NC0079561_Permit Issuance_19930129

t
RECENFO..
MAR 1993
,,; State of North Carolina
i'i• ' `''' `=y �F'%',, tment of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
�'tC?�C�.iili] JECuv^�s
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Lucille T. Winters
P0Box 248
Elk Park, NC 28622
Dear Ms. Winters:
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
January 29, 1993
Subject: Permit No. NCO079561
Elk Park WWTP
Avery County
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on May 22, 1992, we
are forwarding herewith the subject state - 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 US Environmental Protection agency dated
December 6, 1983.
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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611 -7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice this permit is not transferable. Part H, EA. addresses the requirements
to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits required by the Division of
Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental
permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr. Randy Kepler at
telephone number 919/ 733-5083.
Sinc y,
. Preston Ho ,L Jr.'�.'
Acting Director
a • •k�
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Asheville Regional Office 'A
Pollution Prevention Pays "��co'
tea:.: ti ,
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]'3~
1993
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer FEB '�
fj r) r"
Exhibit "C"

Permit No. NCO079561
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMI
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
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,
Town of Elk Park
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Town of Elk Park Wastewater Treatment Plant
off of NCSR 1305
north of Elk Park
Avery County
to receiving waters designated as Little Elk Creek in the Watauga River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective March 1, 1993
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 1996
Signed this day January 29, 1993
A. Preston Howard, Jr., Ming. Director
Division of Environmental Management By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
F

t
Permit No. NCO079561
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Elk Park
is hereby authorized to:
1. Enter into a contract for construction of a wastewater treatment facility, and
2. Make an outlet into Little Elk Creek, and
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Environmental
Management, construct and operate a 0.1 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at
Town of Elk Park Wastewater Treatment Plant, off of NCSR 1305, north of Elk Park,
Avery County (See Part III of this Permit), and
4. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
Little Elk Creek which is classified class C-Trout waters in the Watauga River Basin.
.-AIN
FEB 16. 1993
CENTRAL FILES

• i f1 � '
/7
_ _ . ,�� _ it _ - �� !k,P�rk 8 _ - .� - - - i� - _ plea-tpn $r*i6 \ Smith
03
Hea
/- `� i r/�. i'. �- 0. _•/- 1 I t '/7 '� ��f!/- ' i . % 1 / ' :, .1. - r •`• ♦ - ' t 1!J! ,
}j Y
I �•'�/ �� -' � .'-' __/ ' r1.,, � V � •�•� ,i ��I •- /�' � J /� �/ .Ir' ',i �• ~r� �•I '`1 i t 1/' !,I-.
•`' .'� •'C!!.. � � � tr i���,� ' �"!r ✓mow .! ! � J � . � 1��' • ��. •t t'1\' - .
� �- '•- ':. � � > n °%��� { • , ' lip: ' r � (f l�� . �': �. : •'•ch
' i • i/� f -
Nj
�� ,-. , '�.,�' ,:%r 'tom; •� _ �. '����-� •`' ��., •�'.; � �?�
J.
/�/• • � • \ �� • tC e � \ �!`` � �,_;� r ? '.�� � f •--�� ice, y��� \ `,, � �/ . ^`.
7 /
\l �. �' r � } �✓'� '.�� /' " "' �� v� \ •• Su�statton� •, ' - N `l / i/ �:� 1 v �/ ��•� ' � L.aw a '',)-\
�c�•,--� ill 1 �� ^�'/ � tli .�_i ' /l ! i .. �)` � r V {m � •� � � / j'' :l�l� •1\\�`1,��:; �"�.•V �\ .%
/ ) em••
lo
/
�� \�� ` \ �•t � �•_`� �,- .� J �;�'• ��`'� �~`���� � [\•♦ "[�` j i �' � �'�' 'P x .� fit'`'
b _ti,L3 1'
N C 1 124 000 FEET 412 i.-!,n rvE-:votr5 j r' {+r 413 57' 30" 1114 rvey -
SaaV/rE Pert ry �.r 1 fNfW{A_YD,T15•Srvl i \/
ee Valley Authority �-- L >� P �� �'.1'� r r-.r-; t,r; f �gs6,,/J.Sw
`'' ' ` fir' -SCALE 1 24 000

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. N00079561
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effiuent Characteristic.
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20°C"
Total Suspended Residue"
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine'
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Conductivity
Discharge Limitationt
Monthly Ayg Weekly Avg.
o .1 MGD
30.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
4.2 mg/l
200.0 /100 ml
45.0 mg/l
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Requirements
Measurement
Sample
"Sample
Daily Max Frequency
Tyke
Location
Continuous
Recording
I *or E
2/Month
Composite
E, 1
2/Month
Composite
E, I
2/Month
Composite
E
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
2/Month
Grab
E,U,D
28.0 ug/l Daily
Grab
E
Weekly
Grab
E, U. D
Semi-annually
Composite
E
Semi-annually
Composite
E
Weekly
Grab
U, D.
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at least 300 feet
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
% removal).
* ** Monitoring only required if chlorine disinfection is used.
**** Instream temperature shall not be increased by more than 0.5° C due to the discharge, and in no case exceed 20' C due to the discharge.
***** The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving waters to exceed 10.0 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these levels due to
natural ackground conditions, the discharge level cannot cause any increase in the turbidity in the receiving water.
r ; 'I%pHfshall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 2/month at the effluent by grab
`sample.
"Thereshall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
,,.
�Zr.,

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NCO079561
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristic• Discharge Urnitatloni Monitoring Reaulrements
Units (2126cify
Monthly Avg Weekly Ava.
Turbidity * ' ' ' * • ' •
Measurament a m 'Sam a l e
Daily Max Frequency Tv12 Location
2/Month Grab E,U,D

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NCO079561
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Charecterlstic.
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20°C"
Total Suspended Residue"
NH3 asN
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine'
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Conductivity
A Discharge
Urnitation:
Monitoring
Regulrements
Measurement
Samgle
*Sample
Monty Avg
Weekly_gyg. Dally Max
Frequency
Type
Locatlon
0.1 KM
Continuous
Recording
I or E
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
2/Month
Composite
E, 1 .
30.0 mg/l
45.0 mg/I
2/Month
Composite
E, I
11.0 mg/I
5
2/Month
Composite
E
_ _
Weekly
Grab
E. U, D
200.0 /100 ml
400.0 /100 ml
2/Month
Grab
E,U,D
28.0 ug/l
Daily
Grab
E
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Semi-annually
Composite
E
Semi-annually
Composite
E
Weekly
Grab
U; D
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at least 100 feet, D - Downstream at least 300 feet
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
% removal).
*** Monitoring only required if chlorine disinfection is used.
**** Instream temperature shall not be increased by more than 0.5° C due to the discharge, and in no case exceed 20' C due to the discharge.
***** The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving waters to exceed 10.0 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these levels due to
natural background conditions, the discharge level cannot cause any increase in the turbidity in the receiving water.
The 4,tshall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 2/month at the effluent by grab
sample ,
K:'here.slall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NCO079561
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characterlstic• Discharge Llmltatlons Monitoring Regulrementa
Units (sl2ecify Measurement SamRle *Sample
Monthly Avg YLeekly Avg. p011y Max Frea1jencv TM12 Location
Turbidity ` * ' * ' ' ' ' 2/Month Grab E,U,D
rw
F f is •
art
'
i

Part III Permit No. NCO079561
E. Disposal Alternatives
�j
,l The Permittee shall continually evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most
j environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facility is in
substantial non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing rules, ,
regulations, or laws, the permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail as required by the
Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within sixty (60) days of notification by
the Division.
%r
F. Dechlorination or UV disinfection is required..
FEB •

FA
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMrrNO.: NCO079561
FACILITY NAME:
Town of Elk Park
Town of Elk Park Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: Modification
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Minor -q
0.1 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
modification is the request to relocate the proposed discharge
downstream 1000 feet. New discharge point is marked on the attached
man.
RECEIVING ST'REAM;Little Elk Creek
C-Trout
Sub -Basin: 04-02-01
Reference USGS Quad: C 11 NW (please attach)
County: Avery
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: n/a
Classification changes within three mPLOTTED
none
Requested by: R
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
3oaflw t5'
ALw�GZ
Date: 7/22/92
Date: 10
2 Z
i,-� Date:l 3 a
J �
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
Drainage Area (mil) 2.3q Avg. Streamflow (cfs): &.7Z
7Q10 (cfs) 0, 63 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0.9 I 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters D D. , iE�tr!rRRiaKc . F�u11. CnW F6QA- CWPVCrl vrTy
Upstream y Location M cefW f0o7Ctvrr7zEpwr
Downstream Location ar tErtsr Soo'paw 90-ew It
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (m )
3050
NH3-N (mg/1)
11
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (1119/1)
3o
3 0
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zo0
2moo
pH (SU)
(o -
6 - �
UAL BrNE
8
Z8
TNsry&AA -faxe
VI&� sNhu
7i{E 7)(SCHRRkE R
1>uE Yo E 9Ci1
7N No CASE Ekr-
E.
U ir17�
-otsWiMkv SOAALt
6 d
or Cfius6 I oe T1
T5 s To C'
Comments: p�,g, notJ GAVTdOiL [ZaWNS-17204-M .
ge
�u E 7b
ED Zo °C-
981 PTI
10 AtflA.

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:
Elk Park W WTP
NPDES No.:
NC0079561
Type of Waste:
Domestic - 100%
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
Little Elk Creek
Stream Classification:
C-Tr
Subbasin:
040201
County:
Avery
Regional Office:
ARO
Requestor:
R. Kepler
Date of Request:
7/22/92
Topo Quad:
C11NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Request # 7033
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
2.34
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.63
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.91
Average Flow (cfs):
4.72
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
19.12
Elk Park is locating their discharge appx. 850' downstream of the point where the previous WLA
and permit indicated NH3-N limits will be slightly different due to the increased flow. The
previous model is not significantly changed with movement of the pipe farther downstream.
Recommend the facility chlorinate/dechlorinate or implement UV disinfection.
emooinJ4 VSCOA4E PK4M JAauT PAAAu
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
F 1�
Recommended by
Reviewed by
Instream Assessor nt:
Regional Su _
Permits & En ' eering:
Nov 0 4 1992
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
N
9a,,

CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.1 0.1
BODS (mg/1):
30 30
NH3N (mg/1):
4 10.7
DO (mg/1):
TS S (mg/1):
30 30
Fecal Col. 000 ml):
200 200
pH (SU):
6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
28 28
Temperature
Instream temperature shall not be
increased by more than 0.5°C due to the
discharge, and in no case exceed 20°C
due to the discharge.
Turbidity
Discharge shall not cause the turbidity of
the receiving waters to exceed 10 NTU.
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.1 0.1
BODS (mgft
30 30 el
NH3N (mg/1):
4.2 11.0 wq
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
30 30
Fecal Col. (1100 ml):
200 200
pH (SU):
6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
28 28
Temperature (mg/1):
Instream temperature shall not be
increased by more than 0.5°C due to the
discharge, and in no case exceed 20°C
due to the discharge.
Turbidity (mg/1):
Discharge shall not cause the turbidity of
the receiving waters to exceed 10 NTU.
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7010 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge NH3-N
X Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
•2
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at least lot} ft upstream
Downstream Location: at least 300 ft downstream
Parameters: DO, temperature, Fecal coliform, conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
,Adr4uacy of Existing Treatment-ti
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) N (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? N (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

a+w
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Ann R Orr
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
September 2 ]. , 1992,
tu
SEP 2 5 1992
MEMORANDUM TEC"ICAL SUppO
Ri BRA,
CH
TO: Randy Kepler
Permits and Engineering
THROUGH: Forrest R. Westall r1
V
Water Quality Regiona Supervisor
FROM: Paul White, P. E.c v
Environmental Engiineer
SUBJECT: Town of Elk Park
Proposed WWTP Plant Outfall Relocation
NPDES Permit No. NCO079561
Avery County
I have received a more detailed map of the proposed outfall
relocation and am forwarding this as a stipplement to the staff report
submitted previously. The enclosed map shows the proposed outfall
point to be 850 feet below the proposed plant site as opposed to 1200
feet as indicated on the staff report. The outfall location on the map
correspondes to the site visited, which is just below the trout pond
intake.
Also enclosed is a revised staff report with the corrected
location. The coordinates on page one have been corrected to reflect
the information on the 1" = 400' map.
It is recommended that the permit be modified as requested.
Interchange Building; 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

