NC0087891_Permit Issuance_20050413

* s
i
WWI
NCDENR
Ms. Michele Lawhern, District Mgr.
County Courthouse, Room 11
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Dear Ms. Lawhern:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
April 13, 2005
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO087891
South Toe River WWTP
Yancey County
Division staff have reviewed and approved your application for a new NPDES discharge permit.
Accordingly, the Division is forwarding the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the
Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
The following items from the DRAFT permit have been retained in this FINAL permit:
• A flow limit of 0.125 MGD, which is based on the projected 20-year population growth
within the district's service area. Should the facility at a later date consider incorporation
of flow from the Town of Burnsville's OMC pump station, you will need to request a major
permit modification and submit an application and Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
• Effluent permit limits are based on the assumption of 100% domestic wastewater being
treated and discharged. Any changes from this assumption will require a permit
modification.
• BOD and TSS limits require 85% pollutant removal between influent and effluent samples,
based on monthly average concentrations. This is a requirement for all municipal
wastewater treatment systems.
• Secondary limits for BOD5 (30 mg/1), TSS (30 mg/1), and pH (6-9).
• A total residual chlorine (TRC) limit of 28 ug/l, which represents a level protective of acute
impacts. The TRC limit is appropriate for facilities that might use chlorination for
disinfection purposes.
Please note that several comments were received from natural resource agencies (i.e., US Fish
and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program) concerning the potential for this discharge to impact the federally -
endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel, which is present in the receiving waterbody. Based on
discussions with these agencies, the following additional requirements have been incorporated
into this Final Permit:
A requirement for twice per month instream monitoring (upstream, downstream) for
ammonia and total residual chlorine has been added to Effluent Sheet A (1) for the months
of June, July, August, and September.
Addition of Special Condition A (2) - Outfall Survey. The permittee will conduct a site -
specific survey for the Appalachian elktoe mussel when coordinating the exact location of
the outfall pipe, in order to minimize direct impact to mussel beds.
Addition of Special Condition A (3) - Ammonia Reopener. This permit may be reopened and
modified if a new ammonia water quality standard is adopted, or if a site specific
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.ennstatem.us DENR Customer Service Center 1800 623-7748

NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO087891
South Toe River W WTP
Page 2
management strategy is developed for this waterbody in accordance with 15A NCAC
213.0110.
In addition, the Division strongly recommends that the permittee evaluate the need for
appropriate stormwater controls for future development in this watershed, in order to minimize
the potential for secondary impacts to the receiving stream.
Please note that you will need to obtain an Authorization to Construct (ATC) permit prior to
construction of the wastewater treatment plant. ATC permits are now processed by the DWQ
Construction Grants and Loans Section. As discussed above, the permittee will conduct a
mussel survey prior to outfall pipe construction. Additionally, the permittee has agreed to
incorporate UV disinfection and effluent filters, should funding become available for this
alternative prior to plant construction.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the
office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The
Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does
not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division
of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or any
other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Tom Belnick at telephone
number [phone], ext. 543.
Sincerely,,
Awj
an W. K19ek,
Enclosure: Cover Letter + Permit
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality
Central Files _
NPDES File
Technical Assistance and Certification
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Contaminants Specialist. POBox 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of inland Fisheries, Attn: Shannon Deaton, 1721 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
NC Rural Economic Development Center, Attn: Dennis Lassiter, 4021 Carya Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610
McGill Associates, Attn: Forrest Westhall, POBox 2259, Asheville. NC 28802

Permit No. NCO087891
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIIVIINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
South Toe River �VWTP
Wyatt Town Road
Micaville, North Carolina
Yancey County
to receiving waters designated as South Toe River in the French Broad River Basin in
accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth
in Parts I, H, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective May 1, 2005
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2010
Signed this day April 13, 2005
&an W. Klimek, PIE., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0087891
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this NPDES permit. The
conditions, requirements, terms and provisions of this NPDES permit governs surface
water discharges from this facility.
East Yancey Water & Sewer District is hereby authorized to:
1. Construct and operate, after receiving an Authorization to Construct permit, a
0.125 MGD wastewater treatment plant to be located at the South Toe River WWTP
on Wyatt Town Road, Micaville, Yancey County, and;
2. Discharge from said treatment works (via Dutfall 001) into the South Toe River, a
Class C-Trout water in the French Broad River Basin, at the location specified on
the attached map.

Permit No. NCO087891
A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REgUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
0.125 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 200C 2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Residual Chlorines
28 ug/1
2/Week
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geom. mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
E
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
E
pH4
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (No,+No,+Txm
2/Year
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
2/Year
Composite
E
NH3 as N
2/Months
Grab
U, D
Total Residual Chlorine
2/Months
Grab
U. D
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E- Effluent, I- Influent., U- Upstream, D- Downstream
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
3. TRC limit and monitoring apply only if chlorination is used for disinfection.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Instream samples shall be collected during the summer months of June, July, August, and September.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

i
Q Permit No. NCO087891
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (2). OUTFALL SURVEY
The permittee will conduct a site -specific survey for the Appalachian elktoe
mussel when coordinating the exact location of the outfall pipe with the
Division, in order to rrLn*m* direct impact to mussel beds.
A 0). AMMONIA REOPENER
This permit may be reopened and modified if a new ammonia water quality
standard is adopted, or if a site -specific management strategy is adopted for
this waterbody in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0110.

'IQ C7 f % f
fi
NCDENR / DWQ
FACT SHEET ADDENDUM
NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
NPDES No. NCO087891
Facility Information
1. Facility Name:
South Toe River
W WTP
6. Pretreatment Program:
No
2. Permitted F1ow,MGD:
0.125 MGD
7. County:
Yancey
3. Facility Class:
2
S. Regional Office:
Asheville
4. Facility Status:
New
9. USGS Top* Quad:
D10NW
5. Permit Status:
New
10. USGS Site:
Micaville NC
Stream Characteristics
1. Receiving Stream:
South Toe River
2. Subbasin:
040306
S. Drainage Area (mi2):
59.90
3. Index No.:
7-2-52-(30.5)
9. Summer 7QIO (cfs)
26.5
4. Stream Class:
C-Trout
10. Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
34.5
5. 303(d) Listed:
NO
11. 30Q2 (cfs):
50.9
6. 305(b) Status:
NA
12. Average Flow (cfs):
176.00
7. Use Support:
13. IWC (%):
0.73%
Additional Requirements Incorporated into FINAL Permit
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis for Condition(s)
Add 2/Month instream
Instream Monitoring
Based on concerns expressed by
monitoring (upstream,
NH3-N
natural resource agencies
downstream) for ammonia and
regarding potential impacts to
TRC for the summer months of
TRC
the Federally -endangered
June, July, August, September.
Appalachian elktoe mussel.
Add requirement for permittee to
Special Condition A (2)
Based on concerns expressed by
conduct a site -specific survey for
Outfall Survey.
natural resource agencies
the Appalachian elktoe mussel
regarding potential impacts to
when coordinating the exact
the Federally -endangered
location of the outfall pipe.
Appalachian elktoe mussel.
Outfall pipe should be located to
minimize direct impact to mussel
beds.

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 2
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
NPDES No. NCO087891
Add ammonia reopener
Special Condition A (3)
Based on concerns expressed by
condition.
Ammonia Reopener
natural resource agencies
regarding potential impacts to
the Federally -endangered
Appalachian elktoe mussel.
Reopener will allow permit to be
reopened and modified if
ammonia water quality standard
is changed, or if a site -specific
management strategy for the
watershed is adopted.
NPDES Recommendation by:
Signature Date
Page 2
Version: April 8, 2005

NCDENR / DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
NPDES No. NCO087891
Facility Information
1. Facility Name:
South Toe River
WWTP
6. Pretreatment Program:
No
2. Permitted F1ow,MGD:
0.125 MGD
7. County:
Yancey
3. Facility Class:
2
S. Regional Office:
Asheville
4. Facility Status:
New
9. USGS Topo Quad:
D 1 ONW
5. Permit Status:
New
10. USGS Site:
Micaville NC
Stream Characteristics
1. Receiving Stream:
South Toe River
2. Subbasin:
040306
S. Drainage Area (mi2):
59.90
3. Index No.:
7-2-52-(30.5)
9. Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
26.5
4. Stream Class:
C-Trout
10. Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
34.5
5. 303(d) Listed:
NO
11. 30Q2 (cfs):
50.9
6. 305(b) Status:
NA
12. Average Flow (cfs):
176.00
7. Use Support:
13. IWC (%):
0.73%
Conditions Incorporated into Permit
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis for Condition(s)
Add flow limit of 0.125 MGD
Flow Limit
Based on population/flow
projections through 2025.
excluding future potential for
connecting OMC pump station
flows from eastern half of Town
of Burnsville.
Add secondary limits (30/45
Secondary Limits- BOD
Desktop model does not predict
mg/1) for BOD.
any DO problem with design flow
of 0.125 MGD discharging to
South Toe River. Minimum DO
predicted is 7.66 mg/l,
compared to an instream D.O.
water quality standard of 6 mg/1
for trout waters. Therefore
secondary limits are considered
protective.
Add secondary limits for TSS
Secondary Limits- pH, TSS
Per Federal Minimum Treatment
and pH.
Requirements for Municipalities.

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 2
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
NPDES No. NCO087891
Add TRC daily max limit of 28
TRC
Cap limit at 28 ug/1 based on
ug/l.
acute toxicity. Limit/monitoring
apply only if facility incorporates
chlorination for disinfection
purposes.
Add permit expiration date of
Expiration Date
Per French Broad expiration date
2/28/2006.
schedule.
PROJECT NOTES
Summary
• This is new NPDES permit application for a minor municipal with a proposed 0.125 MGD
discharge of treated domestic wastewater to the South Toe River, at a location just north of
Micaville and US Highway 19 in Yancey County. From the proposed discharge location,
the South Toe River flows north/northeast for approximately 5 miles before joining the
North Toe River.
• The South Toe River is classified C-trout waters in the French Broad River Basin (subbasin
040306). The river is not listed as impaired waters on the 303(d) listing. There are no
NPDES permitting strategies for the South Toe River specified in the 2000 French Broad
River Basin Plan.
• Water quality model results predict that secondary limits (30 mg/1 BOD5) will be protective
of the instream water quality standard for DO (6 mg/l, trout water). The predicted
minimum downstream D.O. is 7.66 mg/l at the design flow of 0.125 MGD.
• The applicant has not indicated any significant industrial users (SIUs) that would be
discharging to the proposed WWTP. Therefore a Pretreatment program is not necessary at
this time.
• This proposed project was funded for $3 Million from the N.C. Rural Economic Development
Center's Unsewered Communities Program.
Permit Development
• Applicant submitted a revised application/Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) on
4/ 16/2004. The original application requested a permitted flow of 0.4 MGD based in part
on a wastewater flow diversion from the Town of Bumsville's eastside service area. The
revised application seeks a permitted flow of 0.125 MGD based on 20-year projected
population growth in the Yancey County Water & Sewer service area. The population
projection was based on a population growth rate of 1.43% per year, which is consistent
with the growth rate for Yancey County between 1990-2000.
• The revised EAA evaluated several wastewater treatment alternatives including connection
to existing WVvFrPs, subsurface systems, and drip/spray irrigation. Costs for the direct
discharge alternative were significantly less than the other alternatives.
• A Level B desktop model was conducted for the proposed 0.125 MGD discharge to the
South Toe River, which has a s7Q 10 flow of 26.5 cfs and an annual average flow of 176 cfs.
The instream waste concentration during low summer flow (s7Q 10 conditions) would be
0.73%. The model predicts a minimum downstream DO of 7.66 mg/1 at permitted flow,
which is well above the instream DO water quality standard of 6 mg/1 for trout waters.
Thus, secondary BOD limits (30 mg/1) would be protective of the DO water quality
standard.
• A TRC limit, capped at 28 ug/1 for acute effects, will be placed in the permit based on the
applicant's proposed use of chlorination for disinfection purposes.
DMR Data.
• Not Applicable- new facility.
Asheville Regional Office.
• ARO concurred that the proposed discharge has limited water quality concerns given the
large dilution available.
Page 2
Version: July 23, 2004

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET East Yancey Water & Sewer District
Page 3 NPDES No. NCO087891
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 8/ 11 /2004
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 9/27/2004
State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached
permit, please contact Tom Belnick at [phone], extension 543.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit
development:
Draft Permit
NPDES Recommendation by: 713-0Y
P
ature Date
Page 3
Version: July 23, 2004

08/05/2004 13:38 8286823701
TIMES JOURNAL
ME
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT
TO ISSUE A NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff
review and application of NC
General Statute 143.21. Public law
92-500 and other lawful standards
and regulations, the North Carolina
Environmental Management
Commission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
wastewater discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below effective 45
days from the publish date of this
notice.
Written comments regarding the
proposed permit will be accepted
until 30 days afar the publish date
of this notice. All comments
received prior to that date are
considered in the final
determinations regarding the
proposed permit. The Director of
the NC Division of Water Quality
may decide to hold a public meeting
for the proposed permit should the
Division receive a significant
degree of public interest.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information on file
used to determine conditions
present in the draft permit are
available upon request and payment
of the costs of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or requests for
information of the NC Division of
Water Quality at the above address
or call Ms. Carolyn Bryant at (919)
733-5083, extension 520. Please
include the NPDES permit number
(anached) in any communication.
Interested persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh. NC
27604-1148 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review
information on file.
East Yancey Water At Sewer
District has applied for a new
NPDES permit, NC0087891, to
discharge treated wastewater from
the South Toe River W WTP to the
South Toe River, a class C-Trout
water in the French Broad River
Basin, Yancey County. Total
residual chlorine is a water quality
limited parameter, and the dischargc
may affect future water quality
allocations in this receiving stream.
Published August 11.2004
fit Wa I

