NC0070408_Fact Sheet_20181101

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO07O4O8
Permit Writer/Email Contact Derek Denard, [e-mail]:
Date: O 1Nov2018
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/Water Quality Permitting Section/
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Branch
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
X❑ Renewal ❑ Renewal with Expansion ❑X New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2' species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Clevon Woods Associates, LLC/ Clevon Woods — Art Plaza WWTP
Applicant Address:
756 West King Street, Boone, NC 28607
Facility Address:
NC Highway 105, Seven Devils 28604
Permitted Flow:
0.035 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
Minor; 100% domestic < 1MGD
Facility Class:
Grade 11 Biological WPCS
Treatment Units:
Not constructed; ATC will be applied for
Pretreatment Program (Y/1)
No
County:
Watauga
Region
Winston-Salem
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: On May 5, 2017 Clevon Woods
Assoicaties applied for renewal of NPDES permit NC0070408 for Cleven Woods — Art Plaza WWTP.
After receiving an Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit from the Division, Clevon Woods Associates,
LLC is permitted to operate a 0.035 MGD 100% domestic wastewater treatment facility. The WWTP will
serve both commercial and residential properties with an estimated 55,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a 5,000
sq. ft. of restaurant and 30 two-bedroom townhouses. The permit was originally issued on November 12,
1987.
Page 1 of 8

During the mandatory 30 -day public comment period, the Division received ten (10) public comments.
Following the public comment period, the Division reviewed all pertinent comments on your draft permit. A
comment received from the Southern Environmental Law Center noted that no Authorization to Construct
(ATC) permit has been applied for since the previous permit was issued in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H
.0138 (a). In response to this comment, additional information was requested on December 21, 2017 and June
20, 2018 for a current Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). An EAA is required in order to process a
new discharge application in accordance with 15A NCAC 0211.0103 (16).
In response to the additional information request, a current EAA was prepared and submitted by Warren
Consulting & Design, PLLC on February 16, 2018 and August 6, 2018. A review of the EAA on September
21, 2018 found that the following engineering alternatives are cost prohibitive and/or technically infeasible:
connection to the Town of Boone, wastewater reuse, onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation, and spray
irrigation. Therefore, the Division concurs with the consultant that the discharge option is the most viable
based on cost.
The applicants need for the project is stated in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) as follows:
This project is essential to provide wastewater treatment not only for a proposed development,
but also for two existing businesses with septic systems that have failed. Those failed systems
present existing threats to the groundwater and surface waters. This project will remove those
threats.
The CWA property is proposed to be a mix of commercial and residential uses that will generate
a high volume of wastewater. The anticipated uses and wastewater flows are shown in Section D.
A copy of the CWA Master Plan boundary is attached in the Appendix as Exhibit 6.
Speedway, LLC owns and operates a gas station and convenience store on a 1.245 acre tract
situated at the corner of NC Hwy 105 and NCSR 1151, known as Seven Devils Road). The septic
system providing waste disposal for the convenience store failed in 2015 and the property has
since been operating under a temporary pump & haul permit for waste disposal. There is not
sufficient usable land for septic field repair or construction of an alternate drain field. Speedway
has indicated its need and commitment to the proposed WWTP project by contributing
$125,000.00 toward its construction, and has placed $125,000 in escrow with a Boone attorney. A
gravity sewer line is designed to tie the Speedway property into the WWTP when completed and
operational. The existing wastewater flow is shown in Section D. A copy of the Wilco Hess (now
Speedway) boundary survey is attached in the Appendix as Exhibit 7.
Vestpocket Investments, LLC (VI) has an existing 100 seat restaurant across from the WWTP site
on Aldridge Rd. Its septic field has also failed and there is not enough usable land for repair. The
restaurant will tie into the plant after it comes online. The existing wastewater flow is shown
below. A copy of the VI boundary survey is attached in the Appendix as Exhibit 8.
Page 2 of 8

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001- WATAUGA RIVER
Stream Segment:
8-(1)
Stream Classification:
B;Tr,HQW
Drainage Area (mi2):
6.09
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
1.8
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
-
30Q2 (cfs):
3.8
Average Flow (cfs):
12.8
IWC (% effluent):
4.33
303(d) listed/parameter:
No: 8-(1)a; 3a Data Inconclusive; Temperature exceedance in
mountains but no assessment of thermal variance. See
attached 2016 Integrated Report 303(d) 305(b).
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
No
Subbasin/HUC:
04-02-01/060101030301
USGS Topo Quad:
Valle Crucis, NC
3. Effluent Data Summary
4. Instream Data Summary
NA — Not constructed, no data.
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: NA — Not constructed, no data.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO.
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA.
5. Compliance Summary NA — Not constructed, no data.
Page 3 of 8

