NC0065749_Permit Issuance_20170428

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 28, 2017
Jacqueline A. Jarrell
Charlotte Water
5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28216
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Senelnn'
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: Final NPDES Permit Renewal
Permit NCO065749
Ashe Plantation WWTP
Mecklenburg County
Class 2 Facility
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached 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 October 15, 2007
(or as subsequently amended).
This final permit contains the following changes from the draft permit mailed to you:
• Instream monitoring for pH has been added upstream and downstream in section A. (1).
Instream pH values are needed to evaluate ammonia nitrogen data for your facility's
potential effects on water quality in Duck Creek, especially as it pertains to the viability
of habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
• Footnote 2 in section A. (1) has been corrected for upstream and downstream sampling
locations.
• The fecal coliform daily maximum limit has been changed to a weekly average limit of
400/100 mL.
This final permit contains the following changes from your previous permit:
• Section A. (3) has been added to require electronic submission of effluent data.
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs), effective December 21, 2016.
• Regulatory citations have been added to the permit.
• Added effluent characteristic codes in Section A. (1)
• Updated permittee to reflect ownership change
• An updated outfall map has been included
State of North Carolina I Envlronmentel Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 276994617
919 807 6300

Page 12
Following public notice of the draft permit, the Division received multiple comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC), and Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS). The comments
focused on the subject facility's discharge and its potential effects on water quality in Duck
Creek, especially as it pertains to the viability of habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata). The Carolina heelsplitter is a federally designated endangered freshwater mussel
found in the Goose Creek Watershed. Section A. (2) Permit Reopener Condition: Ammonia
Toxicity and Nutrients states that the permit may be reopened to impose further controls or
restrictions on ammonia and nutrients to protect for water quality.
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 written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water
Resources or any other Federal, State, or Local governmental permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Jennifer Busam at [phone]
or via email at [e-mail].
;S.
eJay Zimmerman, P.G
Director, Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Hardcopy: NPDES Files
Central Files
DWR/Mooresville Regional Office / Water Quality
Ecopy: Charlotte Water/Dawn Padgett [[e-mail]]
Charlotte Water/Shannon Sypolt [[e-mail]]
USFWS/Field Supervisor/Janet Mizzi [Janet [e-mail]]
USFWS/Fish and Wildlife Biologist/Byron Hamstead [[e-mail]]
USFWS/Jason Mays [[e-mail]]
NCWRC/Habitat Conservation Coordinator/ Vann Stancil
[[e-mail]]
Mecklenburg County/Richard Farmer
[[e-mail]]
CMSWS/Environmental Supervisor/ John McCulloch
[[e-mail]]

Permit NCO065749
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
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,
Charlotte Water
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Ashe Plantation WWTP
End of Quarters Lane, east of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as Duck Creek in subbasin 03-07-12 of the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective June 1, 2017.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2021.
Signed this day April 28, 2017.
DI�sioZimmerman,
P.G., Director--
n of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 7

Permit NCO065749
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are
hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number
is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this
facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included
herein.
Charlotte Water
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue discharging 0.10 MGD of treated domestic wastewater from an
extended -aeration package treatment plant consisting of the following
components:
■ Influent lift station
■ Bar screen
■ Equalization basin
■ Aeration basin
■ Rectangular clarifier
■ Tertiary filter
■ Ultraviolet disinfection
■ Back-up chlorine contact chamber with tablet -type chlorination and
dechlorination
■ Continuous -recording flow measuring device
■ Filter backwash tank
■ Post aeration
■ Aerobic sludge digester
This facility is located at the Ashe Plantation WWTP, at the end of Quarters
Lane east of Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works via Outfall 001, at the location specified
on the attached map into Duck Creek [13-17-18-31, currently classified C,
located within subbasin 03-07-12 [HUC: 03040105071 of the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basin.
Page 2 of 7

Permit NCO065749
Part I
A. (1 ) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[ 15A, NCAC 02B.0400 et seq., 15A NCAC 02B.0500 et seq.]
Beginning with the permit effective date and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated domestic wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EF LUEHT NCH C�ERI !CS v
'+ t
A c 1 ,
EFF
....�
UE L[.
TO 0 .,
�Y.i.t....
..:�� ..1
��_. �..: 0 ITO.. G E
y `Y ..•�' V�3i� Y,NJ3.+ITin1.$LJ
,l -.•.4
+
INohthly'
Daily
1 �
.Weekly"'
Meas�ien ntSampe`
,
,a `ample
Parameter Code
:Average
Maximum
:average .
Frquencjr ,
'TypB_
Location
Flow 50050
0.10 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, (20°C) -Summer" C0310
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
BOD, 5-day, (20°C) -Winter* C0310
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids C0530
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N - Summer* C0610
0.5 mg/L
2.90 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N - Winter* C0610
0.5 mg/L
7.15 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen 3 00300
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform 31616
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine 4t5 50060
17 Ng/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature 00010
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH 6 00400
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nlfrogen C0600
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus C0665
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine 5 50060
Weekly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream 2
NH3 as N C0610
Weekly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream2
pH 00400
Weekly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream2
Temperature 00010
Weekly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream 2
Dissolved Oxygen 00300
Weekly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream 2
Fecal Coliform 31616
Weekly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream z
'Summer. April 1— October 31
*Winter. November 1— March 31
Footnotes:
1. The permittee shall begin submitting discharge monitoring reports electronically using
the NC DWR's eDMR application system [see A. (3)].
2. Upstream = approximately 50 feet above the discharge point. Downstream =
approximately 500 feet below the discharge point.
3. Effluent daily average dissolved oxygen shall not fall below 6.0 mg/L.
4. 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
Page 3 of 7

Permit NCO065749
all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified),
even if these values fall below 50 µg/L.
5. Total Residual Chlorine monitoring and effluent limit effective only if chlorine
compounds are used for disinfection.
6. pH shall not fall below 6.0 nor exceed 9.0 standard units.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER
THAN TRACE AMOUNTS
A. (2) PERMIT REOPENER CONDITION: AMMONIA TOXICITY & NUTRIENTS
[NCGS 143-215.1 (b)]
This permit may be reopened to impose further controls, pH adjustment. or restrictions
upon the discharge of ammonia to the receiving stream. Endangered species in the
Goose Creek watershed exhibit a high degree of sensitivity to ammonia. Permit
modification may be required in order to ensure viable aquatic habitat with regard to
instream ammonia concentrations.
Studies conducted within the Goose Creek watershed demonstrate episodic events of
elevated concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). High concentrations
of nutrients have the potential to create conditions detrimental to overall water quality
and the health of aquatic life. Permit modification may be required to include
monitoring that will help ascertain the impact of the discharge with respect to instream
concentrations of nutrients and to require controls on effluent nutrient concentrations
should the discharge be found to be a significant contributor to elevated nutrient levels
within the receiving stream.
A. (3) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS
[NCGS 143-215.1 (b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) and program reports. The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted
and became effective on December 21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within
Part II of this permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.) Reporting
• Section D. (6.) Records Retention
• Section E. (5.) Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (S.) la)1
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC
DWR's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Page 4 of 7

Permit NCO065749
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for
each month and submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows
permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using
the internet. Until such time that the state's eDMR application is compliant with
EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), permittees will be
required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state electronically using
eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing, signing,
and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or
due to the facility being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of
the households have broadband access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES
electronic reporting requirements may be granted and discharge monitoring data
may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms
approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing
address above. See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section
below.
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the
month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last
day of the month following the commencement of discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2020, the permittee must electronically report the
following compliance monitoring data and reports, when applicable:
• Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
• Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to
Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(1) (9), the permittee must identify the initial
recipient at the time of each electronic submission. The permittee should use the
EPA's website resources to identify the initial recipient for the electronic submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities
means the entity (EPA or the state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES
Page 5 of 7

Permit NC0065749
program) that is the designated entity for receiving electronic NPDES data [see 40
CPR 127.2(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic
reporting tool for each type of electronic submission and for each state. Instructions
on how to access and use the appropriate electronic reporting tool will be available
as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
http:/ /www2.epa.gov/compliance-/final-national-pollutant-discharge-ehmination-
system-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule.
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting
Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division.
To obtain an electronic reporting waiver, a permittee must first submit an electronic
reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests for temporary electronic reporting
waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least
sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to
begin submitting monitoring data and reports. The duration of a temporary waiver
shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon expire. At such time, monitoring data
and reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the permittee re-
applies for and is granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the
Division. Approved electronic reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only
permittees with an approved reporting waiver request may submit monitoring data
and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved reporting
waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver
are found on the following web page:
http: / / deg. nc. gov f about/ divisions / water -resources / edmr
4. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes
Section B. (11.1 [d)j
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person
described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that
person as described in Part II, Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position,
must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an
eDMR user account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more
information on North Carolina's eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining
an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page:
Page 6 of 7

Permit NC0065749
htty://deg.nc.gov/aboutZdivisions/water-resources/­edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR
system shall make the following certification [40 CFR 122.221. NO OTHER
STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
7 cert�N, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations."
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.11
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including
eDMR submissions. These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at
least 3 years from the date of the report. This period may be extended by request of
the Director at any time 140 CFR 122.41].
Page 7 of 7

