NCG530177_Staff Report_20220301

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources

Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Staff Report

FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 5

To: NPDES Unit Non-Discharge Unit Application No.: NCG530177
Attn: Charles Weaver Facility name: Upper Cold Springs Farm

From: Landon Davidson, Tim Fox and Dan Boss
Asheville Regional Office

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: 02/28/2022
b. Site visit conducted by: Davidson, Fox and Boss
c. Inspection report attached? Yes or No
d. Person contacted: C. R. Brown and their contact information: (828) 321 - 3335 ext.
e. Driving directions: Use app
2. Discharge Point(s): (approximate – not built)
Latitude:35 13 20.85 Longitude:83 36 27.15
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification: C;Tr 2-57-45.8
River Basin and Subbasin No: Upper Little TN; 02010202
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: 2nd order stream, facility will be third
trout farm on creek, the uppermost.
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: na (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow: USACE limit per intake design/permit 1000 gpm
Current permitted flow:0
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? Yes or No
If no, explain: We have reviewed general design and it appears acceptable.
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc) consistent with the submitted reports? Yes 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: With the exception of potential wetland near proposed raceways.
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain: Applicant has other NCG53 facilities is aware of process.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C93C79A-1A65-4D9A-B120-6642920DC080
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 5
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? Yes or No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas. **Potential siting issue with wetland area.
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: Recover onsite via geotubes and catchment (see
application).
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: No
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): n/a

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: With adequate BMP and design, should be able to adequately treat based on size of facility.
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? Yes or 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? Yes No 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? Yes No N/A
If no, please explain:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C93C79A-1A65-4D9A-B120-6642920DC080
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 5
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
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
○ ′ ″ - ○ ′ ″
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):

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C93C79A-1A65-4D9A-B120-6642920DC080
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 4 of 5
IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? Yes or No
If yes, please explain: Prior to construction, will need verification by USACE regarding onsite wetlands.
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
Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
Issue
Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer: G. Landon Davidson
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 03/01/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C93C79A-1A65-4D9A-B120-6642920DC080
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 5

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
Facility schematic and calculations verified by Tim Heim, ARO. Intake permitted by USACE and appears to be
constructed appropriately with flow limit of 1000 gpd and pump which can return water to intake area to avoid stream
impact during low flow periods. Below map is approximate with overlay. An email was sent to David Brown USACE
on 2/28/2022 requesting site review due to the presence of potential wetlands (see approximate blue area below). The
ARO recommends holding the permit issuance until a determination by USACE has been made regarding this matter.
In 2019, the DWR ESS Intensive Survey Unit rated Whiteoak Creek as Good-Fair at a station approximately 2.5 miles
downstream of the proposed facility. This station has been measured frequently due to its location two miles below
two other NCG53 facilities owned by Mr. Brown. The 2019 results indicate “This site is approximaely two miles
downstream from the reference site and is below both trout farms. At this location the stream emits a noticeably
strong odor. It is eutrophic with most boulder sized substrate covered by Fontinalis spp. Benthic invertebrate
compostion is dominated by Hyrdopsyche sparna and Rhyacophila fuscula. No semivoltine insects were detected.
Additionally, very few heptigeniid or ephemerellid mayflies were detected. Worms and chironomids are abundant at
this location.” One of the two existing farms on Whiteoak is the process of installing a system to better treat effluent;
the system is designed by Mr. Brown and reportedly operating successfully at Cherokee Trout Farm.
ARO recommends holding the permit application until additional information is received from USACE regarding the
potential presence of wetlands onsite and how that area will be avoided completely. We believe the new NCG53
permit will be more protective of the receiving stream but will also request an upstream and downstream assessment
for this proposed facility to establish a benchmark. A baseline benthic survey has been requested for receiving stream.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C93C79A-1A65-4D9A-B120-6642920DC080