevation rocky summit
2007-09-0
Extant
1
TetrestnalNatunl Montane acidic cliff
Commuvrn_'
2008-04
Extant
5
TerresUt3INansral Montane acidic cliff
1987-WI6
Extant
I
Commtm ry
TmestrialNatural Mootaue oak --hickory forest
2000-07-26
Extort
5
CumtntuuN
TerminalNatural
Montane oak—hildomy forest
1993-11
Extant
I
communiry
Terrestrialcnnnl
Montane oak —hickory forest
1993-04-05
Extant
1
cotnm
Natur
TemstrWcom al
Montane oak—hickay forest
1992-08-18
Extant
I
m,n
Natural
TmestriilContmtunty Montane oak --hickory forest
1992-08
Extant
1
Terrestrial Natural
Montane oak —hickory forest
1992-04-20
Extant
I
�mmmury
Terrestrial Natural Pine—oak/heath
1993-11
Extam
I
Testes; vialNat2nualunl Pine—oakmeath
1992-08-18
Extant
I
7mestrialNamn1 Pme--oak/heath
Commumry'
1992-04-20
Umanked 1
Terrestrial Natural
Rich cove forest
19874)6-19
Extant
1
ry
TmestrialNonvascular Plant Aaobolbtss cihams
A Livem'on
1994-06-21
Extant
1
TerratrialNomascular Plant Bnchytheatm rotaeanutn
Rotor's Feather Moss
1951-06-07
liistoric
I
TenestrialNom-ascular Plant Chdoscyphus muricams
A Livetwm
1999-03-26
Extam
TerrmuialNomascular Plant Ditrichum rhynchostepum
Ditrichum Moss
1951-06-07
Fhstonc
2

Tenestru Nnmzxular Plant Drepanolejeuna appalachiaoa
ALivarwon
195"7-25
Historic
I
7erreso-ialNmcaxular Plant Drepanclejemeaappalrluana
ALiv'erwrost
1957-07-12
Historic
1
Tesratriallomascular Plant Gymooderma bricare
Rock Gnome lichm
2007
E
Extant
2
TertestrmINom'axulm Plant Gymnodertua luteare
Rock Gnome Lichen
1992-07-11
E
Extant
1
Tetres rtalNmsaxular Plant Gym a derma hreare
Rock Gnome lichen
1992-07-10
E
Extant
1
TerrestrialNmvaxular Plant Hoennhadelpbus shmpu
Shmp's Homaltadelphus
1959-10-24
Historic
I
TerrtstriaWmvascular Plant Hypnum pretense
Meadow Feather Moss
1999-03-24
Extant
1
TervestrulNonvaxular Plant Mactocoma sull v'antit
Srduvants Maned -moss
1957-06-26
Historic
1
TetrcsuialNomsscular Plant Plagwchila cadmiloba
ALiv'erwnrt
2007-11-08
Extant
I
Tcrreso-ialNom'axular Plant Plagiochila, caduciloba
A Liv'erw•on
2007-10-16
Extant
1
TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Plagiochila caduciloba
A Liverwort
2003-09-06
Extant
1
TmcstrWNonvasculm Plant Plagiochila caducdoba
A Livencon
1994-08-20
Extant
1
TertestrialNonvasndar Plant Plagiochila caduciloba
A Liverwort
1994-07-16
Extant
2
TerrestrialNom'axular Plant Plagiochila caducdoba
A Liverw•on
1955-04-30
Historic
1
TerreslrialNowaxular Plant Plagnochila ludoviciana
ALiverw•on
1949-08-25
Historic
1
TerrestrialNonvaxular Plant Plagiodula sharpii
A Liverwort
1980-PRE
FSC
Histonc
1
TettestrialNomaxvlar Plant Plagiomnium carolvriamm
Carolina Star -moss
1996
Extant
1
TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Porella wataugensis
A Lwcrw'on
1994-06-22
FSC
Extant
-
TemsirialNonvascular Plant Schlotheimia Iancifol a
Hig}ilmds Moss
1981.06.08
Historic
I
TerrestrialNonvaxular Plant Schlothcinua lane foha
Highlands Moss
1956-11-01
liisrmic
I
TertestrialVascular Plant Asplenium p—ufidtm
Lobed Spleenwort
2007-11-01
Extant
2
ierteso-ulVasnrlar Plant Berbens canadensis
American Barbertr
1961-07-05
Historic
1
Terrestrialy s lm Plant Bnch)xlynum aristosum
Northern Shorthtuk
1997-07-12
Extant
1
Temso-ulVaxular Plant Brachyehvutn artslosms
Northern Shonbusk
1997-07-11
Extant
1
Terns rial %axular Plant Brechyelyoru n arisinnm
Northern Shonhusk
1997-W23
Eatet
1
TervestrtalVaxular PL= Calamagrostis ponen
Posters Reed Grass
1993-10-18
Extant
I
TamtrialVascular Plant calamagrostis poneri
Porters Reed Grass
1991-09
Destroved I
TenestrialVaxular Plant Cares ndfmdu
Radfmd's Sedge
1993-05-21
FSC
Extant
1
TenestrialVascular Plant Fothergilla majm
Large Witch -alder
1999-09-03
Extant
2
TmesnW`,' scular Plant Fothergilla major
large Witch -alder
1999-06-29
Extant
3
TertesvialVascular Plant Fothergilia major
Large Witch -alder
1970-05
Historic
1
TerrestrialVascular Plant Fothefgilla majm
Large Witch-ahim
1966-06-14
Historic
I
TertestrialVasrnlar Plant Hymenophyll= taylcnae
Gorge Filmy I=
2008-09-04
FSC
Extant
I
TerrestriaiVaxular PL'tnt Isotru mcdeoloides
Small Whorled Pogonia
2005
T
Extarn
I
TmestrulVaccular Plant Lysimaehia frase i
Hour's Loosestrife
2007-11-M
FSC
Extant
1
TerrestruR-axular Plant Lysimachia 6asen
Frasers Looxstrife
2007-09-26
FSC
Extant
2
TenestruiVascular Plant Lysimachia fiasen
Farriers Looustrife
2007
FSC
Extant
I
TmestrtalVascular Plant Lysimachia fraseri
Fraser's Loosesmfe
2006-08-08
FSC
Extant
2
Terrestrialvaxular Plant Lysimachia kaseri
Ftacers Loosestrife
2001-06-13
FSC
Extant
1
TerrestrialVaxulm Plant Lysimadtia fiaseri
Frasces Loosesinfe
1997-06-24
FSC
Extant
10
TerresuiaWasrular Plant Lysimachu fiaseri
Frasers Loosestrife
1996-07
FSC
Extant
1
TerrestrulVasculm Plant Lysimachia f wri
Fnses's Loosesmfe
1994-10-20
FSC
Extant
1
TemsonalVascular Plant Lysimachia fiasen
Frasefs Laoseenifie
1965-06-23
FSC
Historic
1
7ermtrialVaxular Plant Monotropsis odmam
Sweet Pinew
200E-04-05
FSC
Extant
4
TetmtrulVauular Plant Monotropsts odmu
Sweet Pines ap
2007-03-M
FSC
Extant
1
7ertestriilVascular Plant Packm rmllefohum
Divided -leaf R2gwon
1992-07-19
FSC
Extant
1
TerrrstrialVascular Plant Packm oullefolium
DrAded-leafRagw•mt
1992-05-11
FSC
Extant
2
TenestrulVawvlar Plant Packera millefrhum
Divided-InfRagwcvt
1983-08-04
FSC
Extant
1
TerrestnalVascularPlant Robioialurtwigu
Hareweg's Locust
1992-07-19
Extant
1
TersestrtalVaxular Plant Robima hispida var. ferWis
Fnutful Lomvs
2007-05-16
Extant
1
Tetre,gruWascular Plant Seeptridium j,nu
Alabama Grape-fem
1973-PRE
Historic
1
TenestriAVaxular Plant Solidavo simulam
Granite Dome Goldenrod
1999-9
FSC
Extant
1
Terre waNaxulm Plant Solidago silnUbM
Granite Dome Goldenrod
1992-08-18
FSC
Extant
1
TemstrulVascular PLwn Thentopsis 6axinifolm
Ash -leaved Golden -banner
2007-09-27
Extant
6
Terr estrialVascular Plant Thermopsis 6axmifoli2
Ash -leaved Golden -banter
2007-04-27
Extant
5
TerresrrialVaxular PLuu Themropsis f xtuufulu
Ash -leaved Golden -banter
1999-07-21
Extant
1
TersestrialVucular Plant Thermopsis fia umfolia
Ash -leaved Golden -banner
1978-05-27
Historic
1
Terves rialVascular Plant Thermopsis fiaxmifolu
Ash -leaved Golden -barterer
1977-08-05
Extant
2
Ter estrialVaxulm Plant Thermopsis fi=10161olia
Ash -leaved Goldin -barter
Unranked 2
TetmerialVascuku Plant Trichomanes pnersii
Dwarf Film)•-fem
1999-08-11
Extant
2
TerrestrialVascular Plant Trichomanes petersu
Dwarf Filmy -fan
1949-08
Historic
1
TenestrialVaxular Plant Trillium discolor
Mottled Trillium
1999-05-20
Extant
I
Tesrestri"axular Plana Trillium discolor
Motrlyd Trllurn
1999-05-17
Extant
I
TerrestrialVasculm Plant Trillium discolor
Mottled Tnllitm
1993-05-21
Extant
I
TermtrialVertebnte Animal Aneides aeneus
Greer S+t..3122nd..
2007-11-16
FSC
Extant
3
TertestrialVenebnte Animal Aneides arneos
Green Salamander
2006-11-06
FSC
Extant
I
TerrestrialVertebnee Animal Aneides ameus
Green Salamander
2005-10-19
FSC
Extant
2
TerrestruNertebnte Animal Aneides arnem
Green Salamander
2005-10-17
FSC
Extant
3
TermtrialVertebnte Animal Aneides amens
Green salamander
200410-06
FSC
BOND
I
Terteso-ial Venebnw Animal Anmdes aeneus
Green Salamander
2003-11-11
FSC
Extant
1
TemstrulVerubmte Animal Aneides acorns
Gres Salamander
2003-11-10
FSC
Fa n
2
Tmeso-ulVestebmc Amoral Aneides amens
Green Salamander
2003-I1-07
FSC
Extant
4
TertestrialVertebraw Animal Aneides are u
Green e..sder
2003-11-03
FSC
Extant
1

Terrestriall'ertebraw Animal Aneides aeneus
Green Salamandei
2003-11
FSC
Extant
3
TetresmalVertebmw Animal Aneides aeneus
Green Salamander
19W07
FSC
Extant
1
TerrestrialVertebrate Amoral Aneides aeneus
Green Salamander
1962-06
FSC
Historic
1
TerresitrialVertebrate Animal Crotalus hot ulus
Timber Rattlesnake
1959-08-08
Historic
1
TenvwrialVertebnte Animal Myous leibu
Eastern Small -footed Myotis
2008-10-13
FSC
Extant
I
TmestrialVertebrate Animal Syh-ilagus obscmus
Appalachian Cottontail
1961-07
FSC
Historic
1
Natural
Welland
Cammuw y Higb elevatiou seep
2007-1046
Extant
I
Wetland Natural Rocky bar and shoe
1993-04-05
Extant
1
Community
Wetland Natural Spray cliff
2007-11-19
Extant
2
Commrwty
Wetland NCatural
Spnychff
2007-IG-16
Extant
2
ay
Welland Natural
Spray cliff
1987
Extant
1
Community
Wetland Nomasculu Plant Anema sharp;;
ALnwwort
1955
Historic
1
Wetland Nom'ascular Plant BryoWhium norvegrcum
Sword Moss
1949-08-24
Historic
1
Wetland Nomascula Plant Curiphyllum pilifert>m
Lang Leaf Mustache Macs
19494W25
Historic
1
Wetland Nomascnlar Plant Homaha trichomanoides
Lime Homalia
1959-07-15
Historic
I
Wetland Nom•ascular Plant Lejermea blomgwstu
A Liverwort
1994-08-20
Extant
1
Wetland Nonvascular Plant L.ejeunea blonxtmstu
ALiverwort
1999-07-16
Extant
I
Wetland Nonrsscular Plant Plagiodnla echwata
A Liverwort
1994-08-20
Extant
1
Weiland Nonvasaular Plant Plagiochila eduaata
ALwerwort
1961-PRE
Historic
2
Wetland Nonva lw Plant Plagmchda echinata
ALrvelwort
1956
Historic
i
Weiland Nomascular Plant Plagioeh a sulhvanhi sat. spungeraA Liverwort
1956
FSC
Historic
I
Wetland Nomascular Plant Plzgiochila suWvatcau vat.
ALivewort
1961-PRE
FSC
Historic
suW{7ntn
Plagioclula wgmin vat.
Weiland Nom'ascular Plant
A Liverwort
1961-PRE
FSC
llismric
1
carnlio,aua
Wetland Nonvasculas Plant Radula sulliv=m
AL riewort
2008-0405
Extant
1
Weiland Nonsascular Plant Radula suRivantu
A Lwerwrm
2007-09-26
Extant
1
Wetland Nomauular Plant Radula sullnwtu
ALiverwort
20074)9-04
Extant
2
Weiland Vascular Plant Asplewum nnnanthes
Single -sums Spleeuwort
2006-08-19
Extant
2
Wetland Vascular Plant Carex bailey;
Bailey's Sedge
2007-09-04
Extant
1
Wetland Vascular Plant Cum badevi
Baileys Sedge
1961-06
Historic
I
Wetland Vascular Plant Cb 1. cuthbertu
Cuthbe Ys Turtlehezd
2007-11-19
FSC
Extant
2
Weiland Vascular Plant Helomas bullata
S%-AW Pink
2004-05-19
T
Extant
I
Weland Vascular Plant Huperaa porophda
Rode Fir-elubmoss
1995
Extant
1
Wetland Vascular Plant Huperzia porophda
Rock Fuclubmoss
198740
Historic
I
Wetland Vascular Plant Hup—pmophila
Rode Firclubmoss
1971-01
Extant
1
Weiland Vascular Plant Pamassia grzudifolia
Urge -leaved Grass -of-
1984-08
FSC
Extant
1
parnassus
Welland Vascular Plant Rhododendron nosey;
Pink -shell Azaln
200E-10-27
Extant
1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
2007-04-16
Extant
5
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi
Pick -shell A -le,
1996-03-01
Extant
1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vascyt
Pink -shell Azalea
1994-05-10
Extant
1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Aaalea
1992-05-11
Extant
1
Weiland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1987-05-07
Extant
I
Werland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vasevi
Pin[ -shell Anln
1976-PRE
nstoric
1
TOTAL.
-' 13
NHEO Line
Type Category SsieafiBc Name
Common Nme Last
Federal
EO
Total Lengtb
Obsenation Status
Slams
(meters)
tar Ephebe solids
Aquatic
A Rockshag Lichen 2007-09-04
Extant
2.128
Plant
TemsvialPl ��-ascndxr Gymmodema Iwnre
Rock Gnome Lichen 1992-07-10
E
Extant
477
TerrestrialNon� ascilar Maaocoma mWvantu
Suffivanfs Maned- 1957-06-26
Historic
2.1_27
Plan.f�tascular
mass
Maaocoma srrlkvantii
SuBivant's Maned-
1952-07-30
Historic
2.352
MDSs
Tenestri��al7PPlan.7t ascular Plagiochda ludoviciana
Aliverwort 1960-06-14
Historic
318
vwwm
Tenestr2t Phgutchda Sharpe
ALiverwmt 1995
FSC
Extant
546
TerrestrialVascuLu Plant Hymenophyllum tayloriae
Gorge Filmy Fern 20084)9-04
FSC
Extant
174
TerrearialVascular Plant HymenophyBum tayloriae
Large Filmy Fern 1995
FSC
Extant
59
TerrestuaifVascular Plant Hvmemphyllum taylmiae
Gorge Filmy Fern 1966-07-26
FSC
Historic
4.004
TenesaialVascular Plant Lams aspen
Rough Blaimgatar 1973
Historic
1,240
TerrestrialVascular Plant Laois aspen
Rough Blazing -star 1960
Historic
2,802
TerresmialVasculu Plant Lysimxhia &uvi
Fraser's L oosemi e 2006-06-06
FSC
Extant
1.609
ierreztrialVauular Plant Lvsun,ch,, fraseri
Frasers Loosestrife 1999-07-19
FSC
Extant
349
TemstriaNasn,1+. Plant Lysimachia trawl;
Frasefs Loosesaife 1997-07-11
FSC
Euaat
132