TOWN OF ELK PARK WWTP
SCALE 1 "= 400'
TROUT POND TROUT POND DISCHARGE
TROUT POND INTAKE
PROPOSED PLANT DICHARGE PIPE
j7
'OSED SANITARY SEWER LINE
ISCHARGE POINT
1\ PROPOSED WWTP
a/
/ ! 125 oPM
PUMP STATION

ii N caG)7g5vI
P0RA-- ww-l? CMz�rD�
L 17rc� E� � Cr1eEr�
q
pa&waxs w�A ♦
FOR-�r`
Pam`` J
o3ggpg5oz5
•ate � �. Ib --•1G �.
n= 223 �. - wires EU�- cater k—R,°o•36
'o toy
q.4=4.51s ur
ELF PMZll- WWTP
fix z.s¢M:Z
7qA= 0.l73 d5
-7
q�2
sA-w
o4o'2�,
(.,o >5t44tin485
L:� PA(- �A--fDED To i4FtOC, TE 85>FT. ; owl15- EAM o. / T&47- Mr-M.
.
P-tVIOV5 lw6Ypr- .eT2uc/UA5 vl; c.L B Qom,
s N#3-/I.
Arvi (COW J fSi. - /(' 2.3FJ n 1
�S-
'T �• _ �.rl /.SPa /i��
CJ<V = 0.23 7 Z
F!3-fJ4•Z nZ/Q CwM) - I/. / Mgli ! W%N J
c� �, t o. z9
0. 1
5 ovE leZ
l $z 3 s
'45
(o.7, 0.37)
8-'j-EI.1r7.6- �
pp� ,L.44
4A ° I.7
(os�
LV o.52 1
0. 21 _I-7I
Cz
jir.oz-o.87
`0,29
ha_(i,o2,o.53�
—o.L_ — :fo.z4
Z-"'(, ilk
btu. RiJ o.s2
,r•i U
(
QAIS
z •74 l
I � S

SUMMER
QEFF=0.1 MGD,
BOD5=30
MG/L
NH3-N=4.2
•
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
ELK PARK
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE ELK
CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.51
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.48
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.14
mg/l.
WLA WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/ 1)
Milepoint
Reach # (mg/ 1) (mg/ 1)
(mg/ 1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
6.21
---------
0.00
------- ---- ----
1
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00 18.90
0.00
0.10000
Reach 2
0.00 0.@G
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
S-VED AS: EUcPP
(7t SCr�F{urE l� �'1� `� IZQO ')0v1�JST� �F�/l F2oN Paliou.S, W L �} -Ti�O�T �(�nr,�
C7u�,�� �' �So r �Ob�INSTf�t W( J� NOT av Nod
.��� JL ��1 --/J Ltr� C��f�'A�4E` SI.i-,
�7 w I N7eR-
�(,Dul S �� ot5o

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : ELK PARK Subbasin 040201
.Receiving Stream : LITTLE ELK CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 0.64 Winter 7Q10 : 0.93
Design Temperature: 23.0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@204
Idesignl
@204 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.291182.001
0.275
I
1 0.45
I I
10.65 1
0.57
I I
153.37 1
I
50.001
I
0.63 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.101182.001
0.315
I
1 0.51
I I
1 0.65 1
0.57
I I
153.37 1
I
50.001
I
0.63 I
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.111 35.001
0.195
I
1 0.65
I I
1 0.40 10.35
I I
113.14 1
I
12.311
I
0.63 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 1.201 35.001
0.399
I
1 1.23
I I
1 0.41 1
0.36
I I
126.84 1
I
25.141
I
0.63 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow
I CBOD
I
cfs
I mg/l
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.155
1 45.000
Headwatersl
0.640
I 2.000
Tributary I
0.000
I 2.000
* Runoff I
0.190
I 2.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1
Tributary I 0.370 I
* Runoff 1 0.140 I
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste ( 0.000 1
Tributary ( 0.000
* Runoff I 0.140 I
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
1 NBOD I D.O. I
mg/l I mg/l
18.900 I
0.000
1.000 I
7.720
1.000 I
7.720
1.000 1
7.720
0.000 1 0.000
I 1.000 ( 7.720
I 1.000 I 7.720
I 0.000 1 0.000
I 1.000 I 7.720
I 1.000 I 7.720
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 ( 0.000 1 0.000 ( 0.000
Tributary ( 7.800 ( 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720

Seg #
Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD
1
1
0.00
6.21
10.38
1
1
0.03
6.86
10.28
1
1
0.06
7.31
10.18
1
1
0.09
7.63
10.08
1
1
0.12
7.86
9.99
1
1
0.15
8.02
9.89
1
1
0.17
8.13
9.80
1
1
0.20
8.21
9.71
1
1
0.23
8.27
9.62
1
1
0.26
8.31
9.53
1
1
0.29
8.34
9.44
1
2
0.29
8.15
7.18
1
2
0.30
8.18
7.17
1
2
0.31
8.21
7.15
1
2
0.32
8.23
7.14
1
2
0.33
8.25
7.12
1
2
0.34
8.27
7.11
1
2
0.35
8.29
7.09
1
2
0.36
8.30
7.08
1
2
0.37
8.32
7.06
1
2
0.38
8.33
7.05
1
2
0.39
8.34
7.03
1
3
0.39
8.34
7.03
1
3
0.40
8.34
7.02
1
3
0.41
8.33
7.00
1
3
0.42
8.33
6.99
1
3
0.43
8.32
6.97
1
3
0.45
8.32
6.95
1
3
0.46
8.31
6.94
1
3
0.47
8.31
6.92
1
3
0.48
8.30
6.91
1
3
0.49
8.30
6.89
1
3
0.50
8.29
6.88
1
4
0.50
7.80
2.67
1
4
0.62
8.08
2.65
1
4
0.74
8.24
2.63
1
4
0.86
8.35
2.61
1
4
0.98
8.41
2.59
1
4
1.10
8.45
2.57
1
4
1.22
8.47
2.56
1
4
1.34
8.49
2.54
1
4
1.46
8.50
2.52
1
4
1.58
8.51
2.50
1
4
1.70
8.51
2.48
1 Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD
SUMMER
QEFF=0.1
NH3-N=4.2
NBOD I F
4.49
4.45
4.41
4.37
4.33
4.29
4.25
4.21
4.17
4.13
4.10
3.16
3.15
3.14
3.14
3.13
3.13
3.12
3.11
3.11
3.10
3.09
3.09
3.08
3.08
3.07
3.06
3.05
3.04
3.03
3.02
3.01
3.00
1.28
1.26
1.25
1.23
1.22
1.20
1.19
1.18
1.16
1.15
1.14
NBOD I
MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
low 1
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.85
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.25
9.05`
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05'
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
9.05
Flow
- CorJ FEU GI�LE
WITi7 FLU R.

� � a
WINTER \�
QEFF=0.1 MGD, BOD5=30
MG/L
NH3-N=11.3
MG/L
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
ELK PARK
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE ELK
CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 10.67
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 2.40
mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 1.53
mg/l.
WLA WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment
1
------
8.31
---------
0.00
------- ----
1
Reach
1
45.00 50.90
0.00
0.10000
Reach
2
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : ELK PARK Subbasin 040201
.Receiving Stream : LITTLE ELK CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 0.64 Winter 7Q10 : 0.93
Design Temperature: 12.0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesign)
@20;h
Idesign)
@20;1 Idesign)
Segment
1
I I I
I 0.291182.001
0.349
I
1 0.46
I I
10.45 10.65
I I
142.01 1
I
50.001
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.101182.001
0.404
I
1 0.53
I I
1 0.45 10.66
I I
142.01 150.001
I
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.111 35.001
0.251
I
1 0.68
I I
10.26 1
0.38
I I
113.30 1
I
15.831
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
�I I I
1 1.201 35.001
0.516
I
1 1.28
I I
1 0.27 1
0.39
I I
119.73 123.481
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Flow I
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
I cfs 1
mg/1 1
mg/l 1
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.155 1
45.000 1
50.900 (
0.000
Headwatersl 0.930 I
2.000 1
1.000 I
9.700
Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff
1 0.290 I
2.000 1
1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
( 0.000 (
0.000 I
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
( 0.530 1
2.000 I
1.000 1
9.700
* Runoff
1 0.240 1
2.000 I
1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000
( 2.000 I
1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff
I 0.240
( 2.000
I 1.000 I
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
1 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
111.000
I 2.000
I 1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff
I 0.000
1 2.000
I 1.000 (
9.700

I Seg # I Reach #
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I Seg #
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Reach
WINTER
QEFF=0.1
MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=11.3
MG/L
Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
0.00
8.31
8.14
8.13
1.08
0.03
8.77
8.08
8.06
1.09
0.06
9.14
8.01
8.00
1.10
0.09
9.43
7.95
7.93
1.11
0.12
9.66
7.89
7.87
1.12
0.15
9.85
7.82
7.81
1.13
0.17
10.01
7.76
7.75
1.14
0.20
10.13
7.70
7.69
1.14
0.23
10.22
7.64
7.63
1.15
0.26
10.30
7.59
7.57
1.16
0.29
10.37
7.53
7.51
1.17
0.29
10.16
5.80
5.48
1.70
0.30
10.19
5.79
5.47
1.70
0.31
10.22
5.79
5.46
1.70
0.32
10.25
5.78
5.46
1.71
0.33
10.27
5.77
5.45
1.71
0.34
10.30
5.76
5.44
1.71
0.35
10.32
5.75
5.43
1.71
0.36
10.34
5.74
5.42
1.72
0.37
10.36
5.73
5.41
1.72
0.38
10.38
5.72
5.40
1.72
0.39
10.40
5.71
5.40
1.72
0.39
10.40
5.71
5.40
1.72
0.40
10.40
5.70
5.39
1.73
0.41
10.41
5.69
5.38
1.73
0.42
10.41
5.68
5.36
1.73
0.43
10.42
5.67
5.35
1.73
0.45
10.42
5.66
5.34
1.74
0.46
10.42
5.65
5.33
1.74
0.47
10.43
5.64
5.32
1.74
0.48
10.43
5.63
5.31
1.74
0.49
10.43
5.63
5.30
1.75
0.50
10.44
5.62
5.29
1.75
0.50
9.80
2.50
1.59
12.75
0.62
10.03
2.49
1.58
12.75
0.74
10.20
2.48
1.58
12.75
0.86
10.33
2.47
1.57
12.75
0.98
10.42
2.46
1.56
12.75
1.10
10.50
2.45
1.56
12.75
1.22
10.55
2.44
1.55
12.75
1.34
10.59
2.43
1.55
12.75
1.46
10.63
2.42
1.54
12.75
1.58
10.65
2.41
1.53
12.75
1.70
10.67
2.40
1.53
12.75
Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

x-c{'V(;
State of North.Carolina
LACY R THORN
uRG
Department of .justice
ATTORNEY GENER
P.O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
MEMORANDUM
i
TO:
Thomas R.
West
Administrs ive
Law Judge
FROM:
Daniel C. Oakley-q LV
Special D
uty Attorney Gen, oral
DATE:
January 28
1992
RE:
Mulligan. at.
al v. DEHN1i 91 EHR 0773-0786
FJJ ?,
vvlz�??
JQN �a 199
DIV Dp 2
FEB 4 1992
WATER QUII UTY
SECT ION
I have reviewed' your letter, �ated January 3, 1992, to the parties in the
above -referenced action, and have dtscussed it with Kathryn Jones Cooper (who is
on leave) and with our client, the/ Department of Environment, Health and Natu-
ral Resources. 1 am writing you on Ms. Cooper's behalf. Please be advised
that the Department has no objection to delaying the trial of this matter until
after the Court of Appeals - resses the third party appeal issue. However, the
Department does object .o any stay of the effectiveness of the NPDES permit
issued to the 'Down of lh Par particularly in view of the fact the permittee
is not a party and is n act to the orders in this proceeding. I would also
draw your attention t e requirements of Rule 65(c) of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, regarding the giving of security by the moving party for obtaining
such a stay.
For your information, it is the Department's understanding that, while
engineering studies and surveys are ongoing, designs will likely not be submitted
to the State until summer, 1992; any construction of the WWTP would be subse-
quent to such submissions and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
/dw
cc: .Joseph Seegers
William Clarke
Bruce Mulligan
leorge T. Everett
:west.do
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