Re: Proposed East Yancey WWTP PAD evy) C V4
Subject: Re: Proposed East Yancey WWTP
From: Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:19:25 -0400
To: Tom Belnick <Tom.Belnick @ ncmail.net>
CC: Wanda Frazier <[e-mail]>
Tom, I don't see any WQ issues associated with this request. The receiving
stream has more than adequate assimilative capacity. But as I have pointed
out in the past, there are "community issues" with this site. This site was
originally proposed and the county held public meetings on building a WWTP
here several years ago. The folks living near this site were not happy with
the location, as you can imagine. There is nothing from a WQ perspective
that would cause us "not" to move forward with notice, but be prepared to
receive public comment. I have informed the county manager that if they
proceed they may want to let the community know about the "re -engagement" of
this project on this site, but that is up to them. Because of the way
notices are done, the public may not pick up on it. We should do what we are
supposed to do and the local government should do what they are required to
do. Thanks. Forrest
Wanda Frazier wrote:
Forrest,
This looks good to me. I concur.
If this is ok with you, please forward to Tom.
Thanks,
Wanda
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: East Yancey Water and Sewer/ South Toe River WWTP
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:49:43 -0400
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
To: Wanda Frazier <[e-mail]>, Kerry Becker
<[e-mail]>
Hello folks- I'm losing its I forgot which one of you were involved in
this proposed WWTP in Yancey County. I'm planning to put a draft permit
to Public Notice on 8/4, and am attaching just the Fact Sheet for now.
Please take a quick look and let me know if you concur, then I'll copy
you on the complete draft next week. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------
Name: 87891 fact sheet.doc
87891 fact sheet.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 2 8/3/2004 8:53 AM

u �n �� 91,n1 4-
�� ��� P IQ
NCODS7891
East Yancey Water& Sewer District
Ms. Miebele Lawhern. District Mgr.
It. Lawhera
County CourWouse. Room 11
Burnsville
North Carolina
28714
SouNi Toe Weer W WIP
Wyatt Town Road
MlcaviHe
Nord, Coroena
Wyatt Town Road
Micavi8e
Yanccy
SOYU, Toe Weer
C-Trout
FYend, Broad
040306
New
0. 125 MGD
Ashe fflu
Tom Be1Nck
543
Tou, Be1Nck
NPDE Unit
nit Typa
har9e Sb
sl
112
a3
Code 01
Code 02
Code 43
Code 44
Code 65
In Code
�61pp �'t►1-c'I j1X 11
---�-incl(des 2oo�f
p.12S M6-0 r spec4IAfh�f
Nav 303(d)Iisted(YM) NG
proposed 305(b)INted (YM) NA
4952 Uee Support (S, ST,ln. NS)
Dnina9e Area (aq. ml.): 59.90
S7010 (cis): 265
01 Wr010(da): 34.5
3002 (cfs): 50.9
OAvO (hs): 176-Y)
IWC (%): 0.73
Minor
03
Subminor
OG
D
35
M
55
S
07
D
82
M
12
S
28
Ownership
Public
ty Typa
Minor
Tart Unit Code
Quad Map No.
Clow
Quad Map Nerve
Mlcov0le NC
m Index No.
7-2-52-(30.5(
in, Ciase 2
Not]. Data: 8/11/2004
Data: 9/27/2004
SM. No.
TB
wA

North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
NCDENR
Department of Environment and±
08 September 2004
�VAIAl(4-h h A/#-Al/I(
[ Willi `tss Jr., Secretary
TSEP
9 20C
_...• �wnbt tlHANC'r'
TO: Dave Goodrich, NPDES Unit Supervisor -
Division of Water Quality, Water Quali*__�ectio
"--�-�-•gym._..
FROM: Sarah McRae, Freshwater Ecologis
NC Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Comments on notice of proposal to issue NPDES permit NCO087891 to
East Yancey Water & Sewer District for the South Toe River W WTP
While the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) does not normally review NPDES
permit applications, it has come to our attention that a non -discharge permit (NCO087891) is
under review by the Division of Water Quality for a W WTP in the South Toe watershed in
Yancey County. This project has the potential to significantly impact rare and endangered
aquatic species, including the federal and state endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana), the federal species of concern and state endangered Blotchside logperch (Percina
burtoni), and the federal and state species of concern Olive darter (Percina .squamata). In
addition, the South Toe River is considered an Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Area of state
significance by the NHP, primarily because of the outstanding resource values and excellent
water quality in the watershed.
The significance of threats to federal and state listed species qualifies as "Activities of Special
Nature" under DWQ Rule 15ANCACO1C.0306, and therefore should be subject to SEPA review.
NHP therefore encourages DWQ to deny the permit and require the preparation of an
environmental document that will be subject to environmental review by resource agencies.
Without proper review, NHP feels that management practices designed to protect rare species
and habitats may not be addressed or implemented properly. NHP shares its concerns with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC); in particular, we strongly feel that
cumulative and secondary impacts will be highly significant in this watershed.
Due to the sensitive aquatic resources in the watershed, NHP urges Yancey County to follow the
guidelines established in the WRC Guidance Memorandum ("Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality" published in August 2002 and available on the web at
http://www.newildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf.). Furthermore, NHP
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
s NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/Nahma//y
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper

• 1
T
encourages FWS to examine whether direct impacts would result in "take" or whether cumulative
and secondary impacts would require an incidental take permit under these circumstances.
Thank you for your consideration of this important resource issue. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program looks forward to a collaborative effort to help protect the State's natural
diversity. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 919-715-1751.
CC via email: Tom Augspurger; Denise Moldenhauer; John Fridell, USFWS
David McHenry; Shannon Deaton, WRC
Melba McGee, OLIA

O s-i�s C,�,�z J1 j4I& �' &le
United States Department of the Interior._
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Septemberl0, 2004
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
SEP 14 2004
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the public notice and draft permit for
the proposed new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge sought
by the East Yancey Water and Sewer District (draft permit number NC0087891). The facility
proposes to discharge treated domestic wastewater at a rate of 0.125 million gallons per day
(mgd) to the South Toe River, a Class C Trout Water river in the French Broad River Basin. The
South Toe River is known habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), a
federally -listed endangered freshwater mussel. These comments are submitted in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-
667e), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Service is concerned about the potential impacts to federally -listed endangered species and
habitat downstream of the proposed facility. Recent survey efforts indicate the presence of the
Appalachian elktoe in areas upstream and downstream of the proposed discharge location and
this 14-mile reach of the South Toe River has been federally -designated as critical habitat for the
species (Federal Register, September 2002). Our most recent records indicate that the South Toe
River supports one of the highest densities of the Appalachian elktoe in the Nolichucky River
system. In addition, the area has been designated as a State Significant Natural Heritage area due
to the diversity of ecologically important resources (including rare species and their habitats).
Given the natural resource value of the proposed discharge location, additional scrutiny of any
new discharge is warranted. Specific comments and concerns relative to the proposed new
NPDES permit follow:
1. Discharge alternatives (including on -site wastewater systems or connection to existing
treatment systems) should be revisited. Due to the resource value in the proposed project
area, cost-effectiveness should not be the primary determining factor when evaluating the
feasibility of such alternatives.
2. A total residual chlorine (TRC) limit has been proposed for the facility based on the
applicant's proposed use of chlorination for disinfection. Chlorine disinfection systems

are not ideal for effluent treatment in critically important aquatic habitats. Information
from limited toxicity testing indicates a potential for early life stages of mussels to be
sensitive aquatic organisms to the impacts of short-term exposure to chlorine (Goudreau
et al. 1993). Laboratory and in -stream tests reveal that fish species are highly sensitive to
chlorinated effluent as well (Szal et al. 1991). We are concerned that any process upset
resulting in instream chlorine levels above state standards has the potential to adversely
affect the Appalachian elktoe and its critical habitat. Due to this potential for toxic
effects to federally -listed species in the South Toe River, we recommend that ultraviolet
disinfection be used as an alternative to chlorine disinfection to treat effluent prior to
discharge.
3. Effluent ammonia concentrations are also of concern to the Service. In a recent review of
ammonia toxicity to freshwater mussels, Augspurger et al. (2003) summarized acute
(s96 hours) ammonia exposure assays covering ten species and eight genera of
freshwater mussels and derived estimates of concentrations that would not likely be
harmful to freshwater mussels in acute and chronic exposures. The results of this review
indicate a unique sensitivity of unionids to ammonia relative to other tested invertebrates
and fishes. In the environment, sediment -pore water concentrations of ammonia typically
exceed those of overlying surface water. The anchorage of unionids in the substrate
places them in the environmental compartment where ammonia concentrations are
expected to be among the highest (Frazier et al. 1996). Given that North Carolina does
not currently have a state water quality action level or standard for ammonia, there is an
apparent need for development of a site -specific standard and application of appropriate
permit limits to assure ammonia concentrations in the discharge are protective of
imperiled freshwater mussels in the South Toe River (as discussed in the above -
referenced review). We would be pleased to provide technical assistance in developing
appropriate permit limits for ammonia at this facility.
4. Water quality models performed by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
indicate that the anticipated dilution capacity of the South Toe River is likely sufficient to
prevent impacts to existing water quality under normal conditions; however, we remained
concerned that any failure in the wastewater treatment system or limited dilution during
low -flow conditions could result in higher than predicted instream concentrations of
parameters of concern. Therefore, we recommend that NCDWQ use historic
instantaneous low flow conditions to conservatively model instream waste concentrations
(rather than low summer flow conditions as described) and develop permit conditions
accordingly. We also encourage the NCDWQ to require instream monitoring for
parameters of concern (e.g., ammonia nitrogen and TRC) during low -flow conditions in
addition to routine effluent monitoring requirements (at least until sufficient data are
available to assure that the discharge does not threaten existing water quality conditions).
Given the importance of water quality to the viability of the Appalachian elktoe
population and its recovery potential in the area, the additional monitoring requirement
allows managers to assess the potential for impacts to this imperiled species. We also
recommend use of onsite standby power sources (e.g., emergency generators with
sufficient capacity to power all critical operational needs) and other fail safe measures to
minimize the potential for treatment process upsets.
2

Excellent water quality ratings assigned to the South Toe River upstream of the proposed
outfall have resulted in an outstanding resource water (ORW) designation in these areas;
however, prior ratings less than excellent were assigned in the vicinity of the proposed
facility. No current bioassessment data exist for the downstream portion of the South
Toe River (lower five -mile reach) near the facility. If the water quality rated excellent, it
would be eligible for ORW designation because of the presence of federally -listed
endangered species. In October 2000 a rule was added to provide site -specific water
quality management in those areas where endangered and threatened species are present
but where, as is the case here, the water quality rating may be less than excellent. Due to
the presence of the Appalachian elktoe in the South Toe River, these waters are targeted
for development of a site -specific water quality management strategy as designated in
15A NCAC 02B .0110. Under this provision, goals for the maintenance and recovery of
water quality are to be outlined (under the provisions of 15A NCAC 2B .0225 or 15A
NCAC 2B .0227). The Service, along with several agencies including NCDWQ, is
involved in this process. Due to this ongoing planning process, the Service requests that
stringent water quality conditions be required in the final permit in anticipation of more
rigorous point source provisions to be included in the site -specific management strategy.
6. Since the federally -listed Appalachian elktoe is known in the immediate project area, we
request a more detailed description of any proposed discharge facilities (pipe placement
and configuration). This footprint should then be superimposed on a detailed map
illustrating the locations of federally -listed species in the vicinity of the proposed facility.
Documentation of the location of these resources relative to the pipe placement at the
proposed facility is essential in order to accurately assess the potential direct and indirect
impacts to federally -listed species from facility construction and operation and help
ensure protected mussels are not injured or killed during construction.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft NPDES permit for the
East Yancey Water and Sewer District W WTP facility. If these concerns cannot be addressed in
the final permit, additional coordination between the Service, NCDWQ and US Environmental
Protection Agency may be warranted. We would be pleased to meet with your staff and facility
representatives at the site to discuss these concerns. Please keep us informed of the status of this
proposed action, including any official determination or additional documentation for technical
review. If you would like to meet, or if you have any questions regarding our comments, please
contact Sara Ward (x. 30) or Tom Augspurger (x. 21) at 919/856-4520.
Sincerely,
(L
John Ellis
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor

cc:
Brian Cole, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Duncan Powell, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
David McHenry, NCWRC, Waynesville, NC
References
Augspurger, T., A.E. Keller, M.C. Black, W.G. Cope, and F.J. Dwyer. 2003. Water quality
guidance for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11): 2569-2575.
Frazier BE, Naimo TJ, Sandheinrich MB. 1996. Temporal and vertical distribution of total
ammonia nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen in sediment pore water from the upper
Mississippi River. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:92-99.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves and R. J. Sheehan. 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plant
effluents on freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia 252:
211-230.
Szal, Gerald M., P. M. Nolan, K. E. Laurie, C. P. Barr, and M. D. Bilger. 1991. The toxicity of
chlorinated wastewater: instream and laboratory case studies. Research Journal WPCF
63(6):911-920.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe, 67 FR 61016-61040 (September 27,
2002).
4

wAc oanlJ' W
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Goodrich, NPDES Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
FROM: Shannon P. Deaton, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 30, 2004
SUBJECT: Notice of Proposal to Issue NPDES Permit NC0087891 to East Yancey Water & Sewer
District for the South Toe River W WTP
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) reviewed the
subject notice. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.), 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-I through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit has been requested for a waste
water treatment plant (W WTP) that would discharge to the South Toe River near Micaville in Yancey
County. The lower river is currently classified C trout by the Division of Water Quality; however, it is
classified B trout ORW from its headwaters to the Highway 19E crossing in Micaville, which is only a short
distance upstream of the site for the proposed W WTP. Permit conditions would include a flow limit of 0.125
million gallons per day (MGD) and a total residual chlorine limit of 28 µg/l. The estimated in -stream waste
concentration would be 0.73%.
The Commission considers the South Toe River, particularly its lowermost 5 miles, one of the
more ecologically important resources in the mountains of North Carolina. It is designated as a State
Significant Natural Heritage Area because of a diversity of aquatic life and, further downstream, the
North Toe/Nolichucky River system is designated as a Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area.
,Large segments of streams in the Nolichucky River system, including the reach of the South Toe River
where the proposed W WTP would be situated, are designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmindonta raveneliana). This state and federally -listed
endangered mussel occurs in the South Toe River both upstream and downstream of the proposed W WTP
site. Our 2003 basin -wide assessment found more of them at one site in the lower South Toe River than
at all other sites in the Nolichucky River system combined. Therefore, the sub -population found here is
an important component of the overall population.
In addition to the Appalachian elktoe, rare fishes such as the blotchside logpereh (Percia burtoni,
state endangered) and the olive darter (Percina .tquamata, state Special Concern and federal Species of
Concern) have been documented in the river downstream of the proposed W WTP. The blotchside
logperch population in the South Toe River is the only known population in the state, and one of only a
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fishcrics • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax. [phone]

