Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Basinwide water quality planning is a watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the
quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are prepared by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the
state. Each basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are prepared by
DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of
many agencies, local governments and stakeholders throughout the state.

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

ƒ Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
ƒ Identify and protect high value resource waters.
ƒ Protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies. This
includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding opportunities.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
ƒ Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

This document is the third five-year update of the Little Tennessee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. The first basinwide plan for the Little Tennessee River basin was completed in
1997 and the second in 2002. The format of this plan was revised in response to comments
received during the first and second planning cycles. DWQ replaced much of the general
information in the first two plans with more detailed information specific to the Little Tennessee
River basin. For this plan, a greater emphasis was placed on identifying water quality concerns
on the watershed level in order to facilitate protection and restoration efforts.

DWQ considered comments from the Western North Carolina Basinwide Planning Conference
held in the region and subsequent discussions with local resource agency staff and citizens
during draft plan development. This input will help guide continuing water quality management
activities throughout the river basin over the next five years.

Basin Overview

The Little Tennessee River basin is located within the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian
Mountains of western North Carolina (Figure iii & iv). It encompasses about 1,800 mi2 in
Swain, Macon, Clay, Graham, Cherokee, and Jackson counties. Much of the land within the
basin is federally owned (49 percent) and in the U.S. Forest Service’s Nantahala National Forest
(including the Joyce Kilmer/Slick Rock Wilderness Area) or the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (GSMNP). The basin also includes the Cherokee Indian Reservation. Subbasins
Executive Summary i
within the Little Tennessee River basin are described by a six-digit code (040401, 040402,
040403, 040404).

The North Carolina section of the Little Tennessee River is typical of many other mountain
rivers. The gradient is relatively steep in most reaches of the river and the substrate is dominated
by riffle habitats. The headwater reaches of the Little Tennessee River are located in Georgia.
Most tributaries are high gradient streams capable of supporting trout populations in the upper
reaches. Most of the basin is forested. However, lower reaches of many tributary catchments
are farmed or developed resulting in the increased potential for nonpoint source problems.

The Little Tennessee River is one of three major tributaries of Fontana Lake. The other two are
the Nantahala River and the Tuckasegee River. The Cheoah River, the fourth major tributary of
the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina, has its confluence with the river below Fontana
Lake.

The Little Tennessee River basin has one of the most outstanding and diverse aquatic
communities within the entire state. It is home to a variety of rare species, including crayfish,
mussels, fish, aquatic insects, and amphibians. The stretch of Little Tennessee River between
Franklin and Fontana Lake (25 miles) has a faunal diversity that rivals any in the state and
perhaps in the nation. Forestland continues to comprise a large majority of this basin, owing to
its relatively pristine condition. Although habitat fragmentation due to dam construction has
occurred throughout this system in North Carolina and Tennessee, it continues to support an
incredibly rich and diverse ecosystem.

Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on data collected from
September 1999 to August 2004. Maps of each subbasin are included in each of the subbasin
chapters. Each subbasin has its own characteristics and water quality concerns. These are
discussed in Chapters 1 - 4.

DWQ identifies the stressors of water quality impact as specifically as possible depending on the
amount of information available in a watershed. Most often, the source of the stressor is based
on the predominant land use in a watershed. In the Little Tennessee River basin, sediment,
habitat degradation, and fecal coliform bacteria contamination were the most commonly
identified possible stressors. Water quality decline can often be attributed to a combination of
many stressors that lead to habitat and water quality degradation. In some way, every person,
industry, landowner, and municipality in the basin impacts water quality. Therefore, every
resident of the basin must play a role in management strategies designed to protect and restore
the streams, lakes, and rivers of the basin.

Subbasin 04-04-01
The Little Tennessee River originates in Rabun County, Georgia and flows north into Macon
County, North Carolina. Subbasin 04-04-01 contains approximately 35 miles of the Little
Tennessee River from the state line to the Macon-Swain county line below Tellico Creek. The
river upstream of Lake Emory (Porters Bend Dam) has a very gradual gradient as it flows
through a broad valley. Below the lake, the gradient steepens and the flow quickens as it flows
through the Needmore Tract towards Fontana Reservoir. Major tributaries to the Little
Tennessee River in this subbasin include the Cullasaja River and Cartoogechaye Creek; smaller
tributaries include Middle, Coweeta, Cowee, Tessentee, Tellico, and Burningtown Creeks.