TerrestrialVascuhu Plant
Lys coach ia fiaseti
Fraser's Loosestrife
1997-W24
FSC Extant
2266
Temstri"ascvlar Plant
Lramachia fiascri
Frances Loosesuife
1997-WW2
FSC Fan
List
TevestrialVascular Plant
Shortia galacifalia car.
Southern Oconee Bells
1976-PRE
FSC Historic
954
galacifolu
rdar
Welland Plant�
Sphagnum subssxdum
w
Orange Ps
eatmos
1999-04-24
Extant
924
TOTAL23.543
N'HEO Poly -on
Type Category
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Federal EO
Total Area
Percent of
Observation
Status Slams
(acres)
Area
AgaIIic Invertebrate
Cambamn chaugaensis
Chauea Crayfish
'_001-07-25
Exton
3 68
0,01 R.
Invertebrate
AquaticAcimal
Cambarus chaugaensis
Chauga Crayfish
2001-07-23
Extant
5 13
0.01 %
vetebrate
Aquatic Inr
d
Cambarus uugarnsis
Chauga Crayfish
1988-08-09
Ex=t
901
0.02 %
invertebrate
Aquatic Invertebrate
Cambaruc rebuts
French Broad River
2001-07-25
FSC Extant
3.68
0.01 X
Crayfish
Invertebrate
Aquatic
Cambams reburrus
French Broad Ricer
1977-06-27
FSC Extort
16-931.78
33.685:
Animal
Cnvfssh
Aquatic innv �ebnte
Drissella lam
a mayfly
1994-07-25
Exmt
5.13
0.01 %
Aquatic
Ephebe laruta
Rockshag Lichen
1955-10-92
Historic
1,602.77
3.19%
Plantascular
Nom•urnla
Aquatic Plant
Ephebe nolida
ARocl¢hag Lichen
2007-11-19
Extant
1.93
0%
asculu
Aquatic
Ephebe sohda
A Rockshag Lichen
2007-09-04
Extant
14.32
0.03 % �
PNoti
Aquatic Novi auvlar
Watnstorfia fluitans
Floating Sickle -moss
1949-09-22
Historic
30.89
0.06 %
PlanVertebrate
Aquatic ,no,i1
Etheostoma insaiptum
Turquoise Dare
2000-07-I S
Extant
1064
OM Y.
Vertebrate
Aquatic Ani-I
Hybopm mbsifroas
Rosyface Chub
1995-09-19
Extant
15.56
0.03%
Vertebrate
Aquatic Anfnal
Mictopterns coosae
Redeye Bass
2000-07-15
Extant
6.14
0.01 %
Vertebrate
Aquatic
Notropia iutipumis
Yellowfin Shiner
1991-PRE
Extant
26,549.76
52.82 %
Aquatic Annual
Percma nigrofasciala
Blackbanded Darter
'000-06-25
Extant
129
0 %
Temstria]Zn vertebrate
Eulonchm manalicim
Mary Alice's Small -headed
1966-08-02
historic
1,021.19
103 %
Fly
N
Terrestrial Natural
Acidic cove forest
2007-I1
Extant
19.20
0.04
Catural
Tertes rialC�m�ty
Acidic cove forest
2007-03-20
Extant
12234
024 %
Terrestrial Natural
Acidic cove forest
2005-08-12
Extant
1,139.09
2 27 °:
Community
TenesnialNa�l
Acidic core forest
2000-07-26
Ectant
1,526.05
3.04 %
TerrestrialNC,o��ry
Acidic cove forest
1999-05-31
Exam
281 13
0.56 %
7erresinafCarmad
Acidic cave forest
1992-08-I8
Fatant
19932
OA%
oommunity
Terrestniai7Nanual
Acidic cove forest
1987-06-19
Extant
77237
1.54 !:
munity
TeaestrialNl��l
Canada hemlock forest
1993-11
Extant
29.97
0.06 %
.IMm..Natmal
Canada hemlock forest
1992-OS
Extant
49.83
0.1 %
Community
Terrestrial NC �l
Caselma hemlock bluff
2007-09-05
Extant
0.03
0 %
Terrestrial Natural
Carolina hemlock bluff
1993-08
Extant
34.71
0.07::
Community
Terre ,WNWural
C'hesmrt oak £invest
2007-09-26
Etrmt
59339
1.I8 %
Terrestrial Natu al
Chesmit oak forest
2007-09-05
Extort
35637
0.71
community
TenestrialCaa
Chesnut oak forest
2005-08-12
Emnt
1257.51
2.5%
Win,
TerresnialN'awB
Chestnut oak forest
1000-07-26
Scram
299.06
0,59 SL
� �7C4ommunity'
Terresur
Heath baw
1993-08
Extant
14.92
0.03 %
Community

Terrestrial Natural
elevation granitic dome
1993-08
Extant
44.86
0.09 %
CatamaranHigh
n
N�7atrual
TerrnttiafCaa��ty
High elevation granitic dome
1992-08-19
Extort
772 37
1.54 %
Terrestrial
High elevation granitic dame
1992-04-20
Extant
64495
1.28 %
Carnation)
Terresn .Iufal
High Elevation Red Oak Forest
2007-09-05
Extant
90425
1.8 %
in•
TerrearialNartual
Hi clevation roc summit
h
2 007-I1-01
Extort
23.74
0.059'.
Community
TerrestrialN'atural
High elevation rocky stmmit
2007-09-05
Extant
0.03
0 %
TertestnalCammunity Nawal
Low elevation granitic dome
1987
Umanked
357 54
0.71 %
TerrestrdC�
Montane acidic cliff
2008-04
iamt
0.15
0 %
TerrestnalN'aturalmury
Montane acidic cliff
2007-I1-01
Extant
16.55
003%
Cornim
7errestrulC'a
Montane acidic cliff
2003-08-15
Extant
12.66
0.03 %
Tmm-.Coccum
Montane acidic cliff
1987-06.16
Extant
77237
1.54 %
b'
TerrestrialNC l nity
Montmc oak -hickory faat
2007-1 "1
Extant
1,704.56
339 %
TerresmalN'tural
Macrame oak --hickory fmmi
2007-09-26
Extant
353.83
0.7 %
communny
TerrestrialN�l
Montane oak-luckory forest
2005-08-12
Extant
1257.51
2.5 %
umny
Terrearial Natural
Montane oak --hickory forest
2000-07-26
Extant
1,797,15
358%
TerearialN �ry
M.A. oak -hid y forest
1993-11
Extant
71.73
0.14 %
TervestrialNatural
Montane oak -hickory forest
1993-04-05
Extant
36732
0.73 ".
Commw n
Terrestrial!
Montane oak -hickory forest
1992-M-18
Exant
39817
0.79 %
urarty
Terrestrial1 amity
Montane oak -hickory forest
1992-08
Extant
498.03
0.99 %
TcacsmafCa
Montane oak -hickory forest
1992-04-20
Extant
148.88
0.3 %
Terrestrial Na�
Vie-oakihemb
2008-04-05
Extant
15431
0.31:.
iry
TerrestrialNaCommunity
Pine-oaHheath
2007-11-01
Extant
24A3
0.05%
TerrestrulC'tural
line--o2kihn0v
2005-08-12
Extort
99599
1.98 %
ommmin
TetrestrtafC
ommwuty
P.-Oak/hrith
1993-11
Extant
24.75
OM%
Terrear2aann"
Pm--oak/heath
199i-09_18
Extant
49.83
0.1 %
namminN
Tenestriil-N'timad
Pie-oak/heath
1992-04-20
Unranked 590 26
1.15 %
ommunity
TettMMANatual
Rich cove forest
2007-11-01
Extant
33.01
0.07%
C-unity
T.M.?C y
Rich cove forest
1987-06-19
Extant
77237
L54 %
Natural
TetresmalCommunity
White pine forest
2007-11-01
Extant
43431
0.86
TevesuialNCaaOMMUMY
White pine franca
2005-09-12
Extaw
31728
0.63
ascular
Terrestrial
mOMAobolbm ciliams
A Liverwort
1994-06-21
Extant
42.24
0%
V�v
Terreshizl�
13rachyrkeaum mGr»
Rota's Feather Moss
1951-06-07
Historic
7.72
0.02%
TerrestnalNonvascular
Cheilolejeuon evansti
ALicerwort
1994-07-16
Extant
1.31
0%
Plant
7etresmY�t-Ascular
C'heiloleJeoma evaosu
A Lnerwart
1956
Historic
172 31
0.24 %
TenestriNcnvas
a P�7.7lant cular
Ch ilosc3phus mmirams
A Liverwort
1989-03-26
Extant
61.79
0.12 %
Tenrestriahp�t-ascul'r
Chiloscyphus mmirams
A Liverwort
1956
Historic
651.49
1.3 %
Terrestrialona cular
Dicramlla mfescens
Red Fork Moss
1996-PRE
Unranked 1,602.77
3.1996

Terresmal7�.7�iauO�
Danclamzhyuchosteguan
Dilnchum Moss
1951-06-07
Historic
15A5
0.03%
Tenestnal ouvascular
Plant
Ds atwl euuea a alachima
R PP
A Livmvon
2 005-06-21
Extant
1 93
0 •/.
T ___-�:_,Nouvucular
Drepamlejeunn appaLrchiaoa
A Liverwrm
1958-07-25
Historic
3,089.47
6.15 %
t
lar
TerratrialN�l�
Drepanole3eunea appalachmna
A Liverwort
1957-07-12
Historic
300.06
0.6 %
Temstlia
Emad. sullivmtn
Sullivmes Entodon
1996-PRE
Uma rked 1,602.77
3.19 %
7enestnalP�tascular
Entodon sullivawii
Sulhv=Vs Entodon
1987-07
Extant
2.10
0 %
TerrestrialN�t �
Gymnadetma Imeare
Rock Gnome Lichen
2007
E
Extant
31.75
0.06 %
Tell".Nonvascular
GSmmodenu Imeare
Rock Gnome Lichen
1996-03-01
E
Extant
6.92
0.01 %
plam
TerrestrialNonvascular
Gymuode®a Imeare
Rock Gnome Lich-
1992-07-I1
E
Exhm
71.02
0.14 %
Plant
Tetrestna P�� au� O
Gymnodama haeare
Rock Gnome Lich-
1992-07-10
E
Extant
9.23
0.02 %
Terresnia�N�O°°a�t�
He gjclla turfacea
Flat Stump Moss
1996-PRE
Umanked 1,602.77
3.19 %
Tmesttia Non auolar
Plant
Homaliadelphus sharpii
Sharp's Hotmliadelphus
1959-10-24
Historic
3,089A7
6.15 %
Terrestr_=_cular
Hypnumpratense
Meadow Feather Moss
1999-03-24
Eanot
7.72
0.02%
TerrestnaiP�t a �
Mactocoma mllivmui
SuWvmrz Maned -moss
1984
Historic
868 39
1 73 %
asct
Terrestna P�v�
acro
M. suWvanw
Sullivanes Maned -moss
1957-W26
Historic
239.68
0.48 %
TerrestnalNonvawulas
Ivfaraocoma suWvmni
Sullivmt's Maned -moss
1952-07-30
H isumc:
57923
1.15 %
Plant
Twes...'�PI011 as<ular
Ned=complznata
Flat FeatherMoss
1996-PRE
Unanked 1,602.77
3.19%
ascula
gle's Water Feather
PronMoss
Ten'.,I4
" "Plant
Oxyrrla tchrum prmOej
1987-D7
Extant
2.10
0 %
TertestnalN'
Norman chlorophyllum
AMoss
1996-09-14
Extant
11.95
0.02%
t-auubf
TerreswtNon ascular
Plagiochila austum
A Liverwort
1961-PRE
Historic
1,026,86
2.04 %
7ereestli3l on ascu�
Plagiochila caduciloba
A Liverwort
2007-11-M
Extant
0.48
0 %
Terrest4,onvascular
act
Plagiochila caducdoba
ALiverwort
2007-10-16
Extant
1.93
0%
On,Tersest t luular
Plagiochila caduciloba
A liverwort
2003-08-06
Extant
4224
0 08 %
Tents Nonvascular
triarnaw
Plagiochila caduciloba
ALiverwort
1994-08-20
Extant
1.36
0°<
Terresn.
Plagiorhila caduciloba
Aliverwort
1994-07-16
Extant
61.15
0. 1290
lantauular
TerresuialNcn%asculn
Plagiochila caduciloba
A Liverwan
1994-07-08
Extant
3.12
0.01Plant
Tones- onva�rin
Plagiochila caduciloba
AIAv orrt
1960-06-14
Historic
8.70
0.02%
Terrestrial Nonascular
Plagiochda caduciloba
A liverwort
1955-04-30
Historic
120.80
024 %
Plantt
Teaesmilp�tascu�
Plagiochda hsdovm
ic a,
Averwort
Li
19tRW6-14
Historic
9.74
0.02%
Ternstl .=%ascular
Plagioch,la ludowiana
A Liverwort
1949-08-25
Historic
12358
0.25 %
TenestrulP�t°
PLtgiochila sharpu
A Liverwort
1995
FSC
Extort
30.74
0.06
TertestnalPact �
Plavochila sharpu
ALiveswori
1994-07-16
FSC
Extant
35.79
0.07 %
Terresttiallantawu�
Plag-hila shatpu
A Iiverwort
1994
FSC
Extant
6.09
0.01 %
Terrestni�a?TPII�t-ascular
Plagiochila shatpu
A livawoR
1980-PRE
FSC
Histonc
49432
0.98 %
Terttstrrar�tauvlas
Plagioncoman caroltmos um
Carolina Star -moss
1996
Extant
12-41
0.02%
Terrestrial11on ascular
planTorte=?-4-vawulu
Plagiomum catoliuianum
ui
Carolina Star -moss
1994-08-20
Extant
124
0 %
Platyhypnidium npanoides
Water
1996-PRE
Unranked 1,602.77
3.19%