South Toe River WWTP, NCO087891 Page 2 August 30, 2004
Yancey County
few remaining populations across its entire range. The loss of the South Toe River population could
significantly imperi I the species.
The diversity of aquatic life found in the South Toe River watershed is largely a result of its excellent
water quality. There are only three permitted discharges, all of which occur on Little Crabtree Creek from the
Town of Burnsville to near Micaville. The largest is the water treatment plant for the Town of Burnsville and
the other two are permitted to collectively discharge up to 0.0125 MGD of wastewater. According to the
2000 French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, all 555.7 miles of streams in the subbasin fully
supported uses. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples from 1997 rated all sites in the subbasin as either good or
excellent; the sample from the South Toe River site at SR 1167 upstream of Micaville received an excellent
bioclassification. Our surveys last year in the reach downstream of Micaville suggested tremendous biotic
recovery from past impacts in this area, which is similar to previous improvements specified in the plan for
the Nolichucky River in Yancey County. In our opinion, the high quality of aquatic resources in the subbasin,
which appear to be improving even further, dictates the need for heightened diligence regarding the
introduction of additional stressors that may threaten water quality, either chronically or acutely.
The Commission is concerned that the proposed WWTP may constitute such a stressor with potential
to adversely affect aquatic resources in the South Toe River. We recognize that assimilative capacity in this
reach is not limiting and that the proposed facility would have a relatively small capacity. However, if
chloride is used for disinfection, we feel that there would be an unacceptable risk to aquatic resources,
particularly that posed by potential spills or other abnormal operational conditions that can occur. Mussels
are particularly sensitive to chlorine exposure. Further, secondary compounds in the waste stream formed by
chemical reactions with chlorine are a concern.
Of comparable and possibly greater consequence to aquatic resources in the South Toe River are
secondary and cumulative effects of the project. This region of Yancey County appears to be developing
rapidly in large part because of an influx of seasonal residents. We suspect that the 1.43% population growth
rate for the 1990 to 2000 period, which was used for setting the capacity limit for the WWTP, is currently
much higher and increasing. In support of this supposition are several large residential developments that
have been initiated in the Burnsville area since 2000. This trend appears to be continuing. Providing
infrastructure improvements, most notably centralized wastewater disposal and collection systems, typically
encourages further development. In our opinion, development and conservation of fish and wildlife resources
can be compatible when regulations and initiatives for stormwater management, sediment and erosion control,
restrictions on floodplain development, and other environmental issues are locally enforced or sponsored (see
httQ://www.ncw' dlife oralpe07_wildlifespeciescon/oE7e2 impacts.0f ). However, to our knowledge, such
initiatives do not exist or are deficient in Yancey County. 'Therefore, we are concerned about indirect effects
of the proposed WWTP plant relative to development pressures in the region, particularly if the apparent rapid
growth continues and demand for expanded utility services continues to increase. Utility expansions also
result in proportionally greater risks of direct effects on resources primarily from failures or upsets of the
additional service lines, pump stations, and expanded WWTPs.
Although formal environmental review was not required for the proposed WWTP, we feel that project
alternatives and justification should be reevaluated. We understand that the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis indicated excessive cost for non -discharge alternatives. In our opinion, non -discharge alternatives or
connection to existing treatment facilities may be more appropriate given the quality of aquatic resources in
the South Toe River. These resources may not have been readily apparent or considered fully during initial
project development. Similarly, we assume that there its a definitive need for the WWTP that involves
protection or improvement of water quality or public health in the basin. An example is documentation of
widespread incidences of poorly functioning septic systems in the proposed service area. Accommodation of
anticipated growth can also be a reasonable need. But, we feel that this need is only legitimate if there are
reasonable assurances that natural resources in the area can be conserved. We question whether this condition
is applicable to the proposed project, particularly with regard to appropriate local measures that would
minimize its secondary and cumulative impacts.

South Toe River WWTP, NCO087891 Page 3 August 30, 2004
Yancey County
Because of these concerns, the Commission respectfully requests that the NPDES permit for the
proposed WWTP not be issued unless certain project modifications are implemented to lessen the likelihood
of adverse effects on resources. Without the Following modifications, the Commission cannot concur with
the issuance of an NPDES.
L Ultraviolet light should be used for disinfection of effluent instead of chlorine.
2. The treatment plant should be equipped with emergency generators to operate all critical parts
of the plant during a power outage.
3. The proposed permitted capacity should be a perpetual limit.
The Commission also strongly recommends that local governments in Yancey County implement
measures that will minimize secondary and cumulative impacts of similar projects in the future. This
effort would conserve the diversity of natural resources in a region that depends heavily on economic
return associated with seasonal and new permanent residents that are drawn there by those very resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project and your attention to our
concerns. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Dave McHenry at [phone] extension 24.
cc: B. Cole — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
L. Pearsall — NC Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program
S. Fraley — NC Wildlife Resources Commission
B. Fox — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

_ Nx4k IVd-J/TRC mA x pied(c
s �
ii
Lt r,"44vAW
Summary of Comments to Draft Permit
Proposed New Discharge of 0.125 MGD to South Toe River (C-Trout)
East Yancey Water and Sewer District
French Broad River Basin/ARO
NPDES # NC0087891
Whitney Brasington- local citizen
■ Concern about impact on pristine natural resource
■ Please consider not granting permit
John Ellis/Sarah Ward, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service*
■ Recent survey efforts indicate presence of Appalachian elktoe (a federally -
listed endangered freshwater mussel) in South Toe River, above and below
proposed discharge location. This reach is also federally -designated as critical
habitat for the species, and state -designated as an Aquatic Significant Natural
Heritage Area due to* the diversity of ecologically important resources and
excellent water quality.
■ Discharge alternatives should be revisited given the natural resource value.
■ Recommend UV be used as alternative to chlorine disinfection.
■� h�
Recommend site -specific ammonia limits --- S ,*k e, i 1
■ Recommend DW use historic instantaneous low flows to develop permit
Q P
conditions, rather than s7Q10 flow.
.■ Recommend instream monitoring for ammomia and TRC during low -flow'
conditions.
, hutM
■ Recommend onsite standby power source.
�
■ USFWS currently involved in development of site -specific Water Quality
✓ Management Strategy, and requests that stringent water quality limits be
VA W
placed in Final Permit in anticipation of future Management Strategy lid
provisions.
a,�`
-�■ Request a detailed description of the proposed outfall pipe location relative to
ikto �!
endangered species.
- ;Wk ° %1t' .
If these concerns cannot be addressed in the Final Permit, additional
coordination between USFWS, EPA, and DWQ may be warranted.
Shannon Deaton/Fred Harris, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
— Unacceptable aquatic risk if chlorine is used for disinfection.
■ Secondary and cumulative impacts may present greater risk to aquatic
resource, and question whether local measures are sufficiently protective.
■ Discharge alternatives and justification of project need (failing onsite systems,
projected population growth) should be revisited given the natural resource
value.
■ Without the following permit modifications, NCWRC cannot concur with
permit issuance: 1) UV should be used instead of chlorine; 2) WWTP should
be equipped with emergency generators to operate all critical parts of the plant

during a power outage; and 3) the proposed permitted capacity should be
upped at 0.125 MGD for life. -
■ NCWRC also strongly recommends that local governments in Yancey County
implement measures that will minimize secondary/cumulative impacts of
similar projects in the future.
Sarah McRae, NC Natural Heritage Program
■ In addition to the federal/state endangered Appalachian elktoe freshwater
mussel, the South Toe River also contains federal/state species of concern.
QProposed activity should be subject to SEPA review, and recommends permit
denial and preparation of an environmental document.
ONHP strongly feels that cumulative/secondary impacts will be highly
significant in this watershed. Recommends Yancey County implement local
protective measures.
NHP encourages USFWS to examine whether direct impacts would result in
"take" or whether cumulative/secondary impacts would require an incidental
take permit.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary
March 15, 2005
FACILITY REQUIREMENT
YEAR JAN
FEB
MAR
APR_
MAY
JgN
JUL
AUG
_
4EP
OCT
NOV
DEC „
Bergaw WWTP chr lint:%FS
It MI stop
—
—
>IN
—
—
s1M
—
—
94.9
—
—
NCO021113/001 B,mII/IQ003 FPcqueneyQ J. Apr Jul Oct
+ NonContp:Single
20112 66.1
-100
—
sim
—
—
79.4
-IN
-IN
-IN
—
—
Comy Fender Region: WIRO Subbasin: CPF23
2M3 -100
—
—
s100
—
—
>100
—
--
-100
—
— '
PF: 0.75 Spend
20p4 IN
—
—
>1M
—
—
stop
—
—
>1M
—
—
7QIo:0.0 IWC(%)I00 Odder:
2005 >WO
Burlington E..IWWTP star lint: l6%
920M —
Pa.
—
—
Pan
—
—
Paw
—
—
Pass
—�
NCO@3868/Wl Begin:6/IR002 Fmquency:Q Feb May Aug Nov
+ NonComp:SWGLE
2002 —
Pa.
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pea
—
--
Pasa
—
COunyAbmmce Region: WSRO Subbnin: CPF02
2M3 —
Pa..
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pass
—
—
Pass
--
PF: 12.0 Spatal
2004 —
Pa.
—
—
Para
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pass.62A(P)
--
7Q10:33.6 IWC('A)36 (Aocn
200E —
Pan
Burlington Indnlrfe. W WTP car lime 7%
=I —
Par
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pass
—
NCOM332W001 ft.9/IRON Frequcnry:Q Feb May Aug Nov
+ NonComp:Single
2002 —
Pa..
—
—
Pen
—
—
NRIPaa
—
—
Pan
—
County: Richmond Region: FRO Subbnin: YADI6
2003 —
Pm.
—
—
Pasa
—
—
Pe..
--
--
Paa
—
PF: 1.2 Special
2M4 _
Pae
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pan
—
7Q10:25.0 IWC(%)7.0 Order.
2005 —
Burlington -South WWTP chr lim: 860A
€2001 Pan
—
—
Pa.
—
—
Pass
—
—
Pei.
—
—
NCO023876/001 Begin.6/1/2002 Fregmm,,.Q Jam Apr Jul Oct
+ NonCamp:Smjile
2002 Pna
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pais
—
—
Pat.
—
—
Couvry:Alemmce Region: WSRO Subbnin: CPF02
2003 Pen
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pas.
—
—
Fell
>100
>100
PF: 12.0 Saul
2004 Pau
—
—
Pna
—
—
Pen-
—
—
pa n'M31P)
--
—
7Q10:3.0 IWC(%)86 peter.
205 Fan,>100(P)
Burnsville WVtTP chr lime 6%
It MI —
—
Pass
—
—
Pas
—
—
Pan -
—
—
Pass "
NC00202901001 Begin:2/U2003 Frequency.Q Mn Jun Sop Dec
+ NpaComp:Single
2003 —
—
Pas
--
--
Pna.'
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pass I
County: Yarecy Region: ARO Subbasin; FRB07
2003 —
—
Pnt
—
-
NP1Pae
—
—
Pae.'
—
-
Pasa
PF: 0.9 apati.l
2004 —
—
Pea
—
—
Pas
—
—
11"aea
—
—
Pass
7QIO: 19.0 IWC(Ya)6.0 order.
2005 —
"
Banner WWTP(Job. Umslad Hmp) chr lim: 90%
V 2Mt —
Fall
IN
>IM
Pasa
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pass
--
NC0026824/001 Begin9/l/2003 FrequencyQ Feb May Aug Nov
+ NonComp:Single
2e02 —
Pan
—
—
Pass
—
Pam
Paa
--
—
Pass
--
County:Omnville Region: RRO Subbnin: NEU01
2003 —
Lam
Pass
--
Pas.
—
—
Pass
—
--
Pass
---
PF:5.5 Special
2000 —
Fail
s1W
>mp
Pan
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pass
--
7QI0:0.09 IWC(%)99 OAc
2005 —
Couple. County(RO)WTP 24hr pit n mmit 90% M. bahia
2001 —
—
—
N
—
—
N
—
—
N
—
—
NC0086681/001 Begin.&Ia M Frequency. Q P/F Jim Apr Jul OM
+ N.Comp:
2002 N
—
—
N
—
—
N
—
—
Paa.
—
--
County. Camdcn Region: WARD Subbases: PAS50
2003 Paa
—
—
Pen
—
—
Pa.
—
—
Paa
—
--
FF:0.432 Spend
2004 Paa
—
—
Paaa
—
—
Pas
—
—
Pae
—
—
7QIO:Tidal IWC(%)IN ONcr.
2005 Pau
Camp Highlander W Is 241or a plflim 90%
2001 H
H
—
H
--
—
Pon
—
—
H
—
H
NC0033251/001 Begim&Ia001 Frequcncy.Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
+ NoaComp:Singlc
2002 H
—
—
H
—
—
Fail
NR
NRM
H
—
—
Couny:llenderson Region: ARO Subbnin: FU03
2003 NM
--
—
H
--
—
Pan
—
—
H
—
—
PF: 0.0074 spatial
2004 H
—
—
H
--
—
Pane
—
—
H
—
—
7Q10;0.0 IWC(%)IN 0emr.
2005 H
Cape Flatters Water Anne.(RO) WTP Chr us, monk 6.5%
2M1 Pan
—
—
Pas
—
—
Pan
—
—
Pan
—
—
1400085707/001 Bcgi VI/20M FumIamy:O + Jm Amlul Oct
+ N.C.,Si.gle
2W2 Pas
Pass
—
Pae
—
—
Pas.
—
—
Pa..
—
—
Comty. Date Region: WARD Subbases: PAS55
2003 Pass
—
—
Pae.
—
—
Pas.
--
—
Pas.
—
—
PF: IS Special
2004 Pna
—
—
Paa
—
—
Pen
—
—
Pa.
—
—
7QIO:Tidal IWC(%)6.5 Pda.
2005 Lau,
Pas
Carolina Beach WWTP 24hr p'fa fine %%(rapid)
2001 —
Pass
—
—
Pen
—
—
Pon
—
—
Pan
—
NC0023256IOOi Begirt 11/IR002 Frequemy.Q + Feb Mey Aug Nov
NonComp:Single
tar! —
Pa.
—
--
Pas.
—
—
Pan
—
—
Paa
—
CounyNewllmover Region: WIRO Subbaln:CPF17
2003 —
Pa.
—
--
Paa.
—
—
Pa.
--
—
Pae.
--
PF:3.0 Spwai
2004 _
Pae
_.
...
pan
—
—
Pasa
Pan
—
7QIO:Tida1 IWC(cA)NA order.
2005 —
Pa.
Carolina Mountain Water chr lime It%
It MI —
—
Pass
—
—
Pao
—
—
Pena
—
—
Pass
NC0067954/001 Begin)/1/1998 Frequency Q P/F + Mer Jun Sep Dec
+ NcnCcmp:Singie
2002 —
—
NR/Pass
—
—
NwastaIB
Pa..
—
Paa
—
—
Pass
Covey Jackson Region: ARO Subbases: SAV02
2003 --
--
Pass
—
—
Pa..
—
—
Pae.
—
—
Late
PF: BON SPM41
2J04 Pen.
—
Pass
-
—
Pass
—
--
Lela
Pas.
—
Pam
7Q10: 0.075 IWC(%)11.03 Ordcr.
2005 —
LEGEND:
PERM-Pormit Requucntent LET -Administrative LeiterTarget Frequency - Monitoringf
Begin =rim moshrequmal 7Qio- Receiving stmun low Row criterion(cf) +-quanulyy ono
Permitted
PF- Pitted flow(MGD) IWonm CA-iomoursautecutralion P/F=PnslFaillal
Dam Nomtione I. Fathead Minnow; e - Cesiodaphnia asp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV - Chronic value; P- N
Reporting Notation: —= Dam not enquired; NR - Not reported Facility Activity Smtm: I - Ioacdve,N
Discontinued monitoring requirement
p= Currant Corruption. Requirement
at highest concentration; a- Perfomled by DWQ Aquafic Tex Unit; bt - Bad tent
); H - Active but not discharging; t-Morc data aaihbie for month in question; D = ORC signore needed
6