C�
91 SEP 24 FM 2: 15
September 13, 1991
The Honorable Thomas R. West
Administrative Law Judge
SEP 2p
1991
WATER QU.g17-y
SECTION
1. Have all the necessary tests been run providing satisfactory
results to use Little Elk Creek as the effluent of the proposed
waste water treatment plant for Elk Park? Furthermore, will the
parts per million of said discharge be satisfactorily and safely
absorbed by the Little Elk Creek during all types of weather which
can effect both volumn and the flow of Little Elk Creek?
2. As legal as the stand of the city of Elk Park may be on this
matter, where is the justice in allowing the city to go outside of
its city limits and build a waste water treatment plant which will
negatively affect the quality of life in a community that will
receive no benefit from said plant? Relying on this right of the
city, why should the same city not look toward the community of
Cranberry where there are no residences and a much larger stream
for the disposal of the effluent? A logical and honest response to
these questions would eliminate the probability of constructing a
waste water treatment plant in a community that does not want it
and does not look forward to have such a plant in their front doors
producing foul odors', mosquitos, and other pests when it is not
absolutely necessary. Our homes, like all Americans, are very
precious to each of us. It would appear that the government
entities involved in this matter have chosen to ignore the needs of
our community in addressing the needs of the city. Another
location for the proposed treatment plant appears to be an obvious,
and yet, very plausible resolution to this entire issue.
3. Harald Bare fo &X 253 Eft P�K NC MZZ
Frankie Bare
4. We request an OAH Court Hearing Assistant.
Jar 'r � if91
5. Avery County.
6. Two hours.
7. P.O. Box 253, Elk Park, NC 28622; [phone].
8. As soon as possible.
9. We wish to say we have nothing against the water environmental
management. We are just afraid that the results of this waste
water treatment plant is too terribly close to our homes.
,

t
September 13, 1991
r
a
5 EP 24 ,
WATER
The Honorable Thomas R. West
E
Administrative Law Judge S-i-CTIQN
Dear Sir,
The sewage treatment plant to be built on Elk River Road, I feel,
will be a health hazard. It will be located fifty feet or less
from my house.
When something goes wrong, which I'm sure it will, raw sewage will
flow through my back yard. .This stream is almost dried up now and
will be even more so in a few weeks.
The Environmental Protection Agency should look into this matter
because it will be a health hazard to all people on Elk River Road.
Respectfully Submitted,
Wayne C. Bare
P.O. Box 565 t°
Elk Park, NC 28622 C/3
M
a
:v
to
w

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
August 28, 1991
To: Daniel F. McLawhorn
Special Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Justice
From: George T. Everett
Subject: Town of Elk Park
NPDES Permit No. NCO079561
Avery County
George T. Everett, Ph.D
Director
Based upon a review of the petition filed by Mr. J. Bruce Mulligan with the Office of Administrative
Hearings on August 17, 1991, the Division of Environmental Management recommends that the Office of
the Attorney General proceed to file a request to dismiss the subject permit adjudication. The petitioner
does not have jurisdiction with the Office of Administrative Hearings since he is not the permittee nor
does he represent the permittee.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief of the Water Quality Section or Mr. Don
Safrit, Supervisor of the Permits and Engineering Unit at 919/733-5083.
cc: Asheville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering Unit
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 4� I IICIC!
O
EF
COUNTY OF (1) Rs •� ADMINIST IVERNGS
AUG 20
(2) r d— ) DIV. OF E' AMIRIDN?�1FNTAL MGMi IT.
Petitioner, DIRECTO (}FFiCE
(Your Name) )
PETITION
ifL S L� ivIv
FOR A
avtrnr-Q� CONTESTED CASE HEARING
c pi v .
Respondent.
(The State Agency or Board about which you are
complaining) )
1 he eby ask Cor a tested case hearing rovided for by G.S. 15OB-23 because the
co
(4) v as Na - has (briefly state facts showing how you believe you have
(name of agency) v-%
been harmed by the state agency or board)
(if more space is needed, use additional sheets and attach)
(5) (Check all at apply):
Becaus f these facts, the agency has:
I me of property; LO
apdered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; or
has otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights; and based on these facts the agency Ws
ceeded its authority or jurisdiction; C
G7
erroneously;K�,ed
Pffed
to use proper procedure;
arbitrarily or capriciously; orled to act as required by law or rule.,
VERIFICATION
v
I, the undersigned, first being duly sworn, say that this petition is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters
stated on information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.
SWORN TO AND UBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
(11) 1-q
QD to
(1, N2)k
Signature
(13)
to administer oat
(14)My C
05�1
(15) (Seal
t+i08EliT T. BURKE
(6) fi-I t I )
Date
(7) doh••
Your Signature
(8)v
(9) `Iq ]y\ S�"' (c. L gojw . �.C.� O
Your Address
(10) Area Code �� 3 S
Your Telephone Number
Mail the on finis
27611-7447 and mail a copy to the State agency involved.
Hearings, P. O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
tk - (revised 02-27-91) H-06

M
August 15, 1991
Enclosed is a copy of a letter of explanation which accompanied a
discharge permit for a new wastewater treatment plant issued by the
Division of Environmental Management. The permit would allow the
discharge of up to 100,000 gallons of treated sewage daily into
Little Elk Creek just upstream from where it runs into the Elk
River.
The undersigned owns a house and 62 acres of land representing
aninvestment of $300 000.00 including 2200 feet of frontage on the
Elk River and approximately 300 feet on Little Elk Creek.The
confluence of Little Elk Creek and the Elk River is located in the
middle of our river frontage, right beside our front yard. Our two
children and their friends often swim tube and sometimes canoe in
the river all along that section. Over 50 acres remain of the
original 88 acre purchase which are surveyed and platted lots with
roads and private entrance gate.
The property values of the undersigned have been and will be
substantially damaged if the permit is allowed to stand. Publicity
about the sewage plant has had a chilling effect on real estate
sales and proposed purchasers have voiced concern and refused to see
the property due to the threat of the sewage treatment plant.
On April 18 1991 a public hearing was held in Elk Park at which
most in attendance were against the plant's location and most all
of those who spoke were against it as the public record will show.
The discharge point is in a neat residential neighborhood on the Elk
River Road. It is immediately upstream from two commercial trout
fishing businesses who most certainly will be forced out of business
by the plant.
ERRORS BY STATE AGENCY
1. State personnel told me they based their 7Q10 flow information to
determine whether or not an environmental impact statement was
required on estimates of Little Elk Creek's flow rate furnished by
flawed data From the U.S. Geologic Survey personnel. Both the state
DEM personnel involved and U.S.G.S. personnel told me that no field
checking was done. The estimated 7Q10 flow of .6 cubic feet per
second was derived from purported results from two gauging stations
on the Elk River, one about four miles downstream , and the other
about 10 miles upstream at Banner Elk.

PAGE 2
ERRORS(CONTINUED)
There was uncontroverted testimony at the hearing which is part of
the public record that the 7Q10 flow of Little Elk Creek is
susbstantially less than .4 cubic feet per second, which, under
state law, would require an environmental impact statement. This was
pointed out to the state at least twice prior to the public
hearing, and they never officially responded to it.The state acted
with flagrant disregard for its duties under the Water Policy Act.
Additionally, there was uncontroverted evidence introduced by Mr.
Vernon Turbyfill at the hearing in the form of his personal
observation and photographs that the gauging station downstream
allegedly used by the U.S.G.S. as one of the two sources for the
stream flow estimate is presently and has not been operational for
approximately twenty years -The pool was long ago silted in. The
hearing officer apparently ignored this evidence -The state Water
Quality Act clearly requires an environmental impact statement under
the parameters outlined above, prior to the issuance of a permit. I
submit that the permit is void.
2.State law requires that all other reasonable alternatives to a
discharge into a public waterway must be considered, as does the
Clean Water Act. There was no showing of any effort at another
solution other than moving the discharge to another creek.No other
sewage systems were presented.If there is any problem with septic
tanks in Elk Park, the problem could best be solved with one
tenth the expenditure of funds by setting up a fund as has been
done in Haywood County to handle the serious problem there of
"straight piping", and allow the money to be used to improve the
septic tank collection systems that need it.
3.Little Elk Creek is a prime brown and rainbow trout nursery stream
and both that stream and the Elk River are valuable resources for
the Elk Park economy and the citizens of North Carolina -About 5
miles downstream the river enters the Pisgah National Forest and
forms the Elk River Falls, a substantial waterfall written up in
many publications and having a dramatic 85 foot drop. This waterfall
has thousands of visitors annually from many states. The
requirements of the permit issued are arbitrary and capricious and
fail to adequately protect the state's resource. Another department
of the DEM is currently doing a study to upgrade the classification
of the Elk River and its tributaries from C-Trout to B-Trout due to
the fact that there is substantial bodily contact and recreational
use ofAthe river above, at, and downstream from the proposed
discharge area, including trout fishing, wading, baptisms, tubing,
and swimming, involving thousands of instances yearly. I have been
assured on several occasions by personnel in the DEM that nothing
will be done to jeopardize the effort, and that they would
consciously try to upgrade it.
Under their rules the fecal coliform bacteria count cannot ever be
as high as 200 parts per milliliter. however, the conditions of the
proposed permit allow monthly levels as high as 400 parts per m/l.
This part of the permit must be changed to allow no more than 200
parts per m/1 at any testing.

PAGE 3
ERRORS(CONTINUED)
Finally, the state put some reasonable safeguards in the permit but
ignored some which would be absolutely necessary. In my letter of
March 6, 1991,(enclosed), I asked for them to put at least those
required of Old Beau.I never even received a response to that
request. The interests to be protected by the state in the Elk River
situation are at least as important as those on Laurel Branch.The
Old Beau project is only 20,000 GPD rather than 100,000 in the Elk
Park permit. The state has offered no explanation of why they would
have such minimal requirements for protection of the plant's
operation for a plant 5 times the size of the other one. Such action
by the state is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
If the state's action is allowed to stand a substantial violation of
rights and a taking of property has occurred without due process of
law.
Res�ully submitted,
J. Bruce Multigan

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 l
4
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Georgc T. Everett, Ph.D
Director
July 17, 1991
Lucille T. Winters Z
P. O. Box 248
Ells Park, NC 28622 .
Subject: Permit No. NCO079561
Town of Elk Park WWTP
Avery County
Dear Ms: Winters:
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on ALILTUS1 1. 1990, we are
forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES permit. This permit :s '.S>ued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215 .1 and the Nienjorandum of Agreement.
between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection agency dated December 6, 1983.
If any parts, measurement frequencies -or sampling requirements cantuined 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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice this permit is not transferable. Part II, EA. addresses the requirements to
'be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This pei. rmit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits reUlllred by the Division of
Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other Fedt ral or Local governmental.permit
that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, ase contact Ms. Rosanne Barona at
telephone number 919r133-5083.
ulcer y,
eorge verett
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Asheville Regional Office
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone 919-'33-701 c
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency named below by depos-
iting a copy of it with the United State Postal Service'with sufficient postage or by delivering
it to the named agency.
Served on: (16) `
(name) a' ylQ
(17)
(agency)
(ad ress)
�. �.e4
(19) This the day of
(2 f�---=�
Petitioner
6.
tk - (revised 02-27-91 H-06

Ile
• DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMF.to fac,
" June 7, 1991
MEMOR1 ♦• ..'"
.ANDUM"Td '' '`"George T. Everett `�• . `
FROM: D : Rex Gleason
SUBJECT: Public Meeting on Held April 18 1991
P 1
RE. Town of Elk Park Request for NPDES
Permit (No. NC0079561)
Avery County, North Carolina
.Per your directive, via memorandum dated March 12, 1991, I
have conducted a Public Meeting to obtain comments pertinent to
the proposed issuance of an NPDES Permit to the Town of Elk Park
for a discharge of treated wastewater into Little Elk Creek
(Class C-Trout waters in the Watauga River Basin) in Avery
County. The Meeting was held at the Old Cranberry High School in
the Town of Elk Park. The Meeting Record was closed at the
conclusion of the Meeting.
There were fifty-six (56) persons in attendance at the
Meeting who completed the registration forms, plus four (4) from
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), self included.
Seventeen.(17) persons spoke at the Meeting; thirteen (13) of
which opposed issuance of the Permit. Written comments were
received from six (6) of the speakers; with the exception of two
(2), all expressed opposition to the issuance of the Permit. A
video recording of baptYsmal-ceremonies was also presented.
The basic issue involved in this matter is whether you, as
Director of the DEM, should approve or deny an NPDES Permit to
the Town of Elk -Park. The decision making criteria has. been
established in Title 15 NCAC Chapter 2, Subchapter 2H, Section
.0112(b) and in North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1(b).
FindincLs
1.
The Town of Elk Park has submitted a proper NPDES Permit
application, and the DEM has reviewed the application, the
wasteload allocation, the draft Permit, the Public Notice of
intent to issue and subsequent Notice of Public Meeting, and
has found all to be in keeping with regulatory requirements.
Procedures call for the Notice of Public Meeting to be sent
to interested parties, including appropriate Town•officials.
Such notification was not sent to the Town officials.