CHARLOTTE
W4J E R
March 28, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Busam (via Federal Express and electronic mail)
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Subject: Charlotte Water Comments on Revised Draft NPDES Permit for Ashe Plantation WWTP
(NC0065749); Mecklenburg County, NC
Ms. Busam:
In a letter dated February 28, 2017, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division of
Water Resources ("DWR") provided Charlotte Water ("CLTWater') with a revised draft permit for the Ashe
Plantation Wastewater Treatment Plant, NCO065749 ("Draft Permit"). This facility is located in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and is owned and operated by CLTWater, a department of the City
of Charlotte. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on this Draft Permit.
Background
The Ashe Plantation Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Ashe WWTP") was purchased by CLTWater on
February 23, 2016. Previously, Ashe WWTP was owned and operated by AQUA North Carolina, Inc.
CLTWater has assessed the facility and made substantial improvements to further optimize the treatment
process at this facility. CLTWater currently monitors this facility seven days per week. Effluent pH is now
monitored 5 days per week. CLTWater upgraded several pieces of equipment, including essential pumps
and blowers. Future infrastructure investment is also anticipated. During the time that CLTWater has
operated this facility, there have been no violations of the Ashe WWTP NPDES permit.
Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed
Typical limits for similar wastewater treatment facilities are 1.0 mg/L as a monthly average. However, due
to rules set forth in15A NCAC 02B Section .0600 et seq. entitled the "Site Specific Water Quality
Management Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed (Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin)" that became effective
in 2009, the Ashe WWTP NH3-N permit limits of 0.5 mg/L as a monthly average are among the most
stringent in the state. This site specific limit was developed to protect all instream aquatic life including
fresh water mussels in the Goose Creek Watershed.
Goose Creek is not listed on the State's 303(d) listing of impaired waters. In prior years, it had been
listed for fecal coliform and biological impairment. The "Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose
Creek Watershed", 15A NCAC 02B .0604, requires both indirect and direct dischargers to meet a limit of
0.5 mg/L of total ammonia or less. There is no technical or statutory basis for the proposed more -
restrictive limits in the Draft Permit.
Charlotte Water 4222 Westmont Dr, Charlotte, NC 28217 charlottewater.org
,lb Operated by the City of Charlotte

Use of EPA's Water Quality Criteria Guidance
The State has utilized the EPA's "Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
Freshwater- 2013" ("EPA Freshwater Ammonia Guidance")as its basis for establishing the proposed
limits for NH3-N in the Draft Permit. This document was published by the EPA and is a technical
guidance document for states, territories, and tribes of the United States. Currently, the criteria set forth
in this document have not been adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
("EMC").
The use of this guidance document, as if it were an adopted NC Water Quality Standard is inappropriate.
Proper state rule making procedures must be followed prior to the adoption and implementation of federal
guidance. Language taken directly from EPA's Freshwater Ammonia Guidance Fact Sheet reads as
follows:
"EPA's recommended water quality criteria are not rules, nor do they automatically become part
of a state's water quality standards. States must adopt into their standards water quality criteria
that protect the designated uses of the water bodies within their area. These can include
scientifically defensible site -specific criteria that are different from EPA's national
recommended criteria, as long as the site -specific criteria are protective of the designated use.
Water quality criteria are not effective under the Clean Water Act until they have been adopted
into a state's water quality standards and approved by EPA.' (emphasis added)
Improper Implementation of EPA's Guidance
In calculating the NH3-N limits in the revised draft permit, the State utilized maximum pH and temperature
values from applicable data sets (Summer vs. Winter) spanning 3 years (December 2013 - December
2016). CLTWater disagrees with the method used to calculate appropriate limits. DWR created a worst -
case scenario by selecting the most extreme pH and temperature values for utilization in the "Freshwater
Ammonia Calculator— Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)" spreadsheet, which was used to determine acute
and chronic limits. Upon review of the applicable data, this approach results in overly restrictive and
unnecessary limits.
Specifically, the proposed Downstream Winter Acute NH3-N permit limit was calculated by DWR using a
maximum temperature of 19" C (measured instream), which occurred on 11/06/2015 and again on
12/31/2015. The pH input for this calculation was 8.7 s.u. (measured at the VWI TP effluent), which
occurred on 01/19/2016. The two variables used to determine the toxic effects of NH3-N (pH and
temperature) occurred approximately 3 weeks apart and at different locations. The highest downstream
pH recorded during the time period (7.6 s.u.), should have been used, as opposed to the highest WWTP
effluent pH. CLTWater cannot find any applicable guidance that requires the use of this 'worst -case
scenario' approach. CLTWater does not understand the scientific approach used to develop the
proposed limits. The use of the most extreme data points, occurring on different dates, and at different
locations is an invalid representation of what actually occurred instream.
Data Limitations
In the State's cover letter for the Draft Permit dated 02/28/17 and signed by Ms. Busam, DWR recognizes
the fact that there is very little instream data to assess the NH3-N impacts on the Carolina Heelsplitter. In
fact, this is the basis for requiring additional instream pH monitoring in the Draft Permit. CLTWater is
supportive of this approach, as it will yield a more robust data set for future permit decision -making
processes. However, this underscores the fact that the limits currently being proposed are based on very
limited data. In the absence of more extensive data and adoption by the EMC of new criteria for
ammonia limits, DWR should maintain the current limits, as required in 15A NCAC 02B — Section .0600
"Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed".
Charlotte Water 4222 Westmont Dr, Charlotte, NC 28217 tel [phone] fax [phone] charlottewater.org
tarn Operated by the City of Charlotte
==L

Summary
According to data collected by Mecklenburg County from January 1, 2010 to March 30, 2016, there have
been no instream ammonia levels at the Duck Creek monitoring site (MY14) that have exceeded the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations set forth in the Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan
for the Goose Creek Watershed . Since CLTWater took control of Ashe Plantation WWTP on February
23, 2016, there have been no ammonia effluent violations. The Goose Creek Basin is no longer listed on
the 303(d) list, as a result of the implementation of the Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan.
The EPA Freshwater Ammonia Guidance limits have not been formally adopted by the EMC as a NC
Water Quality Standard, and the implementation of the EPA guidance document is inconsistent with state
rulemaking procedures and is overly restrictive. Additionally, insufficient data is available to make sound
scientific permit limit decisions. Based on the limited data available there is no proven scientific basis to
determine if this more restrictive limit is appropriate. Furthermore, these proposed limits will not result in
additional measureable protection for instream aquatic life. In consideration of the facts presented,
CLTWater requests that DWR maintain the current NH3-N permit limits.
Charlotte Water appreciates the open and honest communication that is shared between our offices. If
you have any questions or require further information concerning this letter please feel free to contact
Shannon Sypolt, Water Quality Program Administrator, at [phone] or me at [phone].
Respectfully,
A t-"�d
c eline A. Jarrell, . E.
perations Chief, Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Water
CC:
S. Sypolt, CLTWater
J. Nance, CLTWater
Charlotte Water 4222 Westmont Dr, Charlotte, NC 28217 tel [phone] fax [phone] charlottewater.org
Operated by the City of Charlotte

gyp, F,y United States Department of the Interior
N
y a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 31, 2016
Ms. Jennifer Busam
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Busam:
Subject: Comments on Public Notice for Draft NPDES Permit for the Ashe Plantation
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NC0065749); Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-16-455
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft permit provided via email on
June 1, 2016. By letter dated June 16, 2016, we provided you our comments on the proposed
NPDES permit renewal referenced above. After further review of the literature regarding the
negative effects ammonia on mussels, we submit the following additional comments in
accordance with the provisions of section 402 of the Clean Water Act; the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, Charlotte Water is proposing to renew National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) Permit Number NCO065749 to allow 0.100
MGD (monthly average) of treated domestic wastewater from the Ashe Plantation Waste Water
Treatment Plant to discharge into Duck Creek, a tributary to Goose Creek and the Rocky River.
The proposed monthly average ammonia limitations for this facility are 0.5 mg/L. Proposed
daily maximum limits for ammonia are of 2.90 mg/L and 7.15 mg/L in the summer and winter,
respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Proposed ammonia limits according to draft NPDES permit for the Ashe Plantation
Summer 2.90 0.5
Winter is defined as November 1 —March 31, and summer is defined as April 1 —October 31 according to
proposed permit conditions.

Protected Species
Duck Creek, is a class C waterbody with occurrence records for the federal and state endangered
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Designated critical habitat for this species is located
approximately 0.5 river miles downstream of the facility.
Comments and Concerns
We wish to reiterate our concerns outlined in our June 16, 2016, letter, that if the proposed
NPDES permit is renewed at the present maximum limits for ammonia, discharges of effluent
into Duck Creek are likely to result in take of Carolina heelsplitter and adverse modification of
its designated critical habitat. If this take and adverse modification of critical habitat cannot be
avoided, an incidental take permit may be required under the Act. Adverse modification is any
"direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the
conservation of a listed species." Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that
alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude
or significantly delay development of such features. The constituent elements of critical habitat
for this species can be found in the Federal Register (July 2, 2002; Vol. 67, No. 127, pp.44501-
44522), and include (i) Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas.
Published literature suggests that the proposed ammonia limits are not adequately protective for
the Carolina heelsplitter. Studies show that freshwater mussel glochida and juveniles are more
sensitive to ammonia than other species traditionally used to derive water quality standards
(Wang et al. 2007). Newton et al. (2003) report mussel mortality at concentrations as low at
0.093 mg/L and significant reduction in growth at levels as low as 0.031 mg(L. Wang et al.
(2008) found that mussel sensitivity to ammonia increased with increasing pH.
In order to avoid take of a federally listed species, we request that the permit be amended to
comply with the EPA's published criteria. The ammonia limits we recommend in Table 2,
reflect the EPA recommended limits at max pH and temperature from the previous 3 years of
data recorded at the Ashe Plantation Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 2. Recommended ammonia limits for the Ashe Plantation Wastewater Treatment Plant
based on EPA's 2013
Season' Dailv Maximum (mg/L) Monthly Average (mg/L)
Winter 0.94 0.23
Summer 1.4 0.34
We also wish to point out that these recommended limits are still higher than the above
referenced concentrations where negative effects to mussels have been demonstrated, and limits
lower than the EPA standard would be preferable to provide a margin of safety for this species.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to
working with you to address our concerns. Please contact Mr. Byron Hamstead of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-16-455.
Sincerely,
C�aanet A. M i z z i
Field Supervisor
References
Newton, Teresa J., et al. "Effects of ammonia on juvenile unionid mussels (Lampsilis cardium)
in laboratory sediment toxicity tests." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22.11 (2003):
2554-2560.
Wang, Ning, et al. "Acute toxicity of copper, ammonia, and chlorine to glochidia and juveniles
of freshwater mussels (Unionidae)." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26.10 (2007):
2036-2047.
Wang, Ning, et al. "Influence of pH on the acute toxicity of ammonia to juvenile freshwater
mussels (fatmucket, Lampsilis si I iquo idea). "Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27.5
(2008): 1141-1146.
3