d� Yall wy
tf y/e.V
03V63577n -- Lr l� tAtgw&u14 (n �✓ y� � o �/03 o b
Q 4 = T 9Yee-c
Q4-vz, = 71 �6
OQZ = z z
a.8 ® 70
A - 2J,600-4-

roo
g127/0 �t (ram w")4)
mo i l'% Ao h,-�
A1gJ

Re: NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
Subject: Re: NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:52:57 -0400
To: John [e-mail]
CC: David McHenry <[e-mail]>, Denise [e-mail], Sarah McRae
<[e-mail]>, Sara [e-mail], [e-mail]
John- The Town of Burnsville monitors for TRC on a 2x/week frequency. Burnsville also
monitors for various metals ranging from weekly to quarterly. Burnsville is subject to a
quarterly chronic whole effluent toxicity (WET) test. Based on their design flow and the
receiving stream's s7Q10 flow, Burnsville has an instream waste concentration of 6%,
which corresponds to a dilution factor of 16.6. Burnsville has passed all quarterly
chronic WET tests (n=16) between 2001-2005, based on 6% IWC. East Yancey would have
more dilution, with an instream waste concentration of 0.73% (or a dilution factor of
137). The draft East Yancey permit does not currently contain a requirement for toxicity
testing.
[e-mail] wrote:
Tom,
What other pollutants do they monitor and how often do they monitor the
chlorine and these other pollutants in the effluent? Is there any whole
effluent toxicity testing done on their discharge? I have spoken with the
Duncan Powell with the EPA about this permit request and he shares my
concerns about potential effects to the Appalachian elktoe and its
designated critical habitat. He is currently looking into potential
funding sources to see if it may be possible to help make some of the
alternatives more economically feasible. Thanks.
John
John Fridell
US Fish and wildlife
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
PH: [phone]
Tom Belnick
<tom.belnick@ncma
il.net>
03/30/2005 03:01
PM
Service
ext. 225
To
[e-mail],
Sara [e-mail], "David McHenry"
<[e-mail]>,
[e-mail],
[e-mail], Sarah
McRae <[e-mail]>
NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
CC
Subject
1 of 2 4/4/2005 11:53 AM

Re: NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
Just a followup on the total residual chlorine (TRC) issue. The
applicant (East Yancey) plans to contract with the Town of Burnsville to
operate and maintain the proposed treatment plant. The Town of
Burnsville operates their own wastewater treatment plant (NC0020290) and
disinfects via chlorination followed by dechlorination (using sulfur
dioxide). The proposed East Yancey plant (NC0087891) has proposed
similar disinfection treatment with chlorination/dechlorination units.
For the 2004 calendar year, the Town of Burnsville has operated their
treatment plant to achieve a 100% compliance rate with their TRC
effluent limit of 28 ug/1 based on 113 samples, with effluent TRC
concentrations ranging from <15 ug/l up to 26 ug/l. The maximum
reported TRC concentrations during each month of 2004 are as follows:
Jan (<15 ug/1), Feb (<15 ug/1), Mar (21 ug/1), Apr (18 ug/1), May (17
ug/1), Jun (<15 ug/1), Jul (18 ug/1), Aug (18 ug/1), Sep (17 ug/1), Oct
(20 ug/1), Nov (26 ug/1), Dec (22 ug/1).
[e-mail]
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext. 543
[e-mail]
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext. 543
2 of 2 4/4/2005 11:53 AM

NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
Subject: NPDES/East Yancey- TRC
From: Tom Belnick <tom.belnick@ncmail_net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:01:16 -0500
To: [e-mail], Sara [e-mail], "David McHenry" <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], [e-mail], Sarah McRae <[e-mail]>
Just a followup on the total residual chlorine (TRC) issue. The applicant (East Yancey) plans to
contract with the Town of Burnsville to operate and maintain the proposed treatment plant. The Town
of Burnsville operates their own wastewater treatment plant (NC0020290) and disinfects via
chlorination followed by dechlorination (using sulfur dioxide). The proposed East Yancey plant
(NC0087891) has proposed similar disinfection treatment with chlorination/dechlorination units. For
the 2004 calendar year, the Town of Burnsville has operated their treatment plant to achieve a 100%
compliance rate with their TRC effluent limit of 28 ug/l based on 113 samples, with effluent TRC
concentrations ranging from <15 ug/1 up to 26 ug/l. The maximum reported TRC concentrations during
each month of 2004 are as follows: Jan (<15 ug/1), Feb (<15 ug/1), Mar (21 ug/1), Apr (18 ug/1), May
(17 ug/1), Jun (<15 ug/1), Jul (18 ug/1), Aug (18 ug/1), Sep (17 ug/1), Oct (20 ug/1), Nov (26 ug/1),
Dec (22 ug/1).
[e-mail]
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext, 543
1 of 1 3/30/2005 3:01 PM

0 n I�k j�
lJ�
djew
M
=�\3 v L
%4
8
M
8
to
8
g
8
11- mAx
L�
lo
17
f$
17
IS
21
.C.1S
4IS
�/C 0 a 20z70
&um ) Vrl fr ldW rM,
©. & M 6-0 Con h4 -1 Ix �' �� t-•�. .
e4&1
LA40 c, /aK /-Z r
0WO , Z�-' Grk/P
T,Wc :- b 67o
,,, �/ C,
l„k4 S oir el %�l.✓ %�1 ✓.
Alb G/pw; A
Ni4.j,ly
2 3.7 /mx
�3 � ywAx
IY
3.6 YWAx
L
S• L MA
ly
5 MAx
►3
7
17,
S
IS
l0
1Z
13
13
ib
i2
5

From the Desk of
Tom Betnbk
DWQ/NRP Meeting
PuDraft NPDES Permit NCO087891
(AJAC
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
March 15, 2005
1 local
Summary of Discussion Topics with USFWS/NCWRC on 2/25/2005:
■ Revisit the Engineering Alternatives Evaluation - 0.1 t S MO
■ Site -specific ammonia limits
■ UV/chlorination
■ Site -specific Management Strategies
• Standby power
■ Instream monitoring for TRC/NH3
■ Outfall pipe location --
■ Historic instantaneous low flow
• Cap flow
■ Secondary/cumulative impacts
o USFWS
o NCWRC
o NHP
C,
EC Y7LJ �V" A/
V,I. J, cl- r 6t ,
a o.+ *-."4 C w M TF
0�Lj ��>�����- 4AJ-
NNP
�hdq deg✓sAll
,9U14e, 4

NC0087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment: Discharge alternatives should be revisited given the natural resource value.
Based on DWQ review of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) submitted for this
project, the projected flow was properly justified for 0.125 MGD, and the cost for a direct
discharge alternative was significantly less relative to other discharge alternatives (see below).
Alternative
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
20-Year
Present Worth
1- No Action
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
2A- Connect to
Burnsville WWTP
$5,624,700
$96,600
$6,762,648
2B- Connect to
Mountain View Motel
WWTP
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
2C- Connect to Taylor
Toggs WWTP
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
3-Community
Subsurface System
$3,866,000
$75,000
$4,749,500
4— Discharge toSouth
Toe River
$869,500
$70,000
$1,694,100
5 - Drip Irrigation
$2,780,300
$82,000
$3,746,260
6—Spray Irrigation
$2,749,500
$70,000
$3,574,100
7 —Reuse
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
There are approximately 490 homes and 34 businesses located within the East Yancey Water and
Sewer District service area, which are primarily served by private subsurface wastewater disposal
systems. As a requirement of the grant application submittal to the North Carolina Rural
Economic Development Center's Unsewered Communities Program, a total of 72 individual
septic system owners within the District boundaries were surveyed by McGill Associates in July
2002. The survey identified 25 instances of grey water being straight piped to reduce the
hydraulic load to their system (34.7%); 1 instance of currently failing septic system (1.4°/u); 6
cases of property owners who have experienced periodic problems with their systems (8.3%); and
40 cases where property owners do not have adequate repair area for their septic system (55.61/o).
It is anticipated that all property owners that are currently utilizing straight piping, or currently
operating a failing system, will be required to connect to the proposed wastewater treatment plant.
In addition, five industries or institutions have committed to connecting to the new W WTP,
including the Taylor Togs manufacturing facility that currently discharges up to 10,000 gpd to
Little Crabtree Creek via NPDES permit NC0023566.
Finally, the EAA included a letter from Allan McCurry, Environmental Health Specialist with
Toe River Health District, who cited numerous problems with subsurface wastewater disposal
systems due to restrictive soils or space limitations in the local area along 19E between Burnsville
and Micaville.

NCO087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment Recommend site -specific ammonia limits
The applicant has proposed an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant, which typically
achieves ammonia effluent concentrations of <2 mg/l NH3-N. Based on the proposed discharge
of 0.125 MGD and a summer 7Q10 flow of 26.5 cfs, the calculated instream waste concentration
(lWC) represents only 0.73 percent of streamflow. The table below presents predicted instream
ammonia concentrations, based on varying effluent concentrations.
Effluent Concentration
(mg/1 NH3-N)
Predicted Instream
Concentration
(mg/1 NH3-N
NC Criteria
(mg/I NH3-N)
Augspurger et al
(mg/1 NH3-N)
2 (typical)
0.014
1.0 (summer)
1.8 (winter)
0.3 to 1
5
0.036
35 untreated
0.25
Based on this evaluation, predicted instream ammonia concentrations are well below both the NC
chronic criteria as well as chronic guidance levels presented by Augspurger et al (2003) for
protection of freshwater mussels. Consequently, effluent ammonia limits do not appear
warranted at this time. However, DWQ can add an Ammonia Reopener Special Condition, which
would allow the permit to be reopened and modified if future conditions indicate the potential for
water quality impacts.
—5+-11 �QjoW VsFIJJ NNi jruiWelloioo�) wj/!) eckPr1P /riv h,)O

N00087891- East Yancey Water and -Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment: Recommend UV be used as alternative to chlorine disinfection.
In order for UV disinfection to be effective, it generally must be combined with tertiary treatment
(tertiary filters) so that solids do not negatively impact the LTV disinfection process. For this
facility, the proposed BOD/TSS effluent limits of 30 mg/1 can be achieved with secondary
treatment processes, and that is the extent of the applicant's current funding sources. Since
secondary treatment lacks tertiary filtration, chlorine disinfection is considered more reliable than
UV in this situation. A reliable disinfection process to treat fecal coliform bacteria is desirable,
since contact recreation (swimming) is also a use of the receiving waterbody. The nearby Town
of Burnsville actually installed a LTV disinfection unit at their Cane River facility several years
ago, but had to change back to chlorine disinfection due to color and solids reducing the
effectiveness of the UV disinfection unit.
The facility is proposing chlorination followed by dechlorination. It is anticipated that total
residual chlorine (TRC) levels in the effluent following dechlorination will be <20 ug/l, which
results in an instream TRC concentration of 0.072 ug/l based on the permitted design flow and
summer 7Q 10 flow conditions. This predicted instream TRC concentration represents only 0.4%
of the current NC water quality standard of 17 ug/l.
The facility is currently seeking additional funding from Construction Grants and Loans to
provide for effluent filters and UV disinfection. However, if this funding is not secured, the
current proposal for chlorination/dechlorination is still considered satisfactory for maintaining
safe fecal coliform bacteria levels as well as residual chlorine levels.

