NC0038997_Permit Issuance_19960222

State of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment, LTII;TA
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Division of Environmental Management A�J
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED E
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 22, 1996
Mr. Carl J. Manner
Roaring Gap Club, Inc.
NC Highway 21
Roaring Gap, North Carolina 28668
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO038997
Roaring Gap Club
Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Manner:
In accordance with the application for a discharge permit received on April 5, 1995, the
Division is forwarding herewith the subject NPDES 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
December 6, 1983.
In a letter dated February 14, 1996, John Phillips, P.E., requested that the discharge be
allowed to remain at the existing location without implementation of a limit for ammonia.
After review of existing instream and effluent data and after consideration of the alternative
discharge point proposed by Mr. Phillips in an earlier request, the Division has decided to
grant the request for this facility to remain at the current location without ammonia limits. The
rationale for this decision is based on the combination of several factors. First, this is a
seasonal discharge which (under normal meteorological conditions) does not travel to a
flowing (i.e., perennial) stream. Secondly, a benthic macroinvertebrate study performed in
the receiving stream indicated that this discharge was not causing stream degradation. Finally,
although the pipe could be relocated downstream of the existing location to allow for better
dilution of the effluent, such an action would place the pipe closer to the Mitchell River itself
with no increase in waste treatment from current levels. Given that this system is classified as
an Outstanding Resource Water, the Division does not believe (at present) that such a
relocation would be preferable. However, after reviewing the self -monitoring data submitted
for this facility, it would appear that nitrification (reduction of ammonia) is occurring most of
the time, but BOD5 concentrations approach the 30 mg/1 monthly average limit. The Roaring
Gap Club should perform an evaluation of the existing wastewater treatment system to
optimize the removal of the carbonaceous oxygen demand. Any improvements to the septic
tank -sand filter system would be beneficial to the receiving waters and can normally be made
at a relatively low capital cost. A report on the evaluation and optimization of the treatment
system should be su - a em e ional OTtice by August ,
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit
are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Permit No. NCO038997
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF E
V\j
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Roaring Gap Club, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Roaring Gap Club
Roaring Gap w��/Z)
Alleghany County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
II, I1I, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective -APrr4-t—,+996_-_
Decp_Av_6e r 3 1, 2oo 3
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on 34�
Signed this day Fcbrua ' " ' °°A
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of a W-&
By Authority of the Environmental Mangement Commission

. 4W /
Permit No. NC0038997
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Roaring Gap Club, Inc.
is hereby authorized to: t�n K-
1. Continue to operate a 0.013 MGD wastewater treatment system consisting of 9Aeptic tanl0dual
(e i rcu ia;h f\ sand filters with chlorination and dechlorination located at Roaring Gap Club Wastewater
J Treatment Plant, Roaring Gap, Alleghany County ); and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into an
unnamed tributary to Mitchell River which is classified Class B-Trout ORW waters in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

A. O. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL Permit No. NCO038997
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
�4
Discharge Limitation
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avcg. Daily Max
0.013 MGD
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
200.A /100 ml
400.( /100 ml
17,0 µg/I
Monitoring
Requirements
Measurement
Sample
*Sample
Frequency
Tyne
Location
Weekly
Instantaneous
I or E
2/Month
Grab
E
2/Month
Grab
E
2/Month
Grab
E
2/Month
Grab
E
2/Week
Grab
E
Weekly
Grab
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent
Th p1{shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 2/month at the effluent by grab
sa
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part III
E. PO onnect
The permittee sha
within 180 days of
conditions of the N
Permit No. NC0038997
Condition
nnect to an operational publicly owned wastewater collection system
i�ty to the site, if the facility is in noncompliance with any terms and
governing rules, regulations and laws.