$-66-1�
�uhti 3 furc�C�le�
TpJ6 :.A6he Plntajtb LAza'al057115
,V (0&36SAI (rPO&d Renew''P
�) Sha�'� ��� yccr2f LNG w�G> /3r•
'ha
�QrLuni� y fz-
w) Y�shwafcr Ntufs-Ir aFk�kc/ % p mon flJ
CulYe�r �er/�Z�t op/4 C/d her f le
cf
Nyo,h6 Jjk Afn �lP/�f wakr ��+ ' fr1 Cn tcn6
Gila. (us1f) insulded
�r �yyjme�ia �h�esn�cfcr' 6cuda.�cce ��� ll ��
3) 77�i6 ;s a ca ccrn G 11shc PZM1a176n
horr�r� C�eclS�fxiiw.fid� deae%aprner7�) cuiii con9nhufc
� more i4-inm�n�ia *alhe;- lirraeJ- ,�xcufsidrns•
Ajl ho h curr��r flow Ash( Plarrtufi�n rs
aMtVOgc u�m Y"" aurtugts
U U OkiMC�O l Gli 0,03M�D b 6 1U
0 U5 M6Q h{. U UNM(�9
�915 U d"i MUD UII�` 0,01 vo (�V2�APlR! ob MU. pUk(PGyi�S
sung. huw �,�,�,rs�ons a1ow�, l�nut a4 4.�� M�0 in lZ�uiS �c�wly�
U3�'(ulu o��1n��K g�lut3 _N No. currtnt �hw@a+ 1c (�eroui l,�nti�l
{-�� efFlaent 1�on1�� f�v�.tuc�� �XcFeAav�,�.i� uF U.l Mc�o
Mai of loci ntw Nmo Mfi*(ul �ddthon a� flow
�y K lilo �pp�Ype�lraom) x �5 nedtauOAS Max �xrantiu� �nd Pow Go
l r�t5A �MAL O0 T�ol��hvesh� dU3rnuiMnD ��X ad tj(yk4�� current aug Flog

Permit NCO065749
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR
system shall make the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER
STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED:
'T certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the s stem, or those persons directly
r'Y
responsible for gathering the information, the informal bmitted is, to the best of
mg,knowledge and betxef,Jrue, accurate, and co m l aim aware that there are
s gni, f cant penalties for suubmitting fW§6 informs ' e :u,�d ng the: pos`szbality o, f fines
and imprisonment for knouring rnolations."
5. Records Retention [Supplements $080 n D. (6A
The perm ttee shall retain records of all ° ... arge Monitoring orts, including
• a eriod of at
eDMR submussions. These records or copi �s all b� aintaine :�
p ham.. �. � .. P .
least 3 years from the date, of there ort. This W may be eaten �.T by request of
the Director at any time [40 CFF�41 ]
Page 7 of 7

ALAq t 3a, WG S 15am ., c6Q6
Jasun Mans - us�ws- A�uakAfnift da `Ihh-I(O(6
species hsS�q [end fq we 82g-��� ��i3�9 .-xr tt�
)mbfl-Mqa L fwS gov
wand to Aiscaw�s rat Plmmt un NConsw Remy ,val
N( Oqna submuM cWIVYA from_ Pgvon
filamsl ad 'cbm t0s - MSO
In N>1)tS CIIC 4-uY dx{vlcl N O .
2' Nf slutts Thal �I1e�e Aye pope\onons e� r�Shwatcr
m ssdS ups�f�aln lager khan _cicwnst eat mussel
po,Vo,hun f OM
�ut,\jis it cbw4 b( At -batl l s
wilcma heu %06 —90 a1So an k%La.
3) (tAe stales �mmonla poses a prdnlcm fur f eshouW
I
ussel ocruirmcnr and is 1herefre a (ra)a
cwuyn for rnusscl b166lvf(si t� - -
y) Mays i,� voq conufned abort an lnWasr in
oumNr a( homes of a Warbq Suhdiu'SlOn
j_t,p(r)siun Thal wlo as bl O WN W'(S i6 W
j,xlSti-n9_I'vo } Gc3holaK)
5) Mays is conce►lW *cj .�G ctdd�hollal honlFs
will _cuRhrihlat- h--mn howtanticIPORd tv C60-I l-e
a `i (faf iv mole A111mmja mU Wils

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 16, 2016
Ms. Jennifer Busam
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Busam:
Subject: Comments on Public Notice for Draft NPDES Permit for the Ashe Plantation
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NC0065749); Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-16-455
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft permit provided via email on
June 1, 2016. We submit the following comments in accordance with the provisions of section
402 of the Clean Water Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Proiect Description
According to the information provided, Charlotte Water is proposing to renew National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) Permit Number NCO065749 to allow 0.100
MGD (monthly average) of treated domestic wastewater from the Ashe Plantation Waste Water
Treatment Plant to discharge into Duck Creek, a tributary to Goose Creek and the Rocky River.
The proposed monthly average ammonia limitations for this facility are 0.5 mg/L. Proposed
daily maximum limits for ammonia are of 2.90 mg/L and 7.15 mg/L in the summer and winter,
respectively.
Protected Species
Duck Creek, is a class C waterbody with occurrence records for the federal and state endangered
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Designated critical habitat for this species is located
approximately 0.5 river miles downstream of the facility. Additional conservation priority

species in Duck Creek include the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina
creekshell (Villosa vaughniana), and the state -threatened creeper mussel (Strophitus undulatus).
Comments and Concerns
The Service is concerned about potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the Carolina
heelsplitter that may result from the proposed permit renewal. Discharge of municipal pollutants
and wastewater treatment plant effluents are cited as a principle threat to this species (USFWS
1996). According to the Goose Creek NPDES Policy Memo dated January 5, 2001, ammonia
limits at existing facilities "will be adjusted according to mass balance calculations to protect
for ammonia toxicity." We request that you revise the permitted daily maximum and monthly
limits to reflect the Environmental Protection Agency's Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Ammonia which normalizes total ammonia nitrogen limits for pH and temperature in
streams (EPA, 2013). Table 1 shows the ranges of pH and daily maximum temperature at the
site according to data from EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online website:
Table 1. Range of temperature and pH at Ashe Plantation Facility (NC0065749)
Season] pH range Max Temp range (C)
Winter 7.4-8.7 12-21
Sunnier 7.3 — 8.2 20 — 28
The EPA's most protective Acute Criterion Magnitude limit (analogous to daily maximum
ammonia effluent limit) for these pH and temperature ranges is 0.94mg/L for winter and 1.4mg/L
for summer (EPA, 2013 pp 44 — 49). Additionally, the EPA's most protective Chronic Criterion
Magnitude limit (analogous to monthly average ammonia effluent limit) for these pH and
temperature ranges is 0.23mg/L for winter and 0.34 mg/L for summer. The Service requests that
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) fully consider the EPA's 2013
criteria to develop more protective ammonia effluent limits that will reduce the probability of
take and/or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter.
The Service is also concerned about the proposed weekly monitoring schedule for several
effluent characteristics that have daily maximum limits (e.g. total suspended solids, ammonia,
dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, etc.). We are aware of Title 15A of North Carolina
Administrative Code (subchapter 02B, section 0508) that outlines the monitoring frequency for
wastewater discharge facilities of this Class. However, we are concerned that the proposed
weekly monitoring schedule for effluent characteristics is not frequent enough to accurately
characterize a daily limitation, and may overlook departures from daily maximum limits that are
biologically significant for the survival of Carolina heelsplitter and other natural resources. We
request that the permit conditions provide for more frequent monitoring of effluent dissolved
oxygen and ammonia to ensure that daily limits are not exceeded.
According to the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online website, this plant has
experienced excursions from permitted standards for dissolved oxygen and nitrogen (as total
ammonia). These events occurred at approximately 50-70% of the 0.1 MGD permitted discharge
allowance. The Service is aware of at least one proposed residential development (approximately
Winter is defined as November 1 —March 31, and summer is defined as April 1 —October 31 according to
proposed permit conditions.