i
t
George Everett
Page Two
June 7, 1991
2. Little Elk Creek in the Watauga River Basin has been
classified "C-Trout" by the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC). The wasteload allocation for the proposed
wastewater discharge was established for protection of the
"C-Trout" classification standards. A 7-day, 10-year flow
of 0.6 cubic feet per second (CFS) has been determined for
the point of discharge, and -used by the DEM to establish
effluent limitations, which are as follows:
Parameter Limitation
Flow
BOD5
TSS
NH as N
Fecal Colif orm �
Residual Chlorine � ' �`' `'
0.1 MGD (Monthly Average)
30.0 mg/l (Monthly Average)
30.0 mg/1 (Monthly Average)
4.0 mg/l (Monthly Average)'
200/100 ml (Monthly Average)
28.0 ug/1 (Daily Maximum)
PH �oQi 6-9 s . u .
3. Proper usage of tfy�_- waters in Little Elk Creek is covered by
the "C-Trout" classification set forth in Title 15 NCAC,
Chapter 2, Subchapter 2H, Section .0200. Comments received
at the meeting and in written statements revealed uses of
the waters were in accordance with the classification,
including an.important nursery stream for native brown and
rainbow trout.-Litt1d:.-.:Elk Creek enters the Elk River
approximately 0.7 mile downstream of the proposed wastewater
treatment plant discharge.
4. The Staff Report and Recommendations (SR&R), the wasteload
allocation (WLA), stream ,flow criteria, and other evidence
presented by the DEM staff appeared to be factual and in
accordance with established procedures and policies as such
pertains to the processing of an NPDES Permit application.
5. The proposed discharge should not result in contravention of
water quality standards for the "C--Trout" waters of Little
Elk Creek, provided that wastewater treatment facilities are
properly designed and constructed, and adequately operated
and maintained so as to be able to continuously meet the
effluent limitations promulgated by the DEM, and shown in
item 2 of these Findings. This Finding is presumptive on
whether the WLA is correctly based on the questionable
stream flow of 0.6 cfs for Little Elk Creek.

,1 ~
George Everett
i Page Three
June 7, 1991
6. Evidence received at the Meeting (including written
statements) presented by those opposing issuance of the
Permit questioned the findings of the DEM, particularly
relating to stream flow; the location of the wastewater
treatment plant; the need for an adequate environmental
assessment; the impact of the discharge on water quality,
trout farms, and baptismal ceremonies; and the alleged
inadequate evaluation of alternatives.
Discussion:
A review of the recording of the Meeting and the written
comments revealed considerable opposition to the issuance of the
Permit. Several speakers questioned the accuracy of the 7-day,
10-year flow of 0.6 cfs in Little Elk Creek. A stream flow
gaging station located on the Elk River downstream of the
confluence of Little Elk Creek is alleged to have been inoperable
for more than twenty (20) years. No one presenting comments at* -
the Meeting stated that Little Elk Creek had ever been "dry",
however, various comments indicated extremely low flow during
periods of low rainfall. Stream flow data is obtained through
the USGS, and is usually not questioned by DEM in preparation of
the WLA unless DEM regional office staff indicate in the SR&R
that stream flow is a concern. The SR&R prepared for the subject
Permit did not take issue with the stream flow. Another primary
concern presented at the Meeting related to the proposed location
of the wastewater treatment facility. Generally the comments
were not opposed to a wastewater treatment system to serve the
Town of Elk Park, but centered around the proposed location on
Little Elk Creek. Persons who would be affected the most by the
wastewater treatment facilities are those in close proximity to
the -plant and downstream of the discharge. The Town of Elk Park
currently does not own the property on which the wastewater
treatment plant will be situated, which location is also -outside
the corporate limits of the Town. It is presumed that the
property will have.to be obtained through condemnation and right
of eminent domain, working with Avery County officials for such
acquisition. It is also understood that the current owner of the
property recently constructed a modular home in accordance with a
building permit which was obtained prior to the Town's decision
regarding the location of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant. There are several other dwellings in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed site, plus several privately owned trout
farms (ponds) along the creek just downstream of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant site and point of discharge. In
discussions with DEM regional Water Quality-Peoverriding
;; who have
knowledge of this project, the need f Wr.D have an
affordable wastewater treatment plant was t criteria
JUL 27 199111
CENTRAL FILE COPY

i•
George Everett
Page Four
June - 7 . 1991
in recommending approval of the proposed site. Other
alternatives, according to representatives for the Town, were too
costly since limited funds were available through Farmer's Home
Administration (FHmA) and Appalachian Regional Council grants,
low interest loans, and local funds.
The proposed point of discharge is approximately 0.7 mile
upstream of the confluence of Little Elk Creek and the Elk River.
A primary fishing location for the Old Elk River Fishing Club is
at or near this confluence. Just below the confluence is a
baptismal site for. several -churches. The Elk River Campground is.
also located on the Elk River approximately one mile below the
confluence. Comments received indicated that the waters are also
used for tubing, wading, and other bodily contact activities. A
study to reclassify the waters of the Elk River to Class
"B-Trout" was initiated over a year ago. However, a final
decision on this effort has apparently not been made. Comments•.
presented at the Meeting indicated that such reclassification
efforts were still active.
One matter of concern expressed by officials from the Town
of Elk Park was that they received no official notification of
the Public -Meeting, as set forth by our Public Meeting
procedures. Their knowledge of the Meeting was via the Avery
Journal Newspaper. The lack of official notif i WLT
em
unprepared for the Meeting. 2 N t
Recommendation:
JUL 27 ly:';
Based on -the comments received at the Publi�E%f il� COVlus a
review of the records of this matter, it appears that the
proposed location for the Town of Elk Park wastewater treatment -
facility and the effluent discharge point into Little Elk Creek
are not the most suitable for protection of the "C-Trout"
classification. As regards the wastewater treatment plant
location, a site should be selected which would be less
disruptive to existing residents and property owners. Existing
dwellings should not be supplanted by a wastewater treatment
plant when there may be other viable and economically feasible
sites and alternatives. The extent to which the Town pursued
other locations or alternatives may have been limited by its
desire to construct a wastewater treatment plant having a
capacity of 100,000 gpd to serve a town with a population of less
than 1000 people. The need for such a large facility probably
relates to future development and tourism. Any overflow or
bypasses will occur at or upstream of the wastewater treatment
plant in the Little Elk Creek drainage basin. Such bypasses
could seriously impact.sensitive species that depend on the creek
for survival and reproduction. As regards the proposed discharge
location, a point should be selected that would have less of a
water quality impact should problems occur with any

George Everett
Page Five
June 7, 1991
wastewater treatment process resulting in less than adequate
treatment. The impact of such a discharge could be quite severe
to fish and other aquatic life that use the waters in Little Elk
Creek for survival and reproduction.
It is not the purpose of the Meeting Officer to recommend
specific alternatives for wastewater treatment to serve the Town
of Elk Park, however, the proposed location of the subject
wastewater treatment facility and the effluent discharge are
unsuitable. Therefore, it is recommended that the Permit be
denied, and that the Town be requested to investigate other sites
or alternatives for its wastewater needs. Observations, made by
this Meeting Officer, including discussions with Asheville
Regional Office staff, indicate that other sites are available
that would be more suitable for the location of a wastewater
treatment plant and effluent discharge. Costs of the
alternatives were not'a part of the Meeting Record, however,
costs should not always be the deciding factor when water quality
and its protection are paramount, nor should we be recommending
location(s) of wastewater treatment facilities (during the review
Process) in areas which obviously are not suited for such a
facility.
1
The Meeting Officer's reasons for recommending the Permit be
denied are not wholly based on or supported by Possible impact to
water quality, which
designed, constructedpaid oly can erate be protected by adequately
facilities. The P d wastewater treatment
i
primary reason for denial is that the location
of the wastewater treatment facility and discharge are
unsuitable.* Other viable locations exist and should have been
recommended..
DRG:se
JUL 27 191
CENTRAL F1LE.COPY

-1-
RZ00059D Sire 0 Z
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Facility Name :Elk Park WWTP (proposed site #2)
NPDES No.
:N00079561
Type of Waste
:100% domestic
Facility Status
:proposed
Permit Status
:new
Receiving Stream
:Cranberry Creek
Stream Classification:C-Tr
Subbasin
:040201
County
:Avery
Regional Office
:ARO
Requestor
:M. Parker
Date of Request
:3/26/91
Topo Quad
:C11NW
Request F y
RECEWEQ
Water Quality Section
APR 15 1991
,Asheville Regional Office
Ashvilla,Rorth Carolina
Stream Characeteristics:
USGS # 0348078100 Date 1988
Drainage Area: 9.2 sq.mi.
Summer 7Q10: 3.0 cfs
Winter 7Q10: 4.3 cfs
Average Flow: 18 cfs
30Q2: cfs
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
The Elk Park WWTP may go to this proposed site #2 on Cranberry Creek
(instead of the site on Little Elk Creek). Because of the higher 7Q10 flow
values and higher slopes along Cranberry Creek, the limits will be less
stringent than those on Little Elk Creek.
Technical Support encourages this discharge point as opposed to the
proposed site #1, due to the controversy of the 7Q10 flow value atAsite #1.
Recommend chlorination/dechlorination or UV as alternate mean4jof
disinfection.
Special Scheduled Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
j
Recommended by: °� �( Date: 91
Reviewed by
Instream Assessme t:
Regional S;Z .
Permits & Engineering:
i
Date:
Date: / /'-t� I
Date: ' q
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: MAY 10 1991
�. •wn �S
S

PROPOSED SITE #2 LIMITS
Recommended Limits
Wasteflow (MGD) :
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/l) :
DO (mg/ 1) :
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) :
pH (SU) :
Tot. Res. Chlorine (ug/1) :
Temperature:
Turbidity:
-2-
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
0.10
30/30
16.1/nol
30/30
200/200
Daily Maximum
6-9
28
Instream temp. shall not be increased by more
than 0.5 C due to discharge and in no case
exceed 20 C
Not to exceed 10 NTU in receiving stream
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIRMENTS: NONE
Upstream: Location:
Donwstream: Location:
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis
includidng new flows, rates, field data, interacting discharges, etc.)
Times Square Inn is directly upstream of the proposed site. Analysis
took this into account.

N
DIVI
NMENT,
URCES
CE
kNAGEMENT
TO: 54.,
Wjq4_e<.,
ON
FAX#**
YROM: F.6'4m.4 k. cl>�Fd�l
FAX#** 7041251m6452
DATE: R4x4 2G� J9 S
# OF PAGES: 3
Told 8 Al I -kM �Slbn Ol H+ea ON a i IT naNsd W0W $£ :60 Z66Z-9Z-.WW

4-004o
MEMO.
P.- .., I • C •
�.
OATS: t 19 11
SUBJECT:
P
Q" AAv-o.— A WASAie.1040�1 FvA,-.
a• AA7E 4
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community
Z0 ' d d Al I 7cM �Slb" 01 M-M ON a t I t na4sld WOad 82 : 60 Z66T—WZ— M

£0'd �H101
,I
y
e 3.
1411 N. C. ! M'000 FEET I
M'd 8 Ail-kM uEIUM
,_
.. N-6,N
IC
All
5 pwa4 Iyof� ht
Nhce K1` �� te8). J,JAC-4 SQ R
i( 1Na
ullll�
oi
ai I T ^agvd WMW E32:60 S66S-9Z—d41

Nc.00745& l
/Fa -it- PA(t� WWTP # Z
ULA,JOF-4Ay (�-rK
FiK R124 wWTf �AJ i62NPTJE)
-V 3/il
5A W
6,41oZ-0I