NOTES FOR ROARING GAP
PERMIT RENEWAL (NC0038997)
Wastewater discharge from Roaring Gap Club (Roaring Gap, Alleghany County) to a
UT to Mitchell River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
15A NCAC 2B .0300 Index #: Mitchell River classified as B-Tr ORW (#12-62-(1)) in
10/1/88.
ATC Information:
• 11/3/97 ATC issued for recirculation pump station, wetwell, dosing tank pumps,
sand filter distribution pipingg/spray nozzles, recirculation flow splitter manifold,
bar screen, tablet chlorinator/dechlorinator and chlorine contact chamber.
Basinwide Plan Information:
• This sub -basin (03-07-02) contains no impaired waters, but the majority of streams
are threatened... (old statement? 2 are listed on the '98 303(d) list). There are no
ambient stations nearby this discharge.
• Two macroinvertebrate samples on the Mitchell River in '96 resulted in an
Excellent rating in the upper reach, and a Good rating near the mouth. According
to the basin plan, this segment of the river is supporting its uses.
• Many streams in this sub -basin are impacted by sedimentation.
• The Mitchell River ORW still has excellent water quality, but the effects of
increasing development are evident. This watershed may require additional
attention in the future to prevent deterioration. A project has been funded by the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund for the 'Mitchell River watershed and
includes land acquisition and stream restoration activities.
Correspondence:
• Evaluation and optimization study on the treatment system was submitted on
7/31/96, in accordance with permit cover letter.
• 10/11/96 Memo from Steve Mauney (WSRO): a review the evaluation and add.
info. indicated preliminary plans for the facility were satisfactory and would allow
continued discharge without impact to the Mitchell River or its tributaries. A final
design was pending (ATC issued 11/97).
• NOV issued for BOD in 8/96. -
• Memo (not dated) outlined that there are 420' between the discharge pipe to the
first signs of water, 750' between pipe to appreciable amount of water for sampling
purposes, and 1400' between pipe to confluence with a positive flow stream.
• 4/8/97 letter from DWQ conceded that submitted EAA was sufficient.
• 5/20/97 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report documented two BOD5
violations during the previous year, but it indicated the plant was well maintained.
At the time, used sand was discarded over the wall of the sand filter, but proper
disposal was recommended by the region.
• 6/22/98 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report indicated facility was operating
satisfactorily. Also stated that plant did not discharge from 11/97-3/98.
WLA Information:
• Ammonia limits were recommended at the previous renewal; however, facility
chose to propose a new discharge point instead. A new WLA was requested, but
the conclusion was that the original discharge point was better, and the facility

l NOTES FOR ROARING GAP
PERMIT RENEWAL (NC0038997)
Wastewater discharge from Roaring Gap Club (Roaring Gap, Alleghany County) to
the UT to Mitchell River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
15A NCAC 2B .0300 Index #: Mitchell River classified as B-Tr ORW (#12-62-(1)) in
10/1/88.
ATC Information:
• 11/3/97 ATC issued for recirculation pump station, wetwell, dosing tank pumps,
sand filter distribution pipingg/spray nozzles, recirculation flow splitter manifold,
bar screen, tablet chlorinator Uchlorinator and chlorine contact chamber.
Basinwide Plan Information:
• This sub -basin (03-07-02) contains no impaired waters, but the majority of streams
are threatened... (old statement? 2 are listed on the '98 303(d) list). There are no
ambient stations nearby this discharge.
• Two macroinvertebrate samples on the Mitchell River in '96 resulted in an
Excellent rating in the upper reach, and a Good rating near the mouth. According
to the basin plan, this segment of the river is supporting its uses.
• Many streams in this sub -basin are impacted by sedimentation.
• The Mitchell River ORW still has excellent water quality, but the effects of
increasing development are evident. This watershed may require additional
attention in the future to prevent deterioration. A project has been funded by the
Clean Water Management Trust Fund for the Mitchell River watershed and
includes land acquisition and stream restoration activities.
Correspondence:
• Evaluation and optimization study on the treatment system was submitted on
7/31/96, in accordance with permit cover letter.
• 10/11/96 Memo from Steve Mauney (WSRO): a review the evaluation and add.
info. indicated preliminary plans for the facility were satisfactory and would allow
continued discharge without impact to the Mitchell River or its tributaries. A final
design was pending (ATC issued 11/97).
• NOV issued for BOD in 8/96.
• Memo (not dated) outlined that there are 420' between the discharge pipe to the
first signs of water, 750' between pipe to appreciable amount of water for sampling
purposes, and 1400' between pipe to confluence with a positive flow stream.
• 4/8/97 letter from DWQ conceded that submitted EAA was sufficient.
• 5/20/97 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report documented two BOD5
violations during the previous year, but it indicated the plant was well maintained.
At the time, used sand was discarded over the wall of the sand filter, but proper
disposal was recommended by the region.
• 6/22/98 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report indicated facility was operating
satisfactorily. Also stated that plant did not discharge from 11/97-3/98.
WLA Information:
• Ammonia limits were recommended at the previous renewal; however, facility
chose to propose a new discharge point instead. A new WLA was requested, but
the conclusion was that the original discharge point was better, and the facility