Terrestrial wvascuW
Plant
TerrestrialNonvascular
Plant
TerrK������77ouvascuLtr
"" Plant
TerresmalVascular Plant
Temsm,awascular Plant
TerrKtrialVascular Plant
TerrestrialVascular Plant
TerrKmalvasculm Plant
TmesmalVascular Plant
TearestrialVaccular Plant
TernsmalVsscular Plant
TenesmalVascuLv Plant
TesrestrialVascular Plant
TerrKmaTVascular Plant
TerresnulVascuhu Plant
TenesmalVascular Plant
7emsmalVascular Plant
TenestrulVascular Plant
TeaestruWascular Plant
TenKmalVascular Plain
TerrestrialVascular Plant
TenesmalVascular Plant
Temstru Vascuhn Plant
TenKtrialVascular Plant
TervestrialVascular Plant
TenKtrialVascular Plant
TerresnialVascular Plant
TenestrialVascular Plant
TelfKmalVasCular Plant
TenestrialVascular Plant
Temstrial Vascular Plant
TenKmalVascular Plant
TeaKlrialVascular Plant
TenesmalVascular Plant
TearestrialVascular Plant
TenKtriaR`ascular Plant
Terrestri"ascular Plant
TenesmaWascular Plant
TenestrialVascular Plant
TenestriaNiscular Plant
Tarewmalvascular Plant
TenKmalVascular Plant
TemstrialVascular Plant
TenesmalVasculam Plant
Tenestri lVascular Plant
TerresmalVucular Plant
TemstrialVascular Plant
TenesmalVascultr Plant
Terresir,"ascular Plant
TenKmalVascular Plant
Temstri"asculm Plant
TerrestrialVasmiaz Plant
Tersest ialsiascular Plant
Ten strtalvascular Plant
TenesmalVascular Plant
TerrestriaN ascular Plant
Tenestrialvasudar Plant
TerrestrialVisculrr Plain
TemstrialVascular Plant
TenesmalVascular Plant
TenestrialVascular Plant
TenesmaNlascular Plant
Terre mialVasculu Plant
TenKtrialVascular Plant
Terrestrial Vascular Plant
Pontua wztaugemis
Ratomitnum aaculare
Schlodreimia lancifolia
Schlotheuma lanctfolia
Agastache nepetomdes
Asplemium pi tmaifidtmt
Bethens canadensm
Brachyelymmit anstasum
Brachyelytrum aristosurn
Bmchyelytn= aristmt®
Calamagros¢s Porten
Calamagrostis Porten
Cares radfnrdu
Cares woods
romerg na major
Fothagilla major
Fothergilla major
Fothergilla major
Fothergdb major
Fothergdla major
Hackeka%wginiaua
Hvmenophyllum tayloriae
Hymenophyllum tavlonae
fiYmenophy'Btw taylorix
lwtria medeoloides
Liatris aspen
Lams aspera
Lysi®chla Galen
Lysimachia fiaseri
Lysmuchm f -Ari
Lvsonach'a fraseri
Lysimachn fraseai
Lvsunachia f aseri
Lysimaclua hweri
Lvsimachia Gases
Lyswnchia Gases
Lysimzchia fiaseri
Lysimachia Gasen
Lysinacha fiaseri
Lvsimachia fiaseri
Lvsmachta Gasen
Lysinachm Kasen
Monctropsis odorata
Monmtopsis odorata
Muhlenbergia wbohfera
Packera millefolium
Packera ridlefolium
Packm millefolium
Packm millefobum
Rubins harnngu
Robinua hispida tar. frrults
Sceptridtmjeomznu
Sceptndumlenmann
Scept,ditm jemmamii
Shorna galacifolm ear.
galacifolia
S601112 galacifolia vat.
galacifolia
Shortia galacdolia ear.
galacdolia
Shortia galacifolia var.
galacifolia
Sohdago sm®,Ians
Sohdago si nnlans
Thaspium pinnatifidum
Thermopsis fia maloha
Thermopms Gaxuufoha
Thermopsst G2xinif0b2
A Liverwort
Dark Mountain Fringe
Moss
Highlands Moss
Highlands Moss
Yellow Giam-hyssop
Lobed Spleenwort
American Barberry
Northem Shorthusk
Northern Shorthusk
Northern Shorthusk
Poster's Reed Grass
Porter's Reed Crass
Radford's Sedge
Wood's Sedge
Large Wrtch-alder
Large Witch -alder
Large Witch -alder
Inge Witch -alder
Large Witch -alder
Large Witch -alder
Vvgima Suckseed
Gorge Filmy Fem
Gorge Filmy Fero
Gorge Filmy FM
Small Whorled Pogmiia
Rough Blaaag-star
Rough Blazing -star
Frames LOosestrife
Fraser s Loosestrife
Fraser's Lomesnife
Fraset's Loosestrife
Flames Laosestrife
Frases Loosesnife
Frases Looscsnife
Framer's LoosKmfe
Frases Loosesmfe
Frasds Loosestrife
Fsases Laosesbde
Framer's Loosrunfr
Frasds Iaosesnife
Frasers Loosesnife
Fuses Loosestri&
Sweet Piuesap
Sweet Pinesp
Rods Muhly.
Distilled-leafRagwon
Divided -leaf Ragwort
Divided -leaf Ragwort
Dvided-leaf Ragwrom
Hariweg's Locust
Fruitful Locust
Alabama Crape -firm
Alabama Grape-fem
Alabama Crape-fem
Southern Oconee Bells
Southem Oconee Bells
Southern Oconee Bells
South= Oconee Begs
19944)622
FSC
Extant
133 55
0.27 %
1996-PRE
[lmanked 1.602.77
3.19 %
1981-06-08
Historic
30.89
0.06%
1956-I1-01
Historic
772
0.02%
1962-07-27
Historic
2,957.79
5.88 %
2007-11-01
Extant
0.62
0%
1961-07-05
Historic
2,367.21
4.71 %
1997-07-12
Extant
0.09
0%
1997-07-11
Extant
732
0.02%
1997-06-23
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
1993-10-18
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1981-08
Destroyed 7.72
0.02%
1993-05-21
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1987-05-19
Extant
2.92
0.01 %
1994-04
Extant
3.76
0.01 %
1958-07-16
Historic
13,76735
2739 %
2005-07-08
Extant
285.78
0.57 %
2000-07-26
Extant
9.68
0.02%
1999-08-03
Extant
15.45
0.03 %
1999-W29
Extant
23.17
0.05 %
1970-05
ffistoric
12358
025 %
1966-06-14
Historic
12359
025 %
1968-PRE
Historic
68.61
0.14 %
2008-09-04
FSC
Extant
3.11
0.01 %
19,95
FSC
Extant
0.37
0%
1966-07-26
FSC
Historic
1238
0.02%
2005
T
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1973
Historic
31.44
0.06%
1960
Historic
70.77
0.14 %
2007-I1-08
FSC
Extant
9-69
0.02%
2007-09-26
FSC
Extant
2.41
0%
2007
FSC
Extam
7.72
0.02%
20064)8.08
FSC
Extant
127.05
0.25 %
2006-06-06
FSC
Extant
525
0.01 %
2005-05-25
FSC
Extant
3.14
0.01 %
2001-06-13
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1999-07-19
FSC
Extant
5.72
0.01 %
1998-09-29
FSC
Extant
12810
025 %
1997-07-11
FSC
Extant
2.11
0%
1997-06-24
FSC
Extant
54.27
0.11 %
1997-06-12
FSC
Extant
12.25
0,02%
1996-07
FSC
Extant
34.74
0.07 %
IM-ID-20
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1965-06-23
FSC
Histo is
12359
025 %
2008-04-05
FSC
Extant
16.41
0.03 %
2007-03-06
FSC
Extant
OAS
0%
1962-08
1Lstmic
34937
0.7 %
1992-07-19
FSC
Exam
7.72
0.02%
1992-05-11
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
1992
FSC
Extant
0.40
0%
1983-08-04
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
1992-07-19
Extant
7.72
0.02%
2007-05-16
Extant
0.48
0%
1973-PRE
Historic
7.72
0.02%
1965-PRE
Historic
1210.09
2.43 %
1962-PRE
Historic
1.274.96
2.54 %
2005-08-02
FSC
Extant
159
0%
1999-05-20
FSC
Extant
1.59
0%
1976-PRE
FSC
Historic
2541
0.05 %
1989
FSC
Historic
1,560.81
3.11 %
Granite Dome Goldenrod 1999-9
FSC
Extant
12.3 58
025 %
Granite Dome Goldenrod 1992-0848
FSC
Extant
12358
0-25 %
Mounuio Thaspium 1942-09
FSC
Histonc
33,029.89
65.71 %
Ash -leaved Golden-banner2007-09-27
Extant
43.95
0.09 %
Ash -leaved Golden-banner2007-04-27
Extant
171.83
0.34%
Ash-lmsed Golden-bamner2000-07-26
Extant
8.38
0.02%

l eue]ularrA .. I.,
aufluopvs naRn.
Iftin-rCa\CU V[nae9-Vanuel t7»o'-Lt
.1
1.11
VVLT
TenestriarVasctdar Plant
Thermapns@uirtifolia
Ash -leaved Golden-bamer 1978-05-27
tlivaic
7.72
0.02%
TmeshialVascular Plant
Themtopsis fiaxinifolia
Ash -leaved Golden-bamer 1977-08-05
Extant
3436
0.07 %
TertmirialVascular Plant
Thermopsis fiaxinifolia
Ash -leaved Gohim-banter
Drrranked 17-96
0.04 %
TmestrialVascuLu Plant
Trichomanes petersu
DwarfFibny-fem
1999-09-11
Extant
13.28
0.03%
TerrestrudVascular Plant
TncLomaoes pnersii
Dwarf Filmy -fern
1987-06
Extant
2-10
0%
TmestriaNascular Platt
Tnchomwes petersii
Dwarf Fibtn-fem
1949-08
fhmmc
7.72
0.02 %
Tenestri"2scular Plant
Tnlh=discolor
Molded Tr&=
1999-05-20
Extant
2.06
0%
Tmesm"asculm Plant
Trilbm discolor
Molded Trillium
1999-05-17
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TcrresuialVauvlar Plant
Trillium discolor
Mottled Tr Humat
1993-05-21
Extant
7-72
0.02 %
TmestnaWascular Plant
Trdh m discolor
Molded Trillium
1969
ffistoric
1.118.94
2.23 %
Vertebrate
Tmectrialltn
Anndes aeneus
Greco Salamander
2007-11-16
FSC
Extant
25.22
0.05 %
TertestnalVertebrate
Anerdes aeneus
GreenSalamander
2007-11-01
FSC
Extant
9.49
0.02 %
Terrestrial Vertebrate
Aneides aencus
Green Salamander
2006-11-06
FSC
Extant
0.48
0%
Vertebrate
TmestnalA�tal
Anndes aerren5
Gm Salamander
2005-10-19
FSC
Extant
10.59
0.02 %
T'erres"WAA�� to
Aneides aenem
Green Salamander
2005-10.17
FSC
Extant
50-ZD
0.1 %
TertestrialVAbrate
nooal
Andes amens
Green Salamander
2004-10-06
FSC
Extant
15.90
0.03 %
TerrcxtrialVAnroabl 1e
Aneidcs ameus
Green Salamander
2004
FSC
Extant
21.84
0.04 %
Tertestna]VA bertera
Aneidcs aeneus
Greco Salamander
2003-11-11
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
TerrestrialVertebrate
Andes aeneus
Green Salantandet
2003-11-10
FSC
Extra
1329
0.03 %
Terrestrial V�� ate
Anndes amens
Green Salamander
2003-11-07
FSC
Extant
240.73
0.48 %
TerminalV� to
Aneides ameus
Green Salamander
2003-11-03
FSC
Extant
3,089.47
6.15%
Vertebrate
TmestnAA�l
Aneides amens
Gfem Salamander
2003-11
FSC
Extant
2203.14
4.38 %
Terrestrial Vertebrate
Aneides amens
Green Salamander
2001
FSC
Emm
3123
0.06 %
Vertebrate
Aneides aeneus
Gem Salamander
1986-07
FSC
Extant
3,099.47
6.15 %
TcrtestrialVertebrate
Ancides aeneus
Greco Salamander
1%2-06
FSC
)btw is
1,536-69
3.06 %
Terre ibial3Verteai to
An,TerrestrialVAni�
Crotalus bomdus
Timber Rattlesnake
1976-06-11
Extant1.180.18
2.35 %
Crotalus hcrndus
Timber Rattlesnake
1959-08-08
HisWm
1593.15
3.17 %
Vertebrate
Tmestrial
-
fnxm cunvostra pop. 1
Southern Appalachian Red,
000-06-01
FSC
Extant
9.99559
19.8996
Vinyl
Cmssbill
V
Tmes`CWAnimal
Mmebsaw crotus chtomnhiaus
Souuhern Rock Vole
1962-PRE
FSC
Extort
1}9033
2.77
carolnmsis
TertastrialV cbrate
hfyods Ieibii
Eastern Small -footed
1008-10-13
FSC
Extant
17.94
0.04 %
Amuul
Myotis
te
Eastern tm Small -footed
FSC
19,143.84
39.09
Tmes"L'JAAn mabl
Myotis leibii
1994-POST
Euam
TmestrialVAmmebal to
Sylcilaeus obscurns
Appalachian Cottontail
1961-07
FSC
Hieruic
1,485.58
2.96%
Terminal Vertebrate
Animal
Syhdagm obscrmm
Appatxluan Conmtail
1951-07
FSC
Hitamue
1.44591
2-99%
Vertebrate
imestrralVtilmal
Thryomanes bevicku alms
Appalachian Bmick's
1960-06
FSC
Destroyed2.371.72
4.72 Se
Wren
Wetland Cow
High elevation seep
2007-10-16
Extant
0.03
0%
n'
Wetland Natural
Rocky bar and shore
19934H-05
Extant
478.43
0.95 %
ry
Wetland Natural
Southern appalachian bog
2007-11
Extant
6.12
0.01 %
Commundy
(southern subtype)
Natural
Wetland
Southern appakaclrian bog
006-10.16
Extant
17.40
0.03 °/.
Community
(southern subtype)
Wetland Natural
Spray Cliff
2007-11-19
Extant
0.06
0%
nfry
Weland Natural
Spray Chif
2007-10-16
Extant
006
0%
Coannu n y
Wetland Caturalmry
Spray Cliff
2003-09-15
Extant
1.36
0%
Wetland Natural
Spmvclff
1987
Extant
0.31
0%