NPDES East Yancey- Additional Info
Subject: NPDES East Yancey- Additional Info
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:16:33 -0500
To: torn [e-mail], [e-mail], "David McHenry"
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], "Forrest Westall"
<[e-mail]>, Mike Templeton <[e-mail]>
Thanks to everyone for attending the meeting on 2/25/2005 to discuss the East Yancey and
Whittier NPDES projects. I'm still checking a few items for East Yancey, but offer some followup
responses below.
1) Instream Flow Design Criteria. As I mentioned, our state regulations require us to use the low
summer flow statistic (7Q 10 flow) to develop water quality based effluent limits for toxicants to
protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity. This design flow is standard practice for many states,
and is supported by EPA guidance. At the meeting, USFWS asked us to consider an even more
extreme low flow (i.e., instantaneous low flow on record). Although we cannot concur with this
design flow based on existing regulations, I nevertheless evaluated this scenario. The USGS gage
station on the South Toe River at Newdale (USGS 03463500) contains 6,758 daily average
streamflow values for the period of record (4/l/1934- 9/30/1952). The lowest daily average flow
during this 18-year period was 12 cfs, which was reported twice and thus represents 0.02% of
daily streamflow measurements. In comparison, I used the summer 7Q10 value of 26.5 cfs to
evaluate the need for permit limits in the draft permit. By using 12 cfs flow with the proposed
discharge of 125,000 gal/day, the predicted instream ammonia concentrations would be 0.032
mg/1 NH3-N (at an effluent concentration of 2 mg/1); 0.079 mg/I NH3-N (at an effluent
concentration of 5 mg/1); and 0.556 mg/1 NH3-N (at an untreated effluent concentration of 35
mg/1). Only the untreated effluent scenario at extreme low flow would exceed the lower end of
the instream chronic ammonia guidelines (0.3 - 1 mg/1 NH3-N) proposed by Augspurger et al
(2003), while all scenarios would comply with the current instream ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1 that DWQ uses to develop permit limits. Thus, DWQ still believes that the draft permit
will be protective of chronic toxicity due to ammonia.
2) SEPA/Cumulative/Secondary Impacts. I mentioned that the proposed East Yancey discharge
was below the minimum SEPA threshold criteria and that the NPDES permit does not address
cumulative/secondary impacts, which are generally addressed through local government. If you
want to discuss these concerns I recommend contacting the applicant (Michelle Lawhern, County
Manager, 828-682-3971) or their consultant (Forrest Westall, McGill Associates, 828-252-0575).
Please let me know if you have other questions regarding the East Yancey project.
1 of 2 3/10/2005 1:16 PM

Float
REVISED TABLE II-3
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOWS
WITHOUT OMC PUMP STATION FLOWS
EAST YANCEY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
YEAR
FLOW (in Gallons Per Day)
FLOW ADDED DURING
PHASED CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL FLOW WITH (1.43%
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE)
2006 - Phase 1
53,290
53,290
2007
54,052
2008 - Phase 2
10,258
65,083
2009
66,014
2010 - Phase 3
12,595
79,553
2011
80,690
2012
81,844
2013
83,015
2014
84,202
2015 - Phase 4
9,735
95,141
2016
96,501
2017
97,881
2018
99,281
2019
100,701
2020 - Phase 5
6,932
109,073
2021
110,632
2022
112,214
2023
113,819
2024
115,447
F2025 - Phase 6
5,682
122,780

#
# U.S. Geological Survey
# National Water Information System
# Retrieved: 2005-02-25 15:22:13 EST
# This file contains published daily mean streamflow data.
# Further Descriptions of the dv_cd column can be found at:
# hftp://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/help?codes_help#dy_cd
#
# This information includes the following fields:
# agency_cd Agency Code
# site no USGS station number
# dv_dt date of daily mean streamflow
# dv_va daily mean streamflow value, in cubic -feet per -second
# dv_cd daily mean streamflow value qualification code
# Sites in this file include:
# USGS 03463500 SOUTH TOE RIVER AT NEWDALE, NC
agency_cd site_no
dv_dt dv_va
dv_cd
5s
15s
10d 12n
3s
USGS
3463500
4/1/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/2/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/3/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/4/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/5/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/6/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/7/1934
237
USGS
3463500
4/8/1934
237
„t dlt�'
t'314 )
9

USGS 03463500 SOUTH TOE RIVER AT NEWDALE; NC
.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/inventory/?site—no=034...
Water Resources
Data Category: Geographic Area:
Site Information North Carolina
ATTENTION -- Monitoring at the following real-time stations is slated to be discontinued as of
March 1, 2005, due to the unavailability of a cooperating agency to assist with the funding of the
ongoing operation and maintenance costs:
02092162 Neuse River at New Bern, NC
0209262905 Neuse River at Channel Light 11, NC
0209265810 Neuse River at Channel Light 9, NC
02084472 Pamlico River at Washington, NC
0208453300 Pamlico River at Light 5
0208455155 Pamlico River at Light 3
0208455560 Pungo River at Channel Light 18
02091814 Neuse River near Fort Barnwell, NC
0209205053 Swift Creek at Hwy 43 near Streets Ferry, NC
02092500 Trent River near Trenton, NC
For more information, please contact Ramona Traynor, Information Officer. Thank you.
USGS 03463500 SOUTH TOE RIVER AT NEWDALE, NC
Available data for this site I Site home page] .
Site Description
LOCATION
Latitude 35°54'22", Longitude 829I'l9" NAD273,
Yancey County, North Carolina, Hydrologic Unit 06010108
DRAINAGE AREA
60.80 square miles
GAGE
Datum of gage is 2,443.98 feet above sea level NGVD29. j
SITE TYPE:
Stream / River
1 of 2 2/25/2005 3:20 PM

USGS 03463500 SOUTH TOE RIVER AT NEWDALE, NC
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ne/nwis/inventory/?site_no�F034..
AVAILABLE DATA:
Data Type
Begin Date
FEnd Date
Count
Peak streamflow
1916-07-00
1977-11-06
20
Daily streamflow
1934-04-01
9952-09-30
6758
Water Quality Samples
1951-10-15
1952-09-27
�—
OPERATION:
Record for this site is maintained by the USGS office in North Carolina
CONTACT INFORMATION
Email questions about this site to North Carolina NWISWeb Data Inquiries
Questions about data North Carolina NWISWeb Data Inquiries
Feedback on this websiteNorth Carolina NWISWeb Maintainer
NWIS Site Information for North Carolina: Site Inventory
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/inventory?
Retrieved on 2005-02-25 15:19:58 EST
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
USGS Water Resources of North Carolina
Privacy Statement 11 Disclaimer 11 Accessibility 11 FOIA
1.03 0.78 sd
TOP
Explanation of terms
! of 2 2/25/2005 3:20 PM

USGS Daily Streamflow -- 1 sites found
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/discharge/?site_n...
Data Category: Geographic Area:
Water Resources Surface Water United States go
Daily Streamflow for the Nation
USGS 03463500 SOUTH TOE RIVER AT NEWDALE, NC
Available data for this site Surface -water: Daily streamflow GO
Yancey County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Unit Code 06010108
Latitude 35°54'22", Longitude 82°11'19"
NAD27
Drainage area 60.80 square miles
Gage datum 2,443.98 feet above sea level
NGVD29
Choose Output Format
Period of record
From
F To
Count
1934-04-01
1952-09-30i
6758'i
Retrieve Daily streamflow data for Selected Sites
Choose one of the following options for displaying data for the sites meeting the
criteria above:
10 Retrieve data from: F_ to: F_ (YYYY-MM-DD -- Blank
= all data)
C M Graphs of data i iog scale
r A Tab -separated data YYYY-MM-DD Display in browser
Submit Reset Help
Questions about data Water Webserver Team
Feedback on this websiteNWISWeb Support Team
Daily Streamflow --1 sites found
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/discharge?
TOP
Explanation of terms
1 of 2 2/25/2005 3:29 PM

USGS Daily Streamflow -- 1 sites found
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/discharge/?site n...
Retrieved on 2005-02-2515:20:57 EST
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Privacy Statement 11 Disclaimer 11 Accessibility FUTA
1.2 0.95 nadwwOl
2 of 2 2/25/2005 3:29 PM

USGS
3463500 6/21/1941
12
USGS
3463500 9/19/1943
12
USGS
3463500
13
USGS
3463500 9/10/1944
13
USGS
3463500
USGS
3463500 9/27/1941
USGS
3463500
USGS
3463500 6/20/1941
1
USGS
3463500 10/l/1943
20
USGS
3463500 10/6/1943
W
USGS
3463500
20
USGS
3463500
USGS
3463500
21
USGS
3463500
21
USGS
3463500 9/5/1943
21
USGS
3463500 7/28/1952
21
USGS
3463500 11 /5/1939
22
USGS
3463500 ########
22
USGS
3463500 ########
22
USGS
3463500
22
USGS
3463500 ########
22
USGS
3463500
22
USGS
3463500 ########
22
USGS
3463500 9/l/1944
222
USGS
3463500 ########
23
USGS
3463500 11 /2/1939
23
USGS
3463500 11 /7/1939
23
USGS
3463500 ########
23
USGS
3463500
23
USGS
3463500
23
USGS
3463500 12/l/1939
23
USGS
3463500 12/3/1939
23
USGS
3463500
23
USGS
3463500 ########
23
USGS
3463500
23
USGS
3463500 6/29/1941
23
USGS
3463500 9/28/1941
23
USGS
3463500 12/1/1943
23
USGS
3463500 10/611951
23
USGS
3463500 7/25/1952
23
USGS
3463500 7/29/1952
23
USGS
3463500 1 /2/1940
24
USGS
3463500 9/20/1941
24
USGS
3463500 ########
24
USGS
3463500 ########
24
USGS
3463500 10/5/1951
24
USGS
3463500
24
USGS
3463500 7/24/1952
24
USGS
3463500 7/26/1952
24
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500 11 /l /1939
25
s70io= Z65
}5 = 6758
d4 44 < 0-03
woujh <
VA Jvm i Zo CG'
7/
Ohm

USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500 1 /4/1940
25
USGS
3463500 6/22/1941
25
USGS
3463500 10/4/1941
25
USGS
3463500 11 /6/1943
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500 99909##
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500 ########
25
USGS
3463500 8/27/1944
25
USGS
3463500 10/4/1951
25
USGS
3463500 10/9/1951
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500
25
USGS
3463500 ########
25 r `'
SGS
3463500
26
USGS
3463500 ########
26
USGS
3463500 ########
26
USGS
3463500 12/6/1939
26
USGS
3463500 12/7/1939
26
USGS
3463500 12/8/1939
26
USGS
3463500 1/3/1940
26
USGS
3463500 1/5/1940
USGS
3463500 1/6/1940
26
USGS
3463500 1/10/1940
26
USGS
3463500
26
USGS
3463500
26
USGS
3463500 9/11 43
26
USGS
3463500 1 /1951
26
USGS
3463500 0/3/1951
26
USGS
34635 10/7/1951
26
USGS
346 00 10/8/1951
26
USGS
3 3500
26
USGS
463500
26
USGS
3463500
26
USGS
3463500 7/27/1952
26
USG
3463500 7/30/1952
26
us!!
3463500 8/27/1952
26

IWC Calculations
East Yancey W&S
NC0087891
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.125
Enter s7Q1 0(cfs): 12
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 12
Residual Chlorine Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10(CFS) 12 7010(CFS) 12
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.125 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.125
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.19375 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.19375
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL 0.22
IWC (%) 1.59 IWC (%) 1.59
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 1070 Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 49.3
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10(CFS)
12
Fecal Limit
2001100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
F62.94)UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
1.59
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
99.7
Servor/Current Versions/IWC
212812005

,G� _ -FecAmicd IS3Nes
()V/,V tI/ COMA.0-1 • U
1 .... ,../ e,
Meeting Agenda for DWQ/USFWS/NCWRC
February 25, 2005 �O
Draft NPDES Permit NCO087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Draft NPDES Permit NC0087602- Whittier Sanitary District
Items of Discussion:
• Revisit the Engineering Alternatives Evaluation )
■ Site -specific ammonialimits - -s4pF+w JEM Arah,d n'a ar, l++'" 'r✓ "f'
• UV/chlorination 7 NNs '„ 7. < +� �. 7
■ Site -specific Management Strategies -si'A'k'»wb�,,�6'°"��a Nq,IVA:tr,�++,?
• Standby power- reju.+cal
• Instream monitoring for TRC/NH3
■ Outfall pipe location - 1441 h, w vYi( S1eu«f C'"M
• Secondary/cumulative impacts - F'p n13 4� t W/ to o■MMen�,h•n t .
■ Historic instantaneous low flow
■ Cap flow- eyo4stoA - EAA
SEPA, ffi4jIe
WO., J � CW. 01� - "V r `T .. .

NCO087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment: Discharge alternatives should be revisited given the natural resource value.
Based on DWQ review of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) submitted for this
project, the projected flow was properly justified for 0.125 MGD, and the cost for a direct
discharge alternative was significantly less relative to other discharge alternatives (see below).
rapt;Caslvo
1- No Action
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
2A- Connect to
$5,624,700
$96,600
$6,762,648
Burnsville WWTP
2B- Connect to
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Mountain View Motel
WWTP
2C- Connect to Taylor
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Toggs WWTP
3- Community
$3,866,000
$75,000
$4,749,500
Subsurface System
4 — Discharge to South
$869,500
$70,000
$11694,100
Toe River
5 - Drip Irrigation
$2,780,300
$82,000
$3,746,260
6 — Spray Irrigation
$2,749,500
$70,000
$3,574,100
7 — Reuse
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
Not Feasible
There are approximately 490 homes and 34 businesses located within the East Yancey Water and
Sewer District service area, which are primarily served by private subsurface wastewater disposal
systems. As a requirement of the grant application submittal to the North Carolina Rural
Economic Development Center's Unsewered Communities Program, a total of 72 individual
septic system owners within the District boundaries were surveyed by McGill Associates in July
2002. The survey identified 25 instances of grey water being straight piped to reduce the
hydraulic load to their system (34.7%); 1 instance of currently failing septic system (1.4%); 6
cases of property owners who have experienced periodic problems with their systems (8.3%); and
40 cases where property owners do not have adequate repair area for their septic system (55.6%).
It is anticipated that all property owners that are currently utilizing straight piping, or currently
operating a failing system, will be required to connect to the proposed wastewater treatment plant.
In addition, five industries or institutions have committed to connecting to the new WWTP,
including the Taylor Togs manufacturing facility that currently discharges up to 10,000 gpd to
Little Crabtree Creek via NPDES permit NC0023566.
Finally, the EAA included a letter from Allan McCurry, Environmental Health Specialist with
Toe River Health District, who cited numerous problems with subsurface wastewater disposal
systems due to restrictive soils or space limitations in the local area along 19E between Burnsville
and Micaville.