NC0038997 BAB
would be allowed to continue discharge there without ammonia limits. WLA
summary is attached.
• Discharge is seasonal. 1997 flows were significantly higher (as high as 0.0136
MGD), prior to upgrades. Flows typically < 0.005 MGD in '98.
• During operation, TSS normally < 10 mg/1 (slightly higher on average in '98), and
fecal typically <2/100 ml.
• pH and temperatures are fine.
• DOs range from 3-5.5 mg/l in '97; slightly higher in '98 (4-6 mg/1). BOD5
normally < 5 mg/1 in '97, but increased in `98— ranging 10-30 mg/l more often.
• Ammonia levels are low, typically < 1 mg/l in '97. In '98, levels still fairly low,
but slightly higher (< 1-3.6 mg/1).
General Comments:
Facility's treatment did not seem to improve significantly in '98, but overall
performance is okay. Facility might be able to meet 2/4 limits for ammonia, but
not consistently, and this issue is a sore one, given previous objections byy the
facility. Because of the discharge situation (basically to the ground), it is probably
feasible to renew without ammonia limits as last time, but what about the equity
issue? We are requiring other dischargers to zero flow streams to meet these limits,
normally with a compliance schedule of about two years...
Discussion with Dave G., 2/2/99: Since the Mitchell is an ORW, leaving the
discharge at the current location is the better choice. This discharge is also only
seasonal, which can increase difficulty with consistent treatment. Facility invested
significant effort into completing the required optimization study and
modifications to the plant, so it is reasonable to again grant a renewal without
ammonia limits.
Discussion with Mack Wiggins (prev. permit writer): Facility was originally given
choice between ammonia and tox. limits, and it chose ammonia (hence the request
for relocation in order to have higher limits). Since discharge was to a "valley area"
and not directly to the UT, and because of optimization work, the zero -flow policy
was not applied in this case.
Per Steve Pellei's 12/7/98 Memo regarding nutrient monitoring in the Yadkin
basin, this facility should be given quarterly TN and TP monitoring.
Expiration date to be assigned to this permit is December 31, 2003.
page 2

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO038997
PERMITTEE NAME: Roaring Gap Club, Inc.
FACILITY NAME: Roaring Gap Club Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor /
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.013 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial ( 0 of Flo )
6 l
yJ
Comments: /� �� 5 y(� Z 0 " � D C/D
Dischar a location.
�0
RECEIVING STRE ; an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River
Class: B-Trout ORW
Sub -Basin: 03-07-02
Reference USGS Quad: B 1
County: Ai1eg�
Regional Office
Winston-Salem kb
Previous Exp. Date
6/30/93
(please attach)
Office
Treatment Plant Class: I
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by: Mack Wiggins Date: 1 /5/96
Prepared by:
Date:
Reviewed by: Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
AN
5 kip
I <�47_e�
Drainage Area (mil )
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
q-W Downstream Location
I
Effluent
Characteri!cs
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (m )
3 (mom)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100 n 1)
pH (SU)
Comments:

1,,
10
4032
uo"
1
\: rEP 2 VI)II
�?=
2800
It
xjo
403
25'
it
O—
3
yY 1 �� I .i 1; ;•"� "� ...i 'Imp, r r. i�
/jh
Q q � ntioch h i . �t
o. O OC , tt i f• \�
1 Fish'
Q / 2800 Hatcheryuj
l /2892Co 473
t /
IGo rse
C� �— •' ORoaring Gap 2877
3000
97000Q
FEET r' •-ll. _.,'� 1 ti78i / �� --_'iz9
u
� , � •• •„ � �; , �. 1.
29j1 u /
amps I