Communiry
Noovascular
Wetland
Aneora shatpu
A Etrnrort
1955
Historic
7.72
0.02%
Plant
Wetland NontauuLu
Brya oumia micolor
Gorge Moss
1952-07-30
FSC
Historic
14.03
0.03 %
Plant
Wetland Nonvascubr
Bryoaumia tivicolor
Gorge Moss
1949-08-25
M
Hiswrie
10.05
0.02%
Plant
tascnl
Wetland
Bryn lu>m rmn xry egucum
Sword Moss
1949-08-24
Historic
48627
0.97!:
Plant
_7
Wetland Noni-AsPlantc°lu
Be)-xipainm
Riverside Brytmt
1949-08-17
Historic
1,111.46
221%
Wetland Nont ascubu
Cimphyllum paifetum
Long LeafMumche Moss 1949-08-25
Historic
3.099.47
6.15 %
Plant
Wetland Non ascuHi
Dichodont;um pellucidum
Transparent Fork Moss
1951-06-07
Historic
93.92
0.19%
Plant
Nontascular
Wetland
Plant
Homalia tnchontanoides
Lure Homiha
1959-07-15
Historic
3,089.47
6.15 %
Wetland Nonomscolu
HOmalia tnchomanoides
Lime Homalia
1949-08-24
Historic
65126
1.3 %
Nonvascular
Wetland
Plant
Lejeunea blotnquustu
ALtvmvort
1994-08-20
Extant
4.66
0.01%
Weiland Non ascular
an puistu
Lejeea blottx
w
A Liverwort
1994-07-16
Extant
17358
025 %
PlaiWetland
Nonvucular
Marsupe8a rmagimm tar.
Plant
lmloba
A Lcmvott
1961-PRE
Historic
123
0%
Wetland Noovot�scHi u
Plagiochila edurnu
A Liverwort
1994-M-20
Extant
1.36
0%
Pla
Wetland Nonsascular
Plamoclada echivata
ALiverwort
1961-PRE
Historic
14230
0289:
Plant
Wetland
Plagiochila eduatata
A li%c on
1956
Historic
12358
0.25 %
PN�owascular
Wetland Plaranitttascular
Plaagi cl suWtant r tar_
A Llt'erw'Ort
1956
FSC
Historic
3,089A7
6.15 %
P S
Nonvascular
Plagiochila sdlMnto var.
Weiland
Plain
su ivaotii
ALiverwort
1961-PRE
FSC
Historic
3.199.30
636%
Nootasculm
Wetland
Plagiochda %wginiu tar.
Historic
Plant
cm liniana
ALiverwort
1961-PRE
FSC
3.O8947
6.15 ::
Weiland M Mt•ascula
Radula sullnantu
A Liverwort
2008-04-05
Extant
0.48
0%
Wetland Nonascular
Radula su8ivamu
A Liverwort
2007-09-26
Extant
1.93
0%
Plant
Weiland Nonvucular
Radula sulln-aaaw
A Liverwort
2007-09-04
Extant
12551
0.25 %
Wetland Plaannt ascular
Radula sulltvantu
A Liverwort
1961-PRE
Historic
0.64
0%
Wetland
Sphagnum subsecmdum
Grange Peatmoss
1999-04-24
Extant
11.97
0.02%
P�t�asculu
Wetland Vasmiar Plant
Asplentum mortanthes
Single -sours Spleenwort
2006-08-19
Extant
3.86
0.01 %
Weiland Vascular Plant
Carer baileyi
Baileys Sedge
20074)9-04
Extant
1.93
0%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Cum baaeyi
Bailey's Sedge
1961-06
Historic
1.13
0%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Chelone crabbertii
Cuthberrs Turtlehead
20o7-I1-19
FSC
Extant
2.41
0%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Heloinas bulbta
Swamp Pick
2004-05-19
T
Extant
0.52
0%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Hupana porophaa
Rock Far-clubmoss
1995
Extant
7.72
0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Hupema poroplxda
Rock Fu-clubmoss
1997-10
Historic
7.72
0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Huperzra porophila
Rock Fir-ciubmoss
1971-01
Extant
7.72
0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Pa�aa paaupercula var.
Balsam Ragwort
1961-06
Historic
2,943.78
5.96%
cula
Wetland Vascular Plant
Pamassia gnrtdifolia
[.age -leaved Grass-of-
Parnassus,
I984418
FSC
Errant
3,089.47
6.15 X
Wetland Vascjlar Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pntk-shell Azalea
2008-10-27
Extant
048
0%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
20074)4-16
Extant
43.45
0.09 %
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron taseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1996-03-01
Extant
375.64
0.75%
Weiland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vmcyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1994-05-10
Extant
309.03
0.61%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1992-05-11
Extant
T72
0.02%
Weiland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pmk-shell Azalea
1987-05-07
Extant
7.72
0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1976-PRE
Hisimc
3.099.47
6.15 %
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
1970-05-12
Historic
1,300.16
259%
Wetland Vascular Plant
Soltdago uligimsa
Bog Goldenrod
1962-08
Mstonc
1220.09
2.43 %
Wetland Vertebrate
Glyptemm ys rhlenbergu
Bog Turtle
1990
T(SIA)
Historic
19,194.12
38.17%
Wetland vertebrate
GI)ptemys mlilenbergii
Bog Turtle
1951-01-01
T(S'xA)
Historic
2.390A6
4.76%
TOTAL:
249.023-97
495.42 %
1 NIIEO

Type Categoy
Sciemifir'Name
Common Name
Last
Federal
EO
Total Area
Perrmt of
Observation
Status
Status
(acres)
Area
Invertebrate
Agwnc Annual
Cambams chaugaensn
Chauga Crayfish
2001-07-2
Extant
3.68
0.01°o
Aquatic AAoven�eltxate
Cambuus chaugaetsis
Cbauga Crayfish
2001-07-23
Extant
5.13
0.01
Aquatic AAru nal
Cambams chaugacusis
Chauga Crayfish
1988-08-09
Extant
9.01
0.02
Invertebrate
Aquatic
reburtus
Frmcb Broad Rise
kSC
Extant
3.66
0.01 %
Animal
Crayfish2001-07-25
Crayfish
Inverichate
Agwuc
C'ambams reburrsu
French Broad River
1977-06-27
FSC
Extant
16,931.78
33.6856
An,,
Crayfish
Invertebrate AquaticAnimal
Drwella lita
a mayfly
1999-07-25
Extant
5.13
0.01 x
Aquatic Nm�15Cuiw
Ephebe lanata
Rockshag Lichen
1955-10-92
ffinotic
1,602.77
3.19%
PlanAquatic
Nonvascular
Ephebe wlida
A RocJahag Lichen
2007-I1-19
Extant
1.93
0 %
Pit
Nonvasculw
Aquatic
plain
Ephebe solids
A Rockshag Lichen
2007-09-04
Extant
14.32
0.03 %
Aquatic Nonn[ascular
Wamsturfia fluitaos
flco Floating Sickle -moss,
1949-M22
Historic
30.89
0.06%
PlaAquatic
ate
Ammy
Ethrosmma iusaiptum
Turquoise Darter
2000-07-I5
Extant
10.64
0.02 •.
Vertebrate
Aquatic nmmal
Hybopsis mbrifioos
Rosyface Chub
1995-09-IS
Extant
15.56
0.03x
Agwttc Amoral
Micropterue coosae
Redeye Bass
2000-07-15
Extent
6.14
001 %
Aquatic VAertebr11e
Notropis lubpmms
Yellowfin Shines
1991-PRE
Extant
26,549.76
52.82 %
Aquatic nVertebrate
prrcma mgrofasciata
Blackbanded Darter
2000-06-25
Extant
1.29
0%
ate
Terrestrial
Euloochus marialiciaeMar
Ahce's Small-headed1966-08-02
Fly
Historic
1.021.19
2.03 %
rl�°At�
Tenesawal
.Commenin,
Acidic cove form
2007-11
Extant
19.20
0.04 %
Terrestrial try
Acidic cove forest
2007-03-20
Extant
12234
024%
TenrvvialNatural
Actdtc cove forest
2005-08-12
Extant
1,139D9
227 %
Communes'
Terrestrialatuard
Acidic cove forest
2000-07-26
Extant
1,526.06
3.04
m.ry
Terres.Natural
Acidic cove forest
1999-05-31
Extant
29113
0.56 %
mmuTettesmalNaC
r Imid
Acidic cove forest
1992-08-18
Exraot
19932
OA%
Terrestrial Natural
Acidic cove forest
1987-06-19
Extant
77237
1.54 °.
TenesvufC�y
Canada hemlock forest
1993-11
Extant
2997
0.06%
Tenestrvl.mIal
Canada beoilock forest
199'-OS
Extant
49.83
O.I %
unity
Tenestriala�
Carolina hemlock bluff
2007-09-05
Extant
0.03
0 %
antn
Terrestrial Natural
Carolina hemlock bluff
1993-OS
Extant
34.71
0.07 %
Teuesma
Chestam oak forest
2007-09926
Extant
59339
1.19 %
-'aft"
mmunity
Natura
Terrestrial l
Chestnut oak forest
2007-09-05
Extant
35637
0.71 %
Con munity
nital
Tmestrialammunity
Chesnut oak forest
2005-08-12
Extant
1.257.51
2.5 %
Natural
Tines Natural
Chestnut oak form
^-000-07-16
Extant
299.06
0.59 %
'
TeffesttiafNatura
Heath bald
1993-08
Exiam
14.92
0.03%
�'
�
TerreslnalCao min,
High chnation granitic dome
1993-08
Extant
44.86
0.09 :6
TeneM.?C �y
High dnation granitic dome
1992-08-18
Extant
77237
1.54%
Terrestrial Natural
High elevation granitic dome
1992-04-20
Extant
64495
128 %
Commun ty
Ten M.?C=.ty
High Elnation Red Oak Forest
2007-09-05
Extant
90425
1.8 %

TmesmalNatmal
ugh clmration rocky st®mit
2007-11-01
Extant
23.74
0.05 %
Coututu ury
Natural
Terrestrial
miry
ffig6 el umrocky st®mit
2007-09-05
Extant
0.03
0%
Natmral
TmntrialC
Lou elevation granitic dome
1957
[Jmankcd 357 54
0.71 •/.
}.7o�utmuvity
Tetrea6ialCo�
Montane acidic cliff
2009-04
Extant
0.15
0 %
ituty
.lmestri<atmal
Montane acidic acidic cliff
2007-11-01
Extant
16.55
0.03 %
Community
TeaestrialCatural
Montane acidic cliff
2W3-08-15
Emm
12.66
0.03 %
oonim,
Terrestrial Natural
Montane acidic cliff
1987-06-16
Extant
77237
1.54
Coomrttnny
TerreM.?-'2=21
Montane oak-hidmy forest
2007-11-01
Par of
1.70456
339 %
TemsttialNamr:il
Moraine oak -hickory forest
2007.09-26
Extant
353.83
03 %
�C.lontmuntty
TarestrtalCammooity
Moraine oak -hickory forest
200541&12
Extant
1,257.51
2.5 %
Terrestrial Natural
Montane oak -hickory forest
2000.07-26
Extant
1,797.15
3.56%
Comntunity
Terre =?- �ooiry
Montaneoat--hi&.y form
1993-11
Extant
71.73
0.14 %
TencsoialCommunity
Montane oak --hickory, forest
1993-04-05
Extant
36732
0.73 9b
TenestrialCoonrmntnny
Momarc oat-hictmy form
1992-08-18
Extant
39817
0.79%
mtn TeralNamtal
Montane oak --hickory forest
I992-08
Extant
49803
0.99°0
7C.lommumry
TeoesmalC2tural
Montatr oak -hickory form
1992-04-20
Extant
14SAS
0.3 %
city
TmestrialNatural
Pine-oAlbeat6
2008-04-05
Extant
15471
0 31 %
Commxmtty
TerresftWN-ao I
lkay
Pine- ak&ei
2007-11-01
Extant
24.43
0.05 %
TerrntriaNaturallCooummity
Pine-oakib-adt
2005-09-12
Extant
99599
1.98 !:
ntral
Terrestx a-aoono
Pine-oak%eath
1993-11
Extant24.75
0.05 %
.ImestrialNatural
Pxoe--oak'7xath
1992-08-I8
Extant
49-83
0.1%
Conmtunrty
TerrestrialNCatural ry
Pine-oat/heath
19924)
Unranked nked 590 26
1.15 %
TmestrialNannal
Rich cmT front
2007-11-01
Extant
33.01
0.07 %
ury
N�Commm
Terrestrta?-''t l
Rich cm2 form
1987-06-19
Extant
77237
1.54 %
oviciumuty
I rnnmu Natural
White Pine forest
2007-11-01
Extant
43431
0.96%
um
�Commu
Tmestnz-a�m�ry
White Pine forest
2005-08-12
Extant
31729
0.63 %
Tmestti Nonascular
Aoobolbus ciliams
A Liverumt
1994-06-21
Extant
42.24
0.08 %
Plan7mestriafp�tattula
BrachlYheaum rotannum
Rotor's Feather Moss
1951-06-07
Historic
7.72
0.02%
TmestrvlNon% sculm
Cheilolejeuoea evansu
A l.ivemort
1994-07.16
Extant
1.31
0 %
Plant
Tmestria Non auular
Plant
Cheilolejeuoea M�ii
A Liverwort
1956
klistmic
12231
0.24 %
asculw
TmestrialN Plant
Clvlmc3phus ntuncams
A Liverwort
1989-03-26
a
Rnt
61 79
0.12 %
T..= al ton ascular
Chiloscyphus nntrinms
A liverwort
1956
Historic
651.49
1.3 %
TmestrialNonvascular
Ma"lla mfeueas
Red Fork Moss
1996-PRE
Unranked I.602.77
3.19 %
�P.11lant
T..strraT-o%'u�
Ditriclun rhSvchosiegiumn
MMA"m Mms
1951-06-07
Historic
1545
0.03%
TerresmalNonvascular
Plant
Drepanoleleuoea appalwhiaoa
A Liverwort
2005-06-21
Extant
1 93
0 %
Teoestri---Isculm
Plant
Drryattolejeuura aptitv-htana
A liverwort
1959-07-25
Historic
3.089.47
6.15 %
TmesmalNonsascular
Ik aortal eunea
R cl appalxhiana
Aliverwort
1957-07-12
Ihstmtc
300.06
0.6%
Plant