6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin.. Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0204(b): NA.
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: NA.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: There are no
proposed changes.
Reasonable Potential Analvsis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below. NA.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of 1/z detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: NA.
Page 4 of 8

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/l.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: NA.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: The proposed wastewater treatment facility design flow is less than 50,000 gpd and
the stream is not classified as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC
02B .0508 (d)(1), nutrient monitoring is not required. Additionally, there are no TMDLs for this area in
the Watauga River Basin.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or OR W) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody:
15A NCAC 02B. 0224 HIGH QUALITY WATERS — High Quality Waters (HQW) are a subset of
waters with quality higher than the standards and are as described by 15A NCAC 2B .0101(e)(5).
The following procedures shall be implemented in order to implement the requirements of Rule
.0201(d) of this Section.
(1) New or expanded wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters shall comply with the
following:...
(b) All new NPDES wastewater discharges (except single family residences) shall be
required to provide the treatment described below:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BODS= 5 mg/l,
NH3-N = 2 mg/l and DO = 6 mg/l....
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be limited to
effluent concentrations of 10 mg/l for trout waters and PNA's, and to 20 mg/l for all other
High Quality Waters.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 010 7( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.4 7, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B. 0226 for this permit renewal: NA.
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
NA
Page 5 of 8

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA.
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(0)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(0) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
We have made the following changes for the final permit:
1. The facility classification Grade Il Biological WPCS was added to the effluent page.
2. The facility map has been updated
3. Regulatory citations have been added.
4. Parameter codes have been updated in Section A. (1.).
5. Electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports (eDMR) has been added in Section A. (2.).
Page 6 of 8

Effluent
Limits
Monitoring Requirements)
Characteristic a
Monthly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
[Parameter Codes]
Average
Maximum
Frequency f
Type g
Location 2, b
Flow (MGD) b
50050
0.035 MGD
Continuous b
Recorder b
I or E c
BOD, 5-day (20°C)
a,c
CO310
5.0 mg/L d
7.5 mg/L e
Weekly f
Composite g
E c
(mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids
a,c
CO530
10.0 mg/L d
15.0 mg/L e
Weekly f
Composite g
E c
(TSS) (mg/L)
NH3 as N (mg/L) a,c
CO610
2.0 mg/L d
10.0 mg/L h
Weekly f
Composite g
E c
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
a,c
00300
Daily average > 6.0 mg/L d
Weekly f
Grab g
E c
(mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
a
00300
Monitor & Report
Weekly f
Grab g
U & D c
(mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
3,a,i
31616
200/100 ml'
400/100 ml'
Weekly f
Grab g
E c
(geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
4'a'J
50060
28 µg/Li
2/Weekf
Grab
E
(TRC) (gg/L)
Temperature (°C) a
00010
Monitor & Report
Daily f
Grab g
E c
Temperature (°C) a
00010
Monitor & Report
Weekly f
Grab g
U & D c
pH (su) a,k
00400
Not < 6.0 nor > 9.0 k
Weekly f
Grab g
E c
Standard Units
Footnotes:
1. The Permittee shall begin submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports electronically using NC DWR's
eDMR application system. See Condition A. (2.).
2. I = Influent; E = Effluent; U = Upstream: at least 100 feet upstream from the outfall. D =
Downstream: at least 100 feet downstream from the outfall.
3. Fecal Coliform shall be calculated using the geometric mean, according to the procedure detailed in
Part II. Section A.
4. Total Residual Chlorine limit and monitoring is required only if chlorine is utilized in the treatment
process. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/L to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values
reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall
below 50 ug/L.
Conditions:
• There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Basis for monitoring conditions:
a. Effluent Characteristics are in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (d) Domestic Wastewater and
Other Facilities Discharging Primarily Domestic — Minimum Requirements for SIC 4952.
b. Flow monitoring is in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0505 (b)(1).
c. Sampling Location is in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (d) Domestic Wastewater and Other
Facilities Discharging Primarily Domestic — Minimum Requirements for SIC 4952.
Page 7 of 8

