Wayehutta LLC — 1111 Si Knob Rd

Summary

A single parcel of 77.18 acres in Jackson County, NC.

Measured mean slope across the study area is 40.6%, with 1,547 ft of relief. Approximately 4.79 acres — about 6% of the study area — fall under 15% slope.

3 candidate pad area(s) were identified. The largest is 15,140 sq ft at 19% mean slope, with an order-of-magnitude earthwork range of 1,770–3,287 cubic yards.

Approximately 3,758 ft of linear graded features consistent with existing roads or trails cross the study area.

Measurements

Study area	77.18 acres 1 parcel(s) · Jackson County, NC
Elevation	2,518–4,065 ft 1,547 ft of relief · State LiDAR · 3 ft
Slope	40.6% mean median 41% · maximum 201.7%
Gentle ground	4.79 acres 6% of the study area under 15% slope
Candidate pad areas	3 largest 15,140 sq ft at 19% mean slope
Existing roads and trails	3,758 ft across 10 separate stretches
Access to a building site	9 of 9 reachable from the parcel boundary within 25% grade
Watercourses	5,259 ft modelled 459 ft published
Published soils	5 map unit(s) Jackson County, North Carolina

What the ground supportsHome development — Septic, soils, title and local ordinance also decide this.
Access and recreation — Trail grades are sustained-grade guidance, not a construction specification. Legal right of access, surface condition and maintenance are not determined here and cannot be established from elevation data.

Home development

Buyers, agents and builders

Ground open to a building site under 30% slope, outside setbacks and drainage buffers	55.23 acres 71.6% of the study area
Candidate pad areas at least 2,000 sq ft, clear of a 10 ft property setback and drainage buffers	3
Largest candidate the largest square the measured slope supports	15,140 sq ft see section 04 for its dimensions and earthwork
Existing graded access at or under the 25% driveway grade	3,758 ft of the roads and trails found

Access and recreation

Recreational buyers, trail and camp use

Ground at sustainable trail grade at or under 20% slope	7.52 acres 9.7% of the study area
Of that, easy grade at or under 10%	3.08 acres comfortable walking and general recreation
Roads and trails usable on foot mean grade at or under 20%	3,509 ft surface and condition not assessed

The ground, and what fits on itSlope map — measured classes over bare-earth hillshade. Approximate boundary from public GIS — not a survey.
Candidate pads — drawn at true footprint size, numbered by rank; earthwork is an order-of-magnitude range balancing cut against fill, excluding clearing, rock, access, drainage and retaining structures.
Views — horizon angles measured over bare earth; standing timber can screen any line of sight.

Mean slope

40.6%

Median 41%, maximum 201.7%

Under 15% slope

4.79ac

of 77.16 acres measured

Relief

1,547ft

2,518–4,065 ft

Parcels

single parcel

Slope classification over hillshade for the study area

0–10%

10–15%

15–20%

20–30%

Over 30%

Slope distribution across the study area
Class	Range	Acres	Percent
Ideal	0–10%	3.08	4%
Moderate	10–15%	1.71	2.2%
Challenging	15–20%	2.73	3.5%
Difficult	20–30%	10.64	13.8%
Severe	Over 30%	58.99	76.5%

Ground is steep and consistently so: the median is 41%, close to the 40.6% mean, so the slope is spread across the parcel rather than concentrated in one face. 76.5% of the study area falls in the steepest class. The 6% under 15% is where building, access and septic all compete for the same ground.

Aspect and views

Petal length: share of ground facing that way. Outer ring: measured view range — long, mid, short.

The ground faces mostly SW (29%) and W (23%). The gentle ground faces predominantly S (30%). From the strongest candidate area, nothing in the modeled terrain rises to block the line of sight to the SE, S, SW, W (horizon at 0° or barely above it) — consistent with long-range views that way; ridgelines close in to the NE (17.1° at the steepest), holding those views short-range.

Steepness is spread across the whole study area rather than concentrated in one face — the median (41%) sits close to the mean (40.6%).
Most of the study area — 76.5% — falls in the steepest class.
4.79 acres (6%) sit under 15% slope. Building, access and septic all compete for that ground.