TerresoP n aunt
Entodon sullivautu
Sullrvanr's E todou
1996-PRE
Urn,ked 1,602 77
3.19 ^;
art
mta lal
Tmestrtal
Entodon sulbNmhi
SuWsant's Entodoo
1987-07
Extant
2.10
0°e
7P�lant
Tmesoial .onvascular
Gywmdema linear<
Rock Gnome Lichen
2007
E
Extant
31.75
0.06
Plant
TmestrialNont lar
Plant
Gvtnnoderma liwme
Rock Gnome Lichen
1996-03-01
E
Exton
692
0.01 %
��tNouvuculu
lant
Gymmdama lineare
Rock Gnome Lichen
1992-07-37
E
Exmt
71.02
0.14 Ye
asar
Terrestriallownd
PlaTm
ar
Gymnodenna liaee
Rock Gnome Lichen
1992-07-10
E
Extant
9.23
0.02%
O ho
Hertogiella Md.
Flat StumpIlm Moss
1995-PRE
ankEd 1,602.77
3.19 %
lant
Terrestrial Umasculm
Homahadelphus shatpii
Sharp's Homahadelphus
1959-10-24
ffi msic
3.089,47
6.15%
onvascular
7erresmP
Hypoum pretense
Meadow Feather Moss
1999-03-24
Extort
7.72
0.02%
ant
Tmertria p.-,
Macrocoma mui,..
Sullivam's Maned -moss
1994
Historic
SM 39
1.73 %
Terrestrial P�� ascn
MaQacama mllivantu
Stdlivam's Maned -moss
1957-W26
Historic
239.68
OAS %
TmestsialP�t au lar
Macrocoma sulliv�ntu
Sulliv nt's Maned -moss
1952-07-30
Historic
57923
1.15 %
7mestrufP ascWar
ant
Neckm complauaaa
Flat Fe2d=Moss
1996-PRE
Unranked
1,602.77
3.19%
Tmesoa nvaKn�
Gxyrrhy-I iumpnnglei
onther
WaterF
1997-07
Extant
2.10
ON
Plant
Moss
Moss
TevestrulP�t a �
Pilouxua chlorophyl u n
A Moss
1996-09-14
Fottant
11.85
0.02%
TmesmalP�tascvUr
Plagiochila ausunu
ALiverwort
1961-PRE
Historic
1026.86
2.064
TerreztrufPonta�n�
Plagmchila caduciloba
Alivawort
2007-11-08
Extant
049
0::
TmestrialNonvaXnlas
Plagiochila caduciloba
ALiverwort
1_007-10-16
Fxtant
193
0%
Plant
TmestrialNPh
Plagiochila caduciloba
A Lwawas
2003-08-06
Extant
42.24
0.09 %
fatter
TmestrulPlant �
Plagiochda caducuoba
ALicerwort
1994-05-20
Extant
L36
0%
Terrestrial NonPv ascular
Plagiochila caduciloba
A liverwort
1994-07-16
Extant
61.15
0.12 %
lan
TmestnilP�t Nm%ascn�
Plagiochila caductloba
A Liverwort
1994-07-08
Extant
3.12
0.01 %
Ter-
Phgiochda cadualoba
A liverwort
1960-06-14
Historic
8.70
0.02%
--Plmmtascnlar
Terrestrial Non ascular
Plant
Plagiochila caducdoba
A Liverwort
1955-04-30
Historic
120.80
0 24 %
TerestnatNcusasctdm
Plagiochila hrdoviciava
A liverwort
196D 06-14
Historic
9.74
0.02%
plant
TenestrialPlantasculm
Plagiochda ludovtcima
A Liverwort
1949-08-25
Historic
12358
0.25 %
Tenestria pit a �
Plapochila shaTu
A Liverwort
1995
FSC
Emma
30.74
0.06 %
Tmestn Nontascalm
Plagiochila sharpii
ALivervrort
1994-07-16
FSC
Extant
35.79
0.07%
PlaTmesuiat��
Plagioehila sharpii
A Liverwort
1994
FSC
Emot
6.09
0.01 %
nv asculas
Tmestr
Plagiochila sharpu
A Liverwort
1980-PRE
FSC
Historic
49432
0.98 %
l7P1
Tmeswl anv-aun�
Plant
Plagiounium caroluuanum
Carolina SGr-m
19%
Efnt
Eauant
1241
0.02 %
Tmem121Ncnv vlar
Plapomwum carohmanum
Carolina Star -moss
1994-08-20
Burnt
1.24
0%
Plant
TerrestnalP-tascula
Plaryhypnidmm rip.oides
Water
1996-PRE
Unranked 1,602.77
3.19%
Fends.ked
Moss
Terrestrial °bf
PoreOa Wauugensis
A Livmvon
1994-0622
FSC
Erman
133 55
0.27 %
Plant
Plant
TmestrialNi-astular
Racomannum aaadne
Dark Mountain Fringe Fringe
1996-PRE
Uormked 1.602.77
3.19 %
Plai
Moss
Terrestrial la
Schlotheimia Lwcifolia
Highlands Moss
1981-06-08
Historic
30S9
0.06 %
Tmesu otavaunt
Schlotheimia laocifolu
Highlands Moss
1956.11-01
Historic
7.72
0.02%

TerrestrialVascular Plant
Agastache nepetordes
Yellow Giant -hyssop
1962-07-27
Historic
2,957.79
5.99 %
TesrestrisWascular Plant
Asplea mum pimatifidum
Lobed Splemwort
2007-1141
Extant
0.62
0%
TerrestriaWasculm Plant
Berbens, canadensis
American Barberry
1961-07-05
Historic
2,36721
4.71 %
Tmeslrialvascular Plant
Brachych trarm mistosum
Northern Shorthusk
1997-07-12
Extant
0-08
0%
TenennalVascular Plant
Brachyelytrnm anstosurn
Northern Shorthusk
1997-07-11
Extant
T72
0.02 N.
TmestriaNascular Plant
Brac}rydytrum arstosum
Northern Shorthusk
1997-06-23
Extant
7.72
0.02%
Terrestnalvascular Plant
CalantaeroStn porter
Poster's Reed Grass
1993-10-18
Extant
T72
0.02":
TenesttiaWaseular Plain
Calamagrostis Purim
Porter's Reed Grass
1981-08
Destroyed 7.72
0.02%
TerrestrialVascular PLmt
Carer radfordu
Radford's Sedge
1993-05-21
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.027%
TertestriWascular Plant
Caret woodu
Wood's Sedge
1987-05-19
Extant
2.92
O.OI %
TerrestnatVascuLu Plant
Dendrolycopodium dendroideumPnckly Ground -pine
1994-04
Extant
3.76
0.01 %
TerresuialVascular Plant
Dendrolycopodix® dendroideumirrickly Caouo&pme
1958-07-16
Historic
13,767.55
2739%
TerrestrialvascuLu Plant
Fortiergilla major
Large Witch -alder
2005-07-08
Extant
285.79
0.57 %
Tertestrialvascular Plant
Fothergilla major
Large Witch -alder
2000-07-26
Extant
8.68
0.02%
TerrestriaR'ascular Plant
Fothergilla major
Large Witch -alder
1999-08-03
Extant
15.45
0.03%
TerresbiaWastulu Plant
Fethergilla major
Large Witch -alder
1999-06-29
Extant
23.17
0.05%
TenestnalvascuLu Plant
Fothergilla mjw
Large Witch -alder
1970-05
Historic
12358
025 %
TerrestrialVascular Plant
Fothergilla rrtajor
Large Witch -alder
1966-06-14
Historic
12358
025%
TmesoralVascular Plant
Hackelia virginiana
Virginia Stickseed
1968-PRE
Historic
68.61
0.14 %
TenestrialVasc filar Plant
Hymmophyllum uylorim
Gorge Fthny Fern
2008-09-04
FSC
Extant
311
0.01 %
TerrestrialVascular Plant
Hyaneoophyllum uyloriae
Gorge Filmy Fear
1995
FSC
Extant
0.37
0%
TmesvialVscular Plant
Hyanmophyllxm taylorim
Gorge Filmy Fem
1966-07-26
FSC
Historic
12.38
0.02%
TrnestrialVascuLar Plant
Isoura medealmdm
Small Whorled Poganu
2005
T
Extant
7.72
0.02 9:
Terrest iaWascular Plant
Linris aspen
Rough Blaming -star
1973
Historic
3L44
0.06%
TeneslrialVascular Plant
Ltatris aspera
Rough Blaring -star
1960
Historic
70.77
0.14 %
TerrestrialVasmlar Plant
Lystmachra fiasen
Frasds Loosestrife
2007-13-M
FSC
Extant
8.69
0.02%
TenestnalVascular Plant
Lysimachia fiasco
Framer's Loosestnfe
2007-09-26
FSC
Extant
2.41
0%
TenestriaNasculm Plant
Lysimarhia fiaseti
Fraser's Loosestrife
2007
FSC
Extant
7-72
0.02%
Teirestnall'asculu Plant
Lvsimachia frasen
Frames Loosestrife
2006.09-08
FSC
Extant
127.05
015 %
TermtrialVsmlar Plant
L)mnochur fiaseri
Fryers Laasestsife
2006-06-06
FSC
Extant
525
0.01 %
Tmestnal\'ascular Plant
Lysuauchm fiasen
Eraser's Loosestrife
2005-05-25
FSC
Extant
3.14
0.01 S:
TmeslrialVascular Plant
Lysimachia fiasoi
Fraser's Loosesbite
2001-06-13
FSC
Extant
7.72
0-02 %
TmestrialVascuLu Plant
Lysimachia Baseri
Frase's Loosestnfe
1999-07-19
FSC
Extant
5.72
0.01 %
Temstrialvascular Plant
Lymmachia fiasen
Frames Loosestrife
1998-09-29
FSC
Extant
12910
015 %
TmestrialVascular Plant
Lysimachia fiauri
Frames Loosestrife
1997-07-11
FSC
Extant
111
0%
TmxstrialVascular Plant
Lysimachia fiasmi
Frses Loosestrife
1997-06-24
FSC
Extant
5427
0.11 %
TerrestnalVascular Plant
Lvsimachia fiseai
Fraser's Loosestrife
1997-06-12
FSC
Extant
1225
0.02 %
TmestriaNscular Plant
Ly,,I is fiaseu
Frames Loosemife
1996-07
FSC
Extant
34.74
0.07 %
TmesmalVarcular Plant
Lysimaclua fiasen
Frser's Loosestrife
1994-10-20
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TerrestrialVasmlar Plant
LYsimachm kincri
Frses Loosestree
1965-W23
FSC
Historic
12358
025 %
TmestrialVscular Plant
Monctropsis odmam
Sweet Pinesap
2008-04-05
FSC
Extant
MAI
0.03%
TemstrialVascular Plant
Momtropsis odorata
Sweet Pioesap
2007-03-06
FSC
Extant
0.49
0%
TenestrialVscular Plant
Muhimbergia sobolitera
Rock Muhly
1962-M
Historic
34937
0.7 %
Tevestrialvasnilar Plant
Packers rmllefoliom
Divided-kafRagwm
1992-07-19
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TmesmalVscular Plant
Packera millefohum
Divided -leaf Ragwort
1992-05-11
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TemstrialVastuLar Plant
Packer millefolurm
Dvided-leafRagwart
1992
FSC
Extant
0.40
0%
TmestrialVascular Plant
Packera millefobum
Divided -leaf Ragwort
1983-08-04
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02 5:
TerresuialVscadar Plant
Rebriia harts ign
Hartwell's Locust
1992-07-19
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TmestriarVascuLu Plant
Robwa hrspida var fenlis
Fruitful Locust
2007-05-16
Extant
048
0%
TemstrialVscular Plant
Sceptridiumjeomaon
Alabama Grape -fern
1973-PRE
Historic
T72
0.02%
TmestrialVscular Plant
Scepmdiumjenmarn
Alabama Grape -fern
1965-PRE
Historic
1,220.09
2.43 %
TmestrialVascular Plant
Scept dium jeomaou
Alabama Gripe -fern
1962-PRE
Historic
1.274.36
2.54 %
TmestrialVascular Plant
Sharma galacifolia var
Southem Oconee Bells
2005-08-02
FSC
Extant
1.59
0%
galacifolia
TurestlialVsedu Plant
Sg� galWdOIia %W
South® Ocoee Bells
1999-05-20
FSC
Extant
1.59
0%
uliz
TemstnaNsscular Plant
Sboria galacifolu var
Southern Oconee Bells
1976-PRE
FSC
Historic
25.41
0.05
galacifolia
Terrestrialvasmlar Plant
Sg�oggaalacifolia var.
Southern Occur Begs
1889
FSC
Historic
1560.81
3.11 %
TMMMalVscular Plant
Solidago sur uLaa s
Granite IUme Goldenrod
1999-9
FSC
Extant
12359
0.25 %
Ter r strvlVscular Plant
Solidago simrlans
Granite Dome Goldenrod
199-7-MIS
FSC
Extant
12358
025 %
Tenestriall'ascular Plant
Thaslnum pmnatifidum
Mountain Thspium
1842-09
FSC
Historic
33.029.89
65.71 %
Tmestrialvsculu Plant
Thermopm fiaxioifolia
Ash -leaved Gokim-banner2007-09-27
Extant
43.95
0.09 %
Tore arialVasc filar Plant
Thermopsis fiaxinifolia
Ash -leaved Golden-banuer2007-0427
Extant
171.83
0.34 %
TmestrialVascular Plant
Thermopsis fraxinifolia
Ash -leaved Golden-bamer200"7-26
Extant
8.39
0.02%
TerestrialVascular Plant
Thermopsrs fiaxinifolia
Ash -leaved Golden -banner
1999-07-21
Extant
7.72
0.02%
TenesmalVascular Plant
Thenoopsas fruinifalia
Ash -leaved Goldm-barroer1978-05-27
Historic
7.72
0.02%
Tines r aWscular Plant
Tbumopsm fiaxirnfolia
Ash -leaved Goldin -banner
1977-08-05
Extant
34.76
0.07 %
TetresuiaWsculas Plant
Themopm fim mifolia
Ash -leaved Goldin -banner
Unranked 17.86
0.04 %
TmestrialVsmW Plant
Tnchoac oes petersii
Dwarf Fihan•-fern
1999-08-11
Extant
1128
0.03%
Ternsttialvscular Plant
Trichouums petersii
Dwarf Filmy -fern
1987-06
Extant
2.10
0%
TmesuraWascular Plant
Trichnmanes petersir
Dwarf Filmy -fern
1949-08
Historic
7.72
0.02%
TertestrialVascular Plant
Trillium discolor
Mottled Trillirm
1999-05-20
Extant
2.06
0%