ii Executive Summary

Headwaters of many tributaries are protected within the Nantahala National Forest. Most
tributaries are high gradient streams capable of supporting trout populations in their upper
reaches. In the lower reaches, many of the watersheds are farmed or developed and the
tributaries are affected by erosion, scour, and sediment deposition. The Town of Franklin and a
portion of the Town of Highlands are the large population centers in this subbasin. Strip
development is focused along US 23/441 south from Franklin towards Dillard, Rabun Gap, and
Mountain City, GA. Low-density residential development is increasing throughout the
watershed. Despite the development, almost 90 percent of the subbasin is forested

There are 12 NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin. The largest is the Town of Franklin
WWTP, which discharges 1.65 MGD into the Little Tennessee River (Lake Emory). This
facility is required to monitor whole effluent toxicity.

Most sites monitored for benthic macroinvertebrates or fish were rated Good or Excellent; no
sites were rated Poor. Two sites rated Fair, including the Little Tennessee River near the NC-GA
state line and the upper reaches of the Cullasaja River near the Town of Highlands. The Little
Tennessee River has at times experienced elevated conductivity due to permitted dischargers in
Georgia, and the instream and riparian habitats continue to suffer from poor land use and
watershed practices. The upper Cullasaja River continues to be impaired by land use practices in
the Town of Highlands area. Streams that have consistently been rated Excellent were Coweeta,
Turtle Pond, Burningtown, and Tellico Creeks

The primary problem in this basin continues to be nonpoint source pollution, including inputs of
sediment and (or) nutrients. Although much of this subbasin is forested, development is often
located along the stream corridor. Farmland and new residential areas are typically found
adjacent to streams. The riparian zones at many of the sites in the subbasin are narrow, sparsely
vegetated with mature trees and mowed lawns, or in pasture. Many of the streams sampled were
more turbid than expected for mountain streams. Habitat degradation is attributable to the
combination of steep gradients, chronic erosion, and nonpoint source sedimentation. Many of
the sites would benefit from bank stabilization and stream restoration techniques.

Subbasin 04-04-02
This subbasin drains 1,021 square miles. The majority of the subbasin lies in Jackson and Swain
counties, but small portions of Graham and Macon counties are also included.

Fontana Lake is the largest impoundment in this region and the body of water to which all
streams in this subbasin flow. Fontana Lake/Reservoir, operated by the Tennessee Valley
Authority, is the result of damming the Little Tennessee River in the 1940’s near Fontana Village
on the Graham/Swain County line. Flood control and hydroelectric power generation are the
primary purposes for Fontana Lake, though recreational use is growing steadily.

The principle tributaries to the Little Tennessee River are the Oconaluftee River and the
Tuckasegee River. This subbasin contains over 1,390 miles of streams and rivers and 12,456
acres of lakes and ponds.

Much of the catchment to the north of the Little Tennessee River is within either the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park or the Cherokee Indian Qualla Boundary. Most streams on the
north side of the lake are in a roadless area and can only be reached by hiking trails or boat
Executive Summary iii
across Fontana Lake. Much of the remainder of this subbasin is included in the Nantahala
National Forest, although this does not preclude other land uses.

The largest towns in the subbasin are Bryson City, Cherokee, Cullowhee, and Sylva. The area
also contains some of the most pristine and some of the highest quality waters in the State. It
also contains some of the most famous trout streams in North Carolina, including Hazel Creek,
Forney Creek, Deep Creek and Noland Creek. Portions of Alarka Creek, the Tuckasegee River,
Caney Fork, and most of the Oconaluftee River catchments are classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW). Small streams, formally classified for water supply, have also been reclassified as
HQW: Whiterock, Wolf, Clingman’s, and Twentymile Creeks and Long, Jenkins, Dednan, and
Moore Spring Branches. The Tuckasegee River upstream of Tanassee Creek is classified as
Outstanding Resource Waters.

There are 25 NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin, but only three have permitted flows
greater than 0.5 MGD: the Tuckasegee Water & Sewer Authority (0.5 MGD to Scott Creek); the
Tuckasegee Water & Sewer Authority (1.5 MGD to the Tuckasegee River), and the Town of
Bryson City’s WWTP (0.6 MGD to the Tuckasegee River). Only the latter two facilities are
required to monitor whole effluent toxicity. See Section 2.3.1 for more information. For the
listing of NPDES permit holders, refer to Appendix V.