Candidate pad areas

Ordered by achievable size. Criteria: at least 2,000 sq ft under 30% slope, clear of a 10 ft property-line setback and drainage buffers.
Area	Size, sq ft	Mean slope	Cut, yd³	Fill, yd³	Earthwork, yd³
Area 1123.0 ft square	15,140	19%	1,264	1,264	1,770–3,287
Area 2123.0 ft square	15,140	14.3%	1,119	1,119	1,566–2,909
Area 3117.0 ft square	13,699	16.5%	1,093	1,093	1,530–2,841

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

The largest candidate is 15,140 sq ft — comfortably above the 2,000 sq ft minimum searched for, so size is not the binding constraint here.

Solar exposureSun hours — modeled per grid cell from slope, aspect and the terrain horizon on three representative days; a clear-sky ceiling before trees and weather, not a production forecast. Winter is the test that matters.
Canopy — published tree-canopy mapping; the sun hours are terrain-only, so canopy is how much standing timber stands between them and a panel.
Method — the screening form of the GRASS r.sun / Fu & Rich approach; NREL PVWatts is the next step for a site-specific estimate.

Tree canopy

89%

parcel mean, as published

Open ground

1.78ac

under 50% canopy

Wooded ground

73.84ac

at or above that canopy

Day	Mean direct sun	Possible daylight
Winter solstice	8.2 h	9.6 h
Equinox (spring and fall)	10.2 h	12 h
Summer solstice	11.9 h	14.4 h
Sunniest candidate pad, winter solstice	9.5 h	—
Canopy over candidate area 1	89%	—

Screening assumptions and per-kW estimate A clear-sky screening ceiling for comparing ground, not a production forecast — assumptions: NREL PVWatts loss factor 0.86, clear-sky irradiance 846 W/m². Indicative estimate: on the order of 1,600 kWh per year for each 1 kW of panels on open ground here.

AccessGrades — measured along the route itself, not across the hillside it crosses; a corridor can hold its stated grade over much steeper ground.
Corridors — a workable line exists; not what building one would involve. Stream crossings are counted where a corridor meets a mapped or modeled watercourse — permitted work.
Existing features — found where measured slope is markedly gentler than the surrounding hillside; detection is fragmentary under canopy, and surface, condition and legal access are not determined.

9 of 9 candidate pad area(s) can be reached by a route holding 25% or less. Where more than one way onto the parcel exists, each is shown separately — which entrance is the practical one is often knowledge the ground holds and elevation data does not.

To	Entering by	Length	Mean grade	Steepest	On existing road
Area 1	NW road	2,001 ft	12.3%	24.8%	72%
Area 1	SW road	3,300 ft	12.2%	24.8%	42%
Area 1	Watson Br Rd	2,204 ft	14.1%	24.8%	42%
Area 2	NW road	2,129 ft	7.8%	24.8%	69%
Area 2	SW road	2,055 ft	11.6%	24.7%	24%
Area 2	Watson Br Rd	798 ft	14.7%	22.8%	0%
Area 3	NW road	2,094 ft	7.8%	24.8%	71%
Area 3	SW road	1,769 ft	10.8%	24.7%	28%
Area 3	Watson Br Rd	513 ft	13.9%	22.8%	0%

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

What is already cut in

Existing roads and trails

3,758ft

across 10 separate stretches

Existing graded features, longest first
Feature	Length	Mean grade	Steepest
Feature 1	994 ft	3.3%	10.7%
Feature 2	586 ft	2.9%	6.5%
Feature 3	446 ft	7%	15.7%
Feature 4	352 ft	7.9%	13.5%
Feature 5	347 ft	6.6%	10.1%
Feature 6	318 ft	9.2%	12%
Feature 7	248 ft	21%	24.5%
Feature 8	197 ft	3.7%	11.2%
Feature 9	159 ft	6.9%	11.1%
Feature 10	112 ft	5.3%	12.1%

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

From the NW road: reaches areas 1, 2 and 3. Routes run 2,001–2,129 ft, steepest 24.8%. Holding grade needs up to 1 switchback(s).
From the SW road: reaches areas 1, 2 and 3. Routes run 1,769–3,300 ft, steepest 24.8%. Holding grade needs up to 1 switchback(s).
From the Watson Br Rd: reaches areas 1, 2 and 3. Routes run 513–2,204 ft, steepest 24.8%. Holding grade needs up to 1 switchback(s).

WaterStreams — published mapping as published by the USGS; modeled drainage is calculated from elevation and shows where water concentrates, not a mapped stream or a flood or wetland finding. Published mapping omits small seasonal draws, which is why both appear. Setbacks are screening geometry only.
Wells — a record of reported wells, quoted as published; not a groundwater measurement or an indication of what a new well would find. Most private wells were never reported, so nearby wells are undercounted; the county health department and local drillers hold the fuller record.