NC0087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment. Recommend site -specific ammonia limits
The applicant has proposed an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant, which typically
achieves ammonia effluent concentrations of <2 mg/l NH3-N. Based on the proposed discharge
of 0.125 MGD and a summer 7Q10 flow of 26.5 cfs, the calculated instream waste concentration
(IWC) represents only 0.73 percent of streamflow. The table below presents predicted instream
ammonia concentrations, based on varying effluent concentrations.
Effluent Concentration
(mg/1 N113-N)
Predicted Instream "
Concentration
m NH3-N)
NC Criteria
(mg/1 NH3-N)
Augspurger et al
(mg/l NH3-N)
2(typical)
0.014
1.0 (summer)
1.8 (winter)
0.3 to 1
5
0.036 Q %
35 untreated
0.25 Q.
L 6q)ed on jo�e�� daily " _ eA,,,,h r ort feOVA ®head ak
Based on this evaluation, predicted instream ammonia concentrations are well below both the NC of 12 Ch.
chronic criteria as well as chronic guidance levels presented by Augspurger et al (2003) for
protection of freshwater mussels. Consequently, effluent ammonia limits do not appear
warranted at this time. However, DWQ can add an Ammonia Reopener Special Condition, which
would allow the permit to be reopened and modified if future conditions indicate the potential for
water quality impacts.
�i lown �J., oN rem �2- y„�, J1 av SIt'l� f 4A1113-N
4q.3�li cIA4 c^A w/Jx4 k)Q(- I lit'
Q12cfi, 0.12s *tj SIC= /S99a
-- — — 1/18/2005 9:18 A
1 of

NC0087891- East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Meeting Date: 2/25/2005
Participants: DWQ, USFWS, NCWRC
Comment: Recommend UV be used as alternative to chlorine disinfection.
In order for LTV disinfection to be effective, it generally must be combined with tertiary treatment
(tertiary filters) so that solids do not negatively impact the UV disinfection process. For this
facility, the proposed BOD/TSS effluent limits of 30 mg/l can be achieved with secondary
treatment processes, and that is the extent of the applicant's current funding sources. Since
secondary treatment lacks tertiary filtration, chlorine disinfection is considered more reliable than
LTV in this situation. A reliable disinfection process to treat fecal coliform bacteria is desirable,
since contact recreation (swimming) is also a use of the receiving waterbody. The nearby Town
of Burnsville actually installed a UV disinfection unit at their Cane River facility several years
ago, but had to change back to chlorine disinfection due to color and solids reducing the
effectiveness of the UV disinfection unit.
The facility is proposing chlorination followed by dechlorination. It is anticipated that total
residual chlorine (TRC) levels in the effluent following dechlorination will be <20 ug/l, which
results in an instream TRC concentration of 0.072 ug/l based on the permitted design flow and
summer 7Q10 flow conditions. This predicted instream TRC concentration represents only 0.4%
of the current NC water quality standard of 17 ug/l.
The facility is currently seeking additional funding from Construction Grants and Loans to
provide for effluent filters and UV disinfection. However, if this funding is not secured, the
current proposal for chlorination/dechlorination is still considered satisfactory for maintaining
safe fecal coliform bacteria levels as well as residual chlorine levels.
(2) lov)eitdarl,a�,{1���1,e�j,�� �nsk, TA 0_31 Ns111= 1.�9 o-'jwQs
Evem � Au flo--J, day ce�i � , � t # cr►.c va io7o �/-�
41 a(A i-ac In/ 0)

a5 W S ?ZY 7-58 3g39 x zy 1
Me- en - /4
--auN x
�j/�rr�G�w �c/ C%��1� -qzs

N(o
df
"�'�

RE: East Yancey and Whitter WWTP Projects
Subject: RE: East Yancey and Whitter WWTP Projects
From: "Forrest Westall" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:41:00 -0500
To: "'TomBelnick"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Danny Bridges \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Harry Buckner \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Joel
Storrow \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
Tom,
Thanks for the note. I spoke to Danny on Friday about his conversation with
you. Clearly, the Whittier project's preliminary design for the pending
NPDES application included filters, which makes UV a reasonable choice.
The original East Yancey proposal included filters and UV, but at a higher
flow than the current NPDES request and under a different funding profile.
The proposed East Yancey design for the pending permit doesn't include
filters. This was a real world cost consideration for that project at the
current scope and under the limits established for this project. I know
that Danny mentioned the just developing possibility that the East Yancey
project may be in line for additional funding and that inclusion of filters
and UV would be a high priority, provided that funding is secured (the "high
unit cost" $ would also have to look at some other components of this
project, including phases that do not currently have identified
funding --there were several "service" components to this overall project as
additional phases). It is important to note that the two projects have
different funding profiles and, while it may be our "desire" to provide
additional treatment at the East Yancey site, the current WLA doesn't
require tertiary and the funding profile doesn't allow that level of
treatment. I would point out that disinfection is being required at this
site because of existing uses that show extensive "whole body" public
(swimming) contact in the South Toe River and heavy "boating" and other body
contact uses downstream in the Toe (below the confluence of the South Toe
with the North Toe) and below the Cane R. confluence (the discharge site
itself is not a class "B" water). The "requirement" to meet the fecal limit
is related to potential human health impacts and heavy public use. The
actual "dilution" of the receiving waters at this location and design flow
is significant and the instream waste concentration very low. This limits
the possible negative impacts of residual or total chlorine from a chlorine
treated, "chlorine limited" dechlorinated effluent to aquatic life, while
helping to assure compliance with a critical human health limit/standard for
coliform. If there is not funding for the additional treatment under the
current project profile, it places an undue burden on this applicant to
provide treatment levels that cannot otherwise be supported or to place
compliance in jeopardy by using a disinfection technology that has been
shown to be ineffective for "secondary" biological type effluent treatment
alone.
Balancing the need to protect established public health considerations in
the receiving waters, minimizing the potential for impact to aquatic life,
and keeping the funding of the project viable are all objectives that are
important to this project. If sufficient additional funding is secured for
the East Yancey project so that tertiary treatment can be included which
would allow the effective use of UV disinfection, the final AtoC request
will include that as part of the design. Without this funding, meeting all
the identified objectives can only be met with chlorination/dechlorination.
I would think that the final issued permit could condition UV on the
availability (securing) of funding for filters, with a limits page that
would reflect this option.
I think everyone here is pleased that the Whittier project can and does
include filters and UV disinfection, but that circumstance is related to the
applicant's "ability" to provide this additional treatment which is not
required by the WLA/permit limits. This is a good thing. The current East
Yancey project/application/proposal is a realistic and valid response to the
water quality objectives required for that discharge. If the applicant can
provide additional treatment, it will be done, but the potential additional
funding support is not yet established. As I noted in my earlier e-mail,
moving forward now with the issuance of the permit is critical for this
project to proceed. We remain committed to providing the highest and most
effective level of treatment possible at each of these projects.
I would be glad to discuss this with you further. Just let me know. Thanks
for your time.
Forrest
1 of 3 1/18/2005 9:18 AM

RE: East Yancey and Whitter WWTP Projects
Forrest R. Westall, Sr., PE
McGill Associates, P.A.
PO Box 2259
55 Broad St.
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
-----Original message -----
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:11 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: East Yancey and Whitter WWTP Projects
Forrest- just an FYI. I found out yesterday that the proposal for
Whittier includes filters and W, while East Yancey is proposed as
chlor/dechlor, despite the fact that both proposals have secondary spec
limits of 30/30 with lots of dilution. The resource agencies wanted W
for East Yancey as well. I just ran this by Danny Bridges and said my
argument for East Yancey/chlor/dechlor might now be compared to what
Whittier is doing. Danny said he will investigate further. Mike and I
plan to meet with the resource folks in a few weeks to discuss both
projects together.
Forrest Westall wrote:
Tom, Mike and Sergei,
Following our session on Haden on Wed., you guys were kind enough to make
some time to discuss the two subject projects.
Tom has been the permitting lead on the East Yancey project and Mike has
the
Whitter permit.
_>From the brief discussion on the 12th, it appears that the remaining issues
on these two NPDES permits are "resource" agency issues with US Fish and
Wildlife, Natural Heritage and WRC. Indications at this point from Tom
and
Mike were that it may be possible to reslove these agency issues pretty
quickly. This would certainly be of great help in keeping these projects
moving and allow McGill to respond to the applicants and their funding
sources.
Briefly, my understanding of the status of each of these projects is as
follows:
East Yancey
Permit public notice was made in the August timeframe, I believe, and Tom
passed along the received comments to McGill. The Wastewater Group (Danny
and Harry) have reviewed the comments and provided "technical responses"
specifically to the resource agency concerns. Tom has been reviewing those
and plans to discuss them with the resource agencies. There were no public
comments requesting a hearing and only one general public comment was
received. The main focus of the comments were toward the potential impacts
of the chemical/biological composition of the discharge to endangered
species habitat (Elk Toe mussels) or organisms in the South Toe. The main
technical points of these comments were toward issues concerning possible
ammonia toxicity, residual (and "total") chlorine impacts (disinfection
treatment) and the physical potential for the effluent pipe and the
discharged wastewater (within a "mixing" area) to adversely impact existing
populations of the organisms in the receiving waters. On Wed. Tom
that he planned to take the responses and DW4's view of the issues back to
the resource agencies. The general outlook is that the issues raised can
positively addressed and the permit issuance process can go on. As this
project has been under consideration and development for over 11 years and
is a critical economic initiative for Yancey County ( a high needs county),
progress is very important. Funding agencies are expecting and pressuring
the applicant and its consultant for progress on this proposal.
2 of 3 1/18/2005 9:18 AM

RE: East Yancey and Whitter WWTP Projects
• Whitter
Public notice of the permit was on August 23, 2004 and there were no
general
public comments. Resource agency comments were received from USF&W and
WRC.
The general context of these comments were similar to the East Yancey
Project. Mike had discussed these with Dana Bolden (formally of McGill),
but copies of the comments could not be located in the McGill Asheville
office. Mike offered to fax them to McGill (my e-mail signature includes a
fax number Mike). Regardless of the availability of the comments to us,
Mike indicated that he was prepared to respond to the resource agency folks
in relation to the raised concerns and believed that the physical reality
of
j the proposed discharge (an increase over the old plant size at this
location
but still very small in relation to the 7/10 of the receiving stream) and
the draft permit conditions appropriately addresses the technical issues
raised about potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. This
I critical project is also within a high needs county (Jackson) and the
service area of the project is seeking basic infrastructure to support
essential economic improvement. I was very encouraged that, pending an
expected positive resolution of these issues, that permitting could move
forward. This project too has long been in the development process and the
funding agency is demanding that progress (in the way of actual
construction) take place soon or funding will be jeopardized. Issuance of
this permit is absolutely necessary for the project to move forward.
As noted, both of these projects are at critical stages. Issuance of the
these two permits must occur before any sewer work can be done. At the
conclusion of our brief discussion of these two projects, Mike and Tom
indicated that they would plan on going to the resource agencies very soon
and if possible, together. Please let me know how this process is going.
If there is any input or participation needed from me or those involved
from
McGill, we would be glad to be involved. As we are working closely with
the
funding agencies for these projects, any documented progress on getting
these permits issued would be very important to keeping the projects
viable.
Just let me know if we can provide any additional support for these two
NPDES permit actions. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Forrest
Forrest R. Westall, Sr., PE
McGill Associates, P.A.
PO Box 2259
55 Broad St.
Asheville, NC 28802
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext. 543
3 of 3 1 / 18/2005 9:18 AM

qMcGill
A S S O C I A T E S
January 4, 2005
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Belnick:
I
� 9� T EN
JAN 7 2005
RE: Response to Draft Permit Comments
East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Yancey County, North Carolina
In response to the Draft NPDES Permit public comments that were received by your
office in September 2004, we are providing the following responses to the comments that were
technical in nature. We are providing these responses in the order they were received in your
September 15, 2004 e-mail.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (John Ellis and Sarah Ward)
1. A site specific survey for Appalachian elktoe will be conducted when
coordinating the exact location for the discharge point.
2. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address the discharge
alternatives.
3. We have found ultraviolet light disinfection (UV) to work better when used with
tertiary treatment processes instead of the secondary processes proposed for this
project. By incorporating a sulfur dioxide feed system to remove free chlorine
after the chlorine disinfection process, we believe that the same environmental
protection goals can be achieved with a more reliable and proven technology.
The Town of Burnsville actually installed an UV unit at their Cane River facility
several years ago and had to change the disinfection method back to chlorination
due to color and solids (that did meet their secondary treatment levels) in the
wastewater stream flow that prevented the UV from adequately reducing fecal
coliform in the effluent. In conjunction with our lack of success with UV
E n g i n e e r
i n g •
P l a n n i n g
• F i n
a n c e
McGill Associates, P.A.
• P.O. Box 2259,
Asheville, NC 28802 • 55 Broad
Street, Asheville,
NC 28801
828-252-0575
FAX [phone]

Mr. Tom Belnick
January 4, 2005
Page 2
technology in this specific community, we have and continue to promote
chlorination with a dechlorination process for adequate kill of fecal coliform.
4. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address site -specific
ammonia limits.
5. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address use of historic
instantaneous low flows rather than 7Q 10 flows.
6. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address instream
monitoring for ammonia and TRC during low -flow conditions.
7. Standby power for the facility is already included in the project scope.
8. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address the site -specific
Water Quality Management Strategy that USF&WS is currently developing.
9. Reference item one above, concerning the survey for the Appalachian elktoe
mussel.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Shannon Deaton and Fred Harris)
1. Reference item three for USF&WS.
2. Per our recent telephone conversations, we would anticipate that concerns with
secondary and cumulative impacts will be addressed with the Water Quality
Management Strategy noted in item number eight above.
3. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address the discharge
alternatives.
4. This comment had three (3) specific points. Point number one concerning UV
disinfection is addressed in response number one above. Point number two,
concerning emergency power is addressed in response number seven for
USF&WS. Per our conversations, your office will address point number three
requesting a capped capacity for the treatment facility.
5. This comment appears to be a repeat of comment number two, therefore see our
response above.

