NC0089532_Engineering Alternative Analysis_20150228

RECEIVED/DENROWR
i N.r U17
Water Quality
1 Permittinq Section
r
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
' CASHIERS AREA WASTEWATER EVALUATION
1 TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
JACKSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1
O
1
McGill
A S S O C i A T E S
C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S
A S H E V I L L E , NORTH CAROLINA
i
1
1
1

1
1
1
' ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CASHIERS AREA WASTEWATER EVALUATION
' TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
' JACKSON COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
N CAR
p��oFES3l°°*%
ON7= o L o
22541 e =
rB
'11,12/29/2014rrr��r��l,`
McGill
A S S 0 C I A T E S
' Engineering • Planning • Finance
Asheville, North Carolina
1 December 2014
11.00424

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .............................................................................1
' II. FLOW PROJECTIONS....................................................................................................2
III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.......................................................................................19
' IV. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY..........................................................................................39
V. CONCLUSION...................................................................RECEIVEDIDENf3lIlWR....41
' FEB 13 2015
Water Quality
Permittinq Section
1
LIST OF TABLES
' Table 2-1: Existing WWTP Description.........................................................................................3
' Table 2-2: Cashiers WWTP Historical Flow Records.................................................................... 5
Table 2-3: Density Limits per Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance.......................... 10
' Table 2-4: Wastewater Survey Information.................................................................................. 15
Table 2-5: Existing Development and Sewer............................................................................... 15
' Table 2-6: Future Development and Desire for TWSA Sewer..................................................... 16
Table 2-7: Summary of Future Flows........................................................................................... 18
' Table 3-1: Alternative No. 3 Land Application System Cost Estimate........................................24
Table 3-2: Town of Highlands Sewer Connection Fees............................................................... 26
Table 3-3: Alternative No. 5 Regional System Cost Estimate......................................................27
Table 3-4: Monthly Average Effluent Limitations.......................................................................33
' Table 3-5: Influent Design Parameters.........................................................................................33
Table 3-6: Alternative No. 6 New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharge to the
' Horsepasture River Cost Estimate................................................................................................ 35
Table 3-7: Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant to 0.695 mgd, with Discharge of 0.495
' mgd to the Horsepasture River ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 3-8: Alternatives Capital Cost Summary............................................................................ 38
' Table 4-1: Summary of Net Present Worth Analysis...................................................................40
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page i Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

LIST OF FIGURES
1 Figure 2-1 Existing Cashiers WWTP Site.................................................................................4
' Figure 2-2 Existing Cashiers Service Area................................................................................7
Figure 2-3 Future Cashiers Service Area...................................................................................9
' Figure 2-4 Slope Map..............................................................................................................11
Figure 2-5 Wastewater Survey Map........................................................................................14
Figure 2-6 Survey Responses..................................................................................................17
1
APPENDICES
' APPENDIX A TWSA Speculative Limits for the Proposed Horsepasture River Discharge
' APPENDIX B TWSA Cashiers Sewer System Map from the
Jackson County Land Development Plan
' APPENDIX C TWSA Cashiers NPDES Permit
APPENDIX D Current TWSA Flow Allocations
' APPENDIX E Wastewater Survey Cover Letter and Example
APPENDIX F Jackson County Health Department Letter
' APPENDIX G USFWS Species List
APPENDIX H USGS Flow Determination for the Horsepasture River
' APPENDIX I Net Present Worth Analysis Calculations
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page ii Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BODS biochemical oxygen demand
CCA Cashiers Commercial Area
CCALD Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance
CDP Census Designated Place
rDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DLR North Carolina Division of Land Resources
' DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOA North Carolina Department of Administration
' DWI North Carolina Division of Water Infrastructure
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
' GPM gallons per minute
GPD gallons per day
I/1 infiltration and inflow
' MGD million gallons per day
mg/1 milligram per liter
MLE Modified Ludzack Ettinger
' NH3-N ammonia-nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
O&M operations and maintenance
RAS return activated sludge
SRF State Revolving Fund
' TSS total suspended solids
TWSA Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
USCB United States Census Bureau
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WAS waste activated sludge
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page iii Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

I. Introduction and Summary
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) owns and operates a 0.200 mgd
' capacity wastewater treatment facility in the unincorporated Cashiers area of Jackson County.
The facility discharges treated wastewater effluent to a tributary of the Chattooga River. Current
' and requested wastewater flows (held allocations) are greater than 90% of the 0.200 mgd
capacity, and exceed the 0.200 mgd capacity when higher summer seasonal wastewater flows are
' considered. Therefore, there is an immediate need for increased wastewater capacity in the
Cashiers service area.
Due to the Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) stream classification of the Chattooga
' River, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has
indicated that it will not approve an expansion of this existing discharge. For this reason TWSA
' has been actively pursuing another discharge option to supplement the current discharge to the
Chattooga River.
' Flow projections for the future service area result in a projected total wastewater flow for
p J P J
' the 20 year planning period of 0.695 mgd. Therefore, in order to supplement the current 0.200
mgd discharge to the Chattooga River tributary for the existing Cashiers wastewater treatment
plant, this Engineering Alternatives Analysis has been prepared to support an NPDES permit
application to request an additional 0.495 mgd discharge of treated wastewater effluent in the
Cashiers area.
' The proposed 0.495 mgd discharge is on the Horsepasture River in the eastern portion of
the Cashiers service area. Based on the results of a comprehensive present worth evaluation
' performed in this document, construction of a new 0.495 mgd treatment facility is the selected
alternative. The facility is proposed to be constructed on the same property as the recommended
discharge location. Speculative permit limits for this location on the Horsepasture River have
been issued by NCDENR and are included in Appendix A of this report.
' Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 1 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' II. Flow Projections
' The community of Cashiers is an unincorporated region located in southern Jackson
County, North Carolina. The area is located in the proximity of the intersection of NC Highway
107 and US Highway 64. Jackson County has instituted a planning ordinance referred to as the
Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance which defines an area of
approximately 1250 acres as the Cashiers Commercial Area (CCA). The purpose of the
development ordinance is to "promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community;
to provide for sound and orderly development; to facilitate the adequate provision of
' transportation, water, sewerage, schools, and parks; to promote the economic prosperity of the
community; to preserve the community's unique scenic quality; to conserve the natural resources
' and environmental quality of the community; and to protect and conserve the heritage of the
community."
' The area generally consists of light commercial development (retail, office, restaurants,
' and related recreational support businesses) and higher density residential inside the CCA with
larger residential developments in the area surrounding the CCA. Elevations in the area range
' from approximately 3,100 feet to over 4,000 feet. The topography in the core commercial area is
relatively mild; however, the surrounding land area includes very steep property with rock
outcroppings and sheer cliffs and bluffs in some locations.
' A portion of the CCA is currently served with public sewer service by the Tuckaseigee
Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA), which took over ownership of the existing Cashiers area
wastewater collection and treatment system from private developers in 1992. TWSA is a
publically owned water and wastewater management entity created to provide these services
' throughout Jackson County. It is not a development planning agency nor does it have a role in
how the communities in its service areas will grow. The Board of TWSA authorized the
' preparation of this document as a response to the clear patterns of growth and demand in the
Cashiers area. A description of the existing wastewater system is documented below.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 2 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

U �
wz �
• Hz �
w �
I Uzi
e0000V ¢
O
NOTE: �� z
STRUCTURE LOCAT 1 Q x
FOR GENERAL LOC, 1 w
PROPERTY LINES S 1 z
' INFORMATION FROP 1
\ N
! \\ w m ¢
z
` z Q = of
� ��
W
wDcr
z wQ z
W }
fw^ wo
K V+ CJ
Z Q w Z
O
�/ U)
O i Y
WI- (DVcn
' zFr < z Q Q
W
♦-
r0 �Z
Q
y
! c J
V
Q m w w W a
tt m
p� zmzr <
' z1--0 Zw
<w<
mI �
p Q W Q W O ==�N
p p U p U �o
' W z
~ z
WZm
d F a Q
' o Q Z a_
v W
F-
0QU)N
X ~
3 —-- w
FIGURE
N
0
2- 1
REVISION DESCRIPTION Page 4

' Current Flows
The Cashiers WWTP currently serves approximately 250 customers consisting of
approximately 50% commercial and 50% residential. The community does not have a public
potable water system and therefore the majority of the customers are billed on a flat rate based
on specific uses of the structures connected. There are 12 metered customers that account for
approximately 25,000 to 30,000 gpd over a 12 month average and the remaining 35,000 to
45,000 gpd is attributed to the non-metered users and infiltration and inflow(I/1) in the collection
system. Table 2-2 shows the average monthly flow for 2007 through August 2014. The Cashiers
area has a large resort/vacation area influence and seasonal flow increases are seen in the data. A
three month average for June-August was utilized as the base current flow since these months are
typically the highest flow period in the system.
Table 2-2: Cashiers WWTP Historical Flow Records
' 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Month Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow
an d an d an d an d an d an d an d an d
'
January 0.071 0.047 0.05 0.062 0.053 0.068 0.078 0.068
February 0.046 0.054 0.041 0.063 0.052 0.048 0.072 0.058
March 0.052 0.063 0.047 0.045 0.073 0.055 0.055 0.043
' Aril 0.053 0.060 0.055 0.046 0.070 0.069 0.065 0.065
May 0.054 0.057 0.069 0.062 0.065 0.085 0.099 0.083
June 0.062 0.063 0.067 0.078 0.072 6
' July 0.078 0.070 0.074 0.074 0.077 0.112 0.140 0.108
August 0.067 0.070 0.079 0.070 0.061 5,,, 00
September 0.060 0.060 0.097 0.059 0.066 0.080 0.052
October 0.063 0.053 0.084 0.059 0.050 0.073 0.051
November 0.054 0.047 0.078 0.054 0.052 0.045 0.041
December 0.043 0.045 0.067 0.059 0.063 0.045 0.066
Average 0.059 0.057 0.067 0.061 0.063 0.073 0.074 0.078
' Peak 0.078 0.070 0.097 0.078 0.077 0.112 0.140 0.108
Month
June-August 2012-2014 Seasonal Average Flow 0.102
' The WWTP was expanded from 100,000 gpd to 200,000 gpd in 2005 and additional
allocations based on requests from property owners were issued by TWSA for this expanded
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 5 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

1
capacity. Currently, allocations totaling 104,277 gpd are being held by TWSA. A copy of the
current flow allocations held by TWSA is included in Appendix D.
Considering actual existing WWTP seasonal flow rates, allocations issued and requests
for allocations being held by TWSA the total flow that is currently served or has requested
' service is 180,340 gpd, which exceeds the NCDENR ninety percent action threshold of the
200,000 gpd capacity of the facility.
' The existing service area is shown on Figure 2-2 based on the location of existing lines
' and properties that could from an engineering standpoint be relatively easily connected if
capacity were available. The existing service area boundary includes approximately 537 acres.
t However, it should be noted that most properties within the area do not currently have sewer.
Service to these properties cannot be provided currently due to the lack of allocable treatment
capacity. Based on a review of the aerial photography of the area, approximately 175 acres, 33%
of the current service area has no existing significant development.
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 6 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

r
W A
'4 . V U
Legend w z
. .., Ew a
..
® Current Service Arear'T,y„� _: ,. �•',i�'r�r; Q
Cashiers Commercial District „ ., . i '• i••i
0 750 1,500 3,000 `: f t r " _ Z
Feet
z
(� r
z
W ,
• " �+ 4a<. 1 :,' a .f fY 'a F'-"1 +w ♦ ~
w
—�
r 3
LU
Ui
' z w w
00
z ILL, Lu
i4 r•+:- � ?�CnO
ZW w
LUz = C9
LU U) Cn
W
t 4F IX.1 •' . i ' w
N a
N W
LU
el,�' •x ;��au, F L T '
f'I i 1 cyr �r t.
renUj
. •- ..j .. ���1� ..• •1 �6 • � "1t}4{4
L9
lwar Uj
V)
UJI
_� {'. _ '1. ` •{ ��� + Jit
M
�"1�'' `'fi Page 7T

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

Legend N w z
a
L-1 f� Q `
Future Service Area
aCurrent Service Area `- • +. rr C7
r +� z
: .
' Cashiers Commercial District i ';:5 ' wtj� U z i
0 750 1,500 3,000 y •�
Feet
_=..
It,if.
V. �+
t ': +� ��-1._• r. -ltd, � .
VI
awLU
L �
t , W Q aW Z
Uj
Z Q W Z
W � WY
r}e ` •' :� W Cn Y
w
C 1ltY�. 1✓ t f ;f .G N W
L U
A:
Oe
L9
1'7
� . ..1� LLJ
ur a'
IF
UJI
.P-p_y-' �. -4 i:' .. •.
•rte. r, - 1�=;0. •_�- Yr S Pace 9

' Ordinances/Planning/ORW restrictions
' The two primary ordinances that address development in the Cashiers area are the
Jackson County, Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance (CCALD), and the
Jackson County, Mountain and Hillside Development (MHD) Ordinance. In addition, the State
of North Carolina administers programs that additionally limit development in some specific
' portions of the project area, such as the Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watershed
designation and restrictions on development near surface waters designated as Trout Waters.
' Cashiers Commercial Area Land Development Ordinance
' The CCALD ordinance established the Cashiers Commercial Area, which consists of the
Village Center District (VC) and General Commercial District (GC). Both districts have
similar uses consisting of retail, office, and residential uses; however, the density and
setback requirements are different based on the purpose. The VC is intended as a central
' commercial area while the GC is intended to serve automobile traffic. Structure footprints
in the VC are limited to 2,500 square feet, and 5,000 square feet in the GC. Larger
' setbacks from streets are required in the GC.
' Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance
The MHD ordinance applies to areas with average slope greater than thirty percent.
' Development density limitations for this ordinance are provided below in Table 2-4. The
purpose of the ordinance is to protect the natural conditions, prevent inappropriate
development, preserve the aesthetic and scenic qualities of such areas, and ensure the
public health, safety, and general welfare. Figure 2-3 is a map of slopes in the project
' area. The majority of slopes in the CCA do not fall into the regulated categories;
however, there are some parcels which could be affected by the ordinance.
1
Table 2-3: Density Limits per Mountain and Hillside Development Ordinance
' Average Slope of Land to Be Maximum Density
Developed or Subdivided lots per acre
' 30-34% 0.5
35-39% 0.4
40-44% 0.2
' 45% or more 0.1
--d
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 10 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Legend z
�► - W
a
' Cashiers Commercial District
� r �
Percent Slope
' —
0-10 cjuz #
10-20 r - O Q
E-1 20-30
30-34 - C7
z
- 35-39 + Q oG
- 40-44 `{
-'45
1 ` z m
0 750 1,500 3,000
Feet '
Z H
'?. `
t . cnQOQ
xz
z ; Q
NW WU
W W � 2
> HW �
U
I N ZWZZ
UJ
a � Qwz
' a
1 wQWO
3 W0) O0)
Z0: WY
in u
waU
t
�..
N Q
W
. 0.
O
• - � 1L y
Page 1 1

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

' Cashiers is not incorporated, an area at the intersection of US Highway 64 and NC Highway 107
is defined by the US Census Bureau (USCB) as a Census Designated Place (CDP). The area
' defined by the USCB is smaller than the CCA defined by Jackson County. 2000 USCB data
indicates a population of 196 persons for this tract. 2010 USCB data shows a decrease in
population to 157 or 19.9% over the 10 year period. The population increases significantly
' during the higher tourism months in the summer and early fall which is also not reflected in
census data. Due to the small area considered and commercial nature of the area, this data is not
' considered representative of the anticipated growth in Cashiers.
' Wastewater Survey
Since population growth was not considered an accurate basis for projecting wastewater
flows, a questionnaire survey was developed and distributed to all property owners in the CCA
and property owners with more than 5 acres in a 2 mile radius of the center of the CCA. Figure
' 2-5 is a map of the CCA and the properties outside the CCA to whom the survey was distributed.
A sample of the survey form and cover letter is included in the Appendix E. Basic statistics for
' the survey are shown in Table 2-4 below. Owners with multiple properties listed by the same
name were only sent one letter. The overall response rate to the survey was approximately 42%.
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 13 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

LegendCounty Boundary
,
LM1 Study Area(2-Mile Radius)
Cashiers Commercial District
r
' U.S.Forest - Lands
Parcels within Commercial District
Parcels>5 Acres within Study Area
IOther Parcels
0 1,250 2,500 ,,,
Feet
�ad
VG •
r • „
LU
LU
"4J
...� .�i
• CN,. �olive �r rte. +w �i��
UJ 0
`�. AO
� ,� •
LLJ
IMPr '

1
' Table 2-4: Wastewater Survey Information
Cashiers Commercial Area >5 acres outside the CCA Total
Properties Identified 597 269 866
Letters Mailed 410 243 653
' Responses Received 187 87 274
' The survey requested information on existing development and sewer, and future
development and need for sewer. Table 2-5 below summarizes the response to the existing
' situation questions. This information demonstrates the distribution of commercial development
in the commercial district as opposed to outside the commercial district for the parcels
responding to the survey.
' Table 2-5: Existing Development and Sewer
Existing Development Cashiers Commercial Area >5 acres outside the CCA
' None, Undeveloped 12% 24%
Single Family Dwelling 48% 73%
Multifamily Dwellings 2% 1%
' Commercial 38% 2%
Sewer Type Cashiers Commercial Area >5 acres outside the CCA
Sewer Not Applicable 13% 26%
'
Septic System 53% 67%
TWSA Sewer 33% 0%
Private Sewer 1% 7%
Table 2-6 is a summary of the responses to plans for future development and the question
' "If TWSA Sewer was available would you request service?" The majority of those with plans for
development in the CCA plan to begin in the next 5 years and desire connection to TWSA sewer.
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 15 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

1
tTable 2-6: Future Development and Desire for TWSA Sewer
'
Development Plan Cashiers Commercial Area >5 acres outside the CCA
No Plans 52% 58%
Residential 14% 41%
' Commercial 30% 0%
Other 5% 1%
Timetable Cashiers Commercial Area >5 acres outside the CCA
0-5 Years 71% 46%
5-10 Years 8% 22%
Unknown 21% 27%
' Desire Connection to TWSA 74% yes, 26%no 51%yes, 49%no
' Fifty-eight (58) parcels in the commercial area with a total area of 202.1 acres identified
significant plans for development in adequate detail to estimate future flows. Overlaps with
' previous requests for allocations already considered were removed from this data and based on
the survey responses a flow rate of 137,516 gpd was estimated for the identified parcels. Figure
' 2-6 shows all parcels who responded to the survey request.
1
1
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 16 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

:.
-
ai � 11
�' �I► 1 1
`� i1j 41I�►
is
Legend
0 County Boundary Oki
LM1 Study Area(2-Mile Radius)
Cashiers Commercial District
F-1 Parcels of Survey Respondents
F-1 Parcels ithin Commercial District
Other Parcels
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
Feet
r
IS
Ilk z
►TIS I `�t •1� �ti�`` Y, ! ., Lu ,
r ♦ �` ` ►�. f. `
• . moi•`. �,`�
IIIA'
• +.�- 1 �'.I!% fir ' .
L r–
Ix LU Z
LU
� r� ♦ ���
i �� ► JW •
►fir �,� L
Arm
�•, !f r �
r

1
' In addition to the parcels that requested flow allocations or responded to the survey,
' approximately 707 acres were identified within the future service area which appeared
underdeveloped from a review of existing aerial photography. These parcels are within the
' commercial district and are likely to develop into commercial or higher density residential. It
was assumed that 50% of this acreage will develop in the 20 year planning period at 880
' gpd/acre for non-residential per 15A NCAC 2T .0114. Therefore, a flow of 311,080 gpd is
attributed to these properties during the planning period.
tThe total of the current wastewater flows, pending and requested allocations, planned
' development from the survey, and under developed properties is 694,963 gpd and is summarized
in Table 2-7. The existing 200,000 gpd WWTP was expanded in 2005 and the equipment in the
' facility is expected to have a remaining useful life of approximately 20 to 25 years with proper
maintenance. Therefore, TWSA needs to consider the expansion to serve an additional 495,000
' gpd while maintaining the existing plant in service.
' Table 2-7: Summary of Future Flows
Category Flow d
' Current Seasonal Flow 102,000
Allocated Flow 104,237
Allocations Requested 40,130
Planned Development from Survey 137,516
Underdeveloped Properties 311,080
Total 694,963
'
Existing Capacity 200,000
Additional Capacity Required 494,963
1
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 18 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