61 additional homes) that would rely on this plant for wastewater treatment in the future.
Additional wastewater from these homes may increase the potential for future violations that are
detrimental to Carolina heelsplitter and other natural resources in Duck Creek. We encourage
Charlotte Water to pursue an alternative water sanitation system that would not discharge into
Duck Creek.
A recent study shows that of 59 wadeable Piedmont streams in the southeastern United States,
Goose Creek ranks among the highest for number of pharmaceutical constituents detected, and
also for cumulative concentrations of those chemicals in water samples (Bradley et al. 2016).
The proposed permit does not include effluent limitations or monitoring for contaminants that
originate from pharmaceuticals which can be endocrine disruptors, toxicants, and/or
immunomodulators for Carolina heelsplitter and other natural resources. The Service encourages
the NCDWR to monitor pharmaceutical -derived pollution discharged from this facility and
investigate remedial measures as needed to prevent further water quality degradation.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and for your consideration of
our concerns. Please contact Mr. Byron Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you
have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-16-455.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
References
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
Mummert, A.K., Neves, R.J., Newcomb, T.J. and Cherry, D.S., 2003. Sensitivity of juvenile
freshwater mussels (Lampsilis fasciola, Villosa iris) to total and un-ionized
ammonia. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,22(11), pp.2545-2553.
Goudreau, S.E., Neves, R.J. and Sheehan, R.J., 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plant
effluents on freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia,
USA. Hydrobiologia, 252(3), pp.211-230.
Paul M. Bradley, Celeste A. Journey, Daniel T. Button, Daren M. Carlisle, Jimmy M. Clark,
Barbara J. Mahler, Naomi Nakagaki, Sharon L. Qi, Ian R. Waite, and Peter C. VanMetre.
2016. Metformin and Other Pharmaceuticals Widespread in Wadeable Streams of the
Southeastern United States. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. 3(6), 243-249
DOI: 10.1021 /acs. estlett.6b00170

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Busam, NPDES Permitting
Division of Water Resources
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: 10 June 2016
SUBJECT: NPDES Permit Renewal for Charlotte Water, Ashe Plantation WWTP, Mecklenburg
County, NPDES Permit No. NC0065749
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Charlotte Water has applied for a renewal of its NPDES permit to discharge 0.100 MGD of
treated domestic wastewater from an extended -aeration package treatment plant. The facility uses
ultraviolet disinfection and back up chlorine contact chamber with tablet -type chlorination and
dechlorination. According to the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online the facility has
been in compliance with its permit limits since October of 2014. In mid-2014, it appears the facility
exceeded permit limits for ammonia and dissolved oxygen.
Wastewater is discharged to Duck Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. There are records
for the federal and state endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), the federal species of
concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), and the state threatened creeper
(Strophitus undulatus) in Duck Creek.
Should the permit be renewed, we offer the following comments and recommendations to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources in Duck Creek.
l . Due to the presence of Carolina heelsplitter and other state listed species downstream of the
discharge it is imperative the facility remains in compliance with its permit limits. Ammonia is
of particular concern because freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive aquatic organisms
tested for impacts from ammonia.
2. We are pleased to see the facility uses ultraviolet disinfection; however, the draft permit indicates
chlorine/dechlorination may be used as back-up disinfection. If chlorine is used, it should be
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
10 June 2016
Ashe Plantation W WTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO065749
monitored closely and reported. Chlorine is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and can form
secondary compounds that are detrimental to aquatic life. Valenti (2006) concluded the impact of
long term exposure to low doses of chlorine may impact juvenile mussels and reduce the chance
of them being recruited to the reproducing population.
3. Although the discharge is small, it is unclear the instream waste concentration during low -flow
conditions. We request the Division of Water Resources (DWR) continue to evaluate stream
flow and waste assimilation/dilution needs associated with this discharge. When stream flow is
low due to drought conditions we request DWR consider revising permit limits so water quality
standards are met at the end -of -pipe discharge points.
4. If a publicly owned treatment works and collection system becomes available, we recommend
connecting to that system immediately:
5. Studies have shown pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP) and endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDC) in municipal wastewater effluent can cause adverse physiological effects to
freshwater mussels (Bouchard et al. 2009, Bringolf et al. 2010, Gagn6 et al. 2011a, Gagn6 et al.
201 lb). Again, although the discharge is small, it is unclear the instream waste concentration
during low -flow conditions. Due to the presence of Carolina heelsplitter and other state listed
species in Duck Creek, we ask DWR to consider studies to document PPCP and EDC levels in
the wastewater discharge. If increased PPCP or EDC levels are found, then consider
implementing measures to reduce or eliminate PPCP or EDC from wastewater prior to discharge.
6. If not already in place, we suggest the installation of a stand-by power system.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit renewal. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone] or shari.brvantAncwildlife.ore.
Literature cited
Bouchard, B., F. Gagn6, M. Fortier, and M Fournier. 2009. An in -situ study of the impacts of urban
wastewater on the immune and reproductive systems of the freshwater mussel Elliptio
complanata. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology and Pharmacology
150(2):132-140.
Bringolf, R.B., R.M. Heltsley, J.T. Newton, C.B Eads, S.J. Fraley, D. Shea, W.G. Cope. 2010.
Environmental occurrence and reproductive effects of the pharmaceutical fluoxetine in native
freshwater mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(6):1311-1318.
Gagn6, F., C Andr6, P. Cejka, R. Hausler, and M Fournier. 2011a. Evidence of neuroendocrine
disruption in freshwater mussels exposed to municipal wastewaters. Science of the Total
Environment 409(19):3711-3718.
Gagn6, F., C Andr6, P. Cejka, R. Hausler, and M Fournier. 201 lb. Alterations in DNA metabolism in
Elliptio complanata mussels after exposure to municipal effluents. Comparative Biochemistry
and Physiology Part C: Toxicology and Pharmacology 154(2):100-107.
Valenti, T.W., D.S. Cherry, R.J. Currie, R.J. Neves, J.W. Jones, R. Mair, and C.M. Kane. 2006. Chlorine
toxicity to early life stages of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 25(9):2512-2518.
ec: T.R. Russ, NCWRC
Byron Hamstead, USFWS

Ashe Plantation (NC0065749) and Oxford Glen (NC0063584) Permit Renewal Information
Goose Creek Watershed — Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Background
In 2006, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), on behalf of the North Carolina Wildlife
Federation and Central Piedmont Group of the NC Sierra Club, filed a complaint against the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) claiming that the Phase II Stormwater Permits issued to
jurisdictions in the Goose Creek watershed, including Mecklenburg County (NCS000395), were
inadequate at reducing discharges of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable thus affording
inadequate protection of the Federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel. In his decision
regarding this complaint dated October 13, 2006, Fred G. Morrison Jr., Senior Administrative Law
Judge, ruled in favor of the SELL. In this decision, the NCDWQ was informed to reissue the
Permits in the Goose Creek watershed to incorporate the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
determinations of measures necessary to protect the habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. Among
these measures were buffer requirements, built -upon thresholds for requiring structural stormwater
controls, and the following water quality standards.
Constituent
Chronic Standard
Acute ,Standard
Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L
Nitrate -nitrite
0.4 mg/L
Copper
2.2 ug/L
3.6 ug/L
Ammonia
0.5 mg/L
1.75 mg/L
The N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) complied with this decision by
taking the following actions:
1. On June 30, 2007, the Stormwater Permits in the Goose Creek watershed were reissued to
include USFWS's measures for buffers and stormwater controls. However, the EMC
decided not to include in the revised Permit the water quality standards described in the
table above because including such a requirement in a Stormwater Permit would be
unprecedented and also because it was determined by State staff that the strict
requirements for buffers and stormwater controls were adequate to meet the standards.
2. In February 2009, the EMC adopted the Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan
for the Goose Creek Watershed (15A NCAC 2B .0600 - .0609), which specifies in
subsection .0604 that for any direct or indirect discharge that may cause ammonia
toxicity to the Carolina heelsplitter, action shall be taken to reduce ammonia inputs to
achieve 0.5 milligrams per liter or less of total ammonia based on chronic toxicity

defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0202. However, the EMC did not include water quality
standards for phosphorus, nitrate -nitrite and copper.
In response to concerns for the protection of habitat for the heelsplitter, the Mecklenburg County
Storm Water Services (MCSWS) developed and implemented the Goose Creek Watershed
Management Plan effective October 31, 2009. This Plan includes the water quality standards
recommended by the USFWS. The implementation of this Plan includes ongoing water quality
monitoring activities as a measure of success. The results from monitoring performed
downstream of the Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen Wastewater Treatment Plant on December
9, 2015, February 10, 2016, and March 9, 2016, indicate that results for parameters of interest
significantly exceed the standards recommended by the USFWS, except for the ammonia and
standard.
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to present monitoring data for consideration as part of the
NPDES permit renewal process for the Ashe Plantation (NC0065749) and Oxford Glen
(NC0063584) Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). Both of these WWTPs discharge to
surface waters located in the Goose Creek Watershed in southeastern Mecklenburg County,
primarily within the town limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of Mint Hill, NC.
The Goose Creek Watershed has been of particular interest to MCSWS since it is designated as
critical habitat for the federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel, and due to North
Carolina 303(d) listings for fecal coliform bacteria and impaired biological integrity.
In response to these issues, MCSWS has developed and implemented the Goose Creek
Watershed Management Plan to prevent further surface water degradation and destruction of
Heelsplitter habitat, and has developed and implemented a Water Quality Recovery Plan to
address fecal coliform impairment.
To support these initiatives, MCSWS has established monitoring locations within the watershed
to observe both short and long-term trends in overall surface water quality. These monitoring
types include monthly fixed interval monitoring for physical and chemical parameters, annual
monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates including habitat assessment, and fish community
monitoring on a five-year rotation.
The following monitoring summaries highlight some of the notable observations in the data
collected.
Monthly Fixed -Interval Sampling — Physical Parameters
MCSWS performs monthly fixed interval monitoring at site # MY14 below the Ashe Plantation
WWTP (see Figure 1) and at MY9 below the Oxford Glen WWTP (see Figure 2). While cold