d. 15A NCAC 02B.0224 HIGH QUALITY WATERS
High Quality Waters (HQW) are a subset of waters with quality higher than the standards and are as
described by 15A NCAC 2B .0101(e)(5). The following procedures shall be implemented in order to
implement the requirements of Rule .0201(d) of this Section.
(1) New or expanded wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters shall comply with the
following:... (b) All new NPDES wastewater discharges (except single family residences) shall be
required to provide the treatment described below: (i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent
limitations shall be as follows: BODS= 5 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/1 and DO = 6 mg/l.... (ii) Total
Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be limited to effluent
concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and PNA's, and to 20 mg/1 for all other High Quality
Waters.
e. Daily Maximum Limits — Monthly Avg limit x 1.5 = Daily Max limit
£ Measurement Frequency is in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (d) Domestic Wastewater and
Other Facilities Discharging Primarily Domestic — Minimum Requirements for SIC 4952. The
measurement frequencies that apply are for a Class II facility that is water quality limited.
g. Sample Type is in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0505 (c)(3). Composite sampling for BOD,
Ammonia and TSS applies when the design flow is greater than 30,000 gpd.
h. Ammonia Daily Maximum Limit — Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis) (see attached
IWC Calculations Spreadsheet).
i. Fecal Coliform is limited for Class B waters in accordance 15A NCAC 02B .0219 (3)(b).
j. For TRC information see Part 6 above and the attached IWC Calculations Spreadsheet. T Limitations
for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection of aquatic
life (17 ug/1) [15A NCAC 02B .0211 (3)] and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts).
k. pH limitations are in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (14).
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 09/24/2017
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0 111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES.
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
• The facility classification Grade II Biological WPCS was added to the effluent page.
15. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• 2016 Integrated Report 303(d) 305(b), p. 1028
• IWC Calculations spreadsheet, 3 pages.
• Public Notice Affidavit, 2 pages.
• Comments, 17 pages.
Page 8 of 8

Final 2016 Integrated Report -All Assessed Waters
Ersrrnefa� Watauga River Subbasin Watauga River Basin
4�+�r
Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit Description
Assessment Unit Number Water Quality Classification Length/Area Units
WATAUGA RIVER
From source to Cove Creek
8-(1)a
B;Tr,HQW 17.1
FW Miles
Assessment Criteria Status
Reason for Rating
Parameter of Interest
Category
Data Inconclusive
> 10% and < 90% conf
Cadmium (0.4 µg/I, AL, Tr)
3e
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Turbidity (10 NTU, AL, Tr)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Zinc (50 µg/I, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Nickel (88 µg/I, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Arsenic (10 µg/I, HH, NC)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Copper (7 µg/I, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Lead (25 µg/I, AL, NC)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Mercury (0.012 µg/l, FC, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Arsenic (50 µg/I, AL, NC)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
pH (9.0, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Water Temperature (299C, AL, MT&UP)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
pH (6 su, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Dissolved Oxygen (6 mg/I, AL, Tr)
1
Meeting Criteria
< 10%
Cadmium (0.4 µg/I, AL, Tr)
1
Meeting Criteria
Good
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
Good -Fair
Fish Community (Nar, AL, FW)
1
Meeting Criteria
FCB AP GM<200 and <20%
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW)
1
Data Inconclusive
Not assessed
Iron (1000 µg/I, Natural, FW)
3z1
Data Inconclusive
No Asmnt of Thermal Vari
Water Temperature (209C, AL, Tr)
3a
4/11/2018 2016 Integrated Report -All Assessed Waters Page 1028 of 1306
Fish tissue assessments for mercury apply to all waters and are not individually listed

IWC Calculations
Facility: Clevon Woods - Art Plaza WWTP
NC0070408
Prepared By: Derek Denard
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.035
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 1.8
Enter w7Q10 cfs :
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
1.8
s7Q10 (CFS)
1.8
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.035
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.035
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.05425
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.05425
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
2.93
IWC (%)
2.93
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
581
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
26.9
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.035
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.05425
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
34.18
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009

Permit No
Facility Name
Permittee
Stream Name
Permit Flow
NCO070408
Art Plaza WWTP
Clevon Woods Association
WATAUGA RIVER
35000
NCO033448
Valley Creek Apartments WWTP
MS & SR Enterprises, LLC
Valley Creek
5000
NCO058891
Valley Creek WWTP
Hawksnest Utilities
Valley Creek
10000
NCO049174
Smoketree Lodge
Smoketree Lodge
WATAUGA RIVER
10000
NCO042358
Adams Apple Condominiums WWTP
Adams Apple Homeowners Association Inc
WATAUGA RIVER
20000
NCO062961
Tynecastle WWTP
RCS Properties
WATAUGA RIVER
30000
110000 gpd

IWC Calculations
Facility: Total WATAUGA RIVER
Discharges
Prepared By: Derek Denard
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
0.11
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
1.8
Enter w7Q10 cfs :
s7Q10 (CFS)
1.8
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.11
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.1705
IWC (%)
8.65

