NC0072729_Environmental Assessment_20061013

Re: Mt. Pisgah WWTP
IL)cl,00 17 2 7� 1
Subject: Re: Mt. Pisgah WWTP
From: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:13:07 -0400
To: Hannah Stallings <Hannah.StallingsC ncmail.net>
Hi Hannah:
Here are my formal comments.
Page 8 of the EA states that the capacity of the facility will be adjusted to 35,000
gpd to accommodate maximum daily flow projections. However it is unclear whether the
facility will also be requesting an increase of their permitted flow. The NPDES
permit currently contains a 30,000 gpd monthly average flow limit. Since the
capacity adjustment is to accommodate peak daily flows, it would be allowed under the
current NPDES permit. In this case, the NPDES unit would have no comments. However
if the facility plans to request an increase in permitted flow, a permit modification
request (including flow justification and supporting documentation) would be
required.
Thanks
Toya
Hannah Stallings wrote:
Toya -
they are going from 30,000 to 35,000 - look on page 8. do you need to formalize
up a comment based on this - the "at least 35,000 gpd"?
let me know.
i'll come by today and grad and region's sign off.
thanks.
hannah
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Hannah,
I reviewed the EA. Your cover memo indicates that they are planning on
replacing and expanding the WWTP. However I couldn't find any mention in the
EA of whether or not they are actually planning on increasing the capacity of
this facility. That would be my only comment.
If you have any questions, let me know. Also, somehow the region's sign -off
was forwarded to Susan. I have it if you need it. Its signed by Jim Reid and
states that they recommend the project proceed.
Toya
Toya Fields - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer I
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
Tel: [phone] x 551
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 11 / 15/2006 4:51 PM

U.S. Department of Interior
Blue Ridge Parkway
Environmental Assessment
Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina
f
r

Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mt Pisgah, North Carolina
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
September 2006

On the Cover: National Park Service photo the existing Mt. Pisgah Wastewater
treatment plant, Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina
-2-

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant for Mt. Pisgah
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Summary
The Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the
National Park Service, is out of compliance with State of North Carolina environmental
regulations. This has resulted in a notice of violation from the state, and a need for
improvements at the facility. In addition to considering the alternative of no action, the
National Park Service evaluated two action alternatives to bring wastewater management
into compliance:
Construction of a new extended aeration package plant, with discharge to Flat
Laurel Creek.
Upgrading the existing facility, with discharge to Flat Laurel Creek.
Unlike the No Action Alternative, both action alternatives would ensure adequate
treatment of current and projected future flows of wastewater from the Mt. Pisgah
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This would result in moderate, beneficial, long-term
impacts to water quality.
Public Comment
If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may mail comments to
the name and address below. This environmental assessment will be on public review for
3o days. Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of
the public record. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from
organizations, from businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available for public inspection
in their entirety.
Please address written comments to:
Suzette Molling
Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Comments
i99 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803-8686
-3-
ldm,

This page intentionally left blank
-4-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
elms
Summary........................................................................................................................................................3
Purposeand Need.......................................................................................................................................
6
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
7
Purpose................................................................................................................................................7
Need....................................................................................................................................................7
Purpose and Significance
ProjectBackground.............................................................................................................................13
Scoping..................................................................................................................................................16
...............................................................................................
Issues and Impact Topics ................. ...18
Impact Topics Included in This Document................................................................................
20
Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis.......................................................................
21
Alternatives .......................
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................25
The No Action Alternative (Alternative O).....................................................................................25
The Other action Alternative (Alternative A).................................................................................
26
Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility........................................................
26
_
Other Alternatives Considered but Dismissed................................................................................27
Alternative C: Polishing Constructed Wetlands Addition.........................................................27
Alternative D: Install Recirculating Sand Filtration System ......................................................
28
Alternative E: Install Membrane Bioreactor Package Treatment System ...............................
28
Alternative F: Install Membrane Bioreactor Package Treatment System with Ultraviolet
(UV) Disinfection........................................................................................................................
29
Alternative G: Install Sequencing Batch Reactor Treatment System .......................................
29
Alternative H: Install Orenco Advantex Filtration System .......................................................
29
AlternativesSummary ........................................................................................................................
30
The Preferred Alternative Alternative B
Construct Extended Aeration Package Treatment System .......................................................
40
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative...................................................................................
40
Mitigation Measures for the Action Alternatives...........................................................................
42
,�►,
Practices to Minimize Effects on Water Quality and Aquatic Life ...........................................
42
Practices to Minimize Effects on Special Status Species...........................................................
43
egg'sAffected
Environment, Evaluation Methodology, And Environmental Consequences .................
45
Introduction........................................................................................................................................
45
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................................................
45
Methodology .•••
45
General Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................
45
Cumulative Effects Analysis Method............................................................................................
49
Impairment Analysis Method
5
WaterQuality...................................................................................................................................52
AffectedEnvironment......................................................................................................................52
'`�►
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management..................................52
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System - Preferred Alternative.........
54
Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility .....................................
56
........ ............... .............. ...... .....
Aquatic Resources.......................................................... ... ..... ... ... ...57
AffectedEnvironment......................................................................................................................57
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management..................................57
�+
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System - Preferred Alternative ..........
58
Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility .....................................
6o
SpecialStatus Species......................................................................................................................
61
-5-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
AffectedEnvironment...................................................................................................................... 61
Federally -Listed Species............................................................................................................. 63
StateListed Species..................................................................................................................... 65
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management ................................. 66
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System- Preferred Alternative ......... 67
Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility ..................................... 68
Consultation and Coordination....................................................................................................... 68
Bibliography..................................................................................................................... T
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Value Analysis -Mini VA
Appendix B
Protected Species Lists and Information
Appendix C
Scoping Letter/Agency Correspondence
Appendix D
Public Scoping Notice
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure i Location of Mt. Pisgah Developed Area............................................................................ io
Figure 2 Layout of Existing Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities ........................... II
Figure 3 Photograph of Existing Mount Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................ 12
Figure 4 Drainage Patterns in the Vicinity of the Mt. Pisgah Wastewater
TreatmentPlant.....................................................................................................................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table i Derivation of Impact Topics................................................................................................19
Table 2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements for the
Existing Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant (from Veltman, 2005)..................... 26
Table 3 Description of the Alternatives for the Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Management
Upgrade...................................................................................................................................31
Table 4 Project Objectives and the Ability of the Alternatives to Meet Them ............................34
Table 5 Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives................................................................35
Table 6 Impact Topic Threshold Definitions..................................................................................47
Table 7 Federal- and State -listed Species that could potentially occur in the vicinity
of the Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Site (Source: North Carolina
Heritage Program 20o6; US Fish and Wildlife service 20o6)......................................... 62

PMN
PURPOSE AND NEED
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
Purpose
The National Park Service (NPS) is considering replacing the existing wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) on Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina. Mount Pisgah is located near
mile 408 of the Blue Ridge Parkway, approximately 20 miles south of Asheville, NC (see
Figure i, Site Location Map). The existing wastewater treatment plant provides
treatment services for the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area, which includes the Mt. Pisgah Inn
(51 units), expanded restaurant, the improved country store, a multi -unit employee
housing area, a 140-site campground, a So -site picnic area, and a recreational vehicle
waste disposal facility (Figure 2). The plant is owned, operated, and maintained by the
National Park Service. The existing wastewater treatment plant near the Mt. Pisgah
Developed Area has historically met all North Carolina National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge limits with the exception of ammonia toxicity.
Flows are expected to increase in the next several years as the number of visitors coming
to the area increases, with a potential for continued and increased numbers of violations
of the ammonia toxicity test. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide
improved wastewater treatment facilities that will allow the plant to consistently pass the
�►,
ammonia toxicity test and to have the needed ability to accommodate projected future
flows.
Need
�"�►
The current WWTP was constructed in the 195o's and has been modified several times
since its original construction. These modifications were necessary to keep up with the
increased volume of sewage flow as a result of increased area visitation and new
state/federal regulations. The current system is antiquated with rapidly deteriorating
infrastructure. During the last three years, the Mt. Pisgah treatment plant has violated the
effluent discharge requirements of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit for ammonia toxicity (the Whole Effluent Toxicity test). As a result, the Blue
Ridge Parkway received several Notices of Violation from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Division.
The amount of wastewater treated at the wastewater treatment plant varies seasonally in
response to recreational usage of the campground/developed area. During the period
May — October when visitor use is at its peak, the wastewater treatment plant receives
,A�
approximately 20,000 gallons per day on average, with typical peak flows of 30,000
gallons per day. A flow of 35,000 gallons per day was reported on July 4, 2005 (Veltmann
2005).
The plant is closed from November to April when all the facilities in the Mt. Pisgah
1491�
Developed Area are closed. During the developed area's off-season, the wastewater
,�•,
treatment plant is completely shut down.
For a number of years, the wastewater treatment plant effectively treated incoming
wastewater flows. However, as the popularity of the Mt. Pisgah area increased, it was
accompanied by an increase in wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant.
-7-
Oa,

During periods of peak use, the lagoon has to be drawn down, resulting in the periodic
violations of the ammonia toxicity test. Bioassay tests for ammonia toxicity were
conducted by HDR (in Veltmann Zoos) Olver Incorporated (Olver 2005) reviewed the
test reports completed by HDR (Appendix A) for the Pisgah facility and concluded that
"the effluent toxicity failures are most likely the result of pH induced ammonia toxicity.
Failures have occurred when the wastewater pH has been elevated (around 8) and the
toxicity of ammonia is higher. The reported EC20 for Ceriodaphnia dubia, the test
species used for toxicity testing, is 15.6 mg/L at a pH of 8.0, and this would suggest that
observed ammonia concentrations (> io mg/L) are sufficient to cause toxicity. The
periodic rise in wastewater pH is probably the result of algae activity. Photosynthesis
carried out by the algae will consume alkalinity and cause a rise in wastewater pH."
The NPDES permit does not specify a limit for ammonia, but the plant has been required
to conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing in the last two years. In August 2004, the
plant received an effluent chronic toxicity violation for failing the Whole Effluent
Toxicity test for ammonia. No ammonia toxicity violations occurred in 2005 (NPS
20o6b).
The plant has consistently met all other requirements of the state permit, however.
Nevertheless, the plant is aging, and requires a significant amount of maintenance during
operations to keep it running efficiently and within the limits of the discharge permit.
Flows are also expected to increase in the future, as the number of visitors to the area
increase over time.
The increased wastewater volumes being treated at the Mt. Pisgah Wastewater
Treatment Plant, coupled with periodic violations of the ammonia toxicity tests,
demonstrated the need for a wastewater management solution.
The state discharge permit also requires that the temperature above and below the point
of discharge in Flat Laurel Creek not vary more than % degree centigrade. The objective
of this requirement is to protect aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek and Pisgah Creek, into
which Flat Laurel Creek flows. Pisgah Creek is a designated state trout water (NCWRC
20o6). To date, the temperature requirement for the discharge has been met. Improved,
more efficient facilities are needed to help assure that will continue to be the case.
Based on the problems associated with the existing treatment plant, the preferred
alternative will meet the following objectives:
Provide capacity of at least 35,000 gallons per day to accommodate future
maximum daily flow projections.
Meet all state of North Carolina regulations, including the ammonia toxicity test
and the requirement for temperature variation above and below the discharge
point in Flat Laurel Creek.
Be capable of handling flow volumes that vary widely over a 12-month period.
This environmental assessment analyzes conditions at the site of the existing wastewater
treatment plant, describes available alternatives, and assesses the effects of each
alternative on the environment.
The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing regulations, 40 Code of Federal
WE

Regulations Parts 1500-15o8; National Park Service Director's Order #I2 and Handbook,
Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision -making; and
Section io6 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and
implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.
PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARK
The Blue Ridge Parkway connects the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia with the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina via a 469 mile scenic road. The
Blue Ridge Parkway is ranked as "America's most scenic drive" by leading travel writers
(National Park Service, 2003). This sanctuary of high places encompasses a world of
mountain forests, wildlife, and wildflowers thousands of feet above a patchwork of
villages, fields, and farms. The toll -free parkway combines awesome natural beauty with
the pioneer history of gristmills, weathered cabins, and split rail fences to create our
country's most popular national park area. The National Park Service recently reported
that annual recreational visitation rose from 16.9 million in 19go to i9.2 million in 2000
(National Park Service, 20o4c).
oat%,
-9-
As,

ASHEVILLE -
2nen • �5 SKYLAND 64
Blltn4o e
-estat•3Q
J
26
9
191 74 To Spartaribwy,
40 rth Caro l 26• S.C.
Arbunatum - Marun in Home
Ot9,
HENDERSONVILLE
Lake Polahatan 4w
Mills RNer
g Carl Sandberg Home
National Historic Site
t9 151 280 64
A
74 Elk Pasta a Gap
roH.:
CANTON Movn: Saga t. Pisgah
6 110 16 Moe
2,6 Pr ct ea410
276 WApan Road GAP O
•--Davidson River Recreational Area
Cold Mountain' •
7 6o3m, Rinser GAP Cradle of Forest America Visitor Center
(U.S. Forest Se"'Ce
Graveyard Fields OwAm61. RodsBREVARDAYNESVILLE
6120n
azo
KentuckyVA
Mt. Pisgah
. , ,�
U Rmn,„we..cn C.,P lxvW Ceurtn
Balsam Tennessee
�430
South
,,,,m Carolina
aP HI9Mat Ednt on
EaAwr,y 6pe7H c
J
Georgia
Alabama
N
Figure 1
w E
Feet Mt. Pisgah Facilities
S 0 3,500 7,000
Site Location Map
Figure i Location Map
-10-

)'))))))l))))))))))))))))l)))))))))))))))))))
,
=MM W M
tmGD A R m on
UBMM
Figure 2. Layout of Existing Mt. Pisgah Wastewater
Treabnent Plant Facilities (From NPS 2006Qv Val"
aq; �r a tral±?a cm to
MGM t ttla
rtamuto nw am WU,1_ __ aona \ ass
Wz=v
tau a+aa �iy —
tttoatnomt
atos
In ueawt tnttau nvtau � f:�dp.
—t670
Yana Gat r I 4675
ROLIM�-
�'
i � 04 t i - � i69U---
OW q wow -4685
NW = tw
LUM
tt3votn>or taw �:
u man Qq
"itch �tlm arrtat t; � w m
ruw-
MAIN
3
NI
iwt: tnan ao ncu No I/q um olCLwtl
m m u az m+w W for UM
nrr raq a* to tit 13 womn
taar Ira rp taa
to
sm Ya"atap
Figure 2 Detailed Site Layout
-11-

Figure 3 — Photograph of Existing Mount Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant
The legislated purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway under a federal action of June 30 1936
is to link Shenandoah National Park in Virginia and the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee by way of a recreation -oriented motor
road intended for public use and enjoyment. Under the provisions of the Organic Act
that created the National Park Service, approved August 25,1916 (39 Stat. 535), the
intended purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway is to conserve, interpret, and exhibit the
unique natural and cultural resources of the central and southern Appalachian
Mountains, as well as provide for leisure motor travel through a variety of environments.
The general interpretation of the Blue Ridge Parkway's purpose has been refined into the
following more specific purpose statements (National Park Service, undated).
Physically connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks by
way of a `national rural parkway' - a recreational destination -oriented motor road
traveling through a variety of scenic ridge, mountainside and pastoral farm
landscapes.
Manage the scenic, natural and cultural resources of the Blue Ridge Parkway's
designed and natural areas to preserve the integrity of resources and to provide a
quality visitor experience.
Influence the protection of the scenic, natural and cultural resources within the
corridor composed of those lands that are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway
and/or situated adjacent to the boundary.
Conserve and provide for the enjoyment and understanding of the natural
resources and cultural heritage of the central and southern Appalachian
Mountains.
Provide opportunities for visitors to experience the scenic qualities, recreational
uses and natural and cultural resources of the Blue Ridge Parkway and its corridor.
The route of the Blue Ridge Parkway follows mountain and valley landscapes to link
Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. Its location was selected to
provide the best in a variety of scenic, historic, and natural features that evoke the
-12-

too,
/42h1
�1
regional image of the central and southern Appalachian Mountains. In order to
maximize scenic views and give Blue Ridge Parkway visitors the impression that they are
in a park with boundaries to the horizon, the Blue Ridge Parkway was located in
mountainous terrain that normal roads would have avoided. The Blue Ridge Parkway
was the first national rural parkway and is widely recognized as an international example
�►
of landscape and engineering design achievements with a roadway that lies easily on the
land and blends into the existing scene. The Blue Ridge Parkway also was the first
national rural parkway to be conceived, designed, and constructed as a leisure -type
driving experience.
The Blue Ridge Parkway follows the crests and ridges of the Blue Ridge, Black, Great
Craggy, Great Balsam and Plott Balsam Mountains. These five major mountain ranges
are part of the central and southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile parkway
encompasses several geographic and vegetative zones, with altitudes ranging from
approximately 650 feet at the James River in Virginia to nearly 6,050 feet at Richland
Balsam in North Carolina. The Blue Ridge Parkway is known for spectacular mountain
and valley vistas, quiet pastoral scenes, sparkling waterfalls, colorful flowers and foliage
displays, and interpretation of mountain history and culture. Its varied topography and
numerous vista points offer easy public access to spectacular views of southern
Appalachian rural landscapes and forested mountains. Designed for recreational driving,
the Blue Ridge Parkway provides visitors with quiet, leisure travel, free from commercial
traffic and the congestion of high-speed highways. As its All -American Road status
indicates, it is one of the most diverse and high quality recreational driving experiences
in the world.
The park's uninterrupted corridor facilitates the protection of a diverse range of flora
and fauna including rare and endangered plant and animal species and areas designated
/.a,
as national natural landmarks. The park preserves and displays cultural landscapes and
historic architecture characteristic of the central and southern Appalachian highlands.
00q
PROJECT BACKGROUND
14%�
The layout of the facilities on the existing wastewater treatment plan site is shown in
Figure a. The plant treats domestic sewage and other wastewater produced by facilities at
the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area. The site consists of a five -acre fenced -in area located on
a small knoll at the end of a paved access road that connects to the first parking lot on the
Blue Ridge Parkway above the plant. The site is located at an elevation of approximately
4,600 feet, approximately % mile downslope of the Blue Ridge Parkway parking lot. The
upslope and downslope areas adjacent to the plant are occupied by relatively mature
hardwood forests of Mt. Pisgah. Flat Laurel Creek is located approximately a few
,,,N
hundred feet downslope of the site and connects ultimately to Pisgah Creek, a tributary
of the East Fork of the Pigeon River (Figure 4).
-13-

, 'l�// \ ;'\ \'�' Flat Laurel Creek 'f
Pisgah Creek
\
f� Btu, Bafd /i: Blue Ridge Parkway
j/
Wastewater Treatment Site
Mt. Pisgah Campground
FIGURE 4. DRAINAGE PATTERNS IN THE VICINITY OF THE MT. PISGAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
-14-

Al
Except for a narrowly defined seepage slope emergent wetland/intermittent stream
located just inside the main gate of the facility between the fence and the main plant
road, the site is completely cleared of all natural vegetation and is maintained as a
wastewater treatment plant facility. The existing facilities include a wastewater influent
pipeline that enters the site from the east, next to the main gate, a 0.46 acre, three -
compartment aerated lagoon, a lagoon effluent transfer station, a lobe tank, two effluent
transfer (submersible type) pump units, filters, and chlorination and dechlorination
,.�
units. An abandoned sludge drying bed and Imhoff tank are also located on the east side
of the site just inside the entry gate. Treated effluent is discharged through a 4-inch pipe
down a seasonally dry channel and into Flat Laurel Creek downslope of the plant.
The wastewater treatment process includes the following steps. Plant influent is
conveyed via gravity flow to a 0.46 acre, three -compartment aerated lagoon. The
,0�
wastewater is pumped from the lagoon effluent transfer station to a lobe tank. Two
existing effluent transfer (submersible type) pump units are used for this purpose.
Wastewater is pumped through filters, then is chlorinated and de -chlorinated before
being discharged to an unnamed tributary of Pisgah Creek. A diaphragm pump is located
in a separate concrete chamber for pumping settled sludge out of the lagoon.
A general management plan was initiated in 2002 to establish and guide the overall
management, development, and use of the Blue Ridge Parkway in ways that best suit
visitors while preserving the park's cultural and natural resources. The objective of the
/OW►,
general management plan is to support the purpose for which the park was established
and to formalize the park's future direction.
A preliminary engineering feasibility study of potential wastewater treatment alternatives
for the Mt. Pisgah facilities was completed by J.F. New & Associates in August, 200i Q.F.
New & Associates, 2001). This study focused on plant capabilities and deficiencies and
made recommendations to improve plant operations.
A Value Design Analysis was conducted in 2003 to evaluate the proposed alternative
wastewater treatment plant modifications. The final product of this analysis was a Value
Design Analysis Report, which included an outline of specifications, site design
documents at a level of completion equivalent to 40 percent complete construction
documents, and cost estimates (National Park Service, 2003). The major conclusions of
the assessment were as follows (as summarized from Veltman 2005):
Effluent toxicity failures have probably been caused by ammonia toxicity.
The proposed wetland treatment area was at least twice the area proposed by J. F.
New & Associates. The proposed site was said to be of inadequate size to support a
wetlands treatment system for the Mt. Pisgah facilities.
Construction of a proposed terraced wetland system on the site of the present
wastewater lagoon was said to be impractical because it cannot occur until the
ee1
wetlands have developed.
(AINk
It was proposed that a wetlands treatment system be ruled out.
491�
Following the initial engineering assessments, an additional assessment regarding the
feasibility of wetland treatment systems was prepared by Olver, Inc. (Veltman2005).
This report concluded the following:
-15-

The use of a wetland treatment system was discouraged, and a more conservative
approach was recommended instead.
Upgrade of the existing treatment facilities was identified as a practical option and
it was recommended that this option be explored in more detail. It was also
suggested that a more conservative system could be "accompanied by the addition
of several wetland treatment units to improve both nitrification and
denitrification."
Additional alternatives to upgrading the existing system, including package plants,
were also proposed. These systems would take up less space than the existing
system and would improve the visual appearance of the site. The assessment also
concluded..."If desired, effluent from these alternative processes could be used to
feed a series of small vegetated wetlands beds. The use of media filters, MBRs
[Membrane Bioreactors] , and SBRs [Sequencing Batch Reactors] should be
explored further."
Other projects related to the proposed wastewater treatment system that have been
completed include an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
for the Rehabilitation of the Mt. Pisgah Utilities in October 2003 (National Park Service,
2003). The focus of this document was on the upgrade of the supporting infrastructure
for the existing wastewater treatment system, including replacement of the leaking water
and sewer collection systems in the Mt. Pisgah developed area. The Environmental
Assessment also included a partial study of the existing wastewater treatment plant area.
All of the information collected to date was then used by the National Park Service in the
fall of 2005 to conduct a Value Analysis and Choosing by Advantage importance process
workshop. The objective of the workshop was to determine the most ideal and preferred
wastewater treatment plant facility for the Mt. Pisgah area. The product of this effort was
summarized in a Value Analysis Report — Mini Value Analysis (NPS 20o6f)(Appendix A).
SCOPING
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1978) guidelines for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Park Service National
Environmental Policy Act guidelines contained in Director's Order # 12: Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making Handbook (National Park
Service, 2ooib) require scoping. Scoping is an early and open process completed by the
National Park Service to:
Determine important issues.
Eliminate issues that are not important or relevant.
Identify relationships to other planning efforts or documents.
Define a time schedule of document preparation and decision -making.
Define purpose and need, agency objectives and constraints, and the range of
alternatives.
There are two types of scoping — internal and external. Internal scoping is conducted by
the National Park Service to determine the types of issues that might be associated with a
-16-

�1
proposed project, and forms the basis for the assessment of the effects of the alternatives.
Internal scoping involves analyzing the characteristics of construction and operation,
and relating these proposed actions to potential environmental effects. External scoping
involves early public involvement and can include letters to involved agencies,
stakeholder meetings, informal public meetings or open houses, formal public hearings,
MON
and newsletters. Scoping letters to the agencies are required for every environmental
assessment prepared by the National Park Service. The other forms of external scoping
are used in varying degree, depending on the nature of the issues involved for a
articular project. The amount of external scoping is determined primarily b the degree
P P j P� g P� Y Y g
AMIN
of the potential for adverse environmental effects of a proposed project.
The National Park Service has conducted the following scoping activities in conjunction
with the proposed wastewater treatment facilities at Mt. Pisgah:
An internal scoping meeting was held on November g, aoo5 at the Blue Ridge
Parkway Headquarters at Hemphill Knob to discuss the potential issues
surrounding alternatives for construction and operation of a new wastewater
treatment plant. It was determined that primarily due to space and topographic
�►
limitations, none of the alternatives that involved wetland treatment would be
employed, and that all construction activities for the proposed project would take
place entirely within the existing disturbed fenced -in area occupied by the
existing treatment plant and lagoon. Therefore, the nature of the potential effects
of the proposed project on the environment would be limited.
External scoping has included the following:
Coordination letters to federal, state and local agencies, including the US
Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the State Historic Preservation Officer were circulated in April, 2oob.
Preparation and distribution of a newsletter that summarizes the purpose
and need of the project and alternatives. The newsletter was posted on
the park website and was also mailed to stakeholders.
A copy of the draft environmental assessment was distributed to the
review agencies.
The draft environmental assessment will be made available to the public at
the park website and at park headquarters.
For the previous environmental assessment entitled Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Rehabilitation of the Mt. Pisgah Utilities in October 2003 (National Park
r�
Service, aoo3), the National Park Service invited stakeholder groups and
the public to open meetings to inform the public and identify potential
concerns. This project included a brief discussion of the proposed
changes in the wastewater treatment plant itself, and a detailed
assessment of the effects of infrastructure improvements (including roads
and pipelines).
Together, all of these scoping activities assure that potential issues and concerns
associated with the construction and operation of the proposed wastewater treatment
-17-

plant project have been identified and included in this environmental assessment.
Because all of the construction activities would occur entirely within the existing plant
site, the environmental effects would be limited.
ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS
Potential issues and concerns affecting the proposed action were identified based on the
specific design and operational features of each facility. Issues and concerns affecting
this proposal were identified from past National Park Service planning efforts and by
input from Blue Ridge Parkway staff, local, state and federal agencies, local and regional
organizations, and the general public. The major issues and concerns include:
Potential effects on a small emergent wetland located just inside the access gate of
the existing fenced -in wastewater treatment plant site.
Potential effects on cultural resources that might exist inside the existing fenced -in
wastewater treatment plant site.
Potential effects on special status species.
Potential effects of soil disturbance or soil erosion resulting from grading and/or
filling of the lagoon.
Ammonia toxicity issues in the receiving stream below the plant.
Potential effects of construction and operation on air quality.
Potential spreading of nuisance plant seeds (especially bittersweet, Celastrus
orbiculatus) in fill dirt brought onto the site from other areas, especially if an
alternative is selected in which the lagoon is filled.
Potential effects of temperature of the discharge on trout in the receiving stream.
Resources of concern that could be affected by the range of alternatives are defined in
the National Park Service National Environmental Policy Act process as impact topics.
For this project, a set of impact topics was identified based on the potential
environmental effects of the alternatives. Potential impact topics were identified based
on federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders; aooi National Park Service
Management Policies; and National Park Service knowledge of limited or easily impacted
resources. A list of impact topics and a summary of relevant regulations or policies
related to each impact topic are provided in Table i. Some impact topics were eliminated
based on whether they were estimated to have no effect or a negligible effect on the
environment. The rationale for the elimination of selected impact topics is summarized
in the section that follows.
-18-

Table i. Derivation of Impact Tonics
Impact Topic
Relevant Regulations or Policies
Retained
Water Quality
Executive Order t2088; Executive Order n99o; National Park
Service Management Policy 4.6.3, 2001; Federal Water Pollution
Control Act [The Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended in 19771;
Title 15 A, Subchapter 4B and Subchapter o6 H of the North
Carolina Administrative Code
Aquatic Resources
National Park Service Management Policy 4.6, 2001; Federal
Water Pollution Control Act [The Clean Water Act of 1972 (as
amended in 19771; Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
Special Status Species
Endangered Species Act of 1973; National Park Service
Management Policy 4.4.2.3, 2001; 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 1500 (regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act); North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Dismissed
Air Quality
Federal Clean Air Act; Clean Air Act Amendments of 19go;
National Park Service Management Policy, 4.7.1, 200I
Soils
National Park Service Management Policy 4.8.2.4, 200I
Socioeconomics
40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500 (regulations for
implementing National Environmental Policy Act)
Transportation
National Park Service Management Policy 9.2, 2ooi
Wetlands
Executive Order n99o; Clean Water Act Section 404; National
Park Service Director's Order #77-I; Executive Order 11988;
National Park Service Management Policy 4.6.4 and 4.6.5
Wildlife
Management Policies 2ooi, Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Public Health and Safety
National Park Service Management Policy 8.2.5, 200I
Vegetation — Native Plant
National Park Service Management Policy 4.4.2, 200I
Communities
Soundscape/Noise
National Park Service Management Policy 4.9, 200I
Park Operations
National Park Service Management Policy 9.1, 200I
-19-

Tahle t_ Derivation of Impact Tonics (Continued)
Impact Topic
Relevant Regulations or Policies
Ecologically Critical Areas,
36 Code of Federal Regulations 62 (criteria for national natural
Wilderness, Wild and Scenic
landmarks); National Park Service Management Policies 2001;
Rivers, or Other Unique Natural
Wilderness Act of 1964, National Park Service Management
Resources
Policy 6.3, 2001
Floodplains
Executive Order n988 (Floodplain Management)
Geologic Resources
National Park Service Management Policy 4.8, 200I
Prime and Unique Farmlands
Council on Environmental Quality 198o memorandum on prime
and unique farmlands; 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500
(regulations for implementing National Environmental Policy
Act, section 15o8.27
Historic and cultural resources,
40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500 (regulations for
and design of the built
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act); National
environment, including the reuse
Park Service Director's Order #12; Section io6 of the National
and conservation potential of
Historic Preservation Act
various alternatives and
mitigation measures
Sacred Sites
Executive Order 13oo7; National Park Service Management
Policy 5.3.5.3.2, 200I
Ethnographic Resources
National Park Service Management Policy 5.0, 200I
Natural Lightscape (Night Sky)
National Park Service Management Policy 4.10, 200I
Visitor Use and Experience and
National Park Service Organic Act; National Park Service
Viewshed
Management Policy 8.2, 200I
Concession Operations and
National Park Service Management Policy 10.2, 2001
Commercial Services
Impact Topics Included in This Document
Water Quality: Construction of buildings and associated construction activities could
affect water quality during earthmoving activity and through the increase of impervious
surfaces for parking areas, piping and buildings, and filling of the lagoon. For this reason,
this impact topic was retained.
Aquatic Resources: Construction of buildings and associated construction activities
could affect water quality and aquatic resources during earthmoving activity and through
the increase of impervious surface for parking area, piping and buildings. Pisgah Creek,
located downstream of the receiving stream, Flat Laurel Creek, is classified as a trout
stream. For this reason, this impact topic was retained.
-20-

,1
OWN
Special Status Species: There is the potential for the endangered flying squirrel and
possibly some protected plant species to occur in the vicinity of the proposed wastewater
treatment plant and improvements. Therefore, this topic was retained.
Owl
Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis
Certain potential impact topics were dismissed because these resources would not be
affected by the alternatives or the potential for impacts under all alternatives would be
negligible and/or minor. These topics are listed below with the reasons they were not
addressed.
Soils: This impact topic is dismissed because the site is already cleared and all
construction activity would involve negligible to minor amounts of soil disturbance
under either of the two action alternatives. No adverse effects on soils would result
during operation.
Approximately 4,500 cubic yards (a total of a about approximately 30 truckloads) of
clean fill dirt would be brought into the site to fill the lagoon under Alternative B during
construction. However, this would have negligible to minor short-term effect on soils in
the area where this material is obtained (the actual location for the fill dirt has not yet
been determined). Filling the lagoon with clean fill dirt, however, would pose a potential
rsq
for soil erosion. Potential effects of soil erosion during construction, however, are
addressed in the section on water quality.
Air Quality: The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42United States Code 7401 et seq.),
requires federal land managers to protect air quality, while the zooi National Park
Service Management Policies address the need to analyze air quality during park
planning. The proposed wastewater treatment plant is located in Buncombe County,
North Carolina, which is currently a designated attainment area. This means that
concentrations of criteria pollutants are within standards. Should an action alternative
be selected, local air quality would be temporarily affected by dust and vehicle emissions.
Hauling material and operating construction equipment would result in increased
vehicle emissions. Volatile organic compounds, ozone, carbon monoxide and sulfur
dioxide emissions would generally disperse quickly from the construction area. This
would last only as long as construction activities occurred and would have a negligible
effect on regional pollutant levels. Fugitive dust emissions from construction equipment
and vehicle traffic would result in short-term minor increases in airborne particulate
concentrations in the area near the project site, depending on soil moisture. These
emissions would be temporary, highly localized and would have a negligible effect on
regional particulate levels. Best management practices to control dust would be required
during construction.
In summary, local air quality in the immediate vicinity could be temporarily affected by
dust generated from site reconstruction activities and emissions from construction
equipment and vehicles. There would also be increased automobile emissions from
`�°►
vehicles using the site. However, these would range from negligible be minor localized
,..►,
effects. For these reasons, air quality is an impact topic that was dismissed in this
document.
OWN
-21 -

Socioeconomics: Under either of the two action alternatives, construction of the
extended aeration package treatment system could have negligible to minor, short term,
local, indirect beneficial effects on the economy of the Mount Pisgah area. The company
that is hired to construct the package treatment system could be located in the Mount
Pisgah area and some of the materials used to construct the package treatment system
could be purchased in the Mount Pisgah area. The workers used to construct the system
could be residents of the Mount Pisgah area. The operation of the extended aeration
package treatment system would have a no long term, local or regional, direct or indirect
beneficial or adverse effect on the economy of the Mount Pisgah area. For these reasons,
socioeconomics has been dismissed from further analysis.
Transportation: Construction vehicles would have negligible to minor direct, indirect
and cumulative effects on regional and local transportation along the route to access the
site resulting in traffic impacts to public roads in the area. For these reasons,
transportation was dismissed from further analysis.
Noise / Soundscape: Noise conditions surrounding the wastewater treatment plant
would be expected to change under the proposed action. Natural sounds from birds,
frogs and other wildlife are evident at the perimeter of the site, but the site itself is
entirely disturbed. The construction of the wastewater treatment plant could cause
additional disturbance of the site that could result in further reduction in the natural
soundscape. However, all of these effects were estimated to be negligible to minor, local
and short-term effects. For these reasons, noise is an impact topic that was dismissed
from further analysis.
Park Operations: The wastewater treatment plant would be constructed and operated
to comply with state and federal requirements. The facility would be necessary,
appropriate, and consistent with the conservation of park resources and values. The
wastewater treatment plant would improve park operations by providing a facility that
meets water quality standards. These would be minor long-term beneficial effects. There
would be no adverse effects on park operations. For these reasons, park operations were
dismissed from further analysis.
Wildlife: No wildlife habitat exists on the site, although it is located within a larger
prime wildlife area on top of Mt. Pisgah. Because the existing wastewater treatment plant
site has been largely cleared, however, and all construction and operation activities
would occur inside the fenced area, construction and operation of the proposed project
would have no adverse effects on wildlife.
Wetlands: A small seepage slope wetland is located along the roadside within the fence
line of the wastewater treatment plant boundary. Construction activities such as
roadwork or laying of pipeline could affect this wetland. However, this wetland will be
delineated and avoided during all construction activities; therefore, there would be no
adverse effects on this resource. Therefore, wetlands were dismissed as an impact topic.
Vegetation — Native Plant Communities: The majority of the wastewater treatment
plant site has been cleared of native vegetation and is maintained either as grassed areas
or space for buildings. Fill dirt placed on the proposed construction site could contain
seeds of nuisance vegetation, especially bittersweet, Celastrus orbiculatus. However,
- 22 -

emkA
contractors hauling fill dirt to the site would be required to take clean material from a
depth of at least 18 inches. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the
spread of non-native vegetation and there would no adverse effects on native vegetation
as a result. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further consideration.
,�►,
Ecologically Critical Areas: No congressionally designated natural resources, such as
ecologically critical areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or other unique natural
resources are located within the project site, and therefore, ecologically critical areas was
dismissed as an impact topic.
Floodplains: No floodplains are located within the project site. For this reason,
floodplains were dismissed as an impact topic.
Geological Resources: The geologic features in or near the site would not be affected
by implementation of the proposed action. For this reason, geological resources were
dismissed as an impact topic.
Prime or Unique Farmlands: The Farmland Protection Policy Act and the U.S.
Department of the Interior require an evaluation of impacts on prime and unique
agricultural lands. These lands require certain soil types and water availability. According
to the Natural Resources Conservation Service located in Asheville, there are no prime
or unique farmlands within or near the area proposed for the wastewater treatment
plant. Because these areas do not exist in the proposed project site, this topic was
dismissed from further consideration.
`o'N
Lightscape: Although the wastewater treatment plant would be used at night, minimal
e_"',
outside lighting would be used. The location of the wastewater treatment plant would
110�
result in negligible changes in light characteristics created by lighting. Outdoor lights
would, however, be shielded to direct the light downward and reduce upward intrusion.
For these reasons, lightscape was dismissed as an impact topic.
Cultural Resources: Construction of the wastewater treatment plant would occur in a
previously disturbed area. The National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center
conducted an assessment regarding Section io6 survey needs and determined that a
survey was not required. For these reasons, cultural resources is an impact topic that will
be dismissed from further evaluation.
Sacred Sites: There are no sacred sites, as defined by Executive Order 13007 near the
wastewater treatment plant site or within the construction area. For this reason, sacred
sites were dismissed as an impact topic.
,�.►,
Visitor Use and Experience / Viewshed: Blue Ridge Parkway visitors expected to use
facilities in the Mt. Pisgah area would benefit from improved wastewater treatment
services. The location of the wastewater treatment plant would not be altered, and is not
in an area that is normally visited. Therefore, the viewshed from the Blue Ridge Parkway
would not be affected. For these reasons, the visitor use and experience / viewshed
Am�
impact topic was dismissed from further analysis.
egft�
Concessions and Commercial Services: The wastewater treatment plant would not be
operated by concession or commercial venture. There would be no vending machines or
food service at the wastewater treatment plant. Since there would be no new concessions
�`
- 23 -
W,

associated with the wastewater treatment plant, concessions and commercial services
was dismissed as an impact topic.
Public Health and Safety: The proposed plant would be an improvement over the
existing facility and would have no adverse effects on public health and safety. Neither of
the two action alternatives would have any adverse direct, indirect or cumulative effects
on public health and safety. Public health and safety risks would be under control by the
National Park Service and would be managed in compliance with applicable state and
federal regulations.
-24-

�1
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The National Park Service conducted a Value Analysis and Choosing by Advantages
workshop for the project alternatives in the fall of 2005 (National Park Service, 2005). A
summary of this workshop's proceedings are provided in Appendix A. Eight action
alternatives for the existing plant site were evaluated. These were identified as
alternatives A through H (these designations are carried through this environmental
assessment for consistency). Six of the eight action alternatives were dismissed from
r�
further evaluation. These are described in the sections entitled "Other Alternatives
Considered but Dismissed." The alternatives carried forward for analysis in this
environmental assessment are Alternative B (the preferred alternative), Alternative A
(the other action alternative); and Alternative O (the no action alternative).
THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE O)
Alternative O, the no action alternative, would consist of continuing the present
management operations and conditions. Alternative O provides a basis for comparing
the environmental consequences of alternative B (Preferred Alternative) and the other
alternatives. Should alternative O, no action, be selected, the National Park Service
would respond to future needs and conditions associated with the park's objectives
without major actions or changes from the present course.
The existing wastewater treatment plant for the Mt. Pisgah area has a capacity to treat
30,000 gallons per day of wastewater. Flows range from 15,000 gallons per day on
average days during the operating season (April -November) to 30,000 gallons per day on
peak weekends during this same period. Wastewater, or influent, enters the plant via
gravity flow to a 0.46 acre, three -compartment aerated lagoon. From the lagoon it is
pumped to a lobe tank in the lagoon effluent transfer station. There are two existing
r�
effluent transfer (submersible type) pump units. The wastewater is then pumped through
filters, chlorinated, and de -chlorinated before being discharged to Flat Laurel Creek. A
diaphragm pump is located in a separate concrete chamber for pumping settled sludge
out of the lagoon. No more than two 55 gallons drums of chlorine are stored at the
WWTP for operational use. Chlorine is transported to the site by maintenance personnel
via government vehicles. It is purchased locally in Asheville.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits for the existing
facility are summarized in Table 2 (from Veltman 2005).
—25—