TenestmilVascular Plant
Tnlh=discolor
Mottled TrAhum,
1999-05-17
Extant
7.72
OA2%
TerrestrialVascular Plant
Tnlb=discolor
Mottled Trill=
1993-05-21
Extort
7.72
0.02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant
Trillium discolor
Mottled Trilhum
1969
Historic
1.118.84
223%
Terrestrial VA ma
Aneides acneus
Greco Salamander
2007-11-16
FSC
Extant
25.22
0.05 %
TMMMIIVAe tbrate
,gneides arneus
Careen Salamander
2007-I1-01
FSC
Extant
9.49
0.02 %
Terrestrial V tbrate
Anodes amnts
Green Salamander
2006-11.06
FSC
Extant
0.48
0%
Vertebrate
7MestrialA��l
Aneides xneus
Green Salamwder
2005-I0-19
FSC
Extant
10.59
0.02
TerresttWAAn matte
Anodes aeaeus
Green Sahmtander
2005-10-17
FSC
Extant
5020
0.1 %
TerresmalV�ate
Anndes xneus
Greco Salamander
200410-06
FSC
Extant
15.90
0.03 %
te
TerresuialV�
Anodes aeneus
Green Salamandn
2004
FSC
Extant
21.94
0.04 %
Terrestrial VA teb to
Aneides aeus
en
Grern Salamander
2003-I1-11
FSC
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
Terrestrial V� te
Anodes aeons
Green Salamander
2003-11-10
FSC
Extant
1328
0.03 %
TerrestrialVVmlate
Anndn xneus
Green Salamander
2003-11-07
FSC
Extant
240.73
OAS
Tenestria'AAnQ Vertebrate
Anodes aeneus
Green Salamander
2003-I1-03
FSC
Extant
3,089A7
C15%
Vertebrate
TenntrialAm-1
Aneides amens
Green Salamander
2003-11
FSC
Extant
2.203.14
4,38 %
Terrestrial Vr � te
Aneides amens
G ern Salamander
2001
FSC
Extant
31.23
0.06 %
TerresvialVAwmlate
Ann amens
Green Salannader
1986-07
FSC
Extant
3.099.47
6.15 %
Terrestrial VrA�� te
Aneides xneus
Green Salanunder
1962- 06
FSC
Historic
I336.69
3.06%
TenestrulVAni ew1 to
Crotalus horridns
Tunbu Rattlesnake
1976-06-I1
Extant
1.180.18
2.35%
a1e
TermstrialVvene
Crotalus homdus
Tuber Rattlesnake
1959-08-08
Historic
1.593.15
3.17 %
Terrestrial Vertebrate
hoxia cur%UMUa pop. 1
Southem Appalaclu, Red2000-06-01
FSC
Extant
9.995.59
19.89
Animal
Crossbdl
Vertebrate
Ter-MalAnimal
Micxorus clnotonhinus
Sonthem Rork Vole
1982-PRE
FSC
Extant
199033
2.77 Ys
carolinmsis
Terrestrial VVe eebr to
Myotrz leibu
Ezvs� Small -footed
2008-10.13
FSC
Extort
17.94
0.04 %
Y
Terresvial� w
Myotas lerbii
Eastern Small -fooled
1994-POST
FSC
Extant
19,143.94
38.09 %
Myoti
imeswlVertebrate
A
Sylsilagus obscruus
Appalachian Cottontail
1961-07
FSC
Historic
1,485.58
2.96 %
TMITIonalVtA tbrate
Sylilagus obscrws
Appaarhim Cottontail
1951-07
FSC
Historic
1,445-91
2.99%
Vertebrate
TenestrialA�tal
Tbryomann bessicku alms
Appalachian Bewirk's
1960-06
FSC
Destroyed2.371.72
432 %
Wren
Wetland Natural
High elnation seep
2007-10-16
Extant
0.03
0%
Community
Wnland Naval
Rocky bar and shore
1993-04-05
Extant
47843
0.95%
Commumw
Nan"
Somban appalxhun bog
Wetland
Community
(southern subtype)
2007-1l
Extant
632
0.01 Ys
Weiland Natural
Soudsem appalachtan bog
2006-10-16
Extant
1740
0.03 %
Community
(southern subtype)
Wetland COY
Spray cliff
2007-11-19
Exmt
0.06
0%
Wetland Natural
Spray cliff
2007-10-16
Extant
0,06
0:5
Community
Wetland Caturalm
Spray cliff
2003-OS-15
Extant
1.36
0%
ity
Wetland Natural
Spray cliff
1987
Extant
0.31
0%
Commumty.
Wetland on asadar
or
Anea shatpu
li
A verwort
1955
Historic
7.72
0,02 %
pN
Nonvascular
Wetland
Bryooumia yivicolor
(:urge Moss
1952-07-30
FSC
Historic
14.03
0.03 X
plant
Wetland Non ascular
Bryocrumia sivicolor
Gorge Moss
19494)8-25
FSC
Hisraic
10.05
0.02 %
plant
Wetland Nomaseulm
Btyoxrpbium nomegicum
Sword Moss
1949-M-24
Historic
48627
0.97 %

root
Wetland Nwvascular
Hryumtapanum
Plant
Wetland Nwvaswlar
Curiphylltw piliferum
Plant
werkmd Plant
Dicbodonti,w poluadum
Wetland Nonnvascular
Honnlla mchomanoides
Plat
Wetland
Hwaaliz tritllomaooid6
Plant
Weiland Nou`ascular
Plant
Lejewea blorrquistu
Wetland
Lejermea blomquistii
plant
Weiland Nwvascular
Marsupella emarginata var.
Plant
ladoba
Wetland Nwvascular
Plagiochda echimm
Plant
Weiland Nonvascalar
Plavathila echimta
Plant
Wetland NNon ascular
Phsgiochila echiaata
Plant
Wetbmd Nonvascular
Plagioehila sullitatuu ear.
Plant
spinigera
Wetland Nwvaswlw
Plagiochila sullivantii var.
Plant
sullivamu
Wetland NwvascuLu
Plamochila wgiwca var.
Plant
caroluuam
Wethard �` ascular
Radula Sullivan i
ascular
Weiland
Radula 51I8ivautu
Pit
Wetland Nmlasculm
Radula S,0:V2111:;
Pl
ascubu
Weiland
Radula sullivaotu
PlantNonv
Wetland Nwvascular
Sphagmw subsecandum
Plant
Wetland Vascular Plant
.Asplm m monanthes
Wetland Vascular Plant
Cara baileyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Carex bailey,
Wetland Vascular Plant
Chelone cuthbmu
Wetland Vascular Plant
Helwias bullata
Wetland Vascular Plant
Huperaia porophila
Wetland Vasculu Plant
Huperna porophda
Wetland Vascular Plant
Hupertia porophila
Wetland Vascular Plant
Packerz paupercula ear.
pawercula
Wetland Vascular Plant
Parvassia graodifolia
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron saseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendrou vase};
Weiland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Wetland Vascular Plant
SChdago uliginosa
Wedand vertebrate
G)yptemys muldenbergu
Welland Annual
Glyptemys muhlenbergu
Riverside Bryum 1949-08-17
Long Lea( Mustache Moss 1949-08-25
Transparent Fork Moss 1951-06-07
Lune Homaba
1959-07-15
Lime Homalia
1949-08-24
A Licmvort
1994-OS-20
A Liverwort
1994-07-16
A Licmvort
1961-PRE
A Liverwort
1994-09-20
A Ln'enrort
1961-PRE
A Liverwort
1956
A Livencon
1956
FSC
A liverwort
1961-PRE
FSC
A Live .jr
1961-PRE
FSC
A liveneon
2008#05
A Liverwort
2007-09-26
A Liverwort
2007-09-04
A Liverwort
1961-PRE
Change Pealmnis
19994)4-24
Single -sores Spleemron 2006-08-19
Baileys Sedge
2007-09-04
Bailey's Sedge
1961-06
Cuthben's Turdebead
2007-11-19
FSC
SWamp Pink
2004-05-19
T
Rock Fu-clubmoss
1995
Rock Fir -club cross
1987-10
Rock Fir-clubmoss
1971-01
Balsam Ragww
1961-06
Large -leaved Gaassof-
1984418
FSC
Parnassus
Pink -shell Azalea
2008-10-27
Pick-sbell Azalea
2007-04-16
Pink -shell Azalea
1996-03-01
Pork -shill Azalea
1994-05-10
Pork -shell Azalea
1992-0541
Pick -shell Azalea
1987-05-07
Punk -shell Azalea
1976-PRE
Pork -shell Azalea
1970-0542
Bog Goldenrod
1962-08
Bog Turtle
1990
T(S/A)
Boe Turtle
1951-01-01
T(S/A)
Historic 1,111.46 221 %
Historic 3.099.47 6.15 %
Historic
93.92
0.19%
Historic
3.089.47
6.1516
Historic
65126
1.3 %
Extant
4.66
0.01
Extant
12358
025 %
Historic 1.23
0%
Extant 1.36
0%
Historic 14230
028 %
Historic 12359
025 %
Hinonc
3.09947
6.15%
Historic
3,19930
6.36%
Historic
3.089.47
6.15 %
Extant
0.48
0%
Extant
1.93
0%
Extant
12551
0.25 %
Historic
0.64
0%
En nt 11.97 0.02 %
Extant
3.86
0.01 %
Extant
1.93
0%
Historic
1.13
0%
Extant
2.41
0%
Extant
0.52
0%
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
Historic
7.72
0.02 %
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
Historic
2,943.78
5.96%
Extant
3,099.47
6.15 %
Extant
048
0%
Extant
43.45
0.09 %
Extant
375.64
0.75 %
Extant
309.03
0.61 %
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
Extant
7.72
0.02 %
Historic
3,089.47
6.15 %
Historic
1300.16
2.59 %
Historic
1220.09
2 A3 %
Historic 19,194.12 38.17 %
Historic 2.390.46 4.76 %
TOTAL: 249,023.97 495A25
S1gultlfaut Natural Heritage Area
Neme
Significance (-A• most important) Ovrambip
Total .Area (acres) Percent of Area
Chanwea River GorgeTlhcon Rock
A USFS
877 57
1 75a;
Delany Bog
B NCPCP, USFS, HBF, PRV
4%05
0.1 ;'e
Ellcon Mountain Pagano Site
B PRV
5.26
0.01 %
High Hampton/Chanooga Ridge Natural Area
B PRV
500.09
0.99 %
Horsepasnue River Gorge
A USFS, NCDPR PRV. NCWRC 2.957.79
5.98
Link Terrapin Mountain Cliffs
C PRV, USES
89.35
0.18 %
Na Mountain
D PRV
17429
0.35 %

Rainy Knobs
C
USFs' PRV
74.49
0.15 %
Savamah Ricer Headwaters Aquatic Habitat
B
PW
77,33
0.15 %
Silver Run Presm•e/Sassafras Mountain
C
TNC. PRV, USFS
4.157.98
8.27 %
Tertapm Mountain
B
USFS
1.386.23
2.76 %
Tbomps n, River Gotge
B
PRV, USFS
3,317.88
6.6 %
Thompson Ricer Headwater Bog
C
PRV
45.11
0.09 S:
Wbuewater River Falls and Gorge
A
USFS
1,602.77
3.19 %
TOTAL:
15.31511
30.47 %
USFWS Critical Habitat
No Records Found
Audobon Imporlant Bird area
Name
Total Ana (acres)
Percent of Area
Blue Ridge Escarpment Gorges
3.502.1E
6 97 °<
Highlands Plateau
16,770.57
33.36 %
TOTAL_
20.272.76
40,33 9.
Hydrologic Features
Trout Designated Waters
stream Name
Ut
Fowler Creek
Whnewater Ricer
Thompson River
Chanooga River (Cashiers Lake)
Hossepasture River (Lapmv, Sapphire Lake)
Silver Km Creels
Scotsman Creek
Horsepasture Rivw
Democrat Creek
Corbin Credo
Fast Fork Chanwga River
Nit Creek
Little Whitmater Creek
Nicl alsw licking Creek
Reid Branch
Chester Branch
Burlingame Creek
Bryson Branch
Fowler Creek (Hampton Lake)
Waddle Branch
Bad Creek
Lmake Branch
Jacks Creek
Green Creek
TOTAL:
DWQ Impaired Waters lines
No Records Found
DWQ Impaired Waters polygons
No Records Found
HUC Boundar v
Basin Sabbasin HUC 10 tune
Sasamah Seneca Headwatm Keowee River -Lake Jocassee
Savannab Tugalw Chattooga Riser
smannah Seneca Headwaters Keowee Rtsw-Lake Jocassee
Savannah Tugdoo Chanooga River
Savamah smeca Little River -Lake Kem "
Savannah Seneca Headwaters, Kmwee River -Lake Jocassce
Streams 24k
Name
Fowler Creek
Mutewater River
Thompson Rises
CHATTOOGA RR'FR
Horsepasture River
Horsepasture Rivw (L.uptm Lake, Sapphue Lake)
Sikes Ron Creek
Scotsman Creek
Total Length (meters)
16.094
13263
12.018
9,495
6.454
6,265
5,541
4"
4,762
3,403
3201
3,085
3,041
Z642
2,603
2,476
1946
1,715
1,655
1,573
1,549
1.508
1,370
1,144
1,090
414
113,144
HUC 12 name
TotalArn (saes)
Percent of Area
Wiutewater River
27,69390
551^0
Reed Creek-Chattooga River
8.760.07
1743.
Horsepasture Ricer
7,08421
14 09 ke
Headwaters Champ River
5,198.99
10.34 %
Flat Shoals Ricer
1,27448
2.54 %
Outlet Toga vay River
253.75
0.5 %
TOTAL:
50.265.40
100 %
Total LoMM (meters)
62.802
14249
13.000
12,094
8,096
7227
6.221
4,999

Bearcamp Creek
4.802
Democrat Creek
3,258
Corbin Creels
3,179
Fast Fork Chanooga River
3,177
Link Whitmater, Creek
Z662
Nu Creek
2,604
Nicholson licking Creek
Z467
Burlingame Creek
2,377
Reid Branch
1,9%
Bryson Branch
1,789
Chester Branch
1.737
Waddle Branch
1.505
Fowler Creek (Hampton Lake)
1,494
Bad Creek
1,362
ter Branch
L282
Jacks Creek
1.102
Coley Creek
955
Green Creek
422
TOTAL:
371,606
Dams
Name
River Impacted
Illarimum Impoundment Size
k Features
Sapphire Lake Lower Dam
Horsepastme Ricer
400
1
Hampton Lake Dam
Fowler Creek
280
1
Hanks Dam
Fowler Creek
125
1
Jnt r t Dam
Burlingame Credo
117
1
Sapphire Lake Upper Dam
Nix Creek
70
1
Silver Springs Dam
Silver Rrm Cr-Tr
65
1
Cranston Pond Dam
Green Creek
33
I
George Sorge Dam
Fast Fork Chanooga River
25
I
Lake Pwkem Dam
Thompson liir'er
24
1
Lake Roberta Dam
Lille Whitewater Creek
18
I
Sassafras Ridge Dam
9
t
Glenheathes Dam
Fowler Creek -Tr
7
I
Hampton Golf Co. Pond Dam
Fowler Creek
4
1
TOTAL
National Wetlands Inventory
Wetland Type
NW1 Code
Total Area
(act es)
Pereeut of.irea
Lake
LiL-BBb
13441
0.67
Freshwater Pond
PUBIM
S6.55
0_I I P--.
Lake
LIUBH
39.47
0.087.
Riveriue
R3RBH
29.76
0.06 %
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
PFOIA
17.23
003%
Freshwater Pond
PUBHx
12.11
0.02 %
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
PSS1Ad
899
0o2 %
Riverme
R3UBH
8.88
0.02 %
Freshwater Forestal/Shrub Wetland
PFOIC
8,02
0.02%
Freshwater ForesteNShmb Wetland
PF04B
755
0.02 %
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Welland
PSS3B
6.89
0.01
Freshwater Fruergem Wetland
PEMICb
6.09
0.01%
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
PEM1A
5.67
0.01 %
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
PSSIA
519
0.01 %
Freshwater Forested'Shmb Wetland
PF04A
412
0,01
Freshwater Pond
PUBFx
3.04
0.01 %
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
PEM1C
2.60
0.01 %
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
PEM1Ah
239
0%
Other
PUS.4h
210
0%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
PSSIC
1.80
0%
Ocher
PUSCh
0.74
0%
Freshwater Pond
PUBFL
0.44
0%
TOTAL.
564.02
1.12 %
\CDENR 303d waters
No Records Found
Rare Aquatic Species Basin
No Records Found
Water Supply Watershed
No Records Farad
Landuse
Mineral Resources
Site Name C'ommodih 1
Commodih' 2
Cormnodih_3
Status
a Features
ALller Asbestos \fire Astxstos
Past Producer