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Acct. Name: NORTH CAROLINA-WATAUGA COUNTY
DEQ - DIVISION OF WA Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County
and State, duly commissioned, qualified and authorized by the
Acct. # 265236 law to administer oaths, personally appeared:
COST OF PUBLICATION
Total $302.40
Who being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is
REPRESENTATIVE
of a newspaper known as THE WATAUGA DEMOCRAT, publishe
issued and entered as second class mail in City of Boone,
in said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make
this affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice of other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in THE WATAUGA DEMOCRAT the following dates
NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
09/24/2017
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper,
document or legal advertisement was published was, at the time
of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of
the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina.
This 22nd day of SAptember, 2017
°`"ItIIII It, ft
er,ORG4N
�P SD 0 Sworn to and subscribed efore me, this
(� ®-1 ASR J• 2 22nd day of Septe be 017
U- •.�
Notar . ' ublic'yu)TK F < G'Ytisl'�1
My Commission Expires: �is

Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
Ridge Development WWTP
NPDES Wastewater Permit
[NC0030473], 229 Clubhouse
The North Carolina Environ-
Drive, Banner Elk, Watauga
mental Management Commis-
County, discharging treated do-
sion proposes to issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge
mestic wastewater to the
permit to the person(s) listed
Watauga River, Watauga Raver
Basin
below. Written comments re-
Town of Beech Mountain ap-
garding the proposed permit will
plied to renew NPDES permit
be accepted until 30 days after
for Buckeye Lake WTP
the publish date of this notice.
[NC0088099], 1400 Pine Ridge
The Director of the NC Division
Rd, Watauga County, discharg-
of Water Resources (DWR)
ing filter-backwash wastewater
may hold a public hearing
to Buckeye Creek, Watauga
should there be a significant de-
River Basin.
gree of public interest. Please
mail comments and/or informa-
tion requests to DWR at the
above address. Interested per-
sons may visit the DWR at 512
N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC to review information on file.
Additional information on
NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our websks:
httpi/deq.nc.gov/about/dnri-
sions/water-resources/water-re-
sources-permits/wastewater-
bianch/npdes-wastewater/pub-
lic-notices,or by calling (919)
807-6397.
Watauga County Board of Com-
missioners requested renewal
of permit NC0067008 for the
Old Cove Creek School WWTP
in Watauga County; this permit-
ted • discharge is treated
wastewater to Cove Creek in
the Watauga River basin.
Sofield Properties requested re-
newal of NPDES permit
NCO036242/Woodiand Hills
Apartments WWTP/Watauga
County. facility discharges to
Brushy fork Creek/ Watauga
River Basin. Ammonia nitro-
gen, dissolved oxygen, and to-
tal residual chlorine are water
quality limited.
Clevon Woods Associates, LLC
applied to renew NPDES permit
for Art Plaza WWTP
[NC0070408]. NC Hwy 105,
Seven Devils, Watauga County.
discharging treated domestic
wastewater to Watauga River,
Watauga River Basin
Milt Ridge POA applied to ft-
new NPDES permit for their MW
cnntnrzaed reed column

Denard, Derek
From: Mark Hurst <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:23 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [External] Art Plaza WWTP Permit # NC0070408
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Mr. Denard,
My name is Mark Hurst and I spoke with you late last week regarding Art Plaza WWTP Permit # NC0070408. Thank you
for allowing us to contact you via email with our comments as opposed to submitting the comments via USPS.
My wife and I live in a subdivision named Aldridge Ridge Ponds located approximately two tenths of a mile above the
proposed sewage treatment plant referenced above. I would like to share the following concerns regarding this
proposed plant.
1. 1 am very concerned about the impact this plant will have on the Watauga River. The plant could process up to
35,000 gallons per day and I think the impact on the river in, not only that immediate area, but downstream as well, will
be extremely detrimental to aquatic life. We have people who fish this area for trout and the impact on the fish and
fishing could be harmful indeed. The Foscoe Community Center and Park are located just up the river from this
proposed plant and people often wade and fish in this area. The Grandfather Vineyard is located immediately
downstream from the proposed plant as are several neighborhoods. This is an area where people enjoy walking, fishing
and wading the stream and pumping that much effluence would, in my opinion, have a very negative effect on such
activities. As you may know, the county and state are currently dealing with a petro chemical leak into our river here in
Foscoe and we certainly do not need another potential source of contamination affecting our river. In addition, Andy
Hill, Watauga Riverkeeper (please note I am copying him with this email), has stated that there are a number of wwtp
violations currently occurring along this river and we do not, again, need another potential source of contamination
whether it be effluence that is too warm or other issues.
2. The area where the proposed plant will be placed is prone to flooding. I believe that such a plant will require that
chemicals be stored there and a flood in that area could impact that building and cause such chemicals to contaminate
the river and land in that area.
3. 1 am concerned about the potential for air quality issues. As stated above, we live very close to this proposed plant
and I am very aware of the odor issues that can and often do occur at such plants. Such issues would affect not only
those of us living in the area, but the visitors who access the park, winery, and trout fishing opportunities downstream.
While the proposed plant will be housed inside a building, several neighbors noted that the plant in Boone is housed
inside a building but still produces a bad odor, especially during warm weather.
4. This proposed plant is not in keeping with our surrounding area. The neighborhoods mentioned above as well as the
park and winery would be adversely affected by such a plant. There is a house located directly in front of this proposed
plant and there is a home directly behind it. A small family farm is also located extremely close to this proposed plant.