Mr. Tom Belnick
January 4, 2005
Page 3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Sarah McRae)
1. This comment is not specific as to the species of concern.
2. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address the SEPA review
comment
This comment concerns secondary and cumulative impacts which are addressed
in the response number two for NCWRC.
4. Per our recent telephone conversations, your office will address the incidental
take permit requirement.
Yancey County currently has a document called the "Yancey County and Town of
Burnsville Land Development Plans" which was completed in September 2001. The document
is a compilation of technical components for land use planning, infrastructure planning and
environmental planning. The Town of Burnsville currently enforces zoning related to location
and intensity of land use, while Yancey County enforces the North Carolina Building Code, the
Yancey County Water Supply Watershed Management and Protection Ordinance, the 1993
Mountain Ridge Protection Act, and oversees participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). This document could be of benefit during the consideration of secondary and
cumulative impacts that will be generated by this project. '
Tom, we hope that this letter adequately addresses the technical comments in a
satisfactory manner. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do
not hesitate to give me a call. We look forward to the County's receipt of the NPDES permit for
this facility.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Danny B. Bridges, P.E.
Project Administration Manager
Enclosures
cc: Michele Lawhern, County Manager
Harry Buckner, P.E.
01743/npdespermit/letters/TBResponse4Jan05.doc

Notes from conf call on Yancey Cnty WWTP project
-G
.0 - E
To: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>,
Melba McGee <[e-mail]>
CC: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
All,
Tom and I had a conference call this morning with Harry Buckner (McGill consultants) and
Michelle Lawhorn (Yancey County) - hopefully I got the names right - to discuss the County's
proposed WWTP project and related agency comments associated with the NPDES permit.
My role in the discussion was with SEPA and secondary/ cumulative impact (SCI) issues;
specifically, how the Natural Heritage Program's comments should be handled. I told Yancey
County that I did not think a full SEPA document would be necessary but that I agreed with
Heritage on the issue of SCIs. In order to address the SCIs I asked the County to provide the
Division with the following items:
L A map of the proposed service area for the project. Illustrating for example, publicly
owned lands, riparian areas already protected with buffers, developed areas, subdivisions
approved yet not built, and subdivisions that are currently under review by the County.
2. A description of its current development regulations (environmental related - stormwater,
buffers, open space, etc.) that all new development in the project's service area need to
adhere to.
Yancey County has agreed to provide this material. Hopefully the regulations that the County
provides will afford sufficient mitigation for the proj ect!s impacts. If this is the case and the
measures suffice we should be able to move forward on the permit. If not we may have to push
them to adopt more restrictive tools though I believe we could still continue without requiring a
SEPA document.
Thanks,
Alex
1 of 1 10/13/2004 4:24 PM

I
,a/1310y loan C
b82-39'�/
�2B-2S2-QS7S
G4m4 6bve&-a4
� — 1) who I laµ►( uJ f t-!v a.� qi/tki a 4 4VW"7
L, tf)4V 13 .)-,Oi✓tica(LA - ISirtAll Gt 1�Curt wk /%tj/-,V
q jp ✓.( a
3) e x, -i [-�-) 1,,A W 4-Le rytaP
q) ipnln)/Ju4A/lv'l,oh tlfifiH�yrJfL,
S) Ruuipt jc11 A(-, S..l /.,nvl/" a°41zt
h ' An -
MI
M 14I j* ADA
— TR c - C,00
0�7em J044 t �! "-
�.»4�f�kiN ofOttK.u.�-I.0 ?
l t)+MW4 J-" dfo4*t w-ct
la► w r �Irw. �v�IPM�'� h�� Sd
e0�AAa k'2 -
- .erllc(. S((. I

V l ✓"� � 57�� w,` �(' 0✓oV ice( ao�i��v /��,� c�/�T

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
July, 26, 2004
leis. Michelle Lawhern, District Mgr.
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
County Courthouse, Room 11
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
South Toe River WWTP
NPDES Permit #NC0087891
Yancey County
Dear Ms. Lawhern:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
A draft permit for a proposed discharge of 0.125 IxIGD at the South Toe River WWTP is currently scheduled for public notice on
August 4, 2004. This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a proposed expansion to 0.4 hIGD at
the proposed facility.
Receiving Stream. The proposed facility would discharge to the South Toe River, approximately 5 miles below the confluence with
the North Toe River. The South Toe River in this segment is classifed C-Trout waters, with a summer 7Q10 flow of 26.5 cfs.
Speculative Limits. The speculative limits were developed based on a Level B Dissolved Oxygen desktop model. Based on
available information, speculative effluent limits for a proposed discharge of 0.4 MGD to the South Toe River are presented in
Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and
other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit modification request. The model results do not show
any significant impact on predicted instream dissolved oxygen levels from this proposed discharge, assuming the speculative
limitations for BOD5 and NH3 presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for South Toe River kVW'I?, NCO087891
Effluent' C
Monthly one, a
Week1yexa e" _ V
waif Maximum
Flow
0.400 RiGD
BOD5
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
TSS
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
NH3 as N
Monitor
TRC
28 u /1
Fecal coliform(geometric mean
000/100 ml
400/100 ml
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAk). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit modification for
expansion to 0.4 MGD will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and
evaluates a formal permit application for the City's proposed discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes,
the practicable wastewater treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be
implemented. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering
alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The FAA inust justify requested flows, and provide an analysis of potential
wastewater treatment alternatives. :Alternatives to a surface water discharge, such as spray/drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, or
inflow/infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this
letter. Permit applications for new or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not
adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the DWQ NPDES Unit at 9,
733-5083.
NCDENR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Service 1 800 623-7748

Speculative Limits Letter
NCO087891
Page 2 of 2
State Environmental Poles Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be prepared for all projects that
1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential to significantly impact the environment.
For new wastewater discharges, significant impact is defined as a proposed discharge of >500,000 gpd and producing an instream
waste concentration of > 33% based on summer 7Q10 flow conditions. For existing discharges, significant impact is defined as an
expansion of > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since your facility is proposing an expansion of <500,000 gpd additional flow,
you are not subject to SEPA requirements.
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel free to contact me at
[phone], extension 543.
Sinc
om Belnick
NPDES Unit
Attachment: FAA Guidance Document
cc: (without Attachment)
Mike Apke, IbfcGill Associates, P.O.Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
DWQ Asheville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Central Files
NPDES Permit File, NC0087891

IWC Calculations
East Yancey W&S
NC0087891
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit i
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.4 S�
Enter s7010(cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 34.5
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
26.5
7Q10 (CFS)
26.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.4
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.62
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.62
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
2.29
IWC (%)
2.29
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
744
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
34.3
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS) 34.5
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.4
(If DF>331; Monitor) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.62
(If DF <331; Limit) STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
Dilution Factor (DF) 43.74 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL 0.22
IWC (%) 1.77
Allowable Conc. (mg/1) 89.7
Servor/Current Versions/IWC
7/23/2004

[A)LA 2ooy
6 4 = 5 .9'
�B
AJ n - in
x
eAbrAwb
SovA Se 43wA-
� e oM
v = ZSOo
2yyo_' rm� NPwd�IT
o�` AM4 6cc4k4
,d
---
^
-
-- - S)
_Z_`la a' - ya = dowrt
9 u N j T� M_
am,ai» lwwt
_►3 r 411
-
— --
9 7Tn'
ni sx -777ymit= 14 763' -lUmfV
_
_i
_
J1 2: rAIA,fv &w49/wii.- - -- --
-)gn'- Z30'
Or _-
-
--
-
sue( jo M-99 b.S�Y.bM� = Z.b9 c��► __

-1,4 I 27 T9 7l2v�o r
hole) .bblll
A-CN6
lift = qo
wu. p4 = ego
MW
�dJU I lt3 u in
�a0 MAY
h.LN 00 - 2. 1�T
Se AO M *A _ . S Y M
dk
WCA NQQ'b = ,.-,l�
wLA Oa =��

_0. as

*I
■

IWC Calculations
East Yancey W&S District
NC00
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.125
Enter s7Q10(cfs): .5
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 34.5
Residual Chlorine
J,A3 fit F,A /
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
71010 (CFS)
26.5
7010 (CFS)
26.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
STREAM STD (UG/Q
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
IWC (%)
0.73
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
234
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
107.7
`
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
34.5
Fecal Limit 2001100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
137.77
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
0.56
Allowable Conic. (mg/1)
283.1
Servor/Current Versions/IWC
7/19/2004

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0304 FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Murphy Branch o
w, source to South Toe C;Tr,ORW 05/01/87 7-2-52-29
Blue Rock Branch m source to South Toe C;Tr,ORW 05/01/87 7-2-52-30
South Toe River m U.S. Hwy. 19E to e
07/01/73(ED
North Toe River
Long Branch From source to South Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2.52-31
River
Mine Branch From source to South Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-32
River
Little Crabtree Creek From source to South Toe C;Tr 07/01/73 7-2-52-33
River
Mitchell Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-1
Crabtree Creek
Tantrough Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7 2-52-33-2
Crabtree Creek
Ray Creek From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-3
Crabtree Creek
Allen Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-4
Crabtree Creek
Three Quarter Creek From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-5
Crabtree Creek
George Fork From source to Little C;Tr 07/01/73 7-2-52-33-6
Crabtree Creek
Shoal Creek From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-7
Crabtree Creek
Bearwallow Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2 52 33-8
Crabtree Creek
Plum Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7 2 52-33-9
Crabtree Creek
Cane Branch From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7 2-52-33 10
Crabtree Creek
Ayles Creek From source to Little C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-52-33-11
Crabtree Creek
Dobag Creek From source to North Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-53
River
Chestnut Branch From source to North Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-54
River
Gouge Branch From source to North Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-55
River
Sink Hole Creek From source to North Toe C;Tr 09/01/74 7-2-56
River
m

NC DENR - DI V ISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0304 FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Sullins Branch
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
09/01/74
7-2-43
River
Pine Branch
From source
to
Sullins
C;Tr
09/01/74
7-2-43-1
Branch
Big Branch (Deer Park Lake)
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
09/01/74
7-2-44
River
Little Bear Creek
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
09/01/74
7-2-45
River
Bear Creek
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
04/01/58
7-2-46
River
Little Bear Creek
From source
to
Bear Creek
C;Tr
04/01/58
7-2-46-1
Cranberry Branch
From source
to
Bear Creek
C;Tr
04/01/58
7 2-46-2
Stewart Branch
From source
to
Bear Creek
C;Tr
04/01/58
7-2-46-3
Snow Creek
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-47
River
Wing Branch
From source
to
Snow Creek
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-47-1
Big Crabtree Creek (Crabtree
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48
Creek)
River
Dovers Branch
From source
to
Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-1
Crabtree Creek
East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
From source
to
Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-2
Crabtree Creek
Deer Lick Branch
From source
to
East Fork Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-2-1
Crabtree Creek
Burnett Branch
From source
to
East Fork Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7 2-48-2-2
Crabtree Creek
Long Branch
From source
to
East Fork Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-2-3
Crabtree Creek
Collis Branch (Laurel Lake)
From source
to
Long Branch
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-2-3-1
Roaring Branch
From source
to
Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-3
Crabtree Creek
Brushy Creek (Emerald Lake)
From source
to
Big
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-48-4
Crabtree Creek
Lilly Branch
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
07/01/73
7-2-49
River
Wolf Branch
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
09/01/74
7-2-50
River
Rebels Creek
From source
to
North Toe
C;Tr
07/01/73
7 2-51
River
South Toe River
From source
to
U.S. Hwy. 19E
B;Tr,ORW
05/01/87
7-2-52.-(1)
Hemphill Creek
From source
to
South Toe
C;Tr,ORW
05/01/87
7-2-52-2
River
Left Prong South Toe River
From source
to
South Toe
C;Tr,ORW
05/01/87
7-2-52-3
River
55

FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream Subbasin Stream Index Number Map Number Class
Snowbird Creek
FRB05
5-57
D06SEB
C
Soapstone Branch
FRB01
6-33-2
F08SW7
C;Tr
Soapstone Branch
FRB02
6-58-1
F08NE4
C
Soapstone Branch
FRB06
7-2-59-2-2
C10SEB
C;Tr
Sodom Branch
FRB04
6-112-23
DOBNW7
C
Sodom Branch
FRB07
7-3-21-3-1
D09SW3
C
Sorrell Creek
FRB05
5-2-12-7
F07NE7
WS-III;Tr
South Cox Creek
FRBO6
7-2-63-7
D09NE1
C
South Fork Big Pine Creek
FRB04
6-108-1
D07SEB
C
South Fork Big Willow Creek
FRB02
6-46-1
FOBSE8
C;Tr
South Fork Cattail Creek
FRB07
7-3-9-1
D09SE6
WS-II;Tr,HQW
South Fork Flat Creek
FRB01
6-2-10-2
G07SW3
C;Tr
South Fork Hawk Branch
FRB07
7-3-27-2
D09NE4
C;Tr
South Fork Hoopers Creek
FRB02
6-57-19-1
F09NW5
C;Tr
South Fork Mills River
FRB03
6-54-3
F07SE3
WS-II;Tr,ORW
South Fork Mills River
FRB03
6-54-3-(17.5)
FOBSW3
WS-II;Tr,HQW
South Fork Upper Creek
FRB06
7-2-52-7
E09NE3
C;Tr,ORW
South Hominy Creek
FRB02
6-76-5
F07NE3
C;Tr
South Prong Glady Fork
FRBO1
6-6-7-1
G07SE6
C;Tr
South Prong Little Pine Creek
FRB04
6-104-1
E07NE2
C
South Prong Little River
FRBO1
6-38-3
G08NWB
C;Tr
South Prong Shining Creek
FRB05
5-3-5-1
F07SE1
WS-III;Tr,HQW
South Pron Turkey Creek
FR803
6-34-20-2
F08SW4
WS-V,B;Tr
South Toe River
FRB06
7-2-52-IL
EIDNWl
B; Tr,ORWI
South Toe River
FRB06
7-2-52 (30.5)
Dl0NW8
_ C;Tr
turkey Creek
FRB02
6-92-13-2
E07SE3
C
Spain Branch
FRB02
6-60-2
FOBNEI
C
Spanish Oak Branch
FRBO1
6-16-11
G07NE3
C;Tr,HQW
Spencer Branch
FRB03
6-54-2-3-1
FOBNWS
WS-I;HQW
Spillcorn Creek
FRB04
6-112-21
DO8NW6
C;Tr
Spivey Creek
FRBO6
7-14-1
C09SW4
B
Spooks Branch
FRB02
6-82-5
EOBNE9
C
Spring Creek
FRB04
6-118-(1)
E07NW6
C;Tr
Spring Creek
FRB04
6-118-(27)
D07NE7
C
Spring Creek
FRB06
7-2-64-6
C10NW7
C;Tr
Spring Mountain Branch
FRB02
6-57-2
E09SE4
C;Tr
Sprinkle Branch
FRB04
6-106-3
D08SW2
C
Sprinkle Creek
FR004
6-96-10-2-3
D08NE8
WS-II;HQW
Sprinkler Branch
FRB04
6-96-16-2-4
D08SE1
C
Sprouse Branch
FRB04
6-96-19-1
DO8SE7
C
Spruce Fork
FRB02
6-78-15-7
E09NW9
C
Squirrel Branch
FRB04
6-118-24
D07SE1
C
Squirrel Creek
FR506
7-2-14
C11SW4
WS-V;Tr
Stagger Weed Creek
FRBO6
7-2-59 1-1
D10NE2
C;Tr
Staire Branch
FRB04
6-96-1-2-1
E09NE1
WS-II;Tr,HQW
Stamey Cove Branch
FRB05
5-5
E07SE7
WS-III
Stanfield Branch
FRB02
6-88-4-2
E08NE2
C
Stanley Branch
FRB02
6-88-4-1
D08SEB
C
Star Branch
FRBO6
7-2-63-4
D09NE5
C
Starens Branch
FRB03
6-34-18
FOBSW4
B;Tr
Station Branch
FRB04
6-106-9
DOSSWS
C
Steel Creek
FRS01
6-38-2
GOBNWB
C;Tr
Steestachee Branch
FRB05
5-16-7-7
F06NE9
WS-I;HQW
Stepp Branch
FRB02
6-78-12
E09SE1
C
Page 29 of 33