V
. 1
IEHL & PHILLIPS, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
WILLIAM C. DIEHL, P.E.
JoHN F. PHILLIPs, P.E.
219 East Chatham Street, Cary, North Carolina 27511
December 5, 1995
Mr. Mack Wiggins
Permits & Engineering
Division of Environmental Management
NC Dept Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Draft Permit
Permit No. NC0038997; Roaring -Gap Club
Dear Mack:
Enclosed for DEM's evaluation is a portion of a USGS map (Roaring
Gap) with the proposed relocated discharge point indicated. By
our measurement, the tributary drainage area to the relocated
discharge point woulu be 102 acres.
Please advise if this relocation would eliminate the proposed
ammonia/toxicity testing. We appreciate your assistance in this
matter.
Yours very truly,
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
ehn)F.&P�hillips, P.E.
CC: Mr. C. Jay Manner
Mr Bill Hollan
Mr. C.D. Malone, P.E.
L

j,,I L.� � �6q' ZS �✓� iZGv �', w cj � waa �.Gt!ocv -�
I FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
-' " l7equest 8428
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
Roaring Gap Club WWTP
NC0038997
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Modification
UT to Mitchell River (see WLA summary below for description)
B-trout O- W
03-07-02
Alleghanyy, Stream Characteristic:
Winston-Salem USGS # see calculations in
Mack Wiggins Date: WLA notes
1/5/96 Drainage Area (mi2): 0.16
B15NW Summer7Q10 (cfs): 0.05
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
0.08
0.32
0.11
The WWTP is located in a mountainous region and consists of a septic tank, dual sand
filters with chlorination and dechlorination. The facility provides service to a small resort area
consisting of a few residences and a restaurant. Typically the facility does not discharge
November through April. After treatment the effluent is discharged from a pipe onto the ground
(mountain side). The discharge is not to a stream in the conventional since of the word. The
discharge is more to a heavily vegetated "valley -like" area of the mountainside which conducts
storm water but remains dry during non rainy periods. If you were to call this "valley -like"
receiving topology a stream it would be estimated to have a 7Q10=0 cfs and a 30Q2=0 cfs. This
was what was done in the 1993 WLA (#7272) and as a result the zero flow policy was added to the
permit. The current permit calls for the removal of the discharge or BOD5=5 mg/L and NH3-N=2
mg/L limits depending on the results of the alternatives analysis. In this WLA (#8428) the facility
is exploring the possibility of relocating the discharge such that the effluent is piped directly to the
UT instead of running over ground. The UT at the proposed relocation site is estimated to have a
S7Q10=0.05 cfs and a 30Q2=0.11 cfs. Allen Smith (WSRO), as well as a former ORC have both
stated that the effluent discharged onto the "valley -like" area is absorbed into the ground before it
ever reaches the UT in most cases. Given the extra in -ground treatment the effluent receives before
entering the UT as ground water, it is recommended that the outfall not be relocated so
as to discharge effluent directly into the UT. It is the region's opinion that the current treatment
and discharge scenario at the present loading rate is not resulting in any significant environmental
impact. It is my opinion that relocating the outfall to the proposed location would be more
detrimental to the UT than the present situation.
It is questionable as to wheth,r the S7Q10 flow at the relocation site is positive. Generally,
a flow of less than 0.05 cfs is considered zero flow. I am going to consider the flow positive (see
WLA notes for calculations and explanation). However, the discharge cannot be modeled
considering the non steady state intermittent -type discharge from the dosing bell septic tank. Given
the very low flow nature of the UT, as well as its B-trout ORW classification, advanced tertiary
limits for the relocated discharge are recommended.

2
Summary of Permit Violations:
5/17/95 BOD5 daily max. limit violated (55 mg/L)
6/21/95 BOD5 daily max. limit violated (50 mg/L)
7/7/95 Fecal daily max. limit violated (4300 cells/100 mL)
7/13/95 BOD5 daily max. limit violated (48 mg/L)
7/95 Monthly flow avg. limit violated (0.0133 MGD)-flows of 0.0133 MGD reported
everyday.
6/l/94 Fecal daily max limit violated (1600 cells/100 mL)
8/16/94 TSS daily max. limit violated (57 mg/L)
8/16/94 Fecal daily max. limit violated (>6000 cells/100 mL)
5/4/93 Fecal daily max. limit violated (640 cells/100 mL)
717/93 Fecal daily max. limit violated (6000 cells/100 mL)
9/14/93 TSS daily max. limit violated (49 mg/L)
9/14/93 BOD5 daily max. limit violated (70 mg/L)
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from
9
-lea I
' J .3i
Recommended by: Date:lC7XIV
Reviewed by
In strewn Assessment: Date: 0'2
s
Regional Supervisor: Date: 2 —.2c , — °7
Permits & Engineering: Date: Z3
61
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: M �R 0 9 1996