Table 2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements
For The Existing Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant
(From Veltman 2005)
Parameter
Average
Maximum
Flow (gallons/day)
32,000
Biological oxygen demands
(milligrams/liter)
30
45
Total suspended solids
(milligrams/liter)
30
45
Ammonia (milligrams/liter)
No Limit
No Limit
Whole Effluent Toxicity
biomonitorin excursions (pass/fail)
Pass/Fail @
2 %
Pass/Fail @
2 %
Phosphorus (milligrams/liter)
No Limit
No Limit
Fecal Coliform (Most Probable
Number)
<200
<400
Dissolved Oxygen (milligrams/liter)
1 • 2
1 • 2
H (Standard Units) I
I NA
1 6-9 j
existing aerated lagoon facility meets National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System effluent requirements on a regular basis except during peak flows in the summer
when ammonia levels are high and the lagoon levels drop (NPS, 2005b). On these
occasions, effluent ammonia toxicity may occur as indicated by whole effluent toxicity
biomonitoring excursions. Excessive sludge accumulation in the lagoons over the
operating season is the likely cause of the prior whole effluent toxicity excursions.
Maintaining the existing plant is not possible because of the continued risk of ammonia
toxicity. In addition, the existing plant cannot improve the effluent quality beyond the
existing conditions.
The NPDES permit does not have temperature requirements but the State of North
Carolina requires that the temperature of the receiving stream does not vary more then
degree centigrade above and below the discharge point. This has been maintained during
the life of the existing plant. This requirement is designed to protect trout in Pisgah
Creek, located several miles downstream of the Mt. Pisgah treatment plant.
THE OTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A)
Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility
Alternative A would include upgrading the existing lagoon treatment system at Mt.
Pisgah. Lagoon systems similar to the one at Mt. Pisgah are in operation throughout the
country and comply with similar effluent standards (30 milligrams per liter biological
oxygen demand and total suspended solids). The presence of filters downstream of the
lagoon at the Mt. Pisgah facility increases the likelihood of meeting the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements considerably. Without the
filters, algae in the effluent can cause total suspended solids violations during spring and
summer seasons.
— 26

The focus of alternative B is primarily on improving the sludge removal system and solids
storage treatment capabilities at the existing plant site. According to the July 8, 2005
�1
Technical Memorandum (Bailey 2005), the likely cause of the previous whole effluent
toxicity excursions were the excessive sludge accumulation in the lagoons over the
operating season. To facilitate more frequent sludge removal from the lagoon, a diesel -
driven pump would be installed on a floating barge. The lagoon sludge pump would
�°►
convey solids to a 25,000 gallon steel sludge storage tank. A 2.5 horsepower progressing
cavity sludge transfer pump would be located next to the storage tank so that at the end
of the season, sludge could be transferred to a sludge disposal truck. Many other facility
OWN
improvements would also be incorporated into this project including: sludge drying bed
�►
and Imhoff tank demolition, office building improvements, partial plant asphalt drive
,dWA�
reconstruction, and a new emergency electrical generator.
/01�
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
Alternative C: Polishing Constructed Wetlands Addition
/Mb"
J.F. New and Associates prepared a Preliminary Engineering Study in August 2001 that
evaluated a constructed wetlands treatment system to either supplement or replace the
existing lagoon system (J.F. New and Associates, 2001). In the Preliminary Engineering
Study, it was assumed that the State would issue a more stringent effluent permit in
December 20oi and that more stringent effluent ammonia or other nutrients standards
would be enforced. However this has not yet occurred.
A Technical Memorandums (Bailey 2005; J.F. New & Associates, Inc., 2ooi), an
'®'
independent report by Olver, Inc. (Veltman 2005) and a Value Analysis Report -Mini VA
(NPS 20o6f) were developed to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the aerated lagoon
'AMIN
treatment system with a constructed wetlands waste treatment system. The conclusion
of these assessments was that this was not a feasible alternative. Such a system has the
'`gft'
following disadvantages in relation to the Mt. Pisgah site (from NPS 20o6f):
'wl'
Based on preliminary sizing requirements of 20 lbs biological oxygen demand/(acre
11!51�
day), 3.5 acres to 5.o acres of constructed wetland area would be required to treat
the Mt. Pisgah wastewater. This amount of land is not available at the Mt. Pisgah
site.
Site constraints at the treatment facility site would severely limit construction of
any additional wetlands beyond the site limits without considerable earthwork
activities and cost.
Per discussions with North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, regulatory approval of a constructed wetland system for the Mt.
Pisgah site would be challenging.
Vegetation planted in the wetlands would require harvesting in the fall.
In a National Park Service technical memorandum dated July 8, 2005 (National
Park Service, 2005), it was reported that the only feasible way to integrate a wetland
system at Mt. Pisgah would be via a polishing wetland. A polishing wetland system
-27-

Of 0.3 acres could be located downstream of the existing filters and the aerated
lagoon system would remain in service.
Under this alternative, plant effluent would flow in and out of the wetland via
gravity, so no additional mechanical or electrical components would be required.
However, this alternative does not remove any of the existing mechanical system
components from service.
Alternative D: Install Recirculating Sand Filtration System
The National Park Service has had success using recirculating sand filtration systems at
other sites. A recirculating sand filtration system would require a minimum 92' by 18'
footprint to treat 30,000 gallons per day. Three septic tanks, a recirculating tank, and
recirculation pumps would be required for this alternative. Due to the larger area
requirements of this alternative, the only feasible sand filter and tank location would be
within the aerated lagoon footprint. This option would require a large amount of
compacted fill dirt to bring the top of the filter/tank elevations up to existing grade. A
concrete containment barrier would also have to be poured around the filter perimeter.
Per conversations with a recirculating sand filter manufacturer, the recirculating sand
filter can be anticipated to produce biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids
effluent quality less than io milligrams per liter. In addition, ammonia reduction is
expected to be in the 40 to 50% range.
Advantages of the recirculating sand filter system include prior experience with the
system at other National Park Service facilities while disadvantages include having a
limited filter construction period due to the need to utilize the aerated lagoon area.
Alternative E: Install Membrane Bioreactor Package Treatment System
A Membrane Bioreactor package system, an innovative alternative in wastewater
treatment, is similar in some respects to the extended aeration package treatment facility.
The Membrane Bioreactor uses membrane technology to separate mixed liquor
suspended solids in the aeration basin from treated effluent rather than a gravity
separation clarifier used in typical activated sludge processes. Similar levels of sludge
production would be expected from both systems, however. Membrane Bioreactor
systems produce superior effluent quality compared to most other wastewater treatment
technologies due to the very small membrane pore space through which the effluent
passes. This type of system would be expected to achieve biological oxygen demand and
total suspended solids concentrations less than 5 milligrams per liter and ammonia
concentration less than i milligram per liter.
In this scenario, the lagoon would be taken out -of -service and a new plant influent
pumping station wet -well with short-term equalization storage would be constructed.
Two submersible pumps would be provided in the pumping station. The Membrane
Bioreactor package plant would be mounted to a concrete slab on -grade. The exterior
dimensions of the pre -fabricated structure would be approximately 50' (length) by 15'
(wide) by 15' (height). Within the structure, the following zones would be present:
influent holding tank, anoxic basin, aeration basin, and a membrane basin (two cells).
The existing chlorination and de -chlorination facilities would be utilized. A
- 28 -

programmable logic controller (PLC) and process control panel would be provided to
control the system and all process components.
Advantages of the Membrane Bioreactor system include the superior effluent quality
while disadvantages include higher capital and operating costs (compared to an
extended aeration facility).
Alternative F: Install Membrane Bioreactor Package Treatment System with
Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection
This alternative is identical to alternative E, Install Membrane Bioreactor Package
Treatment System, except that the existing chlorination/de-chlorination equipment
would be taken out -of -service and a new in -line ultraviolet disinfection unit would be
installed.
The advantages of installing an ultraviolet disinfection system in conjunction with the
Membrane Bioreactor system include elimination of chlorine discharge to the
environment and elimination of chlorination / de -chlorination chemicals onsite.
Disadvantages include higher capital cost associated with purchasing the ultraviolet
treatment equipment.
,"WA
Alternative G: Install Sequencing Batch Reactor Treatment System
,A,
A Sequencing Batch Reactor treatment system would be constructed to replace the
Amos
existing aerated lagoon. The National Park Service has used Sequencing Batch Reactor
technology successfully at other parks. Two concrete basins would be constructed with
'laws
minimum dimensions of (Length-Width-Depth)(LWD) W (length) by 14' (width) by i9'
(depth). The Sequencing Batch Reactor system requires a minimum sidewater depth of
16'. There is a considerable amount of rock on the project site and it is very likely that
rock would be encountered while constructing these basins. The anticipated Sequencing
Batch Reactor effluent quality would likely be in the range of 20-15 milligrams per liter
biological oxygen demand, a0-IS milligrams per liter total suspended solids, and 5
milligrams per liter ammonia concentration. Therefore, it is anticipated that the existing
effluent filters would have to remain in service.
Advantages of the Sequencing Batch Reactor system include prior experience with the
system at other National Park Service facilities. Disadvantages include excessive
sidewater depth requirements and associated higher construction costs, and an effluent
quality that would potentially be very similar to the existing aerated lagoon system.
Alternative H: Install Orenco Advantex Filtration System
Under this alternative, eight, 5,000 gallons per day Orenco Advantex Filtration system
modules would replace the existing aerated lagoon. The National Park Service has used
this technology successfully at other parks. The filter modules have dimensions of
(LWD) W (length) by 8' (width) by 4'(height). The effluent quality would probably be in
the range of ao milligrams per liter biological oxygen demand, ao milligrams per liter
total suspended solids, and 5-10 milligrams per liter ammonia concentration. Based upon
these ranges, it is anticipated that the existing effluent filters would have to remain in
service.
1°"►
- 29 -
ems
eCRIN
eohl►

Advantages of the Orenco system include prior experience with the system at other
parks. Disadvantages include the requirement of a proprietary membrane technology
for long-term system operation. Replacing the media may cause problems in the future if
the filters become unavailable.
ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Table 3 summarizes the features of alternatives O, A and B, the three alternatives that are
analyzed in detail in this environmental assessment.
Five goals for wastewater management were identified in the "Purpose and Need"
section. The ability of alternatives O, A and B to meet each of these goals is summarized
in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, either of the action alternatives would effectively meet
all of the project goals. The No Action Alternative would not meet any of the goals.
Table 5 provides a brief summary of the effects alternatives O, A and B on the impact
topics that were retained for analysis. More detailed information on the effects of the
alternatives is provided in the "Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences" section.
-30-

Table 3. Description of the Alternatives for the
Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Management Upgrade
Alternative O Alternative B Alternative A
Feature (No Action) Package Plant Upgrade Existing Plant
Description
Meet State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources requirements
Treatment method
No action
No - during peak flows in the
summer when ammonia levels are
high and the lagoon levels drop. On
these occasions, effluent ammonia
toxicity may occur as indicated by
whole effluent toxicity
biomonitoring excursions.
Excessive sludge accumulation in
the lagoons over the operating
season is the likely cause of the
prior whole effluent toxicity
excursions.
Continued use of existing lagoon
treatment system: influent enters
three cell aerated lagoon, pumped
to a lobe tank, pumped through
filters, chlorinated, and de -
chlorinated, discharged to Flat
Laurel Creek.
A diaphragm pump is located in a
separate concrete chamber for
pumping settled sludge out of the
lagoon.
Construct a new package treatment Upgrade existing extended aeration
plant lagoon treatment facility at the same
site
Yes Yes
Replace the majority of the existing
treatment plant with a completely
enclosed extended aeration package
treatment plant system.
_31_
Maintain existing aerated lagoon
treatment; upgrade existing facility to
increase solids removal frequency
from lagoon; provide onsite solids
storage location.

Table 3. Description of the Alternatives for the
Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Management Upgrade (Continued)
Alternative O Alternative B Alternative A
Feature (No Action) Package Plant Upgrade Existing Plant
Disposal method Wastewater would continue to be
Wastewater would continue to be
discharged to Flat Laurel Creek.
discharge to Flat Laurel Creek.
Sludge would continue to be stored in the
Sludge would be stored in a 25,000
lagoon, pumped out, and transported
temporary holding tank, and then
offsite approximately twice a year. The
removed and transported offsite at
same amounts of sludge would be
the end of the year, or as needed.
generated under all three alternatives.
The same amounts of sludge would
be generated under all three
alternatives.
Additional facilities None
Pre-engineered, prefabricated
extended aeration package plant,
fully enclosed.
Use new filters or bypass existing
filters.
Remove lagoon from service.
New plant influent pumping station
with short-term equalization.
Cavity sludge transfer pumps for
transferring sludge to trucks at the
end of the season.
25,000 gallon steel sludge storage
tank.
Demolish old sludge drying bed and
Imhoff tank
Office building improvements.
Partial plant asphalt drive paving.
New emergency generator.
-32-
Wastewater would continue to be
discharge to Flat Laurel Creek.
Sludge would be stored in a 25,000
temporary holding tank, and then
removed and transported offsite at
the end of the year, or as needed.
The same amounts of sludge would
be generated under all three
alternatives.
Diesel drive pump on a floating
barge to facilitate more frequent
sludge removal.
Lagoon sludge pump.
Sludge storage tank.
Cavity sludge transfer pumps for
transferring sludge to trucks at the
end of the season.
Demolish old sludge drying bed and
Imhoff tank
Office building improvements.
Partial plant asphalt drive paving.
New emergency generator.
))))))))))))-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Table 3. Description of the Alternatives for the
Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Management Upgrade (Continued)
Alternative O Alternative B Alternative A
Feature (No Action) Package Plant Upgrade Existing Plant
Agency involvement
Capacity
Additional land use
State of North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources
Treatment capacity exceeds that needed
to meet maximum projected flows.
None — all construction would occur
within existing 5-acre site. 0.46 acre
Lagoon would be filled, graded and
seeded with native grasses.
State of North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural
Resources
Alternative B would simplify agency
approval of the project
-33-
State of North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural
Resources
Alternative B would have more
complex permitting requirements as
compared with Alternative A.
Average approximately 15,000
gallons per day of municipal plus
recreational vehicle disposal
wastewater during the operating
season from April through
November with peaks of 30,000
gallons per day during holiday
weekends.
None

Table 4- Project Objectives and the Ability of the Alternatives to Meet Them.
Alternative O Alternative A Alternative B
Goal (No Action) Upgrade Existing Plant Package Plant
Provide capacity of at No Yes Yes
least 30,000 gallons per
day
Meet all State of North No Yes Yes
Carolina regulations,
including ammonia
toxicity in the effluent
and temperature in
Flat Laurel Creek
Be capable of handling No Yes Yes
widely varying flow
volumes
—34—

)))))l))))))'))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Tnhia a rmmriaricnn of the Tmnactc of the A1tPrngtivPS
Impact Topics
Alternative 0--No Action
Alternative B-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A
Water Quality
Since no new construction would
There would be a potential for soil
The effects of Alternative A on
occur under the No Action
erosion and reduction in water
water quality during
Alternative, this alternative would
quality in Flat Laurel Creek during
construction would be similar
have no construction -related
the grading and leveling of the site
to the effects of Alternative B,
effects on water quality. During
where the package plant and other
since land would still be cleared
operation, the plant would be
new facilities are constructed. These
on the site for the new facilities.
expected to continue to
effects would be minimized by
The extent of disturbed area
experience occasional violations
implementation of best management
created under Alternative A
of the ammonia test, however.
practices for soil erosion during and
would be less than Alternative
Nonpoint runoff would also
following filling of the lagoon. The
B. However, there would still
continue to be generated from
project would therefore have minor,
be a potential to affect water
the existing disturbed site, but
local, short-term effects on water
quality in Flat Laurel Creek
would also continue to be filtered
quality in Flat laurel Creek during
during construction.
by the densely forested areas
construction.
Construction could therefore
between the site and Flat Laurel
During operation, Alternative B
have minor, local, short-term
Creek. Overall, the No Action
would result in improvements of the
adverse effects on water
Alternative would therefore have
quality of the effluent during
quality. These potential adverse
minor, local, long-term, adverse
operation of the new plant. These
effects would be mitigated by
effects on water quality during
improvements would minimize the
implementation of best
operation.
potential for problems with ammonia
management practices.
No new construction would
toxicity in the effluent, since the
During operation under
occur at the treatment plant
lagoon would be eliminated, and a
Alternative A, the upgraded
under the No Action Alternative,
more efficient treatment system
plant would discharge treated
so there would be no cumulative
would be used. Overall, operation of
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek.
construction -related effects on
the new package plant under
The quality of the effluent
water quality under the No
Alternative B would therefore result
would be improved as
Action Alternative. During
in a moderate, local, short-term
compared with the existing
—35—

TahlP c (.mmnaricnn of the Imnactc of the Alternatives (Continued)
Impact Topics
Alternative 0--No Action
Alternative B-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A
Water Quality (cont'd)
operation, however, low flow
beneficial effect on water quality.
plant. During operation, this
toilets installed at the Mt. Pisgah
All of the other construction projects
alternative would therefore
Inn would reduce the amount of
Mt. Pisgah Developed Area are
have local, minor and long -
wastewater received by the plant.
wastewater
now complete, with the exception of
term beneficial effects on water
This would result in a minor,
the installation of the low flow toilets
quality.
local, long-term, beneficial
and conversion of the gas station to a
The cumulative effects of
cumulative effect on water
country store. Because of these
Alternative A would be similar
quality.
factors, Alternative B would have
to Alternative B.
There would be no impairment of
minor, local, long-term beneficial
There would be no impairment
water quality or values as a result
cumulative effects on water quality.
of water quality or values as a
of the implementation of
There would be no impairment of
result of the implementation of
Alternative 4.
water quality or values as a result of
Alternative A.
the implementation of Alternative B.
Aquatic Resources
Since no new facilities would be
There would be a potential for soil
The effects of Alternative A on
constructed under the No Action
erosion and associated minor, local,
water quality during
Alternative, this alternative would
long-term adverse effects on aquatic
construction would be similar
have no construction -related
life in Flat Laurel Creek during the
to the effects of Alternative B,
effects on aquatic life in Flat
grading and leveling of any part of the
since land would still be cleared
Laurel Creek.
site where the package plant and
on the site for the new facilities.
During operation, the effects on
other new facilities were constructed.
The extent of disturbed area
aquatic life would parallel effects
These effects would be minimized by
created under Alternative A
on water quality. The plant would
implementation of best management
would be less than Alternative
continue to discharge treated
practices for soil erosion.
B, but there would still be a
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek, but
During operation, a larger area of
potential to affect aquatic life in
at lower volumes, fewer periodic
disturbed soils would exist on the site
Flat Laurel Creek.
-36-
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Takla r rnmi naricnn of the imnartc of the A1tPrnativeS Wnntinued)
Impact Topics
Alternative 0--No Action
Alternative B-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A
Aquatic Resources (cont'd)
excursions of ammonia toxicity
as compared with the No Action
Construction could therefore
would probably occur, and
Alternative and Alternative A, but
have minor, local, short-term
temperature requirements would
best management practices would be
adverse effects on aquatic life.
be met in Flat Laurel Creek.
employed to minimize the potential
These potential adverse effects
Nonpoint runoff from the
for soil erosion. Effects of nonpoint
would be mitigated by
existing site would continue to be
runoff during operation would
implementation of best
generated and would continue to
therefore have negligible, local, long-
management practices.
be filtered effectively by forested
term, adverse effects on aquatic life
During operation under
areas. Overall, the No Action
during operation.
Alternative A, the upgraded
Alternative would therefore have
Alternative B would result in
plant would discharge treated
minor, local, long-term, adverse
improvements of the quality of the
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek.
effects on aquatic life in Flat
effluent during operation of the new
The quality of the effluent
Creek during operation.
plant that would minimize the
would be improved as
Cumulative effects of the No
potential for ammonia toxicity effects
compared with the existing
Action Alternative on aquatic life
on aquatic life. Overall, operation of
plant. During operation, this
would parallel the cumulative
the new package plant under
alternative would therefore
effects on water quality, since the
Alternative B would therefore result
have local, minor and long -
two are related. The No Action
in minor, local, short-term beneficial
term beneficial effects on water
Alternative would have minor,
effects on aquatic life.
quality.
local, long-term, beneficial
All of the other construction projects
The cumulative effects of
cumulative effects on aquatic life.
in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area are
Alternative A would be similar
There would be no impairment of
now complete, with the exception of
to Alternative B.
aquatic life or values as a result of
the installation of the low flow toilets
There would be no impairment
the implementation of Alternative
and conversion of the gas station to a
of aquatic life or values as a
O.
country store. No construction-
result of the implementation of
related cumulative effects on water
Alternative A.
quality would therefore result under
-37-

T'ahln r ('nmrmnricnn of the Tmv%nrtc of tha AltPrnntiVPS fr.nnti111IP_[ii
Impact Topics
Alternative 0--No Action
Alternative B-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A
Aquatic Resources (cont'd)
Alternative B. Operation of the new
low -flow toilets in the Mt. Pisgah Inn
will reduce the amount of wastewater
generated. Therefore, Alternative B
would result in a minor, local, long-
term beneficial cumulative effect on
aquatic life during operation.
There would be no impairment of
aquatic life or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative B.
Special Status Species
Construction activities would
Construction would have no effect
The effects of Alternative A on
have no effect on state- or
on state- or federally -listed species of
species of special concern
federally -listed species of plants
plants or animals under Alternative B
would be similar to Alternative
or animals under the No Action
because the site is completely cleared
B - the proposed project would
Alternative since no listed species
and no species occur in the upland
have no effect on these
occur in the construction area,
portion of the site. There is a
resources. Operation of an
and no construction would occur
potential for listed species to occur in
upgraded treatment plant
under this alternative. Continued
the wetland located inside the fence
would have no adverse
operation of the existing plant
on the existing plant site, but this has
cumulative effect on state- or
would have no effect on state- or
yet to be confirmed by an actual
federally -listed species since no
federally -listed species within
survey. Prior to any construction
listed species are present on the
upland habitats inside the fenced-
within the fenced -in area, a survey
site or in Flat Laurel Creek.
in site, because none of these
would be completed, and the wetland
Alternative A would not
species are present on the plant
would be delineated and avoided.
produce major adverse effects
site. The continued discharge of
Operation of a new package plant
to listed species whose
treated wastewater to Flat Laurel
under Alternative B would have no
conservation is (i) necessary to
Creek would have no adverse
effect on state- or federally -listed
-38-

) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )1) ) ) )) )1) ) ) )')) ) ) ) ) )')
TahlP c_ r.mmnaricnn of the Tmnacts of the Alternatives (Continued)
Impact Topics
Alternative 0--No Action
Alternative B-Preferred Alternative
Alternative A
Special Status Species (cont'd)
effect on state- or federally -listed
species within upland habitats the
fulfill specific purposes
species since these species do not
fenced -in site, since none of these
identified in the establishing
occur in the creek.
species are present. Operation of the
legislation of the park, (2) key
There would be no impairment of
new package plant under the
to the natural or cultural
listed species or values as a result
Alternative B would also not
integrity of the park or
of the implementation of
adversely affect any listed species on
opportunities for enjoyment of
Alternative O.
the site. The continued discharge of
the park, or (3) identified as a
treated wastewater to Flat Laurel
goal in the park's general
Creek would have no effect on state-
management plan or other
or federally -listed species under
National Park Service planning
Alternative B since no listed species
documents.
are present.
There would be no impairment
There would be no impairment of
of listed species or values as a
listed species or values as a result of
result of the implementation of
the implementation of Alternative B.
Alternative A.
-39-

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE B)
Construct Extended Aeration Package Treatment System
Pre-engineered, pre -fabricated extended aeration activated sludge wastewater treatment
facilities are commonly used for flow ranges similar to those at the Mt. Pisgah plant.
These systems apply the same biochemical technologies frequently used in larger
facilities, but can be procured in a fully enclosed system designed for smaller flow ranges.
If properly operated and maintained, extended aeration package treatment facilities
produce acceptable effluent quality, and low levels of biological oxygen demand, total
suspended solids and ammonia. The effluent from the package facility can either be
conveyed to the existing filters or bypass the existing filters.
Under this alternative, the lagoon would be taken out -of -service and filled in with
compacted dirt and the useable plant site area would be increased by approximately 0.46
acres. A new plant influent pumping station wet well with short-term equalization
storage also would be constructed. Two submersible pumps would be provided in the
pumping station. The extended aeration package plant would be mounted to a concrete
slab on -grade. The exterior dimensions of the pre -fabricated structure would be
approximately 70' (length) by 15' (wide) by 15' (height). Within the structure, the
following zones are present: sludge thickening/storage zone, aeration zone, clarifier
zone, and a disinfection contact zone (if needed). The sludge thickening/storage zone
would temporarily hold biosolids generated in the system until solids are conveyed to a
new onsite sludge storage / treatment facility. Sludge would be gravity conveyed to a
25,000 gallon steel sludge storage tank. A 2.5 horsepower progressing cavity sludge
transfer pump would be located next to the storage tank, so that sludge could be
transferred to a sludge disposal truck. Sludge drying bed and Imhoff tank demolition
would also be included under this alternative. To facilitate facility reliability, a new 25
kW generator would also be included on -site.
Advantages of the extended aeration package treatment facility would be the relatively
low cost, high degree of reliability, and compact footprint. Alternative B would also
provide a new treatment facility for relatively the same costs as alternative A (described
below). Given the age of the existing system, there would be continued maintenance
concerns if alternative A were implemented. Under alternative B. the effluent, or treated
wastewater, would be the same quality or slightly better than the existing system. Since
extended aeration package plants are a proven wastewater treatment technology, the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources permitting process
should also be simplified.
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best promote the
national environmental policy expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act. The
environmentally preferred alternative would cause the least damage to the biological and
physical environment, and would best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural,
and natural resources.
—40—

Section ioi(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act identifies six criteria to help
determine the environmentally preferred alternative. The act directs that federal plans
should:
Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for
,y
succeeding generations.
Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and
culturally pleasing surroundings.
Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences.
Preserve important historical, cultural, and natural aspects of our national
heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports
diversity and variety of individual choice.
Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.
Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable resources.
Alternatives A and B both meet these goals more effectively than Alternative O, the No
Action Alternative. Each of the action alternatives would effectively manage wastewater
and protect water quality. In addition, each has environmental advantages compared to
the other.
Both action alternatives would enable the National Park Service to "Fulfill the
responsibilities ... as trustee of the environment."
"Safe, healthful,... and esthetically ... pleasing surroundings" would better be
attained by Alternative A. This alternative would eliminate the lagoon, which
would be filled, graded, and seeded with native grasses. Otherwise, Alternatives A
and B would meet this requirement in a similar manner.
"Productive ... surroundings" would be better achieved by Alternative A, which
would create a grassed field at the site of the filled lagoon.
�•,
Both alternatives would provide an equal "range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences." The overall effect of either of the two
alternatives would be moderate, beneficial effect on water quality and aquatic life
through improved treatment capability.
Oak,
Using the same criterion, Alternative A would "attain the widest range of
rAlk,
beneficial uses of the environment" by creating more grassed area within the
existing plant site.
Both alternatives would help "preserve important historical, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage" by improving water quality in Flat Laurel Creek.
�''►
Since all construction would take place within the existing plant site, and no
-41-

cultural resources are present, neither alternative would have any effect on
historical or cultural resources.
Neither action alternative would provide beneficial reuse of water, but would
provide improved treatment.
Of the two action alternatives, Alternative A is environmentally preferred. The deciding
factors include:
The lagoon would not have to be filled, which would avoid the need to haul 4,500
cubic yards of fill dirt to the site, with the associated potential for soil erosion and
truck traffic to and from the site;
An overall smaller amount of land would be disturbed to upgrade the existing
facilities.
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
For all action alternatives, best management practices and other mitigation measures
would be used to prevent or minimize potential adverse effects associated with the
construction and operation of the wastewater treatment plant. These practices and
measures would be incorporated into the project construction documents and plans to
reduce the magnitude of impacts and ensure that major adverse impacts would not
occur. Mitigation measures undertaken during project implementation would include,
but would not be limited to those listed below. The impact analysis in the
"Environmental Consequences" section was performed assuming that these best
management practices and mitigation measures would be implemented as part of all
action alternatives.
Practices to Minimize Effects on Water Quality and Aquatic Life
Implementation of best management practices would result in local, direct, negligible
effects on water quality resulting from soil erosion. All appropriate best management
practices would be implemented during construction to prevent degradation of local
waters and watersheds. These would include:
Only clean fill, preferably from some site on the Parkway, shall be used. Any fill
coming from off -site shall be inspected (as well as the site it came from) to reduce
the chances for introduction of exotic plant species.
Construction and other debris shall be disposed of according to Superintendent's
Order #6, Solid Waste Disposal, dated July 16, a003.
There should be no large tankers allowed on treatment plant road after
construction.
In the event any action is to be considered that could impact concession services
in the Mt. Pisgah area, the Concessions Office shall be provided with advance
notification of at least 3o days.
Post construction mitigation measures would include sodding or seeding all exposed
soils to prevent erosion, performing routine maintenance on all stormwater treatment
-42-

facilities, keeping trash and debris cleared up, and avoiding using chemical pesticides
and fertilizers on the landscape.
Practices to Minimize Effects on Special Status Species
A survey of the wetland inside the fenced -in area will be conducted to delineate the
boundaries of this resource more precisely so it can be avoided during construction and
operation. In addition, the National Park Service will conduct a survey of the wetland to
determine if any listed species of plants or animals are present in this wetland. The
wetland will also be marked and avoided during construction and operation.
- 43 -

This page intentionally left blank
—44—

P" 1
�p
�1
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
This section describes the features of the affected environment that could potentially be
affected by the proposed Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant project, and provides
an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of each of the alternatives.
A.,,
The section is organized according to the previously described three impact topics,
which allows for a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most
relevant issues. To facilitate the comparison of environmental consequences, the
features of the affected environment for each impact topic are first described, followed
by an assessment of the potential effects of each alternative. These include, in sequence,
the No Action Alternative, Alternative B (the preferred alternative, extended aeration
package plant) and Alternative A (upgrade existing plant).
/Mb`
The National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of context, intensity and
duration of environmental impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and measures
to mitigate impacts. National Park Service policy also requires that "impairment" of
natural and cultural resources be evaluated in all environmental documents. These
assessments are therefore provided for each impact topic in the discussion that follows.
Methodology
General Evaluation Methodology
For each impact topic, the analysis includes a brief description of the affected
environment and an evaluation of the effects of implementing each alternative. The
impact analysis is based on information provided by national park service staff, relevant
references and technical literature citations, and subject matter experts. The impact
analyses involved the following steps.
r, Define issues of concern, based on public scoping.
em\ Identify the geographic area that could be affected.
egm� Define the resources within that area that could be affected.
?=*% Compare the resources to the area of potential effect.
04h% Identify the effects caused by the alternative, in comparison to the baseline
represented by the No Action Alternative, to determine the relative change in
resource conditions. Characterize the effects based on the following factors:
Whether the effect would be beneficial or adverse.
The area affected by the alternative, such as local or regional.
,a•, Duration of the effect, either short-term or long-term. Unless an impact -
topic -specific definition of these terms is provided, the following will be
ANN used.
/Awl — 45 —

A short-term impact would last only a few days or weeks.
A long-term impact would last several years or more, or would recur
periodically over several years.
The intensity of the effect, either negligible, minor, moderate, or major.
Impact -topic -specific thresholds for each of these classifications are
provided in each impact topic methodology section. Threshold values
were developed based on federal and state standards, consultation with
regulators from applicable agencies, and discussions with subject matter
experts. Table 6 summarizes the impact thresholds used in this
environmental assessment.
Potential indirect effects of the proposed action. An example of an indirect
effect would be changes in water quality caused by growth that is induced
by a proposed project. However, the proposed project would cause
negligible or no indirect effects in all cases. Therefore, analyses of indirect
effects are not provided in this environmental assessment.
Determine whether impairment would occur to resources and values that are
considered necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the Blue Ridge
Parkway.
Determine cumulative -effects by evaluating the effect in conjunction with the past,
current, or foreseeable future actions for the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area, Blue
Ridge Parkway, and the region.
If appropriate, identify mitigation measures that may be employed to offset
potential adverse impacts.
—46—

1r_U1 Ja inntT16rne1 t%1A Tlai initinnc
Impact Topic
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Major
Duration
Water Quality
Impacts would not be
Impacts would be
Changes in water quality
Changes in water quality
Short-term - Following
detectable. Levels of
measurable, but water
would be measurable
would be readily measurable,
construction, recovery
water quality
quality parameters
and readily apparent,
and some water quality
would take less than one
parameters would be
would be well within all
but water quality
standards would be
year
well below all water
water quality standards
parameters would be
periodically approached,
Long-term - Following
quality standards for
for designated uses.
within all water quality
equaled, or exceeded. State
construction, recovery
designated uses. No
State water quality and
standards for the
water quality regulations and
would take longer than
vegetation or wildlife
anti -degradation policy
designated use. State
antidegradation policy may
one year.
effects associated with
would not be violated.
water quality and
be violated. Changes in
altered water quality
Changes in vegetation
antidegradation policy
vegetation and/or wildlife use
would be evident.
or wildlife use and
would not be violated.
and health associated with
health associated with
Changes in vegetation
water quality would be
water quality would be
and/or wildlife use and
measurable and readily
slight but measurable.
health associated with
apparent, even to a casual
water quality would be
observer. Extensive
measurable and readily
mitigation measures would be
apparent. Mitigation
necessary and their success
would be necessary to
would not be assured.
offset adverse effects,
and would likely be
successful.
Aquatic
Aquatic resources and
Effects on aquatic
A change in aquatic
Effects on aquatic
Habitats and
resources
their habitats would not
resources or habitats
populations or habitats
populations or habitats
populations:
be affected or the
would be measurable or
would occur over a
would be readily apparent,
Short-term - Recovers in
effects would be at or
perceptible, but
relatively large area. The
and would substantially
less than a year after
below the level of
localized within a small
change would be readily
change aquatic populations
project construction.
detection and would
area. While the
measurable in terms of
over a large area in and out of
Long-term - Takes more
not be measurable or of
mortality of individual
abundance, distribution,
the national park. Extensive
than a year to recover
perceptible
plants and animals
quantity, or quality of
mitigation would be needed
after project is
consequence to aquatic
might occur, the
populations. Mitigation
to offset adverse effects, and
constructed.
populations.
viability of aquatic
measures would be
the success of mitigation
populations would not
necessary to offset
measures could
be affected and the
adverse effects, and
not be assured.
community, if left alone,
would likely be
would recover.
successful.
-47-

T..1.1.. ! T.s..�ni.� TAr„n 'T'i.rne���� Ti0f1t11*lAl'fC rr�A11t117.1Plli
Impact Topic-
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Major
Duration
Species of
No federally- or
The action would result
An action would result
Individuals or population of a
Special Concerni
territorial -listed species
in detectable impacts to
in detectable impacts on
federally or territorial listed
would be affected, or
an individual (or
individuals or
species, critical habitat, or the
the action would affect
individuals) of a
population of a federally
natural processes sustaining
an individual of a listed
federally or territorially
or territorially listed
them would be measurably
species or its critical
listed species or its
species, critical habitat,
affected. Key ecosystem
habitat, but the change
critical habitat, but they
or the natural processes
processes might be
would be so small that it
would not be expected
sustaining them. Key
permanently altered resulting
would not be of any
to result in substantial
ecosystem processes
in long-term changes in
measurable or
population fluctuations
may experience
population numbers and
perceptible
and would not be
disruptions that may
permanently modifying
consequence to the
expected to have any
result in population or
critical habitat. Major adverse
protected individual or
measurable long-term
habitat condition
effects would equate with a
its population.
effects on species,
fluctuations that would
"may affect/likely to
Negligible effect would
habitats, or natural
be outside the range of
adversely affect/adversely
equate with a "no
processes sustaining
natural variation (but
modify critical habitat"
effect" USFWS
them. Minor effects
would return to natural
USFWS determination.
determination.
would equate with a
conditions). Moderate
"may affect/not likely to
level adverse effects
adversely affect"
would equate with a
USFWS determination.
"may affect/likely to
adversely
affect/adversely modify
critical habitat" USFWS
determination.
'The Endangered Species Act defines the terminology used to assess impacts to listed species as follows:
No effect — When a proposed action would not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.
May affect / not likely to adversely affect — Effects on special status species are discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to occur and not able to be meaningfully
measured, detected, or evaluated) or are completely beneficial.
May affect / likely to adversely affect — When an adverse effect to a listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of proposed actions and the effect
either is not discountable or is completely beneficial.