water temperatures usually lead to elevated Dissolved Oxygen (DO), in February 2016, Goose
Creek and Duck Creek had the highest DO and pH values of all 36 sites visited on our monthly
sampling run. Duck Creek's DO value was the highest observed in 8 years of monthly sampling
(18.15 mg/L) at this location. In March 2016, these sites were again among the highest DO and
pH values. Duck Creek's pH value was the highest observed in 8 years of monthly sampling
(9.49 SU) at this location. These values suggest nutrient enrichment is having a strong influence
on the water chemistry in these streams. A third site, also in the Yadkin River Drainage, which is
downstream of a golf course, is included for comparison (MY7B, McKee Creek at Reedy Creek
Road).
Site
Creek
Date
Time
Temp
DO
MY 14
Duck
2/10/2016
11:40
4.49
18.15
8.32
MY9
Goose
2/10/2016
10:30
3.92
16.56
7.88
MY713
T McKee
2/10/2016
8:50
3.51
12.88
7.14
MY14
Duck
3/9/2016
12:05
15.03
16.91
9.49
MY9
Goose
3/9/2016
10:20
13.05
14.09
8.62
MY713
McKee
3/9/2016
9:00
11.79
10.36
7.81
Highest ever observed at sampling location
In addition, monthly sampling has also revealed high conductivity readings, especially mid-
summer, in Duck Creek. Values regularly exceed 700 us/cm.
Monthly Fixed -Interval Sampling - Chemical Parameters
Long term monthly sampling (all flow conditions) shows low compliance in both Duck Creek
and Goose Creek with three of the standards set forth in the Goose Creek Watershed Recovery
Plan, which were recommended by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The most sensitive
parameter, ammonia, does show 100% compliance in both creeks.
Constituent
Chronic
Standard
Acute
Standard
Duck - MY14 (1/1/2010 -
3/30/16: compliance with
USFWS recommendations)
Goose - MY9 (1/1/2010 -
3/30/16: compliance with
USFWS recommendations)
1.3%
60%
Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L
(1/76 samples)
(45/75 samples)
5.3%
14.7%
Nitrate -nitrite
0.4 mg/L
(4/76 samples)
(11/75 samples)
26.3 %
58.7 %
Copper
2.2 ug/L
3.6 ug/L
(20/76 samples)
(44/75 samples)
100.0%
100.0%
Ammonia
0.5 mg/L
1.75 mg/L
(71/71 samples)
(71/71 samples)

Additional sampling above the wastewater treatment plants shows concentrations of these parameters which are below the standards
recommended by USFWS, while samples taken downstream of the WWTPs' effluent discharge points are elevated, and some exceed
those standards as indicated in "red" in the tables below.
Constituent Chronic Acute
MY14
Standard Standard
Upstream Ashe
MY 9
Detection Limit
Plantation (Downstream)
No Sample
12/9/15
12/9/15
12/9/15
Phosphorus 0.1 mg/L
0.01 or0.10
0.047 mg/L 0.21 mg/L
0.046 mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate -nitrite 0.4 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
ND 1.7 mg/L
No Sample
0.79 mg/L
Copper 2.2 ug/L 3.6 ug/L
2.0 ug/L
ND 2.1 ug/L
ND
Ammonia 0.5 mg/L 1.75 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
ND ND
ND
Constituent
Chronic
Acute
Upstream Ashe
MY14
Upstream
Downstream
MY 9
Standard
Standard
Detection Limit
Plantation
(Downstream)
Oxford Glen
Oxford Glen
2/10/16
2/10/16
2/10/16
2/10/16
2/10/16
Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L
0.01 or0.10
0.025 mg/L
0.28 mg/L
0.022 mg/L
0.081 mg/L
0.024 mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate -nitrite
0.4 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.29 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
0.35 mg/L
0.87 mg/L
0.71 mg/L
Copper
2.2 ug/L
3.6 ug/L
2.0 ug/L
ND
2.1 ug/L
ND
2.4 ug/L
ND
Ammonia
0.5 mg/L
1.75 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Constituent
Chronic
Acute
Upstream Ashe
MY14
Upstream
Downstream
Standard
Standard
Detection Limit
Plantation
(Downstream)
Oxford Glen
Oxford Glen
MY 9
3/9/16
3/9/16
3/9/16
3/9/16
3/9/16
Phosphorus
0.1 mg/L
0.01 or0.10
0.010 mg/L
0.21 mg/L
0.012 mg/L
0.13 mg/L
0.024 mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate -nitrite
0.4 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
ND
1.0 mg/L
0.34 mg/L
1.2 mg/L
0.47 mg/L
Copper
2.2 ug/L
3.6 ug/L
2.0 ug/L
ND
ND
ND
2.4 ug/L
ND
Ammonia
0.5 mg/L
1.75 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Biological Sampling.— Fish Community
The fish community in Duck Creek declined significantly in 2015, when the site scored an NC
IBI value of 32 (Poor) in contrast to the previous 48 (Good) in 2011. The last fish sampling
conducted by Mecklenburg County on Goose Creek was in 2013, where the site scored 46
(Good -Fair), which was a decline from the previous score of 52 (Good) in 2009.
Site
Creek
Date
NCIBI
Rating
MY14
Duck
9/30/2011
48
Good
MY14
Duck
05/12/2015
32
Poor
MY9
Goose
09/10/2009
52
Good
MY9
Goose
10/01/2013
46
Good -Fair
Biological Sampling - Benthic Community
The benthic community in Duck Creek also declined significantly in 2015, when the site scored
an NCBI value of 7.17 (Poor) compared to the previous 5 years of sampling data, which ranged
from 5.99 to 6.59 (Fair). This was largely due to a decrease in Mayfly species (1 found in 2015,
compared to 5 in 2014) and an increase in snail species (5 found in 2015, compared to 2 in
2014). No Corbicula were found at the site in 2015, but, previously, Corbicula was found in 4 of
the 5 prior sampling years. Only 5 EPT species were found, in contrast to previous years when 8
to 10 EPT species were found. Field staff noted dense green filamentous algae at the sampling
location in 2015. Goose Creek was found to have a similar benthic community as prior sampling
years, scoring Fair, with 10 EPT species found in 2015.
Site
Creek
Date
Total Taxa
NCBI
EPT Taxa
EPT Count
Total Count
CompClass
BioClass
MY14
Duck Creek
8/16/20I0
30
6.59
8
82
184
Fair
Fair
MY14
Duck Creek
1 7/8/2011
43
5.95
1 10
283
1 496
Fair
Fair
MY14
Duck Creek
7/11/2012
34
6.06
10
185
1 298
1 Fair
I Fair
MY14
Duck Creek
7/19/2013
38
1 5.88
1 8
1 168
1 287
1 Fair
I Fair
MY 14
Duck Creek
1 7/2/2014
42
1 6.36
1 10
1 47
1 201
1 Fair
I Fair
MY14
Duck Creek
7/20/2015
31
7.17
1 5
1 53
1 242
1 Poor
Poor
MY9
I Goose Creek
7/21/2006
40
6.46
1 12
1 256
1 408
1 Fair
Fair
MY9
Goose Creek
7/27/2007
55
6.72
1 9
106
1 254
1 Fair
I Fair
MY9
I Goose Creek
1 8/8/2008
57
6.51
15
118
1 339
1 Fair
Fair
MY9
Goose Creek
7/10/2009
55
6.33
9
107
1 247
1 Fair I
Fair

Site
Creek
Date
Total Taxa
NC131
I_TT I'asa
I P't Count
Total Count
CompClass
BioC lass
MY9
(Goose Creek
7/9/2010
35
6.43
10
224
312
Fair
Fair
MY9
Goose Creek
7/22/2011
53
6.34
12
140
260
Fair
Good -Fair
MY9
Goose Creek
9/17/2012
42
1 6.99
1 8
1 74
1 232
1 Fair
I Fair
MY9
Goose Creek
8/16/2013
52
6.52
1 11
215
453
Fair
Fair
MY9
I Goose Creek
8/27/2014
59
6.59
1 11
85
374
Fair
I Fair
MY9
I Goose Creek
1 9/1/2015
37
6.23
1 10
98
213
Fair
I Fair
Conclusions
Surface water data collected from locations downstream of the Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen
WWTPs indicate that USFWS recommended standards for phosphorous, nitrate -nitrite, and
copper are routinely exceeded. Ammonia, which is most critical to Heelsplitter survival, has not
been observed to exceed chronic or acute standards. Limited data collected upstream of the
WWTPs, indicate that instream concentrations for the constituents of concern are consistently
below the standards recommended by the USFWS. Bioassessment in 2015 shows unusually poor
benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in Duck Creek, which may be a result of
increased nutrient loads and their effects on water chemistry.