3
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Daily Max.
S&W
S&W
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.013
BODS (mg/1):
30.0
45.0
NH3N (mg/1):
monitor
Temperature
monitor
TSS (mg/1):
30.0
45.0
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
400
pH (SU):
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
10.0
Recommended Limits: Fo
y- �go jkz,_4 in Yt
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.013
0.013
BODS (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
WQ
NH3N (mg/1):
2.0
4.0
WQ
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
WQ
TSS (mg/1):
30.0
30.0
EL
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
EL
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
EL
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17
17
WQ
Limit changes due to:
Advanced tertiary limits are recommended given the B-trout OWR classification and the low flow
nature of the stream (SQ10=0.05 cfs).
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
��� �e �con
Sh�vl�L ,fie -'PC/ C�/�'n
7'
mc�
I� �
v�
0 /m ammmia-
C, YLuf DV �DxiG� 0�.
a ' b,
9 - �wt

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 25 feet upstream
Downstream Location: 100 feet downstream
Parameters: D. O., ter_ perature, cond., pH, fecal
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No )<_
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
�nC�eaSP�Q Sa/Ylo
-r
may VNa�—k rrV
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysis
if modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
R e des c� ' re6co�ec�. ire Prku.„,;5 I�lemes o� Rep
� Cr
WS O dos rw w 1�+e
Roai^5 Qf Cl"b)

Roaring Gap Club Ammonia Values
Oct.
<1.0
Sept.
2.94
Aug.
2.52
July
2.46 Summer
June
<1.0
May
3.91 & .97 = 2.44
April
March
Feb.
Jan. E3'' Winter
Dec.
Nov.
New permit will impose a 2 &4 NH3 Limit - 2 mg/l limit in the summer
4 mg/l limits in the winter.

NCDEH8zNR
DEM-WSRO
To: Dave Goodrich
Mack Wiggins
From: Allan Smith
Subject: Roaring. Gap Club
Date: 960221
r
1996
On February 20, 1996, I met with Hal Transou, ORC, and ]ay Manner, General
Manager, of the Roaring Gap Club (NPDES Permit No. NC0038997). We took a
measuring device with us as we walked the length of the discharge drainage area. The
results are as, follows:
420' - from discharge pipe to first signs of water. This is a small spring with
minimal flow; such a small flow, that no reliable sampling could be done from this spring
system.
750' - from discharge pipe to first appreciable amount of water where samples
might be collected.
1400' - from discharge pipe to where the water in the drainage basin connects to
another positive flow stream.
It should be noted that this is a steep gradient with thick undergrowth. If an
upstream and a downstream sampling is required it will easily take 1-1 /2 hours to perform
the sampling. The undergrowth gets even thicker where the two stream systems converge
so we measured where, in reality, the sampling will be done (due to accessibility) and it
was 20' Upstream from the stream convergence and 88, Downstream from the
convergence. Hopefully, monitoring frequency will be Monthly and not Weekly.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the WSRO. If you
would like a site visit, we would gladly accommodate - but you might want to wait until
Spring.

) hi
�G�1 � g4z8
N� oo3017
Q,= 0,ol-3 W6,,0
h-f fu 101ha ifivrn (,�CL 010 XV9
03-07-Do1,
71-k 6,P� gc-
4,44 �2e 62V-� 755 =_Vv
Feces - /&PalhlV l-, awl P Te i� 19
�n P �t 19��. T Tarter 7-0 � % /�Yino
Am) /-wvw Cod- A 144t
rem o vd , f ' f �r 115, ( Ltd 07 a o%
�r
Ad
41,1t,6 /l0leS ��7 AIV4 Ralk,
9,�
j�le, 7 )CA �o �f�✓na�ti�
�' / t1 OC �K wl f� A6