�1
r�
Cumulative Effects Analysis Method
The Council on Environmental Quality (1978) regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act require assessment of cumulative effects in the
decision -making process for federal actions. Cumulative effects are defined as "the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40
CFR 15o8.7). Cumulative effects are considered for both the no action alternative and the
two action alternatives.
Cumulative effects were determined by combining the effects of the alternative with
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was
necessary to identify other past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable future actions at the
Mt. Pisgah Developed Area, within the Blue Ridge Parkway, and in the surrounding
region.
Past actions that have the potential to have a cumulative effect in conjunction with this
wastewater management project include the rehabilitation of the Mt. Pisgah Developed
r�
Area, which was addressed in a previous environmental assessment. This project
included the following components:
Replace all water lines in campground Loops A and B. This consists of
approximately 3200 feet of pipe that were placed in the existing sewer easement
and about 96o feet in new areas. The existing water lines were abandoned in
place, and the existing water line easements were allowed to re -vegetate. The
rerouted sections would be:
The 16o-foot line to a yard hydrant at south end of Loop A rerouted to
avoid passing through two campsites.
The main line that runs through Loops A and B rerouted to consolidate all
utilities as much as possible into one easement. The new main water line
was placed inside of the existing sewer line easements.
Seven drinking fountains in the interior of Loops A and B were removed
and replaced with eight new yard hydrants along the loop roads. This
required five new sections of water line (approximately Boo feet total)
within the loops. The routes of the lines were chosen to follow existing
paths where possible and avoid large trees. The social trails to the existing
drinking fountains were allowed to revegetate.
Construct approximately 800 feet of new waterline from the
restaurant/concessions area to Loop A. Approximately ioo feet of this route
would pass through a wooded area. The route was chosen to avoid large trees.
Replace approximately i000 feet of sewer line and five manholes in the
restaurant/lodging area, including a crossing under the Blue Ridge Parkway. All
lines were placed adjacent to the existing lines within the existing easement,
except for a 250-foot section relocated io feet to avoid a building. The existing
lines was abandoned in place.
,�•, — 49 —
ANN

Demolish the existing aboveground sewer line that crosses the wetland. The
existing aboveground sewer line, concrete piers and the two sections of metal
pipe was removed by crane to allow natural water flow through the current
crossing area. Disturbance did extend further into the wetland.
Construct a new ioo-foot long steel footbridge over the wetland. The maximum
height of the bridge at the top of the railings was approximately io feet above the
lowest point ground level of the crossing. The bridge railings was approximately 5
feet above ground level at each end of the bridge.
New water and sewer lines were suspended from the bridge. Approximately 200
feet of water line in the existing easement inside Loop C were replaced to
connect with the water line that crosses the bridge. All footings for the bridge
were constructed outside of the delineated wetland area. Frequent removal of
wetland vegetation was required.
Replace approximately 4500 feet of water line on the west side of the Blue Ridge
Parkway to the picnic area, and on the west side of the sewage treatment plant
access road. This line was installed adjacent to the existing line within the existing
easement. The existing asbestos -cement pipe was abandoned in place, except in
certain locations where it had to be removed due to space constraints. An
additional 400 feet of new water line was constructed in the shoulder of the
picnic area access road, replacing a line that runs in an easement. The existing
easement was then allowed to re -vegetate.
Replace approximately 2600 feet of sewer line and 16 manholes from Loop C to
the sewage treatment plant, and i000 feet from the picnic area to the sewage
treatment plant. The existing lines was removed, but the manholes were reused if
possible.
Repave the access road to the sewage treatment plant.
Demolish seven campsites adjacent to the bog. In Loop C, number 131 was
removed, and in Loop B, numbers 37, 40, 44 42) 44, and 46 were removed. This
included removal of pavement in parking slips, tent pad materials and edging,
picnic tables, grills, trash receptacles, and curbstones. The natural grade of each
site was restored and a layer of mulch was placed over the area.
Construction of all of the above projects has been finished, except for some warranty
work that is currently ongoing. The warranty work does not involve any construction
and would not affect natural or cultural resources in any way.
Future projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area include:
Upgrading and expanding the rooms at the Mt. Pisgah Inn, and installing low -
flush toilets. This would reduce the flows to the wastewater treatment plant over
what they are currently.
Improvements to the country store. This is a upgrade of an existing facility would
have no environmental effects.
—50—

f�1
l�1
f"'t1
Because there would be no land disturbing activities associated with these two projects,
it was determined that they would have no adverse construction -related effects on
natural or cultural resources. However, the reduction in flow resulting from installation
of low -flow toilets in the Mt. Pisgah Inn would have beneficial effects, and these are
included in the impact assessment.
�►
Impairment Analysis Method
National Park Service Management Policies 200r (NPS 2000) require analysis of potential
effects to determine whether or not actions would impair national park service resources
or values.
The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act
and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to
conserve park resources and values. NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to
minimize to the greatest degree practicable, actions that would adversely affect park
resources and values.
These laws give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to
park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a
park, so long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and
values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management
discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the
statutory requirement (enforceable by the federal courts) that the National Park Service
must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and
specifically provides otherwise.
The impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is
an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would
harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. Impairment may result
from NPS activities in managing the park, from visitor activities, or from activities
undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park.
An impact to any park resource or value may constitute impairment. However, an impact
would be most likely to constitute impairment if it affects a resource or value whose
conservation is:
Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or
proclamation of the park;
AVI`
Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for
enjoyment of the park; or
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS
planning documents.
A determination on impairment is included in the impact analysis section for all impact
topics relating to Blue Ridge Park Way Area resources and values. It is based on the
_
impact -topic -specific definition of impairment that is provided in each national
recreation area resource and value impact topic methodology section.
�
— SI

Water Quality
Affected Environment
The existing wastewater treatment plant discharges treated effluent to Flat Laurel Creek,
an intermittent stream located approximately 1/8 of a mile downslope of the plant. Flat
Laurel Creek is an upper tributary of Pisgah Creek, a tributary of the East Fork of the
Pigeon River (Figure 4). Pisgah Creek is classified as a trout water by the State of North
Carolina (NCWRC 20o6). Both creeks are located in the French Broad River basin,
defined as United States Geological Survey Cataloging Unit o6010105 (EPA 2oo6). Water
quality in this area is good, and none of the streams are listed on the 303(d) list (NC
Division of Water Quality 20o6).
The discharge to Flat Laurel Creek is permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. The permit does not specify a limit for ammonia, but the plant has
been required by the State of North Carolina to conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity
Testing in the last two years. In August 2004, the plant received an effluent chronic
toxicity violation for failing the Whole Effluent Toxicity text for ammonia. No ammonia
toxicity violations occurred in 2005 (NPS 20o6b).
The discharge permit does not have a temperature limit, but the State of North Carolina
requires that the difference in temperature above and below the discharge in Flat Laurel
Creek differ by no more than % degree Centigrade. The temperature of the water in Flat
Laurel Creek is therefore measured on a regular basis above and below the discharge
point from the plant. This requirement has been met.
The plant is located on a small, steep sided knoll above the Flat Laurel Creek drainage.
Water quickly reaches Flat Laurel Creek via overland sheet flow during rain events, as
well as from intermittent drainages above and below the site. The area surrounding the
site is heavily forested, and the abundant vegetation and soil cover provides an effective
filter for nonpoint runoff. The plant site contains approximately five acres of impervious
and/or disturbed land upslope of Flat Laurel Creek. The rest of the Mt. Pisgah
Developed Area also contains paved areas and other types of impervious surfaces such as
rooftops at the Mt. Pisgah Inn, country store and other small buildings.
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management
Analysis: No new facilities would be constructed under the No Action Alternative.
Therefore, levels of soil erosion and potential associated effects on water quality of Flat
Laurel Creek would be similar to present conditions. Alternative O would therefore have
no adverse construction -related effects on water quality.
During operation under the No Action Alternative, the plant would continue to
discharge treated effluent to Flat Laurel Creek, but at lower volumes than it does at
present during the year, because of the installation of low flow toilets in the Mt. Pisgah
Inn. The discharge limits of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
would continue to be met, except periodic excursions of ammonia toxicity would
probably still occur. These excursions usually occur when the lagoon is drawn down
during periods of peak use in late summer and fall, and the water in the lagoon comes
into closer proximity to the solids on the bottom. With lower flows, however, these
—52—

!'1
excursions would be expected to be fewer, since the lagoon would not experience
drawdown as frequently as it does currently, and the volume of wastewater would be
.
lower than at the present time.
The temperature of the discharge from the wastewater treatment plant would continue
to meet the % degree Centigrade requirement in Flat Laurel Creek. With lower discharge
volumes, the potential for exceeding the temperature limits would be expected to be
reduced.
During operation, nonpoint runoff from the existing site would continue to be generated
during rain events through sheet flow and via intermittent streams. Because the area
below the site is densely forested, however, runoff from the site would continue to be
filtered effectively. Water quality in Flat Laurel Creek and Pisgah Creek would therefore
be similar to existing conditions.
Overall, the No Action Alternative would have minor, local, long-term, adverse effects
on water quality during operation.
Cumulative Impacts: No new construction would occur at the wastewater treatment
plant under the No Action Alternative, and all of the other construction projects in the
Mt. Pisgah Developed Area are now complete, with the exception of the installation of
the low flow toilets and conversion of the gas station to a country store. Since
construction of these two remaining projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area do not
involve any land clearing, they will have no cumulative effects on water quality through
soil erosion. Therefore, no construction -related cumulative effects on water quality
would result under the No Action Alternative.
Operation of the existing plant would be continued using the current procedures. Low
flow toilets installed at the Mt. Pisgah Inn would reduce the amount of wastewater
received by the plant. This would result in a minor, local, long-term, beneficial
cumulative effect on water quality during operation.
Conclusion: Since no new construction would occur under the No Action Alternative,
this alternative would have no construction -related effects on water quality. During
operation, the plant would be expected to continue to experience occasional violations
of the ammonia test, however. Nonpoint runoff would also continue to be generated
from the existing disturbed site, but would also continue to be filtered by the densely
forested areas between the site and Flat Shoal Creek. Overall, the No Action Alternative
would therefore have minor, local, long-term, adverse effects on water quality during
operation.
No new construction would occur at the treatment plant under the No Action
#W'N
Alternative, so there would be no cumulative construction -related effects on water
quality under the No Action Alternative. During operation, however, low flow toilets
installed at the Mt. Pisgah Inn would reduce the amount of wastewater received by the
/MI,
_
plant. This would result in a minor, local, long-term, beneficial cumulative effect on
water quality.
The No Action Alternative would not produce major adverse effects to water resources
whose conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
,�,� — 53 —

establishing legislation of the park, (a) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park
or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of water resources or values as a result of the
implementation of the No Action Alternative.
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System - Preferred
Alternative
Analysis: The potential effects of this alternative during construction on water quality
are related to soil erosion. Soils would be disturbed in an approximately 70 x 15 foot area
required for construction of the extended aeration package system. The package plant
would be constructed in the eastern end of the site just inside the gate, which would
require removal of the abandoned Imhoff sludge treatment tanks and sludge beds. Some
additional new associated facilities would also be constructed that would result in soil
disturbance. These activities would increase the potential for soil erosion and associated
effects on water quality in Flat Laurel Creek during the grading and leveling of the site.
These effects would be minimized by implementation of best management practices for
soil erosion.
A distinct feature of this alternative would be the filling of the 0.46-acre lagoon during
construction. This would require hauling approximately 4,500 cubic yards of fill dirt
from off site and placing it in the abandoned and drained lagoon. The filled lagoon
would then be graded, compacted, and planted with native grasses. During and after the
filling of the lagoon with new dirt, there would a potential for soil erosion and a
reduction in water quality to occur in Flat Laurel Creek during rain events. These effects
would be minimized by implementation of best management practices for soil erosion
during and following filling of the lagoon.
Because the lagoon would be filled under Alternative B, but remain in service under
Alternative A, a larger area of disturbed soil would occur under Alternative B as
compared with Alternative A. However, best management practices would be employed
during construction to control soil erosion during filling of the lagoon. With these
mitigation measures in place, the project would have minor, local, short-term effects on
water quality in Flat laurel Creek during construction.
During operation, a larger area of disturbed soils would exist on the site as compared
with the No Action Alternative and Alternative A because the 0.46 acre lagoon would be
filled and the surface would be grassed and maintained as an open area. This would
increase the potential for erosion and subsequent effects on water quality of Flat Laurel
Creek. However, best management practices would be employed to minimize the
potential for soil erosion from the site during operation. Effects of nonpoint runoff
during operation would therefore have minor, local, long-term, adverse effects on water
quality during operation.
Alternative B would result in improvements of the quality of the effluent during
operation of the new plant. These improvements would minimize the potential for
problems with ammonia toxicity in the effluent, since the lagoon would be eliminated,
and a more efficient treatment system would be used. Temperature limits above and
—54—

�1
�t
below the discharge point in Flat Laurel Creek would continue to be met. Sludge would
be stored in a 25,000 gallon tank prior to removal once or twice a year to an approved
facility. Sludge disposal would therefore have no effects on water quality in Flat Laurel
�..►, Creek or elsewhere.
Overall, operation of the new package plant under Alternative B would therefore result
in a moderate, local, short-term beneficial effect on water quality.
Cumulative Effects: All of the other construction projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed
Area are now complete, with the exception of the installation of the low flow toilets and
conversion of the gas station to a country store. Since construction of these two
remaining projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area does not involve any land clearing,
these projects will have no effects on water quality through soil erosion. Therefore, no
construction -related cumulative effects on water quality would result under Alternative
B.
0"k, Operation of the new low -flow toilets in the Mt. Pisgah Inn will reduce the amount of
wastewater generated and treated at the new package plant. The operation of the new
package plant under Alternative B would also result in an improvement in water quality
of the flow that is received from the developed area. The combined effect would
therefore be an improvement over existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative B would
result in minor, local, long-term beneficial cumulative effects on water quality.
Conclusion: There would be a potential for soil erosion and reduction in water quality
,a•, in Flat Laurel Creek during the grading and leveling of the site where the package plant
and other new facilities are constructed. These effects would be minimized by
implementation of best management practices for soil erosion during and following
filling of the lagoon. The project would therefore have minor, local, short-term effects
on water quality in Flat laurel Creek during construction.
/Ml�
During operation, Alternative B would result in improvements of the quality of the
effluent during operation of the new plant. These improvements would minimize the
potential for problems with ammonia toxicity in the effluent, since the lagoon would be
eliminated, and a more efficient treatment system would be used. Overall, operation of
r�
the new package plant under Alternative B would therefore result in a moderate, local,
short-term beneficial effect on water quality.
All of the other construction projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area are now
complete, with the exception of the installation of the low flow toilets and conversion of
the gas station to a country store. Because of these factors, Alternative B would have
minor, local, long-term beneficial cumulative effects on water quality.
Alternative B would not produce major adverse effects to water quality whose
,®•,
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
Auk,
there would be no impairment of water quality or values as a result of the
�►
implementation of Alternative B.
,A,,
— 55 —

Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility
Analysis: The effects of Alternative A on water quality during construction would be
similar to the effects of Alternative B, since land would still be cleared on the site for the
new sludge storage tank, demolition of the existing sludge drying beds and Imhoff tanks,
office building improvements, and reconstruction of the plant asphalt drive. The extent
of disturbed area created under Alternative A, however, would be 0.46 acres less than
Alternative B because the lagoon would not be filled in Alternative A. There would still
be a potential to affect water quality in Flat Laurel Creek, however, during construction.
Construction would therefore have minor, local, short-term adverse effects on water
quality. These potential adverse effects would be mitigated by implementation of best
management practices.
During operation under Alternative A, the upgraded plant would discharge treated
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek. The quality of the effluent would be improved as compared
with the existing plant. The discharge limits of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit would continue to be met, and the potential for periodic
excursions of ammonia toxicity would be minimized. The temperature requirements for
Flat Laurel Creek would continue to be met. Sludge would be disposed off site in an
approved facility. During operation, this alternative would therefore have local, minor
and long-term beneficial effects on water quality.
Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be similar to
Alternative B.
Conclusion: The effects of Alternative A on water quality during construction would be
similar to the effects of Alternative B, since land would still be cleared on the site for the
new facilities. The extent of disturbed area created under Alternative A would be less
than Alternative B. However, there would still be a potential to affect water quality in
Flat Laurel Creek during construction. Construction could therefore have minor, local,
short-term adverse effects on water quality. These potential adverse effects would be
mitigated by implementation of best management practices.
During operation under Alternative A, the upgraded plant would discharge treated
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek. The quality of the effluent would be improved as compared
with the existing plant. During operation, this alternative would therefore have local,
minor and long-term beneficial effects on water quality.
The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be similar to Alternative B.
Alternative A would not produce major adverse effects to water quality whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (a) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of water quality or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative A.
—56—

e�
.Ail'1
Oak,
Aquatic Resources
Affected Environment
Flat Laurel Creek Flat Laurel Creek drains into Pisgah Creek, which in turn connects to
the East Fork of the Pigeon River. No detailed information on the aquatic life of Flat
Laurel Creek is currently available. However, it is known that Pisgah Creek is managed
as trout waters by the State of North Carolina (NCWRC 20o6).
A small stream also flows down the slope immediately above the plant where it then
flows into a small emergent wetland located just inside the plant fence, near the entrance
gate. Based on the soils survey and maps completed by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service in 2002, this is an intermittent stream that originates above the
plant site. This stream is also the primary water supply for the wetland inside the plant
site, which is located along and on either side of the stream. No aquatic surveys of this
OWN
stream have been conducted to date, but it would be expected to support diverse and
abundant populations of benthic invertebrates and possibly, amphibians. The stream
flows onto the site from above the plant in a southerly direction, then turns sharply to
Ask%
the east alongside the main plant road inside the fence. At this point the stream is
approximately 1-2 feet wide. It then flows underneath the plant road through two
culverts, and continues to the east at the end of the abandoned sludge drying beds. The
stream then courses south around the end of the sludge drying beds, and then moves off -
site and downslope below the plant, where it ultimately connects to Flat Laurel Creek at
the bottom of the hill. This stream and associated wetland would be completely avoided
An.
during construction.
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management
Analysis: The potential effects of the No Action Alternative on aquatic life in Flat Laurel
Creek and Pisgah Creek are related to potential effects on water quality from point and
o`'
nonpoint discharges from the plant, since water quality directly influences the
abundance and distribution of fish and benthic invertebrates. Since no new facilities
would be constructed under the No Action Alternative, however, this alternative would
have no construction -related effects on aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek.
During continued operation of the existing facility, the plant would continue to
discharge treated effluent to Flat Laurel Creek, but at lower volumes, fewer periodic
excursions of ammonia toxicity would probably occur, and temperature requirements
would continue to be met in Flat Laurel Creek. Nonpoint runoff from the existing site
would continue to be generated and would still be filtered effectively by forested areas
located down slope of the site. Overall, the No Action Alternative would therefore have
�+
minor, local, long-term, adverse effects on aquatic life in Flat Creek during operation.
No adverse effects on aquatic life of Pisgah Creek, located several miles downstream of
Flat Laurel Creek, are known to occur or are expected to occur in the future as a result of
the discharge from the Mt. Pisgah treatment plant.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative on aquatic life
would parallel the cumulative effects on water quality, since the two are related. No new
�►,
construction would occur at the treatment plant under the No Action Alternative, so
,�
— 57 —

there would be no cumulative construction -related effects on aquatic life under the No
Action Alternative. During operation, however, low flow toilets installed at the Mt.
Pisgah Inn would reduce the amount of wastewater received by the plant. This would
result in a minor, local, long-term, beneficial cumulative effect on aquatic life in Flat
Laurel Creek.
Conclusion: Since no new facilities would be constructed under the No Action
Alternative, this alternative would have no construction -related effects on aquatic life in
Flat Laurel Creek.
During operation, the effects on aquatic life would parallel effects on water quality. The
plant would continue to discharge treated effluent to Flat Laurel Creek, but at lower
volumes, fewer periodic excursions of ammonia toxicity would probably occur, and
temperature requirements would be met in Flat Laurel Creek. Nonpoint runoff from the
existing site would continue to be generated and would continue to be filtered effectively
by forested areas. Overall, the No Action Alternative would therefore have minor, local,
long-term, adverse effects on aquatic life in Flat Creek during operation.
Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative on aquatic life would parallel the
cumulative effects on water quality, since the two are related. The No Action Alternative
would have minor, local, long-term, beneficial cumulative effects on aquatic life.
Alternative O would not produce major adverse effects to aquatic life whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of aquatic life or values as a result of the implementation
of Alternative O.
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System - Preferred
Alternative
Analysis: The potential effects of this alternative during construction on aquatic life are
directly related to effects on water quality caused by soil erosion. The primary
construction activities that could affect aquatic life under Alternative B are construction
of the extended aeration package system, filling of the 0.46-acre lagoon, removal of the
abandoned Imhoff sludge treatment tanks and sludge beds and some other minor new
associated facilities. However, since best management practices will be implemented to
control soils erosion, construction activities associated with Alternative B would only
have the potential for producing minor, local, short-term effects on aquatic life.
During operation, erosion of soil from the filled and stabilized lagoon could affect
aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek. However, best management practices would be
employed to minimize the potential for soil erosion from the site during operation.
Effects of nonpoint runoff during operation would therefore have negligible, local, long-
term, adverse effects on aquatic life during operation.
Alternative B would result in improvements in the quality of the effluent during
operation of the new plant. These improvements would minimize the potential for
— 58 —

EAMS
/19*1
`�
problems with ammonia toxicity affecting aquatic life, since the lagoon would be
eliminated, and a more efficient treatment system would be used. Temperature limits
above and below the discharge point in Flat Laurel Creek would continue to be met.
Sludge would be stored in a a5,000 gallon tank prior to removal once or twice a year to
an approved facility. Sludge disposal would therefore have no effects on aquatic life in
Flat Laurel Creek.
Overall, operation of the new package plant under Alternative B would therefore result
in minor, local, short-term beneficial effects on aquatic life.
Cumulative Effects: All of the other construction projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed
Area are now complete, with the exception of the installation of the low flow toilets and
conversion of the gas station to a country store. Since construction of these two
remaining projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area do not involve any land clearing,
they will have no effects on aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek. Therefore, no adverse
�► construction -related cumulative effects on aquatic life would result under Alternative B.
Operation of the new low -flow toilets in the Mt. Pisgah Inn will reduce the amount of
wastewater generated in the future. Operation of the new package plant under
Alternative B would result in an improvement in water quality of the effluent, with
associated beneficial effects on aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek. Alternative B would
therefore result in minor, local, long-term beneficial cumulative effects on aquatic life.
Conclusion: There would be a potential for soil erosion and associated minor, local,
long-term adverse effects on aquatic life in Flat Laurel Creek during the grading and
leveling of any part of the site where the package plant and other new facilities were
_
constructed. These effects would be minimized by implementation of best management
practices for soil erosion.
During operation, a larger area of disturbed soils would exist on the site as compared
�►
with the No Action Alternative and Alternative A, but best management practices would
r�
be employed to minimize the potential for soil erosion. Effects of nonpoint runoff during
operation would therefore have negligible, local, long-term, adverse effects on aquatic
life during operation.
Alternative B would result in improvements of the quality of the effluent during
operation of the new plant that would minimize the potential for ammonia toxicity
effects on aquatic life. Overall, operation of the new package plant under Alternative B
would therefore result in minor, local, short-term beneficial effects on Aquatic life.
All of the other construction projects in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area are now
complete, with the exception of the installation of the low flow toilets and conversion of
the gas station to a country store. No construction -related cumulative effects on water
quality would therefore result under Alternative B. Operation of the new low -flow toilets
in the Mt. Pisgah Inn will reduce the amount of wastewater generated. Therefore,
Alternative B would result in a minor, local, long-term beneficial cumulative effect on
'a►
aquatic life during operation.
,�,
— 59 —

Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility
Analysis: The effects of Alternative A on aquatic life during construction would parallel
the effects on water quality. The effects of Alternative A on aquatic life would be similar
to the effects of Alternative B, since land would still be cleared on the site for the new
sludge storage tank, demolition of the existing sludge drying beds and Imhoff tanks,
office building improvements, and reconstruction of the plant asphalt drive. The extent
of disturbed area created under Alternative A, however, would be 0.46 acres less than
Alternative B because the lagoon would not be filled in Alternative A, resulting in a lower
potential for construction -related nonpoint runoff and associated effects on aquatic life
in Flat Laurel Creek. Construction could still result in minor, local, short-term adverse
effects on aquatic life. Potential adverse effects of construction would be minimized by
implementation of best management practices.
During operation under Alternative A, the upgraded plant would discharge treated
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek. The quality of the effluent would be unproved as compared
with the existing plant. The discharge limits of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit would continue to be met, and the potential for periodic
excursions of ammonia toxicity would be minimized due to the upgraded facilities. The
temperature requirements for Flat Laurel Creek would continue to be met. Less
nonpoint runoff would be generated from the site as compared with Alternative B since
the lagoon would not have to be filled. During operation, the overall effects of this
alternative would have minor, local, and long-term beneficial effects on water quality.
Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative effects of Alternative A on water quality would be
similar to Alternative B.
Conclusion: The effects of Alternative A on water quality during construction would be
similar to the effects of Alternative B, since land would still be cleared on the site for the
new facilities. The extent of disturbed area created under Alternative A would be less
than Alternative B, but there would still be a potential to affect aquatic life in Flat Laurel
Creek. Construction could therefore have minor, local, short-term adverse effects on
aquatic life. These potential adverse effects would be mitigated by implementation of
best management practices.
During operation under Alternative A, the upgraded plant would discharge treated
effluent to Flat Laurel Creek. The quality of the effluent would be improved as compared
with the existing plant. During operation, this alternative would therefore have local,
minor and long-term beneficial effects on water quality.
The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be similar to Alternative B.
Alternative A would not produce major adverse effects to water quality whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of water quality or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative A.

Special Status Species
Affected Environment
The previous environmental assessment completed in conjunction with the
rehabilitation of the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area (NPS 2003) included an assessment of
the actual or potential occurrence of federally and state listed species of plants and
animals in the area. Since the proposed wastewater treatment plant site is included
within the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area, the information contained in the previous
environmental assessment is sufficient for use as a starting point in the present
environmental assessment. However, as part of the preparation for the wastewater
treatment plant environmental assessment, the information presented previously was
reviewed and updated based on personal communications with the park staff and
available literature. The previous environmental assessment also included
correspondence with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the actual or
potential occurrence of listed species in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area (Appendix B,
from NPS 2003). An updated list of species and their current status is provided in
Table 7.
OWN
Since the site of the proposed wastewater treatment project is completely cleared of
natural upland vegetation, it is highly unlikely that any listed species of plants or animals
OXON
occur in upland habitats on the site itself within the fenced -in area. A variety of listed
species do occur, however, in the Mt. Pisgah Developed area and other areas
surrounding the site (Table 7). In addition, a small wetland and an intermittent stream
occur in the northeast corner of the site just inside the fence line and has a potential to
harbor protected species. However, a qualitative field survey of this wetland by the
National Park Service was conducted in December 2005, and it was estimated that the
wetland and intermittent stream were unlikely to harbor any listed species. A detailed
investigation has not been completed to date, so this area will be avoided during
construction of any new wastewater treatment plant facilities. A survey of the wetland
and stream will be completed by the National Park Service prior to construction of the
new facilities, however.
The previous environmental assessment included consideration of the potential effects
of all road and utility work in the developed area, including the access road to the
!�
wastewater treatment plant. Construction activities associated with the access road itself
have therefore not been included in the present environmental assessment.
The following sections provide a summary of the available information on listed species
that could occur on the wastewater treatment site or in the surrounding Mt. Pisgah
Developed Area. The information from the previous environmental assessment is
described first, followed by an update of the most recent information. Please refer to
,ram,
Table 7 for a summary.

Table 7. Federal- and State -Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur In The Vicinity Of
The Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Site
(North Carolina Heritage Program 20o6; USFWS 20o6).
Vascular Sarracema jonesii Mountain Sweet E-SC E Si G3Ti
Plant Pitcher Plant
Vascular Tofieldia Sticky bog asphodel SR-P None S2 G5
Plant lutinosa
Vascular Solidago uliginosa Bog goldenrod SR None 1��
G4G5
Plant
Vascular Prenanthes Roan rattlesnake Wi None S3 G3
Plant roanensis root
Vascular Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert'sSR-L FSC S3? G3
Plant iturtlehead=
Vascular Houstonia
Plant longifolia var. Granite dome bluet SR-L None S2 G4G5T2Q
labra
Vascular Helianthemum Plains sunrose SR-P None SH G5
Plant bicknellii
Vascular Rhododendron Pinkshell azalea SR- L None S3 G3
Plant vaseyi
Vascular bies fraseri Fraser fir (forest) None None Si Gi
Plant/Habitat
Vertebrate Loxia curvirostra Southern
Animal POP. r Appalachian Red SC FSC S3B,S3N GSTNR
Crossbill
Vertebrate Glaucomys Carolina Northern E E S2 GSTi
Animal sabrinus coloratus Flying Squirrel
Vertebrate Puma concolor Eastern Cougar E E SH GSTHQ
Animal couguar
:1
Vertebrate Myotis Northern Long- SC None S3 G4
Animal septentrionalis eared Myotis
Southern
Vertebrate Aegolius acadicus Appalachian T FSC S2B,S2N GSTNR
Animal op. Northern Saw -whet
Owl
Vertebrate Contopus cooperi Olive -sided SC FSC SUB G4
Animal flycatcher
Vertebrate Dendroica [Cerulean warbler JSR JJFSC 11S2B 11G4
e,,,,,,�t ,.ems-,.��„
— 62 —

Table 7. Federal- and State -Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur In The Vicinity Of
The Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Site
(North Carolina Heritage Program 2oo6; USFWS 20o6).
Major ..
State Federal
State
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Status
Rank
=GlobkalGroup
Southern
Vertebrate Pocile atricapilla
Appalachian black-
SC FSC
S3
G5TNR
Animal praaica
capped chickadee
Sphyrapicus
Vertebrate
varius
yellow -bellied
SC FSC
S3B,S5N
GSTNR
Animal
appalachiensis
sapsucker
Vertebrate Thryomanes
Animal bewickii altus
Bewick's wren
E FSC
SHB
G5T2Q
Vascular Lonicera
Plant canadensis
American fly
honeysuckle
SR-P None
S2
G5
Crotalus
Vertebrate
horridus
Timber rattlesnake
SC None
S3
G4
Animal
horridus e
Vertebrate
Animal
Coccyzus
Black -billed
Cuckoo
SR
None
S2B
G5
erythropthalmus
Federally -Listed Species
National Park Service staff familiar with the wastewater treatment plant site (NPS 2005a)
indicated the following concerning federally -listed species:
The status of the timber rattler has changed since the previous environmental
assessment was written. This species has been observed in the Mt. Pisgah
Developed Area recently. It is currently classified as a state species of concern,
S3, G4 (Table 7).
Conversations with researchers who use the area, as well as a knowledgeable
camper, confirm that bog lemmings (not presently listed), red crossbills and saw
whet owls are present. Two saw -whet owls were observed in a 2005 survey by the
National Park Service.
The National Park Service has observed red crossbills, northern bobwhite (not
presently listed), black -billed cuckoo, and woodcock (not presently listed) in the
area in the last two years.
National Park Service surveys of nest boxes throughout the developed area have
been positive for northern flying squirrel in 2002 and 2004.
There is a potential for the Carolina northern flying squirrels to occur along the
access road leading to the proposed wastewater treatment plant site. No squirrels
have been observed along the access road by the National Park service to date,
but they do occur on both sides of the treatment plant. Therefore, it is likely that
they use the area, and could occupy trees in the vicinity of the access road. No
—63—

squirrels have been caught in the nest boxes that the National Park Service has
placed closest to the access road.
Bat surveys were conducted using mist -netting in July of zoos. No federally -listed
species were collected. One mature northern long-eared myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis)(State Species of Concern) was caught near the treatment plant
and picnic area (not the campground/inn area)(NPS 2005a).
The previous environmental assessment (NPS 2003) presented the following summary of
information on federally -listed species:
"The only federally listed species that is known to occur in the project area is the
endangered Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus).
According to the USFWS, the Carolina northern flying squirrel `shows a relict
distribution and tends to occupy rather small and potentially vulnerable islands
of high elevation habitat.' The Carolina northern flying squirrel has most
commonly been captured in conifer -hardwood forests comprised of spruce and
fir, with beech, yellow birch, sugar maple, red maple, hemlock, and black cherry
(USFWS,19go). Individuals have also been captured in riparian hemlock -
hardwood -rhododendron forests. The Carolina northern flying squirrel is
vulnerable to human impacts such as habitat destruction, fragmentation, or
alterations associated with the clearing of forests; recreational and residential
development; introduced exotic pests; and pollution (USFWS,1999)•"
"All of the above tree species are present in the Mt. Pisgah area. However, there
are pockets of habitat that consist primarily of spruce, fir, hemlock, and yellow
birch. Northern flying squirrels have been captured primarily from this type of
vegetation, especially where this type of vegetation consists of widely spaced
mature trees with an abundance of standing and downed snags. Pockets of this
type of habitat are located in the picnic area, Loop C of the campground, along
the trail between the Mt. Pisgah trail and the picnic area, along the trail between
the picnic area and the campground, and on the east side of the Parkway in
several sections between the Parkway and the Buck Springs Trail. One northern
flying squirrel was captured in a live trap in the picnic area during the summer of
2001. In addition, the acidic cove community in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area
consists primarily of riparian hemlock -hardwood -rhododendron forest, which
represents additional potential habitat."
"There are historic records for the endangered eastern cougar (Felis concolor
cougar) from the Mt. Pisgah area. The cougar's decline has been attributed
primarily to pressure from hunting as well as land development. In the late 1800's
the cougar was reported as extirpated. In i91o, and again in the 1970's and 8o's
there have been several unconfirmed sightings and scat in the area of Mt. Pisgah.
There have been recent cougar sightings within the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area
by Pisgah Inn staff and Parkway maintenance employees. Some biologists suggest
that these cougars have been raised in captivity and then released."
"Although the wetland within the [Mt. Pisgah Developed Area campground] site
represents potential habitat for the mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia
—64—

,ate
�1
jonesii) (endangered) and the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) (threatened due
to similarity of appearanceNto what?), extensive surveys of the wetland have
�"►
failed to document the occurrence of either of these species. Surveys of the
remainder of the project area conducted by National Park Service biologists have
failed to document the occurrence of any additional federally listed species
�'
within the project area."
National Park Service staff familiar with the wastewater treatment plant site (NPS,
2005a) indicated the following concerning federally -listed species:
Federal Species of Concern
The previous environmental assessment (NPS 2003) presented the following summary of
information on federally -listed species:
"Federal Species of Concern that have been confirmed from the project area
include the saw -whet owl (Aegolius acadius acadius), Appalachian cottontail
(Sylvilagus obscurus), olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), cerulean warbler
(Dendroica cerulea), southern Appalachian black -capped chickadee (Docile
atricapilla practica), and fraser fir (Abies frasera). Fraser fir was apparently
planted in the project area and is not established as a natural population at the
site (Pittillo and Green 2000). Historical records exist for yellow -bellied
sapsucker (YBS) and Appalachian Bewick's wren at Mt. Pisgah. Surveys in 2003
for YBS failed to document the occurrence of this species at the site. The last
known breeding site for Appalachian Bewick's wren was at Mt. Pisgah. It is likely
extirpated from the site since no observations have been made in recent years."
The current status of each these species was reviewed and the following was concluded:
The Southern Appalachian northern saw -whet owl has been observed in the Mt.
Pisgah Developed Area during National Park Service surveys (NPS 2oo5a).
r�q
Conversations with researchers who use the area as well as a knowledgeable
$AIN
camper, confirm that the northern saw -whet owl is present in the Mt. Pisgah
Developed Area (NPS 2005a).
The Southern Appalachian red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra pop) has been
OW,
observed in the Mt. Pisgah Developed Area during National Park Service surveys
IM&N
(NPS 2005a).
e0b�
State Listed Species
100�
The previous environmental assessment (NPS 2003) presented the following summary of
information on state -listed species:
"Additional species listed only by the State of North Carolina that have been
confirmed from the project area include the golden -crowned kinglet (Regulus
satrapa), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus), sticky bog asphodel
,,•�
(Tofieldia glutinosa), bog goldenrod (Solidago uliginosa), roan rattlesnake root
(Prenanthes roanensis), Cuthbert's turtlehead (Chelone cuthbertii), granite dome
bluet (Houstonia longifolia var. glabra), plains sunrose (Helianthemum bicknelliz),
least moonwort (Botrychium simplex var. simplex), pinkshell azalea
—65—

(Rhododendron vaseyi), and American fly honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis). In
addition, three Watch List species [red -breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis),
tawny cottongrass (Eriophorum virginicum), and mountain St. John's -wort
(Hypericum buckleyt)] also have been confirmed in the project area."
The current status of each these species was reviewed and is was concluded nothing had
changed except the status of the timber rattlesnake, which is listed as a North Carolina
Species of Concern, S3, G4 (NCHP 20o6), and which has been observed in the Mount
Pisgah Developed area (NPS 2005a).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC 20o6) were contacted and
they stated that no sensitive or rare species occurred in Flat Laurel Creek.
Impacts of Alternative O: No Action / Continue Current Management
Analysis: New construction would not take place on the existing site under the No
Action Alternative and therefore, construction would have no effect on state- or
federally -listed species. Also, the site is completely cleared and no state- or federally -
listed species of plants or animals occur in upland habitats site. There is a potential for
listed species to occur in the wetland located inside the fence on the existing plant site,
but this has yet to be confirmed by an actual survey. This area would be delineated and
avoided during construction. The northern flying squirrel could occur in trees along the
access road to the plant, but no new construction would occur in this area under
Alternative O. In conclusion, since there would be no new construction activities on the
site under the No Action Alternative and no listed species occur within the construction
area, these activities would have no effect on state- or federally -listed species of plants or
animals.
Continued operation of the existing plant would have no effect on state- or federally -
listed species within upland habitats in the fenced -in site, since none of these species are
present in this area. The continued discharge of treated wastewater to Flat Laurel Creek
would have no effect on state- or federally -listed species, since no listed species are
known to occur in this creek.
Cumulative Impacts: Continued operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant
would not result in adverse cumulative effects on state- or federally -listed species, since
there would be no direct effects on these species on the plant site or surrounding area
resulting from construction or operation of the plant.
Conclusion: Construction activities would have no effect on state- or federally -listed
species of plants or animals under the No Action Alternative since no listed species occur
in the construction area, and no construction would occur under this alternative.
Continued operation of the existing plant would have no effect on state- or federally -
listed species within upland habitats inside the fenced -in site, because none of these
species are present on the plant site. The continued discharge of treated wastewater to
Flat Laurel Creek would have no adverse effect on state- or federally -listed species since
these species do not occur in the creek.
Alternative O would not produce major adverse effects to state- or listed species whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing

�1
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
,.y
there would be no impairment of listed species or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative O.
Impacts of Alternative B: Extended Aeration Package System -Preferred
Alternative
Analysis: A new package plant would be constructed on the existing site under
Alternative B, and the lagoon would be filled. However, no state- or federally -listed
species of plants or animals occur in upland habitats on the existing plant site because it
is completely cleared of all natural vegetation. Therefore, Alternative B would have no
adverse effects on upland state- or federally -listed species within the boundaries of the
construction area. There is a potential for listed species to occur in the wetland located
inside the fence on the existing plant site, but this has yet to be confirmed by an actual
survey. Prior to any construction within the fenced -in area, the wetland would be
delineated and avoided.
Operation of a new package plant under Alternative B would have no adverse effects on
state- or federally -listed species within upland habitats in the fenced -in site, since none
of these species are present. The continued discharge of treated wastewater to Flat
,.�
Laurel Creek would have no adverse effect on state- or federally -listed species since
these species do not occur in the creek.
Cumulative Impacts: Operation of a new package plant treatment plant would have no
adverse cumulative effect on state- or federally -listed species since no listed species are
present on the site or in Flat Laurel Creek.
/d'1
Conclusion: Construction would have no effect on state- or federally -listed species of
plants or animals under Alternative B because the site is completely cleared and no
species occur in the upland portion of the site. There is a potential for listed species to
occur in the wetland located inside the fence on the existing plant site, but this has yet to
'00)
be confirmed by an actual survey. Prior to any construction within the fenced -in area, a
/121�
survey would be completed, and the wetland would be delineated and avoided.
10�
Operation of a new package plant under Alternative B would have no effect on state- or
federally -listed species within upland habitats the fenced -in site, since none of these
species are present. Operation of the new package plant under the Alternative B would
r�
also not adversely affect any listed species on the site. The continued discharge of treated
wastewater to Flat Laurel Creek would have no effect on state- or federally -listed species
under Alternative B since no listed species are present.
Alternative B would not produce major adverse effects to federally -listed species whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of federally -listed species or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative B.
—67—

Impacts of Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility
Analysis: The effects of Alternative A on species of special concern would be similar to
Alternative B — the proposed project would have no effect on these resources.
Cumulative Impacts: Operation of an upgraded treatment plant would have no adverse
cumulative effect on state- or federally -listed species since no listed species are present
on the site or in Flat Laurel Creek.
Conclusion: The effects of Alternative A on species of special concern would be similar
to Alternative B — the proposed project would have no effect on these resources.
Operation of an upgraded treatment plant would have no adverse cumulative effect on
state- or federally -listed species since no listed species are present on the site or in Flat
Laurel Creek.
Alternative A would not produce major adverse effects to listed species whose
conservation is (i) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general
management plan or other National Park Service planning documents. Consequently,
there would be no impairment of listed species or values as a result of the
implementation of Alternative A.
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Scoping is the effort to involve agencies and the general public in determining the scope
of issues to be addressed in the environmental document. Among other tasks, scoping
determines important issues and eliminates issues that are not important; allocates
assignments among the interdisciplinary team members and other participating agencies;
identifies related projects and associated documents; identifies other permits, surveys,
and consultations required by other agencies; and creates a schedule which allows
adequate time to prepare and distribute the environmental document for public review
and comment before a final decision is made. Scoping includes any interested agency or
any agency with jurisdiction by law or expertise (including the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and Indian tribes) to
obtain early input (see Appendix Q.
The National Park Service conducted internal scoping and external scoping for this
project. Internal scoping was conducted with appropriate National Park Service staff in
November 2oo6. External scoping included the letters to the agencies, and a newsletter
published in May, 2oo6. A public news release announcing the project and requesting
input was also published on April 13, 2oo6 (Appendix Q.
Copies of the responses received from the agencies are included in Appendix C. Scoping
letters were mailed to the following agencies (a copy of the scoping letter is included in
Appendix C):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina National Forest Service

ommk1
020°►
r�
IlBb►
Amb►
AMN
AMIN
IM,
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Agriculture

eftN
ooft►
Planning Team Participants
The following is a list of the planning team who prepared this environmental assessment:
Name
Title
Organization
Philip Francis
Superintendent
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Suzette Molling
Environmental Protection
Specialist
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Steven M. Wright
Contracting Officer
Representative
Southeast Regional Office
John Wilburn
Former Supervisory Civil
Engineer
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Richard Sussman
Chief of Planning
National Park Service, Southern
Region
Michael Ryan
Pisgah Facility Manager
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Nathan Epling
Public Health Specialist
Engineer
Public Health Service
Henry Keefer
Plant ORC
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Michael Molling
Acting Chief of Maintenance
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Lillian McElrath
Resource Management
Specialist
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Calvin Clardy
Maintenance Supervisor
National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway
Steve Bach
Project Manager
Parsons
Alyse Getty
Technical Director
Parsons
John Martin
Senior Planner
Parsons
Toya Campbell
Senior Scientist
Parsons
Kathy Rowland
GIS Specialist
Parsons
Kathy Kuhlman
Senior Scientist
Parsons
—70—

edelh,
r"1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asheville Metro Business Research Center
2004a Asheville Area Economic Indicators - September 2004. Asheville, North
Carolina.
2004b Asheville Area Population. Asheville, North Carolina.
Bailey
2005 Mt. Pisgah Pre -design Study: Pre -design Analysis of Constructed
Wetlands Treatment System. Prepared by Erika L. Bailey, HDR, Inc. July
8, 2005.
Epodunk
20o6. Website for epodunk.com. Information for Haywood, Henderson, and
Transylvania Buncombe Counties, North Carolina. March 6, 20o6.
J.F. New & Associates, Inc., 2001
tool Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Using Constructed Wetland
Treatment Systems at Mt. Pisgah. Technical Memorandum.
National Park Service
2000 Management Policies — 2001. Washington, D.C. December 2000.
2003 Rehabilitation of Mt. Pisgah Utilities (MP 4o8), Blue Ridge Parkway,
Haywood & Transylvania Counties, North Carolina. Environmental
Assessment. October 2003.
2004 Transportation System Data Analysis — Blue Ridge Parkway. Prepared by
David Evans and Associates. Denver, Colorado. September, 2004.
2005a E-mail from Lillian McElrath, regarding status of biological surveys in the
Mt. Pisgah Developed Area. December 20, 2005.
2005b. Interview with Jim Renfro, Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. January 4, 2005.
20o6a Email correspondence with Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection
Specialist for the Blue Ridge Parkway. March 6, 2oo6.
20o6b Personal communications with Henry Keefer, Mount Pisgah wastewater
treatment plant operator.
20o6c Telephone conversation with Phil Noblitt, Management Assistant for the
Blue Ridge Parkway. March 9, 20o6.
20o6d Campground statistics for 2003,2004, and 2005 from
www2.nature.nps.gov. March 9, 20o6.
—71—