6A)IN PialA zVrD
Chapter 6 -
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06
Includes North and South Toe Rivers and Nolichuckv River
6.1 Water Quality Overview
Subbasin 04-03-06 at a Glance
Total area: 466
Land area: 465
Water area: 1
1990 Est. Pop.: 29,806 people
Pop. Density: 64 persons/mi'
Land Cover (%)
Forest/ Wetland:
87%
Surface Water:
<1%
Urban:
<1%
Cultivated Crop:
<1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 11%
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting:
555.7 miles
Partially Supporting:
0.0 miles
Not Supporting.
0.0 miles
Not Rated:
166.5 miles
Much of the land in this subbasin is within the Pisgah
National Forest, although there is scattered agricultural
and industrial activities throughout the subbasin. The
largest community is the Town of Spruce Pine, near the
Blue Ridge Parkway. A map of this subbasin, including
water quality sampling locations, is presented in Figure B-
9. Overall biological ratings are presented in Table B-6.
Ambient water quality data have been collected at five
locations in this subbasin: two sites each on the North
Toe River and the South Toe River, and one site on the
Nolichucky River. The data does not indicate any
concerns or significant changes since 1992.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples have been collected at
23 sites in this subbasin since 1983. In the seven sites that
were sampled in 1997, four sites were given an Excellent
rating and three were rated Good. The Nolichucky River
and two sites on the North Toe River have shown steady
improvements in water quality since the mid-1980s. Only
Big Rock Creek, a large tributary in northern Mitchell
County had a decline in rating (from Excellent to Good).
The site is in an area of agricultural land use, which may
be affecting this site.
The South Toe River is classified as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). The Excellent
ratings achieved at the Nolichucky River site in Yancey County and the North Toe River site in
Avery County could make these waters draining to these sites eligible for reclassification to High
Quality Waters (HQW).
Fish community data was collected from five sites in this subbasin in 1997. One site (Big
Crabtree Creek) was also assessed with benthos; the other fish community collections were from
sites that had not been previously assessed.
Of the 23 permitted dischargers in this subbasin, only 4 are major dischargers (>0.5 MGD). Six
mining companies and the Spruce Pine WWTP currently monitor effluent toxicity under their
NPDES permit.
Section B: Chapter 6 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06

Table B-6 Basinwide Biological Sites in French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 (1997)°
Site #
Stream
County
Road
Rating
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1
Nolichucky River
Yancey
SR 1321
Excellent
B-3
North Toe River
Avery
US 19E
Excellent
B-7
North Toe River
Mitchell
SR 1162
Good
B-12
North Toe River
Yancey
SR 1314
Good
B-16
Big Crabtree Creek
Mitchell
US 19E
Excellent
B-22
South Toe River
Yancey
SR 1167
Excellent
B-23
Big Rock Creek
Mitchell
NC 197
Good
Fish Community
F-1
North Toe River
Avery
SR 1121
Not Rated*
F-2
Big Crabtree Creek
Mitchell
SR 1002
Not Rated*
F-3
Cane Creek
Mitchell
SR 1211
Not Rated*
F-4
Jacks Creek
Yancey
SR 1337
Not Rated*
F-5
Pigeonroost Creek
Mitchell
SR 1349
Not Rated*
* Refer to Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on fish community ratings
* Locations of ambient monitoring stations can be found in Section A, Table A-25
For more detailed information on water quality in this subbasin, refer to the Basinwide
Assessment Report — French Broad River Basin — November 1998, available from the DWQ
Environmental Sciences Branch at [phone].
6.2 Prior Basinwide Plan Recommendations (1995) and Achievements
6.2.1 Impaired Waters
There were no streams identified as impaired in this subbasin in the 1995 French Broad River
Basinwide Plan.
6.3 Current Priority Issues and Recommendations
6.3.1 Monitored Impaired Waters
There are no waters currently rated as impaired in this subbasin.
6.3.2 303(d) Listed Waters
Only Right Fork Cane Creek is on the state's year 2000 (not yet EPA approved) 303(d) list for
this subbasin. Right Fork Cane Creek was previously rated based on evaluated information. Use
support methodology has been improved, and only monitored data are now used in use support
determinations (see Appendix III). However, this stream is required to remain on the 303(d) list
Section B: Chapter 6 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 109

until sampling is conducted to assess current water quality conditions. Refer to Appendix IV for
more information on the state's 303(d) methodology and listing requirements.
6.3.3 Other Issues and Recommendations
The following surface water segments are rated as fully supporting using recent DWQ
monitoring data. However, these data revealed some impacts to water quality. Although no
action is required for these surface waters, continued monitoring is recommended. Enforcement
of sediment and erosion control laws will help to reduce impacts on these streams. DWQ
encourages the use of voluntary measures to prevent water quality degradation. Education on
local water quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to
promote restoration efforts. For information on water quality education programs and nonpoint
source agency contacts, see Appendix VI.
The North Toe River (32.5 miles from Grassy Creek to the South Toe River) has been sampled
by DWQ since 1984. Prior to 1997, this site historically received a Poor to Good -Fair benthic
rating. An improvement in the benthic macroinvertebrate community resulted in a Good
bioclassification in 1997. This station may be affected by runoff from the Town of Spruce Pine
and effluent from 5 dischargers, including 4 mine processors. Most of the failed discharger
toxicity tests were during 1986 and 1987, the years with Fair bioclassifications. Since 1989, only
occasional non-consecutive fails have occurred at the mine processors. The Spruce Pine WWTP
has failed only one toxicity test (in 1996). Habitat degradation and turbidity are noted problem
parameters for this stretch of the river. DWQ will continue to monitor the river to assess possible -
impacts from the mine processors. The implementation of urban BMPs around the Town of
Spruce Pine is recommended to protect the river from future impacts of urban runoff. DWQ will
notify local agencies of water quality concerns for this creek and work with these various
agencies to conduct further monitoring and assist agency personnel with locating sources of
water quality protection funding.
DWQ is conducting a special study of water quality -on' the Nolichucky River to determine if the
river can be reclassified from a Class C water to a Class B water. The Class B classification is
intended to protect the primary recreational value of this river in addition to the Class C
protections. Refer to Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.2 for more information.
Section B: Chapter 6 — French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 110 Al

SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of nine (9) alternatives were examined for the treatment and disposal of
wastewater generated by the East Yancey Water and Sewer District in Yancey County,
North Carolina. Table IV-1 summarizes the results of the cost analyses that were
performed for the alternatives. , &P M O
WIG-\7 'C'
TABLE IJV-1 SUMMAROF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
►k� Phi0n11
Yr. Present 'ZO
Worth
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 1
Phase 2
20
Alternative No.
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
O&M Cost
O&M Cost
1 - No Action
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
2 - Connection to
Town of Burnsville
$5,624,700
$0
$96,600
$6,771,342
Sewer System
3A - Connection to
Mountain View
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Motel WWTP
3B - Connection to
Taylor Togs, Inc.
WWTP
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
4-Community
$3,866,000
$5,868,100
$75,000
$180,000
$11,094,830
Subsurface System
5 - River Discharge
$869,500
$1,028,600
$70,000
$167,000
$3,602,891
6 - Drip Irrigation
$2,780,300
$3,826,900
$82,000
$190,000
$8,285,460
7 - Spray Irrigation
$2,749,500
$3,866,550
$70,000
$170,000
$8,067,205
8 - Reuse
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF-Not Feasible
From the above table, Alternative No. 5 appears to be the most economical and
feasible alternative to provide wastewater treatment for the District over the twenty-year
planning period. Therefore, Alternative No. 5 is the recommended alternative for treating
the wastewater that is generated from the East Yancey Water and Sewer District.
�JQcovrl� 60A
50
g1irlsov
6�ggjn
3141 b zbn
IS
NF

RE: East Yancey Water & Sewer; NCO087891
a
Subject: RE: East Yancey Water & Sewer; NCO087891
From: "Mike Apke" <mapke @ mcgillengineers. com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:35:57 -0400
To: "'Tom Belnick"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Harry Buckner (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, "Danny Bridges (E-mail)"
<danny @mcgillengineers.com>
Hi Tom,
Thanks for listening to our concerns regarding the East Yancey NPDES permit
over the phone this afternoon. I think we had a very productive
conversation. As we discussed, attached is a word document showing the
revised flows in Table II-3 of the report if you take out the OMC flows
completely. As a reminder, we would also like to obtain speculative limits
for an expansion to 400,000 GPD if the initial permit is issued in the
130,000 GPD range.
If you need any additional information, please let me know. I look forward
to your call on Friday.
Thanks again,
Mike Apke
McGill Associates
-----Original Message -----
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:56 PM
To: Mike Apke
Subject: East Yancey Water & Sewer; NCO087891
Hi Mike- Just wanted to acknowledge receipt on 4/20/04 of your
resubmittal for the East Yancey W&S NPDES application. I should have
time later this week to review it again.
Mike Apke wrote:
Hi Tom,
We are about ready to resubmit the NPDES permit application package to you
for the East Yancey Water and Sewer District (NC0087891) that was returned
last month. Do we need to resubmit 3 copies of the EAA and 3 copies of the
permit application? After re -calculating the flows based on our telephone
conversation, we will still be asking for a discharge permit for 400,000
GPD, which is what the original application was for.
1 of 2 5/14/2004 4:21 PM

RE: Rest Yancey Water & Sewer; N00087891
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Mike Apke
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti -virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti -virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.679 / Virus Database: 441 - Release Date: 5/7/04
2 of 2 5/ 14/2004 4: 21 PM

ApgP2000 County Census Populations
WAKE
627,846'
WARREN
19,972 j
IWASHINGTON
13,723
°yATAUGA
f 42,695
[WAYNE
113,329
65,632
WILSON i
73,814
YADKIN
36,348
IYANCEY
17,774
1 9(f01
t
7-A
426,311
201,535
47.3 79,830
17,265
2,707
15.7 2,100
13,997
-274
-2.0 1,9361
36,9525,74315.5 3,516
104,6661
8,663
8.3
16,505
59,3931
6,239
10.5'
7,9211
66,061
7,753
11.7
10,265'
30,488 5,860 19.2 4,388
15,419 2,355 15.3 1,838
Pggb,fiPl crovd,.
28,575 51,255 150,280
2,155
-55
2,762
1,506'
430
-704
2,564
952
4,791
9,614
6,891
1,772
5,771
2,150'
4,089
7,440
2,825'
4,928
3,238
1,150
4,710
1,641
197
2,158
35.3
16.0
-5.0
13.0
1.7
6.9
7.5
15.4
14.0
Apr_2000
Apr_1990',
Growth
A90-A00 A90-A00
A90-A00
Net Migration
NORTH (Census)
(Census)
I Number %
Births Deaths
Nat. Gr.
Estimate %
CAROLINA 8,049,313
6,632,448
1,416,865 21.4011,054,045,
638,171
415,874.1,000,991
115.1
Note: April 1990 Populations include official corrections.
...go to top
(..go to 2000 Census Home Page)
Last Update: March 23, 2001
v ti-s =�o
F C� K ��
4 of 4 5/3/2004 1:18 PM

Aprill2000 County Census Populations
April 2000 County Census Populations
with growth and migration from April 1990
(...open/download as Excel Spreadsheet) (...go to 1990-2000 Growth Map)
..go to state
;Apr 2000 Apr_1990 1
Growth ' A90-A00 �A90-A00 A90-A00 ;
_...._.._._........ __ i
Net Migration
Counties
--
(Census) _ (Census) ; Number ; %
- - --_
Births Deaths Nat. Gr. Estimate %
- --. ._ .- - _..
ALAMANCE
130,800
108,213 3
22,587 w20.9
_ .
15,634 I Y 11,698
31936
I
18,651 17.2
ALEXANDER
33,603 127,54411
:
61059 22.0'
318941 274591
11435 ;
4,624116.8
[ALLEGHANY
10,677
9,590 ' 1,087 11.3 !
971 1,2631
-292
1,3791 14.4
JANSON ; 25,275
23,4741
1,801 7.7
33520 217341
786
1,015 3
ASHE f 24,384
22,209 ! 2,175 9.&1
2,424 2,701 1 -277 �
2,452 11.0
AVERY-
-� 167 ;
14,867
_--2,300 1 5.5
--
--1,829 1,667
162
211381 14.4
I'BEAUFORT
7-49-9581
42,283
2,675: 6.31
57882I 51161
721
119541 4.6
BERTIE19,773
20,388
615 3 0
2,794 2 526 `
7._........._
268
883 4 3
BLADEN
_.f 32,278
28,663
- 31615
-_ __ ....__....._............ _. _
4,307] 3,553
_.....
754
_-... _ _.....�_� _ .......'
2,861 10 0
BRUNSWICK 73,143
50,985
22,158 i43.511
71441 ( 598261
1,6151
20,543 40.3
[BUNCOMBE , 206,330 1
174,35711
31,973 18.3 - 23,473 r 20,219 1
3,254
28,719 6
IBURKE
89,148
75,740
13,408 j 17.7E 10,660 7,422 j
31238
10,170 13.4 j
ICABARRUS 131,0631
98,935
3� 2,128 132.51
15,7251 9,6711
6,054;1
26,074 62 4'
LDWELL
777415
709709
51_.._._9,989
r
3,349 ;
--_
�CAMDEN
..__.. ..
6,885
5,904 s
_6170619
981 i 16.6 i
..._61640`, ._.__..
716 621
95
^-31357 _..4.7',
886 1 15.0
�CARTERET
59,383
52,407
61976 13.3
6,438 I 5,660
778
61198 1 11 8'
CASWELL - - -
------- *--'--] 232501
20,662
21839 13.71
2 554 2 273
281 :*
21558 ; 12.4
ICATAWBA
141,685
11834121
23,273 19.7.
1799101 111251
61659
16,614 ( 14.0
CHATHAM
49,329
38,979'
10 350 26.6'
51850 4, 130 � -
1,720 :
- - 8, 630 ^-�-_ -
22.1
(CHEROKEEi
24,298
201170 !
4,128 20.5
_
21484 2,542
-58
42186 i 20.8
ICHOWAN
-r 149526
132506 '
1,020 7.6 j
11891 11,732
159
861 6.4
CLAY
81775.
77155
1, 620 ; 22.6
672 892
-220
19840125.7
jCLEVELAND
96,287
84,958
11,329 13.3
12,983 9,174
3,809
7,520 j 8.9
COLUMBUS
54,749
49,587E
51162 10.4
7,635 ( 5,740
1,895
3,267 6.6
jCRAVEN
91,436 '
812812 -
97624 11 8 '
15,641 71178
82463
12161 1.4
of 4 5/3/2004 1:18 PM