Published streams within the study area	459 ft
Modeled drainage concentration from elevation	5,259 ft
Area within the 50 ft setback applied to both	15.64 ac

Wells on record

No groundwater well is on record with the USGS within 1 mile(s) of the study area. An empty record is not absence of wells or of water — most private wells predate reporting and never enter this inventory.

15.64 acres fall inside the 50 ft setback applied to watercourses and are held out of the pad search.
3 mapped wetland feature(s) intersect the study area. Confirm with a wetland professional before disturbing ground.

Water in the landscapeBasis — candidate areas read from measured slope and modeled drainage in the keyline (Yeomans) and permaculture water-harvesting traditions: slow it, spread it, sink it. A swale is a level channel on contour that soaks runoff in; a keypoint is where a draw turns from steep to gentle, and the keyline is the contour through it.
Estimated cut — order-of-magnitude, assuming a modest hand-buildable cross-section, roughly knee-deep and a stride wide.
Rain on catchment — published climatology times measured area; rainfall, not streamflow — part of it evaporates and soaks in before any channel.
Micro-hydro — average-flow potential of the strongest draw; a system needs measured flow through the seasons, an intake the terrain allows, and possibly a water-rights check.
Screening only — nothing here is a construction specification, a hydrologic study, or a statement that a structure will hold water.

Swale-band contour

268ft

across 3 segment(s) — shorter benches; none met the standard run

Candidate pond areas

on modeled drainage off mapped streams

Keypoints

keyline contour drawn through each

Terrace-practice ground

13.37ac

where terrace practice applies instead

Average rainfall

54.8in/yr

NASA POWER climatology

Micro-hydro screening

427–853W

399 ft head · 12.8–25.7 gpm average

Candidate water-management areas over hillshade: dashed
contour segments where swale practice applies, circles at
candidate pond areas on modeled drainage, and diamonds at
keypoints with the keyline contour through each

Candidate swale segments, highest ground first
Elevation	Length	Ground slope	Band	Est. cut
3,382 ft	93 ft	15.6%	upper	10 yd³
3,382 ft	96 ft	11.8%	ideal	11 yd³
3,310 ft	79 ft	13.9%	ideal	9 yd³

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

Keypoints, highest ground first
Elevation	Upslope catchment	Rain on catchment
3,535 ft	9.7 ac	44.3 ac·ft/yr
3,496 ft	2.8 ac	12.8 ac·ft/yr
3,416 ft	1.1 ac	5 ac·ft/yr
3,323 ft	4.2 ac	19.2 ac·ft/yr
3,299 ft	5 ac	22.8 ac·ft/yr
3,271 ft	2.8 ac	12.8 ac·ft/yr

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

What the published record says

Soils

Which soils are mapped across this parcel, how much of it each covers, how each drains, and what USDA publishes about septic tank absorption fields on each.

Map unit	On parcel	Slope	Drainage	Septic tank absorption fieldsThis is NRCS's own published interpretation for the soil map unit, not for your site, reproduced exactly as published together with the limiting features NRCS names. It is not a determination about this parcel and cannot replace a soil and site investigation by a Licensed Soil Scientist, which is what the permitting authority requires.
Evard-Cowee complex EvE Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes — major component Evard (50%)	56 ac73% of parcel	30–50%	Well drained	Very limitedSlope; Depth to bedrock; Slow water movement
Evard-Cowee complex EvD Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes — major component Evard (50%)	12.4 ac16% of parcel	15–30%	Well drained	Very limitedSlope; Slow water movement; Depth to bedrock
Trimont gravelly loam TrF Trimont gravelly loam, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony — major component Trimont (80%)	4.1 ac5% of parcel	50–95%	Well drained	Very limitedSlope; Slow water movement
Saunook gravelly loam SaD Saunook gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes — major component Saunook (75%)	3.1 ac4% of parcel	15–30%	Well drained	Very limitedSlope; Seepage, bottom layer; Slow water movement
Open water (pond or lake) W Water — open water, the pond or lake on the parcel, outlined by the soil survey. Not a soil; no drainage or septic data is published for it.	1.8 ac2% of parcel	—

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

Survey source and scale USDA NRCS, survey area Jackson County, North Carolina, published 9/2/2025. Map units describe typical conditions across an area, not the ground beneath a structure.