20o6e Statistics for Mount Pisgah Inn and Restaurant for 2003, 2004, and 2005,
provided by Lisa Davis, Concession Specialist for the Blue Ridge Parkway.
March 14, 20o6.
20o6f Value Analysis Report — Mini VA. Blue Ridge Parkway, Mt. Pisgah
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. BLRI- o81430. October 13,
2005. Prepared by HDR, Inc. Final Version i/io/o6.
No Date Directors Order I2: Handbook for Environmental Analysis. Web Page:
http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM12.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
20o6 Telephone conversation with Steve Hensley regarding air quality
conditions in Haywood, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties. March
27, 20o6.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
20o6 Traffic counts for Buncombe, Haywood, and Transylvania Counties from
www.ncdot.org. March 7, 20o6.
North Carolina State University.
1996 1995-1996 Economic Impact of Travel to the Blue Ridge Parkway Virginia
and North Carolina. Prepared for the Coalition of the Blue Ridge
Parkway and the National Park Service. Asheville, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
20o6 Personal communication between Suzette Molling (National Park
Service), Bob Cherry (North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission)
and Doug Beslar (North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission), June
20o6.
Parsons
20o6 Telephone interview with Steve Schaefer, Principal Wastewater Engineer.
March 9, 20o6.
Redlodge Clearing House
2005 Clean Air Act — Process Essentials: Protecting Clean Air Areas. From
www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org. January 7, 2005.
Southern Highlands Craft Guild and the National Park Service.
Undated A Master Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway's Folk Art Center. Prepared by
Surber, Barber, Choate, and Hertlein Architects. Asheville, North
Carolina.
—72—

edbl,
U.S. Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service
20o6 Species Information. Threatened and Endangered Species of Animals and
Plants. http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html. Internet web page.
United States Census Bureau
20o6 Information from www.census.gov., 2003 County Business Patterns for
Haywood, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties. March 6, 2oo6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
20o6 Surf Your Watershed web page:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfin?huc-code=o6oioio5
Veltman
2005 National Park Service Technology Assessment & Review, Wastewater
Treatment, Mt. Pisgah Recreation Area, Blue Ridge Parkway. Technical
Memorandum prepared by Shawn H. Veltman, August n, 2005.
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency.
2004 Information from www.wncair.org website. December 30, 2004.
-73-

This page intentionally left blank
—74—

t4o1
APPENDICES
-75-

This page intentionally left blank
—76—
r^�
(00'

�'► APPENDIX A
�•, VALUE ANALYSIS -MINI VA
f"1
r-�
r�
-77-

This page intentionally left blank

VALUE ANALYSIS REPORT - Mini VA
Park: Blue Ridge Parkway
Project: Mt. Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Package: BLRI-081430
Date: October 13, 2005
Component Evaluated: Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements
Phase I - Information: diaphragm pump is located in a separate concrete chamber for
pumping, settled sludge out of the lagoon.
Background Information/Special Coneems/Constraints/Previous
Decisions/Description of Present Proposal/Design Assumptions Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility
The Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) maintains the Mt. Pisgah inn, a Lagoons systems similar to the facultative lagoon at Nit. Pisgah are in
campground, trailer waste disposal and associated facilities in the Mt. operation throughout the country to comply with effluent standards
Pisgah area, located near mile 410 of the BRP approximately 20 miles similar to those for Mt. Pisgah (30'mg/l BOD and TSS). The presence
south of Asheville, NC. These combined facilities generate of filters downstream of the lagoon'incrbases the likelihood of meeting
approximately 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) average of municipal plus the effluent requirements considerably. Without the filters, algae in
trailer disposal wastewater during the operating season from April the effluent can be attributed to effluent TSS violations during high
through November with peaks of 30,000 gpd during holiday algae growth seasons.
weekends. The existing aerated lagoon facility meets NPDES effluent
requirements on a regular basis with the exception of some infrequent This alternative would focus primarily on improving the sludge
whole effluent toxicity (WET) biomonitoring excursions. These removal system and solids storage/treatment capabilities onsite. Per
excursions are likely attributed to effluent ammonia toxicity. the July S, 2005 HDR Technical Memorandum (TM), it was
determined that excessive sludge accumulation in the lagoons over the
The liquid treatment scheme follows: plant influent is conveyed via operating season is the likely cause of the prior WET excursions. A
gravity to the 0.46 acre; three -compartment aerated lagoon and diesel -driven pump on a floating barge would be installed in the
pumped from the lagoon effluent transfer station to the lobe tank. lagoon to facilitate more frequent sludge removal from the lagoon.
There are two existing effluent transfer (submersible type) pump units. The lagoon sludge pump would convey solids to a 25,000 gallon steel
Plant flow is then pumped through the filters; chlorinated and sludge storage tank. A 2.5 HP progressing cavity sludge transfer
deehlorinated before being discharged to Flat Laurel Creek. A pumps would be located next to the storage tank, so that sludge could
National Park Service 4 U.S. Department of the Interior
Final vesionAllom
—79—

be transferred at the end of the season to a sludge disposal truck.
Many facility improvements would also be incorporated into this
project including: sludge drying bed and Imhoff tank demolition,
office building improvements, partial plant asphalt drive
reconstruction, and a new emergency electrical generator.
This alternative offers the advantage of low cost, but the disadvantage
of potential WET test excursions and lagoon safety concerns.
Alternative B: Construct Extended Aeration Package Treatment
System
Pre-engineered, pre -fabricated extended aeration activated sludge
wastewater treatment facilities are commonly used for flow ranges
similar to Mount Pisgah. These systems apply the same biochemical
technologies frequently used in larger facilities, but can be procured in
a fully enclosed system designed for smaller flow ranges. If properly
operated and maintained, extended aeration package treatment
facilities produce acceptable effluent quality, and low levels of BOD,
TSS and NI13. The effluent from the package facility can either be
conveyed to the existing filters or bypass the existing fitters.
In this scenario, the lagoon would be taken out -of -service and a new
plant influent pumping station wetwell with short-term equalization
storage constructed. Two submersible plumps would be provided in
the pumping station. The extended aeration package plant would be
mounted to a concrete slab -on -grade. The exterior dimensions of the
pre -fabricated structure are approximately 70' (length) by 15' (wide)
by 15' (height). Within the structure, the following zones are present:
sludge thickening/storage zone, aeration zone, clarifter zone, and a
disinfection contact zone (if needed). The sludge thickcning/storage
zone would temporarily hold biosolids generated in the system until
solids are conveyed to a new onsite sludge storagettreatment facility.
Sludge would be gravity conveyed to a 25,000 gallon steel sludge
storage tank. A 2.5 HR progressing cavity sludge transfer pumps
would be located next to the storage tank, so that sludge could be
transferred to a sludge disposal truck. Sludge drying bed and Imhoff
tank demolition would also be included in this Project. To facilitate
facility reliability, a new 25 kW generator would also be included in
this Project.
Advantages of the extended aeration package treatment facility are the
relatively low cost, high degree of reliability, and compact footprint.
Alternative C: Polishing Constructed Wetlands Addition
J.F. New and Associates prepared a Preliminary Engineering Study
(PES) in August 2001 that evaluated a constructed wetlands treatment
system to either supplement or replace the lagoon system. In the PES,
it was assumed that more stringent effluent permit would be issued in
December 2001 and that more stringent effluent ammonia or other
nutrients standards would be enforced. To -date, this yet to occur.
Two TOR TMs and an independent Olver, Inc. report were generated
to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the aerated lagoon treatment
system with a constructed wetlands waste treatment system. Both
parties agreed that this was not a feasible alternative. The system has
the following disadvantages: 1) Based on preliminary sizing
requirements of 20 lbs BOD/(acre day), 3.5 acres to 5.0 acres of
constructed wetland area would be required to treat the Mt. Pisgah
wastewater. This magnitude of acreage is not available at the Mt.
Pisgah site; 2) Site constraints at the treatment facility site would
severely limit construction of any additional wetlands beyond the site
limits without considerable earthwork activities and cost.; 3) Per
discussions with NCDENR, regulatory approval of a constructed
wetland system for the Mt. Pisgah site would be challenging; 4)
Vegetation planted in the wetlands would require harvesting in the fall.
In our TM dated July 8, 2005, it was determined that the only feasible
way to integrate a wetland system at Mt. Pisgah is via a polishing
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
Final venison:1110%

) l .➢ ➢ ) ) ),) ) ) ➢ ) ) l ) ➢ ) ) ) ) ) ) ),l l )1) ➢ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ),l ) l )�) )
wetland. An 0.3 acre polishing wetland system could be located
downstream of the existing filters and the aerated lagoon system would
remain in-service.
This alternative is being considered, since this alternative would
promote "green" solutions for the park service. Plant effluent would
flow in and.out of the wetland Aa gravity, so no additional mechanical
or electrical components will be required for this alternative.
However, this alternative does not remove any of the existing
mechanical system components from service.
Alternative D; Install Recirculating Sand Filtration System
The National Park Service has had success with recirculating sand
filtration systems at other sites and recommended that this alternative
be considered for Mt. Pisgah. The recirculating sand filter would
require a minimum.92' by IS' footprint to treat 30,000 gpd flow.
Three septic tanks, a recirculating tank, and recirculation pumps will
also be required ,for this alternative. Due, to the areal requirements of
this alternative, the only feasible sand filter and tank location is within
the aerated lagoon' footprint. This option will utilize a considerable
amount of compacted fill dirt to bring the top of filter/tank elevations
up to existing grade. A concrete containment barrier would also be
poured around the filter, perimeter. Per conversations with a
recirculatingsand filter manufacturer, the recirculating sand filter can
be anticipated to produce BOD and TSS effluent quality less than 10
mg/L. Additionally, ammonia reduction is expected to be in the 40-
5041 range.
Advantages of the recirculating sand filter system include prior
experience with the system at other NPS facilities while disadvantages
include limited filter construction period due to the need to utili7.e the
aerated lagoon area.
Alternative E: Install Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Package
Treatment System
An MBR package system, an innovative alternative in wastewater
treatment, is similar in some respects to the extended aeration package
treatment facility. The MBR uses membrane technology to separate
mixed liquor suspended solids (MISS) in the aeration basin from
treated effluent rather than a gravity separation clarifier used in typical
activated sludge processes. Similar sludge production would be
expected from both systems. MBR systems produce superior effluent
quality compared to the most other wastewater treatment technologies
due to the very small membrane pore space. Anticipated effluent
quality would be BOD and TSS concentrations less than 5 mg/L and
Ammonia concentration less than .1 mg/L.
In this scenario, the lagoon would be taken out -of -service and a new
plant influent pumping station wetwell with short-term equalization
storage constructed. Two submersible pumps would be provided in
the pumping station. The MBR package plant would be mounted to a
concrete slab -on -grade. The exterior dimensions of the pre -fabricated
structure are approximately 50' (length) by 15' (wide) by 15' (height).
Within the structure, the.following zones are present: influent holding
tank, anoxic basin, aeration basin, and a membrane basin (two cells).
The existing chlorination and dechlorination facilities would be
utilized. A pre-programmed PLC and process control panel would be
provided and would control the system and all process components.
Advantages of the MBR system include the superior effluent quality
while disadvantages include higher capital and operating costs
(compared to an extended aeration facility).
Alternative F: Install Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Package
Treatment System w/Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
RQ81 veM1O=111WW
—gI—

This alternative is identical to Alternative E except that the existing
anticipated Orenco system effluent quality would be in the 20 mg/l
chlorination/dechlorination equipment would be taken out -of -service
BOD, 20 mg/L TSS, and 5-10 mgfL Ammonia concentration range.
and a new in -line UV disinfection unit installed.
Thus, it is anticipated that the existing effluent filters will have to
remain in-service.
Advantages of installing a UV disinfection system in conjunction with
the MBR system include elimination of chlorine discharge to the
Advantages of the Orenco system include prior experience with the
environment and elimination of chlorination/dechlorination chemicals
system at other NPS facilities while disadvantages include a
onsite while disadvantages include the capital cost associated with
proprietary membrane technology required for long-term system
purchasing the UV equipment.
operation.
Alternative G: Install Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Treatment
System
An SBR treatment system would be constructed to replace the existing
aerated lagoon. NPS has used SBR technology successfully at other
sites. Two concrete basins would require construction with minimum
dimensions (LWD)16' by 14' by 19% The SBR system requires a
minimum sidewater depth of 16'. There is a considerable amount of
rock in this area and it is very likely that rock would be encountered
while constructing these basins. The anticipated SBR effluent quality
will likely be in the 20-15 mgtl BOD, 20-15 mg/L TSS, and 5 mg/L
Ammonia concentration range. Thus, it is anticipated that. the existing
effluent filters will have to remain in-service.
Advantages of the SBR system include -prior experience with (fie
system at other NPS facilities while disadvantages include excessive
sidewater depth requirements and anticipated effluent quality similar
to the existing aerated lagoon system.
Alternative H: Install Orenco Advantex Filtration System
Eight, 5,000 GPD Orenco Advantex Filtration system modules would
replace the aerated lagoon. NPS has used this technology successfully
at other sites and wanted to evaluate this technology for this location.
The filter modules have dimensions (LWD)16' by 8' by 4% The
National Park Service * U.S. Department of the Interior
Final vemloc:A/taQb
-82-

1))))))))))1))))➢)))j))))))l)))ll)ll))))
Phase II - Functional Analysis: 1. Satisfy
2. Enhance
Functional Analysts/Description of the Present Proposal: 3. Reduce
Active Verb Noun 4. Maximize
5. Protect
Phase III - Creativity:
NP.DES Permit Requirements
Effluent Quality
Staff Effort
Staff Safety
Public Health
#
Treatment Alternatives
Action
0
Maintain existing aerated lagoon operation (Do nothing)
Not viable; risk of failing ammonia toxicity still
exists, plant effluent quality will not be enhanced.
A
Maintain existing aerated lagoon treatment; upgrade existing facility to
Viable.
increase solids removal frequency from lagoon; provide onsite solids storage
location
B
Replace the lagoon with an extended aeration package treatment plant
Viable.
system
C
Install polishing constructed wetlands downstream of the lagoon
Not viable, because the lagoon must remain in
operation and effluent quality Improvement would be
limited.
D
Replace the lagoon with a recirculating sand filtration system
Not viable. The lagoon area would be utilized for the
filters, recirculation and septic tanks. Earthwork will
be significant and the capital costs exceed available
funding.
E
Replace the lagoon with a membrane bloreactor (MBR) package treatment
Viable.
system
F
Replace the lagoon wlth a membrane bioreactor (.MBR) package treatment
Not viable; capital costs exceed available funding.
system and UV disinfection
G
Replace the lagoon with a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment system'
Not viable; sidewater depth requirements are very
high which wilt create an excessive amount of
excavation; capitaf costs exceed available funding.
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
Final ventOO1,10"
-83-

If
Treatment Alternatives
Action
H
Replace the lagoon with an Orenco Advantex filtration system
Not viable; proprietary filter media is a major
negative for this system.
Phase IV - Evaluation
Evaluation Sub -Factors or Variables:
it
Variables
Variable Importance Factor
l
Improve Effluent Quality
10 points
2
Simplify Operations
9 points
3
Enhance Safety
8 points
4
Improve Long Term Reliability
7 points
5
Simplify Construction
6 points
6
Provide Flexibility for Expansion/More Stringent Effluent Limits
5 points
7
Simplify Regulatory Agency Permitting Approval
4� points
8
Limit Environmental Impacts Due to Site Disturbance
3 points
9
Gain Public Acceptance and Support
2 points
10
Provide an Innovative Solution
I point
Choosing by Advantages (CB A) matrix is attached in the Appendix.
Phase V — Development:
NPS has $1.13 M available funds for this construction project. All of the considered alternatives were initially considered viable for the site except
for Alternatives 0 —Do Nothing, C — Polishing Wetlands Addition, and H — Install Orenco Advantex Filtration System. Alternative C did not
achieve project objectives for the capital money required. Alternative H is a proprietary product that caused concerns regarding future filter media
replacement. The capital cost for three (Alternatives D, F, and G) of the seven alternatives exceeded the available construction funding for the
project. Thus, Alternatives A, B, and E remained viable. Alternatives A and B have similar capital and life cycle cost. Alternative E has a higher
capital and life cycle cost, but provides superior effluent quality compared to Alternatives A and B. After much discussion, the project team threw
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
Fine venimi/toro5
-84-

) ) ) ) )141) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
out Alternative E and focused on Alternatives A and B. The project team decided that Alternative B: Construct Extended Aeration Package
Treatment System would be more feasible than Alternative A: Upgrade Existing Aerated Lagoon Facility.
Phase VI - Recommendations:
The team selected Alternative B: Construct Extended Aeration .Package Treatment System as the preferredi alternative. Relative to Alternative A,
Alternative B would essentially provide NPS with a brand-new treatment facility for approximately the same capital cost. Concerns were expressed
regarding spending capital to improve existing facilities relative to the age of the existing aerated lagoon system. Additionally. the plant operator has
prior operating experience with extended aeration package plants and prefers this type of facility over the lagoon system. Package plant effluent
quality should be the same or slightly better than the existing facility. Extended aeration package plants also have a long -history of operating
experience and are considered a time -proven technology. The tentative location for the package plant is in the current sludge drying bed and Imhoff
tank area. Neither facility is in use and would be demolished. The lagoon area may also be filled in with compacted dirt and useable plant site area
increased by almost 0.5 acres. Since extended aeration package plants are a proven wastewater treatment technology, the NCDENR permitting
process should also be simplified.
Phase VH - Implementation
The value analysis study was conducted on October 13, 2005, in Asheville, NC. NPS team to present this preferred alternative to the DAB in March
2006 for approval. If approval is granted, design document development would begin in June 2006.
Study Team Members
Discipline
Name
Organization
Phone
Facilitator:
Kevin Mosteller
HDR Engineering _
.[phone]
David Reeser
DSC-NPS
[phone]
John Gentry
BLIU-NPS
828 2714779
Mike Ryan
BLRI—NPS
828) 350-3821; ext. 201
Henry Keefer
BLRI
828) 421-9658
_..
Lillkm McElrath
BLRI _
( 28) 765-6082
John Wilbum
BLRI
[phone]; ext. 254
Glendon Fetterolf
HDR En ineerin
[phone]
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
nnal v« ic"A110%
—85—

This page intentionally left blank
)) )))))))))))))))))))))))))II) )))))-))))))I))

BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY - PMIS NO.081430
MT. PISGAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
Choosing by Advantages (CBA)
IMPORTANCE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FACTOR
ALTERNATIVES
Improve Effluent
Simplify
Enhance
Improve Long-
Simplify
Provide
Simplify
Limit
Gain Public
Provide an
Importance
Capital
Adjusted
Quality
Operations
Safety
Term
Construction
Flexibility for
Regulatory
Environmental
Acceptance
Innovative
Point
Cost
Point Totals
Reliability
Expansion/More
Agency
Impacts Due to Site
and Support
Solution
Totals
($M)
Stringent Limits
Permitting
Disturbance
Approval
ALTERNATIVE A
6
•.' 6
8
9'.
9
6
10
8„
6,
3
404
_ 331
UPGRADE EXISTING o
<r TOTAL = 6b -
TOTAL = 54
TOTAL = 64
TOTAL. a 4) ti
TOTAL a 54 '
TOT4 = 30
TOTAL = 90
TOTAL 3 24
TOTAL = 12
TOTAL 3 ,
AERATED LAGOON
s
FACILITY,!
ALTERNATIVE B t
CONSTRI)CTEXTFNDED ''
fly:, 7 . '
,`TOTAL = 70_
10
TOTAL - 90
8
TOTAL = 64
$ ; /.; . ^
TOTAL = 56: ;.
r : E !0
TOTAL - 60
a � '
TOTAL o 35 ,
' 8
^ : TOTAL = 32 `
g
TOTAL 24
7
TOTAL-14
4
TOTAL = 4'
449.
561
AERATION PACKAGE'X.
PLANT
J
ALTERNATIVE[`
7.
1 * ..
4
!
8 -
'1
_ 8
8r
8
8 ':
261
326
POLISHING i
TOTAL - 70 c
TOTAL s 9
TOTAL - 32
TOTAL a 7 i
TOTAL = 48
TONAL Q t5
TOTAL 32 ..
TOTAL = 241
TOTAL a 16
TOTAL s 8
�
CONSTRUCTED, "
°
WETLANDS ADDITION
ALTERNATIVES D: INSTALL
4
: 3 , s
9+
2
' r._ 5
TOTAL 30
x 4
TOT
5
TOTr(1I. 20';
8
TOTAL 24
4
TOTAL =
4
TOTAL 4:
259
212
RECIRCULATING SAND
FILTRATION SYSTEM
TOTAL = 40 ;
TOTAL 27
TOTAL d 72
TOTAL 14
.
= 20
a Q
=
ALTERNATIVE;E: INSTALL
9 ' t
,6 e- ;
, ry 8
8 �'
i ," 10
Q ` w i 9
o- 4�'t
S t in �,
�, ; 9 '•, 3
9
A36 , ;
396
MDR PACKAGE PLANT"
TOTAL =•90 . r-
TOTAL 7 54
' TOTAL n 64
TOTAL = 5G:''
�•
; TOTAL 60 t
,,. y,
1.T0 AL o 45
.
�7 TOTf�L!=16, .:.
TOTAL 24 `
.z,
TOTAL a 18'
TOTAL = 9
ALTERNATIVE F INSTALL*
MBR PACKAGE PLANT ,.::
x 10
TOTAL 100
��' 7
TOTAL = 63 -
�;: li
TOTAL = 64
8 ?;.r'
TOTAL =Sfi .+
IO :{ i
, TOTAL a 60,;
` r' ' 9
:TOTAL = 45
x""- ; 4
TOTAL: � l6 + t .
8' ,a
TOTAL Z4
9 _�' v
TOTAL 18
9
, :TOTAL = 9
455
373
WAN DiSINF:?GIION
ALTERNATIVE O INSTALL
7 3 a
7
&. -
8
10
7
!TOTAL
7
8
7
7
'.:TOTAL
42l
329
SEQUENCING BATCH : >
,TOTAL = 70
TOTAL - 63
TOTAL = 64
• TOTAL = 56
1 TOTAL 60 _
= 35
TOTAL 28
TOTAL 24
TGTAL =14
= 7
REACTOR (SOR) SYSTEM
-92-
( ( ( C ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( f ( ( f

(t((c.tt�trttttttt��ttcttttttttt�tttttt�ctct
Figure 2: Mt. Pisgah WWTP Site Plan
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
rnai vtrs►an:In0"

This page intentionally left blank
ORM

.e
v
.101
.o
V
,q/
�r
.r
*me
\oI
lwe
4ai
'vat'
'\I
\/
rad
r "k
Figure 1: Schematic for the Extended Aeration Package Plant Alternative
National Park Service ♦ U.S. Department of the Interior
Foal Vus1m:1/10106
M
3

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX
-87-

m
FORM 0 S C-44
Park 1^:1v
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
DENVER SERVICE CENTER
Sheet
Area
Of
Project
By
Checked
Pkg.
Feature toN S.
Date
Date
ha e
Account
(3 04 (jA_
C 0441
zTz X2--
Vff-.Z7/470
te
e—W— ASpS -;P-40
Mh6t Alre-11WA
.444-r
vze-7<pr-&Dom-
L / As f— Nee;
e 04*-V. 9,6v
w i 1- 116 v le
x25-4
Ault
A."
—93—
v U.S. GMAQW."64M

This page intentionally left blank
—94—

APPENDIX B
PROTECTED SPECIES LISTS AND INFORMATION
-95-

This page intentionally left blank

)1) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )1) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )') ) ) )
LIST OF FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN BUNSCOMB COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 20o6. http://207.4-179.38/nhp/find.php).
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
Map -
County -Status
Habitat
rte Inveebrate
Invertebrate
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
E
S1
Gi
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Barbaetis benfieldi
Benfield's Bearded Small
SR
None
St
G2G4
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Minnow Mayfly
Current
Invertebrate
Calloplirys irus
Frosted Elfin
SR
None
SZ
G3
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Cambarus reburrus
French Broad River Cray fish
SR
FSC
S2S3
3G G 4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
rte Inveebrate
Invertebrate
Celastrina nigra
Dusky Azure
SR
None
S2?
G4
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Discus bryanti
Sawtooth Disc
SC
None
S2
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Ephemerella berneri
A Mayfly
SR
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
rte Inveebrate
Invertebrate
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Oyster Mussel
EX
E
SX
GI
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
rte Inveebrate
Invertebrate
Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell
EX
E
SX
G[Ti
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Erora laeta
Early Hairstreak
SR
None
S2S3
G3G4
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Erynnis martialis
Mottled Duskywing
SR
None
S3
G3G4
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Euphydryas phaeton
Baltimore Checkerspot
SR
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Fusconaia subrotunda
Long -solid
SR
None
S1
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Hypochilus coylei
A Lampshade Spider
SR
None
S3?
G3?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
-97-

Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County -Status
Map _
Habitat
Invertebrate
Animal
Hypochilus sheari
A Lampshade Spider
SR
None
S2S3
G2G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Invertebrate
Macdunnoa brunnea
A Mayfly
SR
None
S2
G3 G 4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Medionidus conradicus
Cumberland Moccasinshell
EX
None
SX
G3G4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Micrasema burksi
A Caddisfly
SR
None
S3
G4G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Paravitrea andrewsae
High Mountain Supercoil
Sc
None
S2
G2
Buncombe-
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Phyciodes batesii maconensis
Tawny Crescent
SR
FSC
S2
G T2T
4 3
Buncombe-
Historical
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Polygonia faunus smythi
Smyth's Green Comma
SR
None
S2
G T T
5 3 4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Pol ► onia ro ne
yg p g
Gray Comma
y
SR
None
St
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
rte
rte Inveebrate
Satyrium caryaevorus
Hickory Hairstreak
SR
None
Si?
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Natural
Acidic cove forest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Boulderfield forest
None
None
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Canada hemlock forest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Carolina hemlock bluff
None
None
None
S2
G2G 3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Chestnut oak forest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Grassy bald
None
None
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Heath bald
None
None
None
S3
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community

),) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) j ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Major Groun
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Federal
State
Global
County -Status Map -
Habitat
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Natural
High elevation granitic dome
None
None
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
High elevation red oak forest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
High elevation rocky summit
None
None
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
Community
High elevation seep
None
None
None
S2S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Natural
Community
Low elevation granitic dome
None
None
None
Si
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Natural
Low elevation rocky summit
None
None
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Montane alluvial forest
None
None
None
Sr
G2?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Community
Montane mafic cliff
None
None
None
St
G2?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Natural
Montane oak --hickory forest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
Montane red cedar -hardwood None
None
None
Si?
GNR
Buncombe -
Link
Community
woodland
Obscure
Natural
Northern orest hardwoodf
None
None
None
S2?
G2?
Buncombe -
Link
Community
(beech gap subtype)
Current
Natural
Northern hardwood forest
None
None
None
S4
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Community
(typic subtype)
Current
Natural
Community
Pine--oak/heath
None
None
None
S4
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Natural
Red spruce- Fraser fir forest
None
None
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
Rich cove forest
None
None
None
S4
G4
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
Natural
Rocky bar and shore
None
None
None
S5
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Community
Current
HRM

Major Groua
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
Countv -Status
Map _
Habitat
Natural
Spray cliff
None
None
None
S3
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Swamp forest -bog complex
None
None
None
S3
G2G3T2
Buncombe -
Link
Community
(t)pic subtype)
Current
Nonvascular
Acrobolbus ciliatus
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
Sc
G3?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Ba=ania nudicaulis
A Liverwort
SR-T
None
S2
G2G 3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Cetrelia cetrarioides
Sea Storm Lichen
SR-D
None
S2
G G
4 5
Buncombe-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Dichodontium pellucidum
A Moss
W1
None
S2
G G
4 5
Buncombe-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Dicranum undulatum
Bog Broom -moss
SR-D
None
S1
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Diplophyllum oblusatum
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
St
G2?
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Entodon sullivantii
Sullivant's Entodon
SR-0
None
S2
G3 G 4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Gymnoderma lineare
Rock Gnome Lichen
T
None
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Hydrothyria venosa
Waterfan Lichen
SR-P
None
S3
G3G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Melanelia st3gia
Alpine Camouflage Lichen
SR-D
None
SIS2
G G
4 5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Nardia scalaris ss . scalaris
p
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
Si
G5T5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Pannaria conoplea
Mealy -rimmed Shingle Lichen
SR-D
None
Si
G G
3 4
Buncombe-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Plagiochila corniculata
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
S2
G4?
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Rhytidium rugosum
Golden Tundra -moss
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
—I00—

) ) ) ) ) ). ) I ) ) ) ) ) ), ) ) ) ), ) ) ) ) ) ), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) )
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County -Status
Map _
Habitat
Nonvascular
Xanthoparnielia mortticola
A Rock -shield Lichen
SR-L
None
S2?
G2?
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Plant
Vascular Plant
Aconitum reclinatum
Trailing Wolfsbane
SR
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Adlumia fungosa
Climbing Fumitory
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Amelanchiersanguinea
Roundleaf Serviceberry
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Arabis hirsuta var.
Hairy Rockeress
SR-P
None
Si
G5T4Q
Buncombe -
Current
Link
adpressipilis
Vascular Plant
Berberis canadensis
American Barberry
SR-T
None
S2
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Botrychium jenmanii
Alabama Grape -fern
SR-P
None
S2
G3G4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Botrychium oneidense
Blunt -lobed Grape -fern
SR-P
None
S2
G4Q
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Buckleya distichophylla
Piratebush
E
FSC
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Calamagrostis cainii
Cain's Reed Grass
E
FSC
Si
GI
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Caltha palustris
Marsh -marigold
SR-P
None
Si
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Carex biltmoreana
Biltmore Sedge
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Carex hitchcockiana
Hitchcock's Sedge
SR-P
None
SI
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Carex leptonervia
A Wood Sedge
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Carex misera
Wretched Sedge
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Carex roanensis
Roan Sedge
SR-T
FSC
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link

Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
�
County -Status MHabitat
Vascular Plant
Carex trisperma
Three -seeded Sedge
SR-P
None
S[
G5
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Vascular Plant
Celaslrus scandens
American Bittersweet
SR-P
None
S2?
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Clematisglaucophylla
White -leaved Leatherflower
SR-P
None
SH
G4?
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Vascular Plant
Clematis occidentalis
Mountain Clematis
SR-P
None
S1
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Coeloglossum viride var.
Long-bracted Frog Orchid
SR-P
None
S1
G T
5 5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
virescens
Vascular Plant
Coreopsis latifolia
Broadleaf Coreopsis
SR-T
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Dicenlra eximia
Bleeding Heart
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Dodecatheon meadia var.
Eastern Shooting -Star
SR-P
None
S2
G5T5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
meadia
Vascular Plant
Draba ramosissima
Branching Draba
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Epilobium cilialum
Purpleleaf Willowherb
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Euphorbia commutala
Cliff Spurge
SR-P
None
S1
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Euphorbia purpurea
Glade Spurge
SR-T
FSC
S2
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Filipendula rubra
Queen -of -the -prairie
E
None
S1
G4G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Geum radialum
Spreading Avens
E-SC
E
S2
Gi
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Hasteola suaveolens
Sweet Indian -plantain
SR-T
None
SH
G3
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Vascular Plant
Helianthemum bicknelld
Plains Sunrose
SR-P
None
SH
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
—IO2—

Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Federal
State
Global
County -Status Map -
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Habitat
Vascular Plant
Helianthemum propinguum
Creeping Sunrose
SR-P
None
St
G4
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Helianthus occidentalis
Few -leaf Sunflower
SR-P
None
SX
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Hexastylis contracta
Mountain Heartleaf
E
FSC
St
G3
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Hexastylis rhontbiformis
French Broad Heartleaf
SR-L
FSC
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Huperzia appalachiana
Appalachian Fir-clubmoss
SR-P
None
S2
G4G5
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Hydrastis canadensis
Goldenseal
E-SC
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Largeleaf Waterleaf
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Juncus trifidus
Highland Rush
E
None
Si
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Juniperus communis var.
Dwarf Juniper
SR-D
None
SI
G5T5
Buncombe -
Link
depressa
Historical
Vascular Plant
Liatris turgida
Shale -barren Blazing -star
SR-T
None
SIS2
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Liliumgrayi
Gray's Lily
T-SC
FSC
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Lonicera canadensis
American Fly -honeysuckle
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Loniceraflava
Yellow Honeysuckle
SR-P
None
S2
G5?
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Lysimachia fraseri
Fraser's Loosestrife
E
FSC
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Monotropsis odorata
Sweet Pinesap
SR-T
FSC
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Link
Current
Vascular Plant
Packera millefolium
Divided -leaf Ragwort
T
FSC
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Link
Current
—103—

Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County - Status
Map -
Habitat
Vascular Plant
Packera schweinitziana
Schweinitz's Ragwort
E
None
S2
G5?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Parnassiagrandifolia
Large -leaved Grass-of-parnassus
T
FSC
S2
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Pedicularis lanceolata
Swamp Lousewort
SR-P
None
Si
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Phegopteris connectilis
Northern Beech Fern
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Phlox subulata
Moss Pink
SR-P
None
S1
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Platanthera fl ava var. herbiola Northern Green Orchid
SR-P
None
Si?
G T Q
4 4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Platantheragrandiflora
Large Purple -fringed Orchid
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Platanthera peramoena
Purple Fringeless Orchid
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Vascular Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Robinia his ida var. kelse i
p y
Kelsey's Locust
Y
SR-O
None
S1
G4Ti
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosrrs
Red Raspberry
SR-P
None
S2?
G T
5 5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Rudbeckia triloba var.
Pinnate -lobed Black-eyed Susan
SR-T
None
Si
G5T 3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
pinnatiloba
Vascular Plant
Sagittaria fasciculata
Bunched Arrowhead
E
E
St
Gi
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Sarracenia jonesii
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
E-SC
E
S1
G3Ti
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Saxifraga caroliniana
Carolina Saxifrage
SR-T
FSC
S3
G2
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Silene ovata
Mountain Catchfly
SR-T
FSC
S3
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
—104—

l ) ➢ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) l,)) ),) l') ) ) )�) ) ),) ),) )) ) ) )�) ),) ) ) ) ) ) ) ),) )
MajorGrouu
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County - Status Map -
Habitat
Vascular Plant
Spiraea virginiana
Virginia Spiraea
E
T
S2
G2
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Spiranthes ochroleuca
Yellow Ladies' -tresses
SR-P
None
SH
G4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Streptopus amplexifolius
White Mandarin
SR-P
None
Si
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Thermopsis fraxinifolia
Ash -leaved Golden -banner
SR-T
None
S2?
G3?
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Thermopsis mollis
Appalachian Golden -banner
SR-P
None
S2
G3G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Trichophorum cespitosum
Deerhair Bulrush
SR-D
None
S2S3
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vascular Plant
Woodsia appalachiana
Appalachian Cliff Fern
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vascular Plant
Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus
White Camas
SR-P
None
Si
G5T4T5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Aegolius acadictts pop. r
Southern Appalachian Northern
T
FSC
S2B,S2N
GSTNR
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Saw -whet Owl
Current
Vertebrate
Vertebrate
AnimaVertebrate
Ainiophila aestivalis
Bachman s Sparrow
Sc
FSC
S3B,S2N
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Ambystoma talpoideum
Mole Salamander
Sc
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Apalone spinifera spimfera
Eastern Spiny Sofshell
Sc
None
Si
G5T5
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Calharusguttatus
Hermit Thrush
SR
None
S2B,S5N
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Animal
Certhia americana
Brown Creeper
SC
None
S3B,S5N
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Animal
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Black -billed Cuckoo
SR
None
S2B
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat -
T
FSC
S2
Buncombe -
G3G4TNR
Link
Animal
rafinesquii
Mountain Subspecies
Historical
—105—

Major Groun
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County -Status Map _
Habitat
Vertebrate
Crotalus horridus
Timber Rattlesnake
SC
None
S3
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Hellbender
SC
FSC
S3
G3G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Dendroica cerulea
Cerulean Warbler
SR
FSC
S2B
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Dendroica magnolia
Magnolia Warbler
SR
None
S[S2B
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Desmognathus wrighti
Pigmy Salamander
SR
FSC
S3
G3G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Empidonax alnorum
Alder Flycatcher
SR
None
S2B
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Erimonax monachus
SP otfin Chub
T
T
St
G2
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Erimystax insignis
Blotched Chub
SR
FSC
S3
G3G4
Buncombe -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Falco peregrines
Peregrine Falcon
E
None
StB,S2N
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Glaucon: s sabrinus coloratus
y
Carolina Northern Flying
E
E
S2
G5Ti
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Squirrel
Vertebrate
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T
T
S2
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Hemidactylium scutatum
Four -toed Salamander
SC
None
S3
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Loxia curvirostra pop. r
Southern Appalachian Red
SC
FSC
S3B,S3N
G5TNR
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Crossbill
Vertebrate
Mustela nivalis
Least Weasel
SR
None
S2
G5
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Myotisgrisescens
Gray Myotis
E
E
SU
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Myotis leibii
Eastern Small -footed Myotis
SC
FSC
SUB,S2N
G3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
- io6 -
)?))))))))))))))))))))))1)))))))))))))))))))

MajorGroin
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
Map -
County -Status Habitat
Vertebrate
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern Long-eared Myotis
Sc
None
S3
G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
Vertebrate
Anima
Necturus maculosus
Common Mudpuppy
SC
None
SH
G5
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Neoloma floridana
Eastern Woodrat - Southern
SC
FSC
S3
G5T4Q
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
haematoreia
Appalachian Population
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Neotoma magister
Appalachian Woodrat
Sc
FSC
S2
G3G4
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Animal
Percina burtoni
Blotchside Logperch
E
FSC
S1
G2
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Animal
Percina macrocephala
Longhead Darter
SC
FSC
SX
G3
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Plethodon amplus
Blue Ridge Gray -checked
SR
None
SIS2
QG2
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Salamander
Obscure
Vertebrate
Plethodon ventralis
Southern Zigzag Salamander
SC
None
S1
G4
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Plethodon yonahlossee pop. i
Crevice Salamander
Sc
None
Si
G4TiQ
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Poecile atricapillus practica
Southern Appalachian Black-
SC
FSC
S3
G5TNR
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
capped Chickadee
Historical
Vertebrate
Animal
Polyodon spathula
Paddlefish
E
FSC
SH
G4
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Animal
Puma concolor couguar
Eastern Cougar
E
E
SH
G5THQ
Buncombe -
Historical
Link
Vertebrate
Sciurus niger pop. r
Eastern Fox Squirrel -- Mountain SR
None
SI?
G5TNR
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
population
Historical
Vertebrate
Sorex dispar
Long-tailed Shrew
SC
None
S2
G4
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate
Animal
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Southern Water Shrew
Sc
FSC
S2
G5T3
Buncombe -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
Sphyrapicus varius
Appalachian Yellow -bellied
SC
FSC
S3B,SSN
G5TNR
Buncombe -
Link
Animal
appalachiensis
Sapsucker
Current
—I07—

