NCG530176_Staff Report_20220119

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DA5A197-D39F-4220-8FDA-E3BAEBE809DA
Environmental
Quality
State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report
To: ® NPDES Unit ❑ Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: Charles Weaver
From: Andrew Moore
Asheville Regional Office
Application No.: NCG530176
Facility name: Silver Fox Trout Farm, LLC
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: July 15, 2021
b. Site visit conducted by: Andrew Moore
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
d. Person contacted: and their contact information: () ext.
e. Driving directions:
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude: 35.722680 Longitude:-82.854858
Latitude: 35.723355 Longitude:-82.855343
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification: C; Trout; ORW
River Basin and Subbasin No. French Broad River Basin and Upper French Broad Subbasin (06010105)
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Rural residential and agricultural
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow: 50,000 GPD
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, explain: N/A
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? ❑ Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? n Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DA5A197-D39F-4220-8FDA-E3BAEBE809DA
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? I I Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? n Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
ORC: Certificate #: Backup ORC: Certificate #:
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities:
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.)
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? n Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ❑ Yes or No
If no, please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? n Yes ❑ No n N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If no, please explain:
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DA5A197-D39F-4220-8FDA-E3BAEBE809DA
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
O
l
el
0
I
//
O
/
//
0
I
II
O
/
//
0
I
PI
O
l
II
0
I
/I
O
l
II
0
I
II
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review:
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ❑ No
If yes, please explain:
14. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues ❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
❑ Notice(s) of violation ❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO been
working with the Permittee? Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ❑No❑N/A
If yes, please explain:
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DA5A197-D39F-4220-8FDA-E3BAEBE809DA
IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
5. Recommendation:
Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
n Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
n Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
® Issue
n Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
by
Signature of regional supervisor: 5`..
Date: 1/19/2022
E397182onecearc..
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7DA5A197-D39F-4220-8FDA-E3BAEBE809DA
V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
On July 15, 2021, Andrew Moore and Mitchell Anderson inspected the subject facility in response to a complaint
received in the ARO on July 8, 2021, regarding turbidity in Bearwallow Branch. Amy Annino of the ARO conducted
an initial inspection on July 8, 2021, and found two potential sources of sedimentation to Bearwallow Branch, one of
which was property owned by Mr. Duane Davis at 987 Howard Moore Road. During the course of the July 15th
inspection, it was discovered that Mr. Davis was operating an unpermitted trout farm wastewater discharge system.
The system contained two unpermitted discharges: one from a trout hatchling operation that obtains its water from a
well and one from a series of five raceways that obtains its water from Bearwallow Branch. At the time of the
inspection, the outdoor raceways were estimated to contain 40,000 fish.
In addition, during the July 15th inspection, 401 Water Quality Certification and stream standard violations were
documented on the property associated with an improperly installed culvert, pond dredge spoils that had entered
Bearwallow Branch, and other unstabilized sediment that had been placed along Bearwallow Branch and entered the
stream.
As a result of the site inspection, Mr. Davis was issued two Notices of Violation. Notice of Violation NOV-2021-DV-
0320 was issued for Discharging and Operating without a permit associated with the trout production facility. Notice
of Violation NOV-2021-CV-0018 was issued for 401 Water Quality Certification and stream standard violations. Mr.
Davis has largely resolved NOV-2021-CV-0018.
Overall, the point disharges from the trout operation did not appear to be negatively affecting Bearwallow Branch and
the ARO has no objection to issuing the NPDES permit.
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5