5 published soil map units cross the study area, so published conditions are not uniform — where test pits are placed will matter.

Hazards

Flood

Zone X — Area Of Minimal Flood Hazard — as published by FEMA, DFIRM 37099C.

Wetland mapping

3 mapped wetland feature(s) intersect the study area in the National Wetlands Inventory.

Type as published	Code	Mapped acres	Location
Freshwater Pond	PUBHh	2.05	On the study area
Riverine	R5UBH	14.35	On the study area
Riverine	R5UBH	35.91	On the study area

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

Mapping scale and limitsCompiled from aerial imagery at survey scale: mapped positions are approximate and may sit offset from current imagery, and neither a mapped feature nor its absence is a finding about this ground. Forested wetlands under closed canopy are what this mapping most often misses.

Landslide

No mapped landslide feature intersects this study area, and none is mapped within 1 mile of it.

Neighboring parcelsAdjoining parcels from the county record, quoted as published. The ownership type is classified from the recorded owner name by plain text patterns — an estate trust, a company, a public agency — and is a reading of the name, not a title search. Verify anything that matters with the county and a title professional.

9 parcel(s) adjoin the study area: 6 under individual names, 1 under companies, 1 in trusts, and 1 publicly held — this parcel adjoins public land.

Adjoining parcels, largest first
Owner of record	Type	Acres
U.S. FOREST SERVICE	public	2,050.23
MCGUIRE, FRED P TRUSTEE	trust	114.37
MCGUIRE, DAVID S	individual	114
MCGUIRE, F PATRICK	individual	96.4
SWEAT MCGUIRE ENTERPRISES LTD	company	63.67
MCGUIRE, DAVID S	individual	30.98
WOOD, CURTIS W JR	individual	22.16
SAUNDERS, MICHAEL S II	individual	6.71
MCGUIRE, DANA H	individual	2.07

Hover a row to highlight it on the map · click to zoom to it

What to ask next

Licensed Soil Scientist	USDA rates every rated map unit here ‘Very limited’ for septic tank absorption fields, naming slope; slow water movement; depth to bedrock, Ask which candidate areas can be evaluated on the ground. Only this professional may evaluate the parcel for a septic system.
Excavation contractor	Area 1 carries an order-of-magnitude range of 1,770–3,287 cubic yards. Ask what that implies for machine access, haul and rock, and whether cut and fill can balance on site. The NW road route already follows existing grading for 72% of its length — ask what re-using that grading would take, versus cutting new.
Licensed engineer	The strongest candidate area averages 19% slope — a moderate cross-slope. Ask about foundation approach at that grade, cut and fill batter, retaining structures, and stormwater.
Licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer	No landslide feature is mapped here — and absence is not a finding. On ground averaging 40.6% slope, ask whether the inventory covers this county and what the measured slopes call for. This report evaluates none of it.
Surveyor	Published (77.19 ac) and measured (77.18 ac) acreage agree closely, but both rest on the same approximate GIS boundary — ask for a survey before money depends on where a line runs.
Wetland professional	3 mapped wetland feature(s) intersect this study area — the Hazards section shows where. Ask whether an on-the-ground determination is warranted; disturbance is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Well driller or hydrogeologist	No groundwater well is on record with the USGS within 1 mile(s) of this study area — and an empty record is not absence of wells or of water; most private wells never enter it. Ask who has drilled nearby and what they found.
Title professional	About 3,758 ft of existing roads and trails cross this study area — whose are they, and may you use them? Right of access is a title question elevation data cannot answer. The strongest access options enter along an existing road — confirming the right to use it comes first.
NRCS district conservationist or earthworks contractor	Walk the candidate swale lines and pond areas in the water section with the county's NRCS district conservationist before moving any dirt — conservation practice standards, cost-share programs, and the permits a pond needs all start there.

Parcels in this study area

Parcel	Owner of record	Address	Published acres
7660-36-8797	WAYEHUTTA LLC	1111 SI KNOB RD Cullowhee	77.19

Published record

Parcel	7660-36-8797
Legal description	TR 1-4 WATSON BRANCH RD
Deed reference	Book 1777, Page 167 Take this to an attorney or surveyor for title and boundary questions.
County assessment	$335,348 Assessed value for tax purposes as published by the county. This is not an appraisal and not a market value.
Last recorded transfer	2008-12-12 No price published for this transfer, which is common.
Structures on record	1 Total footprint 1,650 sq ft
Zoning	No zoning published for this parcel Common in rural areas; local ordinance may still apply — confirm with the county planning office.