Major Group
Vertebrate
Animal
Vertebrate
Animal
Vertebrate
Animal
Scientific Name
Thryonianes bewickii allus
Vermivora pinus
Vireo gilvus
Common Name
Appalachian Bewick's Wren
Blue -winged Warbler
Warbling Vireo
NC NHP database updated: March, 2006.
Search performed on Monday,17 April 20o6 @ 14:26:44 EDST
State
Federal
State
Status
Status
Rank
E
FSC
SHB
SR
None
S2B
SR
None
S2B
- Io8 -
County -Status
Rank
Habitat
G5T2Q
Buncombe -
Link
Historical
G 5
Buncombe -
Link
Current
G 5
Buncombe -
Link
Current

EXPLANATION OF CODES FOR COUNTY AND QUAD STATUS LISTS
The county and quadrangle status lists provided by the NC Natural Heritage Program tally the elements of natural diversity (rare plants and animals, rare and
exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur in all North Carolina counties and USGS 7-5-minute quadrangles. The information
on which these lists is based comes from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums, herbaria, scientific literature, and personal communications. These
lists are dynamic, with new records continually being added and old records being revised as new information is received. As a result, a list cannot be considered a
definitive record of the elements of natural diversity present in a given county or quad and should not be used as a substitute for field surveys. When this
information is used in any document, we request that the date this list was compiled be given and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be credited.
STATESTATUS
J _
E i Endangered i SR Significantly Rare
.....».,.......».....,...3 '
T ......_..._............_.__...._... ....._.__..-......_--....--.._._.._.1 .....E_._.X..._......Extirpated
_.-...__-.--.._-... _..... __... ._..---_..-.._..3..................-.......__.._. _
Sc
Special Concern
P_
Proposed (used only as a qualifier of the ranks
above)
NOTE: the definitions of state statuses of plants and animals differ. Below are summaries of the statuses for each group.
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage Program (NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources). Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species are protected by state law (Plant Protection and Conservation Act,
1979). Candidate and Significantly Rare designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action. Note that plants can have a
double status, e.g., E-SC, indicates that while the plant is endangered, it is collected or sold under regulation.
.._..._._..__._.._._..._................... _.__............_.. ._.............. _........ .... ............._..___-.... _._._............ __..... .__............. ..... .... _... _ ..... _...__..... - -
CODEJ 'STATUS DEFINITION.- - - - - --- -------- _ ._..............._.... - -- - --- - - .._............._.... -- _._.. _ .__._......- -._._._... - .... _ _._ .
E Endangered "Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be
in jeopardy" (GS 19B to6: 2o2.m). (Endangered species may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for
i research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species.)
___.._...___.._...._._........ _..----------..._._.__.__._.._.._.__.....__..__....____.._.__._.._.__.�.__._......-.__.___.._._ . _._._..._...__..._..___._..__..__....__.__.__._..__._.........._._._..______... _..___.._.___..._......._......_....._..._........_..__....__._...:..._.._..._..... x
T Threatened 1["resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
gnificant
a siportion of its range" (GS 19B io6:2o2.12). (Regulations are the same as for Endangered species.)
-109 -

T COD E STATUS _ _DEFINITIO_N_ _
SC Special Concern "Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B io6:202.12). (Special Concern species
which are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under specific regulations.
Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold
under specific regulations.)
C Candidate Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are also either rare
throughout their ranges (fewer than ioo populations total) or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part
of the country or world. Also included are species which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50
populations rangewide. These are species which have the preponderance of their distribution in North Carolina and whose
fate depends largely on their conservation here. Also included are many species known to have once occurred in North
Carolina but with no known extant occurrences in the state (historical or extirpated species); if these species are relocated in
I the state, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened. If present land use trends continue, candidate species are
_ _ likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened.
SR _ ; Significantly Rare Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with i-2o populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
j numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are generally more
common somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats
jwhich are unusual in North Carolina. Also included are some species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also
have only 50-100 populations rangewide and are declining.MT
-L Limited The range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states (endemic or near endemic). These are species which
may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide. The preponderance of their
' distribution is in North Carolina and their fate depends largely on conservation here. Also included arc some species with 2o-
goo populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-100 populations rangewide and declining.
-T� Thro_ughout These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than ioo populations total)
-D Disjunct The species is disjunct to NC from a main range in a different part of the country or world.
_ -P _ Peripheral The species is at the periphery of its range in NC. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges,
{ occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina.
-O Other The range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly Rare categories
__ ....i....._ ._._......__......._._ ....... - -
P_ I Proposed A species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet
completed the legally mandated listing process.
— IIO —
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))))I))))))))))))

Animal statuses are determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species
of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, and freshwater and terrestrial mollusks have legal protection status in North Carolina (Wildlife
Resources Commission). The Significantly Rare designation indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
CODE 11STATUS DEFINITION
E Endangered "Any native or once -native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna
is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be
an 'endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes;
T 1
Threatened
"Any native or once-nativespecies of wild animal which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of 3
Chapter ni of the General Statutes; 1987).
P
SC 3
Special Concern
"Any species of wild animal native or once -native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources
Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this
Article." (Article 2$ of Chapter 113 of the General_ Statutes;1987).
_
SR
Significantly Rare
Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program to need monitoring. (This is a N.C. Natural Heritage Program designation.) Significantly Rare species
"peripheral" species, whereby North Carolina lies at the periphery of the species' range (such as Hermit
,include
Thrush). The designation also includes marine and estuarine fishes identified as "Vulnerable" by the N.C. State
Museum of Biological Sciences (Ross et al.,1988, Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. AThreatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A
EX IlExtirpated A_species which is no longer believed to _occur in the state.
P_ µ; Proposed _ Species has been proposed by a Scientific Council as a status (Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Watch List, or
for De -listing) that is different from the current status, but the status has not yet been adopted by the Wildlife
Resources Commission and by the General Assembly as law. In the lists of rare species in this book, these proposed
statuses are listed in parentheses below the current status. Only those proposed statuses that are different from the
current statuses are listed.
— III —

FEDERAL STATUS
These statuses are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the tooth Congress. Unless otherwise noted, definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225,
November 21, r991(5o CFR Part 17).
CODEIISTATUS D� EFINITION
E--7lEndangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." _
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
EXN Endangered, nonessential The Endangered Species Act permits the reintroduction of endangered animals as "nonessential
experimental population. experimental" populations. Such populations, considered nonessential to the survival of the species, are
managed with fewer restrictions than populations listed as endangered.
T(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity The Endangered Species Act authorizes the treatment of a species (subspecies or population segment) as
of Appearance. threatened even though it is not otherwise listed as threatened if. (a) The species so closely resembles in
appearance a threatened species that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in
differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an !
additional threat to a threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially i
facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act. The American Alligator has this designation due to
similarity of appearance to other rare crocodilians. The Bog Turtle (southern population) has this designation ii
due to similarity of appearance to Bog Turtles in the threatened northern population.
C Candidate. A taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing. This category was
formerly designated as a Candidate i (Ci) species.
FSC Federal "Species of Concern" (Also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly defined as a taxon under consideration for which there is insufficient
information to support listing; formerly designated as a Candidate 2 (C2)
PE 1 Proposed Endangered J Species has been proposed for listing as endangered.
PD Proposed De -listed Species has been proposed for de -listing.
— I12 —

GLOBAL AND STATE RANKS
These ranks are determined by The Nature Conservancy's system of measuring rarity and threat status. "Global" refers to worldwide ranks and "State" to
statewide ranks.
STATE 11DEFINITIONS
_RANK
Si ~
_
Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation
in the state_ .
52 Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
S4 Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
SS Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under_present_conditions. _
_
SA
Accidental or casual; one to several records for North Carolina, but the state is outside the normal range of l
the species.
SH Historic record: the element is either extirpated from the county or quad, or there have not been any recent i
surveys to verify its continued existence.
--------------
SR ]Reported Reported from North Carolina, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the
_ repo_rt._
SX Believed to be extirpated from North Carolina.
--
SU Possibly in peril in North Carolina, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
S? ;Unranked, or rank uncertain.
S_B Rank of breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
S _N Rank of non -breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
SZ_ Population is not of significant conservation concern; applies to transitory, migratory species.
GLOBAL
RANK
DEFINITIONS^HmµMH�
GI
Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout
its range.
GZ 1Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range
—I13—

G3 Either very rare and local throughout its range,. or found locally in a restricted area.
= G4 _ _ Apparently secure globally, although it maybe quite rare in parts of itsrange(especially at the periphery).
GS Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
.................._..._..__......._..........__......._..-.._..__......_............................ _ .
GH ; Of historical occurrence throughout its range.
....... _
_
GX Believed to be extinct throughout its range.
----- .- ..... _ _.._.:.. - - __ - - - - - - ......__._...... __._...._ _.. - ---- -- - - ----._._.....__..._._.......... - - ---- - - --- -
GU IF in peril, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
........... ... .. ..............._.__.......,._.__.........._._..........__._.._ ....................._. _......_.........._._.-........ ........ ......_._..-.....__._......_._....... & ............. . .........._................................................_...._......._..........................................-..................-.....___....._........_............... __ .._....._ _ ............_
GG? Unranked, or rank uncertain. ........ ............-._.. ._ _. . I
..
.. I
G_Q i Of uestionable taxonomic status
Status of subspecies or variety; the G-rank refers to the species as a whole, the T-rank to the subspecies.
ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
Elements within a county or quad are subdivided into "Current", "Historic", "Obscure" or "Potential" records.
Current record: the element has been observed in the county or quad recently.
Historic record: the element is either extirpated from the county or quad, or there have not been any recent surveys to verify its continued existence.
Obscure record: the date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
Potential record: the element has the potential to be found in the county or quad.
NOTE: Scientific and common names listed in parentheses are synonyms listed in US Fish and Wildlife Service,1992, Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book).
—II4—

l)))))l.)))l))llll)lll))))l)l)))))))))1)))))))
NC NHP County Eleinent Search Results
Returned Elements: 181 using: IIAYWOOD ALL
[Invertebrate Animal 22] [Natural Community 25] [Nonvascular Plant 33] [Vascular Plant 67] [Vertebrate Animal 34]
... .� .. .....r• e.. .. e, .• .. • .. ro........ . r —. .. t w• .. .: •- ••• ! 14 4t t�. ...e• ...• -. Yf ,1, 9, ild. ,A . if :'. t'.
!.} ri+ -r+ <Y ram: !•; t FM } i;.iFs.. S ,.Ct SI, i .�S:F" >,},. ,F;;Y'w i. t"s '7 .f1} f,' "`•':*C # .�s'.' >{'t"+. � la-1•. ..Y7 #T £'F.
t. i,,. „ t,. S t i iz"§z 1,r. # ..u. ... ,tt1J%'. „s, I� .» -..t• tr•: tkr.�fs;�i, .,{T, .tl ..ylE:> ,t .d..< 2 0:£ . !
'f r t • 77 t' -r• .�
}
3 Ft 1
s .I � t.
£� F � da...,... >;:.: # , :_,:= a.e�...�.. S��ate federal State.. :.Glottal '.f;: Coun
,M
'�.. it ...._...: a.. ., .. ,. , •.....ia, ., ! , .,a,s•. ......<..::. ! ,! . ,... ::• ... L•,I ,f
..,.,... _..< Name
.£
r h
" 4 b
,.` ff•11 k y d. CtatuS . Status
-` . •i• T Y :{6 � S N t iS Y Z' '
.! l.. - f l..
,t t
Rank .
- {
.'z Rrik..
i } ..x.r.:;
,! S d
:1 iM• ltat�.
r..Gro�
*•r i;.a� x't,t £:.,.,}�L.! eTT sRttr�:!fij.?. a:'et1f}.Fi
1!t !tt•<;4T-.-#<i
.;9-L..Y:.f'l1lr}3.t!::.!l.�L�.::.»rsx .±,<,}i?itiF,all,;lf r#,. F.t}ix.C�.:
x,ar tT^^ ..
S.JiN •::t:':i.
Ir... ::5 .
Invertebrate . ;;; .. ;•:' >;
Ha ood ..
Link
:. Alasmidonta: ravenelrana
A alachian Elktoe E
pP
E
S 1
G 1
Animal - ::
: .
Current
rte Inveebrate
Appalachina chilhoweensis
Queen Crater SC
None
S2
G4
Haywood -
Link
Anima
Obscure
Invertebrate : ` ..Haywood
Atfaneurra rttralas
A Stonefly SR
None,.*,S2
.
G4
- `.
Current
Link
Animal
_
..
Invertebrate Autochton cellus
Golden Banded -Skipper SR
None
SIS2
G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
....: te Invertebracelastrana.n ra = .D
uskyAzure . SR
None
S21
.Haywood: -,..
Link
Animal:
C
Invertebrate Erora laeta
Early Hairstreak SR
None
S2S3
G3G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
t
invertebrate .,,,.: -
°
Ma : Allce s ;Small -headed '
ry; SR -
No
S 1 S3
:
='
G 1 G3
Ha wood
_y ...
;.
Link
Eulonchus marrali�icre " .::...
Animal - ,.
= :.: :... _
Fly ......
: =
_ .
� .._
..,.
..Current
Invertebrate Euphydryas phaeton
Baltimore Checkerspot SR
None
S2
G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
Invertebrate .. ::.
:.. umonelax`orestes
F
..
Engraved Covert T
tt
;None
S 1
G 1 .,
!
ywood .-
: HClu a ,
Link;
A mal ..; t
ni -
`.. z
'..y .. ., ...
�
t
Invertebrate Gomphus adelphus
Moustached Clubtail SR
None
S 1 S2
G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Obscure
—115—

.... _ , , ... _. ,,.� , _.. .... rt �
Ma or. i ..�. ...... _ .. ,
t } =
, . _�.� ... � _ �:,.::... r lobal. 'Coup
. State ral .State G a�_ <
�.. � �, tit .4
�.Common�Name 7 7
,,i,Scxent�ficName.. � 7
.a' E , 1
, i,ti h_.. 1 7 .... _. , ,.F ... �. =.,,7.: ,
7
} .,
::" : ,tt . 7.. .,.:; t, •�,. � ,. � � ,,.3 f �.:
„t
<.7-
��Status:
.,. �_
, : Ranlc� -
T 1 ,
;Rank a
t tatus _.
,_:. .,.,...,
Hab itat
! i
Invertebrate
Haywood
Gom, phus descrrptus
Harpoon Clubtail
SR
None
S 1 T
:.
G4
? ..
Obscure
Link''
Anima -.
;
Invertebrate Gomphus lineatifrons
Splendid Clubtail
SR
None
S2S3
G4
oo
Haywood -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Inflectariuss ferrissi '
Smoky Mountain Covert
T
None
S2
G2
Haywood =
score
Link
Animal_
. ,
.Obscure .,-
Invertebrate In ectarius sub alliatus
p
Velvet Covert
SC
None
S2
G2
Haywood -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
Lampsrlis fascrola
Wavy rayed Lampmussel
SC
None
-
S 1
GS
Haywood -
Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate Micrasema buy ksi
A Caddisfly
SR
None
S3
G4G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Animalimal
Invertebrate
- _ Ophiogomphrs'gspersus
Brook Snaketail
SR .
None
S1S2
; G3G4
Haywood -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate Ohio om hus mainensis
p g p
Maine Snaketail
SR
None
S2S3
G4
Haywood-
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate . .. ` ; .
Paravrtrea lamellidens ,
Lamellate. Supercoil
SC
None
52 � '
. G2
Haywood
Obscure
Link:,
Animal
.
,
Invertebrate Ph ciodes batesii maconensis
y
Tawny Crescent
y
SR
FSC
S2
G4T2T3
Haywood-
Obscure
Link
Animal
Invertebrate ,< ..., } ; ; ,
P.olygonra faunus smythi
- .
Smyth s Green Comma
SR
None
S2
GST3T4
Haywood"
Current
Link
,
Animal
Invertebrate Rh aco hila mainensis
y p
A Caddisfly
SR
None
S2
G5
Haywood-
Current
Link
Animal
Natural �,
D roc Sr a"; , .1onc
Community: t P .
None
None
S2
G3�Haywood
Current
Link
- I16 -

r;> _tat _t ! ! s ...>... .,.., r 3', .. ;+..
k. 3 . i. F - fi.Y. S�; r, , S., i. .�.t.f
t;, -i! .Y..3-.,.:E:'. 3 . $ 1 f . it > ,.it. 3w .t" FI..« . L'S„
'.r.F. � ._.. :.!((,•::F .. }. '- • .�.. r ,. ., ..r*1 ., $$^^ i ,, ,.
_. , ..-.- .,,,... :_, r .?:a .. • ' _.. .J a..,31+.. ,it 3 ;. •h:..:,,,
.f . . .f.E. ..:.... .. .: . .. .........<• • f-.>...-.,-.. _......) . ! w-. .j3 -:.:.
i.•)) E . ,«k �. ,.tF'r^,. •,
5 -� � ,S ♦ ..1
)..,, # i .t.; .. . ! ., s
r...; .. z..a.r : #...,ts ,
i7 .x kL , t. ! ..:.«.
« ,#•
. , • �
i
f..r ,...
-F ,F. ,fit
...
.t` •! .,i(,�
t
}',
,t
»,.: s f ..,1.,
tt:t ,} .
E a 3
_ ::k F".11:# .
_ S .t,..#a'te
..F•' .c � . � : i� .i �•, :+F �,F .r.9�: !F., i3 ,,.ti s:. _..,�,.5
-;-� r , �.�3 � cienhfic=Name_ • � L - Common'Name .,lt
7 i
.. 1 f: :Rank Status
�'ie-.. sq�i....... �..t.. Statust:
Habitat;
Vi ;?ttt1#.i-,i'''•'t;�`.. # :1s �>,= .. �-, .t.'...: .. � �: ... zS,
.�fk.C�?.i�.tr;7�.i-lk}':iisFr�.33•„{f•lr.YvF.,,+. ._..,.+��xfJ:,i....,,.�i vib*�'�x.. •..F"r...�.. �. rrs,,...t'�##.+'�f,:Ii :... ,1 3t,.Fi},ttf �ir,^�..,fu
. «..r
,l ...I.:.tis3. .:xxb}.iitr .r.i...,sf. ...,..�..,,. ., .....-.
{.
e.,..r.�!...��T.,..it
^.._��t....a,...
a: ER
....
Natural Acidic cove forest None
None
None
S5
G5
Haywood -
Link.
Community
Current
Natural :. "
Boulde field orest „ ; None
Com f
None
' None
, ; S3
G3
:Haywood :=
Current
Link
uni m
t
Natural Canada hemlock forest None
None
None
S5
G5
Haywood -
Link
Community
Current
.., :. :a
Na ,
Carol rna hemlock bt'ai' :None None
ff •
None
S2
Ha - wood ,
: G2G3 Y
Current
Link
..
Community :: , :
Natural Chestnut oak forest None
None
None
S5
G5
Haywood -
Link
Community
Current
Na al ' :.
... t
"
Ha wood
y
Link
r Fraser fir forest :`... None
Community
::'' ..: - • :None.::
None
S 1
G 1
:.Current
.
Natural Grass bald None
Y
None
None
S2
G2
Haywood -
Link
Community
Obscure
Natural :.
, Meath bald None
None
None
; 'S3
G4
Haywood
Link
: :f
Community
..Current , - �"
:
Natural High elevation red oak forest None
g
None
None
S5
G5
Haywood -
Link
Community
Current
Natural .. :` .
Ha h elevation .roe summat None
None-
;..
None
S2
- G2
: Ha wood ..
y ...
Lin
,
ni'
Commu ty
Current
Natural High elevation seep None
None
None
S2S3
G3
Haywood -
Link
Community
Current
r, ;i , ..i
.:• .. .w , :: �::- £ , r= . ; �
3 E.
i3- ,3
..!: None
,i-.
i
' 3..,
3, i
:�:
f
-
—
-:H a odd
Link
Low a evation roc summat None
Community _.
' None
52 -
G2
.. Current
Natural` Montane acidic cliff None
ff
None
None
S3
G4
Haywood -
Link
Community
Current
-I17-

._ .... -.. ... ., -.> <:. ..... •.. e... a -.a,. s. s.,x>a ,.. t :....-.wsa-h[ e <e•.
"... ... .. ... �. .. .. ... >.: .-.,..., w...,e.t>. ..,>. .,.. x. f ,.. uo..::3d3 e>...a .sa .. ... . x,, �..:., :.
,... _...e ;, .#Sw F.,
. -.. i{a ! a Y ... -'E.. ,. - 3. i. �p , tY .t ...; ,.i'"...e..-.- . , �. .... ,. t ,. ..>e•#s.:_ .,_..... , i ., ., >>,..
2. > <a,. "....,%,..#.. .t, a, .. �Sft�
.. .: i,".. ...,1 ...aft i+
> ..;,..^u _.., „ .t; �... �...,sl ..f :E „_-" .: °�•xia: ,r«
## .. , _.,t ...}} ,. {{ff ,zw..,..- �: .r , k t,: a •e ,. ..a.,,a. ".,. g. .a.. .,.. ,. <{', ..
t > .,r.
.., , .,..:.,....<.. ..- .`$..... .rr .. ...: y..
.< x -" "1= dun 'Ma
.> Global C
Skate Federal,State: „ M t p
.Y.� w31V�a..... ...<,. ._. ., .,.. �. f f .. i � , I�,� : ; �. ,-� � .
.�< .Y, e--
�, .� �:Grou ! _
4 3 ,: 3.
=Scientific Name
� # f, �.� s > ��; .,
� .Comrnon�Name
..� .�;
f• Status
.,;Status
,.a:
:Rank.:
--,:_
_ f�.
Rank
MAWS,
Habitat`
Natural .
. ' :
Montdne: ma ch
f ff'
None,
None
None
. S 1
._.�_
G2? ;,
d
Haywoo -
Current
Link
Community
_tc
Natural
Montane oak--hicko orest
rYf
None
None
None
S5
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Community
Natural :Northern
Cbmmuni
hardwood forest
eech -..a.. ,
a
None'
None
None
S2?
G2?
Haywood -
Current
Link
ty,
sub
g p.. typ )
Natural
Northern hardwood forest
None
None
None
S4
G5
Haywood -
Link
Community
(typic subtype)
Current
Natural
`Pine--oak/heath
None
None
None
S4 ,
GS
Haywood -
Current.
Lilik
Community:."
_...
Natural
Red s ruce-- raser r orest
p f f f
None
None
None
S2
G2
Haywood -
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Rich cove orest
f
..-
None
N one
None
S4
G4
Current
Link
Community
, ..
_
Natural
Southern appalachian bog
None
None
None
S 1 S2
G 1 T 1
Haywood -
Link
Community
(northern subtype)
Current
Natural '
Southern appalachian bog :
=
- None
None
None
S 1 S2
G 1 G2T 1 T2 Haywood
Link
Community,
southern `sub e
i , ,. _ ..typ.)
Current
Natural
Swamp forest -bog complex
None
None
None
S 1
G2G3T 1
Haywood -
Link
Community
(spruce subtype)
Current
Natural
Swarnp forest -bog complex.
:.None
None,,
None
S3
: G2G3T2 "
Haywood -
Link,
Communi tY.(tYp
is sub e
typ)
>
C
Nonvascular
Acrobolbus ciliatus
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
S 1
G3?
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular,
: - .....,
Brach "thecium rotaeanum. - ,
y
Rotas Feather Moss; ,
SR D
None Y S 1
G3G4
Haywood'
Current
Link
Plant
f
- II8 -

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )I) ) ) Y) ) ) ) )
SP .....:t.: { r: .. ._. S .1 F. ...,. 3 ...... Y.. F•... .SF73T. 1"r I<`0j. ,Iii . /y f t . .. F {{ s. ".."G
. }., 31} .s'�; ..E ' { ..1'.•,. 3 : , i:.,>. 3 • w.. �.. r;- t'3' �
:r? 5: # . : • ', E
(f/, �y�1.- .�-.....� . . �.. tarte�> Fderal� State- Global :•Coup
i afar .:-�.J.-la Vl.}i.. '*.'. ►7 c~ij•t �
ti 3!
t i ...^"f
+ii E
>,.-fir r';:�' � ! �Cl ��{�+'- ,�,::# ;�•r>., ,� •-:r; ..
�._ �,..�r.�• },3 en r �N��me � .ComrhorlNari�e.
yy
Fg ..=:ds. ., ,.,.i ":,i. •!. - .. ,. tE.., ,.f7 ,,., , E'..:..- .. ,.. r
�
•Y } ...f2. f} A' f i !.._ .. �,. ? E : t4tiy+:+' e..}; T': 1 it
i
a�f' �j{"�[} l:E.
fro :33. . � {f :, ,is� > E< � . �
"{ }• :t . 3• ' 7 S � .. L `{A<eOwl
{,� S.{1j3f
„.F
{ , �y
t .;Y i. :•l•1s '. i F'Y}
. )i i *:;<.t F 1Y . 1' i
�Sta�s.
_S '1`{:•' 1'f <<qt .;il.
.,12
,.
s it
�y{�•.�/l�
ala
• x._, .. :. }3, � , ��t .. ��{¢�, � ti .
S- d'� �.>3i�+frzr,75
E.. 1°: "r 2ft (, � a S�j"X. ,,,e�#.•y-,S.". , ::... ,arif � xf...^��.
'
na
.[,., ,�
Nonvascular Buxbaumia aphylla Bug -on -a -stick
SR-0 None SH
G4G5
Haywood -
Link
Plant
Historical
Nonvascular Cam to us �,Wrovrrens.
.• =:, _; _ Ch f Cam to us ..:,
fie.- pY p
R-D ..:None S 1
S,.
G4GST4.
G r t
L ink
oucullati olrus: .. ,:
f
Nonvascular Ce haloziella s inicaulis A Liverwort
p p
SR-P None S 1
G3G4
Haywood -
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular :' .: " , '...
Cetrelra cetrarioides Sea Storm Lichen_,--,:
SR-D None S2
G4G5
"Ha ood -. ,- .
, .
Lank
" ::. <=
Plant
., ..,
,
..
Historical. .
,...
Nonvascular Dichodontium ellucidum A Moss
p
WI None S2
G4G5
Haywood -
Link
Plant
Historical
Nonvascular ,
Dicranum :undulatum..:. Bo Broom .moss ;
:Plant g
SR.D ° ; None S 1
GS
Haywood _
:
H istorical
Link .
,
Nonvascular Diplopliyllum apiculataun var. A Liverwort
SR-L None S 1
G5T2Q
Haywood -
Link
Plant taxifolioides
Historical
Nonvascular D� to h llum taxi ohum var
Y f
:: ,
None S
G5T 1
Ha ood '` .
Link :}
A Liverwort
Plant :. mucron tum :: _
SR L , .. 1 .
Historical
Nonvascular E hebe americana A Rockshag Lichen
p
SR-T None S 1
G2G3
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular,-=, .' : ~ = ... ::
Frullania a ala�hrarra ;. A Liverwort .....:
pp
PlaIffistorical
nt: r_.
SR L :None S 1 ? `
G 1 ?;
Haywood
Link
Nonvascular Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen
T None S2
G2
Haywood -
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular . _$ . -::. :;. :- . ...
_:3 H h .raa ve o , E Waterfan L then
L�rDt IZ Sa , X
y y
... _;
SR..P None S3
G3,G5.
Ha , � ood
Link
.' ro
P. ,ri :Ft`
:.....
Current
Nonvascular Le todontium excelsum Grandfather Mountain
p
SR-L None S 1
G2
Haywood -
Link
Plant Leptodontium
Historical
- I19 -

. .... ....-. t' ,.xi.±i lTe ..' )itf: !>"f! Ys :r; ...) . e,.., „3f `t 3'"^E: f•,•t> fif-,'Ee"' C.,l:' i•"
.... r. > .�.. e., •y, o.we.•- ,... .. .>, .... f � ..,..o..„,.e> s.». a .t exx s>'. •,. ..f::e:N l«>C I.t a �cr.,4�. '. >...., •f i. •.d.
_ ti..
.. t«. ..- ,e.♦ ;.,... ,, t. ,.. 4:::. >. ..1. x d$ K. ._ _l... +..I. § s `�IfE
�>
- . 1• - ,. Y .!. y{ .�. t.::—.:..., - f.l . .. .. { .T ........... ..... e.,'t , •) .S�:S • i 1. »S f
.. r., , ■ , .... ��.> i.d.: 1 1 I�COUn • � Ma.
Federal St 3
, �-..• .3 � .: . 3 : s .�. _ .. �. � State..),;- ate G ola _
..,...."' .. : ,;�f:,:,, � '' --�—
A �'. SS. ,.-- ..t.114a SY._--..>•J.. LY ..
� .__ : E i n ific :Tame .Common
l4 Sc e t
M.,,.itid
:. ��
NN> :Grou .j E � , �4., n �
,.: ��
�.,:. ,, .rt. _ .� Namel s,
�s� :.F 1. �� � .,, �,+ � � ,� , {•
-� h
;Status
w
-i Status
..7
Ra nk
L f
_ ,
:f3 Status
f
f .
.�
H abltat
:. � � � i : u.E , �,. K ..xl :.
n+'R7€F>4�,#tltE,:.:i �,x.
3
. f3;;.,{. F :, i.> {R• 3 I
,:... , � ....
, ; .
Nonvascular ,.... . , , ,.._ ) .
L� todontrum exi olrum • ..
,..;Pale mar` `-fined ''
g
,, _ ,
.; ...
SR D
:None....
• :, , -
;S L
GS
w d ='
a o0
,H Y ...
Link
Plant ". p . :. ; f ,
- Leptodontium
; ..
-
Historical
Nonvascular Le toh menium shay ii
p y p
Mount Leconte Moss
SR-L
None
S 1
G 1
Haywood-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Leptoscyphus`cunerfolius
..
A Liverwort
SR D
' None
S2 -
G4G5
Haywood
Historical
Link
Plant
ginata var.
Nonvascular Marst pella emar
A Liverwort
SR-L
None
Sl
wood
Ha -
G5T1T2 Y
Link
Plant latiloba
Historical
Nonvascular
Megaceros aem atrcus
A Hornwort
SR-L
None
S2S3. -
G2,G3-
Haywood -
Current
Link
?Plant . , .
Nonvascular Metz eria tem erata
g p
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
S 1 S2
G4
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
Metz eria violacea
Plant ," g
A liverwort
SR-D
:;: -None
S 1 S2
GNR
Haywood
Current , - ;' ;
Link
.. ,; )
Nonvascular Nardia scalaris ss . scalaris
p
A Liverwort
SR-D
None
S 1
G5T5
Haywood-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular E °:
:. Pannaria conoplea -
Meal ririmed Shln le
Y g
:,
SR-D
None
S1
G3G4
Haywood
Link
Plant :
_ .
Lichen -
Historical
Nonvascular Plagiochila caduciloba
A Liverwort
SR-T
None
S2
G2
Ha ood -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular `;:
Plagiochila. corntc. ulata
-
A. Liverwort
SR-D
None
S2
G4?
yw
Haywood -
H' t 1
i
Plant : ...
::.
is orica .
Nonvascular Pla iochila shag ii
g p
A Liverwort
SR-L
FSC
S2
G2G4
Haywood-
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivantii var. _
A Liverwort,
SR T
FSC
S2
G2T2
Haywood -
Link
w .
Plant ._ ,
sullivantaf
...
orica
.
-I20-

...r,. ..,, x .^«r; t-^S J.. �-°xz: i. ' 3^! 3. 1. 't . is':d;:. •.: r.; :;
!1�Mt i o ..+
.bal: t r
c.Na1
Co
.-�
E-:-
.t,._•r 2
.
roN
Status=
: :F
.
toi�n
.tf 1
HM—aabl—t.t 3.
..t
_
Nonvascular Riccardia 'u ata
g
A Liverwort
SR-L
None
S 1 ?
G2
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
: + , � �Sco elo rla: lr lata
'
Co'None
S 1
GS? i
Haywood ;
.
Plant
.
Current
Nonvascular Sphagnum subsecundum
Orange Peatmoss
g
SR-P
None
S 1
G5
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
Nonvascular
l.`` :: Sphenolobopsrs pearsonu -:
A Liverwort
E
FSC
52
G2?.
Haywood ; "
Link:
plait`
Historical
Nonvascular Xantho ar-melia naonticola
p
A Rock -shield Lichen
SR-L
None
S2?
G2?
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
Vascular .
., Aconrtum :reclrnatum
, ..:
. Tralling:Wolfsbane
SR ...
'. None :
S3 ..
G3 ..
°
Haywo -
Current
Link .
Plant � E
i �
_
Vascular Adlumia fungosa
Climbing Fumitory
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular-,. ..: :....
°Amelanchrer sarn umea
g
:.
Roundleaf Serviceberry
SR P
None
S2
G5 ,
Haywood
Link
--
Plant . w
' urrent
Vascular Berberis canadensis
American Barberry
SR-T
None
S2
G3
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
r, ,
Vascular =_ :.. ,.
. - ': Botrychiunz oneidense
:.
Blunt lobed Grape -fern;
SR P
,
None
S2
G4Q ,.
Haywood
Hit
Link
;Plant _:;
_
:.-
Vascular Botrychium simplex var.
Least Moonwort
SR-P
None
S2
G5T5
Haywood -
Link
Plant simplex
Current
Vascular:.
ntrronale pte
Northen Shorthus
3;G4G5Yt
�S...... _
-
Link
.i
,H...aywo..o.d
is onca
..
Vascular yp BuckleY a disticho h lla
Piratebush
E
FSC
S2
G2
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
- I2I -

.r< Y ♦ 1 �, £,r flit s.'
..{.. ..... ... ... :..'...-. .: ,..- ?, :'..,.t. F"t.; . 1 ..•... .... ......,. i. ,..: is .. ,. .,. .Sf L.:, r{•
! t1. r sa .
I:, xtszs :1 f i. SAS'
-... •. . ..r... .. _»., ..4 ..f.
,► .Major, i .�� .•t L>,Global
rf�, : r.:�: �r ���•t:t L� !,:
��...��.
s
-,{
.::It ,t. .-,t !
�.! '•1 f
s„ ''r3 t.tf �{ •c. l::i{
<.{ ..�.;:
:.i.
un tMa
{ Co ..f...
�'t
,f
4.
..i.
. t. . �:. f .f - �i':-•
.++-•am. ..1:`., t. {�. ..fY :F .i Z: t.
..t.r
z._ t. _:3 1. me
..�. x Comirriori�l�ia
_ �Scieritifc:Nam {t _ t. L:.i ,�
.tie !t_ }; f
'} .:..,,. e,.a ,.
{ •� .Grou - i}ds tt tt i
*^�."
.....L
}• _.r-:::..- .
Rank w
.1.:. - .
Status. ,
'L
�-Iabitat
�,:.,r�3..:- � h. �� :.,:j}.•#"'t}{'€ts,.:.:..
.xi;.} s..a=:ra1:..7.4.�: fii... S. •. 4E.a �,3-..T't"�,,. s..i iS-itS.esi{..f.. {
i
.--.:. Li{.3.,�L'ils, ..<-_ °'--:.ftw,{.'4.'Y..:: .ii,.}: {:. L..a.::..,�: _. ...1st,3 `;ki
t
:
od
:H a o0
wo
:'Vascular
{
" .Calama 'rostis canade»srs
gca
i
.. `^..-._:Canada Reed:Grass;;',
,SR P
None
S1
GS
y .
Plant ..
Vascular
Cam anula a arinoides
p p
Marsh Bellflower
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Haywood-
Obscure
Link
Plant
Vascular
Cardamine clematitis :
Mountain Bittereress
SR-T
FSC
S2
-
G2G3
ood -
Haywood
Current
Link
Plant._
_.
Vascular
Carex biltmoreana
Biltmore Sedge
g
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Carex leptonervia
A Wood Sedge
SR-P .
None
S2 :
G4
Ha wood -
y Historical
Link
Plant
_
Vascular
r misera
Ca ex
Wretched Sedge
g
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
ascular
V ::;..
�PlantiCarextrichocarpa�
;'..
. ' :..
Hairy -fruit Sedge
SR=P"
None ^
SH �.G4
Haywood -
Historical'
Link;
.
Vascular
Celastrus scandens
American Bittersweet
SR-P
None
S2?
G5
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
lascular
-
:.
Chamerion la h llum
p t1'P Y.
Fireweed
SR-P
. ` None
:
S 1 .-
GSTS
Haywoo d-
Current
Link
Plant
.
Vascular
Coeloglossum viride var.
Lon-bracted Fro Orchid
g g
SR-P
None
S 1
G5T5
Haywood -
Link
Plant
virescens
Historical
Vascular
Coreopsis latifolia
Broadleaf Coreopsis. ,
SR-T
Norie
S3
G3-
Haywood =
Link
Plant
.;urren
Vascular
Delphinium exaltatum
p
Tall Larkspur
p
E-SC
FSC
S2
G3
Haywood-
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Dicentra exrmia
Bleeding Heart
SR-P
None
S2:,.
' G4 :
Haywood-
Current
Link
Plant.
—I22—

i my fi }s mc
Sate lobal'''r{g g noun x }f { M.,
Yrif,lt 1�3 f �;-wz.�v,. } i�r .0 I E '�t1�..}t is • ' i
an1j! 7,Xtan,};;t: Stafu s Habrtatl
Vascular
Dodecatheon meadia var,
Eastern Shooting -Star
SR-P
None
S2
GSTS
Haywood -
Link
Plant
meadia
Current
D. r,.aba ramostssma ;. :
;....
Branchm Draba
g
:. SR-P
:None
52
G4 ,` .
. Haywood
, :
Current
Link
-Pla
... S . ..:...... .. t. 12.. ,< a . . .. .. a( ..
.. F' . ..f . .t.. .. —.... .>... f .-.
., .. .1 .. ..
r....- ..
ti s .f...
Vascular
Plant
Euphorbia commutata
Cliff Spurge
SR-P
None
S1
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Va ular .:
sc
,.. .. -`
Eu horbia purpurea '.,
p
:.
Glade ,
SR T
FSC
S2
G3 : ,,
Ha ood -,
Link
plant .:.. ,
..
,Spurge
.:a..
:Current
Vascular
Vascular
PlantVascular
Filipendula rubra
Quccn-of-the-prairie
E
None
S 1
G4G5
Haywood -
Historical
Link
:..:`
GI ceria nubs ena...a
;Smo :Mountain
::
T
: .F
::SC
S2 _:
G2
Haywood -
Link
Mannagrass ; .
Current
Vascular
Plant
Helianthemum bicknellii
Plains Sunrose
SR-P
None
SH
G5
Haywood-
Obscure
Link
:Vascular
:.
Plant
, :.
Hehanthemum propmquum
Cree m Sunrose ..
p g
= SR-P
; None
S 1
G4
00 _
Haywood
Current
Link
_
Vascular
Houstonia longifolia var.
Granite Dome Bluet
SR-L
None
S2
G4G5T2Q Haywood-
Link
Plant
glabra
Current
Vascul r
,.: a
_
Hu ,erzta a alachrana
p. pp
A alachlan Fir clubmoss SR P : None
ppa {
S2
-
G4G5
: Ha good -
Y�' .
Current
Link
,PIa n
f SSr.
. z..
,
Vascular
Plant
H3p;dro h llum macro h llum
Y p Y
Lar eleaf Waterleaf
g
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Vascular...
Isotria medeoloides = :._ ' , : t
Small Whorled Po onia
g;
; E
T
: S2
G2
Haywood
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Lilium philadelphicum var.
Wood Lily
SR-P
None
S2
G5T4T5
Haywood -
Link
Plant
philadelphicum
Current
—123—