Figure 1
, Goose Creek N t-•shy=)
' '
Duck Creek l s-,ed
S is r
hiY14-0ownstream R
i_
'r Ashe Plantation WWTP
fi lT
s ' is ✓t '1 MY14A Upstream # "r�i� tom. wi�r r.� is r�vrr MJ
b' • ' ( L � ,'r t 'q�, yr r y
'T• ter in�}�'a :'`rYr r hJ � '� �1 [rr 1 � iJ./
-
��{� yY+ Z• �' i ��,�`yi �
� k�61+"rAl'dv y/ o r• A�3 , y 4 N �` w» r a y e
t :
N
'".l n i I 'y n y f ., M ';. � KT;r..,•.y fi r` t,�sr 1 �.
k
® Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Approximate Sam
Plin 9 Locations
-.�-- Stream Centerline
WWiP Parcel
Watershed Boundary
C3Mecklenburg County Boundary ,,.,,'.:
SCALE: DATE: WATER
• DockCreek SamplingNot to Scale 02016 Loratioas Ma aRm Goose Creek�l'atesskea
i•r.irst Mecklenburg County, NC

. f�� riff �.,71� �• 'FF. - _�

• Busam, Jennifer d
From: Busam, Jennifer d
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 9.42 AM
To: 'Hamstead, Byron'
Subject: RE: NPDES Draft Permits: Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen
Byron,
For question 1, monitoring frequency is determined by facility type (4952 Wastewater and all facilities discharging
primarily domestic wastewater). Both Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen are Class II within this 4952 group. The
frequencies outlined in the rules can be found here in 15A NCAC 02B .0508 (d).
For question 2, an additional 61 homes is not considered a new expansion since the facility is not proposing to increase
treatment plant hydraulic capacity (0.1 MGD). See details on new here in 15A NCAC 02H .0103 (16). For 61 houses at an
estimate of 5 bedrooms each (120 GD per bedroom found in the rules here) , we can estimate the contribution of flow
would be 0.0366 MGD. With these 61 home additions added to their current flow average from 2014-2016, they do not
exceed their current flow permit limit of 0.1 MGD.
The Goose Creek site specific water quality management plan for the Goose Creek Watershed: Control Toxicity Including
Ammonia can be found here in 15A NCAC 02B .0604.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
From: Hamstead, Byron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:54 PM
To: Busam, Jennifer d <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPDES Draft Permits: Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen
Many thanks for passing those draft permits along Jennifer. I had a chance to look them over this afternoon and
have a couple questions:
1) There are daily maximum limits for several effluent characteristics, yet the proposed monitoring frequency is
weekly for most of them. I am not familiar with how these criteria are monitored; how can weekly monitoring
capture possible excursions of a daily limit?
2) I am aware of the 2001 Goose Creek NPDES Policy Memo that prohibits new or expanding wastewater
dischargers. On the phone, I mentioned a residential development that proposes to tie an additional 61 homes
into the Ashe Plantation WWTP. Would this constitute an "expansion" of that facility? That facility has had
compliance issues for DO and NH3 in the past at approx 50-75% of their permitted discharge capacity.
Thanks for your help,
Byron
Byron Hamstead

Fish and Wildlife Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St., Suite B
Asheville, NC, 28801
828-258-3939 ext. 225
This email correspondence an any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Busam, Jennifer d <Jennifer.Busaman= ov> wrote:
Byron,
The drafts for the two NPDES permits of interest are attached (Ashe Plantation NC0065749 .and Oxford Glen
NC063584 ). The comment period is for 30 days after the notices are published in the local newspaper. Both of
these notices were sent to notice on May 18, however the public comment period may differ slightly depending
on publish date. I believe they were published in the Charlotte Observer on May 19, marking June 18'' as the
last day for public comment. These dates are tentative pending the official advertising affidavit receipt.
Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Busam
Environmental Specialist
Compliance & Expedited Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6393 office
Jennifer. Busam anncdenr 4ov
1617 Mail Service Center
2

Busam, Jennifer d • a � U I
From: Hamstead, Byron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:54 PIA
To: Busam, Jennifer d
Subject: Re: NPDES Draft Permits: Ashe Plantation and Oxford Glen
Many thanks for passing those draft permits along Jennifer. I had a chance to look them over this afternoon and
have a couple questions:
1) There are daily maximum limits for several effluent characteristics, yet the proposed monitoring frequency is
weekly for most of them. I am not familiar with how these criteria are monitored; how can weekly monitoring
capture possible excursions of a daily limit?
2) I am aware of the 2001 Goose Creek NPDES Policy Memo that prohibits new or expanding wastewater
dischargers. On the phone, I mentioned a residential development that proposes to tie an additional 61 homes
into the Ashe Plantation WWTP. Would this constitute an "expansion" of that facility? That facility has had
compliance issues for DO and NH3 in the past at approx 50-75% of their permitted discharge capacity.
Thanks for your help,
Byron
Byron Hamstead
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St., Suite B
Asheville, NC, 28801
828-258-3939 ext. 225
This email correspondence an any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Busam, Jennifer d <Jennifer.Busam(a).ncdenr.gov> wrote:
Byron,
The drafts for the two NPDES permits of interest are attached (Ashe Plantation NCO065749 and Oxford Glen
NC063584 ). The comment period is for 30 days after the notices are published in the local newspaper. Both of
these notices were sent to notice on May 18, however the public comment period may differ slightly depending
on publish date. I believe they were published in the Charlotte Observer on May 19, marking June 18' as the
last day for public comment. These dates are tentative pending the official advertising affidavit receipt.

Monhodip Data ham 12/2013-12/2016
Reference Example
Oxford Glen W WTP Downstream Summer
NCD063584 Downstream Winter
Ashe Plantation W WrP Downstream Summer
NCO065749 Downstream Winter
Equations'
Freshwater Ammonia Calculator —Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)
MAX Values
TEMP'C PH
Chronic
CCC ImgTAN/Lf
Current Limit
ManthlyAVG(mgAl
Acute
CMC(MRTM/Lf
Current Limit
Daily Max(mgn)
20
7
1.987
16.760
25
7.9
0.647
C 0.50D
3.108
2.90
20
8
0.777
0.50
3.904
7.15
27
8.2
0.365
0.50
2.489
2.90
19
8.7
0.265
0.50
1.112
7.15
CCC. aM6 x( t+10 . -vx 0.0.+ 1.1994 1+y x(2126x 101°exe`no-wsm+0
1 ram'
0.0114 1.6181
CMC(Omrarhy has sPP. a6smt)-0.720 x T+—i r-ex+1+l,,- x MIN(51.93,23.12 x 10e° Caa-n)
O Limit based on data evaluation 2/22/2017
change from last permit
Instmctions:This spreadsheet automatically calculates freshwater acute and chronic
criteria for ammonia in the farm Of Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN). The user must
enter site -specific pH and temperature. The example here Is based on a temperature
Of 20'C and a pH Of 7 and assumes salmonids or sensitive Coldwater species are not
present for the CMC calculation.
Notes
r source: Aquatit We Amblenl Water Quality Criteria for Ammonla. Freshwater 2013, EPA 822-R-13-001
April 2013
a PH values only monitored at the Effluent oudall
s CC4-Chronic Criterion Magnitude (Temperature uM pH-0ependent) og.46,491
`cMC Acute criterion Magntude where Ontorhynchus species am absent (pg.42,45)t

NH3ITRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Ashe Plantation WWTP
PermitNo. NCO065749
Prepared By: Jennifer Busam
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.1
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 0
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
s7Q10 (CFS)
0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.155
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.155
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
0.22
IWC (%)
100.00
IWC (%)
100.00
Allowable Conc. (ugll)
17
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.0
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0
Monthly Average Limit:
2001100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.1
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.155
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.00 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
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

11
TMDLs
A TMDL or Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources.
A TMDL provides a detailed water quality assessment that provides the scientific foundation for an implementation
plan. An implementation plan outlines the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads in a certain body of water to
restore and maintain human uses or aquatic life. Plan implementation is usually voluntary. The development of TMDL
implementation plans is often the best method to improve water quality. The following TMDLs have been completed in
the Rocky River watershed and should be adopted by all residents and local governments within the watershed.
TABLE 5-6. FINALIZED TMDLs IN THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED
WATERBODY
POLLUTANT
FINAL TMDL DATE
LINK
McKee and Clear Creeks
Fecal Coliform
August 1, 2003
Final TMDL
Rocky River
Fecal Coliform
September 19, 2002
Final TMDL
Goose Creek
Fecal Coliform
July 8, 2005
Final TMDL
Threatened 8 Endangered Species
The Goose Creek tributary is home to the Federally Endangered Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel. DWQ has been required
by Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0110 to develop site -specific management strategies for waters providing habitat for federally -
listed threatened and endangered aquatic animal species. In order to meet the requirement to maintain and restore
the water quality of the Goose Creek watershed for the Carolina Heelsplitter freshwater mussel, DWQ has drafted rule
Language to meet this goal. Several state and federal agencies prepared written draft technical recommendations for
DWQ to consider in its final recommendations.
DWQ has written an explanation of its proposed rule language in the report entitled "Report on Water Quality
Recommendations in the Site -Specific Management Strategy for the Goose Creek Watershed". The proposed rule
Language is included in that report. See http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/GooseCreek.html for more information.
Inter -Basin Transfers
The rapid population growth discussed above has also led to an urgent need to identify and develop new water sources
for the communities in the Rocky River watershed. One option for increasing the local water supply is to transfer
water from neighboring basins. In 1993, the Legislature adopted the Regulation of Surface Water Transfers Act (G.S.
143-215.221). The intention of the law is to regulate large surface water transfers between river basins by requiring a
certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). In general, a transfer certificate is required for
a new transfer of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or more and for an increase in an existing transfer by 25 percent
or more, if the total including the increase is 2 MGD or more. However, if a transfer facility existed or was under
construction on July 1, 1993, a certificate is not required up to the full capacity of that facility to transfer water,
regardless of the transfer amount.
p' The following links lead to specific details about the two inter -basin transfer certificates currently issued for the Rocky
oRiver watershed. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is currently pursuing a revised certificate that could allow additional
U water transfers into the Goose Creek portion of the Rocky River watershed. Additional transfer certificates are likely in
z the future as the region continues to grow and the demand for water increases.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (CMUD)
0. A 33 MGD transfer from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.
Cities of Concord and Kannopolis
A transfer to the Rocky River basin of 10 MGD from the Catawba River basin and 10 MGD from the
Yadkin River basin.
Issues surrounding inter -basin transfers to the Rocky River watershed are complex and controversial. At a minimum,
the natural flow of water through the landscape is altered and impacts aquatic communities. Depending on the size
of the transfer, the impacts can be significant on both the source and receiving streams. At the regional level, inter -
basin transfers facilitate higher density development and support a larger human population. As discussed in the
population section above, this urban expansion can bring a suite of additional water quality concerns including habitat
10