Bad Creek Prospect
7emings No. 2 Asbestos More
Coldsides Mountain Mine
Tenn ergs No. 1 Asbestos Mint
Socrates Conmdnm More
Round Moumain More
3emmags Na. 2 Asbestos Mine
Bad Creek More
Socrates Corundum Mine
McCoy Prospect
Wharwater Quarry
Cashiers Distna
NCDENR Mines
No Records Found
Corundum
Corundum. Asbestos
Asbestos
Asbestos
Conmdum
Asbestos
Corundum
Corundum
Cmtrodum
Barium -Baste
Stone, Cnrshe"roken
Tantalum. REE. Niobium (Columbium)
Asbestos
Asbestos
Asbestos. Vermiculite
Asbestos, Vermiculite
Fluorine-Fluonte
Pall Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Past Producer
Prospect
Producer
Occurrence
TOTAL:
I
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
Strategic Plan
Final Layer
Final Layer Values
Eioal Layer Valdes
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Arta
10
9.296,86
18 5 %
9
9,58127
19.06 %
8
7.638.16
15 2 %
7
4.652.48
926 %
6
1.388.74
2.76 %
5
429.17
0.95 %
4
13.71
0.03 %
TOTAL:
33.000.40
65.65 %
Strategic Plan
Benefit Layers
Aquatic Subbasins Ranked
Subbasin lank
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
10
10.355.30
_'0 6'.
9
22.649.28
45.06 %
TOTAL:
33.00458
65 66 %
Audobon's Important Bird Areas
Ardobon KnowintBid Area
Totd Am(aaes)
Peroealal Area
10
20,266.44
40 32 %
TOTAL:
20266.44
4032%
Indian Lands
No Records Found
Lands Managed for Conservation
hfanged Lads
Told Area (sues)
Peramrof Aao
10
19.16626
38,13 %
TOTAL:
19,16626
39.13%
Natural Lands Density
NotardLnds+BendlyRnk
Total Am(acaes)
Patent
of Aran
10
10,291.56
2047 T.
9
13,074.36
26.01 %
8
4.859.64
9.67 %
7
1.500.81
299 %
6
1.114.39
2.22 %
5
905.80
1.6 %
4
75132
1.5 %
3
55707
1.11 %
2
WAS
0.18 %
TOTAL:
33,044.83
65.74 %
NWI Ranked
Wedaads Rank
ToldAraa(acrs)
Percent ofAtea
_ ..
—441
7
40.70
0,08 °.
6
3586
0.07 %
5
8,35
0.02 %
1
10065
02 %
TOTAL:
185.56
0.37 %
Significant Natural Heritage Areas Ranked
SNRARank
Total Am (acres)
Peruat of Area
.0
5
2,714.38
5 4 %
4
7,191.71
14.31 %
3
6.89
0.01 %

2
5,471.57
10.S9.e
1
424.68
0 81 °o
TOTAL:
15.90924
31 45
USFWS Critical Habitat
No Records Found
AFO Laudcover Priorities Rank
AFO Landconr Priorities Rank
Total Area (aces)
Percent of Area
10
1.821.43
3 62 %
7
19,705.12
39.2 ::
4
1.75815
3.5 %
1
3-W.74
6.69
0
6.403 61
12, 74 %
TOTAL:
33,049,06
65.75
Wildlands Charette Rank
Connectivity Value
Total Area (acres)
ftromi
of Am
Core or Nugget
33 049.06
6535 %
TOTAL.
33.G49.06
65.75 %
Strategic Plan Threat Layers
Dam Densitn
Dam Density Ran►
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
8
22.649.28
45 06 °e
3
10,355.30
20 6 %
TOTAL.-.
33.004.59
65 66 °e
Discharge Density
DLscbar'e Density Rack
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
3
21649.28
45 06 °.,
2
10,355,30
20 6 %
TOTAL:
33.004.58
65 66 °.e
tSFS Insect and Disease Risk
USFS Insect and Disease Risk
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Am
10
4.572.50
9.1 %
TOTAL.
4.572.50
9.1 %
Mining Densih
lfiuiu8 Densih Aluk
Total.4rea (acres)
Percent of Area
3
2.&49.18
45 06'.
1
10,35530
20.6 %
TOTAL-
33.004.58
69 66'.a
Impervious Surface Density
Imperious Surface Density Rank
Total Area (acres)
Perrot of Area
13.005 69
65 66 °.,
TOTAL
33 005 69
6566.
Road Density
Road Densih Rack
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
9
6604S
1.31°e
8
798.11
1 59 %
7
1.223.77
2.43 %
6
942.52
1.69 %
5
1.53290
3.05 %
4
2,093-94
4.17%
3
3,068.05
6A %
_
6,006.01
1195%
1
5,872 16
11.68 %
TOTAL
22.097 85
43 96 S:
Windpoi%er Potential Rauk
Windpovrer Potential
Total Area (acres)
Percent of.AreA
500 - 800 wan, per square rode
48'_6
0.1
300 - 500 sans per square note
1405.31
2 E
TOTAL.
1,453.57
2 89 4:
One NC Naturally
Biodiversity and Wildlife Assessment
Value
Chu
Told AM (acres)
Percent of Area
10
10 - Maximum
11.260.80
22 4 %
8
8
4.340.03
8.63 to
7
7
4.63
001°:
6
6
50321
1 %
5
1
1.632.76
3 25 1.

3 3 520.45
1 1-Moderate 7,386.63
TOTAL: 28.675.31
Impormut Foreshi. Lands
C'alue Group
S Low Forestry Value
4 Low to Moderate Forestry Value
3 High ForestryValue
2 Moderate to High Forestry Value
1 Moderate Forestry Value
TOTAL:
Treatened Forest Resources
Value Group
S Elevated Tlu at
4 Moderate to Elevated Threat
3 Low to Moderate Ducat
2 Moderate Threat
1 Low Threat
TOTAL.
Water Sen•ices
Chu
9 - Moderate Conservation Value
8 - Moderate Conservation Value
7 - Low to Moderate Consmation Value
6 - law to Moderate Conservation Value
5 - Low to Moderate Consmation Value
4 - law Conservation Value
3 - Low Conservation Value
14 -High Conservation Value
) 3 - High Ccnsmation Value
12 - Moderate to High Conservation Value
11 - Moderate to High Conservation Value
10 -Moderate to High Conservation Value
1 - Ipw Conservation Value
TOTAL:
6.02 %
1.04
14.7 %
57.05 %
2,450.77
4.89 %
3,290.65
6 55 %
4,879.78
9.71 %
2,416.03
4.81 %
1,962.19
3 9 %
14.999.42
29.84 %
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
5.13697
10 22 %
4,8M.67
9-59 %
9,276.23
18.45 %
7,92996
15.79 %
5.816.27
11 57 %
32984.10
65.62 %
Total Area (acres)
Percent of Area
42.21
0.08 %
81.49
0.16 %
745.02
148
24,875 29
49.49 %
2,155.75
4.29%
22.62
0.04 %
20.79
0.04
1593
0.03 %
260,84
0,52 %
204.88
0.41 %
44867
0.89 %
L,220.86
2.43 %
2,339.53
4.65 %
32,433.88
64 53 %

APPENDIX H
USGS Flow Determination for the Horsepasture River

From: Weaver, John
To: Harry Buckner
Cc: Mike Waresak; tom.belnick(alncdenr.aov; Teresa.Rodriouez(ancdenr oov; Rose Pinnix; John Weaver
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta. 0218412997 Horsepasture River adjacent U.S. Highway 64 near Cashiers,
NC ...Re: Initial USGS response concerning... Re: Request for 7Q10 Flow Estimate - Horsepasture River, Cashiers,
NC
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:46:56 PM
� USGS
.. science for a changing world
_ U.S. Geological Survey North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
r Date: April 16, 2014
Mr. Harry B. Buckner, PE, Project Manager
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Buckner,
In response to your request (via email dated March 12, 2014) for a formal determination of the low -flow
characteristics on Horsepasture River in vicinity of Cashiers in Townhouse Branch at Wesser in Swain
County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
does not indicate a previous low -flow determination for your specific point of interest
on Horsepasture River as shown on the map attached to your email dated February
20, 2014. No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for your point of
interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis,
estimates of low -flow characteristics at ungaged locations are determined by
assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage
area, of cfsm) at nearby sites where such estimates have previously been
determined.
A drainage -area delineation completed using the online NC StreamStats application
_(htto://water.usgs.goy/o-sw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage
area for your point of interest is 3.91 sgmi.
Previously published low -flow information for streams in your area of interest

For streams in Jackson County, the most recently published low -flow information is a statewide report
completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, 'Low -flow characteristics of
streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at hftp:H ubs.usas.aov/wsp/2403/reportodf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on
data through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and
400 sgmi and not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
Please note the low -flow characteristics in the statewide report are based on data ending during the late
1980's and do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which have resulted in decreased low -flow
statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations across North Carolina.
Y
Sta. 0218412997 Horsepasture River adjacent U.S. Highway 64 near Cashiers, NC
Y
Location: Adjacent to U.S. Highway 64, approximately 0.5 mile downstream from Lupton Lake, and
approximately 2.3 miles northeast of Cashiers
Lat/long ==> 035d 07m 46.00s // 083d 04m 00.77s (referenced to NAD83)
County: Jackson County
Drainage area = 3.91 sqmi
HUC: 03060101
Y Map: Big Ridge [G-6-NE]
Tributary to: Toxaway River
Based on five (5) nearby selected USGS partial -record sites in general vicinity of Horsepasture River, a
range of potential low -flow yields were assessed for the 7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10 (W7Q10), and 7Q2
low -flow discharges. The average for each yield range was determined, and when applied to the
drainage area for your point of interest (3.91 sgmi), the estimated flows based on these yields were
determined. The range and average low -flow yields along with corresponding estimated flows are
provided in the table below.
Y Range in Average Range in
Average
low -flow yield low -flow yield estimated low -flow
estimated low -flow
(cfsm) (cfsm) (cfs)
Y (cfs)
Annual 7Q10 0.30 to 0.71 0.50 1.2 to 2.8
2.0
Annual 30Q2 0.85 to 1.71 1.11 3.3 to 6.7
4.3
Winter 7Q10 0.57 to 1.40 0.76 2.2 to 5.5
3.0
Annual 7Q2 0.63 to 1.32 0.88 2.5 to 5.2
Y 3.4
The mean annual runoff (Plate 2, Giese and Mason, 1993) determined for streams in vicinity of the
Y Horsepasture River basin is estimated to be 4.0 cfsm, resulting in an average annual discharge
estimated at approximately 16 cfs.
Please note the estimated flow estimates reflect "natural -flow" characteristics with no diversions or
Y regulation known to occur upstream of the request site.
Notes:
(1) As noted above, please be aware the low -flow characteristics in the above -referenced report are
based on data ending during the late 1980's that do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which
have resulted in decreased low -flow statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations. The USGS North
Carolina Water Science Center is currently conducting an update of low -flow statistics at continuous-

J
.. record streamgages to account for the recent droughts where records are available. At a nearby USGS
continuous -record streamgage on French Broad River at Rosman in Transylvania County (station id
03439000, drainage area 67.9 sgmi), the 7Q10 discharge decreased about 5 percent between the 1998
_ and 2011 climatic years.
(2) The climatic year is the standard annual period used for low -flow analyses at continuous -record
streamgages and runs from April 1 through March 31, designated by the year in which the period begins.
For example, the 2011 climatic year is from April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.
(3) Estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
(4) The information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered
provisional, subject to revision pending further analyses.
Invoice information:
A charge of $250.00 for accessing and processing information has been assessed to partially offset these
costs. An invoice covering the processing costs for these data will be sent via regular mail from the U.S.
Geological Survey to the billing address shown below. Instructions for sending your payment will be
shown on the invoice.
Mr. Harry B. Buckner, PE, Project Manager
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Basis for charge: Low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta. 0218412997 Horsepasture River
adjacent U.S. Highway 64 near Cashiers, NC, in Jackson County
This information is considered preliminary and subject to revision pending further analysis as further data
were to become available, and is made available through our cooperative program of water -resources
investigations with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
., Hope this information is helpful.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at the phone number or email
address listed below.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
««««w+«w«ww«wwwww++x+«««+««««««««ww«««w«wwxw«www+www+++w«+«++
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] H Fax: [phone]
E-mail address — icweaverCdysas.aov
Internet address — hItp://nc.water.usas,aov/
+++++w«ww«w«««w«w«w«w«wwwwwwww++++++++«w+++++++++++++++++++«+

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Harry Buckner<Hany.Buckneramcgillepgineers.com>
wrote:
Mr. Weaver:
I'm sorry for being a little slow to get back to you on the subject project. We have consulted with
.. NCDENR and decided that we do need a formal, full determination of low flow estimates from
your office not only for the original site but also for an additional site located at the beginning of
the ORW designation on the Horsepasture River. I have attached an additional USGS quad sheet,
with coordinates, for this additional location.
r
Please let this e-mail serve as our formal request for an in-depth assessment of both sites (the
original location plus the one attached hereto). Feel free to use my name/company name and
address below as the billing contact information. We understand that the billings for this work
will be approximately $250 per site.
Thank you in advance for your help, and we will look for this information sometime around the
end of April. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Harry B. Buckner, PE
Project Manoger
McGill Associates, P.A.
.. 55 Broad Street I Asheville, NC 28801
M
Phone: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone]
From: Weaver, John [mailto:icweaverCalusas.aov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:31 AM
To: Harry Buckner
Cc: Mike Waresak; tom.belnic0)ncdenr.aov; John Weaver
Subject: Initial USGS response concerning... Re: Request for 7Q10 Flow Estimate - Horsepasture River,
Cashiers, NC

Mr. Buckner,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics (7Q10) for a location on the Horsepasture
River near Cashiers in southern Jackson County, the following information is provided:
+ A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center indicates a
previous low -flow determination almost identical to your specific point of interest on Horsepasture
River as shown on the map attached to your email dated February 20, 2014. Completed in April 1981,
the 7Q10 for Horsepasture River near Cashiers (station id 02184130, drainage area 4.00 sgmi) was
estimated at 1.5 cfs, based on transfer of flow characteristics from a downstream continuous -record
streamgage on the Horsepasture River near Sapphire (station id 02184240, drainage area 21. 0 sgmi).
No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for your point of interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow
characteristics at ungaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields
(expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, of cfsm) at nearby sites where such estimates have
previously been determined.
A drainage -area delineation completed using the online NC StreamStats application
(http /lwater.usgs.aov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage area for your point
of interest is about 3.9 sgmi.
For streams in Jackson County, the most recently published low -flow information is a statewide report
completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, 'Low -flow characteristics of
streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at http•//pubs usgsgov/wsp/2403/report.pdf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based
on data through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between
and 400 sgmi and not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
Please note the low -flow characteristics in the statewide report are based on data ending during the
late 1980's and do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which have resulted in decreased
low -flow statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations across North Carolina.
Based on nearby selected USGS partial -record sites in general vicinity of Horsepasture River where
low -flow characteristics have previously been published, the annual 7Q10 yields range from about 0.30
to 0.71 cfsm (average approximately 0.50 cfsm).