_ .. -. .. .... ., .
<, � t•. ie ..N.; , , ,, , X. , .. . �r ..... .. ,.. ,,F
..♦, •�€. . F .. a �., � i s t
...,.., . ,Fsbt y , .. •, }! f,., i,. Y:E'f,-L-a.<F••Y Stbi, i 4n .., . t....
1 t , 1. i v. <t ..:T . i 1'E,
(. iSYj
�.. .� .�- .:�., }tat� s
i 'F+ I
.,.; . , .... ...,�` . t. � _.,, .,.. , t t ..;.
o ., 'E'.t�^s: .. , .t s,. €,.i:t..- t.« .,.S,E I� �� , ., ..
c 1.. w. ,,..,. .fF.. ..., Y"n .a:.. ♦...__... .♦. :..... ......., i:-. iT .. ,, :,..�.. J .c
or..._... , ..�:�s..:...� � ,....,. }
tF�
..., ..., ... ,..,. ,.,...,, . .e ... ... »a 4•s.
.aff � ,ttI F ... .� , id
« i,_ F f :�.
,:. ...f..y� C, .x. , .,Y.. 1 'c , 'f < •:'1
...€ �Y:- E <S iit^
:�,; t _:�.�.€ ,. t i < �:.
p
,.: , , �.. ,, jj .� .�F
r: s.:i r.i3 1,€
FiF."�'<': •::. -�:... . ,1.
:.< F:I�..._ _ _� t E�.f�€
II�.
...... .es, "f ti '•,:
e .,... -. t i' ., ,.,�i. ...,r..._�# -, .€�
FFRF't
•. a.
:!4.,- «k
� Sw_ay}sF:€. F a1�
r S- tote .aFt.
i " ... i
..,.
;Stag
EY&>... . .,,5 �! Y
, .
. Fti t,i '
.i.
F,ia. al
tt; f Glob
F. ,::^°"' .,,iti
, ...i:.: d. ., ..i.,.�..
F•.i+.N �-'
, t..
.
Coun
�
,.
tea;.
.—�-_
.F , ,, ,,,€ �F..d. <l. ..A.,�
Scientific Name a •.i. a 3 .t F Y x f , , t .., . ommon:Name ,..
•
„ tit t,, I.r t s ,t
� �
t- �t: :,... �: t, w,?. Status Rank', , Rank S atu ;3
Grou - � I nLtrtt t ti_Y f };_1 Statui :,.
�'� yam.... -
alitat
1'�.,., :x ;t..!:^tii✓
ilt -«r.:l
.:,a<..:•o-:+••.e...,..,. r, .. ,..,.f.w.,,a_..`�.� S.i.i:.� s
Y.F„.l, -
^,
.,
..
_
t
,. :'�:- .1....: ,,
Lonicera,canadensis :;
t
.:
American FIy honeysuckle,
� .�
SR P None
S2 •
—
Ha oo(
i : Yam' ..-- ..:.
GS
.
Link
Plant F
a
Current
Vascular
Lonicera ava
Yellow Honeysuckle
y
SR-P None
S2
G5?
Haywood-
Current
Link
Plant
ascular ::.:
t': F„
: �- ,
°:z
L simachta aset-i'
y
Fraser s L;oosestrife '
E FSC
FS
S2
,
-G2
w� -
Hay ood
Link
Plant
Historical
Vascular
Meehania cotdata
Meehania
SR-P None
S2
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
m ar..
Oligoh6iron,rtgtdu v
prairie Bold Goldenrod
SR- P `None
S 1
GSTS
Haywood. -
,
Link
Plant :.
rigidum
Historic
Vascular
Packera ntille olium
f
Divided -leaf Ragwort
g
T FSC
S2
G2
Haywood-
Current
.Link
Plant
Vascular
Parrtassta ands olta .
f
Large -leaved Grass=of „ ' .
T FSC
:
S2 �
G3
Haywood -
L ink
Plant
=.
a
Parnassus
P . - .
urren
Vascular
Pedicularis lanceolata
Swam Lousewort
p
SR-P None
S 1
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular :
Phe o 'tens connectilis
Northern Beech Fern
SR P None
,, S2 :
GS
Haywood -
Link
Current_
Vascular
.a
Platanthera ava var. herbiola
...
Northern Green Orchid
SR-P None
S1?
G4T4Q
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
-
Platanthera"' rands ora
$
Lar e P .. ' le_ Erin ed........
g g -
orchid
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Vascular
platanthera peramoena
Purple Fringeless Orchid
SR-P None
S2
G5
Haywood -
Historical
Link
Plant
.Vascular..
t.
... '<: ., . . `
Poa palustris, . :.
.., .,... -:..
Swamp Blue ass.
SR P , None
S 1
GS
:Ha aoa
. Y�' , . , . '-
Historical.
Ili,
Link
Plant
__..
-
— t24 —

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) j ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ej
4iYA�S:i-"�' ai'+i' „„��' � ie�,.,. :7 .k' j a '."°:^b. i t SF. r.tt `t. `33. i t f{ s,Y"..i :.i "i! v
Vascular
Plant
Poa saltuensis
A Bluegrass
SR-P
None
S I
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
V"du ar,*`,.f,'-_,.
4*hit
Alba
P� "'�'h­ihNo
W I `SR-P
6sna -eroot"
S2
HayNN
Link'
P ant
-Ritt
,.None
His: ton' cad
Vascular
Plant
Prenanthes roanensis
Roan Rattlesnakeroot
WI
None
S3
G3
Haywood -
Historical
Link
'Vascular J
themyh'torre,
Torrev!S
SR
SlG2:z
awood
Link
PlantHistori
a
Vascular
Plant
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Haywood -
Current
Link
'Vascular .
Rob""""""'Plant�hISDIaaiFr, Var. inia e Sevi,
'Ys, cust
G4T
Haywood -
.
Link;*,
. ............
Historical.
Vascular
Plant
Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus
Red Raspberry
SR-P
None
S2?
G5T5
Haywood -
Current
Link
:Vascular ar
Plant
'1* udicaut
Rug�yq n' ''Pis -
1.,-Ruge gw OrL%_
T
FSC;:"
S3
G3
H" DO
Ayw 7,
Current
Link"'
Vascular
Plant
Saxifraga caroliniana
Carolina Saxifrage
SR-T
FSC
S3
G2
Haywood -
Current
Link
.:Silefi�!:I.o tg
Va
Mountain,
S
Haywood -
Link :*
Plan.t
7777i,*,
Vascular
Plant
Solidago uliginosa
Bog Goldenrod
SR
None
SIS2
G4G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
iranih�i upa
ow, Ladies - Well" di, tresses
SR 0
None
S14;�
G4
ay wood
Link,
Plant
Historical
Vascular
Plant
Stachys clinginanii
Clingman's Hedge -nettle
SR-T
None
SH
G2Q
Haywood -
Historical
Link
—125—

...•-i^r ^^'i. .:'c.,, 1. .-.� it^t.F :F7._ T:. _ I .:f
i
P
i.. , t: t . Ma
.Mao �te .Federal; ate ;Global:..
:; -,, ., :, iS. '. I... :♦
�;
,.... ..atal. :. .. i , y4 ;S•44. � TS-t t
f f e z 3 I,b,
x�.:�., :::�t 1c:Nat�e. .� E �.`t-. q.Common..Nam � ..tt ,�� �i :,. SFf.€, .# ;Seen if .;...i .�: �, } � i,
tf ..:... x.fr t 4 ? i� �.�:t: ;,f!'TT�.,
> .. a ...... v:. ' }ir .. ?,, t'ex
..[..., ,.. ...t.... i. ,. .......».F . ..... r .. ........ .. ...� ..: :.. -. .."_ :..:,. I,.>,: .. .. v i., s� :.::::m.. .t,..... '•t r E t`- it.. abitat�i
.; •Ti:i.•;, .1 �..,.... . _. � a L�, •`E• Rank.. }} RanhStatus ,`i H
.--.. 3 t i.t'.'• r?...'��:v.. �,...t$.;. 't...3t �,x .4!...k�tS ..t:i 9 �3E r +xY (;if�:,�. �r3t.�„ !fi}�§'�i..<.,I
t t _, ,: , :- H€x . ,f„ x..f, : t. aP Status ., .:Status;. p : i
St. °'.�:3°,...>r,.. : #°�� .�+1t .
tsI Grou } It 5qe (If Te-. �+�..,.
:'f 3 i
€ts�,�if,i,q,s�t,}`kjjk
.. to , ,...,...... ..�
, xxl't:^CI� �
'. E .�' 0 1 ."�' .�13t g}te {SS�
7..
=';#�i.;,.i.:.::t f��Rb,..E. ,...
:'I .
"
- , ..:. ,
Streptopus amplex folius
,.: .. -.:
White Mandarin
.,, .�.:
SR-P
None
S 1 GS"��
Haywoo
Current
Link-+
Plant
Vascular
To teldia lutinosa
f g
Stick Bo Asphodel
y g p
SR-P
None
S2 G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Tric hophorum cespitosum
_ . .:
Deerhair Bulrush
SR D
No
S2S3 GS .
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Trientalis borealis
Starflower
SR-P
None
S 1 G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Trillium pusillum var.
Alabama Least.Trillium :
:.
E ::
FSC
S 1 WT2Q
Haywood
Link ` .
Plana ;,'
ozarkanum
(=Trillium pusillum var. 1 }
Historical
Vascular
Trillium simile
Sweet White Trillium
SR-L
None
S2 G3
Haywood -
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Vaccinium macroca on
Cranbe '3' :.
SR P
Non e
S2 G4
Haywood - "'
Current
Link
Plant
Vertebrate
Ae olhis acadicus pop. 1
g p p
Southern Appalachian
T
FSC
S2B,S2N G5TNR
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Northern Saw -whet Owl
Current
Vertebrate :
Catharus flatus '
Su
Hermit Thrush ::
SR
No
: ,S2B,S5N : GS
Haywood
urrent
Link
Animal
- ,
Vertebrate
Certhia americana
Brown Creeper
p
SC
None
S3B,S5N G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate ..,
,: ... ;
Cocc zus.`e hro thdlmus
Y1' 1?.
Black -billed Cuckoo
`
SR i :None ,S2B:' GS
Haywood -
Link
Animal -
.
a
,
. ,
Vertebrate
Conto us coo eri
p p
Olive -sided Flycatcher
y
SC
FSC
SUB G4
Haywood -
Current
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
; '. = ;. ; .
Crotalus horrtdus ..:
Timber Rattlesnake
SC -.
' None.
_ S3 G4
Haywood
Obscure
Link
Animal
_
-I26-

^a,
."^r..:s•r+-,xi; ai si, t - Mr•,
'?i°""°�':�"'
.... �Z.. .E. }, 1^ � .t.:
t .gal i• ..i r ,ate�r.'
� +1 ,>,: .,•. f.t p,ts t )
:n :te• .,z' s4. MET!i.
it , _ a + : ,, # < 7,
x:•,•v .•;e•#2�
�s s rr '�f• .i;>'�
I ,i?. .$:.,
� z� 4�. i »i.�e 'cr
iC, l Y�.
L
.fxe, c ut
, ti f':.s' . �. "-.
s.
State:;eddral
7
t...r »:'�::"
2'_ , tr' s
�{xn . 9{E x r .q Y ti.k{s.
States G'obalnoun
i ..i. I :'t'i j.?,j :t{j ` : i:'t
-t , :# >9.
r
"iP 3tt..
;
^l )i!. ,..it
�... _ ,� ,• i' .... a .iy .Ea _,-.. T }„ ;.:. .i 1
a .! Scxentxfic_N m ff 77
:,1 •'.t , .,t1, t,.�.x ,._7, . 1. ,I,. - .�
t :.t}• k a e Y .1 Ciirimon Name.. t. F. .f. t {.�
n., :....11, x)Zl.:tt,. t P " t ':.: o., -,..•. ` , 1..3 t i. i -:�l •i.. ` ..� fY,Y•, 1c t :�. ,... ,. ..t '
A ' :Y •, `y' .. •',S,ou +�(j j �..i .Af f . <. L .. .,dS.:: a ... ., ., { ,Y° Df.... iiHabitat
i.., '4E. }} .+ CtfC. r �Lafi. 3 ►Jta44{� �a}}{ C!:f �(�
}j'�i7�k }( tpi
y\.IrV ,F.{ .f' t ,f .•."c§..
TeISr'd.£?1<c„St•,_y`ti.3(�r#i.-._,..�ikYis:i��F?I7!
A. .,`.�-j}:!) t,5..,, -}��1
o .,1, S +?1t 3 S kF +
., s i; t�;{[ i..� ,.:"b>i'
r.r.F�:i'sfti-.�w7F:i,.a;.,......f�.--.
�,x+..+ww.wrM..12
.. ...... _.}f+,
_,,.�,++'.t
t.•.^
> s : 3 xff. '....,r.w..,,!rr+••n,. .�....
F,. ,,.. .n.f%�.,. -.._. ___.._.aw.
! SF 'S
.... "i-�!a+,�+r++r+t? �.d',. ..
,. ,..
!.+...
Vertebrate C tobranchus alleganiensis
'p
Hellbender
SC
FSC
S3 G3G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
. F .� F a•
Vertebrate,._
. , r Dendrorca: cerulea
�:'
Cerulean Warbler ;:
1
SR , `FSC
-52B G4 r
-
}Current
Link
_ .
r
, .
Vertebrate Dendroica magnolia
g
Magnolia Warbler
g
SR
None
S 1 S2B G5
Haywood-
Link
Animal
Current
Vertebrate :.: }{ • .. = :
Desmo athus wrtghti
:Pigmy Salamander -
SR
FSC
S3 G3G4 ;
- Haywood , .
Lmk
AYumal .: ..
; .:
.
.
Current . + .
Vertebrate Em idonax alnorum
p
Alder Flycatcher
SR
None
S2B G5
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
:.. ==
Vertebrate.. _ :
.. - Eurycea longicauda
Lon tail Salamander, ,.-::. ,None
g
'
None
S 1 S2 G5 `
Ha ood
yw
Link-
Animal , t }
,
Historical
Vertebrate Falco eregrinus
p
Peregrine Falcon
E
None
S 1 B,S2N G4
Haywood-
Link
Animal
Current
:•.
sabrinus,cooat
CS aurorrel
S G1
2 -
o d
LinkHa
.
nmal
q
relauom
Cunt
Vertebrate Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
T
T
S3B,S3N G5
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
-
Vertebrate {
Loxia curyirostra: pop. 1
Southern A alachian Red'
:: pP
SC '
.
FSC
S3B53N:: GS'TNR
Ha wood .=
Link"
Animal
Crossbill - _ " .
Current'
Vertebrate Microtus chrotorrhinus
Southern Rock Vole
SC
FSC
S3 G4T3
Haywood -
Link
Animal carolinensis
Current
Vertebrate: ;.._ •
• 1 Mustela nivahs :_.:•
� Least Weasel ; :`.
; SR
None.
,. S2 GS
Haywood
Current
Link;
Anima
Vertebrate M otis isescens
Y
Gray M otis
y y
E
E
SU G3
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Current
-127-

.__.. .. ,. .. . .,....... ..... .... ....,<.., r,........ ....... ........ .... ..:7 r:r. r-•<, , ,-,.x«,xx�E ...._. i.,E' ,E,.
... .r.., -,...» .-.., a s^:^ r , . «s. a x. tl . x. , , t....;7.»..., a. ... r <. ., S ti'. "3 ,F < .. .,. „ I: :. _;;' �::.. � .- i.. i
fi I. < i t... -1. , i ! .. 1. �,. t , I'":'•1< .. ! .}.. ,
I.' F - r
x.. ...,; ..... .L d. : r t €t
.....< .f- r < 1,.....t� .: is . SE,.. , .s,°i... , ... e i s ., I E .. }� nr. t":.,ti SS•,..i" . t.l
�. }}� ,€€ 3•' . t:`{;
,. �..:. a., E Global , : Coun 1V�a `
<
�::State : Federal State � t .._�.
iF _ i..,
z
'•: i• ,t t!..:Ili.:.
., ti •Grow , :
nttfic�Name � Conunori"N a
3 3.
,.. :_ ,.::;: .� ,�::......::
i. jF:. Status Status
3:.. y..:,, �.:,:.� -,- •� .,�, .. ., ,:.,.. ^#F-i !t ,4,4, air .^.i.3
��. �q � i....i`f (! +, � t. ��
`
f
�Raik. -Status E.
Rank = j: „
F _e::3 e_r .:, ,.i`:-.
.:�.R tr
t
,
Vertebrate
, ..: .... u...1�- .,�. .:,{.
_. , , ... .�
: » , .. ,:;..;
itli.xfr�._l�S.arki.�t..1• .€.. ..S_,_,3:T1: s
' :,
Eastern Small -footed
SC
. :,;�
..
FSC-:
..t=
SUB,S2N G3
Ha wood
y .
Link ,'
Animal
Myotis letbu
;:_ :. ;
1Vlyotis
Curren t
Vertebrate
se M otis tentrionalis
y P
Northern Long-eared
SC
None
S3
G4
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Myotis
Current
Vertebrate '`
Myotis sodahs
Indiana Myotis
E
E
SUB
G2
- Haywood : .
H storical
Link
Animal
:.
VerEastern
Woodrat -
Neotoina floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian
SC
FSC
S3
G5T4Q
Haywood -
Link
Anitmalate
Population
Current
Vertebrate. ;
,...
Plethodon ventralis
Southern Zigzag ,
SC
None
S 1
G4
Haywood
Link:;
Animal
::
Salamander
C urgent
Vertebrate
Poecile atrica illus ractica
P P
Southern Appalachian
SC
FSC
S3
G5TNR
Haywood -
Link
Animal
Black -capped Chickadee
Current
.Vertebrate .;;
.x
t. € F.
None
1 GS
00
w d Ha
.. y
Link
Animal
Pooecetes gramineus :.
Vesper Sparrow
SR
S2B,S2N
C urgent
e tteb ate
Vertebrate
Pseudacris brachyphona
Mountain Chorus Frog
SC
None
S I
G5
Haywood -
Current
Link
Vertebrate
:`
Puma concolor couguar,
; .,:
EasternCougar
E
E :.
SH
= .
G5THQ
Haywood -.
onca .� .
Link
Animal
... is
Vertebrate
Sander canadensis
Sau er
g
SR
None
S2
GS
Haywood -
Obscure
Link
Animal
Vertebrate
,
Animal
o =ailed Shrew SC,
Sorex dis ar L n t
P g
r :r rF i r ,Fx•
None .
...
S2
.G4 :
..... < F
Ha ood
,..: yw
Current
.. ,. .....
Link
..
Vertebrate
r• • nctulatus
Sorex palust rs pu
Southern Water Shrew
SC
FSC
S2
G5T3
Haywood -
Current
Link
Animal
-I2g-
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Major
Scientific Name
Grou
Vertebrate
Sphyrapicus varius
Animal
appalachie7sis
Vertebrate
Sylvilagus obscurus
Animal
Vertebrate
Thgomanes betvickii altus
Animal
Common Name
Appalachian Yellow -
bellied Sapsucker
Appalachian Cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's
Wren
NC NHP database updated: March, 2006.
Search performed on Monday, 17 April 2006 @ 17:48:55 EDST
Explanation of Codes
—1�9—
State Federal State ;-Global County
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Status
Haywood -
SC -
FSC _
S3B,S5N
G5TNR
Current
Haywood -
SR
FSC
S3
G4
Current
Haywood -
E
FSC
SHB
G5T2Q
Historical
Map -
Habitat
Link
Link
Link

NC NHP County Element Search Results
Returned Elements: 179 using: TRANSYLVANIA ALL
[Invertebrate Animal 24] [Natural Community 22] [Nonvascular Plant 42] [Vascular Plant 63] [Vertebrate Animal 28]
ke.. . wro„ ww • r i .11 .65.:.. .vSx ] e:xr. r. .;_,.. Y'^k I sr-+w...0 ". i. £ i .. ... i f`. nF 11 tff. ) t�t S"
..�. <. P .3 .:.^i D e t..... t ".,. :. ,X £• ..t f f -.. f« -. ,. ,.: � �..... C .. .. S , .::.. ,. «.....". .. � .., tx •x m�., ,:jj . x-z e� i 1 i,.,
t. .,f, � ,31Y,
... ;.. ... :: .r ,� .. „ t .g
,S ..:-..ti ,. 5u �, r �. � ..«.«.w ».xa.L<,,,.." i�...ffe.: •,t :ir .: :
.. , 6 ......r��._ . , � ,:, .�, ,. , ..., � ,. to :,Federal-,�State° . � loyal •Coon � ;Ma�
„ .,. ► , f, a. ,. . • .., t , `' tf ` —
Name C Name rt
sz, ommon x
tatus�.
tatus
�Rank�..
„ •
�. ,,;;'
Status. :Habitat
•S,
_ .Rank:
,
Invertebrate' " .
Alasmadonta .ravenelaana;
: -
A alachian Elktoe ; E
PP
E
S 1
G 1
ansylvan
Tr i a
Animal
Trent
Invertebrate Barbaetis i ben ield
f
Benfield's Bearded Small SR
None
S 1
G2G4
Transylvania
Link
Animal
Minnow Mayfly
- Current
Invertebrate
Bolotoperla rosst `• .
A Stonefly SR
None
S 3
G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
_ .
Invertebrate
Cambarus chaugaensis
Oconee Stream Crayfish SC
None
S2
G2
Transylvania
TransCurrent
Link
Animal
-
Invertebrate " " : '`
Cambarus reburrus
; French Broad River
SR
FSC
S2S3
G3G4
Transylvania
Link
Animal .. • .
Crayf sh
- Current
Invertebrate Celastrina ni ra
g
Dusk Azure SR
Y
None
S2?
G4
Transylvania
Obscure
Link
Animal
-
•
Invertebrate
C ;nzoc _there;clavata
Animal Y Y
Oconee Crayfish Ostracod SR
FSC
S2? ,:
GNR,.
- T ansylvan
Transylvania ,
_Current 1
Link
Invertebrate Drunella longicornis
A Mayfly SR
None
S3
GS
Transylvania
Trans Y
- Current
Link
Animal
Invertebrate
... Erora,laeta
t
Earl " Hairstreak Sit.
Y
None
KS3
1 G3G4
Trans lvania
Y
_Obscure
Link -
Animal
,
.
.
Invertebrate Eulonchus marialiciae
Mary Alice's Small -headed SR
None
S 1 S3
G 1 G3
Transylvania
Link
Animal
Fly
- Current
—130—

) ) ) ) ) ), ) ). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )� ), ) • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
.. .._. ... ...... .........
. ,.., .. •. . .. .. xa .. ,....+rc-.a. u .. aez. wr
e -.: .f,.. Y £ . E... FF. (( , .... ... y. ._i ..{ , £i..,.,
. ;Ca! i.. L, ,,,3., s}. E.;, {£..... :t ,.. ��. i. },, ,S qq{ ,• 1, ., ,k
r<7�,� ... ,.. ,,r. .,... .,. ,• ,^t.. ,.., ..,. .. ,. „�..:.F ,i•� £e 3,,.�
. T�ttM•a b: gib $4 � .!f 3- _. �_ �:.'F.'.�f tjj°°..4 EU 3'
83 ,.„E.- , ,.i
t
,_'
... ..: ... . ........., a -.' .. .. .r.:, �,.
.. .... .." v rv-r. s< . r� r s,
i€ �.i'. ._, .),. k.+'�•.'�"'� f ^v...:<. f {f ..
rr .p_E ,.. >.# 8{ €'{.. ... k .:lipy
.+.. {:f'i.`"-... Y ,..: � �sT�$a$ ik ? :,, �P}�,.a
,..-. ., , ,. ..,_,�.1# i
c.e� z � 6 :.. ..-..
�t.:.
.�... _.... ..,..e . z t w K f 4.
v f > to a... ., ^Y` 8 :"T. .,Y' iF Y £
f.. Fa<%.'.�es +F, ,....,. ; {t
N.,tE ,1 r :;. o ".::
- , €{... <.. €�.1,... {
�. fr f k+ �, �(.
Er,Fi°��^.
~�� :•.S
t..r .� ,.€••'.
I .:".' {#Fk4 +? t
!s.k •£.
���> .F .+noun 1 ,_,�.
«lip "i
E
.€.. •.. -. € ::.
M•a . z: :£�
i:lsk.
_o.,;k ,ST . ...-..F3,77�•
.R .S.i .:i-` Y. •.:. e., ii��.. •: b i• (� f{ jT o••': ,r
�.H .,.�:.,E.:».. sip: ,r._ •'t .:. .. ,3,.4 . Y ,...N..
3£r..Sclenhfi�
:i f . i.. '.Ri
.si i:t L,t =sa ;z'-
3= -.x^^s:^�:.t^• v '..f,.
.}�: ,. ,,. ,"'��z,F ..ft
.,>Ft S. Y 7-. £: ,. .... ri, -:..�3 .. t :f.'- s" -� b .if< '£i..
� t. >.. •, 3!t . i ...... ;_. xr. .i,..+t+; ..S .a, F€ { ,�� r• ! �.{:� :4 :i, i .$ s..•1r. ,3{`.
...Y" . .3_ •'3't_'1 -Tt ;5 : fir, %X :fe:.:.i ,,..y'" fti`� t
t .•I t 4 -.i. 't• _.k, 1
.� `.. _.3, 2...
w :Status:>•. Rarik .Rank Status, �
:: ,.i..
%� n
�a VitGLt�.
�.,_r�-i--.—�::�� . .,:;t.�F:?{€:►.� -�� ,.��.�- s, ::.>:.r,�_�i�:�...:__� _
.K.
...,:. ..t..�Y4F�.w, �t, <.�<.,�:...tt�.Y :, -.a.
•f£_ �.
Invertebrate .: ;... , .. ; :....• ....
- - Eu h d : as haetan.... _., Baltimore Checkers of ;SR4
P rY P. p
Y.
. f ransylvania
None S2 G4
Llnk
{3' {
mal
€
3 _
Historical„
Invertebrate Fusconaia subrotunda
Long -solid
SR
None S 1 G3 Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Current
to ..
Invertebra ... _
5.• '.: is erla rrsont
-.,..
P f
.: ..... `
. A St.,
y
£
SR
T
None S3 GS
nk ;
.:
Anmal .
Current
Invertebrate Macromia margarita
Mountain River Cruiser
SR
FSC S2S3 G3 Transylvania
Historical
Link
Animal
-
Invertebrate ...
Matrio rla ` eanae
P. J
A Caddisfl Y.
-
SR
-
:, Trans `lvana
None S3 . G4 ��
L;ik
Animal
. ; . _ Current,
Invertebrate Plettrobema ovi ortne
f
Tennessee Clubshell
E
FSC SU G2G3 Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Current
invertebrate :
's Green
None = 'Trans lvania
Link
Polygonta faurtus smythi
Animal :-_..
Sm Co
yth mma
SR
S2 GST3T4 a
-`Historic 1
;
Invertebrate pyr us wyandot
g
Appalachian Checkered-
SR
FSC St G 1 G2Q Transylvania
Link
Animal
Skipper
- Historical
Invertebrate :
Transylvania
::
Rhyacophrla marrrensrs
A Caddisfly
SR
None S2 GS - Current
: Lmk '
Animal .. :..
Invertebrate Satyrium edwardsii
Edwards' Hairstreak
SR
None S2? G4 Transylvania
Historical
Link
Animal
-
Invertebrate .. '. ..-.
I
- Sa iium krn i,
(�{')
, ; °.:
;:Kin 's Hairstreak
g
SR
= ; . Transylvania
lvania
None S2S3 G3G4 - y,
Obscure
Link
r
:Animal
.
Invertebrate Stro hitus undulatus
P
Creeper
p
T
None S2 G5 Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Current
verte rate . ..;.. :._ -:::.
In ; bt .:. . ;;..
Trimerotro is s rrtilas , .. Rock loom ';Grassho er :
P3 g pp>
" ...... :. _. Trans ';lvania
:;,: o S 1 S2 rG3? Y.
SR N ne ;
Link
:Animal �
:, �
-Current ..
—131—

SW& OU
Milt! F d C
_�'i;ociffififi e
cNam IV. tatus
I abitat;
Invertebrate
Waltoncythere acuta
Transylvania Crayfish SR
FSC
S2?
GNR
Transylvania
Link
Animal
Ostracod
Current
NaturalTran­s'ylvania:�.
co rest
cl cove q
f
e.,
Non'
None
None'
G5­
Link,
Community
.
Current
Natural
Canada hendockforest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Natural, -
Chestnut oak forest
None
None
'None
S5
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community,
Natural
Flood lain pool
None
None
None
S2S3
G3?
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Heath bald
None
-None,
None
S3 'G4`�
Transylvania
Current -
Link
Community
Natural
High elevation granitic dome
None
None
None
S2
G2
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Niiu6l
High elevation red oak
ion-
None
No'
L-'None
None
S5:
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
ommuni Y
Natural
High elevation rocky summit
None
None
None
S2
G2
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Natural:
Low eleva'tioneranitic dome
Non` e
None
None
S1
G2
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Natural
Low elevation see
P
None
None
None
S3
G4?
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
Natural:
'Montane 'acidic
'None:
one N
No"w,'
SY
Tran Ivania
SY,
Link
mitv-
-.Cuff*,ent.:
Natural
Montane oak—hickoryforest
None
None
None
S5
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
-
—132—

� 3 � � �� �.� � � � �� � � � � ��) �) � � � � � � � l ��•l) � � �fir) � � � � l
_. .... .....-_. ... W.. ,.-- . ... �. .. e. >,.,.,,,.>a.-- .. , t . .,_: . >e: . „ >+<! a su;f,....., .. _..: ;.z,, r �•. _ + s! —n !! S�r ; i3 % s +
,.,
+s,!^ •r to ,.""'M"`t. ,°YL i4 —t"' ,$Y, fY•zn 4 t { ct . 2,- , i t
t• t s&'. s_ .,, ...c r c -. t+, r< ; ... , ».«. 1 ,: _,.... (..; . , ^i t, r.r�
�, :�._�= i.r „r... t •E,.+ ,��.�- + .. , .,. +_ ..a...f State ..! F�clera Stat ..E
a Jabal oun , p
rr.•..+. f �a o�� ?+.t IFti:,%.. ri7r... .r- :... ,iT1}f.t: r. ..� t.. _... �. , rs..: - i ; .,a ,,,�,�! :a s a
� L ' � � ..-. -.... + {
it :• < b+ k.. :.,:
., aF... -.4.. i. .r .i J�. t.:.l.,.,.,� -
}{ ScrenhficName-..!!.??.
•+ !'-!i,fi +in.rr:� tl 'c�- .y_ 'f� ? ,:rt i.
•%+. ,;ill f
�5� < r
J �:t�..,
ti ? ;�
2" -'t
.»-
r ,t .^-,,
r 1i1�1f .si? CommonName
'=11;. x
-, +� "� : ,t„ � :r�:-
p .i11 F+;� 1
r # = r^..' ^r _ . i'
•.r r ,f .,�5,
-a. �
i.. �StatUs,
$6 - :.;'� ,: r}
.Satus�.� -.
h:,,'_.. r
r t
i
t,.
tJ' fLi + + J
r:
. Rink'
+
.a
J Hal1
:�: t .Status. %
}}
,..,
.. � e.s'%.i Y>_<1�II�=''�.':. •.� Fett£jl�z�:.t .. is_�.tfii!B4f.,.:.£.a:�.t.lt.; E.�s . ...fl.;ttti:?.:.9
t x. •u.<
;ii:... ;.e"f}....1��..i.s++i.i:.z1CJ- i +S�f< <`.£ti>tt <I:,
,
a :r ,!#
�tiLi t, S.i .k
.Rank
..;,,.
e,}.r.+.rr+.r!��-.i,.
`x .
'•t^ _
,.hrdwod crestN
'
S2o..
G2?'.
T
syly
Link
echgap subtypa
,.
CtYCuTrenommuni t -
Natural Northern hardwood forest (typic
None
None
None
S4
G5
Transylvania
Link
Community subtype)
- Current
,Natural Predmont/mountain
F '
None
one,
None
S4'
: GS:. `
Transylvania
Link
Community.. semipermanent impoundment
-: Obscure
Natural pine--oaklheath
None
None
None
S4
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
-
Natural .: ,
Reds ruce-: fraser rr orest
None
:' None
None :
S2 `
G2
ansylvan. a
Link
Communt
, . ,.... y _ _ , .. , ..
::
- ...
...Current
Natural Rich coveforest
f
None
None
None
S4
G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Community
-
Natural :: Southern,a alachian, bo
-..,
:.,
, s'-
done
None
ansy,yania
2T1T
Link;.
y :( typ )77777
Communit southern sub e
: .
:
Natural S r-a cli
p y
None
None
None
S3
G2
Transylvania
Link
Community
- Current
:Natural . Swam o .nest-bo com lex
.: - P ; .: S = t . p :,
::
None
. ,
`None "`
=
None S3
G2G3T2
Tansylvan is "
Link .
:_
Communi rc subtype) :._
ty. (typ
::
" .,
- Current
Natural ij7e orest
White p f
None
None
None
S2?
GNR
Transylvania
Link
Community
-Current
Nonvascular ,
Anzia Americana < =
A' Black :foam Lichen
- SR T
None
S 1 ;
: G3 G5
Transylvania
Istonca
I'mk
Plant:
; - .
Nonvascular As iromitus a alachianus
p pp
A Hornwort
SR-L
FSC
S 1
G 1
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular :. .. , ,
-.=Brach hecum rotaeanum Rotas Feather Moss
Y,.
: - : _
SR D
None
S l
G3G4
s lvania
an y Tr ...., . _
- Current,,..
Link "
Plant : _
>
777777,
—133—

.. ... , . .. .:.>..., , . „r .! < , r , , ..'• a.. . , „t,i i f .,:,... :. �.x�., i,c ...: t _..,..,:{
, ..., .... ,. ., .. ... .... •-.: > ,..w.,..,..-e.. .. ..,r ... ,.,e....,v>, a •>,. r' , _. > -.». is . „t ! S F t. i,..s.. k:: . ; . 5.,.--i..:f.,
,._e........ ..... .., . , ... «. , ,, ,, .. .....,. ,. ..-.r « :s;,..._,. r.. ,,c s. f , et,, ....i Y t f,. > ...{ 1,3 •}. ,... f � 1'. „k, ..}.
i
,.1 'i.,...t f ) ... .. ,... C.... i, .i dii. It f i } ,., ,.. , ., > ..... it �.. ... Y ,: .,...,, ->. ..• ,.,<. :. �E• 3',. y ;tt..
.,?i .,: 'Y,..•,•. ....E< } .-..,� :... }e..1 } {} {
.i .. ... „S:. ... - ... t .. ,., , .f... Yb , > k� „ { j r. _ . ,n ..,.,F.. fY ..<..., , s..., ,, f ES � ,.f { , i ,5... .a.
e..,..«... , . . <., ..€.o.. ...,. ,_..,.... sr ...... .!. { ..:<.� • ,... ...z.,,. ! ,{(..,e i {{ ....E-.. > -. ... ., ,. „ :. i.....1n;;;•,-Y,ik:.>.i,€., n.. i.. E
.. .1. { .. P' :d}.e t.. ,i < f E� .. ...,.: a,>l,..,,,>..�..�"f.3 tft 4 tF•P .,, •... :,::;>,.<; '. .. ... t, .' ....5...,,a <... S _ ... ...�...w.vi„.., �, E,. p} s.. Y,3 ., �. .,..1, SL.t ,t,t.,i , ...1,,... •. ,,: ....315 S >.s.f... $, Y'.
„- . .,c : ..... .:...... .... .. 4# ..i...S..:.,a;.a.. At t... i
.���' � •, . � ,,,P�. £ :::.. fate ::Federal- State.> .1.1 (Jlobal, � COtxn � £ g5..........Ma or.i ... ,.,.. } .<_ . ...,,. ....« ,.... {, £ f£.
�.M f4£ ,Y7,£ ,.Y, y.�--- =f
Et } � �
4 r. E
` •}
Ma.
�'.3�
1
Scientific Name
! :2
..:N� .'f E
::Common'Name ,
. .;E;ES £ .:.
9 ,. ._,..
�5 tatus_
t
.Itank'.x.... Ran
-"
�Siafus.
Habitat'
.
_ _
Nonvascular B,�' ocrtrmia vivicolor
Gorge e Moss
E
FSC
SH
G 1 G2
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular
. v*
Bryoxiphium norvegicum
: Sword Moss
SRO
None
•S 1
G5� .
Transylvania
Link
•
Plant
- ... _
_
urren
Nonvascular Bryum ri arium
p
Riverside Bryum
SR-D
None
SH
G2G4
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular Campylopus atrovirens var.
Cliff Campylopus
SR D.
None
S 1 '
Transylvania
G4WT4
Link
. •
Plant cucullatifolius ;
„
_ Current :.
Nonvascular Cephalozia pleniceps var.
A Liverwort
SR-L
None
S 1
G5T 1
Transylvania
Link
Plant caroliniana
- Historical
Nonvascular
Chealolejeunea evansta ,
A Liverwort
E
None.
� S 1
G 1
:.
Transylvania
� His to
t 1
Link",
Plant
._
Nonvascular Cheilole"eunea m riantha
y
A Liverwort
SR-P
None
SH
G3G4
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
_
Nonvascular
Chrloscyphus;niur catus
A Liverwort
SR D
'None
S l
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular Cirri h llum ill erum
p Y p f
A Moss
SR-P
None
S 1
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular , : .:, ;,
Drchodonhum ellucidum
p
A Moss
,• . :
W1.
one
:,
< S2
G4G5
T ansytvania
H•
Link
Plant
;
.
_ istorical
Nonvascular Diplophyllum taxifolium var.
A Liverwort
SR-L
None
S 1
GST 1
Transylvania
Link
Plant mucro�7ater»i
_Historical
Nonvascular Prep angle eufTea a alachiana A Li verwort .
p j- pp
SR L
= None
S 1
G2? .
a
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant •_ _ _
-
Nonvascular Entodon sullivantii
Sullivant's Entodon
SR-0
None
S2
G3G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
—134—

; , IIEJ iWM "A
t
ro
Nonvascularmnoderma neqre._�
'
,R66 Gnome Lichen
"
one
G2
Transania *
'Lnky
:
an
CU t
Nonvascular Honialia trichomanoides
Lime Homalia
SR-P None
S1
G5
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascular..
" ...
i:H Broth tqyenqqq�
atediii-Lichen en.`�'��'
".W h
None
3 G5,,!�
id.
Trans' I an,i,,
Link
Plant
urre It
Nonvascular Lejetinea blomquistii
A Liverwort
SR-L None
Sl
GIG2
Transylvania
Link
Plant
- Current
Nonvascular
Leptod6niium' etwelsum*1
'Grandfather Motintain,
I �� �:.
, SR-L None
'.'S 1
61
Tr ylvania,
Link
Plant,
Levtodontium
Historical, --
Nonvascular Leptodontiumflexifolium
Palc-margined
SR-D None
S I
G5
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Leptodontium
Historical
Mnyisculir.
M q,�ylqyqnt V
U u7moss
D:
Trafisylva nia
Link,
�iP
Plant.•
ept
Nonvascular Mai-supella emarginala var.
A Liverwort
SR-L None
Sl
G5TIT2
Transylvania
Link
Plant latiloba
Historical
onvasc eMDera MeIzVriq t
Liverwo,
None SR-D
Tia h ania-,
sviv
]plant
Current
Nonvascular Philonotis cernita
Dwarf Apple Moss
SR-D None
S I
G4?
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Current
Nonvascula'r.,.
6hla, ba
gCurrent
Liverwort
SR-T None"
S,
:Transylvania
Link'
Plant
Nonvascular Plagiochila corniculata
A Liverwort
SR-D None
S2
G4?
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Historical
Nonvascular
`Pggioch i1,aednihata
Liverwo
ia
G20Link
Plante ,
.
urrent
—135—