It is my hope that this plant will not be permitted to proceed. I am uncertain as to what steps occur next but I hope that
the State will require further review and/or a State hearing to discuss the impact this plant will have on our river and the
people of this area and the many visitors to our area.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my concerns and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have or provide more information if needed.
Mark Hurst

Denard, Derek
From: Ken Townsend <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:39 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Waste Water Treatment Permit
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
My name is Ken Townsend. I am writing you concerning Art Plaza WWTP Permit # NC0070408. Thank you for allowing
me to contact you via email with my comments as opposed to submitting the comments via USPS.
My father and I own property that adjoins the property directly across from where the waste water will discharge into
Watauga River. I have several concerns about the permit being issued. This is a tremendous amount of waste water to
go into the river. There have been times in the summer months that this would be a larger amount than the water that
is currently flowing down the river. I am also concerned about the smell that could come from this as well. We enjoy
spending evenings outside on our porch and I am concerned that we will be able to smell this from our porch.
I have lived here for 52 years and I have seen several times that water completely covered this area during floods. If this
plant is built and it floods like I have seen it in the past, it will have detrimental impact on the wetlands below the plant.
I have seen turtles, frogs, muskrats, minks and other animals in this area that will be impacted.
Over the years it has been enjoyable to watch the children playing in the river. I grew up doing this as well. I am not
sure that the water would be safe for children to play in if this much waste water is being discharged into the river.
My hope is that this permit will be denied. I think individual septic systems can be put in that will not be as impactful as
this waste water plant.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
Sincerely,
Ken Townsend
Sent from my iPad

Denard, Derek
From: Danielle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:29 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Art Plaza Waste Water treatment plant Permit NC0070408
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Residing @ 461 Aldridge road,l am very concerned regarding the above reference project.
1) it is a sore sight to the community
2) it is in serious need of repair
3) how long before it deteriorates to the point where the waste goes into the Watauga river
4) this is a flood plain
5) it is going to smell
I vote NO to such a disastrous project
Danielle Catoe
461 Aldridge rd
Dany, sent from my iPad

Denard, Derek
From: Movita <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:22 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Art Plaza WWTP Permit # NCO070408
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Mr. Denard,
I am writing to dispute the proposed sewage treatment plant, Art Plaza WWTP Permit #NC0070408. My family lives less
than a mile from the site.
I recently attended the public hearing in Boone regarding this site. It was there that I sat with several neighbors and
acquaintances who showed up to protest the proposed location of the plant. There were a few of us there who
happened to notice the small sign at the site which announced the public hearing. If you ask most people in Foscoe
about the proposed sewage treatment plant, they know nothing about it. The first time I ever knew anything about it
was when huge, rusty, previously used tanks were place on the property. Local residents have looked at these ugly
containers for well over a year.
I am sure you have received comments from surrounding property owners about the potential odors, unwanted noise,
unsightly building and more importantly ..... about the air and water pollution. I listened to these concerns at the public
hearing and certainly all of these issues are of concern to me. However, the one thing that stood out to me in that
meeting was when one of the landowners proposing the site stated that he had the most to gain from this sewage
treatment plant. He said that he would benefit from the plant as well as his children and grandchildren. This man does
not live in this neighborhood nor do his children fish here nor do his grandchildren wade in its river. His family would
indeed benefit from a hotel and a shopping center being built here as he says he plans to build with the passing of the
permit. I am happy for him and family, but do we allow this at the expense of our local environment? The property
owners who live right beside of the proposed site are those who are less fortunate. They take pride in their land, their
gardens, their chickens and sheep. These people deserve the right to a clean, healthy environment as much as this one
man deserves the right to build a plant that will dump 35,000 gallons of pollutants per day into the adjoining river.
Also, there have already been problems with this river near our neighborhood.. This past spring I walked two of my
grandchildren down to the river to wade only to find a sign that warned us to stay out of the river until further notice. As
we walked back home, I asked a neighbor about the sign. He said that he had learned about a possible chemical spill in
the local newspaper. I wonder how much wildlife was impacted by this. I wonder how wildlife would be impacted by a
sewage treatment plant.
Mr.Denard, I urge you to help our little community!
Thank you,
Movita Hurst
Sent from my Wad