AIC-Gb'Li 56, l
Ea- PAA1K 12
MU, 056 DOS C&D, AJ60D
VALu6S M -rqF 5TPoer OF
5,AZ of 7NG Tlf'65 NtE
ZAW "Pti, A5 &ACILItauNp
VA(.U6S Ya,2 ELK pAAK MoDL2
D0 = -7.73
-� 7p'Sg4�c'T6eto'as
--
DA=to.I ..:i
']grog c 9.2 e45
y o3gpa78Soa 1,95
Gnu.,
y -,O-u
esE, I —
DA = 9.4w,:
79105 = 3.oBdo = p•C,,rl; 9� jtD,
Shoy' 16.4;- �Fs
ao4o?
I ,�yC •iP feCtNG rqo�)
wa CQw1o� s►N
�FAF = o• oe4
fsm'f= 30
C� R `GAZFIJLE TIM&5 SgL(A2E TNM (NoDFL-
� `dg'IA%D
b o3 78too `ee
DA- 9,7-#; 7-
IWA ° 3 C4
74Low -4.3
Qa�k } YsaFs
�z=7�
P.D.,
Use C600 k "06D VALu65 AT 74F, - MAT OF S R, oG -6 7-/,v FS -'jjuA2C JM
MOXI- A5 9AGKctnou1vP ✓Mufti YTJ
5 R 1 1 S, E7
I�Ng7'11 0. 1 'L
swpr, 54.5
3. 08_3 s
%QlOf101-7m.4RO lo.61.0..�4 ' O.IL/
r0.4s - i8
9F J^•-O o. G9 s 0.6
1048 7?105
r(c163 QA'/y.
0. s7
q6.4
4.41-4.s
D.69 0. IG
GLK ,�R2K M.o/�L
0.3 O, z4
5k.4-
3 za
3.2-CO•IS*;•08) � � 4•_7-(az,4.41)`
0. 54 O 0.54 0,17
to -(0•9 r Is-+&)
0.54
0.15
3w
Trgw 7,'0w 1 1 0. Z

I�
y :!
"II
-
p-^8ACe49A4AJ7) NBoD VALUc
"
u51 N4 JOAGX-4�pOunlp VA(WE ZZD/Al/t
t
No Ll m f'T �iuoNlTa%2/
- - - - bit.
��I
2��� L1Mi?
,� • �, zs - -
1.
�I
i'
o
z0 C --
- - - -�
%2O1 PI Ty SKRw iro r
G K CCC-D /O /VTR{- IN AvuC4VII lq 57e2,4-ih - - -
i
illy—,
i
L (,�I►tirTs
At7o l)
— J,57 -
i
!
wtdfr 1,1a, IT5- ' - g°� = 30- AW -N = NO - -
!�
45
f:�

dt stancC.

SUMMER
QEFF=0.1 MGD,
BOD5=30
MG/L,
NH3-N=16.1 MG/L
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
ELK PARK
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE ELK
CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 8.48
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 3.61
mg/1.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 3.97
mg/l.
WLA WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1)
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment
1
------
7.34
---------
0.00
------- ---- ----
1
Reach
1
45.00 72.50
0.00
0.10000
Reach
2
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : ELK PARK
Receiving Stream : LITTLE ELK CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 3.0
Design Temperature: 23.0
Subbasin : 040201
Stream Class: C-TR
Winter 7Q10 : 4.3
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@20;�
Idesignl
@204 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.121
I
54.801
0.341
I
1 0.79
I I
1 0.53 1
0.46
I I
135.92 1
I
33.651 0.63 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.571
I
96.401
0.404
I
1 0.73
I I
1 0.61 1
0.53
I I
153.37 1
I I
50.001 0.63 I
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
1 0.301
96.401
0.412
1 0.74
1 0.61 1
0.53
153.37 1
50.001-,,,0.63 I
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
1 0.241320.001
0.579
1 0.62
1 0.87 1
0.76
153.37?1
50.001,A .63 1
Reach
4
1 1
"- 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
- I
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
I Flow (
CBOD
I NBOD I
D.O. I
cfs I
mg/l
I mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.155 145.000
1 72.500 I
0.000
Headwatersl 3.000 1
2.080
1 1.180 1
7.720
Tributary
I 0.000 1
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
* Runoff
I 0.120 1
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
I 0.000 1
0.000
I 0.000 (
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000 I
2.000
I 1.000 I
7.720
* Runoff
I 0.120 I
2.000
I 1.000 I
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
1 0.000 (
0.000
I 0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.150 I
2.000
I 1.000 I
7.720
* Runoff
I 0.000 1
2.000
I 1.000 1
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
( 0.000
I 2.000
I 1.000 I
0.000
* Runoff
I 0.000
I 2.000
1 1.000 I
7.720

SUMMER
QEFF=0.1
MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L,
NH3-N=16.1
MG/L
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.34
4.19
4.68
3.15
1
1
0.01
7.42
4.18
4.68
3.16
1
1
0.02
7.50
4.18
4.67
3.16
1
1
0.04
7.57
4.17
4.66
3.16
1
1
0.05
7.63
4.17
4.65
3.16
1
1
0.06
7.69
4.16
4.64
3.16
1
1
0.07
7.75
4.15
4.64
3.16
1
1
0.08
7.80
4.15
4.63
3.17
1
1
0.10
7.85
4.14
4.62
3.17
1
1
0.11
7.89
4.14
4.61
3.17
1
1
0.12
7.93
4.13
4.60
3.17
1
2
0.12
7.93
4.13
4.60
3.17
1
2
0.18
8.13
4.11
4.57
3.18
1
2
0.23
8.26
4.08
4.54
3.18
1
2
0.29
8.34
4.05
4.51
3.19
1
2
0.35
8.39
4.03
4.48
3.20
1
2
0.41
8.42
4.00
4.44
3.20
1
2
0.46
8.44
3.98
4.41
3.21
1
2
0.52
8.46
3.95
4.38
3.22
1
2
0.58
8.47
3.93
4.35
3.22
1
2
0.63
8.47
3.90
4.32
3.23
1
2
0.69
8.48
3.88
4.29
3.24
1
3
0.69
8.44
3.79
4.14
3.39
1
3
0.72
8.45
3.78
4.13
3.39
1
3
0.75
8.46
3.77
4.12
3.39
1
3
0.78
8.47
3.76
4.11
3.39
1
3
0.81
8.47
3.75
4.10
3.39
1
3
0.84
8.47
3.74
4.09
3.39
1
3
0.87
8.48
3.73
4.07
3.39
1
3
0.90
8.48
3.72
4.06
3.39
1
3
0.93
8.48
3.71
4.05
-3.39
1
3
0.96
8.48
3.70
4.04
3.39
1
3
0.99
8.48
3.69
4.03
3.39
1
4
0.99
8.48
3.69
4.03
3.39
1
4
1.01
8.48
3.68
4.02
3.39
1
4
1.04
8.48
3.68
4.02
3.39
1
4
1.06
8.48
3.67
4.01
3.39
1
4
1.09
8.48
3.66
4.00
3.39
1
4
1.11
8.48
3.65
4.00
3.39
1
4
1.13
8.48
3.64
3.99
3.39
1
4
1.16
8.48
3.64
3.98
3.39
1
4
1.18
8.48
3.63
3.98
3.39
1
4
1.21
8.48
3.62
3.97
3.39
1
4
1.23
8.48
3.61
3.97
3.39
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow
L-r-J
714I s FLo w Ci IN TO
GLIL "V454 (W� rl FLow
So I sVaA
W kAI,D 66, A.OI UeO RRPIDLV.
THEW--a12G, /r` KLt IIJR 5 NdT
IAt4." FA(tT4CIL AWN-

WINTER
QEFF=0.1 MGD, BOD5=30
MG/L,
NH3-N=20.0
MG/L
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
ELK PARK
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE ELK
CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 10.70
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 3.24-mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 3.86
mg/l.
WLA WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
------
Milepoint
---------
Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1)
------- ---- ----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment
1
9.36
0.00
1
Reach
1
45.00 90.00
0.00
0.10000
Reach
2
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000

t 3 ,
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : ELK PARK
Receiving Stream : LITTLE ELK CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 3.0
Design Temperature: 12.0
Subbasin : 040201
Stream Class: C-TR
Winter 7Q10 : 4.3
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft.
Idesignl
@20V2
Idesignl
@20;1 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.121
I
54.801
0.442
I
1 0.82
I I
1 0.36 10.52
I I
136.62 1
I
43.591
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I
1 0.571
I
96.401
0.523
I
1 0.76
I I
10.42 1
0.61
I I
142.01 1
I
50.001
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.301
I
96.40I
0.534
I
1 0.77
I I
1 0.43 1
0.61
I I
142.01 1
I
50.00I
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I I
1 0.241320.001
0.757
I
1 0.65
I I
10.62 1
0.90
I I
142.01 1
I
50.00I
I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 Flow I
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
1 cfs I
mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.155
1 45.000 190.000
1
0.000
Headwaters) 4.300
I 2.080 I
1.180 I
9.700
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
9.700
* Runoff
1 0.160
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
9.700
* Runoff
I 0.160
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
I 0.000
( 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.200
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff
I 0.170
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
1 0.000
1 0.000
I 0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000
l 2.000
I 1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff
I 0.170
I 2.000
1 1.000 I
9.700

0
A
WINTER
QEFF=0.1
MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L,
NH3-N=20.0
MG/L
Seg # I
Reach # I
Seg Mi (
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
9.36
3.57
4.27
4.46
1
1
0.01
9.44
3.57
4.27
4.46
1
1
0.02
9.52
3.57
4.26
4.46
1
1
0.04
9.59
3.56
4.26
4.46
1
1
0.05
9.65
3.56
4.26
4.46
1
1
0.06
9.72
3.56
4.25
4.46
1
1
0.07
9.78
3.56
4.25
4.47
1
1
0.08
9.83
3.55
4.25
4.47
1
1
0.10
9.88
3.55
4.24
4.47
1
1
0.11
9.93
3.55
4.24
4.47
1
1
0.12
9.98
3.55
4.24
4.47
1
2
0.12
9.98
3.55
4.24
4.47
1
2
0.18
10.16
3.53
4.22
4.48
1
2
0.23
10.29
3.52
4.21
4.49
1
2
0.29
10.40
3.51
4.19
4.50
1
2
0.35
10.47
3.49
4.18
4.51
1
2
0.41
10.53
3.48
4.17
4.52
1
2
0.46
10.58
3.47
4.15
4.53
1
2
0.52
10.61
3.45
4.14
4.54
1
2
0.58
10.63
3.44
4.13
4.55
1
2
0.63
10.65
3.43
4.11
4.56
1
2
0.69
10.67
3.42
4.10
4.57
1
3
0.69
10.63
3.36
3.97
4.77
1
3
0.72
10.64
3.35
3.96
4.77
1
3
0.75
10.65
3.34
3.95
4.78
1
3
0.78
10.66
3.34
3.95
4.78
1
3
0.81
10.67
3.33
3.94
4.79
1
3
0.84
10.67
3.33
3.93
4.79
1
3
0.87
10.68
3.32
3.93
4.80
1
3
0.90
10.68
3.31
3.92
4.80
1
3
0.93
10.69
3.31
3.91
4.81
1
3
0.96
10.69
3.30
3.91
4.81
1
3
0.99
10.69
3.29
3.90
4.82
1
4
0.99
10.69
3.29
3.90
4.82
1
4
1.01
10.69
3.29
3.90
4.82
1
4
1.04
10.69
3.28
3.89
4.82
1
4
1.06
10.69
3.28
3.89
4.83
1
4
1.09
10.69
3.27
3.88
4.83
1
4
1.11
10.69
3.27
3.88
4.84
1
4
1.13
10.70
3.26
3.87
4.84
1
4
1.16
10.70
3.26
3.87
4.84
1
4
1.18
10.70
3.25
3.86
4.85
1
4
1.21
10.70
3.25
3.86
4.85
1
4
1.23
10.70
3.24
3.86
4.86
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