�iV�l��.3 C e G✓/ f� f �t ��i' t�h Zit- jL 6;) 4 t /L ((V-)
T4 14'e,11d, w, lio� Altv? &
of
o T f�f c/rs�� , lama well /
/HS�Goi
ve, lkz 0, //', 0
-�Wxlr)qw, //;"2// A
UT
�.
S¢08 desovrii1,4 '
�a�1dSc� � CGr/�/Lri��iSGl2�L ��G4.�

wwT19
Nov
�1Z3 ,U►�t�
tgf'ta4l� d6-
6. �Lll�glzi' A
rA�,a flOW /At CAIJ _VaaYM ��� 07' f
MaA-t7Ak.,- Uelvc/d .
�11-3 1306 W,4
7/ 7 �t,CO►.� ✓ � U W"V
/11 All
n-V d,sc

pmk IreV, ANM
Alo disd� .
J 44�— /6(iv
AW-44 Q Ar/lY
0'
. -�-4 - 0 K
MAe
OK
Oct —off
Nov — 4v
Ao(, -- /V

N _
bilk
I W o�i�0�9.%�
` oil rjl�
llrs�f ou-y
--------- - ---
wd
wed

0
##/0
nA = 0,lb wu�
PY!PO
57010=OO-r7 4
s
f4f 11 l sG�al l/� �OCa C GL1 010 q Ap/ -61 vp p4f xl
//w/v,
7C�/a
5
9 0, 99
IV 1�eld = a, zSz Q `
i�o r f "I -ow F/ot %lyk = Z, l� 2-
Q�
S76)/e
v,Zsz 0 e 2� V-.L-

I've
�5 a ��s� �Gv�,�i S G►%P.G�t/�- � ����s� 1Na►,1 c��� f° �� ��
�r-�i� tom . �f� s �i s t��� we � s �`►�e f l �n Nu �
iLf�'s SGZ� G;f� 1r /all �� C44411t y/cl,✓S bd0
y
field cj6ula� -f�l 2 � f IOR 574�,fyls /n *16&4e �11ell
60lq iza-Lo (Svlo)
l V 30, l rug H o, 46s1
173 15,g 0 6/5-*- 4-41fii Z
1�v , Id = (a. 6�1 0 �3/5) � = o. �g3 (fs � ti
9
y
4-10-
fl,40 /V wu 57G'lo &&j
,zd mGf tiv f/ow loGt>,f,ve.
�i c /�✓ � dos �� y� �l/, 0 7 � �

'•a
Page 1
Note for Andy McDaniel _
From: Liz Kovasckitz
Date: Tue, Jan 30, 1996 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: Roaring Gap Country Club
To: Andy McDaniel
Cc: Steve Zoufaly
There are no management strategies for the Mitchell River or it's tributaries that would
require stricter limits on existing dischargers. There are very few freshwater ORW's that
have additional management strategies beyond the minimum (no new dischargers or
expansions, & stormwater), and they can be found in 15 NCAC 2B .0225. I am assuming
this outfall is being moved to a different point on the UT and not being moved to a point
draining to Mitchell River for the 1 st time.
From: Andy McDaniel on Tue, Jan 30, 1996 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: Roaring Gap Country Club
To: Liz Kovasckitz
Liz,
I might not have given you enough info earlier. This is an existing facility moving their
outfall. RIght now they have a BOD5=30mg/L. Are there any management strategies which
would require stricter limits, or is the only stategy just no new or expanding dischargers.
From: Liz Kovasckitz on Tue, Jan 30, 1996 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: Roaring Gap Country Club
To: Andy McDaniel
Andy, It doesn't have any additional management requirements other than the standard
management strategy for freshwater ORW's- No new dischargers or expansions to existing
dischargers are permitted (and some stormwater stuff which, if you need, let me know). Liz
From: Andy McDaniel on Tue, Jan 30, 1996 11:08 AM
Subject: Roaring Gap Country Club
To: Liz Kovasckitz
Liz,
I'm working on a WLA for a facility that wants to discharge into a UT to the Mitchell River
in Alleghany Co. The stream class is B-trout ORW. Do we have any management strategies
for ORW streams in the Yadkin Basin (03-07-02)?
Thanks