Denard, Derek
From: Johnzey Diaz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:32 AM
To: Denard, Derek; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [External] Watauga River Keeper) said to reference Permit # NCO070408
Attachments: Draft Permit NCO070408 - Diaz Letter.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Andy (Watauga River Keeper) said to reference Permit # NCO070408 in your comments. It is called Art Plaza Waste
Water Treatment Plant. You can perform a search via Google by typing the following: Art Plaza WWTP Permit #
NCO070408 and see the announcement, draft permit, etc. if interested.
Please review and respond with my concernes.
Thankyou
173 Tiffany Lane
Johnzey Diaz

Mr. Derek Denard, Environmental Specialist
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Draft NPDES Permit NCO070408
Clevon Woods — Art Plaza WWTP, PCNC
NC Highway 105, Seven Devils 28604
Watauga County
Dear Mr. Denard;
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the above referenced draft Permit, it is much
appreciated. As a local homeowner l am particularly concerned about the impact of this new facility on
the water quality of the Watauga River. My children, as well as other children in the area, frequently
play in and around the river. Anything that negatively impacts the river's water quality would have an
adverse impact on the health of our children.
Because this is a small facility, it will probably not be staffed full time. Thus, any equipment or
operational failure will not be addressed immediately. This could result in improperly treated wastes
being discharged for hours if not days. To address this concern, I would request that you require the
applicant to provide additional back-up treatment capacity in the event of equipment failure, and to
provide continuous monitoring, with remote alarms, of the plant's discharge. Incorporating these into
the project would help to minimize the adverse impacts of an equipment and/or process failure at the
plant.
Your thoughtful consideration of these requests would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
John Diaz

Denard, Derek
From: Marinette A. Miller <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 201711:57 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Art Plaza WWTP Permit # NCO070408
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Good morning,
This mail is in reference to the above mentioned project.
I own property in the Aldridge Ridge Pond subdivision which will be directly affected by this destructive project should it
be allowed to materialize.
At a time when we are so dangerously plagued by the destruction of our natural environment someone, solely
concerned with his own monetary interests, is being allowed to push through yet another destructive plan.
I was present at the last meeting on September 25th when this project was unanimously accepted by the Board without
any argument regarding the impact on either the neighborhood or the health of our environment.
Air pollution - Water pollution - Fishery pollution - Environmental destruction - Beauty of this wonderful State. None of
these factors are given any consideration.
The main speaker pointed out at one point that this sewage treatment plant would replace the need for raw sewage
being presently dumped into the Watauga river! Makes you wonder whether EPA is aware of this and whether this
project has been reviewed by this Department.
OF COURSE I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THIS IRRESPONSIBLY CONCEIVED PROJECT. IT IS TIME OUR STATE AND CITY
GOVERNMENTS START ADDRESSING THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF ALL FUTUR PLANS IN LIGHT OF HOW
THEY IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT AND NOT IN THE LIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL FINANCIAL NEEDS AS IT IS THE CASE HERE.
This is respectfully submitted and I appreciate the opportunity you gave me to voice my opinion.
Marinette A. Miller
265 Keeth Drive

Denard, Derek
From: Doug Dewar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:17 AM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Concerns with Sewage Treatment Plant
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Mr. Denard, this is in reference to the proposed sewage treatment plant (Art Plaza WWTP Permit #
NC0070408) near my neighborhood in Aldridge Ridge Ponds. My neighbors and I are all concerned that this
facility is going to be detrimental to the Watauga River as well as have a negative affect on our property value if
the site is unpleasant or causes any foul odors. What kind of assurances are there that this facility will not have
a negative affect on the people living nearby9 Thanks.
Doug Dewar
Aldridge Ridge Ponds