United States Office of Water EPA 822-R-13-001
A Environmental Protection 4304T
V Kv wir EPA Agency
April 2013
AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR
AMMONIA - FRESHWATER
2013

Table 5b. Temperature and pH -Dependent Values of the CMC (Acute Criterion Magnitude) — Oncorhynchus spp. Absent.
Temperature (IC)
pH 0-10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
45

Table 5a. Temperature and pH -Dependent Values of the CMC (Acute Criterion Magnitude) - 4ncorhynchus spp. Present.
Temperature (°C)
PH 0-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 R
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
33
33
32
29
27
25
23
21
19
18
16
15
14
13
12
11
9.9
31
31
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
17
16
14
13
12
11
10
9.5
30
30
29
27
24
22
21
19
18
16
15
14
13
12
11
9.8
9.0
28
28
27
25
23
21
20
18
17
15
14
13
12
11
10
9.2
8.5
26
26
25
23
21
20
18
17
15
14
13
12
11
10
9.4
8.6
7.9
24
24
23
21
20
18
17
15
14
13
12
11
10
9.4
8.6
8.0
7.3
22
22
21
20
18
17
15
14
13
12
11
10
9.3
8.5
7.9
7.2
6.7
20
20
19
18
16
15
14
13
12
11
9.8
9.1
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.5
6.0
18
18
17
16
14
13
12
11
10
9.5
8.7
8.0
7.4
6.8
6.3
5.8
5.3
15
15
15
14
13
12
11
9.8
9.0
8.3
7.7
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.7
13
13
13
12
11
10
9.2
8.5
7.8
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.0
11
11
11
10
9.3
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.5
9.6
9.6
9.3
8.6
7.9
7.3
6.7
6.2
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.0
8.1
8.1
7.9
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.5
6.8
6.8
6.6
6.0
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.96
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.93
0.86
0.79
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.98
0.90
0.83
0.77
0.71
0.65
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.96
0.88
0.81
0.75
0.69
0.63
0.59
0.54
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.94
0.87
0.80
0.74
0.68
0.62
0.57
0.53
0:49
0.45
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.93
0.86
0.79
0.73
0.67
0.62
0.57
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.41
0.37
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.93
0.85
0.79
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.88
0.88
0.86
0.79
0.73
0.67
0.62
0.57
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.41
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.29
0.27
44

Table 6. Temperature and pH -Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion Magnitude).
Temperature (°C)
pH 0-7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 R
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
4.6
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
4.5
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
.1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1,.99
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.99
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.95
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.96
0.90
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.97
0.91
0.85
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.96
0.90
0.85
0.79
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.95
0.89
0.83
0.78
0.73
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.81
0.76
0.71
0.67
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.94
0.88
0.83
0.78
0.73
0.68
0.64
0.60
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.95
0.89
0.84
0.79
0.74
0.69
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.53
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.95
0.89
0.84
0.79
0.74
0.69
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.47
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.94
0.88
0.83
0.78
0.73
0.68
0.64
0.60
0.56
0.53
0.50
0.44
0.44
0.41
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.99
0.92
0.87
0.81
0.76
0.71
0.67
0.63
0.59
0.55
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.43
0.40
0.38
0.35
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.96
0.90
0.84
0.79
0.74
0.70
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.54
0.50
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.30
1.1
1.1
0.99
0.93
0.87
0.82
0.76
0.72
0.67
0.63
0.59
0.55
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.43
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.26
0.95
0.89
0.84
0.79
0.74
0.69
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.47
0.44
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.80
0.75
0.71
0.67
0.62
0.58
0.55
0.51
0.48
0.45
0.42
0.40
0.37
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.68
0.64
0.60
0.56
0.53
0.49
0.46
0.43
0.41
0.38
0.36
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.57
0.54
0.51
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.49
0.46
0.43
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
49

• Busam, Jennifer d
From: Sypolt, Shannon <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 20171:05 PM
To: Busam, Jennifer d
Subject: Charlotte Water Public Records Request for Ashe Plantation Public Comments and
Permit Limit Related Information
Follow -Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Ms. Busam,
Per our conversation last Friday morning, please let this email correspondence serve as Charlotte Water's formal
request for all public records related to Ashe Plantation's pending permit renewal (NPDES Permit #NC0065749). This
request includes but is not limited to the following information:
➢ All public comments received by NCDEQ, in any form, that are related to the renewal of NPDES Permit
#NC0065749
➢ All information used in the determination of permit limits for ammonia including the permit fact sheet,
monitoring data, guidance documents, technical rationale, etc.
As used in this email, "public records" includes all written, printed, recorded, or electronic materials and
communications including emails, memoranda, notations, copies, diagrams, charts, tables, spreadsheet,
formulas, directives, observations, impressions, guidance, contracts, letters, messages, text messages, and mail
in the possession or control of NCDEQ. Charlotte Water is requesting this information from the date of NCDEQ's
receipt of Ashe Plantation's permit renewal application package and this request is an ongoing request until
Charlotte Water receives a final permit for Ashe Plantation. Charlotte Water is also requesting the standard 30
day comment period on the revised draft permit. If you have any questions concerning this request please do
not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance for your assistance in providing the requested
information.
Respectfully,
Shannon Sypolt
Water Quality Program Administrator
Environmental Management Division
CHARLOTTE ftTER
4222 Westmont Drive / Charlotte, NC 28217
P: 704-336-4581 / C: 704-634-6984 / charlottewater.ong

The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co
Charlotte, NC
North Carolina } ss Affidavit of Publication
Mecklenburg County }
Charlotte Observer
REFERENCE: 145583 NCDENR/DWQ/POINT SOURCE
0002459405 Public Notice Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit The North
Carolina Environmental Management
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
State, duly authorized to administer oaths affirmations, etc.,
personally appeared, being duly sworn or affirmed according
to law, doth depose and say that he/she is a representative of
The Charlotte Observer Publishing Company, a corporation
organized and doing business under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The
Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte, County of
Mecklenburg, and State of North Carolina and that as such
he/she is familiar with the books, records, files, and business
of said Corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication, the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and files of the
aforesaid Corporation and Publication.
'UBLISHED ON: 05/19/2016
4D SPACE: 118 LINES
=1LED ON: 05/24/2016
JAME:
Whereof I have hereunto set my hVd and affixed my
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of ntee t to Owe a NPOES
wardens er Permit
al
mar dean, tour parameters are water.
quality lensed.
PUBUC NOTICE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF EWIRONMENTAL
OUA INTENT TO ISSUE NPOES
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
CN W W49B7
Public comment or obj.d. to the tlma
permit modification Is invited. M commer is
eraNed byy June 22, W16 will be cons)
eredindn, naldelarminallon regarding per.
mR issuance and permit provislons.
PEPW APPUCATION
Me
PUSUCHEARING
ant
MAY 2 5 2016
My Commission Expires May 27, 2016

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ®NPDES Unit❑Non-Discharge Unit
Attn: Derek Denard
From: Ori Tuvia
MRO
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 1/20/2016
b. Site visit conducted by: Ori Tuvia
c. Inspection report attached? ❑ Yes or ® No
Last inspection was done 4/15/2015 by Wes Bell
Application No.: NCO065749
Facility name: Ash Plantation
RECEIVEDUDEQIDWR
d. Person contacted: Matthew Costner and their contact information: (704) 507 - 3413
FEB 0 2 2016
Water Quality
Permitting Section
e. Driving directions: Drive On I-85 south turn into I-485 Inner. Take exit 44 toward Mint Hill, turn left into
Fairview Road Turn left Ashelev Glen drive turn left onto Hanging Moss Trail than turn right into Quarters
Lane, take gravel road next to 8761 Quarters.
2. Discharge Point(s):
Latitude:35010'40"
Longitude: 80135'30"
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Duck Creek
Classification:C
River Basin and Subbasin No: Yadkin -Pee Dee — 03-07-12
II. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ® Yes ❑ No❑ N/A
ORC: David Bligh Certificate #:1001225 Backup ORC: Allen Stovel Certificate #:
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ❑ No
3. Description of existing facilities:
Permitted flow of 100,000 GPD average flow of 25,000 GPD. The facility as the following treatment units:
influent bar screen aeration basin with two blowers clarifier, two tertiary filters. UV treatment.
4. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste?® Yes or ❑ No