SEP ^"
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MUNT.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIRECTOR'S OFFICE S St n
IN `ITE 'OFEE-a OF
ACMINIS`1'RATIVE HEARINGS
COUNPY OF FORSY'11-1 91 EHR 0773
J. BRUCE MULLIGAN )
Petitioner ) PREREARING
V. ) �
STATEMENP a
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEALTH
G ; n 1991
AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION'OF
ENVIRONMENPAL MANAGEMENT
Respondent )
The below numbered paragraphs correspond with the numbers of the matters
set forth on the ORDER FOR PREHEARING STATEMENTS FILED August 23, 1991.
1. (a) Whether an environmental impact statement should have been required by
the state prior to issuance of the NPDES permit to Elk Park.
(b) Whether the state in good faith considered other alternatives to solve
alleged septic problems of some Elk Park residents prior to allowing
a discharge into the public waters of the state as required by state
law.
(c) If the Court should find that the permit was properly issued does it
contain reasonable and necessary constraints which will protect the
river resource and its aquatic life and the health and safety of
downstream property owners?
IQ � ( t s , + U c /C Q 9 rye r�o�,-9-�s
�I�Lc_�' NC— C.(aw L') VO�tcc� tic
i Jtgly-✓\ 6"1" �J.ru+�vri.-�'e'�. Y'Ac- ,r�..w.v- ,,AA II l 11
w4, 15 A N GLo s rem,
'j-'
C 1112 r�; rs a d Lj
S J-r' a �S
Ct p f,
I WCS p� Iv Dr1� �r�)\ham
�( C) `'vn-r cU 40.4c 0
�• '�Gv"�c.c1-s�i._�.� 'K. _. _. j. 1111 t - sa4�
fires
10
�Dxd
r-r
oo
V,V•rp„�

a
re.S Ur vie, A_ r 76
s
0
�• VN ".." 1M ,.—k 1, cvvt

August 15, 1991
BACKGROUND
Enclosed is a copy of a let:.er of explanation which accompanied a
discharge permit for a new wastewater treatment plant issued by the
Division of Environmental Management. The permit would allcw the
discharge of up to 100,000 callous of treated sewage daily
Little Elk Creek just upstream from where it runs into the Elk
River.
The undersigned owns a house and 62 acres of land representing
aninvestment of $300,000.00, including 2200 feet of frontage on the
Elk River and approximately 300 feet on Little Elk Creek.The
confluence of Little Elk Creek and the Elk River is located in the
middle of our river frontage, right beside our front yard. Our two
children and their friends often swim, tube, and sometimes canoe in
the river all along that section. Over 50 acres remain of the
original 88 acre purchase which are surveyed and platted looms with
roads and private entrance sate.
The property values of the undersigned have been and will be
substantially damaged if the permit is allowed to stand. Publicity
about the sewage plant has had a chilling effect on real estate
sales and proposed purchasers have voiced concern and refused to see
the property due to the threat of the sewage treatment plan:..
On April 18, 1991 a public hearing was held in Elk Park at which
most in attendance were against the plant's location and most all -
of those who spoke were against it, as the public record will show.
The discharge point is in a neat residential neighborhood on the Elk
River Road. It is immediately upstream from two commercial trout
fishing businesses who most certainly will be forced out of business
by the plant.
ERRORS BY STATE AGENCY
1. State personnel told me they based their 7Q10 flow information to
determine whether or not an environmental impact statement was
required on estimates of Little Elk Creek's flow rate furnished by
flawed data From the U.S. Geologic Survey personnel. Both the state
DEM personnel involved and U.S.G.S. personnel told me that no field
checking was done. The estimated 7Q10 flow of .6 cubic feet per
second was derived from purported results from two gauging stations
on the Elk River, one about four miles downstream , and the other
about 10 miles upstream at Banner Elk.

PAGE 2
ERRORS (CONTINUED)
'here was uncontroverted testimony at the hearing which is part of
:.he public record that the 7Q10 flow of Little Elk Creek is
susbstantially less than .4 cubic feet per second, which, under
state law, would require an environmental impact statement. This was
cointed out to the state at least twice prior to the public
Nearing, and they never officially responded to it -The state acted
with flagrant disregard for its duties under the Water Policy Act.
Additionally, there was uncontroverted evidence introduced by Mr.
Vernon Turbyfill at the hearing in the form of his personal
observation and photographs that the gauging station downstream
allegedly used by the U.S.G.S. as one of the two sources for the
stream flow estimate is presently and has not been operational for
approximately twenty years.The pool was long ago silted in. The
hearing officer apparently ignored this evidence.The state Water
Quality Act clearly requires an environmental impact statement under
the parameters outlined above, prior to the issuance of a permit. I
submit that the permit is void.
2.State law requires that all other reasonable alternatives to a
discharge into a public waterway must be considered, as does the
Clean Water Act. There was no showing of any effort at another
solution other than moving the discharge to another creek -No other
sewage systems were presented.If there is any problem with septic
tanks in Elk Park, the problem could best be solved with one
:.enth the expenditure of funds by setting up a fund as has been
done in Haywood County to handle the serious problem there of
"straight piping", and allow the money to be used to improve the
septic tank collection systems that need it.
3-Little Elk Creek is a prime brown and rainbow trout nursery stream
and both that stream and the Elk River are valuable resources for
the Elk Park economy and the citizens of North Carolina -About 5
miles downstream the river enters the Pisgah National Forest and
forms the Elk River Falls, a substantial waterfall written up in
many publications and having a dramatic 85 foot drop. This waterfall
has thousands of visitors annually from many states. The
requirements of the permit issued are arbitrary and capricious and
fail to adequately protect the state's resource. Another department
of the DEM is currently doing a study to upgrade the classification
of the' Elk River and its tributaries from C-Trout to B-Trout due to
the fact that there is substantial bodily contact and recreational
use of the river above, at, and downstream from the proposed
discharge area, including trout fishing, wading, baptisms, tubing,
and swimming, involving thousands of instances yearly. I have been
assured on several occasions by personnel in the DEM that nothing
will be done to jeopardize the effort, and that they would
consciously try to upgrade it.
Under their rules the fecal coliformXhowever,
bacteria count cannot ever be
as high as 200 parts per milliliter the conditions of the
proposed permit allow monthly levels as high as 400 parts per m/l.
This part of the permit must be changed to allow no more than 200
parts per m/1 at any testing.

PAGE 3
ERRORS(CONTINUED)
Finally, the state put some reasonable safeguards in the permit but
ignored some which would be absolutely necessary. in my letter of
March 6, 1991,(enclosed), I asked for them to put at least those
required of Old Beau.I never even received a response to that
request. The interests to be protected by the state in the Elk River
situation are at least as important as those on Laurel Branch.The
Old Beau project is only 20,000 GPD rather than 100,000 in the Elk
Park permit. The state has offered no explanation of why they would
have such minimal requirements for protection of the plant's
operation for a plant 5 times the size of the other one. Such action
by the state is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
If the state's action is allowed to stand a substantial violation of
rights and a taking of property has occurred without due process of
law.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Bruce Mulligan

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this has 6Ien served on the State agency named below by depos-
iting a copy of it with the United State Postal Service with sufficient postage or by delivering
it to the named agency.
� �
Served on: (16) N
(name)
(17)
Y1a j e4'
(agency)
(18) PO-k
(address)
C� y1p) C-
5
(19) This the day of , 19�.
f
(2 -,
Petitioner
tk - (revised 02-27-91 11-06

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
February 18, 1991
J. Bruce Mulligan
4400 Silas Creek Parkway
Suite 103
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Subject: Stream Flow Study Option for Little Elk Creek
re. Elk Park WWTP (NC0079561)
Dear Bruce:
Your letter requesting a stream flow study, an environmental impact statement, and a public
hearing for the proposed Elk Park Wastewater Treatment Plant has been received by this office
(Technical Support Branch). In that letter you requested that the State perform a stream flow study
on Little Elk Creek, in addition to the consulting firm you are hiring to perform a study.
Unfortunately, the State does not have the time or resources to do this study. Technical Support is
authorized to use flow estimates, based on consultation with United States Geological Survey
(USGS), as outlined in 15A NC Administrative Code 2B.0206(e).
Because the Asheville Regional Office is carefully reviewing this permit, you may wish to
keep in contact with Forrest Westall before time and money are spent performing a stream flow
study. However, should it become necessary to proceed with the study, the consulting firm you hire
should be informed that items 1) - 3) of the attachment must be submitted with the formal request for
the stream flow study. Your current letter cannot be taken as a formal request, although it is a proper
submittal for comment to the draft permit.
Please be aware that the Technical Support Branch is not authorized to comment on your
request for a public hearing or your request for an environmental impact statement. Feel free to
contact Trevor Clements, Supervisor, Technical Support Branch, or me at [phone] if you
have any questions.
Best Regards,
Susan A. Wilson
Environmental Modeler I, Technical Support Branch
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Forrest Westall
Permits and Engineering Unit
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

APPENDIX 5
Procedures for Projecting Low Flow Statistics
At An Ungaized Site
This summary is provided to assist in the development of data to determine an
acceptable projection of the low flow statistics (7Q10, 30Q2) at stream sites where current
information available to DEM yields zero 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. Low flow estimates used
by the Division are based on data collected at many stream sites under cooperative
agreements with the U.S. Geological Survey. Even though a significant data base has been
accumulated, it is impossible to collect data at all points on all streams in the State.
Therefore, estimates of the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 for steams where no actual data has been
collected are based on data collected at nearby streams and a knowledge of the general
hydrology of the area.
The Division will not approve new oxygen demanding discharges into streams,
where the estimated 7Q10 and/or 30Q2 are zero, unless it can be demonstrated by the
applicant for a discharge permit that there is flow at the site under 7QI0 and/or 30Q2
conditions or that there is an appropriate mechanism for establishing proper effluent
limitations to protect water quality standards and a reliable technology available to achieve
those limitations. To demonstrate that there is flow at the 7QI0 or 30Q2 level requires
collection of supporting data using standard engineering practices and hydrologic
techniques. The most widely used procedure requiring the least effort and expense is to
obtain direct flow measurements at the proposed site, correlate those measurements with
concurrent flow at nearby gage(s) and, using a correlation curve with the 7Q10 and 30Q2
of the gaged stream, project the 7Q 10 and 30Q2 at the proposed site.
The accuracy of the low flow estimates thus determined depends largely on how well
the streamflows compare - are the streams hydrologically similar - and if they are similar,
how well the relation between the two is defined. There are several factors to consider
when attempting to define the correlation curve:

References
USGS - Techniques of Water Resources Investigations.
Book 3, Chapter A6. General procedures for gaging streams.
R.W. Carter and J. Davidian. 1968.
Book 3, Chapter A8. Discharge measurements at gaging stations.
T.J. Buchanan and W.P. Somers. 1969.
Book 3, Chapter A14. Use of flumes in measuring discharge.
F.A. Kilpatrick and V.R. Schneider. 1983.
Book 4, Chapter B 1. Low -flow investigations. H.C. Riggs. 1972.
U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources data for North Carolina.
Water Year 19,
Yonts, W.L. Low -flow measurements of North Carolina Streams. North Carolina
Department of Water and Air Resources.

I'
MEMO
DATE: z '
\ TO:SUBJECT:
�
n--pp-r'cl PCC s
s-�xe l
` AA ` 2 i3 , ozp C�e� CxJ r (c., ei
C� Uc�� es9 n o�
4� -'r
��STATE of
North Carolina �ealartment of Resources ironmen ,
_ Health, and

J. BRUCE MULLIGAN, P. A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 103. 4400 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON•SALEM. NORTH CAROLINA 27103
(91 9) 760.2780 F
February 8, 1991
� 3 1 2 1991
The State of North Carolina
Environmental 'Management Commission
Post Office box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Department of;Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Forrest Westall, Director
Division Environmental Management
P. O. Box 370;
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
(.`Technical Support Branch
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: NPDES Permit Request No. NCO079561
Town of Elk Park
Gentlemen:
For your ready reference I am enclosing a copy of my
letter of January 21, 1991. I renew my request for a public
hearing on the vital issues raised by the permit request by t��e
Town of Elk Park referenced above, prior to issuance of any
permit. Additionally, for the reasons hereinafter stated I
request that an environmental impact statement be done and
finally, I am contesting the .6 c.f.s. stream flow used by the
Technical Support Branch in determining that neither an EA or
an EIS was required by the Water Policy Act and I.am herein
requesting that you erform.a stream flow study, and am taking
steps to have an engineering firm perform a stream flow study
on the Little Elk Creek, and respectfully request that no
permit be issued until the results of an actual stream flow
study can be obtained. I make these objections and raise these
points in good faith for reasons stated below.