The primary problem in this basin continues to be nonpoint source pollution, including inputs of
sediment and (or) nutrients. Although much of this subbasin is forested, development is often
located along the stream corridor. Farmland and new residential areas are typically found
adjacent to streams, often with inadequate riparian buffer zones. Many of the sampled sites have
roads that run parallel to the stream leading to narrow riparian zones with frequent breaks.
Water quality was not a problem throughout most of this area, but there was evidence of habitat
problems. These included few pools, relatively uniform riffles and runs, and an embedded
substrate. These changes have been shown to have less effect on the benthic macroinvertebrates
than fish fauna.

Whereas actual water quality is the most important parameter for macroinvertebrates in mountain
streams, fishes are affected to a higher degree by habitat alterations (in addition to water quality),
especially; the lack of riparian shading of the stream, increased nutrient loads, lack of bank
stability, and silt accumulation of plunge pools and riffles. The lack of stream shading raises
water temperatures, excluding sensitive cold-water fishes such as trout. An increase in nutrient
loads causes a shift in species composition towards dominance by the central stoneroller and the
river chub. Silt accumulation, caused by unstable banks and overland runoff limits habitats in
riffles, resulting in a low number or complete lack of darters and sculpin.

Subbasin 04-04-03
This subbasin contains most of the Nantahala River catchment. Headwaters of the Nantahala
River are entirely within the Nantahala National Forest. The river, from its source to the
confluence with Roaring Fork, is classified ORW. Much of the land adjacent to this reach is
privately owned. The river and most tributaries are high gradient systems capable of supporting
wild trout populations.

The Nantahala River was impounded in 1942, creating Nantahala Lake. Additional flow is
diverted into the project from Whiteoak and Dicks Creek. Duke Energy acquired the
development in 1988. Flow is diverted to downstream generators at Beechertown, bypassing a
iv Executive Summary

seven-mile reach of the river prior to discharging back into the original channel above the
Nantahala Gorge. The regulated reach of the river below the powerhouse is very popular for
rafting and canoeing. Development has increased along the gorge corridor as it relates to the
recreational industry. Ninety six percent of the subbasin is forested.

There are two NPDES permitted dischargers in this subbasin: Macon County Schools-Nantahala
WWTP and the Nantahala Outdoor Center. No significant compliance problems were noted
during the most recent review period.

Subbasin 04-04-04
This subbasin contains the Cheoah River and all of its tributaries. Significant sections of most
tributary catchments are within the Nantahala National Forest and are minimally impacted.
These tributaries are typically high-gradient streams capable of supporting trout populations.
However, lower reaches of some tributaries and corridors along Tulula Creek, Sweetwater
Creek, Little Snowbird Creek, Yellow Creek, and the Cheoah River are not in the national forest.
Thus, they are more likely to be impacted by land disturbing activities. Tulula Creek flows
through the Town of Robbinsville, where the stream becomes the Cheoah River at its confluence
with Sweetwater Creek. Ninety four percent of the subbasin is forested.

Robbinsville is the only urban area in this subbasin. There are only three NPDES permitted
dischargers in this subbasin. The Robbinsville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), a minor
municipal discharger releases 0.63 MGD into Long Creek, a tributary of the Cheoah River. The
town’s water treatment plant discharges 0.1 MGD to Rock Creek, a headwater tributary to Long
Creek. Wide Creek Trout Sales has an unlimited discharge to Snowbird Creek, a tributary to
Lake Santeetlah. None of these facilities is required to monitor whole effluent toxicity.

The Cheoah River is dammed below Robbinsville to form Santeetlah Lake. Tapoco, Inc.
manages the flow in the river and in the impoundment to provide hydroelectric power for the
Aluminum Company of America. The de-watered tailwater reach is approximately nine river
miles in length prior to its confluence with the Little Tennessee River below Cheoah Dam.

The upper half of the Snowbird Creek watershed, along with several tributaries to Long Creek, is
classified High Quality Waters (HQW). Other portions of the Long Creek watershed (Town of
Robbinsville’s water supply) are classified WS-I, which are HQW by definition. Several other
streams would likely meet the criteria for reclassification to HQW or Outstanding Resource
Waters. Refer to Chapter 5 for further information. Additionally, the Cheoah River floodplain is
considered a significant natural heritage area by the state because of the rare and endangered
species it contains.

Use Support Summary

Use support assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this
basinwide plan. Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended use. Determining
how well a waterbody supports its use (use support rating) is an important method of interpreting
water quality data and assessing water quality.