.
t #».
i... .i.,
:f,t 7• ry.. 2SSf{... a d.,. �-i 1 '.3 is
uti . Ma.
...... � ..,.....Si ....•r �... # , i . � ;, � .i:� State:. Fede�al�State. < ;, a Global Cb`
....
,7� :,i• ,.; �i, { �"... !i-. •{'� .l 1 i.�raf:., f.i i - l" - . 2.-
r
/'`b�C. `}'�'�-- ;� F
-, cientific Name i,. Common Name
. �
-•r`-9•.:iw ..}_.
•, .:..x. .::.. �.:.. .._. ... ...._ :.. ,..,_
1
.ft,
• fetus � =
t{-
Status . ->
<€.#ii..
�arilt.. ,
r�,
� Rank:
::.,HatitSt
-Status 1
t`;.,.,a:.� ..-, , � i,.+Y.: is i.+'-:'•tr, sx�s'?s.,.,,
Nonvascular Pla iochila ludoviciana
g
A Liverwort
SR-P
None
S 1
G5
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular
.; Plagiochila spar ii
p:
A Liverwort
SR-L
FSC
S2
G2G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant =: .
.., , _
Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivantii var.
A Liverwort
SR-T
FSC
S2
G2T2
Transylvania
Link
Plant sullivantii
- Historical
Nonvascular Plagiochila vrgi»ice var:.
A Liverwort
_
SR T
FSC
S 1 �`
G3T2
ansylva a
•t
Link"
Plant ..:: �- caroliniana
.:
- is orical:
H
Nonvascular
Plagiomnitan carolinianum
Carolina Star -moss
SR-L
None
S2
G3
Transylvania
Link
Plant
(=Carolina Mnium)
- Current
Nonvascular
Plgtyhypmdium pringlei
Pringle's'Eurhynchium
SR
None
S 1
G2G3
Transylvania
-
-Current
Link
Plant"
Nonvascular Porella watau ensis
g
A Liverwort
SR-L
FSC
S 1
G 1 G2Q
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular
Radula sulhvantii
A Liverwort
SR-L
None
S2
G3
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant �
....
.: .
.::..::...
Nonvascular Schlotheimia land olia
f
Highlands Moss
g
T
None
S 1
G2
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular
Sco elo bile li late
p P Su
: Co er Moss
PP'
SR-O ,
None ,
S1
GS?
T lvani
ransy •a
Current*:
Link
Plant
Nonvascular S ha nuns an usti olium
p g g f
Narrowleaf Peatmoss
SR-D
None
S 1
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Nonvascular ;.: � >. .- , ;
..: ,Sphagnum subsectrndum
,.: , .- - • '
Grange Peatmoss ::.
SR-P , _,,Transylvania
..:,
None
; S1
} ,
GS .
Current
Link
Plant : ; .•
. -
-
Nonvascular Xantho armelia monticola
p
A Rock -shield Lichen
SR-L
None
S2?
G2?
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
—136—

q4
IIIT` -f.7
z
fWi
-P016bA
H4IW%
bg
a
Fmk omoNm —'S Ran
V ascuaf:
'
:
``-
-TCrryeO
Plant
A6onitu)n r�aru
_6if an
R
$3
untLinK
a
Vascular
bulbosa
Bog Rose
E
None
SI
G4
Transylvania
Link
Plant
.4rethusa
Current
Vascular
�r-isaema'trivhvllumsib.a
0) Jack�-iii-fhe-pulbit
None
S I
GST4
,.,.vani
Trans�,SR-P
Link
Plant
ste v�drdson ti
.......
Current
Vascular
4splenium monanthes
Single-sorus Spleenwort E
None
SI
G4
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Current
Vascular
:ig
-,;: . - �-% 7,
alb cens
aDtISIq es
n iteViid'
-podWh
None
4
Trans lvania
Link'
Plant
0 ..
•SI,
Histoii6af,-
Vascular
Berberis canadensis
American Barberry
SR-T
None
S2
G3
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
N ascu, af�
-
B tryc ium enman
h
w rap
tabi a 6
iGp
N
j None
sy van; i
I ::� Tr" I �
Historicale,
. Linkan
Plant
Vascular
Bottychium simplex var.
Least Moonwort
SR-P
None
S2
G5T5
Transylvania
Link
Plant
simplex
Historical
Vascular:
4 B �qqhyelyt qptent�iq hale.
14 ith
` "Shorthusk.,:,'
SR P
None"'
S3
1,G 4Q5
Transylvania'
Current,
Link`
Vascular
Calainagrostis porteri
Porter's Reed Grass
SR-P
None
SI
G4
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
Vasdiilai'�
Zaly na.ssp,
tej eta
#a cdtesb
d
B Rid Bindweed
n
No 6
i�S
G3T2T3Q: Trans) FIVAnia
Link,�.
sericata
urrent�:
Vascular
Campanuld aparinoides
Marsh Bellflower
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
mine clema t t
-fif Bitt6rcres
ouritai S'
Sk4
F 9*c,.*
ahia
Transylv;
—137—

,.. ........... ... ... ...., .., �. •. ,- a .s ..
.... .. . , « . ...••x..,.,....w. -,., e:.-. ... r , v.:..:- .x, u..,. a ...a st> .. Y. , .t. i Ft} ,Li.Yt.i i s' :: xf..--. < . i. ....
s.. � .. ,....i.tt z,. tteu�.,...w. ,. .. _3€ .. S t ;Wu-6 1 �t . 1 v ..�Y- <� 3„ i > < < £i , ... S
r a,: .» r .: r : k.__ t�, to ..,. # t. .}., f i # i ., ,... i..3.
�', . t b ,..,,.�.,, _,, t ..t _. ,. t , ,... t t, .. , t . -w,<# f,, ,� tt tt t
.. rn yy x. � a. ..tt ,.. x < 7, , >�.,} „ >. ..r .t.rr. t ...._. _ �.......,,.... .., 1 #,., w.x ,£PE`•. , .... .#,#3 � . >. S,7}} ..... f (i d 3 fE � . ., ,...
t .t. +.f ..t � . 4 �f .fin f i #+a S<, -.L >f
>.,.> ,,,K: ,� ( .. „ .,..c.. �°. .£. ...k•.. <,. ., z..., 4,., . 3 tt ., :,..,.. 2,. i• . �:,...., t , t �.t, f f <. .,:.3 ;. t,. .,-<.....
,...., 1. _..x.. j .. � I ((•.t ,. Ffttt it
Y:'k- ,. 7 t..#< ._., .. :.,,... ,. ... e .. ...: .r.._ ..�, t, ,E_, �t. . 1, e. ,... t .t. t,. } ...... ..E t tf -... ,,,-: . .,. r
>,.-<, s. t--..«:# r. ., ,.... s,.. ....... .3I_<fi @ _ £.r { I ., :. �., >< . i t a ff< £ . <yy .. > .;SIo.
,.d. i ,T, ..i.. p"; aC ..$s..ktS.. Ea- , ( l�t4u � 3 _.i � 3
yy +,
f ,.d ,..,. 1 �.: �:> x �- < � t _ 2,3f : �:.
-�. Ma o�� {{ �_-�. _,tE �.. ..i �£� y r .3.. f =:
..+`:i,.....! E�:. , >.:j _�..,.. ��,.: t„ .': ,.... - a''�, .. !e, •s,.s '' ::., j.; �
i.,.t .. .. ,..., s.
„4,£ .,..... , X ..
_..c,� ,,.
<:£r, #� : a, ,.,:.
:',: ,'
,., .. ••^P'.
t
5 Sta e ,
..."`F<'YYY:,>;I
Ee.... .x 5 # >.._
...
�. _.
k,
F.ederal��State
.. ..t ,,
T t. .
.3.. ,>. xs.:..
r;,: ... #S ;•.
..n 4 :
... ...,
5 w< I,
j,
s.E,.xR • #`.
£� G b
f
,. dP ,.5
.e..s... $3, .. 3'. ,..� F
,. t ,2 .:T :e,. i .
:>zk,. _. .. 3;
t ,.It;
'��
2 y� t4
�' Un , t,i
£
j h •3' .;4'
i
'-'4ir:. £ r >
:
,��//�,j f,.
M=a
,F
«, : 3 ;:
...
Sclenhfic Cbmmon.Name M
,d Status- ..Status
:i-µ ;,
'Yi .i , k
a, f
-Rank, Rank, Status . t
E
Habitat
•
.t.; (fGrou
#i.1.s....
f�' :t:.i .., Yro :: .. I. <trl..< >.ir...-.,t.Tn' �?
.t . .
,�: ... 11 «J .[i.; �" a... ..x .... _,... t:. k,. <i..s.. _ •.14:.... i Yy _ ........
... ...
_
.,. ..
_
_. f..
Vascular
Carex bilttnoreana
Biltmore Scdg c
SR-L
None
S3
G3
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Vascular' ,;ansylvan
Carex mtsera _..,
Wretched Sedge
SR L
None.
S3
G3
•T i
urrent
C a
Linkr
Plant,.
Vascular
Carex edunculata
p
Lon stalk Sed a
g g
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Vascular ,,
Carex projecta
: Necklace Sedge
SR-P
None
S 1
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant .':
-
Vascular
Cat -ex woodii
Wood's Sedgc
SR-P
None
S2
G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Vascular : '
Celastrus scandens
American Bittersweet
SR-P
None
S2?
G5
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant ,
Vascular
Chelone cuthbeiWi
Cuthbert's Turtlehead
SR-L
FSC
S3?
G3
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Vascular
Daltbarda re errs:
p
Robi n Runaway
None
� S2
G5 •
Trans lvania
.' y
Link
Plant
-went
Vascular
Eta bia avita
y
Alexander's Rock Aster
SR-T
FSC
SX
G3
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
Vascular .
'
Fother alla mayor.:
�.
_ ; : Large Witch -alder ......
, SR-T ;`
None..:
S3
G3 ;
Transylvania
T
Link:*
Plant : ...
:urgent
Vascular
Geum radiatum
Spreading Avens
E-SC
E
S2
GI
Transylvania
Link
Plant
-Current
'Vascular..
,, ;
Gl terra laxa
Y
;:
Lax Manna rass
g,
,SR-P. �
- None
S 1.
:' GS
Trans lvania
Y:.
:' H istorical
Link
Plant
-
Vascular
Glyceria nubigena
Smoky Mountain
T
FSC
S2
G2
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Mannagrass
_Current
—138—

)') ) ) ){) )1) ) ) ) ),)') ) )') )�) )F) )').) ) )')')') )') b ) )') )h)') ) ) ) ) ) )
<.,... ,.. ,,..
-w s S.t a Sx
,, ... „ ,_.._....... Y .t ,..
r. :{, ...4, )7 .t
{ 1#jj .,.w.� ,. , ,,
I., 11�a t ..,
.. ,,..,...,
:.9 r r• :"i t , t ,y. _ £,.. f ,!.
{,}...,, ...:-,s.l.
� f a; �. }y#< .,.�..•...., jt �., ,.. .p i, 'P, [ : t.
F # Lti.
,. 3... .,.E..,.,..4
., < . t
�t . } ; d
:. ...
•. Ek' cp '� :Y. Y., Y. Ft-.4if,"- .,f,r £z.
... a»- s s r i1. ,.. � Y.? . 'ef +• .;::' 3- tr f .^ i°.,s ? .
,F! ...- «... S .. t . Y, `w �. 7. , i ., e.....�'J. ...�. ,. _.. x:� x..":.•».. �.,,.. ,.• 4 i...
t„ m, �..z,a<,. r ., <, ?iP I t..�;.
...,, a.-.,.:.E3, ,,. i .. x .. ��`F .. .. -if ..F. S,.
.f ,:.b,..,.a .. t, .S [[ { S xab .� a .,,.{{ • ,.a« ,.. ., a.<x., a 4 r -..,,. ,
4 'e.. I F
!. ii s r..3A" E..%`E.F1 , . lFk� i# 2 ##;.7 Y.>.:� ' :%• f fF .. A 4.. ...
dera tState. _ . 3 lobal .� ,,.Chun
: F # G {.{
Aii
ITT .,.Sr ... ,. d., . „i
,.a
.{ r. <._... ,. .'.w . �., i.
F.a2., _tF fl. .:y. .<t1"fi:Si
� .� f � Sg f:r �j/(t I
.�. 4� 1S
, ,..,>},e�
..... <: 1>. ..., ..
} :-� Scle�itl�C.Nam�
f� I
t• F,
.:r ."S•
riJ)
.:iai Jt
>. ,36t f $ }: P ! '.-- ? Y
i 1. eE ,# 1 •F C f, 1'{
: 1. t x{ < >,3 , _ , u
�
«--. ._...5, 1 :. Ztt F ii£F: :•f 4.rV4'w:?
".Jt;
..1 ,r f` {e{{
L .t:
F:.
.u';;
f ' E.
{ ?
, Habitat''.
_a. 11. •r..)
E ....v .-.
-.. -,... ..... `� ,.`i,fi...:»: { .#1r. -.3, r:- -i..
.._. ...E `-,.�7.< E c.1 .li � #�t ..
.. ..
_ ..
:Vascular.
::_ z
Hasteola suaveolens
,.� :` �`
Sweet Indian -plantain �:
SR: T. None
SH
03
::Transylvania ,
: Link
_.
Plant:: -.
;;
- Historical
}
Vascular
Helianthemum bicknellii
Plains Sunrose
SR-P None
SH
G5
Transylvania Link
Historical
Plant
-
-;
Vascular, .,;•,,
:
.., :. : ; ,.... , ... ;::. ;;
Cree in Sunrose
Helaanthemum proprnquu p g
:. ;
SR-P None
i
Transylyan a
' . Link
Historical
Plant
z
Vascular
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T-SC T
S2
G3
Transylvania Link
Plant
- Current
Vascular ..: - „ : , „ `.
Hexas hs rhombi ormrs
tY
a : French Broad Heart leaf
SR L FSC.E
S2 .
G2 ; '
Trans . lvania : a
Link
Current
Plant
>
..
Vascular
Houstonia lon7gifolia var.
Granite Dome Bluet
SR-L None
S2
G4G5T2Q Transylvania Link
Plant
glabra
- Current
ar
. ,.,....<... ,• , ,a , , .. _ `
Hu erzta a alachrana A alacnian F_ir :clubmoss ::SR P None
pp Pp
. �
S2
G4G5
� Trans. lvana
Y : ; Link
Plant :.: '
'.. ; '',
. .
_
- Current
Vascular
Hu erzia oro hila
P p p
Rock Fir-clubmoss
SR-P None
S2
G4
Transylvania Link
Plant
- Current
�lascular... .:
.ar
:, ,.
:' : ,; . ' ;.
Isotraa medeolozdes
".
Small Whorled Pogonta
E, T
S2
G2
Trans lvania Link
Plant
;;
-_
-
Trent
_
Vascular
Liatris as era
P
Rough Blazing -star
SR-P None
S 1
G4G5
Transylvania Link
Historical
Plant
-
Vascular
, ' .: ::
Lysimach a fraserr --
Fraser's Loosestrik
E , FSC
: S2
G2 _.
Trans lvania ., Link
Plant "
; ; - . ::
-Current` .
Vascular
Monotro sis odorata
p
Sweet Pinesap
SR-T FSC
S3
G3
Transylvania Link
Plant
- Current
Vascular.
Muhlenber to sobolr era
g f Rock Muhly
SR P'.• None
SH .
GS
.Transylvania
Link
Historical..
Plant
_-
- = -
-
—139—

4- 40 C ►
Nil t f6d6ii
PIN on: a
C6Vh %
Status
to ti il! Hab it6t:
Vascular
0enotheraperennis
Perennial Sundrops
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
...... .
Packerapauperculd"
Balsa' m. Ragwort
jia'n sylvani
Link
Plant
Historical'
Vascular
Parnassia grandifolia
Large -leaved Grass -of-
T
FSC
S2
G3
Transylvania
Link
Plant
pamassus
Current
Vascular
h ectilis,.'.."Fem,
o n Phcigo'
Northern h 6 m Beech,**'*
SR-P:
None
S
G5
Trial ylvania
Link
PlantCurrent
Vascular
Platantheraflava var. herbiola
Northern Green Orchid
SR-P
None
Sl?
G4T4Q
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Platantheragrandiflord.,
aTransylvania
Large PurplO'fringed
SR-P`..�`None
;$2-
G5
I
Link
Plant,
Orchid
Historical
Vascular
Platantheraperanioena
Purple Fringeless Orchid
SR-P
None
S2
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular aseu ar
es* albs
Prenanth'.
::White Rattlesnak eroo
SR-P
None
S2?
G5
Transy vania
Historical "'Link
Plant
Vascular
Rhododendron cumberlandense
Cumberland Azalea
SR-P
None
SI
G4?
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
Vascular,
Rhododendron vaseyi
Pink -shell Azalea
SR-L
'None,
S3
G3
Transy vania
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular
Robinia hispida var. kelseyi
Kelsey's Locust
SR-0
None
SI
G4TI
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
Vascular
Sarracehiapn esn
Mountain Sweet Pitcher
E-SC
E.
'1--"
G3TI
Transylvania
Link
Plant
Plant
Current
Vascular
Shortia galacifolia var.
Southern Oconee Bells
E-SC
FSC
S2
G2T2
Transylvania
Link
Plant
galacifolia
_Current
—140—
) I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) - ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -.) ) )

) 1 ),) )`) ) ), ) ) ) ).) ) ) )�) ) ) ),) ) ) ) ) ) ),) _) ),) j ) ) ) ),)) ) )) ) ) )
..,•..
f",'. ... 7 3i., f
,n ,li (.,.,s
.w .. ,,.. ..w ..... ,.. .....�- : w- - .. -,.m.. :s. ..-.a .. .. .a4-w...
,. w , r:. a ... iu x 's. - .a .,, .. :.... , . E'tL....t..,:;i,
.., . ,.1 r , : .:,.Y... n j..., .i ...•.-. 1, , s.:;.r<.: t• ..:.'. 1 ,.1 <- 1 a
... !t �'..� •i.. .,. ... 1 ..,°:>l% , $• :l. i, , Li..., x°yl.w a. E .-r: .� yi... ! 3: , Li ;� S. yrf.w:. . C .-��4 #
t
.!'C <P�T
..j .. 3`s <....,_.,.. ,,._ ,. .. , , i fi. .. i:. -i.
€�.{i gat- of .., �;f:, :
rF2..;1:.1 . /' ..._: :;: ....:�3 . - t��??i=�� =.ifs 3l:.::,�,
3. .- ,:w.v ;• ei il`w e" t ' , ....•Ff%,�x'2 't , Nif 8. : Y'a;}xt i. 6':eit.s:.€�" :.5 'r8"�:t < 3 ,1. I3<h4",wOi•Yl -aii'
t 4 £ ? ;a-; lxxy f.f ?€ � -.3 t '�1 , <,��,:i ,. 4 a f 2 I <k #$`„» •,t,.
., r< } {
w ... .,: „,.... _. ..
State, w Federal. State Global io uri . �a
3,+ L
.F :,% �.�-;pia. ��T'• {''-, +.x'
. r. •,:j f[' "� �i I� -
Scientific Name j ,, f�► + , �j . Commen Nafn�
n r
?�..,. � - i s ct:t,. •f.
}� wf _ - M v €,
;.
? ..
Sta�us�:..'.Status
s dank
;# t
:Status .a. 'Hab
+•�—
u
to
�-- _
rctj:�1+•
�..�
a'�
_�..,�....
">
.:
. , G4G5
Goldenrod... SR None �S 1 S2
g13
Dania
T° sy:
Link:. ;
a�
urrent - .
Vascular S artina ectinata
p p
Freshwater Cordgrass SR-P None
S 1 G5
Transylvania
Link
Plant
-Current
:: -
Vascular , - .:. .:.
Stachys clingman i_
, ; ; " - ... �
; Clingman's Hedge -nettle SR I None
; " SH G2Q
'Tr is
arisylvan
-1
1
Link
Plant _ .. �..:.
-
;:Historica
Vascular S m h otrichum shortii
Y p Y
Short's Aster SR-P None
SH G5
Transylvania
Historical
Link
Plant
-
ar.. `:.. : , ' ,'
Vascul Thermo srs fraxrnifolra
P
:. ,
Ash -leaved Golden -banner SR T ' None
S2� G3?
Trans lvania
Y
Current
Link
Plant
Vascular Thermopsis mollis
P
Appalachian Golden- SR-P None
S2 G3G4
Transylvania
Link
Plant
banner
- Historical
:Vascular .:...;::
To celdra lutmosa ;
f g
; Stic Bo As hodel SR P None S2 GS
;. g P
kY.
Transylvania .:.
� Current
Link.
Plant .
Y
Vascular
Trichomanes petersii
Dwarf Filmy -fern T None
S2 G4G5
Transylvania
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
Vascular . ,
Tricho "horum ces sp.
P P
.. .; � :_' ._ j
Deerhair Bulrush :. -..: SR-D: None f; S2S3 GS
ansylvania ,,
,
Luik
_:.
u en
Vascular Trillium discolor
Mottled Trillium T None
S 1 G2
Transylvania
Current
Link
Plant
-
:Vascular : , , -
Waldsterrrra lobate ...
;.. :.
Lobed Barren -strawberry SR T FSC'.
:.
.; S 1 G2
ansylvania ,
Current
Link
Plant ..- .:
:. -
- : ,
-
-..
Vertebrate Ae olius acadicus o . I
g p p
Southern Appalachian T FSC
S2B,S2N G5TNR Transylvania
Link
Animal
Northern Saw -whet Owl
- Current
Vertebrate; ,.
Amb stoma tal oideum
y P
Mole Salamander ," SC None
S2 ' GS
Transytorlvania
Link
.
Animal ,.
-..
- 141 -

&.< ,<... ......... . ,...,x . .... -t ., s. Q -, +, t. ,S +w+bt. ..< v .t .. .7 .tf r<,., <. Y,',.... .>'S .:. .. :" � T � ,"F. ,j,
...mK,..F .. ht e . F 3 .. w. <.., CiF ! f�.:f ,. ..., ,P.'..:,..., ..f:?33IY. ,. F..$ ... .,... 3"... (».. :..,. .,,...� t_. s Yt . ., ,rr.. -s ... '%n<7 �., t. .. ivy .E<., .,. ,..66.$ ».. .. .,: ir.kt ":.�..Y' :. t,... ,- ,tE, .F>.«, P"„E ,._. ., i.. ,. ,>.. ,.7.3,}t.s, .'.. .r .k, k ',:.i�.:. �.
,., c.. > ...., :,o .., ..> , , :tn ..su...<..< � ., . , -. :......., .. r.:.„ ..., ,. vT.., ...:. .r. ,,.>.. ......., ..,....,.ri.n..,. ,: ,»4„ L„tY,5t5 i r ,; i . .. k�. :, z�. , : `', «it} <..,:{,.
< ll ,
. > ..:.+,+. .. ... {F i t .,.L - .,- ,Fi7 nk. . i.'t j S .......1 ,� .Z,vx11;.. -.t ... 6 1 ..«..,,... C. ,. .t. F{ 3x > ^i >Y3 ki i 3 ,.o t 1. {. i
tz t. t ♦... Y.., 3.4. _.. _ ,. ti Y{ ,.... ..f' ...., .< .... i ,.b.:_., ,� ,•,. ,,.' .< I` s .._ ., .... 7,}E.,r i +.i
..i" <.v .. '34 .t i.R....... ff ... .>. .,, r, ,,. i., ,,. ...R �'S:? >....».. .,., .... ,.. ..itii !`4t. } 3 t(
,;,.", .-,. T' ,... , { 3. k:} _k !,p ;.v. e, ." , ,;. 5....`N°'"t» { < f,. .. .:...,.. i�.t .E:..,..t. j�,7.. -i �:.z i ,
t [.;,.. ,.,.3 ". . fJ«. S.:. J ,. , . t :,., 'f,.. ,..:w. ,.s. z .s. t i 3 $s. ,:.,.d,7. 5F , :. 3 R.x 3, F ... '. i:: �3 -( ,'F'f
..,, , . S i., _i,,.i<I3...K ,3.5,$ w .. „Y ., ,, ,. ,� 7 Y a'
._ 3.rJ } ,_ R_r 5 YSEY, : 1 bal ,.Coun M
€ . �., , . .. �f�FJ, . � . � <„ ._ _.� ��. �., . +i , b _ . af���J. �� . �r•iE,E x.,. i � Y Stale..�ii .,Federal, -State } k G o
F ��...�Ma or�,� , �., ,� . �,.._.�,t# ,....,�.g�, t . . < .. _.�.., �i ' : ,, b , j, . f 3--. � ,-.. ,... ,< .,« , < '..,.. .:;�g<�� . � t{I ...�..�,:.�..£ � , �.. .., --�'
, ,..�i,.x i{ � .5 ;,�. ,7, iY ,..... ,- dt ..,. .. .. {.,<» k'E :. ..,tb � k �'''' } i
.y,, ,.,.3i� .. i.,z. .,. _ . „, 4.< :1..:.. ;:. ,.. .t i, *{ is , ... ,.. r..,. .,4' .,.,s'.. ,.,, ., ._ S f ,. :xu ,s„ a ;+.
�F., ., p{�3 .: .... ,,,, ... k , . , t', . <; a ,I c' 'u 4 ,[ ,.. t.-.. 7,,, .. S, .:7 < 'r ...'s .: ... �., .:,: :3 { „"._ « { t. 'f. ,.i F..�
jji ,..:.....-if1�`y/'s :, ,,..,-."i. „,t p..."s ,ai Y.. ,.+.,. yy�y� y Imo., .# j.t` <7 fie ,r.::.; _,k. t'" i; ..f„Je .fi„F, t
.>t}jy 4•F}1i r, ,VV�ent�Ll�..aAilV,i„ Ja .. s;. ,Colillllon:.',G�m E:1;: tEt. 1.t X„i. 4 -.{:; ..
�\( t 4
(�\�7 bitat'
.J•
.
,fY.
i .e. } :.... .. .. .FS t:t ti:
,,.... :., s,9 s. <...+ ,. <. r.:..: f,i,F jj
9 ?; i{. 7 s:i
f�i j,ii t..!'St1E�5F
�'7'(�
Vta`1.i1i:;f<.
�i 1.
:.j-.
.f';. taL{.ls
�
3t
•.i
�t.:�R.aill�Rank'-
.r.. ;=�V
tatus,.
Ha
..fS:'.t t
_.. , .. ..:. ....x
Vertebrate
Aneides aenears
Green Salamander
E
FSC
S2
G3G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
-
:Vertebrate .:
'
<
Certhla. americana
Brown Cree er
P
ScNone
S3B,SSN G5 =.
Transylvania
Luilc
Animal
- Current
Vertebrate
Cocc zus e thro thalmus
y �' p
Black -billed Cuckoo
SR
None
S2B
G5
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
-
Vertebrate ' Co norhtnus -ra Ines urt Refines ue's B eared Bat
:.,.
T
FSC
S2
G3G4TNR
Trans lvania
Lmk
Animal
m nesquii
= Mountain Subspecies :
-Historical
Vertebrate
Crotalus horridus
Timber Rattlesnake
SC
None
S3
G4
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
-
Vertebrate
,,..
" :..
Cryptobranchus allegantensis
" , , " :
Hellbender ;
SC
FSC
S3
G3G4
Transylvania"
Link
Animal
-Current
Vertebrate
Dendroica cerulea
Cerulean Warbler
SR
FSC
S2B
G4
Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Current
Vertebrate
Desmognathus wrightt "
Pigmy Salamander
SR
FSC
S3,
WG4
=
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
-
Vertebrate
Animal
Etheostoma inscri tum
p
Turquoise Darter
q
Sc
(PT)
None
S 1
G4
Transylvania
- Current
Link
Vertebrate
Falco peregrinus
Peregrine Falcon
E
None
S 1 B,S2N G4 _
Transylvania
Current
Link
Animal
-
Vertebrate
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Carolina Northern Flying
E
E
S2
GST 1
Transylvania
Link
Animal
Squirrel
_Current
Vertebrate
Glyptemys inuhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T
T
S2
G3 "
ansylva
Transylvania
Link
:Animal ,:, .
.
:. ,
-Current
Vertebrate
H bo sis rubri ions
y p f
Ros face Chub
y
T
None
S 1
G4
Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Current
—142—
) l ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

i...1<.. ..T.x7.itF ,` .....#...t... 3 4. «. <. ...?-...:...,.,n,{.1 i. . . ,, ...i...F..'.. ..- .. < .... •_ .. 3 ' ..-.. :... .':`.. :. t `
,.. ., ... ..,. , .- ..,.. .1. ...:�... £...t.F ..,. i.t ...... :...... ........ ..,,<, ,. .. ..�..#
, x, .... ..i .,i «. ... ,... a -. .f!. S ,� ..- ..t .. .., ,.a'ft:t `£:. i i - .i:
.l. .t ., ...:. . .F. ,..�f tf:£..,-323. -..... #,.. rF ... _ ',.:I ...,-<,-...��;.,;: ...:..;,J„x-....:.,, ._.:. .t�C
�� � ,,; 3, �,,� State ::f, Federal. State : � � lobal oun
,C:w.; .t. .. ., {�_, f x s.-sn": ,.. �:,. ;`:rg:..`_.. ..t-FE 41.
-; , '.,xr}?: Ff., -.,>": �4 f „�..., S '„t t..: -1e .ac., tt �i,#. t,
1 i,.5. <g .'s s si .7f", •1 } ie,...j G'„ i . {C. , { ';,F t#f <.i i v
t...3 citnbfic..Name.,, .Common'Name :',:. :< „
� �t
< -. -jj is '!'#
{i tt. F}� {�: f_, #i% i`•2 .I x^i t.,D.
} "# •a '#, : i
Habitat
j(i�ii{.<.tl,}s,-.,.&;.
..,' .,' ,, .. .Y . v-< ,
S
} -L
..: .. .,< ,.. . Y,«,..:.:. ... ... ..... .. .. ...,.
.., �.
}<� � F .
,;.i ,F ::� i':t•iit<. .....
.. ... F. ,..,.:.-w..o,-... ,
..F, .
3 { 3 ..�.<
q i
�- t
�i:E.-
.«
tatu� :.� ;Status..
3{<k .
iqt {,} <;. t, , i
� .,�
,.Rank.. . R nk .'Status
�` # �,: •i�, �`k
`s77..1f�:i�x�
ntus l dovicranus -
Vertebrate La u
xa}#
:' :> ... .....
F
Trans lvania
,
Animal
:
ludovicianus
Loggerhead; Shrike. ' :.
_. :
SC '- ,None
:..
S3B,S3N. G4T4 -
:Obscure
Link
Vertebrate
Loxia curvirostra pop. I
Southern Appalachian Red
SC FSC
S3B,S3N G5TNR Transylvania
Link
Animal
Crossbill
- Current
Vertebrate
-
'
11�Ilcro .. terus; coosae Rede a Bass
P., Y
f
S No ne
R
•i :
v �a
,..�.51 _ GS ,, Trans `l ani
L ink .
Animal
,
= Current . `
Vertebrate
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern Long-eared
SC None
S3 G4 Transylvania
Link
Animal
Myotis
- Current
Vertebrate
Necturus ftzaculosus.
Common Mud u
None
, , Y
1=,mk'
Animal
::
is orica
Vertebrate
Eastern Woodrat -
Transylvania
Animal
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian
SC FSC
S3 G5T4Q _ Currcnt
Link
Population
Vertebrate
:. , .. :. - ...
= Notroprs lutrprnnis
: '.'
Yellowfin Shiner
SC None
Transylvania ,
S2 G4Q
Link
Animal
- Current
Vertebrate
Percina ni rofasciata
g
Blackbanded Darter
SR None
S 1 G5 Transylvania
Link
Animal
(PT)
- Current
Vertebrate ;; .... i.. " Southern A alachian . '
:' .. Poecile airicaprllus practtca pp,
SC F`SC:
Trans 'lvania.
Y
S3 GSTNR : 'Link
Animal
: , ,
':. Black -capped Chickadee
:.- ; : ;
... -Current ' ; ' .
Vertebrate
Sorex dis ar
p
Long-tailed Shrew
SC None
S2 G4 Transylvania
Link
Animal
- Historical
Vertebrate.
,i.. ,
S h ra acus vartus A alachian.Yellow
p; y , p Pp ;
z
SC FSG
Trans lvania
' S3B SSN; GSTNR Y,
Link:
:.
:Animal .
a '' alachensrs_v.. ' =
,.. pp
`iellied Sa sucker t. <
. _ . .
-Current - ,
Vertebrate
Sylvilagus obscurtis
Appalachian Cottontail
SR FSC
S3 G4 Transylvania
Link
Animal
Historical
—143—

Major State Federal State Global County - Map _
Scientific Name Common Name
Group Status Status Rank Rank Status Habitat
Vertebrate Appalachian Bewick's Transylvania
Animal Thiyomanes bewickii allus Wren E FSC SHB G5T2Q - Historical Link
NC NI IP database updated: March, 2006.
Search performed on Monday, 17 April 2006 @ 17:54:01 EDST
Explanation of Codes
—144—

A"1
� .1. � North Carolina's
State and Federally Listed
Wildlife Species
test MI&W fimr "M
The species listed in this document have been granted protection by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C.1531 to 1M) and/or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
under the State Endangered Species Act (G.S.113-331 to 113-337). This list was
updated as of February 2004.
r-7 Mr
- EWangered. Any native or came native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable
component of the staw's fauna is determined by the wildlife Resources Conwiission to be in jeopardy or any
wild animal determined to be an "endangered acnirwr pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
T - Threatened. Any native or once native specks of wild animas that is MWy to became an endangered
species within the forseeable future throughout all, or significant, pottions of its range, or one that is
designated "threatened" pursuant to the Endangered Species Act,
T (S/A) - Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. Designation of a species (subspecies or population
segment) as federally listed, even though not otherwise federally listed because it so closely resembles in
appearmce a federally listed species that enforeernent personnel would have difficulty in differwtiatirq
between the listed and unlisted spedes.
SC- Special Concern Any specks of wild animal native or once native to North Carolina that is determined
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring bu#that may be taken under
regulations adopted under the p ovisims,ofArticle 25.
FSC - Federal Species of Concern. A species of concern as designated by the U.S. Fish and V1 li ife Seervim
Further- research and field study are needed to determine the conservation status. Future Jis aS may or may
not be warranted.
XN - Experimental PopulaHm Designation of k teoduaed
populations of federally listed spedes:it allows for greaw
flem lity in the manageme t of these populatimby
local, state, and federal agencim -4
—145—
ft-ft.I,

Common Name
Scientific Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
Amphibians
Carolina gopher frog
Rama capito capito
T
FSC
Common mudpuppy
Nectums maculosus
SC
Crevice salamander
Ptethaton longierm (-yonahlossee,
pop) SC
Dwarf salamander [silver morph)
Eurycea quadridigitata
SC
Eastern helbender
Cryptobranchus alleganknsis
SC
F9C
Eastern tiger salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
T
Pour -wed salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum
SC
Green salamander
Aneides anew
E
FSC
Junahfska salamander
Eurycea jumalwka
T
FSC
Longtad salamander
Eurycea longkauda
SC
Mole salamander
Ambystoma talp+oideum
SC
Fountain chorus frog
Pseudacris bm4phona
SC
Neuse River waterdog
Nedurus lewisi
SC
River frog
Rana hechd wH
SC
Southern zigzag salamander
Pkethadon rentralis
SC
Wehrle's salamander
Plethodon uehuiei
T
Weller's salamander
Plethodon welleri
SC
Birds
American peregrine falcon
Falco pemonus
E
Bachman's sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis
SC
FSC
Badunan's warbler
Vermivora bodunanii
E
E
Bald eagle
Haliardus leumcephaius
T
T
Bewicks wren
Thryomanes bewickU altus
E
FSC
Black skimmer
Rynchops ngger
SC
Blade vulture
Comgyps atratus
SC
Black -capped chickadee
Poecile atricapillus practicus
SC
FSC
Brown creeper
Certhia mnericana
SC
Common tern
Sterna hirtmdo
SC
Cooper's hawk
Accrpiter coaperu
SC
Glossy ibis
Plegadis fakinefius
SC
Gull -billed tern
Sterna nilotim
T
Ivory -billed woodpecker
CmiTephilus prindpatis
E
E
Kirdand's warbler
Dendroka Wlandii
E
E
Least tern
Sterna ant larum
SC
Little blue heron
£gretta camdea
SC
Loggerhead shrike
Lanim ludovidanus
SC
Northern saw -whet owl
Aegolius awdicus (pop)
T
RSC
Olive -sided flycatcher
Contbpus cooperi
SC
I5C
Legend
Kr:
E-Endanse ed
sc- specw CAM,
T - Tba-Amed
FSC - Federal Sp*dto of Concern
S w
XN - Experimental papwation --- m sedie Stat"
T (SIA)-Threatened Dutto SimU&dtyof Appearmac
2
WWWA wildiitaoag
-146-

taft'1
IM",
State
Federal
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Status
Bans
Piping plover
Chara"s melodus meladus
T
T
Red arossbill
Lay& curvirmft (pop)
SC
PSC
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Pimides borwho
R
E
Roseate tem
Sterna dougdW
E
E
Snowy egret
Egretta Chula
SC
Tricolored heron
Egrdta trimlor
SC
Wood stork
Mycteria arrrericana
E
E
Yellow -bellied sapsucker
Sphympicws varies appWachiensis
SC
PSC
Crustaceans
Broad River spiny crayfish
Cambarus spicatus
SC
Chawanoke crayffish
Orrortectes trfrginiensis
SC
PSC
Greensboro burrowing crayfish
Cambarw catagius
SC
Hiwassee headwaters crayfish
Cambarus pw shi
SC
FSC
Little Tennessee Rimer crayfish
Cav&arw georgiase
SC
North Carolina spiny crayfish
Gmcmectes caroUnensis
SC
Oconee streams crayfish
Cambwus chaugaensis
SC
Waccamaw crayfish
Pmatmbww brameili
SC
Fishes
American brook lamprey
,lampetra appendix
T
Atlantic sturgeon
Acipenser oxyrutchm
SC
Banded sculpin
Cottus carokrrae
T
Bigeyejumprock
Scartanymn ariommus
T
Blotchside logpenn
Percina bw*mi
E
Bluef n killifish
Lucania goodei
SC
Blueside darter
Ethmstoma jessiae
SC
Bridle shiner
Notropis bi frenatus
Sc
Broadtail madtom
Notsuus sp
SC
PSC
Cape Fear shiner
Notrapis nXid todtvlas
E
E
Carolina darter
Ethwstoma collis
SC
RSC
Carolina madtom
Notums furiasus
SC
PSC
Carolina pygmy sunfish
Elassarea boAlkei
T
MC
Cutlips minnow
Exoglossum maxittingua
E
Dusky darter
Percina sciem
E
Freshwater drum
Aplodinotus grunniens
T
Highfin cappsucker
Carpiodes vetif%r
SC
Kanawha minnow
Phenaaaobius temtutus
SC
FSC
Lakesturgeon
Aegrenser fulvexens
SC
PSC
E - Endanoetod SC. Sot" con I I
0901
T . T#uatened PSC - federal spas of Conma
xN-Expaiurxntalpopulation ...IgoSteteStatus
10�
T (VA)-Mm"dened Due to Szoilaiity of Appearance s
P'1
—147
Klt
tJS.Y
Vt"j ewitdljje 0%

Fishes
6=dkao
Mammals
Common Name
Scientific Name
Least brix* lamprey
Lampetra mpyptem
Least killifish
Heterr tdrra fornmsa
Lo perch
Pem m c"des
Longhead darter
P"dw nmrwephala
Mooneye
Modon tergisus
Mountain madtom
Notwws eleutherus
Olive darter
Perrino squamata
Orangefin madtom
Notumsgilberti
Paddlefish
Powon gmthula
Pinewoods darter
&40stoma mariae
River carpsuck,er
Cm*des carpio
Riverweed darter
Etheostoma podosterrmm
Rosyface chub
Hybopsis rt"f ens
Rosyside dace [Little Tennessee River] Climstomus fundulddes ssp
Rustyside sucker
Timburn is hamamid
Sandhills chub
Semotdus lumbee
Sharphead darter
Ethewfoma acuti-m
9harpnose darter
Perrina axyrhynchus
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipmer bmvirostrum
Snubnose darter
Ethemfoma simoterum
Spodin chub
Cyprindla monacha
Stonecat
Noturus f tavus
Striped shiner
Luxilus chrysocq*alus
Thiniip chub
Cyprinella sp
'Ihnquoise darter
Etheostoma inscriptum
Waecamaw darter
Etheastoma perlongwn
Waecan-aw killifish
Amdulus waccamensts
Waacamaw silverside
Meni& extensa
Wounded darter
Etheosloma vulneratum
YeDowfin shiner
NabuPis lutipinnis
Appalachian woodrat
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Eastern cougar
Eastern small -footed myotis {bat}
Eastern woodrat [Coastal plain]
Eastern woodrat IS. Appalachian]
Elk
State Federal
Status Status
T
9C
T
SC
9C
SC
SC
E
E
9C
SC
9C
T
9C
E
SC
T
9C
E
SC
T
E
T
SC
SC
T
9C
T
SC
SC
IRK
PSC
PSC
P9C
E
T
FSC
P9C
T
m
Neotoma magister
SC
FSC
Glaummys sabrMus ctiolaratus
E
E
Puma con col or ciouguar
E
E
Myotis Idw
SC
FSC
Neotoma fToridana f mi6m
T
Neef ma flwidana hoematoreia
SC
FSC
Cervus canadensis
SC
- Endansavd SC- Specal Conceta
- Itmtened FSC -�rY*na Sp«..i+es of cocoas,
N- 8Verinmutai papuUtion --• No shale Stahm
(SIA) - Tbmatened Due to S4udWty of Appearance 4
— i48 —
.: '\
N�
wwJR0 U •I PH 0"jf %jn

r"o"t
�arnntats
Common Name
Fin whale
Gray myotis (bat)
Humpback whale
Indiana myotis (bat)
Long-tailed shrew
Manatee
Northern long-eared myotis (bat)
Pungo white-footed mouse
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Red wolf
Right whale
Rock vole
Southeastem myotis bat)
Southern water shrew
Spam whale
Star -nosed mole [Coastal plain]
Virginia big -eared beat
Alewife floater
Appalachian elktoe
Appalachian gbw
Atlantic pigtoe
Barrel floater
Bidentate dome
Big -tooth covert
Black mantleslug
Slackwater ancylid
Blue -footed lancetooth
Brock floater
Cape Fear spice
Cape Fear du eetooth
Carolina creekshell
Carolina fatmucket
Carolina heelsplitter
Clingman covert
Creeper
Dark glyph
Dwarf proud globe
- End=Vemd sc. special Concern
- 7hr h=M FSC - Fedeal Specks of
N-EVaiatental pop lotion •.. NoSWe Status
(WA)-Thwgewd Du to 40m41a8tt►of Appearance
Scientific Name
State Federal
Status Status
Balaemptera physal us
...
E
Myotis grisescens
E
E
Megaptera wtwangkae
...
E
Myotis sodafis
E
E
Sorex dispar
SC
7hchechus manatus
E
E
Myotis septentrionalis
SC
Pe=yscus kampus easti
SC
Corymorhinus raf nes0i
T
FSC
Canis rufus
...
E/XN
Eubalaena austmf%s
...
E
Micmtus chrotorri nus camfinem*
SC
FSC
Myotis austruripwius
SC
FSC
Sorex palustris punctulatus
SC
FSC
Physeter mwrwephdus
...
E
Condyfura cristata (pop)
SC
Corynorlrinus toumsendn *Oignus
E
E
Anodonta impbfcata
Alasmidonta rauendiana
Zonitoides patuloides
Fusaonaia mason
Anodonta coupermna
Venridens we1ax'
Fummefix jone0arra
PaUftra hemphilli
Ferrissia hendersoni
Haplotmma hrsdeighi
Alasmidonta varicma
EiUptio marsupiobiesa
Trfodopsis sorineri
Wflosa vaughaniana
Lampsitis radfata conspicua
Lasngona deewata
Fumanelir wheatleyiclingmankus
Shbphitus unduWus
Ghyphyalinia junaluskana
Patera dame'
5
—149—
T
E E
SC
E FSC
E
SC
T
SC'
SC
SC
E FSC
SC
T FSC
E FSC
T
E E
T FSC
T
SC
SC
K 1.�
<J':Y
t •yew
tirWWACMrildtife.oag