Page Two
February 8, 1991
With respect to the
discussed the numbers used to
the 7Q10 study with Susan A.
Branch in the Raleigh office.
was very courteous in supplyi
the source of.these numbers.
flow study done, and the .6 c
by the U.S.G.S. from figures
which is located several mile
above the horseshoe bend and
station on the Elk River up
versation with Susan, I under
extrapolation performed from
considering the drainage basi
lay person or,scientist would
a highly subjective means to
location. Such a calculation
consideration diversions of
Elk C'_rPPk dup to tlhe trout n
question about the 7Q10, I had
obtain the .6 c.f.s. value for
Wilson in the Technical Support
She has been quite helpful, and
ng me with information regarding
There has actually been no stream
.f.s. was a calculation performed
derived from the gaging station
s downstream on the Elk River
other numbers from a gaaina
near Banner Elk. Based on my con -
stand that the .6 c.f.s. is an
a review of those other figures,
n involved and other factors. Any
conclude, I believe that that is
calculate stream flow at this
cannot, for instance, take into
water, which often occur on Little
Creek. I would not feel so strongly about the inaccuracy of
this stream flow except that many people, including members of
a fishing club which fish regularly in the entire stretch along
the Elk River,where the Little Elk Creek enters, and some who
fish up Little Elk Creek, and residents along the Elk River
Road have had numerous opportunities over the years to observe
stream flow because the effect of the stream flowing into the
Elk River creates a complete difference in the pool and the
currents in the pool depending on the amount of water entering
it. The point I am talking about is approximately three -
fourths of a mile down the Little Elk Creek from the point of
discharge of the sewage treatment plant. All of who have
discussed this matter of the 7Q10 flow over the last several
iiionths agree that we have seen Little Elk Creek when it was
little more than a trickle on many occasions for long periods
of time during the summers. One of the residents told me two
days ago that'she has seen it many times during months of the
summer when it was nothing but a "trickle", and quite easy to
walk across without getting your feet wet. I have observed the
stream on hundreds of occasions during the summer since 1972 on
fishing trips, and I would estimate the flow to be on many
occasions no more than one -or -two gallons per second_ which is
substantially less than the .6 c.f.s. indicated. I have also
discussed the situation with the consulting engineer on the
project at McGill Engineering in Asheville and he offers no
concrete numbers, and admits that he has relied only on what
the State'has told him. The extreme low flows I am talking
about have occurred since May of 1989. As you are aware, the

Page Three
February 8, 1991
rainfalls in the mountains, at least in that area have been
fairly reasonable during the summer of 1989 and 1990 and the
effects have been to improve the stream flow and get the water
table up. However, during the two drought summers of 1987 and
1988, the Little Elk Creek in many places almost dried up. I
submit that it would be irresponsible for the State not to have
an accurate stream flow study done prior to the issuance of
this permit, and due to the requirements of the State Water
Quality Act, since .federal funds are being expended on this
project, based on my calculations and those of Susan Wilson,
based on the permit request of 100,000 gallons per day, if the
7Q10 flow is less than .47 c.f.s., rather than .6 c.f.s., then
an EA or an EIS will be required under the Water Policy Act. I
firmly believe this to be the case, and a stream flow study
will bear this out.
I have reviewed a copy of the cursory EA done by the
Farmers Home Administration, and I do not believe it is
sufficient under the Water Policy Act. It is flawed in that
much of the conclusions and basis for the perceived need for
the sewage treatment plant are tied into claims that septic
tanks in Elk Park are failing. I have discussed with Mr. John
Coxey of McGill Engineering the septic tank question and I have
also discussed the same question with Mr. Sorrell of the
Farmers Home Administration who was responsible for the prepa-
ration of the EA. When I have asked specifically either of
these persons exactly where and how many septic tanks were
failing, or any discussion at all of the extent of the
perceived problem in Elk Park, it is admitted that there have
been no studies and there is no information available to
quantify the problem. The truth of the matter, according to
the local residents with whom I am in touch, is that the plant
is being promoted by one or two real estate interests who have:
desires of developing commercial interests or residential uses
on land they own in Elk Park. I understand that one real
estate agent is trying to build a nursing home on .land in Elk
Park which he has access to.
The fact of the matter is that from visual obser-
vation since 1972, a drive down the Elk River Road which
pdrallels Little Elk Creek would show that the stream has
actually improved during that period of time. The locals tell
me that open drains to Little Elk Creek which were a problem
fifteen years ago have now all been corrected, and foaming
dishwater coming down Little Elk Creek which was a problem
years ago doesn't happen anymore. The residents along the Elk

Page Four
February 8, 1991
River Road which parallels Little Elk Creek have a fine
community of primarily very neat and well -kept homes and do not
wish to have a sewage treatment plant thrust upon them right in
the middle of their neighborhood. If there are septic tank
problems, those are elsewhere.
I do not expect that the Division will take some of
the information stated above as fact, and that is the reason
why a public hearing on this issue is necessary.
Lastly, over the last fifteen or so years, I have
enjoyed many rivers and streams in the mountains of North
Carolina, from the Mitchell River in Surry County to rivers
li%c the Cullesage down near Highlands. Over that period of
time, there has been a proliferation of sewage treatment plants
built all over the mountain region. The problem became so bad
along the Watauga River along 105 that you agreed to issue a
moratorium. I have seen the results of the plants that
operated properly, and the results, unfortunately, of many of
the plants that were not operating properly. I have heard
testimony by professors at Appalachian State University that
there were no benthic organisms present in the first few
hundred feet of the southfork of the New River below Boone's
discharge pipe, even when that plant had supposedly operated
properly. I and others have stood in many streams and smelled
the stench of raw sewage as sewage treatment plants upstream
allowed pass -through to occur when we know they were not
supposed to be doing it. The Town of Banner Elk has, I
believe, continued to violate the terms of its orders with the
State, and that is based on my observations and those of
friends who have homes upstream and closer to the Banner Elk
Plant. There have been far too many times when we smelled raw
sewage coming down the river. The State of North Carolina has
an obligation and duty to its citizens to protect them from
abuses.
At the point where the Little Elk Creek enters the
Elk River, thejlarge pool below the concrete bridge at the Elk
River Road has�been a favorite trout fishing place for a score
of years, long before I ever fished the place. There are large
native and stocked trout in that location, and those fish have
always.continued to be caught, and eaten, by the residents of
the State of North Carolina, and the stocking program by the
State and by the Elk River Fishing Club will ensure that
fishermen continue to catch and consume along with our families
the fish receiving the sewage discharge. What can the State
assure its citizens about the safety of what the citizens are
consuming if they grant a license that will allow people to

Page Five
February 8, 1991
possibly be poisoned, either by the improper operation of the
plant or by the act of persons flushing caustic substances,
poisons, and heavy metals down their commodes in Elk Park.
My children, and many others have enjoyed swimming and tubing
right at the spot where the creek would enter the Elk River.
As mentioned in my January 21st letter, there are three
separate churches, at least, that baptize in a pool no more
than one hundred feet below that location. I am told that that
baptismal pool has been used for hundreds of years by many
churches throughout that area of North Carolina and East
Tennessee. Ilhave witnessesd in two years wen though I don't
live up there, four or five baptisms involving scores of people
from three different churches. I have photographs of the
baptisms. Many pools in the river below this location,
including several large swimming holes at the great falls of
the Elk downstream are used. I only request the State to use
its safeguards, which it is empowered to do, whether or not all
the above information is taken correct, in consideration of
the issues and values at stake,tto have the stream flow study
performed, have a complete environmental impact study done, and
have a public hearing for the airing of the important matters
involved
qRessubmitted,
J. Bruce Mulligan
Friends of the Elk Riv r
JBM/ jh
j,nclosure
cc: Permit and Engineering Unit
P. 0. Box 370
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Permit and Engineering Unit
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

f
J. BRUCE MULLIGAN, 1). A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 103. 4400 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
1'
WINSTON-SALEM. NORTH CAROLINA 27103
19191760-2780
The State of l
1.'nvironmental':
post Office Be
Raleigh, Nortl
RE:
Gentlemen:
January 21, 1991
rth Carolina
anagement Commission
27687
Carolina 27611-7687
NPDES Permit Request
Town of E1kiPark
No. NCO079561
The[purpose of this letter is to request that a
public hearing be held prior to issuance of the above referred
to permit. Little Elk Creek which is supposed to be the
receiving stream for the discharge is a nursery for brown and
rainbow trouts, according to Wildlife Conunission reviews and
letters I have received. During the summer months the flow of
Little Elk Creek is minimal and substantially less than one
hundred thousand gallons per day. The stream di-scharges into
Lhe Elk Rive0 at a place where I own thirteen acres of land
with a total frontage on the Elk River of approximately
twenty-two hundred feet. Furthermore, I own a fifty acre tract
across the river which borders the Little Elk Creel:, in part.
Tile portion of the Elk River below the discharge point of:
Little Elk Creek supports a native brown trout and rainbow
trout population with natural reproduction. These facts: will.
be borne out by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission who Have
Hone electroshock testing and analyzed the stream.
I have fished in this portion of the Elk River since
1.972 and I am;quite familiar with what- has happened to the
river over that period of time. For the most- part, there has
h-cii no degradation of the river from this location on down-
stream, although there are sewage treatment plants at Banner
F;lk, The Elk River Club, and one private package plant on
Cranberry Creek. All of these are far upstream, and they have
had certain negative impact, as shown by studies you all. lid
which show that there are substantial amounts of colifornl
bacteria entering the Elk River, primarily from Banner El.k's
treatment plant (which I believe to be operating in violatil�u
of the July, 1989 Consent Order with the state). At a Later
time I plan to go more into detail on additional reasons fr1r
not wishing to impact the Elk River further, but I will stntlt
that the portion of the Elk River immediately below the Little

-Oie State of North Carolina
Iinvi.ronmentalimanagement Commission
I'aye Two
January 21, 1991
Pik Creek discharge point is a baptism area for three chur.c-'hes,
supports recreational use including tubing and swimming, Wid
there is alsoia private campground less than five hundred yards
downstream from where thedischargepoint would be.
1t
A group of property owners along the Etk River Road
which parallels Little Elk Creek have been following the
efforts of certain real estate interests in Elk Park to secure
a sewage treatment plant for the last eighteen months, and 1
h,ve been to at 'least one public meeting held in the town of:
I',1k Park when the town ofElk Park attempted to secure support
wittiin that town for the sewage treatment plant. There -are
certain real restate interests holding property in and around
Elk Park who have lots that will not perk, and there is another
real estate company with an interest in developing a nursing
home. I knov;, that because of perking problems certain
commercial establishments as a day care center, a pizza
restaurant, and 'other businesses were denied approval by the
Avery CountylHealth Department. We have been further toll that
there are some failing septic tanks in Elk Park. Inquiries by
me and other !!neighbors and great efforts to obtain inf-ormwt-lon
from the public officialslin the town of Elk Park have been
iquored. I,Ifor instance have been trying to get them to 1r,1.1.
nrcr exactly which septic tanks were failing and I have in(lnirec_t
as to why the Avery County Health Dep;irtment has not siml,L),
handled the matter as that would be handled in any normal
county. It is our belief that there are no more than five -,r
six septic tankisystems that are failing. We believe th:rh ❑v)sL
of the residents of the town of Elk Park do not want a !;cwaye
treatment plantland I feel that the entire project is .ill.
conceived and is not the sort of thing the State ought to b-
promoting. During efforts by the town of Elk Park to secure a
site for the plant -so -that -they -could obtain -Farmers liume---_
Administration funds, it became apparent to many res.identis
along the Elk River Road that there simply were no good reasons
for promoting this idea.
In'the event it becomes necessary for Elk Park to
have any kind of a sewage treatment plant, then it. ought to he
put on a creek that will support the discharge to be gem -rated,
it has to have constraints on it to cool the water so that
there will not be any increase in water temperature, there-
cannot be any chlorine used in the waste water treatmenl-., and
its operation must be closely monitored.