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

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

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

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

' Table 3-1: Alt. #3 - New 0.495 MGD Secondary Process Plant with Land Application
October 24, 2014
' DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
1 Mobilization(3%) 1 LS $ 302,300 $ 302,300
' 2 Influent Pump Station and Screens I LS $ 410,000 $ 410,000
3 IFlow Equalization Basin 1 LS $ 180,000 $ 180,000
' 4 Flow Equalization Aeration and Pumps 1 LS $ 160,000 $ 160,000
5 Secondary Treatment Process Basins 1 LS $ 625,000 $ 625,000
' 6 Secondary Treatment Process Equipment 1 LS $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
7 Operations and Blower Buildings 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
8 Chlorine Contact Basin 1 LS $ 110,000 $ 110,000
9 Sludge Digester Basin 1 LS $ 180,000 $ 180,000
10 Sludge Digester Equipment 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
11 Site Work 1 LS $ 525,000 $ 525,000
12 Bridge/Culvert over Horsepasture River 1 LS $ 300,000 $ 300,000
13 Yard Piping 1 LS $ 125,000 $ 125,000
14 jElectrical 1 LS $ 715,000 $ 715,000
t15 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 95,000 $ 95,000
16 Effluent Pump Station to Irrigation 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
17 Force Main to Pond at Irrigation Site 5,000 LF $ 60 $ 300,000
18 Irrigation Pump Station 1 LS $ 175,000 $ 175,000
19 ISpray Irrigation System 1 LS $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
' 20 30-Million Gallon Storage Pond 1 LS $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $ 10,377 300
a Contingency(10%) $ 1,037,700
' b Design and Permitting $ 830,200
c Construction Administration $ 726,400
' d Treatment Plant Land Acquisition * $ 650,000
e Due Diligence Site Investigation-Treatment Plant Site $ 17,800
f Irrigation Site Land Acquisition (160 acres at$20,000 per acre) $ 3,200,000
' g Due Diligence Site Investigation-Irrigation Site $ 80,000
h Legal/Administrative $ 40,000
i ITesting $ 30,000
' ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS _$ 16 989,400
* WWTP Site cost based on contract price in option held by TWSA for property.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 24 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Alternative No. 4 Wastewater Reuse
This alternative considers the reuse of reclaimed wastewater for a beneficial purpose in
' order to reduce or eliminate the need for disposal. Utilization of the wastewater for a dedicated
' irrigation system was considered in Alternative 3, and it is anticipated that permitting a reuse
system in compliance with the 15A NCAC 2U rules would result in similar or higher project
' costs than Alternative 3. Although the area has several golf courses within reasonable proximity
to the CCA, these courses are remote from the core area and have not expressed interest in using
' reclaimed water for irrigation. Due to the topography in the area farming is limited to small plots
and similarly does not represent a significant market for the potential reuse of wastewater. In
' both of these instances, the high natural rainfall in the area generally limits the amount of
irrigation necessary for agronomic purposes. With no industrial or other large users of water in
' the area, any resulting reduction in the wastewater discharge is anticipated to be insignificant
relative to the volume generated. Based on these factors wastewater reuse is considered
' infeasible and will not be further evaluated.
Alternative No. 5 Regionalization
This alternative considers the potential of either creating a regional facility to serve the
area or connection to an existing system in the area. The nearest municipal facility to the CCA is
the Town of Highlands WWTP in Macon County, North Carolina, which has a capacity of 1.5
' mgd. The nearest point in the Town of Highlands collection system is over 11 miles from the
CCA and approximately 750 feet higher in elevation. Connection to the Town of Highlands
' system would require at least four (4) pump stations to overcome the total grade change and the
proper design of the pump stations and force main is critical to minimize long term maintenance
issues. Hydrogen sulfide gas will likely be a continual problem, particularly at start-up and
lower flow conditions due to the long detention times. Hydrogen sulfide will have to be
' mitigated throughout the project to minimize odor and corrosion problems.
tAdditionally, the Town of Highlands was contacted during the Stakeholders Process and
indicated that, although it appears that excess capacity is currently available based on existing
' flows, this connection would likely not be supported politically by the Town, specifically
because of the loss in capacity. Nevertheless, a cost estimate for this alternative has been
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 25 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' developed in the event that the Town of Highlands was to reconsider this position. In addition to
' the up-front capital costs necessary to build the interconnection infrastructure, it is anticipated
that the Town of Highlands would charge a substantial connection fee to recoup the lost capacity
' given to the CCA. Table 3-2 below provides the sewer connection fees for users inside the Town
limits.
' Table 3-2: Town of Highlands Sewer Connection Fees
' Connection Type Fee
Single dwelling unit $2,500
Multiple dwelling unit $2,500 per dwelling unit
'
Single business $3,500
Multiple business $3,500 per business occupant
Hotels, motels, tourist homes $3,000 initial fee,plus $500 additional for each room*
Restaurants $5,000 initial fee,plus $100 additional for each seat*
*Highlands Sewer Connection Fee(Fee's outside Corporate Limit are 200%)
The actual number of dwelling units and businesses for connection in the Cashiers area is
' unknown. In order to arrive at a conceptual connection fee, we have calculated the following:
Assuming a typical dwelling has three bedrooms generating 120 gpd/bedroom, the $5,000
connection fee for a customer outside Town limits correlates to a fee of approximately $14.00
per gpd. It is further assumed that a more reasonable bulk rate could be negotiated; therefore for
' the purposes of this evaluation we have used a conservative estimate of$10.00 per gpd.
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 26 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' Table 3-3: Alt. #5 - Regionalization with the Town of Highlands
' October 24, 2014
01LDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
' 1 Mobilization(3%) 1 LS $ 186,800 $ 186,800
2 Pump Station w/Standby Generator 4 LS $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000
' 3 Force Main 60,000 LF $ 60 $ 3,600,000
4 l Bore and Jack Road Crossing 900 LF $ 250 $ 225,000
5 Chemical Feed Odor Control System 4 LS $ 75,000 $ 300,000
' 6 Air Release Valve 15 EA $ 3,500 $ 52,500
7 Road Repair 2,000 LF $ 30 $ 60,000
' 8 Drive Repair 1,500 LF $ 25 $ 37,500
9 Rock Excavation 5,000 CY $ 90 $ 450,000
10 Select Backfill 5,000 CY $ 15 $ 75,000
' 11 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
12 Electrical 1 LS $ 275,000 $ 275,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTA $ 6,411 800
a Contingency(10%) $ 641,200
b Design and Permitting $ 512,900
' c Construction Administration $ 448,800
d Town of Highlands Connection Fee $ 5,000,000
e Pump Station Land Acquisition or Easements $ 200,000
f Legal/Administrative $ 50,000
g Testing $ 15,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 13,279,700
1
t
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 27 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' Alternative No. 6 - New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with Discharize to the
Horsepasture River
' When evaluating the possible location of a discharge in the Cashiers area, it becomes
immediately apparent that this portion of Jackson County is quite unique. Water quality in the
' Cashiers area is overall very high and the stream classifications are representative of this water
quality. The area consists of the headwaters of six significant rivers:
' • Tuckaseigee
• Cullasaja
' • Chattooga
• Horsepasture
' • West Fork Tuckasegee
• Whitewater
1
Evaluation of the various watershed basins and their sustainability for use as a wastewater
' receiving stream is a critical exercise of this evaluation, and a summary of that research is
provided below.
Basin Evaluation
' Out of the six basins, four were evaluated in detail. The main branch of the Tuckaseigee
and Cullasaja River Basins were not further evaluated due to the distance and elevation required
' to reach them from the CCA. The remaining four basins (the Chattooga, Horsepasture, West
Fork Tuckasegee, and Whitewater Rivers) were reviewed based on stream flow, water quality,
' and proximity of a suitable discharge site to the CCA. Stream flows in the area are generally low
due to this location high in the watersheds. The following is a discussion regarding the
' characteristics of these four river basins and the ability to site the proposed wastewater
discharge.
Chattooga River
The existing discharge is sited on an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River which is
classified as a B, Tr, ORW. Rules for waters with the supplementary classification of
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 28 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' ORW state that "no new discharges or expansion of existing discharges shall be
' permitted". Although rules specific to the Chattooga River allow expansion of
discharges with no increase in loading in some areas these are not applicable to the
' existing Cashiers WWTP location. Based on conversations with the DWR no further
expansion will be permitted for this discharge. A drawing of the existing site plan is
' provided as Figure 2-1 in Section II of the report. As shown on the site plan, even if an
increase in the discharge volume was possible at this site there is very little room
available on the current property for expansion of the plant. Based on this information,
expansion of the WWTP to achieve the needed 495,000 gpd of additional capacity with
discharge to the Chattooga River is not feasible and will not be further considered in this
report.
' West Fork Tuckaseigee River
The West Fork Tuckaseigee River is found on the north side of Cashiers and is classified
as a WS-III, B, and HQW around Thorpe Reservoir. The nearest stream in this basin
' with sufficient size to consider a discharge is Cedar Creek which is located upstream of
Thorpe Reservoir. Discharges directly upstream of a large reservoir can be problematic
' due to a lack of mixing and potential for eutrophication in the reservoir from nutrient
loading. Also, since Thorpe Reservoir is classified as water supply by DWR, obtaining a
' permit to discharge wastewater upstream of the reservoir would be difficult and strong
opposition from the public and federal and state resource agencies is likely. 7Q10 stream
' flow at the potential discharge location is estimated to be 1.9 mgd. The only existing
discharges that have been permitted upstream of Thorpe Reservoir are 2,500 gpd each
' from Jackson County's Blue Ridge School and Trillium Links and Village, L.L.C. Due
to its location immediately upstream of the reservoir this location, was not further
considered. It is over eight (8) miles from the intersection of US Highway 64 and NC
Highway 107, the center of the proposed service area, to a suitable location in this
watershed below Thorpe Reservoir. Due to this excessive distance to convey the
discharge downstream of Thorpe Reservoir this was dismissed as a feasible option.
' Therefore, discharge to the West Fork Tuckaseigee River basin was not further
considered.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 29 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

' Whitewater River
The Whitewater River Basin lies to the south of the CCA and is classified as a C, Tr
' upstream of Little Whitewater Creek and HQW downstream of that point. Wastewater
discharges are permitted in HQW waters; however, they are more restricted than Class B
' or C waters to protect the water quality.
The only existing discharge in this basin is the Wade Hampton Club (NPDES No.
NC0062553) with a permitted flow of 0.125 mgd and it is located approximately 2 miles
' south of the CCA boundary. The Wade Hampton Club discharges into an unnamed
tributary of Silver Run Creek classified as C, Tr. Summer 7Q10 flow for the Wade
' Hampton Club discharge point is 0.37 CFS and the Wade Hampton Club Discharge is
approximately 35% of instream flow. If the Wade Hampton Club discharge were
' expanded to include the additional Cashiers flow, the flow from Cashiers would increase
instream wastewater flow to 73%. A significant portion of the property downstream of
' Wade Hampton Club is owned by the Nature Conservancy or the National Forest Service
and it is unlikely that property could be acquired from either entity for a wastewater
' treatment facility.
A discharge location may be possible on Silver Run Creek which would have a drainage
area of approximately 2.28 square miles. Based on the 7Q10 information from Wade
' Hampton Club and United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2403, 'Low-
flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993) the estimated
summer 7Q10 flow is 0.75 CFS/square mile drainage area. Therefore, the estimated
summer 7Q10 flow at this site is 1.71 CFS(1.1 mgd). This location is upstream of the
' HQW portion of the basin however it will likely receive similar limits due to its
proximity. Up to 50% of instream flow in the HQW can be wastewater flow so a
' discharge of approximately 1.1 mgd would be possible at this location. The potential site
is located approximately three (3)miles outside of the CCA.
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 30 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

1
Consideration should also be given to the projected future service area and the required
collection system. The potential discharge location on the Horsepasture River is located
downstream of the majority of the service area at the edge of the CCA. The potential discharge
location on Silver run Creek is located approximately 3 miles outside of the CCA and would
' require significant piping to convey the wastewater from the service area to the discharge point.
Effluent limits at both sites would likely be the same and require similar treatment technologies.
' Based on this information, the discharge location in the Horsepasture River Basin was selected
as the preferred discharge alternative.
'
Although the CCA includes land area in multiple basins it reaches its lowest point in the
g p
' Horsepasture. TWSA has acquired an option on a property inside the CCA boundary at this
location to potentially site a wastewater treatment plant with discharge. A 7Q10 flow was
' requested from the USGS for this location and a copy of the determination is included in the
Appendix H. The average estimated low flow for the proposed discharge point is 13.3 cfs from
' their determination. In addition, speculative permit limits for a 0.495 mgd discharge at this
location have been issued by NCDENR and a copy of these limits are included in Appendix A.
Environmental Issues
' The high quality of water in the Cashiers area will create similar environmental concerns
in any of the watersheds. The discharge will be required to be very high quality including tertiary
1 filtration for treatment to minimize potential for impacts. There are no known endangered
species with habitat in the surface waters in the area. TWSA has completed biological and
archaeological surveys of the proposed WWTP site and both surveys indicate no significant
findings. TWSA has also completed a stream and wetlands delineation so that the WWTP site
' development can occur with no impact to existing features.
' Treatment Technology
As mentioned above, speculative effluent limits were requested from DWR and are
' provided in Appendix A for a location on the Horsepasture River. The speculative limits are
consistent with limitations set in 15 NCAC 02B .0225 (e) (13), for discharges to the ORW
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 32 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Special Management Strategy area in the Horsepasture River Basin and are shown in Table 3-4
' below. To meet these limits, an advanced tertiary treatment process will be required. Several
treatment technologies will be evaluated during the facility design phase.
1 Table 3-4: Monthly Average Effluent Limitations
Parameter Limit
BODS 5 m 1
TSS 10 mg/1
' NH3-N 2 mg/1
Fecal Coliform 200 per 100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/1
Note: DO is a daily minimum limit.
' Based on a review of the influent sample data for the existing Cashiers WWTP and a
review of relevant literature, the values in Table 3-5 were selected as a basis for preliminary
' design.
' Table 3-5: Influent Design Parameters
Parameter Average Peak
' Flow 0.495 m d 1.24 m d
BOD5 250 m /l 350 m /l
TSS 250 m /l 300 mg/1
' TN 40m 1 55m 1
TP 7m 1 9m 1
NH3-N 25 mg/1 35 mg/1
Influent Screening
An influent mechanical screen with manual bypass is proposed. The screen will be
installed in a cast in place concrete channel for removal of large solids and inorganics to
' protect the downstream processes.
' Flow Equalization
A flow equalization basin will be required to reduce peak flows into the main process
' portion of the treatment plant. A capacity of 25% or 125,000 gallons is proposed and will
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 33 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

include a diffused air aeration system. Variable speed pumps will transfer flow from the
' flow equalization basin to the treatment process.
' Tertiary Treatment Process
To meet the required discharge limits, an advanced tertiary treatment process will be
utilized for the biological process. Several treatment technologies will be evaluated
during the facility design phase. The specific treatment technology that is ultimately
' selected will determine the required treatment components in the process.
' Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
Disinfection will utilize an ultraviolet (UV) light system to kill viruses and bacteria. In
' accordance with State standards for HQW watersheds chlorination based disinfection is
not permitted.
Based upon the selected watershed basin of the Horsepasture River and the treatment
P P
' technologies listed above, the following cost estimate has been prepared for this alternative.
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 34 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

Table 3-6: Alt. #6- New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Plant with
Discharge to the Horsepasture River
October 24, 2014
' ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
NO.
1 Mobilization(3%) 1 LS $ 158,300 $ 158,300
' 2 Influent Pump Station and Screens 1 LS $ 375,000 $ 375,000
3 Flow Equalization Basin 1 LS $ 180,000 $ 180,000
4 Flow Equalization Aeration and Pumps 1 LS $ 160,000 $ 160,000
5 Tertiary Process Basins 1 LS $ 735,000 $ 735,000
6 Tertiary Process Equipment, Installed 1 LS $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000
7 Operations and Blower Buildings 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
8 Dual Train UV Disinfection 1 LS $ 160,000 $ 160,000
9 Sludge Digester Basin 1 LS $ 210,000 $ 210,000
10 Sludge Digester Equipment 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
I 1 Site Work 1 LS $ 525,000 $ 525,000
' 12 Bridge/Culvert over Horsepasture River 1 LS $ 300,000 $ 300,000
' 13 Yard Piping 1 LS $ 110,000 $ 110,000
14 Electrical 1 LS $ 595,000 $ 595,000
6 15 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
$ 5 433,300
a Contingency(10%) $ 543,300
b Design and Permitting $ 434,700
C Construction Administration $ 380,300
d Land Acquisition * $ 650,000
' e Due Diligence Site Investigation 1 $ 17,800
f Legal/Administrative $ 40,000
g Testing $ 30,000
' * WWTP Site cost based on contract price in option held by TWSA for property.
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 35 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

1
Alternative No. 7 Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant to 0.695 mgd, with
Discharge of 0.495 mgd to the Horsepasture River
' Alternative No. 7 also requires a new 0.495 mgd discharge to the Horsepasture River.
However, instead of the construction of a new treatment facility near the proposed discharge
' point, this option includes an upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment plant to a capacity of
0.695 mgd, and conveyance of 0.495 mgd of treated effluent to the new Horsepasture River
' discharge. A maximum of 0.200 mgd would be discharged through the existing outfall to the
Chattooga River tributary. Due to the limited space available at the existing treatment plant site,
conversion of the facility to a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) facility appears to be the only
currently feasible treatment technology available to expand the capacity to 0.695 mgd. In
' addition, this alternative includes upgrades to the influent pump station and screens, expanded
flow equalization, an ultraviolet disinfection system, and an additional sludge digester basin.
' Since the discharge to the Chattooga River tributary is limited to 0.2 mgd, the other 0.495 mgd
would be conveyed to the Horsepasture River via a dedicated effluent pump station and
approximately 20,000 linear feet of effluent force main between the existing treatment plant and
the proposed Horsepasture River discharge location.
1
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 36 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

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

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

i
' A copy of the present worth analysis for each project is included in Appendix I, and a
summary of the present worth analysis is included in Table 4-1 below.
Table 4-1: Summary of Net Present Worth Analysis
Operations &
Capital Total Present
Alternative Costs Maintenance Worth
1 P
Alt. #1 —No Action Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible
1 Alt. #2 - Optimum Operation of Existing Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible
Facilities
Alt. #3 -New 0.495 MGD Secondary $16,989,400 $6,772,705 $23,762,105
1 Process Plant with Land Application
Alt. #4 -New 0.495 MGD Secondary Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible
Process Plant with Reuse System
' Alt. #5 - Regionalization with the Town of $13,279,700 $10,550,910 $23,830,610
Highlands
1 Alt. #6 -New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Plant $7,529,400 $2,741,991 $10,271,391
with Discharge to Horsepasture River
Alt. #7 - Upgrade Existing Plant to 0.695
MGD Membrane Bioreactor Process and $8,420,000 $2,943,624 $11,363,624
Discharge 0.495 MGD to Horsepasture River
' Based on this analysis Alternative No. 6, New 0.495 MGD Tertiary Treatment Plant with
Discharge to the Horsepasture River is the selected alternative based on its significantly lower
1 present worth.
1
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 40 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

development ordinances, stream classifications, 7Q10 flows, and proximity to the CCA were
' considered in selecting the most appropriate location for a discharge. The potential for
expansion at the existing discharge location was eliminated due to the ORW classification of the
' Chattooga River and restrictions against expansion placed on the facility by NCDENR.
Locations in the Whitewater River Basin and West Fork Tuckaseigee River basin were
' considered; however, their location away from the CCA and other environmental concerns made
a discharge on the Horsepasture River (Alternative 6) the preferred option for a new discharge.
The estimated capital cost for the proposed project is $7,529,400 and the present worth is
$10,271,391.
' Alternative 7 is considered a somewhat creative approach, and evaluated the option of
constructing the necessary additional treatment capacity on the existing WWTP site, while
pumping the effluent to the same discharge point as selected with Alternative 6. Due to the
' increased capital and O&M costs, however,this alternative was not as attractive as Alternative 6.
1
1
1
1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority Page 42 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
' Cashiers Area Wastewater Evaluation December 2014

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

RDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarfa, III
Governor Secretary
April 28,2014
Mi. Dan Harbaugh,Executive Director w 2014
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority M k(
1246 West Main Street
Sylva,NC 28779
1
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
' Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Jackson County
Savannah River Basin
Dear Mr. 1 larbaugh:
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for 0.125 MGD,0.25 MGD and 0.496 MGD for a
' proposed wastewater treatment plant to serve the Cashiers area. The Division received the
speculative limits request in a letter dated February 7,2014 from Harry B. Buckner,PE of McGill
Associates. Please recognize that speculative limits may change based on future water quality
initiatives,and it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the speculative limits with the
Divisions NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work.
' Receiving Stream. Horsepasture River is located within the Savannah River Basin. Horsepasture
River has a classification of C,TR +,which is subject to special management strategy specified in
15A NCAC 2B.0225 (13), the Outstanding Resource Wastewater Rule. All new or expanding
' discharges to this section of Horsepasture River shall comply with the following requirement:
(A)Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD=5 mg/1,and NH3-
N=2mg/l;
(B)Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids {TSS) shall be limited to effluent
concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and to 20 rag/1 for all other waters except for mining
' operations,which will be held to their respective NPDES TSS permit limits;
(C) Nutrients: Where nutrient overeruichment is projected to be a concern,effluent limitations
shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both;and
' (D)Volume:The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined shall not exceed
25 percent of the total instream flow in the designated ORW under 7Q10 conditions.
' Horsepasture River has a summer 7Q10 flow of 2.0 cfs, a whiter 7Q10 flow of 3.0 cfs, and an
annual average flow of 16 cfs. Including the maximum proposed flow of 0.496 MGD the total
volume of treated wastewater for all combined discharges is 24% of the 7Q10 conditions.
' Horsepasture River is currently not listed as an impaired waterbody on the 2012 North
Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Based upon a review of information available from the
' 1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone:[phone] Internet:www.nmva(erquality.org
' An Equal Oppalunity1 WrmatNe Acton Empbyer—Made In part by recycled paper

' W.Dan Harbaugh
April 24,2014
Page 2
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online Map Viewer, there are not any Federally
' Listed threatened or endangered aquatic species identified within a 5 mile radius of the
proposed discharge location.
`+W+wta.rry�s+py.+✓bs�.i.r:ryfo-raa.. -.r..�
' 5 ecul t $ y Division review of receiving stream conditions and
waterfIGD�
de �gVrest ts;� ctIrtive limits for the proposed phased discharge of 0.125
MGD, , and 0.496 MGpresented nn Table 1. A complete evaluation of these
limits torrng requite e'A T for metals and other toxicants, as well as potential
instreaing requirements; Vill be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES pernnit
applic tion. ,
iTABLE 1, Speculative Limits for TWSA WWTP
' Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitations
Monthly Weekly Daily
Average Average Maximum
' Flow 0.125,0.25 or
0.495 MGD
BOD5 5.0 m /L 7,5 m /L
iNH3 asN 2.0m /L 6.0m /L
Dissolved Oxygen(minimum) 6.0 mg
/L
TSS 10 m /L 1 15 m /L
Fecal coliform(geometric 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
mean
' Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that
an NPDES permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative
' limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal
permit application for the new/expanded discharge. In accordance with North Carolina
Adini n istrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most environmentally sound alternative
' should be selected from all reasonably cost effective options. Therefore, as a component of all
NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an
' analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the Division guidance for
preparing EAA documents is attached.
State Enviromnental Policy Act SEPA EA EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/ELS document
must be prepared for all projects that: 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public
lands; and 3) might have a potential to significantly impact the environment. For new or
expanding discharges, significant impact is defined as > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since
the TWSA is not proposing a discharge greater than 500,000 gpd, is not necessary to prepare
a SEPA document.

Mr.Dan Harbaugh
April 24,2014
Page 3
' Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting
requirements, please feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] or Tom Belnick at
[phone].
Res ectfu11 ,
Tom Beh-dck,Supervisor,NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources,NCDENR
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
Hardcopy:
' Central Files
NPDES Permit File
' Electronic Copy:
Hairy B.Buckner,PE,McGill Associates,P.A.
DWR/Asheville Regional Office
NPDES Server>Specs
1
1
1
1

Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR)will not accept an NPDES application for a new or
' expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge unless all the required application requirements arc
submitted. A complete NPDES application will include the following items:
' NPDES Application Form (in triplicate)
Application Fee
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (in triplicate)
Local Government Review Form (non-municipals only)
' Failure to submit all of the required information will result in return of the incomplete package. If you have
any questions about these requirements, contact the NPDES Unit staff. Contact names,application forms,
' applicable fees, and guidance documents are available on the NPDES website at
http://portal.rnedernr.or web/wq sm1.)/12s/n12dcs. Completed applications should be mailed to:
NCDENR/D«R/NPDES Complex Permitting Unit,1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,NC 27699-1617.
Background
' The NPDES permit program was enacted in 1972 as part of the Clean'Wfater Act. The original goal of the program
was to eliminate all point source discharges to surface waters by 1985. Although this goal was not achieved, the
' NPDES program continues to strive toward it. In that light, an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is
required with any NPDES application for a new or expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0105(c)(2). In order for an NPDES application to be approved, the EAA must
' provide complete justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative,and demonstrate that direct discharge
is the most environmentally sound alternative selected from all reasonably cost-effective options [per 15A NCAC
2110105(c)(2)].
Tl-ie purpose of this EAA Guidance Document is to provide guidance to the regulated community for the evaluation of
wastewater disposal alternatives. The impetus behind this comprehensive guidance was based on the following. 1) a
majority of new NPDES applications were being returned as incomplete duc to inadequate EAA submissions;and 2) a
few recent court cases resulted in unfavorable rulings for the NPDES discharger due in part to inadequate EAAs.
DWR most frequently returns HAAs as incomplete due to inadequate flow justification, inadequate alternatives
evaluations,and/or lack of documentation/references used to design and cost alternatives.
' Please note that this guidance document is designed primarily for domestic wastewater discharges. For other proposed
discharges such as water treatment plant discharges from ion exchange and reverse osmosis units, some alternative
' disposal options may not be technologically feasible. Within this guidance document,we have attempted to point out
where such technological limitations may exist. You are urged to review NPDES permitting guidance documents on
the NPDES website,which discuss some of the limited disposal options for some discharges.
Please note that if a proposed municipal expansion is subject to SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, the EAA requirements should be incorporated into the
SEPA document. In addition, the NPDES Unit cannot accept an application for a new/expanding NPDES discharge
' until departmental review of the SEPA document is complete and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has
been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation.
The following step-by-step outline should be used for the preparation of all RAA submissions. If an EAA submission
lacks any of these basic elements,the NPDES application will be returned as incomplete.
' EAA Guidance Document Revision:April 2014
Page 1 of 8

1 .
STEP 1. Determine if the proposed discharge will be allowed
Before beginning any engineering evaluation of alternatives, you must first determine if the proposed wastewater
discharge will be allowed. Otherwise, time and money may be spent needlessly for an EAA preparation that will
ultimately be rejected on the basis of existing water quality restrictions. There are several potential restrictions to a
wastewater discharge to surface waters,including:
■ Zero flow stream restrictions [15A NCAC 2B.0206(d)(2)] apply to oxygen-consuming waste in zero-flow
streams. In order to determine streamflow at the proposed discharge location, contact the U.S.
' Geological Survey at 919-571-4000.
■ Receiving stream classification restrictions [e.g.,ORW,WS,SA,NSW, and HQ class waters have various
discharge restrictions or require stricter treatment standards]. Stream classifications are available on the
the DWR Classification and Standards/Rule Review Branch website:
' (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csti), while wastewater discharge restrictions for various stream
classifications are presented in state regulations [15A NCAC 2B.0200].
■ Basinwide Water Quality Plans. These basin-specific plans list NPDES permitting strategies that may
limit wastewater discharges to particular streams within the basin due to fack,of stream assirnilative
capacity, etc. Basin plans are available on the DNXIR website, or you may contact the DWR Basinwide
Planning Branch Oittp://I)ortal.ncdeiir.org/web/wq/ps/bpu)..
' Impaired waters and TMDLs. Certain waterbodies listed as impaired on the 303(d) list and/or subject to
impending TMDLs may have wastewater discharge restrictions. The list of 303(4) unpaired waters is
located on the DWR website, or you may contact the DWR Modeling and Assessment Branch
(littp://portal.iicdent.org/web/wq/ps/intu).
1 ■ Presence of Endangered Species. If endangered species are present in the proposed discharge location,
there may be wastewater discharge restrictions. Endangered species information may be included in the
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, or you may contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (919-856-4520),
' N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (919-733-3633), or the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (919-733-
7701).
Municipal applicants.
As a public service, the NPDES Unit will evaluate whether a proposed municipal discharge is considered allowable.
The municipality needs to initiate this review by submitting a letter request for Speculative Effluent Limits to the
' NPDES Unit. You must obtain stream flow estimates for the proposed discharge location to ensure that the receiving
streani is not subject to zero flow restrictions. Low flow data (specifically, drainage area, summer and winter 7Q10,
average flow and 30Q2 flow statistics) can be obtained for a nominal fee from the U.S. Geological Survey ui Raleigh at
' 919-571-4000. The low flow data must be submitted with the speculative limits request letter. If the proposed
discharge appears to be allowable, the NPDES Unit will prepare speculative effluent limits for a maximum of 2 flows
and 2 discharge locations using water quality models. The municipality can then use the speculative limits to prepare
preliminary engineering design and cost estimates for the direct discharge alternative within the EAA. In limited
' instances where complex water quality models are necessary to develop speculative limits and determine potential water
quality impacts, some municipalities have undertaken the modeling effort (with DWR review) in order to expedite this
portion of the NPDES permit review process.
iNon-m_unicipal applicants.
Due to staff constraints, the NPDES Unit cannot prepare speculative limits for non-municipal applicants. Thus, it is.
your responsibility to snake your own determination as to whether the proposed discharge alight be allowed by the
Division, by evaluating the water quality factors listed above. It is highly recommended that you discuss the proposed
discharge with the applicable DWR Regional Office and/or NPDES Unit staff,who may be able to provide input on
the likelihood of a new/expanding discharge. As a first step, you must obtain streamflow estimates for the proposed
' discharge location to ensure that the receiving stream is not subject to zero flow restrictions. Low flow data
(specifically, drainage area, the summer and winter 7Q10, average flow and 30Q2 flow statistics) can be obtained for a
nominal fee from the U.S. Geological Survey in Raleigh at 919-571-4000. The low flow data must be submitted with
the FAA, and will be used by the permit writer to develop permit limits. You must also verify that the proposed action
EAA Guidance Document Revision:April 2014
' Page 2 of 8