r
Applying the above annual 7Q10 yield range to the drainage area for your point of interest results in
_ an annual 7Q10 discharge estimated in the range of 1.2 to 2.8 cfs. Please note that estimated flows
are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
Please understand this information is based on a preliminary assessment. Further analyses would be
needed to confirm the initial assessments, and a fee of $250 per site is required for completion of a
.. more in-depth assessment and formal determination of estimates (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, 7Q2, and
average flow). If you want us to complete a more in-depth assessment, please provide a contact
name and address for billing purposes and we'll proceed from there. The assessment would be
completed within four to six weeks, and the response would be made via email with an invoice mailed
r separately via regular mail following the provision of estimates.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- icweaver n usgs eov
Internet address -- httpe//nc water.usgs.eov/

r
r
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Harry Buckner <marry.Buckner&mcgillengineers com>
wrote:
Dear Mr. Weaver:
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) has engaged McGill Associates to
perform preliminary planning efforts for a possible new wastewater plant to be located on
the Horsepasture River near Cashiers, North Carolina. As a part of this project, we have
requested Speculative Discharge limits from Mr. Tom Belnick of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and he, in turn, notified us that we are required to
obtain 7Q10 data from your office for NCDWQ to use in their planning efforts.
I have attached a quad sheet with the specific location of the proposed discharge identified
on it with corresponding NC grid coordinates. I also understand that there will likely be a
charge for obtaining this data from USGS. If you would please send me the necessary
engagement details and/or fees, we will return authorization to your attention as soon as
possible.
r We sincerely appreciate your assistance with this matter, and if you have any questions
about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me via any of the methods listed below
in my signature line.
Harry B. Buckner, PE
Project Manager
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street I Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone]
I u. 1 �r I - 4 I

i
APPENDIX I
Net Present Worth Analysis Calculations
fm
am

i 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I
Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative 93 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary Treatment Plant with Land Application
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2.13% CPA Discount Rate: 3 500%
Present
Value of O&M
Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Estimated Flow(MGD)
0 025
0 050
0 074
0 099
0 124
0 149
0 173
0 198
0 223
0 248
Operations ••
$ 000127
cr Gallon
Sec Est Flow
$ 82333
$ 92.803
S 102.592
S 112,105
$ 121,349
$ 130.328
$ 139.049
$ 147.516
S 155,734
S 163.709
Administration
S25.00000
1S
I
S 24.669
S 24.343
$ 24.020
S 23.702
S 23389
S 23079
$ 22.774
$ 22,472
$ 22,175
$ 21,881
Operations Staff
S25,00000
LS
1
$ 24,669
S 24,343
$ 24,020
$ 23,702
$ 23,389
S 23079
S 22,774
S 22,472
$ 22.175
S 21,881
Land Application Operations
S 000065
$ cr Gallon
S.Est Flow
S 41.501
$ 46.666
$ 51.688
S 56568
$ 61.309
S 65.916
S 70.389
S 74.733
S 78.949
S 83,041
Land Application Administration
S 10,000
LS
I
S 9868
$ 9,737
$ 9.608
S 9.481
S 9355
$ 9.232
$ 9,109
$ 8.989
S 8.870
$ 8,752
Land Application Staff
S 25.000
IS
I
S 24,669
S 24.343
$ 24.020
$ 23,702
S 23.389
S 23,079
S 22,774
S 22,472
S 22,175
S 21,881
I
it
it
Total Present Value of Vearly 0&M Expenses(Vems 1-1 D):
I S 208109
1 S 222234
1 S 235948
1 S 249,261
1 $ 262180
1 S 774713
S 286868
S 298654
S 310,077
S 321.146
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MGD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage of costs at design
now) 25% $ 72.253 58
•e Operations include all casts of treatment including power. chemical, residuals, testing, and regulatory compliance Th¢ unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

I 1 1 l ! l ) i l 1 i
Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #3 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary Treatment Plant with Land Application
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2 13% EPA Discount Rate: 3 500%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Estimated Flow MGD
0 272
0 297
0 322
0 347
0 371
0 396
0 421
0 446
0 470
0 495
Operations **
$0 00127
$ vcr Gallon
See Est Flow
$ 171.445
$ 178.948
$ 186.222
$ 193.273
$ 200.104
$ 206.720
$ 213.126
$ 219.326
$ 225,325
$ 231,127
Administration
$46.891
LS
I
$ 40,489
$ 39,953
$ 39,425
$ 38,903
1.$ 38,388
$ 37,880
$ 37.378
$ 36,883
$ 36,395
$ 35.914
operations Staff
$46,881
LS
1
$ 40,489
$ 39,953
$ 39,425
$ 38,903
$ 38,388
$ 37,880
$ 37,378
$ 36,883
$ 36,395
$ 35.914
Land Application Operations
$0 00065
$ per Gallon
See Est Flow
$ 87,010
$ 90,860
$ 94,593
$ 98,211
$ 101.716
$ 105,112
$ 108,400
$ 111,582
$ 114,661
$ 117,640
Land Application Administration
$10,000
LS
I
$ 8.637
$ 8,522
$ 8.409
$ 8,298
$ 8,188
$ 8,080
$ 7,973
$ 7,867
$ 7,763
$ 7,661
Land Application Staff
$25,000
LS
1
$ 21,591
$ 21,306
$ 21,024
$ 20,745
$ 20,471
$ 20,200
$ 19,932
$ 19,669
$ 19,408
$ 19,151
Total rresent vaiue of Yearly Vdtm Expenses trcars it-Lu): a JOY ou6 a Jiy rrJ a Jor uro I a Jyo JJ 1 a 'eui 40.7 1 a -ew ora 1 a yar aoo I a toA &1c 1 a -#Jr yyy I a Yyi #uJ
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project): S 6 772 705
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MGD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage of costs at design
flow) 25% $ 72,253 58
** Operations include all costs of treatment including power, chemical, residuals, testing, and regulatory compliance This unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckascigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #5 - Regionalization with the Town of Highlands
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2.13% EPA Discount Rate: 3 500%
Present
Value ofO&M
Casts for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Estimated Flow(MOD)
0 025
0 050
0 074
0 099
0 124
0 149
0 173
0 198
0 223
0 248
Bulk Rate to doe Town of 1Held ... 1,
S Soo
kGnl
See Est Flow
S 45.021
$ 88.383
$ 130.588
S 171.661
S 211.624
$ 250.499
S 288,307
S 325,071
$ 360,811
S 395,548
Administration
S 10.000
LS
I
S 9,968
S 9,737
$ 9,608
S 9,481
S 9,355
S 9.232
S 9,109
$ 8.989
S 8,870
S 8,752
Operations Staff
S 25,000
LS
I
S 24.669
S 24343
S 24,020
S 23.702
S 23.389
$ 23,079
S 22.774
S 22.472
S 22.175
S 21.881
labomlo /Sam Icsfrestina
S 10,000
LS
1
$ 9,868
$ 9737
$ 9,608
S 9,481
S 9355
$ 9232
S 9,109
S &989
S 8.870
$ 7752
Operations
S 10,000
LS
1
S 9.868
S 19,372
$ 28,622
$ 37.624
S 46,393
S 54,904
S 63,191
S 71.248
S 79,082
S 86,695
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 1-10):
1 S 99293
1 S 15/571
1 S 202447
1 S 251950
1 $ 300107
1 S 346945
S 392490 1
S 436769 1
S 479807 1
S 521,629
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MUD) 0 495

Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #5 - Regionalization with the Town of Highlands
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2 13% EPA Discount Rate: 4 875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
Estimated Flow MGD
0 272
0 297
0 322
0 347
0 371
0 396
0 421
0 446
0 470
0 495
Bulk Rate to the Town of Highlands
$ 500
kGal
See Est Flow
S 497.072
$ 542.217
S 587,362
S 632,507
S 677,651
$ 722.796
$ 767,941
$ 813,086
$ 858.230
$ 903,375
Administration
$ 10.000
LS
1
$ 7.470
$ 7.274
$ 7.084
$ 6,898
$ 6,718
$ 6,542
$ 6,371
$ 6.204
$ 6,042
S 5.883
Operations Staff'
$ 25.000
IS
1
$ 18,674
$ 18.185
1 S 17.709
$ 17,246
$ 16,794
S 16,355
S 15,927
S 15.510
$ 15.104
S 14,708
Laboratory/Samples/Testing
$ 10.000
LS
1
$ 7,470
$ 7,274
$ 7.094
$ 6.898
$ 6.718
$ 6.542
S 6.371
$ 6,204
$ 6.042
$ 5.883
Operations
$ 10.000
LS
1
S 7,470
$ 7,274
$ 7.094
S 6.898
$ 6,718
S 6,542
S 6.371
S 6.204
S 6,042
S 5.883
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 11-20): $ 538,155 1 $ 582,224 1 $ 626,322 1 $ 67U 447 1 5 714,599 1 $ 758,770 1 5 8U2979 1 $ 847 U7 1 $ 391,459 1 5 935,734
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project):1 S 10 550,910
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MGD) 0 495

Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to Horsepasture River
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2.13% EPA Discount Rate: 3 500%
-
Present Value of O&M
Casts for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Ouantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Estunated Flow. GD .:'
0 025
0 050
0 074
0 099
0 124
0 149
0 173
0 198
0 223
0 248
tityns ** ,.... > ' _ •::
$0 0012 .
rGallen:.S6iMsi.Elow`
S 56.605
$ 55,856
S 55,116
$ 54,387
S 53.734
S 61,358
S 68,771
$ 75,977
S 82.979
$ 89,784
AdniiitisWtion
000.:::
.:_. 1
S 24 669
S 24 343
$ 24.020
$ 23,702
S 23.389
$ 23,079
$ 22,774
$ 22,472
S 22,175
$ 21.881
arations Sigff:.. _
= • 425 000
' 4
$ 24,669
$ 24,343
$ 24,020
S 23,702
$ 23.389
$ 23,079
$ 22.774
$ 22,472
$ 22,175
$ 21.881
-
{7
✓l:�r
' .At..l
__.f.. i
llt r.a.r _i..:t..
1
_
_ 7
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 1-10): S 105 943 S 104 1 $ 103 157 $ 101 792 S 100 12 S 107 S16 $ 114 18 $ 120 921 $ 127 29 $ 133 6
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MGD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage of costs at design 25% $ 57,364 31
flow)
** Operations include all costs of treatment including power, chemical, residuals, testing, and regulatory compliance This unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

I I I I I I I I i I I i I 1 1 I I I I
Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to Horsepasture River
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2 13% EPA Discount Rate: 4 875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Estimated Flow MGD
0 272
0 297
0 322
0 347
0 371
0 396
0 421
0 446
0 470
0 495
Operations **
$0 00127
$ er Gallon
See Est Flow
$ 83,368
$ 87.753
$ 91.852
$ 95,677
$ 99.238
$ 102,547
$ 105,615
$ 108,452
$ 111.068
$ 113.473
Administration
$46 881
LS
1
$ 35.018
$ 34,102
$ 33.209
$ 32,340
$ 31.493
$ 30,669
$ 29.866
$ 29.085
$ 28.323
$ 27.582
Operations Staff
$46.881
LS
I
$ 35.018
$ 34 102
$ 33.209
$ 32,340
$ 31.493
$ 30.669
$ 29,866
$ 29.085
$ 28.323
$ 27.582
rotas rresent value or Yearly v&m Expenses (Years ii-zupi a 1w vu4 1 a Iaa yai 1 a wa fu 1 a iou ao 1 a ioc cq I a rw aaa I a IDDIJ41 I a ioo oci I a so 411D 1 a ioa osI
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project): I $ 2,741 991
Starting Flow (MGD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MGD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage of costs at design 25% S57,36431
flow)
** Operations include all costs of treatment including power, chemical, residuals, testing, and regulatory compliance This unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #7 - Upgrade Existing Plant to MBR Process, Expand to 0.695 MGD
Current Illation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2.13% EPA Discount Rate: 3 500
Present
Value of O&M
Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Estimated Flow(MOD)
0 025
0 050
0 074
a 099
0 124
0 149
0 173
0 198
0 223
0 248
Operations •-
$0 00127
$ er Gallon
Sec Est Flow
5 11.435
S 22,449
$ 33,169
S 41602
S 53,753
S 63.627
S 73.230
S 82.568
$ 91.646
S 100,469
Administration
so
US
1
$
$
$
$
S
$
S
S
$
$
Operations staff
so
LS
I
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
Membrane Re lacemews
S30.000
IS
I
S 29.603
$ 29.211
$ 28.824
$ 28.443
S 28.066
S 27695
$ 27.328
$ 26.967
S 26,610
S 26.257
'total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 1-10):
5 41038
15 51,6601
S 61994
1 S 72045
$ 81819
$ 919322
1 $ 100558
15 109535 1
$ 118256 1
S 126726
Starting Flow (MOD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MOD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage ofcosts at design 0% S
Row)
** Operations include all costs ofmcatment including power, chemical, residuals. testing. and regulatory compliance This unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

I 1 l I 1 I I I l I I l I l 1 1 1 l l
Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
Cashiers Area Wastewater Treatment Evaluation
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Alternative #7 - Upgrade Existing Plant to MBR Process, Expand to 0.695 MGD
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 2 13% EPA Discount Rate: 3 500%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
Estimated Flow(MOD)
0 272
0 297
0 322
0 347
0 371
0 396
0 421
0 446
0 470
0 495
Operations ss
S0 00127
$ per Gallon
See Est Flow
$ 109.043
$ 117.372
$ 125.461
$ 133.315
$ 140,940
$ 148.340
$ 155,519
$ 162.481
$ 169.233
$ 175,777
Administration
$25 000
LS
1
$ 21,591
$ 21,306
$ 21,024
S 20,745
$ 20,471
$ 20,200
$ 19,932
S 19,669
S 19,408
S 19,151
Operations Staff
$25 000
IS
1
$ 21,591
$ 21,306
$ 21,024
S 20,745
$ 20,471
$ 20.200
S 19,932
S 19,669
S 19,408
S 19,151
Membrane Replacements
$30 000
IS
1
$ 25,910
$ 25,567
$ 25,228
$ 24,894
$ 24,565
S 24,240
S 23,919
S 23 602
$ 23.290
$ 22,982
totat rresent valueot Yeariyv&m Lxpenses(Years 11-LU): .l !/81J, 1 a 15D ,V 1 J ►Yc /J/ 1 a lri ful 1 , LUO44/ 1 , LILY/Y 1 , LIY uL 1 ,l LL,gzl I , L31 JY I a L3/ Uol
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project): $ 2,943, 624
Starting Flow (MOD) 0 025
Ending Flow (MOD) 0 495
Initial Operating Expense (as percentage of costs at design 0% S -
flow)
'• Operations include all costs of treatment including power, chemical, residuals, testing, and regulatory compliance This unit cost was derived from historical costs for these expenses documented by TWSA

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with
the ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a pemut application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the APplicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
• Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
• As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local goverunent(s) failed to respond within
the 15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government Jackson County >
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [X] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ X] No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [X]
No[ ]
Date Z C
Signature
(C ty Manager/County Manager)
State of I V V 1y` l U V Uc \V`6/ , County of f,/ /A l/y. x yr
On this L2'11— day of _,,ran ✓ LY N personally appeared before me, the said
name ('"LL c r � V v � rM"1yV1 to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires [ 3 ( ZOI .(Signature of Notary Public)
EAA Guidance Document Retdsion: April 2014
Page 8 of 8