o ,
'1110 State of North Carolina
I-',nvironmental Management Commission
Ile Tliree
,1:111ulry 21, 1991
Again; I will be happy to furnish your division w i tli
any additional information you wish. Meanwhile, I know
111.7r1y of the residents who live along Little Elk Creek be l.ow the
proi)osed discharge point, including two commercial trout_ Uirm
0[)erations who both get their entire water supply from this
discharge, will be in touch with you.
1
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce Mul l ty=1ti r�
Friends of the t;lk 16.ver
J LIM/ jh '.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 25, 1991
I Bruce Mulligan
4400 Silas Creek Parkway
Suite 103
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
Subject: Stream Flow Study Option for Little Elk Creek
re. Elk Park WWTP (NC0079561)
Dear Bruce:
In regard to our conversation today I have enclosed the Procedures for Projecting Low Flow
Statistics At an Un *gaga ed Site. Although the attachment was written for streams estimated to be zero
flow, it would also apply to any stream in which the flow supplied by United States Geological
Survey (USGS) is deemed inaccurate. Before a streamflow study may be started, your request must
submitted to the Technical Support Branch and approved by the Division of Environmental
Management (these stipulations are indicated in the attachment).
Due to the time constraint of your submittal of comments for the Elk Park Wastewater
Treatment Plant Permit (WWTP), I suggest that you insert into your comments that you have
submitted (or are in the process of submitting) a request to perform a stream flow study along with
your reasons for the study. This in no way obligates the Division to grant that request, however.
I hope this information will be beneficial.. I have also enclosed the computer printout of the
USGS stream flow at the proposed point of discharge and the conversion of million gallons per day
to cubic feet per second as per your request. Please feel free to call me at [phone] if you
have any questions.
cc: Asheville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering Unit
Best Regards,
usan A. Wilson
Environmental Modeler I
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission i ,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Don Baker, Program Manage
Division of Boating and In Fisheries
DATE: November 9, 1989
SUBJECT: State Clearing House (89-1019) Project # 90-0282 for
Waste Water Treatment Plant Elk Park, Avery County,N.C.
The Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the subject
project and professional staff conducted a site visit on November
6, 1969 to assess possible impacts on wildlife and fisheries
resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC
25).
The proposed waste water treatment plant will have a
discharge of 100,000 GPD of treated domestic sewage into Little
Elk Creek, a tributary to the Elk River. Little Elk Creek is an
important nursery stream for wild brown and rainbow trout.
Downstream, the Elk River is Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water, open to public fishing. A private trout fishing club also
leases the Elk River at the mouth of Little Elk Creek. Serious
impacts could be expected upon trout populations if stringent
conditions are not met on the levels of residual chlorine,
suspended solids, and BOD in the discharge. These issues should
be addressed in any environmental documents prepared for the
project and mitigation should address minimization of impacts to
the small receiving stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposed project., If we can provide further assistance, please
call on us.
DB/lp
cc: Mr. Jim Borawa
Mr. Richard Guier
Mr. Chris Goudreau

i
Treated Discharge�/s �
Of Sewage Plants -----
Is Ruining Rivers,
Wataugans Say •
a
By Charlie Peek t
JOURNAL NORTHWEST BUREAU .�
FOSCOE ,,j
Residents of Foscoe are saying that someone has to..
draw the line on sewage discharges into mountain rivers,
and they have convinced the state to. hold a public ,i!
.hearing about five of those in Watauga County.
The five include renewals or modifications of permits i
for three sewage -treatment plants on the Watauga River
and permits for two new plants, one on the Watauga and r
one on the New River. %+
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management will ;
hold the hearing at 7 p.m. May 25 at the Watauga County
Courthouse. ..:.,�.k
Ned Jestes, a leader -of a citizens' group, said last week
that small, privately operated sewage -treatment plantq, t
threaten the river's water quality. •;
The Watauga, which is regularly stocked with trout,., r i
bisects the valley community on N.C. 105 southwest of -I
Boone.
"Our concern is that developers have already got 27 of
those things emptying into the Watauga River," Jestes
said. "We believe that the river's overloaded."
Jestes said that community leaders will ask the state to
delay granting any new permits until Foscoe can consider
building its own sewage -treatment system. ' .2k
THE COMMUNITY IS proceeding with the prelimi-
nary stages of incorporation. Although a bill to allow a
vote on incorporation never made it into the General
Assembly this session, the proposal was referred to a
legislative Municipal Incorporation Commission.
Al Hines, who owns a fly-fishing shop on N.C.105, was
one of the residents who wrote to state officials asking for . r
the hearing. The Division of Environmental . Manage-
ment routinely asks for public comment before granting,
renewing or modifying permits for sewage treatment.
Hines said, "I just feel like people had better get
educated about what they are doing to the water."
He said that by protecting its rivers, the state can show
that it is serious about protecting its tourism industry.. r•
"One reason is that trout fishermen spend $70 million
•. a year for fly-fishing alone in North Carolina," Hines aid. ,1
• "But I'm not just looking at it from a fishing standpoint. I c ,
moved up here with the intention of my children being
able to live here."
He questioned the ability of the Division of Environ- .4.
mental Management to properly monitor discharges of
private plants. The agency's regional office in Asheville is .:
understaffed, he said.
"The water is usually clean that's coming out of the r
plants but it has a high chlorine content."
Too much chlorine can be deadly to trout, he said.
IRONICALLY, ONE OF the five permits is for the
Mill Ridge Property Owners Association in the develop- •,
ment where Hines lives. The permit it is asking for would .:
increase the allowable discharge from that development
from 10,000 gallons to 60,000 gallons per day.
Hines said, "I'm not bucking the ones that are already
there. I'm bucking the new ones.
"I think it's silly to go ahead and put more on if you're
not regulating what you've got. The way it's going, we
can't afford to keep dumping sewage into the rivers out .1

UCE VIULLIGANI:
-iac Commi-ssion
AL Mai carne r i
Z -7- so C C I CM
:3o;z 27687
2175 1. -1
h
Di
rimemt a 1. P.1--i.n igi
ce
Carol 2 S' -3 1
1.
Chi
1 v r 1
an
i eo ta I.
I d
A I- I- o c
, i ,- i o a
t' 7,
JL L.L �L JL z rm
J- rj
j7-
'i A
t-- o t 0 . %
capp j. f-.
J- Ca
T I rt .7 1 Vo ill 1. , -a u
5. LA
N U C11 j: 33 -a
L

9.
*, a
o" En%,,1_7. o*.n,,7,-,i:t;. Cou;;-
99
-S
OL It'l 0 G, r
A d j. r. s a (-a- c aol- i-I
overt"LOWS Of
basin; -
A L. .1 a. s IC c) S e -,c-x ra t- a ol
I
G 0. S CA e Ci to
0
A. back—up power
%onatsc)-ar cnet e :I
rg N
C 0 11 F .71
he
r) r a c 11 s c 3.
1111-t 4.
J
no.
!!
u..
1-1 A_j

SEP h�
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL fAGNINT.
STATE OF NORTH CAWLINA DIRECTORS OFFICE 91 Krj� o jH Vupv2ft OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF FORSYTH 91 EsHR 0773
J. BRUCE MULLIGAN
Petitioner } PANG
)
v. } STATEMENT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF E WIRE, HEALTH )
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF }
EWIRONMERrAL MANAGaMWr }
Respondent }
SEP 27 1991
L'.
5 ION
The below numbered paragraphs correspond with the numbers of the matters
set forth on the ORDER FOR PREH ARING STATEMENTS FILED August 23, 1991.
1. (a) Whether an environmental impact statement should have been required by
the state prior to issuance of the NPDES permit to Elk Park.
(b) Whether the state in good faith considered other alternatives to solve
alleged septic problems of some Elk Park residents prior to allowing
a discharge into the public waters of the state, as required by state
law.
(c) If the Court should find that the permit was properly issued, does it
contain reasonable and necessary constraints which will protect the
river resource and its aquatic life and the health and safety of
downstream property owners?
aW S-�aR.t..s ) R cam. t e. S , + U % GHQ P re c&� .
y
J , rp,., K/1GcA,.,4 r 5 �r a
1
� c�.c._ ��'e�. I � {� � �'�� a � � s rep✓, s� . tt
YD csi.cl \.vie c
Ct s 51 �,., ,,.•,.�,,,,�- o -� LA.)
aver Q ua C (.t � �.�,.�.
GIs ��
less �, �-G--�-e-►-,S � �.,d �
aQV0W vcl S
I le, 4D
g 0 r
l' COLr01
tAjo Uj 0, V-t N
• e c a (S o a. +'-a
OL
• �o,,�.
'-v.4eV- o�
4� Dvt2)r
S LILS f1. W, is
im

�e
v4p,, r
0
,
�• '� v+kk� Vv\,.t l t .
oa

C.• " `, C. ,-A L, Lam..'- A
August 15, 1991
BACKGROUND
Enclosed is a copy of a letter of explanation which accompanied a
discharge permit for a new wastewater treatment plant issued by the
Division of Environmental Management. The permit would allow the
discharge of up to 100,000 gallons of treated sewage daily into
Little Elk Creek just upstream from where it runs into the Elk
River.
The undersigned owns a house and 62 acres of land representing
aninvestment of $300,000.00, including 2200 feet of frontage on the
Elk River and approximately 300 feet on Little Elk Creek -The
confluence of Little Elk Creek and the Elk River is located in the
middle of our river frontage, right beside our front yard. Our two
children and their friends often swim, tube, and sometimes canoe in
the river all along that section. Over 50 acres remain of the
original 88 acre purchase which are surveyed and platted lots with
roads and private entrance gate.
The property values of the undersigned have been and will be
substantially damaged if the permit is allowed to stand. Publicity
about the sewage plant has had a chilling effect on real estate
sales and proposed purchasers have voiced concern and refused to see
the property due to the threat of the sewage treatment plant.
On April 18, 1991 a public hearing was held in Elk Park at which
most in attendance were against the plant's location and most all
of those who spoke were against it, as the public record will show.
The discharge point is in a neat residential neighborhood on the Elk
River Road. It is immediately upstream from two commercial trout
fishing businesses who most certainly will be forced out of business
by the plant.
ERROR'S BY STATE AGENCY
1. State personnel told me they based their 7Q10 flow information to
determine whether or not an environmental impact statement was
required on estimates of Little Elk Creek's flow rate furnished by
flawed data From the U.S. Geologic Survey personnel. Both the state
DEM personnel involved and U.S.G.S. personnel told me that no field
checking was done. The estimated 7Q10 flow of .6 cubic feet per
second was derived from purported results from two gauging stations
on the Elk River, one about four miles downstream , and the other
about 10 miles upstream at Banner Elk.

PAGE 2
ERRORS(CONTINUED)
There was uncontroverted testimony at the hearing which is part of
the public record that the 7Q10 flow of Little Elk Creek is
susbstantially less than .4 cubic feet per second, which, under
s
state law, would require an'environmental impact tatement. This was
pointed out to the state at least twice prior to the public
hearing, and they never officially responded to it -The state acted
with flagrant disregard for its duties under the Water Policy Act.
Additionally, there was uncontroverted evidence introduced by Mr.
Vernon Turbyfill at the hearing in the form of his personal
observation and photographs that the gauging station downstream
allegedly used by the U.S.G.S. as one of the two sources for the
stream flow estimate is presently and has not been operational for
approximately twenty years.The pool was long ago silted in. The
hearing officer apparently ignored this evidence -The state Water
Quality Act clearly requires an environmental impact statement under
the parameters outlined above, prior to the issuance of a permit. I
submit that the permit is void.
2.State law requires that all other reasonable alternatives to a
discharge into a public waterway must be considered, as does the
Clean Water Act. There was no showing of any effort at another
solution other than moving the discharge to another creek -No other
sewage systems were presented.If there is any problem with septic
tanks in Elk Park, the problem could best be solved with one
tenth the expenditure of funds by setting up a fund as has been
done in Haywood County to handle the serious problem there of
"straight piping", and allow the money to be used to improve the
septic tank collection systems that need it.
3.Little Elk Creek is a prime brown and rainbow trout nursery stream
and both that stream and the Elk River are valuable resources for
the Elk Park economy and the citizens of North Carolina -About 5
miles downstream the river enters the Pisgah National Forest and
forms the Elk River Falls,, a substantial waterfall written up in
many publications and having a dramatic 85 foot drop. This waterfall
has thousands of visitors annually from many states. The
requirements of the permit issued are arbitrary and capricious and
fail to adequately protect the state's resource. Another department
of the DEM is currently doing a study to upgrade the classification
of the Elk River and its tributaries from C-Trout to B-Trout due to
the fact that there is substantial bodily contact and recreational
use of the river above, at, and downstream from the proposed
discharge area, including trout fishing, wading, baptisms, tubing,
and swimming, involving thousands of instances yearly. I have been
assured on several occasions by personnel in the DEM that nothing
will be done to jeopardize the effort, and that they would
consciously try to upgrade it.
or 46—/Ro ur'
Under their rules the fecal coliform,�acteria count cannot ever be
as high as 200 parts per milliliter however, the conditions of the
proposed permit allow monthly levels as high as 400 parts per m/l.
This part of the permit must be changed to allow no more than 200
parts per m/1 at any testing.

PAGE 3
ERRORS (CONTINUED)
Finally, the state put some reasonable safeguards in the permit but
ignored some which would be absolutely necessary. In my letter of
March 6, 1991,(enclosed), I asked for them to put at least those
required of Old Beau.I never even received a response to that
request. The interests to be protected by the state in the Elk River
situation are at least as important as those on Laurel Branch.The
Old Beau project is only 20,000 GPD rather than 100,000 in the Elk
Park permit. The state has offered no explanation of why they would
have such minimal requirements for protection of the plant's
operation for a plant 5 times the size of the other one. Such action
by the state is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
If the state's action is allowed to stand a substantial violation of
rights and a taking of property has occurred without due process of
law.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Bruce Mulligan

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this 44e k n has men served on the State agency named below by depos-
iting a copy of it with the United State Postal Service with sufficient postage or by delivering
it to the named agency.
Served on: (16) Q. �a
(name)
(17)
(agency)
(18) 6f� .__.
(address) C�
64--�,
(19) This the day of , 19�.
l
(2 'i
Petitioner
tk - (revised 02-27-91
11-06