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

' STEP 3. Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives
Since a goal of the Clean Water Act is to minimize or eliminate point source discharges to surface waters,' any proposal for a new or expanding wastewater discharge must include evaluation of wastewater disposal alternatives in
addition to direct discharge. Particularly for dischargers of domestic wastewater,this evaluation should investigate the
feasibility of the following wastewater disposal alternatives:
' M Connection to an existing wastewater treatment plant(public or private)
• Land application alternatives, such as individual/community onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation,
' spray irrigation
■ Wastewater reuse
■ Surface water discharge through the NPDES program
■ Combinations of die above
' In order for the applicant to eliminate a wastewater disposal alternative, you must either show that the alternative is
technologically infeasible, or that it would be cost prohibitive to implement relative to a direct discharge alternative.
' Please note that for some altertiatives,it rnight be easier to prove an alternative is not viable based on high cost rather
than technological feasibility. For example, for a large municipal expansion that would require several hundred acres
for a land application alternative, it knight be easier to simply assume that the required acreage could be purchased and
I calculate the present value costs (including current market land costs) for this option, rather than evaluating whether
land application is technologically infeasible due to lack of available land and/or poor soil conditions. For diose
alternatives identified as technologically feasible, you must develop and compare costs, based on a prelithhinary level
' design effort(see STEP 4).
The Division recognizes that wastewater disposal alternatives may be limited for some non-domestic wastewater
scenarios,and a frill alternatives evaluation may not be warranted. If there is some question as to whether an alternative
may be eliminated, contact the NPDES Unit staff. Some scenarios that might not require a full alternatives evaluation
include:
• Water Treatment Plant Discharges. Discharges from water treatment plants (WIPs) that utilize a
membrane technology (e.g., reverse osmosis, nanofiltration) or ion exchange system tend to generate
highly concentrated wastestreams. These wastestreams are not amenable to land application and do not
have to be evaluated for this alternative. However,since these wastestreams can also have a toxic impact
on a receiving freshwater system, proposed new discharges from these W`rPs to freshwaters will not be
considered for an NPDES permit unless you can demonstrate that the environmental impacts would be
minimal based on dilution modeling. You should investigate whether die wastewater can be piped to a
stream with suffic.ietat dilution, or whether a local WW17P might accommodate this discharge. Please
note that discharges from NVITs that utilize greensand filtration or conventional technology produce a
wastestreatn that is not saline, therefore no disposal alternatives can be automatically ruled out as
' infeasible for these other NV1'Ps. Refer to the NPDES website for permitting strategies for reverse
osmosis,ion exchange,greensand filtration,and conventional WTPs.
• Groundwater Remediation System Dischat es. You will need to evaluate whether NXI\VIP connection,
' land application, infiltration galleries,in-situ groundwater remediation wells, or closed-loop groundwater
remediation wells are viable disposal alternatives. %Mille land application might be a feasible alternative in
rural areas,it would not be a feasible alternative in downtown Charlotte, where there is no land available
' for wastewater application. In this instance,you may simply state that land application is infeasible based
on land constraints within the city. You will also need to evaluate connection to an existing WWI'P (in
accordance with Alternative A), since there are some municipalities that have accepted this wastestream
in the past. If the municipality will not accept the wastestream, the connection alternative is also
1
EAA Guidance Document Revision:April 2014
Page 4 of 8

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

Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.
1. No new or expanding(additional) discharge of oxygen-consuming waste will be allowed to surface waters
of North Carolina if both the summer 7Q10 and 30Q2 streamflows are estimated to be zero, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206(d). Private applicants must contact the USGS in Raleigh at 919-
571-4000 and obtain (generally for a nominal fee), the receiving streamflow data (s7Q10, 30Q2, annual
' average streamflow) at the proposed discharge location. This information must be included in the EAA,
and will be used to develop permit limits.
2. All direct discharge systems of oxygen-consuming wastes should be evaluated both with tertiary filtration
' [BOD5=5 nig/l,N143-N= 1 mg/l] and without,and assuming a weekly sampling regime.
3. Provide a description of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, including a schematic diagram of
the major components and a site plan of die treatment facility with outfall line(s).
4. Provide documentation of the availability of required land and/or easement agreements.
' 5. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per.STEP 4.
6. Note:All direct discharge treatment systems must comply with Reliability Requirements specified in 15A
NCAC 211.0124.
Alternative K Combination of Alternatives.
You should evaluate the possibility of a combination of wastewater alternatives that would minimize or eliminate a
direct discharge alternative. For example, consider whether die facility can operate a land application system during
' the dry season when streamflows are at their lowest and provide less dilution, and operate an NPDES discharge
system during the wet season when soils may not be as amenable to land application and the receiving stream
provides its greatest dilution.
STEP 4. Evaluate economic feasibility of alternatives
To provide valid cost comparisons among all technologically feasible wastewater alternatives identified hi STEP 3,a 20-
year Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) must be performed. A preliminary design level effort is considered
appropriate for comparing feasible options and their associated costs. For the PVCA cost comparison, all future
expenditures are converted to a present value cost at the beginning of the 20-year planning period. A discount rate is
used in the analysis and represents the time value of money(die ability of money to earn interest). Present value is also
referred to as "present discounted value" or"present worth".
The PVCA should include all monetary costs associated with construction, startup and annual operation and
maintenance of a facility. All unit cost information must be provided, and costs must be referenced. Costs can be
referenced in paragraph format by summarizing the sources utilized (e.g., vendor quotes, realtor land quotes, past
' bids, Means Construction Index, etc). Vender quotes received for treatment units or other components, as well as
realtor land quotes, shall be included as well. For each treatment alternative identified as technologically feasible,
costs should include,but not be limited to, the following.
' Capital Costs
■ Land acquisition costs
■ Equipment costs
• Labor costs
■ Installation costs
■ Design costs
Recurring Costs
■ Operation and maintenance costs(with replacement costs)
' EAA Guidance Document Revision:April 2014
Page 6of8

• Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime for discharge systems and a monthly regiine"for
non-discbarge systems
• Operator and support staff costs
• Residual disposal costs
' • Connection fees and subsequent user fees
■ Permit and compliance fees
• Utility costs (power,water, etc.)
' Lost Op orti nity Costs
' PVCA Calculation Method.
The following standard forinubi for computing the present value mu9t be used in all cost estimates made under this
evaluation:
n Cr
PV= C° +Z
r=1 (1 +r)`
' )tMere:
PV =Present value of costs.
Co = Costs incurred in the present year.
' Ct = Costs incurred in time t.
t =Time period after the present year(The present year is t =0)
n =Ending year of the life of the facility.
'
It = Current EPA discount rate. EPA adjusts this rate annually on October 1,and it can be accessed from
the Internet at littp:/www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsr£/201gui.htnil.
' If recurring costs are the same in years 1 through 20, then Ct=C and the formula reduces to:
PV= C + (1 +r}"-1
' r(1+r)"
As an example,assuming capital costs (Co)of $2 mullion,annual recurring costs (C) of$40,000,and a discount rate (r)
of 5.625%, the 20-year(11=20)present value of costs would equal:
' PV= capital costs + recurring costs X [(1+0.05625)2°—1] / [0.05625(1+0.05625)20]
PV= $2,000,000 + $40,000 Y [1.98/0.168]
PV= $2,000,000 + $471,428
PV= $2,471,428
' PVCA Sumi-naq Table,
The FAA must include a Summary Cost Table,which summarizes present worth costs developed for all technologically
' feasible wastewater alternatives. The summary should include a breakdown of capital costs and recurring costs. In
some situations, the Division may require the applicant to refine cost estimates for some alternatives,or possibly collect
actual soil data to better characterize the land application alternative. Ultimately, the ficial determination on cost
' effectiveness is made by the Division witli consideration of monetary costs as well as potential environmental impacts.
1
EAA Guidance Document Revision:April 2014
Page 7 of 8

' Attachment.A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G)allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non-municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non-municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands oil which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
' zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and(f such an ordinance is in effect)whether the proposed facility is consistent with die
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zonuig or subdivision ordinances finless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
' significance and is in the best interest of die State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDE.S Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
• Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail,return receipt requested.
■ If either(or both) local govemment(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s),within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
' the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days,the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
' 15-day period.
Insttuetions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
' form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The fornn must be signed and notarized.
' Name of local government
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
' located? Yes[ ] No [ ] If no,please sign this form,have it notarized,and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ ] No[ ]
' If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance hi effect,is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes[ ]
No [ ]
' Date Signature
(City IVIanager/County Manager)
' State of County of
On flus day of personally appeared before me,the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed die foregoing document and he(or she)acknowledged that he(or she)executed the same and being duly sworn
' by me,made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires .(Signature of Notary Public)
Notary Public(Official Seal)
1
1
RAA Guidance Document Revision:Aptil 2014
' Page 8 of 8

' APPENDIX B
TWSA Cashiers Sewer System Map from the Jackson County Land
1 Development Plan
1

' 55
' N
W E
S
Legend
0 Municipal Sewer Treatment
Sewer Pump
• ® Municipal Discharge Point
- -- - • Sewer Pipes
' Main Roads
County Boundary
iCashiers Commercial District

' APPENDIX C
' TWSA Cashiers NPDES Permit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

, ! • A
OCT 1 8 2012 '�E+
NCDENR
' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural*Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild,P.E. Dee Freeman
' Governor Director
Secretary
Mr. Stan Bryson October 9, 2012
TWASA
1246 W Main St
Sylva, N.C. 28779
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO063321
Cashiers WWTP#3
Class WW-2
' Dear Mr. Bryson: Jackson County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently
' amended).
This final permit includes the following major changes from the draft permit sent to you
' on August 1, 2012:
➢ The toxicity test requirement has been removed, as you requested. The presence of ammonia
effluent limits negates the need for an effluent toxicity test.
➢ The odor control condition has been removed from the permit, as you requested.
' If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in thisermi
p tare
unacceptable to you,you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty(30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this
' decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local
governmental permit that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please
' contact Charles Weaver at telephone number(919) 807-6391.
Sincer ly,
c�—
Charles Wakild, P.E.
cc: Central Files Asheville RegionalOffice/Surface Water Protection NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
512 North Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] hhpl/portalmdenr.org/webhvq North Carolina
' An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50%Recycled/10%Post Consumer Paper Aa&&4
l0 \2 Cl:kA

Permit NCO063321
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
1 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
' In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other
lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, the
Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
(TWSA)
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater astewater from a facility located at the
' Cashiers Plant # 3 WWTP
852 Cashiers Lake Road
Cashiers
Jackson County
to receiving waters designated as the Chattooga River in subbasin 03-13-02 of the
Savannah River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective November 1, 2012.
' This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight p g t on August 31, 2017.
Signed this day October 9, 20.12.
' /l?'t- iia --
Ch - s Wakild, P.E., Dir ctor
Di sion of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO063321
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge ar
p g e hereby
revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
' effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under
the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.2 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the
following components:
• 100,000 gallon equalization basin
• 30,000 gallon equalization basin
• 15,100 gallon digester
•' Two 104,000 gallon aeration basins
• 15,678 gallon and 49,706 gallon clarifiers
• Rotating disc panel filters
• 25,000 gallon digester
' • Dual train liquid chlorine/liquid dechlorination contact chambers
• Post aeration
This facility is located at Cashiers WWTP 4t3 (852 Cashiers Lake Road in
Cashiers, NC) in Jackson County.
1
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map to an unnamed tributary to the Chattooga River, currently classified B-
Trout HQW waters in hydrologic unit 03060102 of the Savannah River Basin.

-\j
Vf
t.l r
16
�� �,�°• Outfall 001
�►� 'N ,
e t
_� • f Y t r
r:2,
1113 it 'Y'
to
it
a't �,� y) ► �3�$ o� i �� i 4y� lil2 ��~
J `
46 �O
_ .} . /ice � • �„ /
`��,1 y, Q �a
NCO063321 - TWSA Cashiers Plant #3 WWTP
Facility
Latitude: 35'06' 11" N State Grids Cashiers
Longitude: 830 06'25" W River Basin: Savannah Location
Stream Class: B-Trout ORW Sub-Basin: 03-13.01
Receiving Stream Chattooga River
N�..�IL Jackson County
WL�L Map not to scale

Permit NCO063321
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge 0.2 MGD of treated wastewater from outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
' [PCS Code] Monthly Weekly Dally Measurement Sample TypeEInfluor
P YP
Average Average Maximum Frequency
Flow 0.2 MGD 50050 Continuous Recording
BOD,5 day(20°C)2 15 mgA 22,5 mgA Weekly Composite Influent&
[00310) Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2 30 mg/L 45 mg/L Weekly Composite Influent&
[0053Effluent
NH3 as 00610 N (April 1 -October 31)) 2.2 mg/L 6,6 mgA Weekly Composite Effluent
NH3 as 00690 N (November 1 -March 31) 4.8 mg/L 14.4 mg/L Weekly Composite Effluent
' Dissolved Oxygen _00300 Dail average>5.0 m /L
Weekly Grab Effluent
1 Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly y Grab U&D
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean)
31fi6
2001100 mL 400/100 mL Weekly Grab Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
31616 Weekly Grab U&D
Total Residual Chlorine3 22 IL
' 50060 N9 2/Week Grab Effluent
Temperature °C) [000101Dail Grab Effluent
Temperature °C) [000101 WPAk1V Grab U&D
Total Nitro en 00600 Semi-annually Composite Effluent
Total Phos horns 00665 Semi-annually Composite Effluent
H 00400 >6.0 and<9.0 standard units Weekly Grab Effluent
' Footnotes:
1. U: at least 50 feet upstream from the outfall. D: at least 500 feet downstream from the outfall.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The Permittee shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC-certified laboratory
[including field-certified]. Effluent values < 50 pg/L will be treated as zero for compliance
1 purposes.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (2) SEWER LINE CONNECTIONS
Sewer lines serving more than one building, crossing property under separate ownership,
' or crossing rights of way, shall not be made tributary to the collection system serving this
facility unless a permit for the construction and operation of the tributary line has been
issued by the Division.

' APPENDIX D
' Current TWSA Flow Allocations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1246 West Main Street
Sylva, NC 28779
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Dan Harbaugh (;Y4
Executive Director
' TO: TWSA Board
DATE: 20 October 2014
REF: TWSA Business Meeting 10/21/2014
Agenda Item 1-
Final Review of Cashiers WWTP Flows
& Recommendations on Release of Sewer Allocation
' As per prior discussions with the TWSA Board at last week's Workshop Meeting, TWSA
staff has been continuing the additional data collection concerning this matter as has been
performed for the past two years. We have performed a final review of the data received
for the 12 months through September 2014 and the Sewer Allocation records on file and
we must report data changes that impact the recommendations made at the prior
meetingi
• The data for plant flows has been reviewed and found valid. Except for some high
flows in timeframes when there were spikes in precipitation, the overall trend does
' appear more normal overall at plant 3 as depicted in attachment (Item 1.A.x.).
o The 2013-14 running Annual Average daily flows ended at 0.072 MGD
including the 12 months ending with September 2013,
o This is down from high of 0.079 ending in Oct. 2012.
' • On the other hand, additional review of records at TWSA the "Unrealized
Allocation"total has been revised to reflect most current information. Prior analysis
1 didn't include information on several minor historical (pre 2012) holdings which are
now included along with the 2012 and 2013 releases made by the Board but not
yet connected. Any prior allocation that is now connected is netted out also.
o The review validates that there remains the 4,760 GPD reserved for Failing
Systems.
' o The final adjustments on the "Unrealized Allocation" side of the ledger result
in a Corrected "Allocation Held" for the system of 104,237 GPD as shown
' attached (Item 1.B.x) (Note -Account holders names omitted for privacy).

r
' o This change in the Allocation Held brings the Flow Management to
180,340 GPD,which is 100% of the amount we are allowed through the
plant at this time.
ro Prior summary and updated summary of flows are attached also (Item
2.C.x).
' o This means that we will not be recommending a further release of
capacity for Residential or Commercial uses in 2014-15.
TWSA Board Discussion-
' TWSA Staff Recommendation- Whereas NCDENR Rules prevent additional releases,
no action is possible at this time. Recommend further work on I&I and on developing
methods to get existing capacity held back into the market through Transfer Policy or
consideration of Capacity Buy Back program?
1
1
r
1
1
r
1
r
1
1
r
r

47�
?TI:
� �
NMI I
'lli WN i
14
el
T"T
Ot
All,
kli q
1.9
NE
t
......................

CASHIERS APPROVED ALLOCATIONS
' DATE CUSTOMER GALLONS
PER DAY
5/9/2005 290
5/10/2005
i 3,525
5/17/2005 ; 2,400
6/21/2005 30,600
7/5/2005 25,185
11/9/2005 480
11/24/2005 9,000
' 11/2/2006 1,000
Unknown 300
9/20/2007 8,617
11/16/2007 1,800
Unknown 4,680
Unknown 1,080
' Unknown 1,000
Unknown 11,400
11/27/2012 240
11/13/2012 600
11/6/2013 2,040
Total: 104,237 gpd
AGENDA ITEM

1
1 ~
r
� o °' � SERVES
0000
U 0 Q z a CL a. a s 0
M 0 0 0 0 0
z
c 'U) 0 a N d=O n: N
Z U
Q o cuI 0 I TOO, TOM
0
W
C) 0) Q +�
�-' 00 0 r C D
}' 0 AW r O
0 _
c C CL
C
4-0o E a as
co ~ v� 0) 0) 0 rn "a g R �
C, m t � "Q
LL o, � zu45 .. o L
co
cu U-
� o 3 c 't ;>
000 0 000 0 '
.� 00 -- - � U. `' cn 0 NO
oa % �� C:)
a� = ca
•� NN
x •
' W
1
r � 2
AGENDA ITEM

1
o �
� M
M1 WCL y " "
c as
E EE
a o o
0- d Ov
0 C
� 0 3 � or- r- 000 N 0 =
� N O `'' c�i �ro N � 000 0 C �
' i C EL o ti o C e- c� = c6
a�
4a � L... Z
� a. CL c .� d
' di CL "- a Q Q Q a� o> ;

1
APPENDIX E
' Wastewater Survey Cover Letter and Example
1
1
1
1

TUCKASEIGEE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
' SERVING JACKSON COUNTY
1246 West Main Street
Sylva,NC 28779
Phone[phone] * Fax: [phone]
August 13, 2010
RE: Cashiers Area
Wastewater Planning Survey
' Jackson County,North Carolina
Dear Property Owner:
The Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) is moving forward with
more specific plans for providing future sewer service in the Cashiers area. As part of this
' planning process TWSA will have to estimate future development that could be served by
public sewer. You have received this letter because your property is within or in close
proximity to the area being considered for future service. TWSA requests that you
' complete the attached survey to assist us in this planning effort. Your participation is
critical to the Authority as we are seeking to establish actual demand for service and
trying to develop specific requirements for a wastewater management system. If we do
not know about future demand, it cannot be planned for. The availability of actual future
service is based on many variables and all identified potential sewer service demand will
' certainly be considered but availability cannot be guaranteed.
Please return the survey by mail in the enclosed pre-addressed, postage included
envelope. Alternatively you may complete the survey online at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TLJD5WM. Survey information should be
completed online or sent by mail no later than September 10, 2010.
' We sincerely appreciate your assistance with this important project. If you have
any questions please contact me at 828-586-5189.
Sincerely,
Joe Cline, Executive Director
' Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Enclosure
1

1
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Cashiers Area Wastewater Planning Survey
(please return by: September 10, 2010)
Owner Information
' Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
' Property Information
Street Address:
' PIN Number:
Acreage:
' Existing Improvements
❑ None, Undeveloped
❑ Single Family Dwelling(s) or lots, Number of Lots or Dwellings
❑ Multifamily Dwelling, Number of Units
❑ Commercial, Describe
' Current Sewer
❑ Not Applicable (undeveloped or not required)
' ❑ Septic System
❑ Private Sewer System, Sewer Provider
❑ Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
Future Development
❑ No Plans for Future Development
' ❑ Residential Development, Approximate Units Planned
❑ Commercial Development, Describe
❑ Other, Describe
' If development is planned on your property do you have an estimated service flow
needed ❑ yes ❑ no, Amount of flow on a daily basis if yes
' If development is planned on your property when do you plan to begin:
❑ 0-5 years ❑ 5-10 years ❑ Over 10 years ❑ Unknown
If Public Sewer was available to your property would you request service?
❑ Yes, ❑ No,
' Other Information:

' APPENDIX F
' Jackson County Health Department Letter
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Jan. 14. 2004 10: 14AM Jackson No, 5523 P. 2
' COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER - 538 SCOTTS CREEK RGAD,SUITE i0o - SYL'VA. NC 28779
TEL- 02B-58&-8994 • FAX, 828-586-3493
' PAULA G.CARDEN
DIRECTOR
January 14, 2009
' Re: Expansion of Municipal Sewer
Cashiers Community, Jackson County, NC
' To Whom It May Concern:
Attached are copies of some of the sewage system repair permits that have been issued by this
' agency in the Cashiers community. There have been numerous repairs for which the only
alternative was to connect to the existing municipal sewer(some letters attached). A
considerable number of the lots in this community have very limited space as well as systems
installed before regulations were enforced. Jackson County began flus enforcement in and
around 1976. In addition, some of the repairs installed in this community were substandard
systems because of limited space, setback requirements, unsuitable soil conditions, etc. Any
expansion of a municipal sewer in this conununity would be of great public health significance
and an asset to the community.
' If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me,
Sincerely,
Charles L_ Stephens, R S.
Environmental Health Supervisor
Attachments
1
01/14/2009 WEI) 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 2002

Jan. 14. 2069 vHt KSONj%,uSuriTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HE,PAI-1 n3 P. 3
FEflEN.r UNQ)Eg5 OPERATIONS PERMIT DAVE 0:3.17.06 7S�2-52-7025
"'?MIk;LEY IDALDWIN �%, T:LEY, BALDWINZBLiNKLEY, PAM LA
21 GULL: E{REEZG DR 21 GULF BREEZE DR
' CRAWFORDVILLF FL 32327-4652 ORAWFOROVILLE FL
';U7—•X917
c 32327-4652
ITLEPHONE:
ECIFICATIONS:
REPAIR TO EXISTING 2 BEDROOM SYSTEM
LOCATION/DIRECTIONS:
CASHIERS L ON 64 2D 8TATE RD ON R 15T HSE ON L (91 MONTE VISTA RD
RECEIPT: I' SIG ATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
The above signature indicates that I have rand,undfrStood and concur wl all Prov{ and 400nnation as oulllned on the back.
41FIElIRMS TYPE.SYS
1 SZ.TANK SZ.tryA iH 7✓l�^ NITRIF1 DPER.REU AA)
1
`�—�''''`' I '
I
I
1 ;
1
I I I I 1
I I
R if
7H — A
1 I
I i I I i
' DATF.I5SUED ENV HEALTH SPEC '
e�61
4-t /LDATE.�APPROVED �� ENV HEAL �
JGtD-feWbOo(10101)
01/14/2009 WED 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 003

Jan. 14. 2009 10: 15AM Jackson No, 5583 P. 4
COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER • 538 5COTI'S CREEK ROAD, SUITE 100 SYLVA, NC 28779
' TEL, 828.586-8994 • FAX: [phone]
PAULA G.CAIZDEN
DIRECTOR
October 24, 2006
Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
1246 W. Main Street
Sylva, NC 28779
Dear Mr. Kline,
' This letter is in regards to Lots 8 and 9 Chestnut Square in Cashiers,North Carolina. The
septic system is currently failing. The system was repaired in 2002. The Jackson County
Department of Public health cannot repair the system again. The current site, soil and space
conditions will not allow an onsite wastewater system.
We recommend that lots 9 and 9 be considered for municipal sewer as there are no other
options available to the property owners at this time.
Please call 5874105 if there are any questions regarding this failing system.
Sincerely,
' Jn, A,fL'LL�JL��
a
' Tonya Ni Howell RS
Cc: Scott Sylvester
' Thomas Sawyer
-I DCA i-'Vx,
r
01/14/2009 WED 11 :03 [T%/RX NO 79301 U004