Mollusks
c/od+ow
Common Name
Scienii& Name
State Federal
Status Status
Dwarf fluvetooth
Thodopsis fulciden
SC
Dwarf wedgemussel
Alasmidonta heteradon
E
E
Eastem lampmussd
I.nnrpas la iota radiata
T
Eastem pondmussel
Ugumia msuta
T
Engraved covert
Fumondix orestes
T
Fragile glyph
GlyphyrtUr a clingmani
E
FSC
Fringed coil
Helrcvdiscus fimbriatus
SC
Glossysupercoil
ParaW tma placentula
SC
Great Smoky slitmouth
Stenotrema &7ilatwn
SC
Green Boater
iasmigona suboiridis
E
RSC
Greenfield rams -horn
Helisoma eumsmium
E
FSC
High mountain supercoil
ParaWtrm andremsm
SC
Honey glyph
Glyphyalima vanattai
SC
James spinymussel
Pleurobenw mltina
...
E
K=wttyelimia
EUntia interrupts
E
Lamellate supercoil
Paravitma lamelli6m
SC
Little -wing pearlymussel
Pegurs fabula
E
E
Magnificentrams-horn
Ptamrbella magnfta
E
FSC
Mirey Ridge supercoil
Parawma clappi
SC
Mountain creekshell
V91osa vanuxonensis
T
Noonday globe
Patera clarki nantahala
T
T
Notched rainbow
VdIasa constrfcia
9C
Open supercoil
Paravitma umbiUcaris
SC
Pink glyph
Gtyphya Ma pentaddpW
SC
Pod lance
00tio jolTicuculata
SC
Purple wartyback
Cyclonaias tuberruiata
E
Queen crater
Appahwhina chiOwmensis
SC
Rainbow
V91054 iris
SC
Ramp Cove supercoil
Paravitrea Iacfwdms
SC
Roan supercoil
Paravitrea varidms
T
PSC
Roanoke slabshell
EU*Iio manaWiWs
T
Savannah ldliput
7bxvkwna pullus
E
FSC
Saw -booth disc
Discus bryand
SC
Sculpted supercoil
Paravitma terraria
T
PSC
Seep mudalia
Uptoxis dilatata
T
Slippersltell mussel
Alasmidonta vftift
E
Smoky Mountain covert
In, f teciarius fm*si
T
Spike
Euiptio driatata
SC
E • EndanSered Sc. Special can -
? -?%mimed VSC - Fldcral Species of Concern
XN - Experintmbd popvlad" --- W 5bW Sbaus
T ISIA1-71mateued Uneto Slnsilaettyof Appearance `
—150—
K 1,�
t'"V"
tiV1iMYrilCtiVildlif i�

Alb1
'0ft1
Oak,
4mb►
ANN
edllb,
Common Name
Scientific Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
Mollusks
r e+�
Spiral coil
Helic discus bonaWcus
SC
Tar river spinymussel
E1lfptio stdmtansana
E
E
Tennessee clubshell
Pleurobww ov forme
E
FSC
Tennessee heelsplitter
Lasv* az hokfania
E
FSC
Tennessee pigtoe
Fusconaia ban Ana
E
Tidewater musket
Lelntodea ochrwea
T
Triangle floater
Alasmfdonta undulata
T
Veh etcovert
Injfedx*is subpafliatus
SC
Waccamaw ambersn dl
Catinella wammamemis
T
Waccamaw snail
Amnicola sp
SC
Waccamaw fatmucket
Lampsd is fu&rkatf
T
FSC
Waccamaw siltsnall
Cincinnatfa sp
SC
Waccamaw spike
Elfiptio waccatnowensis
E
FSC
Wavy -rayed lampm.ussel
Lwnpsgis fasciola
SC
Yellow lampmussel
Lapsilis cariosa
E
PSC
Yellow lance
Elliptfo fanaeolata
E
F9C
Reptiles
American alligator
Alligator mississ*ensis
T
T (VA)
Atlanticridleyturtle
Lepidachelyskempfi
E
E
Bog turtle
Clanmys (=Glyplemys) muhlenbergii
T
T (SJA)
Carolina pigmy rattlesnake
Sistrurus mivarius maiarius
SC
Carolina water snake
Ner4a sipedm wiUfamengdsi
SC
Diamondback terrapin
Mafacknip terrapin
SC
FSC
Eastern coral snake
mk"rus fuluius
E
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake
Crotalus adam nt eus
E
Eastern spiny softshell turtle
Apalonespinftra spinffera
SC
Green turtle
Chelonia mydas
T
T
Hawksbill turtle
Erebwdselys imbrkcata
E
E
Leatherback turtle
Dmwchdys cot1ww
E
E
Loggerhead turtle
Canna caretta
T
T
Mimic glass lb�ard
Ophisaurus mimicus
SC
FSC
Northern pine snake
Pituophis melanokeucus mclanoleucus
SC
FSC
Outer banks kingsnake
Lampwpd is gdtula stictiM
SC
Smooth green snake
Ophwdgs (-Uxhlomphis) oernalfs
SC
Southern hognose snake
HdaWan simus
SC
FSC
Stripeaneck musk turtle
SMmotherus miner peltifer
SC
Timber rattlesnake
Crotalus honidus
9C
Legend
K2
2I. Y
E - Endangcred
SC- Spew Concern
T - 7%miened
IPSC - P edesal Specks of Concerti
Xi - ExperI tai population --- M State 5tAfto
T (SIA)-lMmatened Uueto Sol] tityef Appearance
�
tPwwW=ltII"e-*V
—151—
'°ft1

State Federal
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status
Others
Listed American burying beetle Nicrophorus amcrkanus ... E
Saint Fromis< satyr (butterfly) Noonympha mitchetiri francisd ... E
Spnwe-fir moss spider Microhaura montivaga ... E
Wnitionsr I
pop -a unique geographic population within a broader ranging species.
sp - undescribed species that does not have a formal description or name assigned to it in
scientific literature.
asp - an undescrised subspecies that does not have a formal description or name assigned
to it in sdentific literature.
This pubiiaetion is for ij'o wzWonat purposes only. It mpresents the most current information
ava0able. In aU cores, this information may or may not have been incarporated in the NCAC 101.0100
Endangered and Threatened Spmia listings.
- Endansavd sc. special Con, -
71MM ned FqC - Federal Spades of coaeetit
N-EVCRUMtA Papwath3a --- NostatStstas
(S/A) - nteaftt*d YSar to SinAUtitr of App &vano` •
—152—
KI<
"woo
www.acwildUft.osg

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS)
ESS Help Desk
Notes:
• This report shows the species listed in this state according to the Federal Register listing description.
• This list does not include experimental populations and similarity of appearance listings.
• This list includes species or populations under the sole jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
• Click on the highlighted scientific names below to view a Species Profile for each listing.
Listed species (based on published population data) -- 63 listings
Animals -- 36
Status Species/Listing Name
E Bat, Indiana (Myotis soclalis)
E Bat, Virginia big -eared (Coanorhinus (=Plecotits) townsendii virginianus)
E Beetle, American burying (Nicrophorus americanus)
E Butterfly, Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii fi-ancisci)
E Cahow (Pterodroma cahoiv)
T Chub, spotfin Entire (Erimonax monachus)
—153—

E Curlew, Eskimo (Mumenius borealis)
T Eagle, bald lower 48 States Q aliaeetits lezrcocephalus)
E Elktoe, Appalachian (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
E Heelsplitter, Carolina (Lasmigona decorala)
E Mussel, oyster Entire Range; Except where listed as Experimental Populations (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
E Pearlymussel, littlewing (Pegias fabula)
T Plover, piping except Great Lakes watershed (Charadi-ius melodus)
E Puma (=cougar), eastern (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar)
E Riffleshell, tan Qioblasma ilorentina walkeri (=E. walkeri))
E Sawfish, smalltooth (Pristis pectinala)
T Sea turtle, green except where endangered (Chelonia mvdas)
E Sea turtle, hawksbill (Erelmochelys imbricala)
E Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley (Lepidoche111s kempii)
E Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)
T Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta carelta)
E Shiner, Cape Fear (Notropis mekistocholas)
T Silverside, Waccamaw (Menidia extensa)
—154—

T Snail, noonday (Mesodon clarki nantahala)
E Spider, spruce -fir moss (Microhexura montivagaa
E Spinymussel, Tar River (Elliptio steinstansana)
E Squirrel, Carolina northern flying (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus)
E Sturgeon, shortnose (Acipenser brevirostr-r n)
E Tern, roseate northeast U.S. nesting pop. (Sterna douallii dortgallii)
E Wedgemussel, dwarf (Alasmidonta heter-odon)
E Whale, finback (Balaenoptera ph sY alars)
E Whale, humpback (Sgaptera novaeangliae)
E Whale, right (Balaena glacialis (incl. arrstralis))
E Whale, sperm (Physeter catodon (—macrocephalus))
E Wolf, gray lower 48 States, except MN and where XN; Mexico (Canis lupus)
E Woodpecker, red -cockaded (Picoides borealis)
Plants -- 27
Status SpecieslEisting Name
T Amaranth, seabeach (Amar-anthus pumilus)
—155—

E Arrowhead, bunched (Sa-gittaria fascicith7ta)
E Avens, spreading (Gewn radiatum)
E Bittercress, small-anthered (Cardamine micranthera)
T Blazingstar, Heller's (Liatris helleri)
E Bluet, Roan Mountain (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana)
E Chaffseed, American (Schivalbea americana)
E Coneflower, smooth (Echinacea laevigata)
E Dropwort, Canby's (4xypolis canbyi)
T Goldenrod, Bluc Ridge (Solidago spithamaea)
E Harperella (Ptilinunium nodosum)
T Heartleaf, dwarf -flowered (Hexastylis nanij7ora)
T Heather, mountain golden (Hudsonia montana)
E Irisette, white (Sisyr•inchiun? dichotonium)
T Joint -vetch, sensitive (Aeschynomene vhginica)
E Lichen, rock gnome (Gymmderma lineare)
E Loosestrife, rough -leaved (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
E Meadowrue, Cooley's (Thalictrum cooleyi)
—15d—
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

T Pink, swamp (h elonias bullata)
E Pitcher -plant, green (Saj•racenia oreophila)
E Pitcher -plant, mountain sweet (Sarracenia i-ubra M. Jonesii)
T Pogonia, small whorled (Lsotria medeoloides)
E Pondberry (Chides melissifolia)
E Sedge, golden (Carex lutea)
T Spiraea, Virginia (Spiraea viiginiana)
E Sumac, Michaux's (Rhos michauxii)
E Sunflower, Schweinitz's (Helianthus schweinitzii)
TESS I ECOS I USFWS Home I Privacy
—157—

This page intentionally left blank
—158—

APPENDIX C
SCOPING LETTER/AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
-159-

This page intentionally left blank
—16o—

'North Carohna
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, GDvcrnor
June 8, 20D6
Britt Cobb,.Seclttury
Mr. Pldllip i?rati6s
U.S. i?+pL urthe liiteriur
Natioriat Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob 1(bad
Asheville, IBC 28803
Dear 1W. Francis:
Re: GHT.rle.-06--P- ;Q 3J Scoping; Proposal to mplace existing wasic►vatcr treatment plant
locate: at `y1t Pisgah, North Carolina.
The above referenced enviro=ental impact information has been submitted to the State Cleaeinghousc
under the provi-ions of the3Natiniml Fnviroamcntt11 Policy Act. According to O.S. 113A-10. when a
state agcsney i.s required to prepare im envimnmenml document undor the provisions of federal law, the
eavimmumtal documant meets the provisions ofthe State h nvirnnmcnial Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your ccamitleration am the comrncnts made by agencles in the course of this ievicw.
If any fbyfiher environmental review document.4 am prepared for this pzgjeai they.should be forwarded to
this offimfor intergovermiental m'Acw.
Should y6j have any questiotw, please do nut hesitate to call.
. rir
s Sincerely,
G:
Ms. Chrys Baggot
,Environmentul Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region B
Region A
1301 Mail Savicu Cow 1*.ti (A19p33-9R I
Adaiskme 29699143,21 Ssala a.�erl►S1-01-0a
V-ewiikryt Amerrj r'li nrawitnol
An eq"l Q,ny�lar witr}v�QL ntMe Avian Lwy1ajw
—161 —
t iMT$tau A d(/wuY:
128.1Vai1.)wxt 51rQ9
R.*fgh, NW& CWWEnO

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARIUGHOUSE
,..-
DEPARTMENT..OF ADMINISMATION
MTERGOVEMOMNTAL REVSLW
:
0,66-E-00jAPO 1Q `...: 1402
DATE RECEIVBD: O4/26/2CC6
AGESCY RESPCNSE
: e.�l�o •
nVTZW CLOSED: 05/28/2006
Ei:i RPM =
CWKC
ARCHIVES- W-.5TORY BL�G - !48C 4617
y
REVIEW DIST.RIRUTIGtc
MM, t:: 1 P
DL�Eh Li G i$I:F►1 .rF� tzEf RS
�/— �.�
�. sU
VE?T OF TRANS FORTAT_�ti
�
`�CNC-17,
�
LAND OF S Y �'.EGIONAL ��'s►, �� 7
�i
PR=�, :ACT rNFOPMUTON vta S•1 s'i-1fl(Gv
.F�p?I.1t1Ay1`: u. S. Q&pt. of -he lnterioi
TYPE. talationaL act
1. Scoping '1�.x4n+c&mkt.
?rognscl tr. rnolQ--Q wau_c:aatur treatmcnt g?r.it ocn�ca nt Mt.
The tilcachas3 pr7i'sat h•.ect rj!:kcrd.0cci t,u the X. C. ytat:o fa�z
}.rile. gavHsnr�Fr:��i raviaw. Vl&age _aview and au:amit your xesponse. by the above
!-:tr.ica Crr;re Raleigh 14C 27699-1:30'_.
it addit.L0nal revizw :nrs is needed, plen ii1 rr.?[:-Lact this Gr.fi wx ;5 t c) 37-.''42 .
R:, ?� t2CSV:+1' C;t :'if1c:+ �IrY_E;►r l: N�Ci1.:jtVli};�.� 1� �UlS?1.C1"st.:::
KC, 00tt4ENT
(�CIIIENTS A TACRED
%)vV+��-•
—162—

r"y
t # 11
. 117
VVJ o
W h' a
DENR
Worth Carolina Department -of Environment and Natural Resources
Whael . l", Gomm IM119m G. Rest Jr. Sevatary
Seerettarefi OMIN
DOS.
MKOW EUM
'T'0_ Chry• R,agge't
State Clearinghouse
FI Ob. xe'ibe McOme1, '1 "�
Project Rev tY. Coordinator
RE; CAE-C324 Scoping tor Wa.stewator ?roatrtwnt PlanL• and Collet --ion
System Replacement st, Mt. Pisgah Transylvzinia and Haywood
countics
DATE: M" 31, 20 6
The Depar_ment of Envircnnent and matusal Resource, hat revim)ed the
proposed Drojact. The attached coamnts are a result of thin review.
More spatific ccmants will be provided during the environmental review
F.vccsy.
Thank you for the opportuzlty to re,,,gond, If during the prepara`ien
of the environmental document, additional int:q�mtion is noodod, the
applicant ss encouraged to notify. Qur respective divicaions.
Att4(;b10el1L' as
16DI' Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Nat Carolina 27 -1601
Rim: 919 733-4084 %FAX, 919-715-3060 S Intemet: vAmenrState.ne.LWENM
Ar, itftmtiUf# ti1IFwir-50%Rm:13d i X %PwICafsaw Fspr
—163—
NN Caro
NaturiallY

..._:._.' i..,..... State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: 1�-
wDENR Department ar Environment and Natural Resource Q� Q_ 1 J� �-. L�
Projzt: Number try Date: � �
IWI ERGOVERNMENTRL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After trvie. w of this pro}ect it has becn deWminec tha! the OEM patriot of ands er asprcu Is indicated may need to be obtained in order far this propcc
toc=piywhh tforth Carolina Law. Ruestfcm regatrding these permits should be addressed to the Regierml Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications. iritanrast ion and guidelinem wlative to tFfte plans and permits am w aisable fram. the sarsta Regional Office
PERMUS
SPMALAPP1ICAMON PROCEDURES or 9EQUIRUVIENTS
Normal Ptixessrsne
Oututurylane lindr)
Permit tomnstrutt
30turs•
feciliticf.stwersystem exwmicru&:ewergtrrs
cans-a;:s,Or-dtwinsgacton,Pw.•ap{:kapar.tachricalcerferoncaustrsl.
[90dlysl
Rat dlsdlalgifra Ist� Sta1r 3uriaT watefs.
NFPS-0etralttodi4cha oVisa surface wst": filler
Applic:HeaIto days betorpt "in acttvity.On-stmUwccttanxcayp:ltattzn
.cm inaaersms dmatuursw:-mewaterWorizs
ccnf&*-nmu=LAsattcna[hjcbm"pxrmttt.mrtslnsetwssttwtatcrrscat+acnr
90-124rbys
discigrO-11moslkte
trVI-i
of rtPai i porn- t iset ever islitUL
P:atcr lraeFcsrssit
Prcoop!canan sotiintwt goat�err� usnabyrie a•scary
3D ddys
-iotaCanstruclissrPe rail
QfnP eteaptlicetion-rentberecovedandperms;brood prior to the
7&yi
i= miiarien oft wet
115 daysl
C1srC0s end rill rirsrir
Aptslicitlan copy cn%at er_ ses.ed en each adiaseat rlprrian
y
OrrsitairssRctriasLFYeapp>acadantonferenm�wZl lillirgmay require l-isam it
I9Oea}i1
toFillimma.C.D epartasaolcrAdmintstmilonFadcral3rccgexic!Fir Perrrj%
Pcmiltmccnisru.-t&cpxmt, AU- rdtlujan Ab.*ncn-
t (F*sar slo i Ewvsston 5ota ccs ax rwf is A tirAC
WA
gD oilys
i2? Ol C$;W�l3U 1i 2N.QaEiC)
hryepen turninganocitto^.' wlths.rb[c.:.ps n;al
most tse'sl tcrnp!'aitce 1gUi 1S A WJ C 20LI SCO
`]
Demalitionwranmtkns Df-str ctireS town-i irip
dslsesto9 rntteriu must br in ccrnplianr� vdth
W days
15A i+y-AC 2t1.111 n (a) {1lwhkh rsrtsshesnwdkzdon
full
M days!
.49 tenfvfal pftt to demsli Ow. Ccntett Asbestos
Control Prcvp 919.733.011M
D
Cp.1`V A-'5UVrct Rntut W tilx» us,&', 15A MAC.
%>7�CFcsO
line SedirraztatlonPullutionCoAtrdx:ref19y3enw-hepraparlynslthmedfop Any inOdesuMbirAjxt".Ane=1on serinsc:ttatlaa
20Qays
etcal-:01ryanVOID betru"IMJlfone orworctewstulirdstimbed. Plan tsled�nilhprDSErflcglD'1211O CitandQuslitySeelicrslitl_d3t30
i3oddy►l
slays hcfue6ciAnrlrlpa7rotty. AfraafSSA{srthe ttrstasrcerwwV.;rrai:rsa-rs+.
0
The SedisncrttticaP lludDnContrelA:t4F'9;3m=ticsMmsedwithrwteii r'atiletet2+'8mpelwalOrdnarcr-
3i?d,-Ys
[(
Sedimellt4gon sduroricheontroiwtatbeaddrazsedlnatcardarccvitiWC='sasprovedprawant.Psseculu:ittentionshouldbe
EAU ntodesignardInstaliailonof8Mp4CflrtegerirrieterseilieiemtriqlrirtydctA=sssvmrasslablestotmwitera riviyancesrld0ite-1.
:�tMlugPrrsnit
On-dwinspection usLal.sumlyb*nd(pcdwhhUkNF ecndamouwarsrieswt3h
'.. ernes=ardnusrdsefor rrsrsafeezteJ:asul,rleryttrmir+edgreaterthsx►
Y04104
ottaLruossais:*rt�1t1littCdlilttwjtbauN�iatxLsunJteer�ati�a:rcrcivcdlis:[c��
(IiQ'�r))
the perrtitrAnhe in' --I
t1DrsllCoto[raisutstY►r�htsmzit
On-sitthsp ctionb)rHC.DiWslmartcrrstttmaKesGf4 dtYsL
1 day
©
3pmWGround Cieuanceaurnn3Ferma-22counstas
nn•sttelrwactsnnbyh.C.Di. lonofFbeesinowipwsrequired'Ifmoreths.-iAoe
tday
In coast-! NC withafgar c sails.
xtpl; of grnusnlclear:ig betivities or--invotoeo. Irifig elms ihessid arrequeswd
at low tun daW bulam acknI bizrit is falarimd?
Q
DaReiktingWilitt..=
fllA
9Q-120dap
{N/A1
-164-

REMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PRocin.ims or IIEWRMENTS fi�irrai`.Pnte ss;lrry:
i$tafi ttit:r+1'�rlE Y.irnitj
GarnSsfety�+vrm�t
If tseOnc-Muttien, Al:pkCam
mist No ti- qu:llrled C.Wneer W: trresl8it: eiaef. irl.-PLWA COeitft?.-j=CertifY
coast uul0r%is accor6ng toDOW 3P;W#et psr— ":lso n:gatre9.M4 arutcr
3tl dayl
rrvmoao aaural prograrn,and a 4G4 prrnlh from Cars of F:n2li*eM
(63 days)
An%tpectbnofsitebrecasalytoti+ttiilr utdQas><fxettoaAniniwmr.
hoof S2mco must act oT4wy *k zpplkzdDt Anaddiftnal praoessieg (c0
lsaV rl an a tterc4ntsgr at 1tw enrai prata-i ran ufll bo nttplired upon mis+pltlPQr,,
Permit to mill rxultsratorysuiergnw_1I
10days
nrc� oprncd tsydrl i opcnlut 3hel�uptir► abMdvRnrnl, b_ altrQ,ret' a:.ca d�rg
to REKR arias snJ rt�w�zlass.
Grrtph)str,.+.l Fxploaeion hs'n it
Appll.: Sian tii:d ai th DCfifl at ire i0<t.gg tior to i3stre M rlNrsrtt Appiitatien
=Q�3rt
l y i0ttca too .tsixiord aRp6oiionfareri
OVA]
[�
Siatats[ae-.tanstruetEonPynit
1ysrllrltlaHCt,#3hor/dansrructuredzelidurgeAAlan Wait* dcs:rlldard
15-20day.-
d @terninpz at siructcne d:�rU0i4rfiYntrShf� Cdrlplfatl propEstyl
MtAI
Q
401 wabsOtmdhy Cel trllcod"n
N.A
;13 s1
❑
CA0.1aFarmItSorMAI0AdcaBaprrArlI
$Zsuorcrmust ac umpalX0Ir tiat
60 days
�130daysl
Q
Us)SAPermit krMtrtt?l)devt+it:rlrlant
SSQG0fm mustatneerpaayapaicaWn
22dayss
Q
$aArslgrAdmicmaruimentsare bcst_Jkvurylear*st. frojeRtrea,ttar m rmtr*Vroadstcbamm-edorder.raye4pleasenrzify:
Mr—Gimck rc surw* &M Map Aalcigl%MC2F61 t
[�
AW,*xaaerttni" wells.0reRuiredtimittbe- 'ina_cerdanmwhhTitte15J.5ubdupaw=100.
Write L0oaal0fics..q( ojufopadiilwphrn'und"raLndstmagetwks(.'ST)s gtfisraw-reddlrA;any exm4Qnonoptia0an.
M%plian;e whh 15A14CACM IEtttr oasta St+x ;*.;tNRulrsl isrcguircd
ist+hl
at
0111MCOMMeftrb[aehadationalpagc'.6sarmsamI:dgccx.antodie a: inIntbutit0,10
REGIONAL OFFICES
;,,`slions, regarding these permits should be ziddressed to the Regional Office marked below.
—165—
ftiEit:Regiosrtsl office D !'ol
aorQsvilla Regiana40fi"ice
Q Wi1rnington Regioirsa! Office
bedn PI2L�3
919North M81nSLreet
127 Catdinal:Oreve Extension
Asheville, N.C. 2t3601
Maaresvflle,lN,C.xt3115
Wilmington, KC- 28405
(828} 257•G2�?S
{7�} 663-1a99
(91C`) 3g5-33Q0
C"F �lyeltrtvtfle tirgicnal Qltflte
C1 itafelgfi Regional Office
❑ Winston-SalemRegttma! Oi#Ftt'
225 Green Street, Sctite.71>:1
3800 Barrett Drh�e,?-QBox 27G67
5il�.lNaugtltown Street
Fayetteville, N.C. 74l3Q1
N,aleigfi, N.C.Zt611
Winston-Salem,N...271Q7
{91flj+3D6-1541
(519) 571-4?eU
S33d} 77'1-AcOl3
p Washington Regional Office
y431rVashington Square Mall
'IVa_hi ng-on, V.C;.27B65
12521946-6481

This page intentionally left blank
—166—

-5122/2M; :4:4S 82£-45P-7772 NO WILDLYE PA , 03
gecrefsres Offioe
DOA
MAY 31 2006
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission EM
.;
Blatant A. Harnilion, fixecutive Aicectax ,
NOWORANDUM
TO: I OM& Moot,)?a.V,i Wbacw Coordinator
Ask
Oliiee ofLegislmive and Intergevetmncutal AfTaiu
^r
PROM7 Dn*7 04vray, Mountain Region Coardinater
-
Habitat Conservation Program
^1
DATGr' stay M. 2006
.. SUBJECT: , Nstfonal Pad; Scrvix, Blue Ridge Pustbvray
n►
Scopi©g for aastcaaWtroaunavt plant and collect(ea s3*= rplacomerm atML Pistils
Transylvania and Heywood counties
/►.
07.1,E No. 00r0314
Nalabti4ts with Ow North Carolina Wildlife Fmources Commission (Commission) reviewed the Apol 19,
2006lcarxmgazding the National Park Service's (Np5) proposal to upgrade the v astewrrdcr vestment
^,
facilities at irft Pisgah en the $Inc Ridge Pack+nay. An TinvuonmenW Aasrsameat (EA) will be
prepared. Comments from the Commission are provided undcrprvrisious of dre Fish and V rtldlifo
Coordivation Act (48 Sloe 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 at seq.) sad tbcNatfonal risvirormmonterl
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4S32 (2)(c).
4y
The EA should evaluate it, elfeets an aquatic and or, arial habitats and doteriba measures twat would he
used to offset potential adverse effuots. Pisgah Creek dn%matre un of the heatenent plant supparm wild
-
trout. The _nmential for sedlmeamtion in the creek during camanuctiort should be easiuffwd. Anticipated
impao—..ate m water grtality aBertbe npgradeS should also be described_ Arco lmts and types of
wetland, same" and impotant upland disturbance should be quanOcd. Southern Appalachian bog and
/*
habitat fbr the fu:d=dly Bstbd !Carolina nwkrn hying squirrel occurs in the project
area. The main
measure to protect flying squinclh is to avoid outing spore, I'm and yellow birch
hers and to avoid
alteriug hydmlagy is drainages and spring steps. Ile USFWS Recovery Plan has informa`.lon sboat
-
habitat ideutlHestinn and movellement for flying squirrels
^,
(hs VQcP& w" guld"i. a oar PIWW I 992"MI 4c4W Appendix A, items 2-7-2-IV public leads).
,^
The Commission also r counendsehat the NPS implement. as needed, bear -proofing measures wi@tthis
project. Scars wished the uemamrd plant is the pest if diw still do, lancing otolhcr measures that help
prevent nuisance situations should be used.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity ve provide scopm); cornmceu on this prgleat. If you need to
discuss these comments please rail me at [phone] exeusiun 24.
Sincerely,
Mailing Mldrwin Aivbdon of b xl ud Fmhwics • 1121 Mail Swvice Curler • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephuncr [phone] • Psut: (919)707-OD29
-167-

1.;4..45 620-052-7.772 I�M * WILX"?FE PASS '04.
NPS,.BRP
pit PhBA
MouftdnReglon CoDrdimft
B4j;4cw=m#'m-Program
Page
-168-
,may

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Mstoric Presavation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph- M-488-6237 Fax [phone]
DATE: 13 - June - 06
TO: U.S. Department of Interioraft . .. ... _., ...,_
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Superintendent
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, NC 28803
PROJECT(S): Proposed replacement of existing wastewater treatment plant lacated
at Mt. Pisgah, Itaywood County, ;North Carolina.
AWN
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is in
0%
receipt of the above -referenced project information and would like to thank yrnr fnr the
opportunity to comment on this proposed NHPA Section 106 activity.
The project's location is within lite aboriginal territory of the Cherokee people. This area
may have cultural, archaeological, or religious significance to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians. Potential cultural resources are subject to damage or destruction from
land disturbing activities requiring new ground disturbance, or vegetation manipulation.
,ram
Additionally, adverse effects to ethnographic sites, such as traditional Native Amerir:an
campsites or burials, can reduce the interpretative or spiritual significance of a site to
�+
Tribal and United States culture and history. The EBCI TBPO requests any cultural
resource data, including phase I archeological reports, topo maps, historical research, or
archives research, forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for
^
comment oleo be to this office in accordance with Section 106 of the NRPX Theacl. .
THPO looks forward to participating in the project review process as a consulting party
as stipulated in Section 106 of the National IBstoric Preservation Act of 1966.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me at 828 498-02-37 ext 2.
3fncerel3
r
-,,,�TylerB?Ho ie `
Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
OWA
A
^ -169-
ru

This page intentionally left blank
—17Q—

NESTERN
MAIN OFFICE
WESTERN OFFIC
014I M
0 kaFor
2? N.Mwkut Siroul Suite a10
to sluhw•wl Sttuct
t-AROLINA
Ashewile. NO Mill
Franklin. NC 2573,
828.284141
628S2M1-3898
r'i LLIANt:E
W IS
For 628.2G8-81M11
A g.•aFy2nm ax.enutcacy.•Fa.va
E-mail: :uhv:illeryonCa.01q
June 15, 20M
Aatiortal Park Setvicefltlue. Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzatte Molling
Alt, Pisgah Wastewater Treatment Plant Comments
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Ashuhnllc, NC 2M.i-8636
Dear Suzette
on beitulf of the Western North Carolina Albuncc Public Parks Task Force, thank you for
the opportunity- to comment on the Nfc. Pisgah Wastewatcr Treatment Plant Project
scoping.'Dan631, as well, for the fnilowup meeting at JiLRI Eleadtluutcrt to clarify same
of the maps and points of this pmposnb.
We have reviewed the various alternatives listed in the public notice about this project
and have the following comments.
It appears that Alternatives "tJ", `A",'F". "0" and "H" are not heing setiouslV
considered by RLRI because they will result in little or no effluent quality improvement
or cnuldnot he funded, if Ihat assumption is correct, Alternatives "B". "C"- and "F"
appear lu be the most. favorable.
We ale espeeitdly in ffeuted in the mcmhmm: binreactor package InmIntent ay3lcia. as iL
provides superior effluent qualify. However, we have qucsdons regarding each of these
pmposals, lamud on our recent research and on conversations with the NC Mplutmtlra of
Envirmuncnt and Natural Resources.
Alternative B
Would this he an CMION l system, whereby, precipitation would not add to the 6ratuleut
load? We would favor an enclosed package over an open process.
This system would create sludge, which must be processed or removed from the site.
How is this currently being done, and how would this sludge be handled under
Alternative " I3"9
It appears that this system w•uuld plvvide burcly, if any, improvement over the current
systcm. Despite the "low enst we question whether this is really the beet option for
— 171 —

replacing the existing plant regarding impmved water quality and the best "hang for the
bucks".
Alterns ive C
We like the idea of this alternative from an ecologicid anglc, and would certainly b;,
highly yul;pmlivc it the topography was more level and if nu forest canopy would b;, lost.
W.C.-am am concerned that the high itltitudc aid steepness of slope may make this proposal
impracticable. Further. we are concerned that: construction of such a wellund would very
possibly cause significant harm if) the cxixting so►l, p1tint laid wildlife ccalogy in the local
amit. There is also v ery• Good chance that sediment from and dwing such construction
would snake its wav into Flat Laurcl Creek, especially during storm events. 'tiest.
Manabemcnt Practices which --work well in the Piedmont and Cnastal Plirin often fail
during such evcnls in the Mountain province.
Alternative l+
This alternative looks the most favorable as it significantly improves effluent quidity and
is not silmifcantly higher_ in cost. The Town of Highlands Flab apparently has had succas5
with tliis technology and is in the process of upgritoling its membrane bioreactor packaQc
capacity. It is our undurstanding that this can be on enclosed or open s�%tem, so wc would
again, urge that an enclosed package he utilizcd. Also, apparently tliest, systems have a
built-in sludge treatment pnicvss (either as standard equipmeni or as an option'?). This
grans to be.a Natter apprt�:irh than havii,g to deal with a separate Mudge removal prnecss.
We would urge that ibis be included if that is the vase.
In conclusion, we urge BLRY to aive strongconsideration to Alternativc F and implement
this if it continues to appear favorable. Alfc believe that the new plant.chould be a
significant, rather than a slight, improvement over the existing, ugikg treatment
technology. We encourage BLRI to consult with the Town of Highlands And also with
Western •n Carolina University/Cullowhee since membrane bioiTaCtor trc:hnnkogy is vo be
implemented there, its -,Yell in the near futum.
Thank you again for the opportunity to cottiment on this proposal
Sincerely,
Bob Galc
Ecologist
Westerst -NOrth Carolina Allinnce
—172—

0xs aF
- United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLUE SFTVl
a•
1 0 2Eli UCM st-ft
its:,Wvilln, Vvrh C Mj w 2001
May 171, 21-006
MS. SuZ.ette Mating
Blue, Ridgg Parkway
1.99 Hanphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
Dear Ms. Nfolling:
Subject: Replacement *Mt; Pisgah Server Facilities, Biuc Ridge Park--Nvty, Haywood County,
North Carolina
Fri your letter of April 19, 2006, you eequesteil our oDmrnants on the subject project. The
following continents are proL ided in accordsnco with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination A 4 as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667c); the Migratory Bird Treaty Acts as amended
(16 U.S.C. 703); and scclion 7 of the Endangmd Specks kct of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
Acco,Wng to your letter, the Blue Ridge Parkway (Par)mray) is proposing to construct and
operatc an improved wa,-lewatcr treatment plant to replace a Exiling system that wax onnnt�u led
in the 1950s. All construction would take place within $ 5-acre fenced tuna, all of which is (or
has bean prcvinusly) disturbed; where the misting v% vatcr treatment facilities are located.
In October of 2043, the Parkway prcpwvd a draft Environmental Assessment fnr.a project titled
"Rebabilitation of Mt Pisgah 1.ltilitiee' and issued a Finding of.No Significant ImpaO in January
of 2004 dint appears to include the entire subject project. We provided. comments on tliat project
in More.h :md October 02003 and concurred vith the Parkway's assassment that the project was
not .likely to advermcly aifccti any federally listed species. It is not clear to us why a new
Tmvironmcntal Assessr lent is being prepared, Wonwbolm, wa continue to support the Park
'As s rcault of iafurmal a=ulzatiaa with as, tha Park-v ysS=d to evaluate each mce idou ficd fox ie=Nal "or
Carolina flYi, Z sa piWel sirstiug activity. If nagdog al*vity is obsetv+cd in any trees that will be impa.ted by tb*
Euuj=16 uu nVivity wM ceasr- The Park"y xin thezimopco cunsaltatien wish ustn detr niftie the zpproprinte
caorse of action.
-173-

S=ViC0l cf&ft to PtaW W it WMK ccaziitWO in tisnp ajerA mm N prti lUfy ass send wouW
ft PIaitct Am wctI csd, aad bM DD sddstiMW ODM=nb bry=d tbm %V F&Vidnd i, 2M.
We r mduo ti o opgctuz dW to pa� sm comwo fsd =,la ss U youu om&ua nn
ns ial6attts93 as to am a&=$ of dds PqCCL Ifinecm be of tic w if)= lama my
QuccSccs, Pkm40 uOthc3hm to eo*W W. Altus Rw&ff cf our =ff= 82&=.3939,
EXL 229. Itt =Y h= sca slagll>5t 5tojoLl, pl=a =felt= oa 1,n IquutW
4 Z O3.179.
8ituxccly,
Baez P. Caio
l~� SBpav%oc
-174-

/dft1
rom"1
r'!'1
�1
eat)
�1
ate,
ram,
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC SCOPING NOTICE
—175—

This page intentionally left blank
— r76 --

MAMMAL
"LU
umce
National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road
U.S. Department of the Interior www.nps.gov/blri Asheville, NC 28803
Blue Ridge Parkway News Release
April 13, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact: Suzette Molling [phone] ext. 219; email Suzette Moll ing_anps.gov
or Phil Noblitt [phone] ext. 242; email Phil Noblitta,nps.goy
Parkway Seeks Input for Exotic Plant Management
Plan and for Wastewater Treatment at Pisgah
(Asheville) —The Blue Ridge Parkway is seeking public input, through May 15, for two
undertakings --a proposed Exotic Plant Management Plan and wastewater treatment
alternatives at Mt. Pisgah developed area.
Parkway officials said that both projects are at the scoping stage and that input is now
being sought to help identify issues, areas requiring additional study, and topics to be
analyzed in the Environmental Assessment process.
Exotic plants are ecologically harmful, frequently displacing or otherwise impairing the
function of native plant communities. They can also alter historic landscapes and
interfere with visitor use and enjoyment.
The existing wastewater treatment plant at Mt. Pisgah is aging and needs to be replaced
or upgraded.
For more information and to comment on either or both undertakings, visit the National
Park Service website: http://t)arkplanning.nps.gov. Select Blue Ridge Parkway from the
park dropdown menu and then click on the project that you wish to comment on.
Information is also available, and comments made be made by writing to:
Superintendent, Blue Ridge Parkway, ATTN: Suzette Molling, 199 Hemphill Knob
Road, Asheville, NC 28803. Comments must be postmarked by May 15.
Comments are typically treated as a public record and made available for public review.
Individuals may request that the National Park Service withhold their name and address
from disclosure. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.
—177—