Denard, Derek
From: dannycaddell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Subject: [External] Art Plaza WWTP Permit #NC0070408
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
My name is Danny Caddell. My wife Carolina and I are property owners in Aldridge Ridge Ponds which
is located on the Watauga River near the proposed sewer and waste water treatment center. We find it very
unsettling to run the risk of creating problems due to odor and/or soil and water pollution for the sole purpose of
developing the land across highway 105. When we purchased property here the river and the ability to enjoy it
was a major consideration. We are not at all sure we would have made the investment had the planned treatment
facility already been in existence. We feel it is a reasonable assumption that the facility will make the area less
desirable and will adversely affect property values. Who is accountable for that?
Not to mention the health issues for people and wildlife. While we realize we cannot speak for them, how will
this affect The Granfather Winery which is located on the water just yards from the planned sight?
This weekend I watched a proud young boy coming up the stream with a trout he had caught while his
grandparents stood on the bridge preserving the memory by taking pictures. Could not help but think about what
is about to happen with the waste treatment project.
We respectfully request that this project be reviewed thoroughly. How many people now and in the future will
be using the river and it's serenity compared to the few that will benefit financially from this project?
Please don't confuse the meaning of "progress" with what is the right thing to do for all the people...... both now
and for years to come.
Respectfully.
Danny and Carolina Caddell
272 Ashley Way
Banner Elk, NC
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Denard, Derek
From: Thomas Lodwick <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:28 PM
To: Denard, Derek
Cc: 'Andy Hill'; Amelia Burnette
Subject: [External] Comments on Draft NPDES Permit # NCO070408 (Clevon Woods - Art Plaza
WWTP)
Attachments: 2017-10-23 - Art Plaza WWTP NPDES Comments.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Mr. Denard,
On behalf of MountainTrue, the Watauga Riverkeeper, and the Southern Environmental Law Center, attached please
find comments on draft NPDES Permit # NC0070408. A hard copy will follow by U.S. mail.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Thomas Lodwick
Associate Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
48 Patton Avenue, Suite 304
Asheville, N.C. 28801
828-258-2023
[e-mail]
www.southernenvironment.or>r*
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential.
1

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] PATTON AVENUE, SUITE 304 Facsimile 828.258.2024
ASHEVILLE, NC 28SM-3321
October 23, 2017
Via Email and US. Mail
Mr. Derek Denard
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Draft NPDES Permit # NCO070408 (Clevon Woods Art Plaza WWTP)
Dear Mr. Denard,
Please accept these comments on behalf of MountainTrue, the Watauga Riverkeeper, and
the Southern Environmental Law Center. MountainTrue is a grassroots environmental
organization working to protect the environment across Western North Carolina with members in
Watauga County who use and enjoy the Watauga River. MountainTme is also home to the
Watauga Riverkeeper program, which works to preserve the Watauga River watershed, including
the areas in and around the proposed Art Plaza wastewater treatment plant. While we generally
support. improving wastewater treatment via properly regulated treatment facilities, we have
identified the following concerns with the proposed Art Plaza wastewater treatment plant that
DEQ must address before moving forward with this draft permit.
Permit renewal appears improper.
Based on the available records, it appears that this application must be processed as a new
permit, not a renewal. As stated in the application, although the applicant previously obtained an
NPDES permit, no wastewater treatment facility was constructed during the permit term. No
Authorization to Construct permit or application appears in DEQ's digital file for the permit, and
the application suggests that detailed construction plans will not be submitted for sometime.
North Carolina's regulations provide that "[i]f an Authorization to Construct has not been
applied for in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES permit during the term of the
permit, the permit will be considered void upon expiration and future actions will be considered
as anew application." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0138(a); see also id. 2H.0103(11) & (16)
(defining "new" and "existing" for purposes of NPDES permitting program). Assuming the
available public records correctly reflect that the applicant did not seek an Authorization to
Construct permit during the last permit term, then the NPDES permit became void upon
expiration, renewal is improper, and both the applicant and NCDEQ must restart this process,
following the laws, regulations, and policies for a new NPDES permit, not a renewal.
Charlottesville * Chapel Hill * Atlanta * Asheville * Birmingham * Charleston * Nashville * Richmond * Washington. DC
1W% recycled paper