Jan, 14. 2009 10: 15AMS01jackson .VTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HL.°,558�3� P. 5
IEFERENCE NUMBER "'
P
-T
J646560 OPERATIONS PERI'�I 06.07 .07 571--22-A-4618
APPu MCCALI CHARELS D '98&L.L, CHAREi_S D2 MQCAL.L. GWENDOLYN
PD BOX 22B3 PQ eQX 228?
tCASA T Ei:S NC 28717 CASHIERS SIC
TELEPHONE: 74:3-7677
O 717
PECIFICATIONS:
REPAIR TO EXISTI9NR aYSTEM
OCATIOWUIRECTIONS;
CASH i EPS
IFE: RECEIPT: SI NATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
The above signature Indicates that I have road,understood and concur with all provisions and Information as outlined on the back.
P
tkBL-,DRMS STYPE.
' Sz .TANk; z .CHAMES _ N TRIFT CSS`-" OPER.REG ......
iQ?N-r -
1
LLS
� 1
' QWNER RE MFM ANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE RULES
DATE. ISSUED ENY HEALTH SPEC — ...
DATE.APPROVEL ENV HEALTH SPEC �. .
.IcpPrr�,00 I�cvo,1 �_ .
01/14/2009 LVED 11:03 [TX/IZX NO 79301 0005

Jan. 14. 2009 10: 16AM Jackson g) c7 No. 5583 P. 6
eg a'C-"-L" ���
COMMUNrrY SERVICE CENTER - 538 SCOTCS CREEK ROAD, SUM! 100 • SYLVA. NC 28779
TEL. M-5868994 • PAX: 898-586�-549Z
PAULA 0.CARDEN
' DIRECTOR
1
July 1 o, zoos
Tames O'Berry
P. O. Box 243
Cashiers, NC 28717
Dear Mr. O'Berry:
' On June 19, 2008, Pam Moses, Enviro=cutal Health Specialist from the Jackson County
Department of Public Health visited your property to evaluate for the repair of your septic
system. She has concluded that there is no place suitable for the installation of a repair systenl
due to soil wetness and space. As a result,, you will need to pursue an area offsite or connect to
the municipal sewer if available.
Please contact this office when you decide which one of the above options you wish to pursue.
If you have any que,Ytions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles L. Ste e s, S.
Environmental Health Supervisor
1
01/14/2009 R'LI) 11 :03 [TX/RX NO 79301 006

Jan. 14. 2009 1�OH6AnSO�Va` km6s4TY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEAL 5583 P. 7
___
L� nlrtiry
BETH ANN
aC1 G!O)< car PO BOX 2:,52
SFItEF NC, 28717 CASHIERS MC
TELEPHONE;
EXI3TZNG SYSTEM •-PINE 8ROVE APTS.
AI-LEY ROAD
51GNA1TURE OF 0 EA ALI I"ORLMD AGENT;
n
The above signature Indicetas Owt 1 have read,undustood end concur withal provisions and Irdormation as oudtr,tad an the back.
!:fB ED-RMSL t Y'PE.SYS _.. _.
.7Alai< �� � z .Ci�FaMB NITRTE
' ice!A R K S , �:�N„� ct4 1^ G` 'f
AJ' ' µS u QNcam(
a 11
��� r..+/� G �I''C�•L4. . <, >yl GJ w 4.-f '/ I i GJ
~ '
��.T _
ag
2 6-
VAN
y (�
G t
_ _�.� r .._-.. _:i. r ' t_��__._.•./ C'r 1 �I IIS
bJ�l•�J��-�Iv�"���-t�?---R E "R n"c�+�L,-cam'-�•C�----rr1�A4 F1's.1 A,'a!-E_'-��--i•+,'-I-T-,�=-T�-iVy) —�a�-R•l=-i -1+/+T-+E--- �' --
DATE . 7 SSUED � .- ENV HEALTH SPEC'
(7E APPFQVCb ENV H=ALTH SPEC:
JCNn.2500(101961
01/14/2009 R'EA 11:03 [TX/RX NO 79301 007

' APPENDIX
' USFW'S Species List
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

' Environmental Resource Analysis
' Asheville Field Office Project Review Assessment
' Analysis Shape T)pe: Point
Analysis Timestamp: 0425201102:03:39
Shape Name: Vnna»red point located at-83.033194 0, 35.0399 0
' Boundary Area: 0 acres
Buffer Area: 50265.4 acres
Total Area: 50265.4 acres
' County
County
' Ceowo mase UN Area(saes) 1f1uo1rtfsCAm
JACKSON 19.175.68 38.15%
TRANSYLVANIA 13,772.69 27.4%
MACON 68.99 0.14%
TOTAL 33,017 36 65.69%
' Asheville Field Office Reviewed Project History
ReNiew•ed Project Points
' Year W-lashwa
NWP Deen Day Sanders Sediment 2009 1
NWP Lake Jewel Dredge 2008 1
00-356 Watershed Restoration along Scotsman Creek 2000 1
98-173 Offered Tract N 1041 Non Federal 1998 1
1
TOTAL: 5
Reviewed Project Lines
Prslect ID Nasse Tow TOW L"aY(nd—)
' 05-454 Chattooga River Recreation 2007 5.999
00-349 Rood Pavmg Project 2000 501
97-095 Propsed Accesss Route.Chattooga-Ellicott Community Ass 1997 10.826
TOTAL: 17,326
Re,*iewed Project Po ons
' PrejedM N Tow TOW Ans(sees} ftmipitatMa
05-254 %rht*Bull Project 2005 15630 031•i
03-192 Fovda Creek nodescuibed pr" 2003 86.63 017%
03-206 281 Mine Site Project 2003 7 15 001%
' 99-089 Highlands Pine Plaut 1999 2,400.57 4-79%
99-105 Duke exchange 1999 4084 0 08`-:
98-006 No Dara 1998 16,421 15 3267%
98-058 Llovd Cove Timber Sak 1998 2,224.25 443%
98-163 Cons ucbon of gold carie and health spa.Jackson Co. 1998 8427 017%
' TOTAL: 21.42115 42.62'/.
Landcover and Soils
Ecological Zones of the Southern Appalachians _ ^
Phan____ - -- --- TOW
Acidic Cove 58.604 25 35.54%
Dry mod Dry-M—c Oak Hicluiry 57,579.30 34.92%
Mesio Oak Hrckory 24,487.39 14-95%
White Pme-Oak Beath 9,442.58 5.73%
Xenc Pine-Oak Heath and Oak Heath 5.588 36 3.39%
Shordeaf Pine-Oak Heath 2,335.29 1.42%
Chestnut Oak Heath 454 17 0.28`/.
' Rich Cove 302.83 0.18%
TOTAL' 158.794 17 96.3 S:
Ecoregions(Omernik)
NAM TaW Arn(stns) ]tWtW of Area
Blue Ridge 49.633 95 1000.

TOTAL: 49,633 95 100%
Physiographic Region
Dilb" Prevh�, Seelim TWd Aran(nem) Pei atAm
APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS BLUE RIDGE SOUTHERN 49,633 95 100*o
TOTAL: 49,633.95 100%
Southeast GAP Landcover
Chu Nage ToW Ann(eras* Pa=M sfAssa
' Southern and Central Appalachian Oak Forest 10,506.00 209%
Southern and Central Appsalacbum Oak Forest-Xenc 6,443.10 12.82%
Southern and Central Appalachian Cave Forest 4.69877 9.33%
Central and Southern Appalachian Montane Oak Forest 3,838.69 7.64%
Appalachian Hemlock-Hardwood Forest 3,330 18 6.63%
' Developed Open Space 1,160-02 2-31%
Southern Appalachian Montane Pine Forest and Woodland 1,122.55 2.23
South-Central Interior Small Stream and Riparian 705.92 1.4%
Southem Appalacluan Low Mountain Pare Forest 505.07 1%
' Pasttrreffin 321.57 064%
Successional Shrub/Scrub(Utility Swath) 19754 0.39%
Other-Herbaceous 55.42 0.11%
Open Water(Fresh) 53.54 0.11%
Low Intensity Developed 34.49 0.07%
' Row Crop 32.55 006%
Southern Appalachian Montane Cliff 22.68 0.05%
Clearcut-GrasslandHerbaceous 15.35 003%
Quarry/Strip MmeJGravd Pit 6.75 0.01%
Medium Intensity Developed 1.56 0%
Southern Appalachian Rocky Surniu t 1.56 0%
Centel and Southern Appalacluan Northern Hardwood Forest 0.67 0%
Southern Appalachian Grass and Shrub Bald-Herbaceous Modifier 0.44 0%
TOTAL 33.044 43 65.74':
' SSURGO Soils
Nut O Tdd Arm(care) ftamll*f Area
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 1.99926 3.98
Fannin fine sandy loam,30 to 50 percent slopes 1,897.55 3.78%
Cleveland-Chestnut-Rock outcrop complex_windswept_50 to 95 percent slopes 1.81138 3.6
Adie-Chemet complex.50 to 95 percent slopes,very rocky 1,553.28 3.09%
CulLuap-Tuckasegee complex-15 to 30 percent slopes,stony 1.442.86 2.87%
Fannin fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 1-295.43 158%
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 1.14777 2.28%
Evard-Coerce complex.30 to 50 percent slopes-sonny 1,06521 2.12%
' Ashe-Ednevvulle complex.30 to 50 percent slopes,very rocky 1,059.29 211%
Watauga sandy loan,30 to 50 percent slopes,stony 1,024.81 2.04%
Chandler-Mucav d1e complex.30 to 50 percent slopes.stony 97705 1.94'/
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 50 to 95 percent slopes 948.40 1.89%
' Tuckasegee-Whiteside complex.8 to 15 percent slopes 945.01 l 88%
Watauga loam,15 to 30 percent slopes 901.91 1-79%
Rock outcrop-Cleveland complex,windswept.30 to 95 percent slopes 84527 168%
Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 838.67 1.67%
Culhsala-Tuckasegee complex-30 to 50 percent slopes.stony 836.75 1.66%
' Chestnut-F.doeyville complex,SO to 95 percent slopes,stony 771.67 1.54%
Edneyville-Chestnut complex.30 to 50 percent slopes.stony 723.83 144%
Ckveland-Chesnin
t-Roc}outcrop complex.windswept,30 to 50 percent slopes 693.43 1.38%
Cleveland-Chestaut-Rock outcrop complex,windswept.15 to 30 percent slopes 648.27 129%
Whiteside-Tuckasegee complex,2 to B percent slopes 631.15 1-26%
' Edoevville-Chestnut complex_15 to 30 percent slopes.stony 612 72 1.22'/
Chandler-Micanlie complex.50 to 95 percent slopes,stony 519.13 1-03%
Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex.30 to 95 percent slope-very bouldery 418.59 0.83
Evard-Cowee complex,15 to 30 percent slopes,stony 386.43 0.77%
' Toecaue-Tusquuee complex. 15 to 30 percent slopes,very bouldery 377.04 075%
Pion fine sandy loam,30 to 50 percent slopes,stony 362.47 072%
Cashiers gravelh•fine sandy loam 50 to 95 percent slopes 351 77 03%
Ashe-E&M-ille complex,15 to 30 percent slopes,rocky 321-86 0.64%
Saunook loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 315.33 0.63%
' Evard loam 15 to 30 percent slopes,stony 299.74 0-6%
Saunook loam.15 to 30 percent slopes.stony 255.69 0.51%
Tate fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes 250.17 0.5%
Evard loam 30 to 50 percent slopes.stony 225.29 0.45%
Ctillasala-Tuckasegcr complex,8 ro 15 percent slopes,stony 223.72 0.45%
' Toecane-Tusqunee complex 8 to 15 percent slopes.bouldery 216.55 043%
Toecane-Tusquitee complex,30 to 50 percent slopes,very bouldery 211.36 0.42%
Chestnut-Edneyville complex.30 to 50 percent slopes.stony 20822 041%
Watauga loam 8 to 15 percent slopes 206.42 0.41%
' Vdtwasi fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes-frequently flooded 204 39 041%

' Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam.8 to IS percent slopes 200.37 0.4
Tate fine sandy loam.15 to 30 percent slopes 19093 0.38'x.
Chandler-Micavilk complex,15 to 30 percent slopes,stony 189.08 0.38%
EdnevvtIle-Chestnut complex 8 to 15 percent slopes.stom 181 09 0,36%
Edneyallle-Chestnut coupler,50 to 95 percent slopes.stony 178.85 0.36%
Unaka-Porters complex.50 to 95 percent slopes.very rocky 16953 034%
Dellwood gravelly fine sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes,occasionally flooded 134.72 0-27%
Syha-ARutcs,d,complex-0 to 2 percent slopes 126.43 025%
' Evard loam 8 to 15 percent slopes,stony 12630 0.25%
Brevard loam 10 to 25 percent slopes 121 15 0.24%
Chestnut-E xTalk complex,15 to 30 percent slopes.stony 114.36 0.23%
Cullowhee-Ela complex.0 to 3 percent slopes.occasionally flooded 110 79 0.22%
WUd
ater 108.29 0.22%
stron fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes.frequently flooded 8825 018%
ck outcrop-Cleveland complex,30 to 95 percent slopes.very bouldery 87.43 0.17%
orthents,loamy 85.42 0.17%
Augusta fine sandy loam,cod vit iant,1 to 4 percent slopes.rarely flooded 82.74 0-16%
Ashe-Chestnut complex-30 to 50 percent slopes.very rocky 81.60 016%
Chestnut-Edoeyville complex,windswept.15 to 30 percent slopes,stony 7132 0.14%
Unaka-Porten complex 30 to 50 percent slopes.very rocky 66.41 013%
Ache-Edoeyville complex.8 to 15 percent slopes.rocky 4720 0.09%
Braddock loan_8 to 15 Percent slopes 46.83 009%
' Brasnown-JunAuska complex 8 to 15 percent slopes 4352 009%
Plott fine sandy loan.15 to 30 percent slopes.stony 42 16 008,16
Toxaway loam 0 to 2 percent slopes,frequently flooded 33.46 007%
Cashiers gravelly fine sandy loam.15 to 30 percent slopes 31 66 006%
Plotz floe sandy loam.50 to 95 percent slopes.stony 30.82 0-06%
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam.30 to 50 percent slopes,windswept 3051 0,06%
culluala very cobbly fine sandy loam 30 to 50 percent slopes.extremely bouldery 3037 0.06%
Hayesville clay loam 15 to 30 percent slopes.moderately eroded 3034 00,6%
Hayesville loam 15 to 30 percent slopes 2615 0-05%
Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes,windswept 2150 0.04%
Cullowhee fine sandy loam 0 to 2 percent slopes,occasionally flooded 1737 0.03%
Fannin fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes 16.61 003%
Chestnut-Edoeyvilk complex,windswept.8 to 15 percent slopes,stony 14.88 0-03%
Dillard loam 1 to 5 percent slopes.rarely flooded 13.41 0.03%
' Porters-Unaka complex,30 to 50 percent slopes,rocky 12.68 0.03%
Tate fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 11.70 002%
Pits,quarries 11.69 0.02%
Braddock loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 8.31 0,02%
' Cu1Lw12
-Tuckasegee ooaiplat 50 to 90 percent slopes,story 7.49 0-01%
Udorthents-Urban land complex.0 to 5 percent slopes,rarely flooded 634 001%
Rock outcrop-Cleveland complex,30 to 95 percent slopes 6.24 0-01%
Chestnut-Edneyville complex.8 to 15 percent slopes.stony 6.11 0.01%
Hayesvilk loam 30 to 50 percent slopes 3.49 0.01%
TOTAL: 33,091.07 65.93%
Conservation Lands
' Mance ed Lands
x w OWlSR ?4MAtatitt(8aw4VMartt1tAftn
Nantahala National Forest-lbghlands Ranger District US Forest Service 17,362.81 3454%
Nantahala National Forest-Ellicott Rock Wilderness US Forest Service 2,191.96 4.36%
Silver Run Preserve The Nature Conservancy 1,576.90 3 14
' Chattooga River Gorge/Ellicott Rock RHA US Forest Service 855.80 1.7%
Toxaway Game Land NC Wildlife Resources Commission 460.92 092%
Toaaway Game Land DNP NC Wildlife Resources Commission 409.30 0.91%
Whitewater River Falls and Gorge RHA US Forest Service 304.56 0.61%
Nantahala National Forest-Whitewater Falls Scenic ArMUS Forest Service 29713 0.59%
Carolina Mountains Land Conservancy Easement Carolina Mountains Land Consrnancy 12786 015::
Dulany Bog Plant Conservation Preserve NC Department of Agriculture.Plant Conservation Program33.13 0.07%
Chattooga National Wild and Scenic River US Forest Service 1652 003%
Horsepasture State Natural and Scenic River NC Division of Parks and Recreation 14.21 0-03%
' Horsepasture:National Wild and Scenic River US Forest Service 14.21 003%
Dulaoy Bog RHA Highlands Biological Foundation 8.05 0.02%
Frank Dulany Bog Special Research Area Highlands Biological Foundation 805 0 02%
Sanson Wildlife Sanctuary Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust 0.74 0%
TOTAL 23.682 23 47.1 1%.
' Species and Habitat Occurrence
N7HEO Point
' Tyre Category SCMMM Nse Coeroa Na>.e Les! Federal EO N

1 _
Aquatic Invcbratc Cambaras claugaensrs C'hauga Crayfish 2001-07-25 Extant 1
Annual
Aquatic Alnim�fe Cambarus chaugxnsis Chauga Crayfish 2001-07-23 Extant 1
Aquatic In � hbrate Cambarus chaugaemis Cauga Crayfish 1988-08-09 Extant 2
AnnAquatic Invertebrate Cambarus rebumss French Broad River Crayfish 2001-07-25 FSC Extant 1
' Aquatic lmerli
bratc Druuella Wa a mayfly 1994-07-25 Extant I
AnimAquatic Nonvascular Plant Ephebe solida A Rockshag Lichen 2007-11-19 Extant 4
' Aquatic Nonvascular Plant Ephebe sohda A Rockshag Lichen 2007-09-04 Extant 1
Aquatic Nomascvlar Plant Wamstorfia flu titan Floating Sickle-moss 1949-08-22 Historic 1
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Etheostonia mscnptum Turquoise Darter 2000-07-15 Extant I
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Hybopsis rubnfrons Rosyfice Chub 1995-09-18 Extant 1
Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Micropterus coosae Redeye Bass 2000-07-15 Extant I
' Aquatic Vertebrate Animal Notropis lutipimis Yellowfin Shmer 1991-PRE Extant 3
Terrestrial Natural Acidic cove forest 2000-07-26 Extant 3
Community
Terrestrial Nan" Acidic cone forest 1999-05-31 Extant 1
Community
Terrestrial Natural aaAcrdre cove forest 1992-08-18 Extant I
comminuty
Terrestrial Nutar;i Acidic cove forest 19874)6-19 Extant 1
'
Terrestrial C aomt ry Canada hemlock forest 1993-11 Extant 1
uru
Temstrial Natural Canada hemlock forest 1992-08 Extant I
Terrestrial Nan" Carolina hemlock bluff 2007-09-05 Extant 1
Community
TetrrstrialNC��ty Carolina hemlock bluff 1993-08 Extant l
TenesitalNatural Chestnut oak forest 2000-07-26 Extant 2
Communis
TerrestrialNacommunity
ral Heath bald 1993-08 Extant I
TenestralN tv High elevation granitic done 1993-08 Extant 1
ommuni
Terrestrial Natural
�ty High eles-tim granitic dome 1992408-18 Extant 1
Comm' TerrestralCa�or nwal High elevation granitic dome 1992-0420 Extant I
ty
Terrestrial�l High elevation rocky stimoma 2007-09-05 Extant 1
' Terrestrial Natural Montane acidic cliff 2008-04 Extant 5
Community
TenestrwNan" Montane acidic diff 1987-06-16 Extant 1
Coasmunity
TerrestrialNC ne all Montaoak--hickory forest 2000-07-26 Extant
TerrestrialNCry Montane oak--hickory forest 1993-11 Extant I
TernstrialC�l Montane oak--hickory forest 1993-04-05 Extant 1
' n
retrestrialN't�ty Montane oak--hickory forest 1992-08-I8 Emat 1
Terrestrial�N.an" Montane oak--hickory forest 1992-08 Extant 1
ommunity
' TerrestraT-—qty Montane oak-hickory forest 1992-0420 Extant I
TerrestrialNao�tur Pae--oakfbeath 1993-11 Extant 1
CumtV
' TerreserialtyNatural Pine-oak/heath 1992-0818 Extant 1
Terrestrial Natural Pme--oak%heath 199'-04-20 Unranked 1
Community
TerrestrialNan"
mry Rich cove forest 1987-06-19 Extant 1
Commu
' TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Acrobolbus nhatus A Liverwort 1994-06-21 Extant I
TerrestrialNow auvlar Plant Brachythecium rotaeanum Rom's Feather Moss 1951406-07 Historic I
TerrntralNonvascular Plant Chdoscyphus muncatus A Liverwort 1989-03-26 Extant 2
TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Ditrichum rhynchostegnim Ditrichum Moss 1951-06-07 Historic 2