The county’s published record, which may lag recent transactions.

Sources and methodology

Parcel boundaries and attributes	Jackson County, NC GIS parcel records
Elevation	NC OneMap Statewide QL2 LiDAR DEM — 3 ft native, analysed on a 3.0 ft grid. DTM (bare earth).
Published hydrography	USGS National Hydrography Dataset
Modeled drainage threshold	2.0 acre contributing area — indicative, not locally calibrated
Published soils	USDA NRCS SSURGO — Jackson County, North Carolina
Published flood	FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer
Rainfall climatology	NASA POWER (public domain), study-centroid annual mean
Tree canopy	USFS NLCD Tree Canopy, as published
Water-management practice basis	The keyline system (P.A. Yeomans); permaculture water-harvesting practice (B. Mollison; B. Lancaster; G. Lawton; popularized for homesteaders by The Survival Podcast). Engineering standard of care: USDA NRCS Conservation Practice Standard — Pond. Screening thresholds are practitioner guidance, indicative and not locally calibrated.
Retrieved	2026-09-24T21:57:32+00:00

Slope is calculated from bare-earth elevation using Horn’s method and reported as rise over run. Elevation is a terrain model, not a surface model: it describes the ground, not vegetation or structures. Class boundaries are indicative starting values, not locally calibrated. Published datasets are displayed as published, without modification. Approximate boundary from public GIS — not a survey.

Notes and limitations

Approximate boundary from public GIS — not a survey. Parcel geometry is approximate public GIS and has not been located on the ground. Elevation is a bare-earth terrain model — the ground, not vegetation or structures — and slope is measured from it as rise over run, reported as a percentage, not degrees.
Candidate pad areas, candidate corridors and use screens are screening results measured from elevation data against stated thresholds. The thresholds are indicative starting values, not locally calibrated; the results have not been located on the ground and do not establish that anything may be built. Septic permitting, soils, title and local ordinance also decide each use and are not evaluated here. Earthwork ranges are order-of-magnitude planning figures balancing cut against fill, and exclude clearing, rock, access, drainage and retaining structures.
Solar figures are estimated direct-sun hours from the parcel's slope, aspect and surrounding terrain horizon on representative days; a clear-sky screening ceiling, not a production forecast. Candidate pad areas are drawn at true footprint size and numbered by rank, with existing graded features and drainage excluded from the search. View range classes are terrain-horizon measurements over bare earth; standing timber can screen any line of sight.
Published datasets — soils, flood, hydrography, wetland and landslide inventories — are displayed as published by their agencies, without modification, and carry those agencies' own vintages and limitations. Neither a mapped feature nor its absence is a finding about this ground; much of the region has never been systematically mapped. Where a septic tank absorption fields interpretation is shown, it is USDA NRCS's own published rating for the soil map unit, reproduced as published; it is not a determination about this parcel and cannot replace a soil and site investigation by a Licensed Soil Scientist.
Candidate water-management areas — swale segments, pond areas and keypoints — are screening patterns read from measured slope and drainage modeled from elevation, in the tradition of the keyline system and permaculture water harvesting. They are not construction specifications, hydrologic studies, or statements that a structure will hold water. Swale volumes assume a modest hand-buildable cross-section and are order-of-magnitude figures. Pond construction is regulated: impounding a stream generally requires federal permits, most states regulate dams, and USDA NRCS publishes the applicable practice standard. Mapped wetlands and flood zones are excluded from every suggestion. On this parcel, ground that would otherwise qualify overlapped mapped wetland or flood areas and was excluded rather than suggested.
Existing graded features are found where measured slope is markedly gentler than the surrounding hillside; detection is fragmentary under dense canopy and some benches are natural rather than cut, so the total is a floor rather than an inventory. Trail grades are sustained-grade guidance, not a construction specification — legal right of access, surface condition and maintenance cannot be established from elevation data.
This report is informational screening only: it aggregates and visualizes publicly available data. It is NOT a soil evaluation, geologic assessment, land survey, or engineering design, and must not be relied upon as such. Nor is it a geotechnical investigation or a soil suitability determination.
Consult appropriately licensed professionals before making development or purchase decisions. A soil and site evaluation by a Licensed Soil Scientist is required to determine septic feasibility. This report does not evaluate it. Published landslide mapping records past events and deposits. Interpreting what any of it means for building on this land is the work of a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer. This report does not evaluate it.