It
-� 5. 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
6. Is the residuals management plan adequate?® Yes or ❑ No
7. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ❑ No
8. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
No Monitoring wells on site
9. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? ❑ Yes or ® No
10. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or ❑ No
As of the end of February the facility would be operated by Charlotte water.
11. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
12. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A
13. 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: Since Janauary 2013 there have been two NOD's for
DO, Two NOV's For DO and one NOVRE for ammonia. There been no violations since September 2014.
14. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? ❑ Yes or ® No
15. Check all that apply:
❑ No compliance issues
® Notice(s) of violation
❑ Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under JOC
❑ Currently under SOC ❑ Currently under moratorium
Date
Parameter
Re orted Value
Permit Limit
Result
10/16/2013
DO
5.6 m
6 m L (Daily Minimum
NOD
11/6/2013
DO
5.6 m
6 m (Daily Minimum)
NOD
3/31/2014
Ammonia
0.66 m
0.5 m (MonthlyAverage)
NOVRE
7/2/2014
DO
4.9 m
6 m L (Daily Minimum)
NOV
F-8/27/2014
DO
5 m
6 mg/L (Daily Minimum
NOV
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied?® Yes ❑ No[:] N/A
16. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A
III. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit?[:] Yes or L] No
However, as of the end of February the facility will be operated by Charlotte water. Need to insure change of
ownership

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: ORI TUVIA
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: d a L

FACT SHEET FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
This form must be completed by Permit Writers for all expedited permits which do not require
full Fact Sheets. Expedited permits are generally simple 100% domestics (e.g., schools, mobile
home parks, etc) that can be administratively renewed with minor changes, but can include
facilities with more complex issues (Special Conditions, 303(d) listed water, toxicity testing,
instream monitoring, compliance concerns).
Basic Information for ExDedited Permit Renewals
Permit Writer/Date Jennifer D. Busam — 4/6/2016
Permit Number NCO065749
Facility Name Ashe Plantation WWTP
Basin Name/Sub-basin number Yadkin -Pee Dee / 03-07-12
Receiving Stream Duck Creek Index #13-17-18-3
Stream Classification in Permit C
Does permit need Daily Max NH3 limits? No — already resent
Does permit need TRC limits/language? No — already resent
Does permit have toxicity testing? No
Does permit have Special Conditions? Yes, an ammonia toxicity and nutrients reo ever
Does permit have instream monitoring? Yes, for TRC, NH3 as N, temperature, DO, and
fecal coliform.
Is the stream impaired on 303 d list)? No
Any obvious compliance concerns? No, two NOV for not reaching daily DO
minimum (2014) and one NOV that resulted from
11 violations for flow frequency in 2012.One
enforcement for exceedance of monthly average
of Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N); No other
enforcements during the current hermit cycle.
Any permit mods since lastpermit? No
New expiration date 4/30/2021
Changes to 2011 permit? Added eDMR requirements
Added regulatory citations
Added effluent characteristic parameter codes
Updated ownership
Changes to draft permit?
Significant comments received on ammonia
toxicity concerns from effluent on endangered
freshwater mussels
Fecal Coliform limit changed from a daily
maximum to a weekly average per request by
Shannon Sypolt of Charlotte Water
Nitrogen and TRC will have a weekly monitoring
frequency year round
Corrected upstream and downstream description
from error on May 2016 draft
Added instream pH monitoring, upstream and
downstream

Evaluation using EPA's 2013 Ammonia Nitrogen
criteria for freshwater indicated that the current
limits may not protect for ammonia toxicity on
freshwater mussels. However, due to a limited
dataset lower limits cannot be imposed at this
time. If further analysis with new instream data
(pH and temperature) suggests ammonia nitrogen
levels exceed chronic and/or acute freshwater
criteria, further controls may be needed (i.e. more
frequent instream sampling, limit re-evaluation, or
pH control).
Instream data will be evaluated during the current
permit cycle when a more robust dataset for
instream pH, temperature, and NH3-N data comes
available. In November of 2017, a full year of
instream data will be available for analysis. It is
recommended that the data be analyzed using the
TAN spreadsheet calculator for the days that
record high instream ammonia nitrogen and pH
values to determine if there are ammonia toxicity
issues in the stream that may negatively impact
aquatic species, specifically the endangered
Carolina heelsplitter mussel. Further controls may
be implemented as necessary using the A. (2)
permit reopener condition for ammonia toxicity
and nutrients.
Most Commonly Used Expedited Language:
• TRC language for Compliance Level for Cover Letters/Effluent Sheet Footnote:
"The facility shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC certified laboratory
including field certified. However, effluent values below 50 µg/L will be treated as zero
for compliance purposes."

AQUA
November 4, 2015
NCDENR / DWQ/ NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0167
Re: Application for Permit Renewal
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Ashe Plantation
NPDES No. NCO065749
Mecklenburg County
Gentlemen:
Enclosed are three (3) copies of the completed application Form D- WWTP. This
submittal includes the necessary attachments for your office to renew the
subject permit.
Should you need any additional information or assistance, please feel free to
contact our Regional Compliance Manager, Michael A. Melton @ 704-489-9404
ext. 57238 or by e-mail at [e-mail].
President
Enc
202 MacKenan Court, Cary, NC, 27511 • 919.467.8712 • AquaAmerica.com

t
NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. DENR / Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit 000065749
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
AQUA NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
Facility Name
ASHE PLANTATION WWTP
Mailing Address
202 MACKENAN COURT
City
CARY
State / Zip Code
NC 27511
Telephone Number
[phone]
Fax Number
[phone]
e-mail Address
[e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same address as above ❑
Street Address or State Road End of Quarters Lane, east of Charlotte
City MINT HILL
State / Zip Code NORTH CAROLINA / 28227
County MECKLENBURG
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, public organization or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not
referring to the Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name AQUA NORTH CAROLINA, INC
Mailing Address 202 MACKENAN COURT
City CARY
State / Zip Code NORTH CAROLINA 27511
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
1 of 4 Form-D 05/08

NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
4. Description of wastewater:
Facility Generating Wastewater(check all that apply):
Industrial
❑
Number of Employees
Commercial
❑
Number of Employees
Residential
®
Number of Homes 177
School
❑
Number of Students/ Staff
Other
❑
Explain:
Describe the source(s) of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, shopping centers,
restaurants, etc.):
This system serves residential customers only.
5. Type of collection system
® Separate (sanitary sewer only) ❑ Combined (storm sewer and sanitary sewer)
6. Outfall Information:
Number of separate discharge points 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
Is the outfall equipped with a diffuser? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall):
Duck Creek within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
S. Frequency of Discharge:
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs:
Continuous ❑ Intermittent
Duration:
9. Describe the treatment system
List all installed components, including capacities, provide design removal for BOD, TSS, nitrogen and
phosphorus. If the space provided is not sufficient, attach the description of the treatment system in a
separate sheet of paper.
Continue discharging 0.100 MGD of treated domestic wastewater from an extended -
aeration package treatment plant with the following components:
• Influent lift station
• Bar screen
• Equalization basin
• Aeration basin
• Rectangular clarifier
• Tertiary filter
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Backup chlorine contact chamber with tablet -type chlorination and
dechlorination
• Continuous -recording flow measuring device
• Filter backwash tank
2 of 4 Form-D 05108

0
NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
• Post aeration
• Aerobic sludge digester
10. Flow Information:
Treatment Plant Design flow 0.100 MGD
Annual Average daily flow 0.039 MGD (for the previous 3 years)
Maximum daily flow 0.084 MGD (for the previous 3 years)
11. Is this facility located on Indian country?
❑ Yes ® No
12. Effluent Data
Provide data for the parameters listed. Fecal Coliform, Temperature and pH shall be grab samples, for all other
parameters 24-hour composite sampling shall be used. If more than one analysis is reported, report daily maximum
and monthly average. If only one analysis is reported, report as daily maximum.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Units of
Measurement
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD$)
2.0
0.04
MG/ L
Fecal Coliform
1.0
1.0
#/ 100ML
Total Suspended Solids
7.5
1.5
MG/ L
Temperature (Summer)
28.0
23.4
*Celsius
Temperature (Winter)
20.0
13.4
° Celsius
pH
8.5
N/A
UNITS
13. List all permits, construction approvals and/or applications:
Type Permit Number Type
Hazardous Waste (RCRA) NESHAPS (CAA)
UIC (SDWA)
NPDES NCO065749
PSD (CAA)
Non -attainment program (CAA)
14. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Ocean Dumping (MPRSA)
Dredge or fill (Section 404 or CWA)
Other
Permit Number
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Thomas J. Roberts President & Chief Operating Officer
Pr
,At n e of Per Si ing Titl
or
giliature of An cant Da
North Carolina Geng(al Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) states: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or certification in any
application, record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management
Commission implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method
required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be
3 of 4 Form-D 05/08

AQUA
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
No sludge will be treated on any wastewater treatment plant site operated
by Aqua N.C., Western Division
Where practical, sludge removed from a Aqua N.C., Western Division
facility will be transported via a contract hauler to another Aqua N.C.,
Western Division facility for the purpose of "seeding" a new or under
loaded plant.
Unusable (or "dead") sludge will be removed by a contract hauler and
properly disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1. Contract
haulers used by Aqua N.C., Western Division will be required to
report the quantity of sludge transported and identify the location of
the proposed disposal site if the sludge is not taken to an existing
plant operated by Aqua N.C., Western Division. Aqua N.C., Western
Division has not entered into any agreement to accept sludge into its
facilities from plants not owned by them.
Aqua N.C., Western Division will keep records on the quantity of sludge
removed from each facility, the name of the contract hauler, and the
destination of the sludge (whether used in another plant or disposed of).
The information will be kept on file and will be made available to any
regulatory agency having jurisdiction over sludge treatment or disposal.
Aqua N.C., Western Division includes all of the facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Mooresville Regional Office.
202 MacKenan Court, Cary, NC, 27511 • 919.467.8712 • AquaAmerica.com