1
' TerrestrulNoncascular Plant Drepanolejeunea appalachiana A Liverwort 2005-06-21 Extant 1
Terrestriallonvascular Plant Drepanolejeunea appalachuoa A Liverwort 1958-07-25 Histone 1
TerrestrulNonvascular Plant Drepanolejeunea appalwh3a=n A Liverwort 1957-07-12 lbsioric 1
TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Gymnoderma Imeare Rock Gnome Lichen 2007 E Extant 2
TerrestrulNonvascular Plant Gymnoderma hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1992-07-11 E Extant I
TerrestrialNomascular Plant Gymnoderma lineare Rods Gnome Lichen 1992-07-10 E Extant 1
TerrestrulNonvascular Plant Hontahadelpbus sharpu Sharp's Homahadelphus 1959-10-24 Historic 1
Ter estria[Nomawulas Plant Hypaum pntease Meadow Feather Moss 1999-03-24 Extant 1
' TerrestrulNonvascular Plant Macrocoma sulhvanhi Sulbvanfs Maned-moss 1957-06-26 Ifisionc 1
TerrestrialNonvascular Phot Plagiochila caducdoba A Liverwort 2007-11-09 Extant 1
TertestrialNonvascular Plant Plagiochila caducdoba A Liverwort 2007-10-16 Extant I
TerrestrialNomascular Plant Plaguxh&caduciloba A Liverwort 2003-08-06 Extant I
' TenestrulNonvascuLu Plant Plagtoctula caduciloba A Lrverwort 1994-011-20 Extant 1
TernmtrialNonvascular Plant Plaguxhda caduedoba A Liverwort 1994-07-16 Extant 2
Terrestriallonvascular Plant Plagiochda caducdoba A Li etwon 1955-04-30 Histone 1
TaratrialNomascular Plant Plagiochila ludovicuna A liverwort 1949-08-25 Historic 1
TerrestrulNonvascular Plant Plagiochila sharpri A Liverwort 1980-PRE FSC tbstonc 1
TmestrialNorrascular Plant Plagiomnman carolmianum Carolma Star-moss 1996 Extant 1
TerrestrialNonvascular Plant Porella wataugensis A Liverwort 1994-06-22 FSC Extant 2
TerrestrialNon ascular Plant Schlotheimia lanctfoha Highlands Moss 1981-06-08 Historic I
TerrestrLa Nonvascular Plant Schlothermia lancifolia Highlands Moss 1956-11-01 Histone 1
TmestrialVascuhr Plant Asplenium pumatifidimt Lobed Spleenwon 2007-11-01 Extant 2
' TerrestrulVascular Plant Berbers canadensis American Barbem- 1961-07-05 Historic I
TmestrialVascular Plant Brachyelytrum anstosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-07-12 Extant I
TerrestrulVascular Plant Brachyelvtrum aristosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-07-11 Extant 1
TmestrialVascular Plant Brachyelytrum aristosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-06-23 Extant 1
TerrestrulVasculas Plant Calamagrosm porter, Ponds Reed Grass 1993-10-18 Extant I
' TmestrialVascalar Plant Calamagrostis porter Porters Reed Grass 1981-08 Destroyed 1
TettestrialVascuhr Plant Carex 1adford» Radford's Sedge 1993-05-21 FSC Extant I
TmestrialVascular Plant Fotherg ilia mayor Large Witch-alder 1999-08-03 Extant 2
TerrestrulVascular Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder 1999-06-29 Extant 3
' TertestrialVascular Plant Fothergilla mayor Large Witch-alder 1970-05 Historic 1
Terrestrwvascuhr Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder 1966-06-14 Historic 1
TmestriatVascular Plant Hymmophyllum taylc iae Gorge Filmy Fern 2008-09-04 FSC Extant 1
TenestrralVascular Plant Isotru medeoloides Shull Whorled Pogoma 2005 T Extant 1
Tmestrial4ascular Plant Lysimadria 5asen Fraser's Loosestrife 2007-11-08 FSC Extant 1
' TerrestrialVascuhr Plant Lysunachia frasen Frasers Loosestrife 2007-09-26 FSC Extant 2
TmestrialVascular Plant Lysimadua frasen Fraser's Loosestnfe 2007 FSC Extant 1
TerrestrulVascuhu Plant Lysimachia frasen Fraser's L.00sestrife 2006-08-08 FSC Extant 2
Te eserialVascular Plant Lysimxhu frasen Risers Loowstrife 2001-06-13 FSC Extant 1
TerrestrialVascular Plant Lysimad.frasert Fraser',Loosestrife 1997-06-24 FSC Extant 10
TmestrialVascular Plain Lysimadru Kasen Frasees Loosestrife 1996-07 FSC Extant I
TermtrulVasculat Plant Lvsimachia frasen Frasees Loosestrife 1994-10-20 FSC Extant 1
TmestnalVasculm Plant Lysimachia frasen Frasers Loosestrife 196540623 FSC Historic 1
TmestratVascular Plant Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pmesap 2008-0405 FSC Extant 4
' TmestriaWascular Plant Monatrnpsis odarata Sweet P m%V 2007-03-06 FSC Extant 1
TmestrulVascular Plant Packera rmllefobum Dnided-leaf Ragwon 1992-07-19 FSC Extant 1
TertestrialVascular Plant Pachen millefoltum Divided-Inf Ragwort 1992-05-11 FSC Extant 2
TerrestrulVascular Plant Packera mrllefohum Divided-leaf Ragwort 1983-08-04 FSC Extant 1
Tmestr Wascnlar Plant Robuna hartwtgu Hartweg's Locust 1992-07-19 Extant 1
TmestrulVasculai Plant Robina luspida var fertihs Fruitful Locust 2007-05-16 Extant 1
TmestrialVasculr Plant Scepmdium lenmanu Alabama Grape-fern 1973-PRE Historic 1
Tmestrull'ascular Plant Sohdago stmulans Granite Dome Goldenrod 1999-9 FSC Extant 1
TerrstrialVasrnlar Plant Sohdago simulans Granite Dome Goldenrod 1992-08-18 FSC Extant 1
Terrestrull'ascular Plant Tberniopsis fraxmifolu Ash-leaved Golden-banner 2007-09-27 Extant 6
' TmestrialVascular Plant Thermopsis fraxmifolia Ash leaved Golden-banner 2007-0427 Extant 5
TerestrulVascular Plant Thermopsis fraximfolu Ash-leaved Golden-banner 1999-07-21 Extant I
TemstrialVasculas Plant Thermopsis fraxtmfolia Ash-leaved Golden-banter 1978-05-27 Histanc 1
TeriestrialVasculas Plant Thermopsis fraxinifolu Ash-leaved Golden-banner 1977-08-05 Extant 2
TmestrulVascuhr Plant Thermopsis fraxmifolu Ash-leaved Golden-banner Unraalmd 2
TermstrialVascuhr Plant Tnchomanes perersii Dwarf Fihm'-fern 1999-08-11 Extant 2
TmestruWascular Plant Trichomaoes petersu Dwarf Filmy-fern 1949-08 Historic 1
TetrestrulVascular Plant Ttdhum discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-05-20 Extant l
TmestrialVascular Plaut Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-05-17 Extant 1
' TerrestrulVascular Plant Trdhum discolor Mottled Trillium 1993-05-21 Extant I
TerrestrialVertebrate Animal Amides aeneru Green Salamander 2007-11-16 FSC Extant 3
TmestrulVertebrate Antmal Andes wrieus Green Salamander 2006-11-06 FSC Extant I
TerestrialVe'ttebrate Animal Amides aenrus Green Salamander 2005-10-19 FSC Extant 2
TmestrialVertebrate Anima] Amides arneus Green Sahrm der 2005-10-17 FSC Extant 3
TerestrialVertebrAe Animal Amides amens Green Salamander 2004-10-06 FSC Extant 1
TmestrialVertebmte Aim al Andes arneus Green Salamander 2003-11-11 FSC Extant 1
TerrestrialVertebrate Animal Amides arxtetrs Green Salamander 2003-11-10 FSC Extant 2
TerestrialVerubrate Animal Andes aureus Green Salamander 2003-11-07 FSC Extant 4
TmestrialVertebrate Animal Amides aureus Green Salamander 2003-11-03 FSC Extant I

1
TenesvialVertebrau Annn I Aneides aeneus Grew Salamander 2003-11 FSC Extant 3
TamtrialVertebtate An, al Anodes aeaeus Gees Salamander 1986-07 FSC Extant 1
TerrestrialVertebrate Ammal Aneides aeneus Green Salamander 1962-06 FSC Historic 1
TenestrulVertebrax Animal Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake 1959-08-08 Historic 1
TerrestriAVertebrate Animal Myous leibui Eastern Small-footed Myotis 2008-10-13 FSC Extant 1
TetresuialVettebrste Animal Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian Cottontail 1961-07 FSC Historic 1
Wetland Natural High elevation wep 2007-10-16 Extant 1
Community
' Wetland NNaattoirY Rocky bar and shore 1993-04-05 Extant 1
Wetland Natural Sprat/cliff 2007-11-19 Extant 2
Commumty
Wetland NCom unity Spray cliff 2007-10-16 Extant 2
Wetland Naturalunity Spray cliff 1987 Extant 1
Wedaod Nanzsc lm Plant Anna sharpu A Liverwort 1955 Historic 1
' Wetland Nonvascular Plant Bryoxiphium norvegicun Sword Moss 1949-08-24 Historic 1
Wedaod Nonvascular Plant Curiphyllum pilderum Long Leaf Mustache Moss 1949-08-25 Historic 1
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Homaha tnchomanoides Lime Homaha 1959-07-15 Historic l
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Leleunea blomgwst a A Liverwort 199408-20 Extant 1
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Lejeunea blomquisw A Liverwon 1994-07-16 Extant 1
' Weslmd Nonvascular Plant Plagiochila echinau A Liverwort 1994-08-20 Extant 1
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Plagiochila echinata A Lnrrwart 1961-PRE Histone 2
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Plagiochila ecl inata A Liverwort 1956 Historic 1
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Plagiochila sulhvantii car spimgeraA Liverwort 1956 FSC Historic 1
'
Wetland Nonascular Plant Plagiochda sulln-ant i var.
stiWvanpi A Liverwort 1961-PRE FSC Histaie 2
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Plagtochrla virginuca tar A Liverwort 1961-PRE FSC Historic 1
carohmam
Wetland Nonvascular Plant Radula s»lhv-a= A Ln-erwort 2008-04-05 Extant 1
' Wetland Nonvascular Plant Radula sulliv-antu A Liverwort 2007-09-26 Extant 1
wetland Nonvascular Plant Radula sullivaow A Liverwort 2007-09-04 Extant 2
Wetland Vascular Plant Aspkmummonanthes Single-solus Spleeirwort 2006-08-19 Extant 2
Wetland Vascular Plant Carex baileyi Baikyrs sedge 2007-09-04 Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Carex bailcyi Baileys Sedge 1961-06 Historic 1
' Wetland Vascular Plant Chdooe cadibaw CutbberYs Turtkhead 2007-11-19 FSC Extant 2
Wetland Vascular Plant Helomas bull= Swamp Pink 2004-05-19 T Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Hupema porophda Rock Fir-clubmoss 1995 Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Hupema porophila Rode Fir-clubmoss 1987-10 Historic 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Hupaaa porophila Rock F.,chibmoss 1971-01 Extant 1
'
Wetland Vascular Plant Parnassia grandtfoW Large-leaved Gass-of-
1984-08 FSC Extant 1
Parnassus
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Anka 2008-10.27 Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vasep Pmk-shell Azalea 2007-04-16 Extant 5
' Wetlmd Vascular Plant Rhodode tcin vaseyi Pick-shell Azalea 1996-03-01 Extant I
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vsseyi Pink-shell Azalea 1994-05-10 Extant I
Wedand Vasculm Plant Rhododendron vaeeyi Pink-shell Azalea 1992-05-11 Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea 1987-05-07 Extant 1
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododenti m vaeYi Pink-shell Azalea 1976-PRE Historic 1
TOTAL 233
NUEO Line
0L __6deiYic Nice Caen Nine Last Feisrad EO TOW Lrrsglti
Oh BfeNrs Ststu (meters)
' Aquatic Neovaseuhtr Ephebe sohda A Rockshag Lichen 2007-09-04 Extant 1128
Plant
TerrestrialP ��ulm Gy>mm
oderma hneare Rock Gnoe Lichen 1992-07-10 E Extarg 477
Terrestrial Noawular Macrocoma sulhvantii ulhvant's Maned- 1957-06-26 Historic 2-127
Plant
'
Terrestrial�� �uMacrocosm sullivmtu SSulhvanfs Maned- 1952-07-30 Historic 2,352
Tenestrial Nonvascular Plaeiochila ludoviciana A Liverwort 1960-06-14 Historic 318
Plant
' Terrestria=,—U'- Plagiochila sharpu A Liverwort 1995 FSC Extant 546
TerttstrialVascular Plant Hvmrnophvllum taylorue Gorge Filmy Fern 2008-09-04 FSC Extant 174
TenestrialVascular Plant Hymenophyllum taylorue Gorge Filmy Fern 1995 FSC Extant 59
' TerrcstrialVasculu Plant Hymm phi llum taylonae Gorge Filmy Fern 1966-07-26 FSC Historic 4,004
TermtriaiVascular Phan Linins aspen Rough Bimig-star 1973 Histone 1,240
TerrestruWascular Plant Liatns aspera Rough Blazing-star 1960 Historic 2,802
TerresttialVascalar Plant Lysimachia frasm Fraser's Loosestrife 2006.06-06 FSC Extant 1,608
TerrestrtaA'ascular Plant Lvsimwhta frasen Fraser's Loosestnfe 1999-07-19 FSC Extant 349
TerrestnalVascular Plant Lysirawhia fsaseri Frasees Loosestnfe 1997-07-11 FSC Extant 132

' Terrestru asculu Plant Lys,m;ichia f-Aseri Fraset's Loosestnfe 1997-06-24 FSC Extant '.266
TenestriaiVascular Plant Lysimachia&asen Fraser's Loosestrife 1997-06-12 FSC Extant 1.181
TerrestrurVascular Plant Shortia galacifolu tar Southern Oconee Bells 1976-PRE FSC Historic 954
t galacifolia
Wetland puntascular Sphagnum subsecundum Orange Patmoss 1999-0424 Extant 824
TOTAL23.543
' 1\HEO Polygon
Type Category Srieafl6c Name Co�ma�Name Last Federal DO Total Area !,wast of
06awvadm States stria (care:) Arse
Aquatic Inv n brace Cambarus chaugaensts Chauga Crayfish 2001-07-25 Extant 3 68 0 01Animal
°.
' Aquatic Ivy ga to Cambarus chaugaensis ChauCrayfish 2001-07-23 Extant 5.13 001%
Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarus chaugaensts Chauga Crayfish 1988-08-09 Extant 901 002••
Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarus rebunus CBroad Rivet2001-07-25FSC Extant 3.68 0.01%
'
Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarus rebiurus French Broad Riser
Annual Crayfish 1977-W27 27 FSC Extant 16.931 78 33 68•.
Aquatic �Ammertebrata DruneUa hu a mayfly 1994-07-25 Extant 5.13 0.01%
' Aquatic Nona asculu Ephebc lanata Rockshag Lichen 1955-10-92 lltstortc 1 602 77 3 19*.
Plant
Aquatic Pkat Nonvascular Ephebe sobda A Rodahag Lichen 2007-11-19 Extant 1.93 0%
'
Aquatic Nonvascular
Plant Epbebc sohda A Rockshag Lichen 2007-09-04 Extant la 32 0 03°.
Aquatic Nonvascular Wzustor5a fluitans Floating Sickle-moss 1949-08-22 Fhstoric 3089 0.06
Phot
Vertebrate
Aquatic An, I Etheostoma insrnptum Turquoise quotse Dan" 2000-07-15 Extant1064 0.02•.
Aquatic VAerwb to Hybopsis rubr&ons Rosyfice Chub 1995-09-18 Extant 15.56 0.03%
Vertebrate
AquaticVertebrateMrcropterus coosu Rede}c Bass 2000-07-15 Extant 6 14 0.01`.
Aquatic Vertebrate Ani Notroprs MW— Yellowfin Shinier 1991-PRE Extant 26,549.76 52.92%
Aquatic Vertebrate Percina mgrofascuta Blackbanded Darter 2000-06-25 Extant 129 0%
Anin' Ter.w.1A Eulonchus tanaliciae Fl
Ake's Small-headed 1966-08-02 Historic 1,021.19 2.03%
mmalTerrestrial Nam" Acidic cove forest 2007-11 Extant 1920. 0.04%
1C.iommunrtV
Testes Acidic cove forest 2007-03-20 Extiot 12234 0.24%
' Terrestrial Natural Ch Acidic cove forest 2005 OS-12 Extant 1.139 09 2 27•.
aft"T Acidic cove forest 2000-07-26 Extant 1,526.06 3-04%
' T..,-JN-f i� Acidic cote forest 1999-05-31 Extant 281 13 056%
TerrestrtalCNNAcidic cave forest 1992-08-18 Extant 19932 0-4%
' Te restinalommuru
N,atural t` Acidic cote forest 1987-06-19 Extant 772 37 1 54%
TefrestrtafN�C Ty Canada hemlock forest 1993-11 Extant 29.97 0.06%
TeriestrialC»imrty Canada hemlock forest 1992-08 Extant 49.83 01%
TerrestnalNan" Caroli a hemlod bluff 2007-09-05 Extant 0.03 0%
Terrestrtal�N,atw � Carolina hemlock bluff 1993-08 Extant 34.71 0-07%
ommuni
' Terrestrtarc Chestnut oak forest 2007-09-26 Extant 593 38 1.18
ommundy
TeffesuwNaturaltuun Chestnut oak forest 2007-09-05 Extant 35637 0.71%
comm
' Terrestria(CNatural C]rstmnt oak forest 20054)9-12 Extant 1257.51 2.5
ommunsy
TcrrestrtalCNNaI�y Chestnut oak forest 2000-07-26 Extant 29906 0 59omm
°e
Terrestr2_ Beath bold 1993-08 Extant 1492 003%

TerrestrWN'tdra7 High dnahon granitic dome 1993-08 Extant 4486 0 09
Community
ommunity
Terrestriar=,ty High clesation gnainc dome 1992-08-18 Extant 77237 1.54
Terrestrial Natural High elevatiou granitic done 1992-04-20 Extant 64495 1 28:.
CN�ommunrty
TerrestrnlC' High Elevation Red fah Forest 2007-09-05 Extant 90425 1.8
' TenestrialN'tural n High elmation rocky suintr it 2007-11-01 Extant 23 74 0 05%
Tern bimCommuni
�It High elnation rocky summit 2007-09-05 Extant 0.03 0%
' Terresttra Naturaomm�ty Low deyatiai granitic dome 1987 Unranked 357 54 071".
TuresIW Montane acidic cliff 2008-04 Extant 0.15 0%
Terrestrial Natural Montane acidic cliff 2007-11-01 Extant 16.55 0 03°.
'
C
�ommunity
TerrestrraT77.C'tural Montane aci -06
dic cliff 2003 -15 Extant 12.66 003%
ommuntry
Terrestrial Natural Montane acidic cliff 1987-06-16 Extant 772 37 1.54
CCommunity
TerresI.?_ Montane oak--brckory forest 2007-I1-01 Extant 1,704.56 3.39%
Terrestrial Nan" --
Montane oak--hickory forest 2007-09-26 Extant 353.83 0.7
Terre,.?- Montane oak--hickory forest 2005-08-12 Extort 1,257.51 2.5%
omumnity
Terrrstnal 'm
Cinstv ane Montoak--hickory forest 20(70-07-26 Extant 1.797 15 3.58!.
TerrestriafCNNMontane oak-hickory forest 1993-11 Extant 71.73 0.14%
'
Terrestrial Natural Montane oak--luckory forest 1993-04-05 Extant 36732 0.73%
Community
TerrestrialN' Montane oak--brckory forest 1992-M 18 Extant 39817 0.79
Community'
Terrestrial Natural Commuritty Montane oak-hickory forest 1"2-M Extant 498.03 0.99!.
TerrestrialNC Montane oak--hickory forest 1992-0420 Extant 148.88 0.3%
QMMRMjty
TeriestriNatwal Pine--oakbeath 2008-04-05 Extant 154.71 0.31%
Community
TeuestrialN Pine--oak/heath 2007-I1-01 Extant 24.43 005%
Terrestrial Natural Pine--oak/heath 2005-08-12 Extant 99599 1.98Coomminity
•:
Terrestrial-'" Pine-oak heath 1993-11 Extant 24.75 0-05%
Terrestrial Natural Puce--oak%rath 1992-08-18 Extant 49.83 01%
Community
' Terrestrial-'tural Pine--oak/heath 1992-04-20 Unranked 580 26 1 15%
ommunstv
Terrestrial Natural Rich cove forest 2007-11-01 Extant 33.01 0 07•.
Commuiim
TerreslriaINpFCty Rich cove forest 1987-06-19 Extant 77237 1.54
TerrestrralN'tur'l U%itc pine forest 2007-11-01 Extant 434 31 0 86°.
Community
Twesatta?_ White pme forest 2005-08-12 Extant 31728 0.63%
' Terrestrial Nonvascular Acrobolbus cihatus A Liverwort 1994-06-21 Extant 42 24 0.08%
Plant
Terrestrulplant'� Btachythecrum robttamtm Rota's Feather Moss 1951406-07 Historic 7.72 0.02%
' Nonvascular
TerrestrialP�t Cheiloleleunra evansu A Liccrwort 1994-07-16 Extant 1 31 0'.%
ular
TerrestriaiP�t'K Cbeitote)eiinn evansii A Liverwort 1956 Historic 12231 0.24%
Nlant onvascular
sc
' TerrestnalP�t Cluloyphus muricatus A liverwort 1989-03-26 Extant 61 79 0 12'-:
asciilar
Terrestrial Chdoscyphus muncatus A Liverwort 1956 Historic 651.49 1.3%
Terrestrial Nom ascuLu Dicranella rufescens Red Fork Moss 1996-PRE Unranked 1.602.77 3 19%
Plant

Terreswl � Dbonchum rhyuchostegwm Ditnchum Moss 1951-06-07 Historic 15 45 0,03%
TemstrulN avascular Drepanolelntnea appalachiana A Liverwort 2005-06-21 Extant 1 93 0'.
pt
Terrestrial�v ascular Drepanolegetmea appalachiaoa A L mwort 1958-07-25 Historic 3.089.47 615%
Terrestrial Nonvascular Dreparioleleunca appalachiana A Uvetwort 1957-07-12 Historic 300.06 0 6°.'.
Plant
Tertesin Nonni ascular Entodon sulhv=u Sullivant's Entodon 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%
PlaTerrestrialonny asculm Entodon sulhvatim Sullivant's Entodon 1987-07 Extant 2 10 0%
pla' TerresenalN�t•ascular Gymnodesma hneare Rock Gnome lichen 2007 E Extant 31 75 0.06%
Teirestnalpin v ascular Gynwodemv hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1996-03-01 E Extant 692 0.01
Terrestrials._t a � Gymnodama hL
aearc Rock Gnome rhm 1992-07-11 E Extant 7102 0.14'/.
Terrestrial lane m
ascular Gymnodera hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1992-07-10 E Extant 923 0.02%
TeriestrialPlant Nonn
Nonvascular Herzogiella turfacea Flat Stump Moss 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%
' TmestnalNouvascular Homahadelphus sbarpu Sharp's Homahadelphus 1959-10-24 Fhstoric 3.089.47 6.15%
Plant
Terrestrial Plant u� Hypoumpro— Meadow Feather Moss 1999-03-24 Extant 7.72 0.02%
Plant
Nonvascular
TcrrestrialPlant Macrocoma sullivantu Sulhvant's Maned-mos-61981 Flistortc 86839 1 73•.
TeriesuialNPla�nt ascular Macrocoma sulhvantu Sulhvmt's Maned-moss 1957-06-26 Historic 239.68 0.48%
TerrestnalNNon asculat Macrocoma sulbvantrt Sullnaat's Maned-moss 1952-07-30 Historic 57923 1 15'.
' on
Terrestna pla t aKular Ncckera compUoata Flat Feather Moss 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%
Terrestrial Nonvascular s Pt»4zIn mchrum Pringle's Water Feather 1987-07 Extant 2.10 01.
PlantMoss
' Terres WNt—ulai Pil..chlum orophynA Moss 1996-09-14 Extant 11.85 0.02%
Plan
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plagiochtla austmu A Liverwort 1961-PRE Historic 1,02696 2.04%
Plant
' TcrestrralPNlm�oscula' Pladila caduc lob. A Liverwort 2007-11-08 Extant 0.48 0%
Terrestriall�N u ascular Plagiochila caducdoba A liverwort 2007-10-16 Extant 1.93 0%
Pt
Terresu _._Vascular Plagiochda caduciloba A Liverwort 2003-08-06 Extant 42.24 0.08%
Terrestrial Nonvascular PUgwchda caduciloba A Liverwort 1994-08-20 Extant 136 0'e
Plant
Te7restrialNPlanonI attu� Plagwchda caductloba A Uvetwort 1994-07-16 Extant 61.15 0.12
Nonvascular
TerrestrialPlant Plagiochila caduciloba A Liverwort 1994-07-08 Extant 3 12 0 01°:
TetreslnalNonvascular Plagiochila cadaciloba A Liverwort 1960-06-14 Historic 8.70 0.02%
' Terrestrial lPlant Plagiochdacadtuiloba A Lica-wort 1955-04-30 Historic 120.80 0.24!.
Ter7estri.1-No -asculac Plagiochila hsdowma A Liverwort 1960-06-14 Historic 9.74 002%
lant
Terrestrial Nonouv asculat Plagiochila hidoviciana A Uverwort 1949-08-25 Hisionc 123 58 0 25
Plan' Terv,_, rPl�-ascular Plagiochila sharper A Liverwort 1995 FSC Extant 30.74 006%
TerrestrialNon ascus Plagiochda sharpii A Liverwort 1994-07-16 FSC Extant 35 79 0 07
Plant
TervesuiaTPlantascular Plagiochda sharp- A Liverwort 1994 FSC Extant 6.09 0.01%
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plagtochila sharp- A Liv'ertvort 1980-PRE FSC Historic 494 32 0 98%
Plant
Nonvascular TertestrulPlant PUgiommum carohnuntim Carolina Star-moss 1996 Extant 1241 0 02%
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plapommum carolmianum Caiolma Stat-moss 1994-08-20 Extant 124 0
Plant
Tcrt ant ascular Platyhypmdmm ripatimdes Lon wed Water 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%