a New permit limits should reflect discharge point's sensitive location.
The proposed wastewater treatment plant's discharge point is near the Watauga River's
headwaters. The draft permit correctly recognizes that this area is designated as both a High
Quality Water and Trout Water. But the draft permit does not recognize that the proposed
discharge point is on a particularly sensitive area of the Watauga River. Being near the
headwaters, any pollution allowed in this area has the potential to negatively affect nearly the
entire, vibrant river, and countless -downstream communities and users. It thus warrants extra
scrutiny and limits beyond the basics limits set forth in North Carolina's regulations. The
headwaters' location also means that the flow rate in this area is below average for the Watauga,
and so it is unclear whether this stretch of the river will be able to adequately assimilate the
proposed pollution and wastewater volumes. Pursuant to North Carolina's antidegradation
policy for High Quality Waters, we urge DEQ to reduce the authorized pollution limits and
discharge volumes to account for this sensitive location. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B
.0201(d).
a New permit process must consider, f loodplain implications.
In the site plan associated with the applicant's 2015 Conditional Use Permit from the
Town of Seven Devils, -the proposed wastewater treatment plant was to be housed in a 50' x 150'
building entirely in the Watauga River's floodway. Although we are pleased to see that in the
site plan for the more recent 2017 Conditional Use Permit from Watauga County the project's
footprint has. shrunk to a 2,200 square foot building that is outside of the floodway, part of the
building still appears to extend into the river's 100=year floodplain. In a sensitive, high-quality
watershed, and on a portion of the Watauga River that is flashy and frequently interacts with the
floodplain, any development in the 100 -year floodplain is ill-advised and should be avoided,
both for the health of this segment of the river and to avoid downstream impacts. Precluding
incursions into floodplain is even more crucial in light of a recent trend towards more frequent
and more severe storms and flooding, which is projected to remain the new -normal due to
climate change.
Floodplain concerns are relevant to the NYllES process because, assuming the applicant
obtains an NPDES permit, it will have to seek an Authorization to Construct permit from DEQ
before building the facility. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H .0138. Facilities requiring such permits
"shall be designed following good engineering practice and comply with the minimum design
requirements specified in Rule 2H.0219 of this Subchapter." Id. 2H.0139. While 2H.0219 has
been repealed, it previously referred to requirements for facilities that do not discharge to surface
waters, requirements now found in the 2T rules. Revision to the 2H rules under consideration
indicate that the cross-reference to 2H .0219 will be u?dated accordingly to reference the
minimum design requirements in 2T .0 10 5 and .0114.
' Proposed revisions to the 2H rules are available at:
https://files.nc.gov/nodeq/Environmental%2OManagement'/o2OCommission/Rule-Readoption-
2H/Webpage/2H°/.20Rules%20a11%20 with°/a20comments. pdf.

These 2T provisions require, among other things, that "[a]pplication packages for new
and expanding facilities shall include ... [d]ocumentation of compliance with Article 21 Part b
(Floodway Regulations) of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes." 15A N.C. Admin.. Code 2T
.0105(c)(8). The referenced statute authorizes local governments to enact ordinances to regulate
uses in flood hazard areas. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.54. Pursuant to this authority, Watauga
County enacted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which sets forth several requirements for
and restrictions on development in the 100 year floodplain, including facilities like the one
proposed hue.2 It will thus be incumbent on DEQ to ensure that the facility complies with this
ordinance. We therefore urge DEQ to work with the applicant to eliminate impacts to the
floodway and floodplain in this project.
In closing, based on the available records, it appears that the applicant's former NPDES
permit became void upon expiration and is no longer eligible for renewal, and DEQ must
withdraw the draft permit renewal. If the applicant applies for a new permit, DEQ should
include limits that reflect the proposal's sensitive location in the river, watershed, and floodplain.
Associate Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
Andy Hill
Watauga Riverkeeper
High Country Regional Director
MountainTrue
2 Indeed, in the Conditional Use Permit for the site, Watauga County expressly required the applicant to obtain a
floodplain development permit before beginning construction.
3

Denard, Derek
From:
Andy Hill <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, October 23, 2017 7:32 PM
To:
Denard, Derek
Subject:
[External] NPDES permit #0070408
Attachments:
IMG-4815.JPG; IMG-4817.JPG
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Photos of flood conditions following afternoon rain event at proposed WWTP site.
Please consider flood conditions while making your decision.
Sincerely,
Andy Hill

�• � ��l� - 1�`5: �•. �: --��y..�� t! l Oji •._.6 P. A �!:
:vs
~psi _�►'
00,
�'� .T; ,, � ,�• °` �.►{ .� � � � ., k f s•+ SCR = - y p s��
IT
I s �+" .�,1 '' q wf -,.n •1M 6�e• > J t „r
'� � •�AY�"'���� w 3� .ep,� ci y: `�s 1 R7 [\ � . � �.t t,n•`�� ��`r�' tiy��'� 4 �4 � ,� � `�,..
• Tom. ,1� y � :
+ � ' '� 1 • « yet• . • T ,�r}�.+' d �}g, � .d• .} ss y'�� � y •.
.+f �.` +..�uv �� i. r�• r v�` V.,t .� �: .L'y�•rhi`,Lik { �^�' � .1.Y 4sr'
__ LLJ�s. - yr,t� �`+l.Z-t� _.+ '•/. �`MkR Ay ';�� `� is � �,' -IV;, 7 t��ea'•'%+�.r'�0.t
i � .. �®i•K,���y� T. .� a ;t rte. ►.. � .w ,. �., .� ! i�.;�,4... •-
+ :t� - T � �.+•-may. +.rte-" - ^.-��fy' �. -.
_ _ ,�.'}: �- :"�' � M ter• --•• �`
_ R
_ •-•� rte.'•
/411