' T
Terrestrnal
PI ,-� Porella wataugensts A Liverwort 1994-06-22 FSC Extant 133 55 027';
Plant
Nonvascular Dark Mountain Fringe' �TerresulmPlant Racomrtnumaaculare Moms 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19 /.
Terrestrial Nons asculz Schlotheimra lanctfolia Highlands Moss 1981-06-08 Histone 3089 0 06%
Plant
asculn
Terreatria Pmt Schlothamn lamctfolia Highlands Moss 1956.11-01 Hipotie 7.72 0.02%
' TerrestrulVasculu Plant Agastache nepetordes Yellow Chant-hyssop 1962-07-27 Historic 2.957.79 5.88'e
Ter>est-uWascularPlant Aspkmumpinnatifidimm Lobed Spleenwon 2007-11-01 Extant 0.62 0%
TerrestrtalVascular Plant Berbens canadensls American Barbrm- 1961-07-05 FLstoric 2.367.21 431'x.
TerrestrialVascular Plant Brachyelytrum anstosum Northam Sborthusk 1997-07-12 Extant 0.08 0%
' TenestrralVascular Plant Brachyehatml anstosunn Northern Shortbusk 1997-07-11 Extant 7 72 002%
TerrestraWasculm Plant Bnchyelytrum anstosum Northam Shorthusk 1997406-23 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TenestrnalVascular Plant Calamagrosys Porten Porte's Reed Grass 1993-10-18 Extant 7.72 0,02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Calamagosus Porten Porter's Reed Grass 1981-08 Destroyed 7.72 0.02%
TerestnalVascular Plant Carex r,dfordtt Radford's Sedge 1993-01-21 FSC Extant 7.72 0,01%
' TerrestrialVasculu Plant Carex woodu Wood's Sedge 1987-05-19 Extant 2.82 0.01%
TarestnafVasculu Plant Dendrolycopodium dendrotdeumPrrckly Ground-pore 1994-04 Extant 3 76 0.01%
TaresaWVascular Plant Dendrolycopoditmm dendrotdeumPrickly Caouod-pine 1958-07-16 Historic 13,767.55 27.39%
TerrestrtalVascuhu Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder 2005-07-08 Extant 285.78 0.57':
TerrestrialVascular Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder 2000-07-26 Extant 8.68 0.02%
TerrestnarVasculu Plant Fothergalla major Large Witch-alder 1999-08-03 Extant 1545 0.03'/
Terrestn"ascular Plant Fwhergilla major Large Witch-alder 1999-06-29 Extant 23.17 0.05%
TenesmaWascular Plant Fothergilla major Targe Witcb-alder 1970-05 Historic 123 58 0.25%
TateshWVascular Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder 1966-06-14 Historic 12359 0.25%
TerrestrtalVascuLu Plant Hackeha sugimana Virginia Stickseed 1968-PRE Historic 68.61 0.14%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Hymenophyllum taylonae Gorge Filmy Fern 2008-09-04 FSC Extant 3.11 0.01%
TerrestnaNascuLu Plant Hymenophyllurn tayloriae Gorge Filmy Fern 1995 FSC Extant 037 0%
Te restriat 'ascular Plant Hymenophyllum tayloriae Gorge Filmy Fem 196607-26 FSC Historic 12.38 0.02%
TenestnalVascuW Plant Lsotria uxdeoloides Small Whorled Pogonu 2005 T Extant 172 002%
' TerrestriafVascular Plant Liatris aspera Rough Blaang-star 1973 Historic 31.44 0.06%
TenestnalVasculx Plant Lutns aspera Rough Blazing-star 1960 Histone 70 77 014%
Tareim"ascular Plant Lystmachw&asert Fraser's Loosestrife 2007-11-08 FSC Extant 8.69 0.02%
TerrestrralVascular Plant Lystmnachu fnsen Fraser's Loosestrife 2007-09-26 FSC Extant 2.41 0%
TmestraNascular Plant Lysurnchia"w" Frames Loowstrife 2007 FSC Extant 7.72 0-02%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Lysrmaclua f-asm Frames Loosestnfe 2006-08-08 FSC Extort 127.05 025%
TerrestriA Vascular Plant Lystmachia fraseri Frames Loosestrife 2006-06-M FSC Extant 525 0.01%
TerestrialVuculm Plant Lysimachu frasen Framer's Loosestnfr 2005-05-25 FSC Extant 3 14 001%
Te restruN ascular Plant Lystmachia&awn Fiawes Loosestrik 2001-06-13 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
TenestrialVascuhtr Plant Lysunrachta frasen Fraser's Loosestrife 1999-07-19 FSC Extant 5.72 0,01%
Terrestrawascular Plant Lysimachia kasen Frames Loosestrife 1998-09-29 FSC Extant 12810 0.25%
TenestrtalVascular Plant Lystmachta frasen Frasces Loosestrife 1997-07-11 FSC Extant 2.11 0':
TarestrulVascvlu Plant Lysimachia Kasen Frames Loosestrife 1997-0624 FSC Extant 54.27 0-11%
TenestrtalVasculu Plant Lysimrachu frasen Fraser's Loosestrife 1997-06-12 FSC Extant 12.25 0.02%
' Tesrest i"ascular Plant Lyamachia frasen Frames Looseshife 1996-07 FSC Extant 34.74 0.07%
TenestriaWasculu Plant Lysintachu frasert Fraser's Loosestnfe 1994-10-20 FSC Extant 772 002%
TarestridVascular Plant Lyumachia hum Framer's Looseshik 1965-0623 FSC Historic 12358 0-25%
TenestrialVasculm Plant Monotropsts odonta Sweet Pine-sap 2008-04-05 FSC Extant 16.41 0.03':
' Terrest ialVascular Plant Monotropsrs odor. Ssreet PineW 2007-03-06 FSC Extant 0.48 0%
TetestrtalVascular Plant Muhlenbergta sobohfera Rock Mutely 1962-08 Histone 34937 07%
Terrestri"ascular Plant Packera-11cf6hum Divide&leaf Ragwort 1992-07-19 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Packera millefolium Divided-leaf Ragwort 1992-05-11 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
Tarest i"ascular Plant Pacima annefoh ma Divided-leaf Ragwort 1992 FSC Ex= 0.40 0%
' Te estnalVascular Plant Packera millefolium Divided-leaf Ragwon 1983-08-04 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02':
Terresui"mcular Plant Robtuta hartwign Hartweg's Locust 1992-07-19 Extant 7.72 0-02%
TerrestrulVascular Plant Robina hnsptda ver.fertilis Fruitful Locust 2007-05-16 Extant 0.48 0
Terrestrwvasculu Plant Sceptriditm jmmauu Alabama Grape-fern 1973-PRE Historic 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Scept idium jmmmu Alabama Grape-fern 1965-PRE Flistoric 1,220.09 2.43%
' Terresu alVasculu Plant Sceptndium jamsann Ahbama Grape-km 1%2-PRE Histone 1,274.86 2.54%
TenestrraWasculm Plant Shortu galactfoha var Southern Oconee Bells 2005-08-02 FSC Extant 1 59 0%
galacifolia
TerrestrialVascular Plant Shorty galaafoha var. Southern Oconee Bells 1999-05-20 FSC Extant 1.59 0!.
galacifolia
' TerresuWVasculm Plant Shortia galacifolu var Southem Oconee Bells 1976-PRE FSC FIrstonc 2541 0.05%
galacifolia
TerrestriafVasculu Plant Shona
1�ifoha vu Southern Oconee Bells 1889 FSC Historic 1,560.81 3.11%
TerrestnalVasculw Plant Sohdago st®rhms Granite Dame Goldenrod 1999-9 FSC Extant 123 58 0.25%
TerrestrialVascuLu Plant Sohdago sinxilans Grantee Dome Goldenrod 1992-08-18 FSC Extant 12359 0-25%
TerresuialVascuhu Plant Thasptum pumatt6dum Mountain Thaspitmm 1842-09 FSC Historic 33,029.89 65.71%
TerresttialVascular Plant Tbermopus f w=folia Ash-leaved GoMm-baoma2007-09-27 Extort 43.95 0.09%
TenestrtaWascuhu Plant Thermopsts fraanmfolia Ash-leaved Golden-banner2007-04-27 Extant 17183 034%
' TerrestrialVascular Plant Thermopsns fraxinifolra Ash-laved Golden-banner 2000-07-26 Extant 838 0.02%

TerrestnalVascular Plaut Thermopsrs hixuufolia Ash-leaved Golden-banner 1999-01-21 Extant 7.72 0.02
TerrestnalVascvlar Plant Thermopsts fraumfolia Ash-leaved Golden-bamer 1978-05-27 Historic 7.72 0.02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Thermopsis fiaxuiifoha Ash-leaved Golden-barmer1977-08-05 Extant 34.76 0.07
TenestriaiVascular Plant Thertnopsis fraxitnfolia Ash-leased Golden-banner Unranked 17.86 0.04%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Trichomanes petersu Dwarf Frbny-fem 1999-08-11 Extant 13.28 0.03%
TetrestrialVascular Plant Tmhomaoes petersu Dwarf Filmy-fem 1987-06 Extant 2.10 0%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Trichomanes permit Dwarf Fibny-fern 1949-08 ffistoric 7.72 002%
' TmesniaiVascular Plant Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-05-20 Extant 2.06 0%
TenestnalVascular Plant Trilbum discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-05-17 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestrigVascular Plant Tnllitmm discolor Mottled Trillitm 1993-05-21 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium 1969 Historic 1,118.84 2.23%
TerrestrialV� 'le Aneides amara Green Salamander 2007-11-16 FSC Extant 25.22 0.05%
'
Terrestrial V� td
ate Anees wrieus Green Salamander 2007-11-01 FSC Extant 949 0.02%•
Vertebrate Tenrsnialmens Attexles aGreen Salamander 2006-11-06 FSC Extant 0.48 0%
Anana' nimal
Terrestrial A Vertebrate Aneides anieiis Green Salamander 2005-10-19 FSC Extant 1059 0 02'0
Terrestrial Vertebrate Aneides amens Green Salwander 2005-10-17 FSC Extant 50.20 0.1%
TcrrestnalAmmal Vertebrate Anodes acneus Green Salamander 2004-10 06 FSC Extant 1580 0.03 4.
TerresuwV� Aneides aeneus Green Salamander 2004 FSC Extant 21.84 0,04%
'
Terrestrial A Vertebrate Aiitides xiieus Green Salamander 2003-11-11 FSC Extant 7 72 0 02mml
•.
Terrestrial rA� Aneides amens Grum Salamander 2003-11-10 FSC Extant 13.28 0.03%
Terrestrial Vertebrate ueidcs incus Green Salamander 2003-11.07 FSC Extant 24073 048%
TerrestrialVertebrate Aneidesameus GrcmSalamaoder 2003-11-03 FSC Eita= 3,089.47 6-15%
Terrestrial yAer� s ae
to Aneideneus Green Salamander 2003-11 FSC Extant 2,203.14 4.38•-a
'
Terrestrial Vertebrate Aneides arrears Caew Salaraaoder 2001 FSC Extant 31.23 0.06%
Aznml
Terrestrial Vertebrate Anerdes aenem Green Salamander 1986-07 FSC Extant 3.089.47 6.15°b
Terrestrial Anima
to Aneidesea
aens Green Salamander 1%2-06 FSC }Lstoric 1,53669 306%
' TerrestrialVe eblate Crotalus bomdus Timber Rattlesnake 1976-06-11 Extant 1,180.18 235°.
ma
Tarestnalvm � m -08-08 Crotalus hodus Timber Rattlesnake 1959Histone 1,593.15 3.17%
' Terrestrialn mal au Loxia cunIffostra pop 1 Cimsbill Southern Walachian Red 2000-06-01 FSC Extant 999559 19 89!°
TarestrialVertebrate Microtus ehrototrhams Southern Rock Vole 1982-PRE FSC Extant 1,390.33 2.77
Amoral carohnensis
Vertebrate Eastern Small-footed TenestnalAMynas leibu 2008-10-13 FSC Extant 1794 004
� Myosis
TerreswalVA� Myohs leyotis
ibu MEastern Small-footed 1994-POST FSC Extant 19,143.84 3809%
TerrestrialVA
tbrate Sylvdagus obscurus Appalachian Cottontail 1961-07 FSC ffistonc 1 ASS 58 2 96°.
' Terrestrials ie Sylvilagus obwurus Appalachian Cottontail 1951-07 FSC Historic 1,445.91 2-98%
Terrestrial VertebrateTbryomanes bewwku altus Appalachian Bmick's 1960-06 FSC Destroved2.371 72 4 72°.
Animal Wren
Wetland Natural High elevation seep 2007-10-16 Extant 0.03 0%
Community
Wetland Natural Rocky bar and sbore 1993-04-05 Extant 478.43 0.95%.
ommuni
Wetland Natural Southern appalac i bog 2007-I1 Extant 6.12 0-01%
Commtmth' (southern subtype)
Weiland Natural Southern appalachtan bog 2006-10-16 Extant 17.40 0.03%
Community (southern subtype)
Wetland C��ty Spray cliff 2007-11-19 Extant 0.06 0%
' Wetland Natural Spray cliff 2007-10-16 Extant 0.06 01.
Commwiity
Wetland Cary Spray cliff 2003-08-15 Extant 1.36 0%
tWetland Natural Spray cliff 1987 Extant 031 01.

' Cotumuruty
Wetland �. i-ascAnetaa sharpu A Liverwort 1955 Historic 772 002%
' Nonvascular
Wetland Plant Hrrocruaua v,vrcolor Gorge Moss 1952-07.30 FSC Histone 1403 0 03'.
Wetland Nonvascular Bryocrurn a vivicolor Gorge Moss 1949408-25 FSC Historic 10.05 0.02%
Plant
'
Wetland Nonvascular
Plant Hryoxiphrum twnrgicirm Sword Moss 1949-08-24 Historic 48627 09716
Wetland PlanBryum npanum Riverside Brytmm 1949-M 17 Historic 1,111.46 2.21%
Wetland Non asculu Cirripbyllum piliferum Long Leaf Mustache Moss 1949-08-25 Historic 3.089.47 6 15Plan °.
Wetland NonvascularplanIhchodoutium m peDuciduTransparent Fork Moss 1951-0607 Historic 93.92 019%
Wetland Nonvasctilu Homalia ttichora,noides Lune Homaha 1959-07-15 Histone 3.089 47 6 151.
Plant
' Wetland Noin-APscular Hormalia trichomanoirim Lime Homaha 1949-08-24 Historic 65126 1.3
lailt
Wetland Nonvascular Le7eunea blomquistu A Liver-wort 1994-08-20 Extant 466 001°•
Plant
'
Weiland Nonvascular
Plant Leleiiixa blomgtusni A liverwort 1994-07-16 Extant 12358 0.25
Wetland Nonvascular Marsupella emargmata var A Liven%oft 1961-PRE Histone 1 23 01.
Plant latiloba
Wetland Nonvascular Plagiochila echm2ta A liverwort 1994-08-20 Extant 1.36 0
' Wetland Nonvascular Plagiochila echinate A Liverwort 1961-PRE Historic 142 30 0 28
Plant
Welland �t ascular Plagrochda,echinata A Iiverwort 1956 Historic 123 58 0.25%
'
Wetland Nonvascular Plagiochda sullivantuer vera A Liverwort 1956 FSC Historic 308947 6 15
Plant sPSR
Wetland Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivaotu vat. A Liverwort 1961-PRE FSC Historic 3.199.30 6.36%
Plant sulh,.-A=
Nonvascular Plagrochila nrginrca ver
Weiland Nonvascular Liverwort 1961-PRE FSC Historic 3.08947 6 15
Plaut carolimam
Weiland Nonvascular Radula sullnanw A Liverwort 2008-04-05 Extant 0.48 0
Plant
Wetland Phi ascular Radula sullivantu A Liverwort 2007-09-26 Extant 1 93 01.
' Wetland Nonvascular Radula sullmanni A Liverwort 2007-09-04 Etctant 12551 0.25%
PlanWeiland Nonni asculai Radula sullivanni A Liverwort 1961-PRE Historic 0.64 01.
Pla' Wetland NonPlanvascular Sphagnum subcectmdnm Orange Peatnwss 1999-04-24 Extant 11.97 0-02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Asplenium monanthes Single-sons Spleenwort 2006-08-19 Extant 386 0.01
Wetland Vascular Plant Carex bmk-p Baiky's Sedge 2007-09-04 Extant 1.93 0%
Wetland Vascular Plant Carex barley, Baileys Sedge 1961-06 Historic 1 13 0%
Weiland Vascular Plant Chelone cuthbetm Cud erVs Turdebead 2007-11-19 FSC Extort 241 0%
Wetland Vascular Plant Helomas bullata Swamp Pink 2004-05-19 T Extant 0.52 0 S.
Wetland Vascular Plant Hupam porophrla Rock Fir-clubmoss 1995 Extant 7.72 0.02
Wetland Vascular Plant Huperna porophila Rock Fit-clubnross 1987-10 Historic 7.72 0.02%
' Wetland Vascular Plant Huperzia porophila Rock Fci3ubmoss 1971-01 Extant 7.72 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant pPra P2UPCrcula var Balsam Ragwort 1961-06 Historic 2.943.78 5.86%
Wetland Vascular Plant Parnassu grandrfolia ��ved Grass-of- 1984-08 FSC Extant 3.09947 6.15%
Weiland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyt Pink-shell Azalea 2008-10-27 Extant 048 0
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyt Pork-shell Azalea 20074)416 Extant 43.45 0.09%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyr Pink-shell Azalea 1996-03-01 Extant 375.64 0.75%
Weiland Vascular Plant Rhododendron v-Aseyi Pick-shell Azalea 1994-05-10 Extant 309.03 0.61%
Weiland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vueyi Pink-still 4zalea 1992-05-I1 Extant 7.72 0.02
Wetland Vascular Plant Rbododeadran%-meyi Pink-shell Azalea 1987-05-07 Extant 7.72 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyr Pink-shell.4221ea 1976-PRE Historic 3.08947 6,15%
Weiland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea 1970-05-12 Historic 1,300.16 2.59%
Wetland Vascular Plant Sohdago uhgmosa Bog Goldenrod 1962-08 Historic 1.220.09 243%
' Wetland veftebl to Glyptemys mulikubergu Bog Turtle 1990 T(S/A) Historic 19.184.12 3817%
Wetland `An mal to Glyptemys�rhlenbergu Bog Turtle 1951-01-01 T(SIA) Historic 2.39046 4 76%
TOTAL: 249.023.97 495-42%
' NHEO

Tye Cate=on- Scientific Natie C�Name Last Federal EO Tetai Area Pe�of
Observafiw Status States (MCM) Mea
Invertebrate
Aquatic C'
Aninnl ambanis chaugaeusis Chauga Crayfish 2001-07-25 Extant 3 68 001'.
Invertebrate
Aquatic Animal Cainbartn a»ga chaugamsis ChCrayfish 2001-07.23 Extant 5 13 001%
Invertebrate
Aquatic Aminal Cambarus chaugaensis Chauga Crayfish 1988-08-09 Extant 9.01 0.02'.
' Invertebrate French Broad Riser
Aquatic mal Cray
Cambarus reburrus fish 2001-07-25 FSC Extant 3.6E 0.01%.
Ani
Invertebrate French Broad River
Aquatic Arnnul C'ambarusrebumis Crayfish 1977-06-27 FSC Extant 16.931-78 33.68
1 Aquatic Invertmate Dnmella lata a mayfly 1994-07-25 Extant 5.13 0-01
Animal
Aquatic Nota asculai Ephebe lariata Rockshag Lichen 1955-10-92 Histone 1,602.77 3 19'.
PlanNonvascular
' Aquatic Plant Ephebe solids A Rockshag Lichen 2007-11-19 Extant 1.93 0'/.
Aquatic PNonnf asculu Ephebe sohda A Rockshag Lichen 2007-09-04 Extant 1432 0.03'4
Aquatic on �asc` Wamstorfia fltntans Floating Sickle-moss 1949-09-22 Historic 30.39 0-06%
' Aquatic t�Nlate Etheostoma inscriptum Turquoise Darter 2000-07-15 Extant 1064 002..
Aquatic mate Hybopsis rubritrans Rosyfxe Chub 1995-09-18 Extant 15.56 0.03%
'
Aquatic Vertebrate
Animal bLcroptcniscoosx Redeye Bass 2000-07-I5 Extant 614 0.01':
Aquatic AVerOWARC Notropis m
lutrpms Yellowfin Shines 1991-PRE Extant 26,549.76 52 82%
nirriVertebrate
' Aquatic Animal Percina nigrofascuta Blackbanded Darter 2000-06-25 Extant 1 29 0..
TerrestrialtFly
Ia�ate Eulonchus manahax Mary Alice's Scull-headed 1966-08-02 Historic 1,021.19 2-03%
Te restrrafCoa munity Acidic cove forest 2007-11 Extant 1910 0.04%
' TerrestriaiC�hy Acidic cove forest 2007-03-20 Extant 12234 024%
Terrestrial Natural Acidic cove forest 2005-08-12 Extant 113909 2.27%
Community
' TwestrialNC�ty Acidic cove forest 2000-07-26 Extant 1,526.06 3.04%
TerrestrialNa=al Acidic cove forest 1999-05-31 Extant 281 13 0.56%
�
Cocnmtnrt-
Terrestrial-C� v Acidic cove forest 1992-08-I8 Extant 199 32 0.4%
' Terrestrial Natural Acidic cove forest 1987-06-19 Extant 77237 154
Commtinm
anual
TerrestrialC Canada hemlock forest 1993-11 Extant 29.97 0.06%
' TerreserialNommatural y Canada hemlock forest 199'-08 Extant 4983 0 1•.
Terrestrial Natitral Carolina hemlock bluff 2007-09-05 Extant 0.03 0
' Terrestrial Natural Carolina hemlock bluff 1993-08 Extant 34 71 007".
Comp
ni ity
Terrestraal!—'atural Chestnut oak forest 2007-09-26 Extant 593 38 1.18
community
Terrestna N-t tura! Chestnut oak forest 2007-09-05 Extant 35637 0 71%
mmunity
Ter estrtslC� Chestnut oak forest 2005-08-12 Extant 1.257.51 25%
ty
Terrestrialc�unity Chestnut oak forest 2000-07.26 Extant 299.06 0.59%
Tamataf aft" Heath bald 1993-06 Extort 14.92 0.03%
Community
TerrestrialNatmal High dn•ation graaibc dome 1993-08 Extant 4496 0 09%
CommumtN
Terrestrial Nan" High elevation granitic dome 1992M-18 Extort 77237 154%
Community
Terrestnalcomm t High elevation granitic dome 1992-04-20 Extant 64495 1 28°.
TenestrwN� High Elevation Red Oak Forest 2007-09-05 Extant 90425 1.8',4
1

' TerrestrialNaal High tltvznon rocks sxxminit 2007-11-01 Extant 23 74 0 05°o
77Commumty
TerresttnaTC=.ty High elevation rocky summit 2007 09-05 Extant 0.03 0%
Terrestrial Natural Low dev-Ation granitic done 1987 Unranked 357 54 0 71'o
Commumty
TerrestnaJ"turalMontane acidic cliff 2008-04 Extant 0.15 0%
' Terrestrial co�l Montane acidic cliff 2007-11-01 Extant 16 55 0 03 4.
Terrestrial Natural Moubtle acidic cliff 2003-08-15 Eittant 12.66 003%
commungy
TerrestrWN��ty Montane acidic cliff 1987-06-16 Extant 772 37 1 54°.
Terrestrial aft" Mootaae oak-hickory forest 2007-11-01 Extant 1,70456 3,39%
TefrestnaiNarwal Montane oak--hickory forest 2007-09-26 Extant 353.83 0 7
' IVCommumty
Termeria! aunity Montane oak-lnckory forest 2005-08-12 Extant 1,257.51 25%
Terresu-1aiNanual Montane oak--hickory forest 2000-07-26 Extant 1.797 15 3 58%
Community
ommu
' Terres".?vlMontane oak--hickory forest 1993-11 Extant 71.73 0.14%
Community
Terrest .IN-� Montane oak--hickory forest 1993-04-05 Extant 367 32 0 73ity
•°
' Terrestr_" Montane oak--hickory forest 1992-08-I8 Extant 398 17 0.79%
Terres"Nar l Montane oak--hickory forest 1992-08 Extant 49801 0991.
Commumw
Terres,22—al Montane oak-hick y forest 1992-04-20 Extant 14899 0 3%
Commumty
Terrestrial Natwal Pme--oak/htath 2008-04-05 Extant 154 71 0 31°a
CNNommumty
TarestrssfC Pins-oak/hcath 2007-11-01 Extant 2443 0.05%
' Tefrestrd-'a Pane--oak/heath 2005-08-12 Extant 995 99 1.98
ommunity
Tefres,2- Pins--oa I a& 1993-11 Extant 2475 0.05%
' Terrestrial'Na qty --
Pmeoakbeath 1992-08-18 Extant 4983 01
TerrestrwNattzral Pme-oak/heath 1992-04-20 Unranked 580 26 1.15%
TeffestriaLl Natural Rich cove forest 2007A 1-01 Extant 33 01 0 07Commumtv
•,
' TerrestnafN�- Rich cove forest 1987-06-19 Extant 77237 154%
TetresUTA)CoC�m Whrte Pint forest 2007-11-01 Extant 434 31 0 86%
' TerrestnafC�� White pine forest 2005-08-12 Extant 31729 0,63%
TerrestriA u alar Acrobolbus ciliams A Liver"ort 1994-06-21 Extant 42 224 0 08%
Plant
Noovascular
Ttireslr=PP�� Brachrythecium rotaeanum Rou's Feather Moss 1951-06-07 Pistons 7 72 002%
TerresuiaCP�t molar Cbeilolerimea evansu A 1lverwort 1994-07-16 Extant 1 31 0•.
��..77oncascular
Tefresttialp Cheiloleleiaea ecansii A I ivetwort 1956 liistonc 122 31 0.24
lant
TerrestrialP ��lu Chiloscnuyphus ncams A Liverwort 1989-03-26 Extuv 61 79 0 1 °
2 .
Tmesft=l .t ascul� Chiloseyphus wasu2nis A Liverwort 1956 1-listonc 65149 1.3%
'
TefreslrNonvascular
talPPlant Ihcranella rufrscens ftcd Fork Moss 1996-PRE [Unranked 1.60'77 3 19°.
Terrestr1wP�t ascular Dinxhum rhynchostegium Dttnchum Moss 1951-06-07 Histone 15.45 0.03%
Nonvascular
TerrestnalPlant Dtepaiwleletitea appalacliana A Liverwort 2005-W21 Extant 1.93 0'.
ascular
Terrestria pbw Drepanolejetwea appalachima A Liverwort 1958-07-25 Historic 3,089.47 6.15%
TerrestrwNonvascular Drepanole)euoea appalwhiaoa A liverwort 1957-07-12 Historic 300.06 0.6%
Plant
1

1
' Tenestrulp �ascuhr Erttedon sttllivwtu Stilhta.e,Entodon 1996 PRE Unranked 1.602 77 119%
Terrestrial Entodon sullnanht Sulhvanes Entodoo 1987-07 Extant IO 0
' Plant
Terrestriai�i-ascular Gymoodernu hnnre Rock Gnome Lichen 2007 E Extant 3175 006%
TetrestrulNoncasculas Gymmderma hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1996-03-01 E Extant 692 0 01%
Plant
' Tesrestr a_ons ascular Gymaoderma hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1992-07-11 E Extant 71.02 0.14%
PlanTerrestrial Notivascular Gymnoderma hneare Rock Gnome Lichen 1992-07-10 E Extant 923 0 02•.
Plant
' Terrestrralp ��ascular Herzogiella ttrfacea Flat Sttttrtp Moss 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%
TernstrialpN�oni ascular Hontaludelphus sharpu Sharp's Homaltadelphus 1959-10-24 Historic 3,08947 6 15
Tenestrialp��ascular Hypnum pratmse Meadow Feather Moss 1999-03-24 Extant 7.72 0.02•i:
' TerrestnalNonvascular Macrocoma sulltvanw Sullnant s Maned-moss 1984 Htstonc 86839 1 73Plant
•°
TerrestrialP�ascular Macrocoma sulh-antu Sul isant's Maned-moss 1957-06-26 Historic 239.68 0.48
' Terrestrial PNonlanascular Macrocoma sullivantu Sullivant's Marred-moss 1952-07-30 Hrstonc 57923 1 15;.
T..9nZ_- ascular Neckca comphnata Flat Feather Moss 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19
rmt
Nonvascular Pringle's Water Feather Trnestr'alPlant Oxynhynchium prtngln Moss 1987-07 Extant 2 10 0!°
Tates>riatp O°t Pilomian chlorophylh>m A Moss 1996-09-14 Extant 11.85 002%
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plageochila austtnu A Lverwort 1961-PRE Historic 1.02696 2 04°.
' Plant
Terrestrial p �ascuJa Phgiochila caduciloba A Liverwort 2007-11-08 Extant 0.48 0:a
TenestrulNonvascular Plagtochila caducdoba A liverwort 2007-10-16 Extant 1 93 0'°
Plant
' TerresuialpNononfascular Plagiochda caduciloba A Liverwort 2003-08-06 Extant 42.24 0.08
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plagrochila caducdoba A Liverwort 1994-08-20 Extant 136 0•.
Plant
' TerrestriolpN�°D�ascular Phgiochila caduciloba A Liverwort 1994-07-16 Extant 61.15 0.12%
Terrestrial Nonvascular Plagiochila caduciloba A Liverwort 1994-07-08 Extant 3 12 001
NPlant
T=1t 1ralp�t auu� Plagrochila caduciloba A Liverwort 19604)614 Historic 8.70 0 02
' TerrestnalNontascular Plagrochrla caduciloba A liverwort 1955-04-30 Historic 120.80 0 24°.
Plant
Terrestrta[p,L-asculm Plagiochila hdmiciana A liverwort 1960-0614 Histonc 9.74 0.02
Nonvascular
TerrestrtalPlant Plagiochila htdotrcrana A Liverwort 1949-08-25 Historic 123 56 0 25
TenestrialNonvascular Plagwchih shatpu A Liverwort 1995 FSC Extant 30.74 0.06%
Plant
Nonvascular
' TenestrialP�t Liverwort sharper A Lrcwort 1994-07-16 FSC Extant 35 79 007%
Ttu� Plagiochila sharpii A Ltvawext 1994 FSC Extant 6.09 001%
effes"121PI
TerresvulNonnPlat ascular Plagtochtla sharps A Liverwort 1980-PRE FSC Historic 494 32 0.98•e
Terresulalp�ascular Plagxm=um caroluumunt Carohrra Sia-moss 1996 Extant 12.41 0.02%
TerrestnalNNonvascular Plapommumcaroltnranum CarohnaStar-moss 1994-08-20 Extant 124 0Plant
'e
Tetres. NontascuLar Platyhypnidumnparioides Long-beaked Waw 1996-PRE Unrmked 1,602.77 3.19%F
Terrestrial Nonvascular Porella w•ataugensrs A Liverwort 1994-06-22 FSC Extant 133 55 0.27%
Plant
Terrestrial Nonvascular Racomrtrtum acaculare Dark Mountain Fringe 1996-PRE Unranked 1,602.77 3.19%
Plait Moss
Terrestrial Non ascular Schlothermta lancrfolta Highlands Moss 1981-06-08 HLstonc 30.89 006%
Plant
Tenesatarplant ascular Schlodusu is laocifolis Highlands Moss 195611-01 Historic 7.72 0.02%

TerrestnalVascular Plant Agastache nepetotdes Yellow Gran-hti5sop 1962-07-27 Historic 295719 5.88'.
TarestnalVascular Plant Asplenium ptmaufidum Lobed Splemwort 2007-11-01 Extant 0.62 0%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Berbens canadensts American Barberry 1961-07-05 Historic 2.36721 4.71!:
TerrestrialVascular Plant Brachyelytrum aristosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-07-12 Extant 0.08 0%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Brachvelvtrum anstosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-07-11 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestrudVascular Plant Brach)elytrum anstosum Northern Shorthusk 1997-06-23 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TenestriaN'2scular Plant Calauugrostis porter Porter's Reed Crass 1993-10-18 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TarestruNlascular Plant Calamagrosns portm Porter's Reed Grass 1981-08 Destroyed 7.72 0,02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Carex radfotdu Radford's Sedge 1993-05-21 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02
TerrestrialVascular Plant Carex woodu Wood's Sedge 1987-05-19 Extant 2.62 0-01%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Dendrolycopodium dendroideumPnckly Ground-pine 1994-04 Extant 3 76 0.01%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Dendrolycopodium dendroideumPncYly Ground-pane 1958-07-16 Historic 13.767.55 27.39%
TerrestrtalVascular Plant Fothe gills major Large Wath-alder 2005-07-08 Extant 285 78 0,57%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Fothergilb major Large Witch-alder 2000-07-26 Extant 8.68 0.02%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Fothergilb major Large Witch-alder 1999-08-03 Extant 15.45 0,03%
TerrestnaWascular Plant Fothergd1a major Large Witch-alder 1999-06-29 Extant 23.17 005%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Fothetedla major Large Witcb-alder 1970-05 Historic 123 58 025%
' TerrestrialVascular Plant Fothagilla major Large Witch-alder 1966-06-14 Historic 12358 0.25%
TerrestnatVascular Plant Hackeha t•urmram Vtrginia Shckseed 1968-PRE Historic 68.61 0.14%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Hymenophyllum taylonae Gorge Filmy Fan 2008-09-04 FSC Extant 3.11 0-01%
TerrestriaR'ascular Plant Hymenophyllum taylorue Gorge Filmy Fern 1995 FSC Extant 037 0%
Terrmtri"ascular Plant Hymanophyllum uyloriae Gorge Filmy Fan 1966-07-26 FSC Historic 12.38 0,02%
' TerresmalVascular Plant lsotna medroloides Small Whorled Pogotua 2005 T Extant 7.72 0 02':
TarestrialVascular Plant Liatns aspera Rough Blaaog-star 1973 Historic 31.44 0.06%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Lias aspera Rough Blazing-star 1960 Historic 70.77 0.14%
TOWSMa MC11br Plant Lysimachia 5asen Frames Loosestrife 2007-11-08 FSC Extant 8.69 0.02%
' TenestrtaNascular Plant Lysimachia frown Frasers Looscstnfe 2007-09-26 FSC Extant 241 0
Tarestriawncular Plant Lysimachia 5asm Frames Loosestrife 2007 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnaNascular Plant Lysimachta frasen Fraser's Loosestrife 2006-08-08 FSC Extant 127.05 025%
TarestrWVascular Plant Lysimachia frasen Frames Loosestnfe 2006-06.06 FSC Extant 5.25 0.01%
Terres=Wasculat Plant Lysimachta frasen Fraser's Loosestrife 2005-05-25 FSC Extant 3 14 001%
' Tarest ialVascular Plant Lytimathia frasen Frames Laosextrife 2001-06-13 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnaNascular Plant Lysimachra frasen Fraset's Loosestrife 1999-07-19 FSC Extant 5 72 001%
Tatestri"ascubc Plant Lyusnatc2ua frasen Frames Loosestrife 1998-09-29 FSC Extant 12910 0.25%
TerrestrraNascular Plant Lysimachu frasen Fraser's Loosestnfe 1997-07-11 FSC Extant 2 11 0.4
TarestrWVascular Plant Lysimachia frasen Frames Loosestrife 1997-06-24 FSC Extant 54.27 0.11%
' TerrestrtatVascular Plant Lysmtachra frasen Frasds L.00sestnfe 1997-06-12 FSC Extant 12.25 002%
TenestrialVascular Plant Lysmnchia fiasm Frames Loosestrife 1996-07 FSC Extant 34.74 0.07%
TenestnatVascular Plant Lysrmachta frasen Fraser's Loosestrife 1994-10-20 FSC Extant 7.72 0-02'.
TarestriaiVascular Plant Lysimachia frasen Framer's L.00sesude 1965-06-23 FSC Historic 12358 025%
' TenestnatVascular Plant Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pmessp 2008-04-05 FSC Extant 1641 0,03%
TarestrialVascular Plant Momtropsis adorata Sweet Pmesap 2007-03-06 FSC Extant 0.48 0%
TerrestrtalVasculat Plant Muhlenbergia sobolifera Rock Muhly 1962-08 Historic 34937 07%
TenestrialVascular Plant Pathan millefolium, Divided-leaf Ragwort 1992-07-19 FSC Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestrtatVascular Plant Packera tmllefohum Divided-leaf Ragwort 1992-05-11 FSC Extant 7.72 002%
' TenestrWVascu.ar Plant Packera millefohum Dnvled-LeafRagwort 1992 FSC Extant 0.40 0.6.
TerrestrtaNascular Plant Packera mrUefohum Dntded-leaf Ragwort 1983-08-04 FSC Extant 7 72 0 02%
Terrest WVwcubr Plant Robina hartw•rgii Hartweg's Locust 1992-07-19 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnatVascular Plant Robtma htsptda sar feruhs Fruitful Locust 2007-05-16 Extant 0.48 0%
TerrestriarVascular Plant Scepauhum jenmanit Alabama Grape-fern 1973-PRE Histone 7.72 0-02%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Sceptndrum jenmzw Alabama Gape-fem 1965-PRE Histone 1,220V9 2.43%
TarestrialVascular Plant Sceptruhuna jennamn Alabama Grape-fern 1962-PRE Hrsmrie 1.274.86 2-54%
TerrestrulVascular Plant Shona galactfoln vat Southern Oconee Bells 2005-08-02 FSC Extant 159 0%
galacifolia
Shartia gala i foha t-M.
TenestrialVaseulu Plant Southern Oconee Bills 1999-05-20 FSC Extant 159 0%
ln
TenestrtaR'ascular Plant S6oruogalacifolu vat Southern Oconee Bells 1976 PRE FSC Htstonc 2541 0.05 S.
galactfolia
TerrestraiVascular Plant Sboirtia galacifo foha vat. Southern Oconee Bells 1889 FSC Histonc 1,560.81 3-11%
lza
TerrestrialVascular Plant Sohdago srmulans Granite Dome Goldenrod 1999-9 FSC Extant 123 58 025%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Soh&go simrlans Grande Dome Goldenrod 1992-08-I8 FSC Extant 123 58 0.25%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Thasptumptnnattfidum Mountain Thasptum 1842-09 FSC Historic 33,029.89 65.71%
TerrestuWascubr Plant T'hamopsis fiaxinfolia Ash-leaved Golden-baooer2007-09-27 Extant 43.95 0.09%
' TenestrtalVascular Plant Thermopsis fraxmifolta Ash-leaved Golden-b2nner200744-27 Extant 171.83 0.34%
Te restriaWascubr Plant Thennopsis fraximfolia Ash-leaved Golden-bmner2000-07-26 Extant 8.38 0.02%
TenestrtaNascular Plant Tbennopsts fraxmifol,a Ash-leaved Golden-banner 1999-07-21 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TaresenatVascular Plant Thermopsis fraximfoha Ash-leaved Golden-banner 1978-05-27 Historic 7.72 0.02%
TertestrtalVascular Plant Tl nmopsts framnifoha Ash-laved Goldin-banter 1977-08-01 Extant 34.76 0,07%
Tarestriaivascubr Plant Tbeimopsrs fi"=foha Ash-leaved Golden4ianner Umaoked 17.86 0.04%
TerrestrialVascular Plant Tnchomanrs petersti Dwarf Filmy-fern 1999-08-11 Extant 1328 0 03%
Tertxsttiaivascular Pont Tnchomaoes pets sii Dwarf Filmy-fern 1987-06 Extant 2.10 0%
TerrestrtatVascular Plant Tnchomanes petersii Dwarf Filmy-fem 1949-08 Historic 7 72 0 02%
' TarestrWVasculu Plant Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-01-20 Extant 206 0%

1
Terrestr.alVascular Plant Trilbum discolor Mottled Trillium 1999-05-17 Extant 7.72 0.02•,4
TerrestrulVascular Plant Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium 1993-05-21 Extant 7.72 0.02%
TerrestnalVascular Plant Trillium.discolor Mottled Trillium 1969 Histone 1.118.84 223%
' TerrestrialVertebratetto Aneides aeneus Green Salamander 2007-11-16 FSC Extant 25.22 0.05%
TerrestnalVate Aneides aeneus Green Salamander 2007-11-01 FSC Extant 949 0.02Animal
°.
' TerrestrialVerteate Aneides aureus Green Salamander 2006-11-06 FSC Extant 048 0%
Terrestrial Vertebrate Anodes acneus Green Salamander 2005-10.19 FSC Extant 10 59 0.02•..
VertebraTerrestrial to Aneidesaeneus Green Salamander 2005-10-17 FSC Extant 50.20 01
' Terrestrialy�tt�ate Andes aeneus Green Salamander 2004-10-06 FSC Extant 15.80 0.03%
Terrestrial
ate Aneides aeteus Green Salamander 2004 FSC Extant 21.84 0,04%
TerrestrialAn,
Vertebrate Anodes aeneus Green Salamander 2003-11-1I FSC Extant 7 72 002•.
TerresttialVV Aneides aerie s. Green Salamander 2003-11-10 FSC Extant 13.28 0-03%
' TerrestnalAnnual Vertebrate .4nades aeneus Green Salu.ander 2003-11-07 FSC Extant 1-4073 0 48"e
TerrestrialVV Aneides aeneirs Greta Salamander 2003-I1-03 FSC Extant 3.089.47 6.15%
Terrestrial V �tr Anerdes aenrus Green Salamander 2003-11 FSC Extant 2.203 14 4 38
Amm'
Terrestrial Vertebrate
Aneides amens Green Salamander 2001 FSC Extant 31.23 0.06
Terrestrialy�ate Aneides aureus Green Salamander 1986.07 FSC Extant 3.09947 6 15%
' Terrestrial�to Aneides aeneus Green Salamander 1962-06 FSC Historic 1.536.69 3.06%
Terrestriall�ylate Crotalus homdus Timber Rattlesnake 1976-06-11 Extant 119018 235%
Terrestrialte Crotalus horun ridTimber Rattlesnake 1959-08-08 Historic 1,593.15 3.17
' TattstrW An,
Vertebrate C
Loxia can-irostra pop I Southern Appalachian Red 2000-06-01 FSC Extant 9.995 59 19.89!

' Plant
Nonvascular
Wetland PlantBryum riipanum Riverside Bryum 1949 08-17 Historic 1,111.46 211%
'
Wetland Nonvascular
Plant Currphyllum pihferum Long Leaf Mustache Moss 1949-08-25 }iistaetc 3,089.47 6 15".
Wetland Nonvascular Dichodontium pellucidum Transparent Fork Moss 1951-06-07 Historic 93.92 0.19%
Plant
Nonvascular
' Wetland Plant Homalia truboniaioides Lune Honulia 1959-07-15 Historic 3.089.41 6 151.
Wetland Print ascular Homaha trichomanondes Lime Homaha 1949-08-24 Historic 65126 1.3%
Wetland Nonascula m
Leleunea bloquistu A Liverwort 1994-08-20 Extant 4.66 0.01Pt
:.
Wetland Nonvascular Lejeunea blomquistu A Liverwort 1994-07-16 Extant 123 58 0.25%
Plant
Wetland Nonvascular MasupeW emarguiata va A Liverwort 1961-PRE Historic 123 0%
Plant lattloba
Nom.asculaz
Wetland Plant Plagiochila etAinata A Liverwort 1994-08-20 Entrant 1.36 0%
Wetland Nonvasculat Plagiochilaectimata ALiverwort 1961-PRE Historic 14230 0.28''.
Plant
Wetland Plmtascular Plagiochda echwata A liverwort 1956 Historic 12359 0-25%
' Weiland Nonvascular Plagiochila sulln-antu var A laveruort 1956 FSC Historic 3.08947 6 15%
Plant spiwgera
Wetland Nonvascular Plagiochila sullivatmi var. A Liverwort 1961-PRE FSC Historic 3,199.30 6.36%
' Plant sulhvantu
a&cular
NonvPlagiochila tvgimca vat •
Plant caroluuam
Wetland ALiverwort 1961-PRE FSC Historic 3.089.47 6.15 /.
Wetland PNonont•ascula Radula sullivantn A Liverwort 2008-04-05 Farhat 0.48 0%
' Nonvascular
Wetland Plant Radula sutlnanhi A Liverwort 2007-09-26 Extant 193 0'.
Wetland Norivasculm Radula sullisantii A Liverwort 2007-09-04 Extant 125 51 0.25%
Plain
Wetland Nonvascular Radula sulhvantn A Liverwort 1961-PRE Historic 0.64 0%
' Plant
Wetland N a vascular Sphagnum subsecamdum Orange Peamrns 1999-04-24 Extant 11.97 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Asplemum monanthes Suigle-solus Spleenwort 2006-08-19 Extant 386 001%
' Wetland Vascular Plant Caroc baileys Baileys Sedge 2007-09-04 Extant 1.93 0%
Wetland Vascula Plant Carex baileys Bailey's Sedge 1961-06 hlistonc 1 13 0%
Wetland Vascular Plant Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert s Turdebrad 2007-I1-19 FSC Extant 2.41 0%
Wetland Vascula Plant Helomas bullata Swamp Pink 2004-05-19 T Extant 052 0%
Wetland Vascular Plant Haperaa porophila Rock Fr-elubmoss 1995 Extant 7.72 0.02%
' Wetland Vascular Plant Huperna porophda Rock Fitclubmoss 1987-10 1-Lstoric 772 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Hupazia porophila Ruck Fr-lubmoss 1971-01 Extant 7.72 0.02%
Weiland Vascula Plant P ��"�vat Balsam Ragwort 1961-06 Historic 2-943 78 586%
Wetland Vascular Plant Punassia gra addolia Large-
P �Grass-of 1984-08 FSC Extant 3,089.47 6-15%
' Wetland Vascula Plant Rhododendron vase" Punk-shell Azalea 2008-10-27 Extant 0.48 0%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pmk-shell Azalea 2007-04-16 Extant 43.45 0.09%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea 1996-03-01 Extant 375.64 0.75%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pmk-shell Azalea 1994-05-10 Extant 309.03 0.61%
' Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-sbcll Azalea 1992-05-11 Extant 7 72 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pick-shell Azalea 1987-05-07 Extant 7.72 0.02%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea 1976-PRE Historic 3,089.47 6.15%
Wetland Vascular Plant Rhododeiidron vaseyi Pick-sbell Azalea 1970-05-12 Historic 1,300.16 2.59%
Wetland Vascula Plant Sohdago uligmosa Bog Goldenrod 1962-08 Historic 1 220 09 243%
Wetland Vertebrate Glyptemys mrhlenbergu Bog Turtle 1980 T(S/A) Histaric 19,184.12 39.17%
Aminal
Wetland Vertebrate Glyptemys muhlenbergu Bog Turtle 1951-01-01 T(S/A) historic 2.390.46 4,76%
AninTOTAL249,023.97 495.42%
Significant Natural Heritage Area
rum ._� Sbelffimaw(*A*md Jmpwft it)Owows W IrMdAm(naw)lM eWofAnn
Chanooga River Gorge/Ellicon Rock A USFS 97757 175%
Dulany Bog B NCPCP,USFS,HBF.PRV 49.05 0.1%
Ellicott Mountain Pogonia Site B PRV 5 26 001'.
High HamptonlChattooga Ridge Natural Arca B PRV 500.09 0.99%
Horsepasnue Rrt"er Gorge A USFS.NCDPR.PRV,NCWRC 2,957.79 5.88%
Little Terrapm Mountain Cliffs C PRV,USFS 8935 0,19%
' Nix Mountain D PRV 17429 035%

Rainy Knobs C USFS.PRV 74.49 0.15%
Savamtah Rita Headwaters Aquatic Habitat B PW 77.33 0.15%
Silva Run Preserve/Sassalras Mountain C INC,PRV,USFS 4,157.98 9.27%
' Terrapin Mountain B USFS 1,38623 2.76%
Thompson River Gorge B PRV,USFS 3,317.88 6.6%
Thompson Riva Headwater Bog C PRV 45.1 1 0.09
Whitewater River Falls and Gorge A USFS 1.602.77 3.19%
TOTAL 15.315.21 30.47%
' USFWS Critical Habitat
No Records Found
Audobon Important Bird Area
Nana Total Mea(scary lraoalogA*n
' Blue Ridge Escarpment Gorges 3.502 18 6.97%
Highlands Plateau 16.770.57 3336%
TOTAL 20.272 76 40 33'/.
' Hydrologic Features
Trout Designated Waters
Shwa Nt ramiAmok(tsetlas)
' Ut 16.094
F
Fowler Creek 13.263
Whitewater River 12,018
Thompson River 9,485
Chattooga Riva(Cashiers Lake) 6,454
' Horsepasture River(Lupton,Sapphire Lake) 6,265
5.541
Silver Run Crede 4,848
Scotsman Creek 4.762
Horsepastvre River 3.403
Democrat Creek 3201.
Corbin Creek 3,085
East Fork Chattooga River 3041
Nu Creek 2,642
' Little Whitewater Creek 2.603
Nicholson L cklog Creek 2,476
Rind Branch 1.946
Chester Branch 1,715
Burlingame Creek 1.655
' Bryson Branch 1,573
Fowler Creek(Hampton Lake) 1,549
Waddle Branch 1,508
Bad Creek 1.370
Intake Branch 1,144
' Jacks Creek 1,090
Green Creek 414
TOTAL 113,144
DWQ Impaired Waters lines
' No Records Found
DWQ Impaired Waters poIN.gons
No Records Found
HUC Bonn
1 NUC 10 zi. RUC112 sami IMAM(setts) 13raseet elMm
Savannah Seneca Headwaters Keower River-lake locassee Whitewater River 27,693 90 55.1%
Savannah Tugd w Cbattooga River Reed Geek-Chanooga River 8.760.07 17.43%
Savannah Seneca Headwaters Keowee River-Lake locassee Horsepasture River 7,084.21 14.09%
Savannah Tugaloo Chattooga River Headwaters Chattoga River 5,198.99 10.34%
Savannah Seneca Little River-Lake Keower Flat Shoals River 1,274.48 2.54%
Savannah Seneca Headwaters Keowee River-Lake locassee Outlet Toaaway River 253.75 0.5%
TOTAL: 50,265.40 100%
Streams 24k
Name Ti�M>E�114.t
62,802
Fowler Creek 14,248
Whitewater River 13.000
Thompson River 12,094
CHATTOOGA RIVER 8,096
Horsepastme River 7,227
Horsepasture River(Lupton lake.Sapphire Lake) 6,221
Silver Rin Creek 4,999
Scotsman Creek 4,848
1

tBearcamp Creek 4,802
Democrat Creek 3.258
Corbis Creek 3,179
' East Fork Chattooga Ricer 3.177
Little Whitewater Creek 2,662
Nix Creek 2,604
Nicholson Licklog Creek 2,467
Burlingame Creek 2.377
' Rrid Branch 1,9%
Bryson Branch 1,789
Chester Branch 1,737
Waddle Branch 1.505
' Fowler Creek(Hampton Lake) 1,494
Bad Creek 1.362
Int Branch 1,282
Jacks Creek 1.102
Coley Creek 855
' Green Creek 422
TOTAL: 171,606
Dams
Nmmo �: Faatttres
sapphire Lake Lower Dam Horsepasnire River 400 1
Hampton Lake Dam Fowler Creek 280 1
Hanks Dam Fowler Creek 125 1
huermont Dam Burlingame Creek 117 1
Sapphire Lake Upper Dam Nix Creek 70 I
Siher Springs Dam Silver Run Cr-Tr 65 1
Cranston Pond Dam Green Creek 33 l
George Sage Dom East Fork Chattoop River 25 1
Lake Pickens Dam Thompson River 24 1
Lake Roberti Dam Lade Whitewater Creek 18 1
Sassafras Ridge Dam 9 1
Glenheather Dam Fowler Creek-Tr 7 1
Hampton Golf Co Pond Dam Fowler Creek 4 1
TOTAL: 13
' rational Wetlands Inventory
WsAaad Tyre NWI Cods TSWAna(aces) lacami afArsa
Lake L 1 UBHh 334.41 067%
Freshwater Pond PUBHh 56.55 0-11%
Lake L I UHH 39 47 0 08%
' Rivewe R3RBH 29.76 0.06%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PFO I A 17.23 003%
Freshwater Pond PUBHx 12.11 0.02%
Freshwater Faested'Shrub Wetland PSS1Ad 899 002%
' Riverioc R3UBH 8.88 0.02%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PFOI C 8.02 0,02%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PF04B 755 0.02%
Freshwater Foes ed'Shrub Wetland PSS3B 689 0.01%
Freshwater Emu"Wetland PEM1Ch 6.09 0.01%
' Freshwater Emergem Wetland PEM1A 5.67 0.01%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PSS1A 5 19 0.01%
Freshwater Forested'Shrub Wetland PF04A 4 12 001%
Freshwater Pond PUBFx 3.04 0.01%
Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1C 2.60 001%
' Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEMIAh 2 38 0%
Other PUSAh 2 10 0%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PSSiC 1.80 0%
Other PUSCb 0.74 0%
Freshwater Pond PUBFh 0.44 0%
TOTAL: 564.02 112%
NCDETR 303d waters
No Records Found
Rare Aquatic Species Basin
' No Records Found
Water Supply Watershed
No Records Found
' Landuse
Mineral Resources
Silo Nates Commodity I Commodity 2 CoMiNi ly 3 SM610 /Fetalares
Miller Asbestos Mine Asbestos Past Producer 2

t
' Bad Credo Prospect Corundum Asbestos Past Produces 1
Jennings No 2 Asbestos Mine Corundum_Asbestos Past Producer 1
Coldsides Mountain Mine Asbestos Past Producer 2
Jennings No 1 Asbestos Mine Asbestos Past Producer 2
Socrates Cort ndum Mine Corttndwn Asbestos Past Producer 1
Round Mountain Mme Asbestos Past Producer 2
Jennings No.2 Asbestos Mine Corundum Past Producer 1
' Bad Creels Mine Corundum Asbestos.Vermiculite Past Producer 1
Socrates Conmdum Mine Conndum Asbestos,Vermiculite Pan Producer 1
McCoy Prospect Barium-Sante Fluorine-Fluonte Prospect 1
Whitewater Quarry Stone,Cnuhed/Brobm Producer 1
Cashiers Distract Tantalum.REE.Niobium(Cohtmbntm) Occurrence 1
' TOTAL: 17
NCDENR Mines
No Records Found
' Strategic Plan Final Layer
Final Layer Values
Fret XAYW Varss 7WIAWw(naw) !Meant of Asea
]0 9.296.86 18 51.
9 9,581.27 19.06%
8 7.638 16 15 2%:
7 4,652.48 9-26%
6 1.39874 276%
5 429.17 0.95%
4 13.71 003%
TOTAL- 33,000.40 65.65%
' Strategic Plan Benefit Layers
Aquatic Subbasins Ranked
SUNWds Rat TeW Ares(acres) Paracent of Area
10 10,355 30 206%
9 22649.28 45-06%
TOTAL 33.004.58 65 66•.
Audobon's Important Bird Areas
Awkbea hwertaatt Bid Area Tial Am(acres) Pnrceat efAaa
' 10 '0166 44 40 32'.
TOTAL. 20166 44 4032%
Indian Lands
No Records Found
' Lands Managed for Conservation
Msaaved 11—As TWd Area(acres) wmwIm-
10 19.166 26 39.13%
TOTAL. 19,16626 38.13%
Natural Lauds Density
NaI n Laads Deadly Rnak Uld Ars(acres)
10 10.291 56 20.47%
9 13,074.36 26.01%
8 4.858.64 9.67`iL
7 1.500.81 2.99%
6 1.11439 2.22%
5 805.80 1.6%
4 751.72 1.5%
3 557.07 1.11%
' 2 9048 0.18%
TOTAL: 33,044.83 65.74%
NWI Ranked
wwbm junk TeWArron(acres) rrraatefArea
t 7 4070 008%
6 35.86 007%
5 835 002°-.
1 100.65 0-2%
TOTAL: 185.56 0,371.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas Ranked
SNM Ranh Twl Area(saw) Percod 49 Ars
5 2.71438 54%
4 T19171 14.31%
' 3 689 001'.
i

' 2 5,471.57 10.89%
1 424.68 084%
TOTAL: 15,80924 3145%
' USFWS Critical Habitat
No Records Found
AFO Landcover Priorities Rank
AFO Landcover PriorMes Rank Ydd Am(poen) Pwcst of Area
10 1.821.43 3.62%
7 19,705.12 39.2%
4 1.758 15 3.5%
1 3,360.74 6.69%
0 6,403.61 12 74%
TOTAL: 33,049.06 65.75%
Wildiands Charette Rank
camedivw Vdoe Total Area(acres) PerteN of Area
Core or Nugget 33.049.06 65.75%
TOTAL: 33.049 06 65.75%
Strategic Plan Threat Layers
' Dam Density
Dan Deasky (ACM)- - Patud atAaea
8 22,649.28 45.06%
3 10.35S30 20.6%
TOTAL 33,004.58 65.66
Discharge Density
DlsYane Dante i1aak (scree) atAta
3 22,64928 45.06%
2 10,35530 20.6%
TOTAL: 33,004 58 65.66%
USFS Insect and Disease Risk
17ffSh "and Mean Rids Total Area(acres) atAcoa
10 4572.50 91 '.
' IWAL: 4,57250 9 1'.
Mining Density
Deadly Rank Tail Ann -WkjMWW of Atex
3 22.64928 45.06%
1 1055530 2D.6%
' TOTAL: 33.004.58 65,66%
Impel%lous Surface Density
Int Sarbw Dead"Rank TeW Ann(acno 1!lttetN otAns
'_ 33.005 69 65.66
' TOTAL: 33,005.69 65,66%
Road Densiry
Rand Daadly i k TWI Area(acres) Pored of Aria
9 660.48 1,31%
' 8 798.11 1-59%
7 1.223.77 2.43%
6 842.52 1.68%
5 1.53290 305%
4 2,093.84 4.17%
3 3.06805 6,1%
2 6,006.01 1195%
1 5,87216 11 68%
TOTAL: 22,097.85 4396%
VVIndpower Potential Rank
' wbWoewarlhtasad Told Amw(aaw) Pas stAno
500-800 watts pm square mile 48.26 0 1%
300-500 watts per square mile 1,405.31 2.8%
TOTAL: 1,453 57 2,891.
One NC Naturally
Biodiversity and Wildlife Assessment
Vale class WDIMM Ana(pass) Fe atAraa
10 10-Max== 11,260.80 22.4%
8 8 4,340.03 8.63'X.
7 7 4.63 001%
6 6 503.21 1%
' S i 1.632.76 3.25%

4 4 3,026.79 6.02%
3 3 520.45 104%
1 1-Moderate 7,386.63 14.7%
' TOTAL 28,675 31 57 05'•.
Important Forestry Lands
Vale C-01110 Tdd Atraa.(rttaea) ltlrtont at Area
5 Low Forestry Value 2.450 77 488%
' 4 Low to Moderate Forestry Value 3,290.65 655%
3 High Forestry Value 4.879 78 9.71%
2 Moderate to High Forestry Value 2,416.03 4-81%
1 Moderate Forestry Value 1,962.19 39%
TOTAL. 14.999.42 29.84%
Treatened Forest Resources
Visit* C.raap TOM And(aeira) lnrtost u[Amm
5 Elevated Threat 513897 1022%
4 Moderate to Elevated Threat 4,822.67 9.59%
' 3 Low to Moderate Threat 9,276.23 18.45%
2 Moderate Tbreu 7,929.96 15.79%
1 Low Threat 5.816.27 1157%
TOTAL: 32,984.10 65.62%
Water Services
1 .1. Arta OCNO PO I of Arrea
9-Moderate CootQvation Vahte 42.21 0.08`.
8-Moderate Cg IW%-A ion Vahte 81.49 0.16%
7-Low to Moderate Consen-ation Value 74502 148%
' 6-Laar to Moderate Cooser atim Vahte 24.875 29 49.49%
5-Low to Moderate Conservation Value 2,155.75 429%
4-I.ovr Conservation Vahte 22.62 0.04%
3-Low Conservation Value 20.79 004%
14-High Conservation Vahte 15-93 0.03%
13-High Consm•ation Value 26084 0.52%
12-Moderate to High Conservation Vahr 204.88 0.41%
11-Moderate to High Conservation Value 44967 089%
10-Moderate to High Conservation Vahte 1,220.86 2.43%
1-Low-Conservation Value 2.33953 4 65%
TOTAL: 32,433.88 6453%

1 APPENDIX H
1 USGS Flow Determination for the Horsepasture River
!
!
l
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1

1 From: Weaver.John
To: Harry Buckner
Cc: Mike Waresak;tom.belnick(alncdenr.aov;Teresa.Rod riauez(a)ncdenr.aov; Rose Pinnix;John Weaver
' Subject: Low-Flow characteristics for USGS Sta.0218412997 Horsepasture River adjacent U.S. Highway 64 near Cashiers,
NC...Re: Initial USGS response concerning...Re: Request for 7Q10 Flow Estimate-Horsepasture River,Cashiers,
NC
Date: Wednesday,April 16,2014 4:46:56 PM
imUSGS
science for a changing world
U.S. Geological Survey North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
' Date: April 16, 2014
Mr. Harry B. Buckner , PE, Project Manager
' McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
' Mr. Buckner,
' In response to your request (via email dated March 12, 2014)for a formal determination of the low-flow
characteristics on Horsepasture River in vicinity of Cashiers in Townhouse Branch at Wesser in Swain
County, the following information is provided:
' A check of the low-flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
does not indicate a previous low-flow determination for your specific point of interest
on Horsepasture River as shown on the map attached to your email dated February
20, 2014. No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for your point of
interest.
' In the absence of site-specific discharge records sufficient for a low-flow analysis,
estimates of low-flow characteristics at ungaged locations are determined by
assessing a range in the low-flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage
area, of cfsm) at nearby sites where such estimates have previously been
determined.
' A drainage-area delineation completed using the online NC StreamStats application
9 p 9 pp
(http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north_carolina.html) indicates the drainage
area for your point of interest is 3.91 sqmi.
' Previously published low-flow information for streams in your area of interest

i
For streams in Jackson County, the most recently published low-flow information is a statewide report
completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water-Supply Paper 2403, 'Low-flow characteristics of
streams in North Carolina"(Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at htt ://// ubs.usas.00v/wsp/2403/reportpddf. The report provides the low-flow characteristics (based on
data through 1988)via regional relations and at-site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and
400 sqmi and not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
Please note the low-flow characteristics in the statewide report are based on data ending during the late
1980's and do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which have resulted in decreased low-flow
statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations across North Carolina.
L Sta. 0218412997 Horsepasture River adjacent U.S. Highway 64 near Cashiers, NC
J 9 Y
Location: Adjacent to U.S. Highway 64, approximately 0.5 mile downstream from Lupton Lake, and
approximately 2.3 miles northeast of Cashiers
Lat/long ==> 035d 07m 46.00s//083d 04m 00.77s(referenced to NAD83)
i County: Jackson County
Drainage area = 3.91 sqmi
HUC: 03060101
' Map: Big Ridge [G-6-NE]
Tributary to: Toxaway River
Based on five (5) nearby selected USGS partial-record sites in general vicinity of Horsepasture River, a
1 range of potential low-flow yields were assessed for the 7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10 (W7Q10), and 7Q2
low-flow discharges. The average for each yield range was determined, and when applied to the
drainage area for your point of interest(3.91 sqmi), the estimated flows based on these yields were
determined. The range and average low-flow yields along with corresponding estimated flows are
provided in the table below.
Range in Average Range in
Average
low-flow yield low-flow yield estimated low-flow
estimated low-flow
(cfsm) (cfsm) (cfs)
(cfs)
Annual 7Q10 0.30 to 0.71 0.50 1.2 to 2.8
2.0
Annual 30Q2 0.85 to 1.71 1.11 3.3 to 6.7
4.3
Winter 7Q10 0.57 to 1.40 0.76 2.2 to 5.5
3 .0
Annual 7Q2 0.63 to 1.32 0.88 2.5 to 5.2
3 .4
The mean annual runoff(Plate 2, Giese and Mason, 1993)determined for streams in vicinity of the
Horsepasture River basin is estimated to be 4.0 cfsm, resulting in an average annual discharge
estimated at approximately 16 cfs.
Please note the estimated flow estimates reflect "natural-flow" characteristics with no diversions or
regulation known to occur upstream of the request site.
Notes:
(1)As noted above, please be aware the low-flow characteristics in the above-referenced report are
based on data ending during the late 1980's that do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which
have resulted in decreased low-flow statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations. The USGS North
Carolina Water Science Center is currently conducting an update of low-flow statistics at continuous

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

' On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Harry Buckner<HaI3,y.Buckner&mcgilleneineers.com>
' wrote:
Mr.Weaver:
I'm sorry for being a little slow to get back to you on the subject project. We have consulted with
NCDENR and decided that we do need a formal, full determination of low flow estimates from
your office not only for the original site but also for an additional site located at the beginning of
the ORW designation on the Horsepasture River. I have attached an additional USGS quad sheet,
with coordinates, for this additional location.
Please let this e-mail serve as our formal request for an in-depth assessment of both sites (the
original location plus the one attached hereto). Feel free to use my name/company name and
' address below as the billing contact information. We understand that the billings for this work
will be approximately$250 per site.
Thank you in advance for your help, and we will look for this information sometime around the
end of April. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
1 Harry B. Buckner , PE
' Project Manager
' McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street I Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone]
' Email: harry.buckner(@mc2allen2oneers.com I Website: www.mc2illengineers.com
From: Weaver, John [mailto:jcweaver(&usgs.aov]
1 Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:31 AM
To: Harry Buckner
Cc: Mike Waresak; tom.belnick(&ncdenr.gov; John Weaver
Subject: Initial USGS response concerning...Re: Request for 7Q10 Flow Estimate - Horsepasture River,
iCashiers, NC

1
' Mr. Buckner,
In response to your inquiry about the low-flow characteristics (7Q10)for a location on the Horsepasture
River near Cashiers in southern Jackson County, the following information is provided:
I
A check of the low-flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center indicates a
previous low-flow determination almost identical to your specific point of interest on Horsepasture
River as shown on the map attached to your email dated February 20, 2014. Completed in April 1981,
the 7Q10 for Horsepasture River near Cashiers (station id 02184130, drainage area 4.00 sqmi)was
estimated at 1.5 cfs, based on transfer of flow characteristics from a downstream continuous-record
streamgage on the Horsepasture River near Sapphire(station id 02184240, drainage area 21. 0 sqmi).
No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for your point of interest.
' In the absence of site-specific discharge records sufficient for a low-flow analysis, estimates of low-flow
characteristics at ungaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low-flow yields
(expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, of cfsm) at nearby sites where such estimates have
previously been determined.
1 A drainage-area delineation completed using the online NC StreamStats application
(http://water.usgs,gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage area for your point
of interest is about 3.9 sqmi.
' For streams in Jackson County, the most recently published low-flow information is a statewide report
completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water-Supply Paper 2403, 'Low-flow characteristics of
streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at http://12ubs.usas.aov/wsp/2403/re o�rt.pddf. The report provides the low-flow characteristics(based
on data through 1988)via regional relations and at-site values for sites with drainage basins between 1
and 400 sqmi and not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
' Please note the low-flow characteristics in the statewide report are based on data ending 9 durin the
late 1980's and do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which have resulted in decreased
' low-flow statistics at some USGS streamgaging stations across North Carolina.
Based on nearby selected USGS partial-record sites in general vicinity of Horsepasture River where
low-flow characteristics have previously been published, the annual 7Q10 yields range from about 0.30
' to 0.71 cfsm (average approximately 0.50 cfsm).

1
Applying the above annual 7Q10 yield range to the drainage area for our point of interest results in
Y� 9 9 Y
' an annual 7010 discharge estimated in the range of 1.2 to 2.8 cfs. Please note that estimated flows
are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
Please understand this information is based on a preliminary assessment. Further analyses would be
needed to confirm the initial assessments, and a fee of$250 per site is required for completion of a
' more in-depth assessment and formal determination of estimates(7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, 7Q2, and
average flow). If you want us to complete a more in-depth assessment, please provide a contact
name and address for billing purposes and we'll proceed from there. The assessment would be
completed within four to six weeks, and the response would be made via email with an invoice mailed
separately via regular mail following the provision of estimates.
' Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
' E-mail address --icweavernausgs,gov
Internet address -- h1112://nc.water.usgs.gov,

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

1
1
1

APPENDIX I
' Net Present Worth Analysis Calculations
1
1
1

O O a0 oc V ,n x R
O CO h 00 00 O h 00 —
O
69 69 H Vi f�Vs V�
N ✓1 N N 00 00 f l O
O
b9 Vi Vi Vi Vi W YI
P h N N C 00 N OC
C
69 b9 b9 b9 69 f� (/
1 O F
� T
69 69 69 W tfj s4 ,/5 L
t �
O C a N 0 h U
N O
U o �
w us vi s�vi ds n ai
e �
� m 00 o rn x
7 If! N !' N •O N
R O
i
y w
rA CCtl L O O O O N O
—
� O y 7 O ^ N N V1 a Y N V
} O C
O
y � � $ to K b9 fA fA b9 Vi
L
O p ll N o 0 00 00 o ao E
Cv uP o o O14
I C� a
yC 7 � N 7 V •C P 'Q rV O
i 9 c
h � R O df vi v'+ cn vi sem,
Ccc
o
Oo.o — u
G L •y � O N
OQ CCG n
N LL
ea CC 5 •� �
> V v
C 'Z
h Mbi
C
•� 'C V fn VI F V: :n N
C J J J J
L O r
o
O O �O O O
p p O C O
C O o h C r O O N E
N I V
69 to b9 r!5� ✓• ` U
u R G 3
a
ID
tb
ti 6
o0 v
ea 5
V
y. G
� � E
° � v
U _ u
3 G c.c o b E
J U Y O
¢ ¢ C
R

N
O
b9 fA b9 b9 Vi b9 6� (A
R r P P 7o �OR P L
C o
s9 cA 5/f s9 69 b9 6n �
O �
Q ,o NrP N ?
d N 00 00 W `O lD
� rn o0 0o h oo lo r pj
ev ev v3 sv s�w ss �
N0000 c� �, � O
R
r I - c
P R C
v vi dv» vi w w va ° F
r � �
0 0 o
no°Oo oOOo — o � oci 9°'
� c
U O ! R L 7V
b9 N3 fA Y9 69 69 Vf '00
C
O o
N Q � cis by w vi of us v. $
L a R K T 00 ao P 00 O C O
u O
7 �' 3 va v,✓, «s cA cA s5 0
N ??
' — N W P, Ol P N c
CC L
F 9
17
7'•C�
O
3 y
O s
Q �
L Q
O �
r
V Z a uj
v n
R
v� r c
c c
00 0o O O O
O cA v1 O fA W y O 7 v1 U
O O N
y
V
O � G
(J A b
V
� O y
to
9 V L r
O Q Ln
' L:7 OQ

R
O C h r OG r � b
ws5 wwvl �
pp�N oo P P
R
00
y P � oPon �v �
;y o oPR P i r
h 00 N 00— G
r�1 R
Vi Yi Vi bpi V� W.
r r P R P —
O O r O P P
r R
N
to to Ni bA ti? V!
I'
ti R
O �p P N P vRi K
CU N eh
y iq 69 d9 69 V3 tf.
V 1 N �W h Ofi C
C,^ C 69 A f/i V3 fit d9
y � P
� �s fnvfviusvj v
C u
c E �
V viwwviw �:
H .V. � v sees us�vl v
C h
o 3' 't.G .O
O O OC .D 00 OC N
o a "
� •cC C
L �
C V v
a �
L
' a y
i
J
M O O O C O
O O
N U O N O O
:i9 RH ff�b9 W
O C
Ci
L —
C Z
� C
C F
O F
m O «
U `^
G �
0 C
' c 5
G.4 v,✓, 0 3
�72
W m< vv) W

•r c � o .o v:
N o• c v.
^
wwwww �r,w
•�., � O N C N N P ^
O O O K i
P ^.. oD�6 wi 16 �O p
0
Q o g o v r
OO N vi li ON N v.
� _. �o v, .o •o ag U
`r Off•, P
O r � h �•G N c
C
cav"'ivv r
' G O JI� •C•G •G Vi Y
e
U r r
w w w w w w a
n n v, ,
n
.J
C
N C w w w w w w
m
9 � n n ao �o 0o ao r
y 7 4'O wwwww w
� •L
'Oonoo
R E
u
e L u
R L L V V
C 3 u R
R d •� wwwww v,
N y �
a
R w v r r oo r
c
N •r./ J.
R R R C
� r
L
YJ -I -J _
p y� O O O O �•
e
•e r
N U �nwwww c
x
v �
c �
c
w
0
L �
m �•
1 V t
C
_ C
� C C
U o �
c w
t o a ct w
c c � c c

x x x T
x rxx v.
c O N OPG N hl ^,
O ^ O
v
G P N x 1n1
r N
O
LL:
O
^ IA f.9 YI Vr
Q r N r
x U C V P
C
r r r
o F
u T
1•' x P. O• •G L
0 K O\ C',
N
x x
e7
H W O y
L I
r
L u o• r r r o
O C ^ 0 0 vii r1 ri C A
C.• t O
L
O 7 •� O .O O O r E
c u o >
E e
is
-t o
y C
y3F
a
O L tYJ 0 sF✓5 `n �O
u _
v C Ir ` L
CJ
w
R Y
l0 \ r pOp O Q
L '�• Q O
au+ N U v N N CRi O V v� O
O fA 69
•C � r C O N E
V
� 3
c
c y �
� C
O R L
lJ �
R p C
J _ u
O y
L OBD
5 y
N
C � O
E � o
_ c

r 00 00 M P
x 7 vl vt •O Q�
K N � —I 1 Cr•1 � �
C
N
V1 Vf f.9 H9 V�
_ •O�N
' a
vl w sel s, �
N ,n •n
o U
ds v3 va ,n
•n � � r C'
K O N N G 3
c ` F
� � v
a c x i E
_ v
� Vf Vf 69 Vf� y
L r
+7+ C oo Q O
H O N eT v v
ILI
' LQ �' r P K,K, •O y
C: L
N O � vi w of H
� r o o ,C �-•
L V L T <{ h N N C U
V
�' •� L O O
N � ya y cfl Vi Vi � h
• L
u rd y A
•= L cr
y cd
G
VI
h3F r
• d L _ r O O K
oa � F
h
h 3 A
Io j a
7k x r
c _ _ oox O
_ U
y O�
-IT
� t
N O U
v
o :o
O G
w
` g
� U u
c G m a+
O �
w t` V V u7 u
o v
� •O o � 3 w�`"O ap�i.
C
u E d 'v•:= 3
0

e O 'O •G
O O
O
69 69 Iif 69 Vi
�i
by vv vi ss !n
Q oo r v.
G v;
ua �
O
b9 b9 fA Yi Vf
O 00 OC
r
o F
d T
U o �
e
C _ a
U
e o m
R �
C V L
w
N o' o
N
H
C R L C o •�_
d9 69 Yi fn
I HIM 1111I
C v+
o R3
QN G
R
� d o � o
V L 3
' h Fta
— — — o
R R `c
y u
L
•a � rrt
v
r C
C C !n
_ O 6A Nt p O e O
O L
w
x ° 3
� a
.o eo
o c
OM
U
G R p C
4•.
O C
j J
O C y t
a h
C yGy
C £ 0.
C 3
L U CJ�Lil U
Lti • CV,'D 0 'Y, 2 0 F
U O
G �

p P vi Q`O�n1 n
O N
� O
c a
wwww w
oG �D �O O N •-'
wwww w �
P N N P Nr"
_ n P O P h
' n I �P O• � C
r a
y
U o N
5 i �
V — v
1!: j
N � C
'� h vt .n V •
Y. w www w
' V W t v — ri cooiv r ,t
^= L OL c
N0C> Ic 3
O R L C O C
D a Y �+ wwww w F
o � o L 3 ••
R 2
r R
N R
�a
oY� '2
U ogoo LR oc u
04
N C U
w
R
G �
w N •O
_ L �
C ` U
w C
V R U
cp F p CCN
G � V
p C �
C U «
tr
E � p
O O
u V R
C G
{°a rn ate' 3 0
t L C p C O O O y¢
O C O
Oq a
- ani E E
A c-a o
O E Lnw

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1