Biological, chemical, and physical monitoring data collected between September 1999 and
August 2004 were used to assign use support ratings in the Little Tennessee River basin. A total
of 39.9 miles (5.4 percent) and 170.6 acres (1.4 percent) of stream are Impaired in the Little
Executive Summary v
Tennessee River basin. The impairments are associated with toxic impacts and impoundment.
Table i and Table ii present a summary of the Impaired waters and the associated stressors.
Figures i and ii present a summary of stressors and sources identified for all waters in the Little
Tennessee River Basin. Current status and recommendations for restoration of water quality for
each Impaired water are discussed in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 - 4). Maps showing the
current use support rating are also presented in each subbasin chapter.

Table i Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category and Subbasin in the Little Tennessee River
Basin
Subbasin 04-04-01 Subbasin 04-04-02 Subbasin 04-04-03 Subbasin 04-04-04
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life Recreation Aquatic
Life Recreation Aquatic
Life Recreation Aquatic
Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting 133.2 mi 35.9 mi 150.6 mi 26.5 mi 32.0 mi 3.5 mi 29.0 mi 1.4 mi
Impaired* 3.7 mi
(2.7%) 0.0 0.0
0.0
30.7 mi (54%)
170.6 ac (100%) 0.0 0.0 3.4 mi (1%) 0.0
Not Rated 2.1 mi
42.1 ac
0.0
0.0
5.3 mi
10,947.9 ac
0.0
0.0 1,380.2 ac 0.0 281.9 mi 0.0
Total 139.0 mi
42.1 ac
35.9 mi 155.9 mi
10,947.9 ac
57.2 mi
170.6 ac
32.0 mi
1,380.2 ac
3.5 mi
0.0 ac 314.3 mi 1.4 mi
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 9.5 mi 9.5 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 368.9 mi
11.6 ac
472.0 mi
53.7 ac
1,225.0 mi
1,508.8 ac
1,323.7 mi
12,286.1 ac
214.8 mi
0.0 ac
243.3 mi
1,380.2 ac 306.9 mi 619.7 mi
Total 368.9 mi
11.6 ac
472.0 mi
53.7 ac
1,234.5 mi
1,508.8 ac
1,333.2 mi
12,286.1 ac
214.8 mi
0.0 ac
243.3 mi
1,380.2 ac 306.9 mi 619.7 mi
Totals
All
Waters**
507.9 mi
53.7 ac
507.9 mi
53.7 ac
1,390.4 mi
12,456.7 ac
1,390.4 mi
12,456.7 ac
246.8 mi
1,380.2 ac
246.8 mi
1,380.2 ac 621.2 mi 621.1 mi
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.
** Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2002 revision of the Little
Tennessee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. In the previous plan, surface waters were rated
fully supporting (FS), partially supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was
used to identify waters that were meeting their designated use. Impaired waters were rated PS
and NS, depending on the degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters with no data or
those that had inconclusive data.

The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests that states no longer subdivide the Impaired
category. In agreement with this guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired
category and rates waters as Supporting (S), Impaired (I), Not Rated (NR), or No Data (ND).
These ratings refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life,
primary/secondary recreation) are being met. Detailed information on use support methodology
is provided in Appendix VIII.

vi Executive Summary

Table ii Summary of Impaired Waters in the Little Tennessee River Basin

Stream/
River Name*
Assessment Unit
Number (AU#) Subbasin Class Miles/
Acres Category Water Quality
Stressor/Source
Cullasaja River
(Ravenel Lake) 2-21-(0.5)a 04-04-01 WS-III Tr 3.7 mi Aquatic Life
Toxic impacts and habitat
degradation associated with
impoundment
Savannah Creek 2-79-36 04-04-02 C Tr 13.4 mi Recreation
Fecal coliform bacteria,
Turbidity and habitat
degradation associated with
agriculture
Scott Creek 2-79-39 04-04-02 C Tr 15.3 mi Recreation
Fecal coliform bacteria
associated with failing septic
systems, MS4 NPDES and
WWTP NPDES, turbidity and
habitat degradation associated
with impervious surfaces and
construction
Tuckasegee River 2-79-(35.5)a,
2-79-(38) 04-04-02 C Tr 2.1 mi Recreation Fecal coliform bacteria
Tuckasegee River
Arm of Fontana Lake 2-(78)a 04-04-02 C 170.6 ac Recreation Fecal coliform bacteria and
sediment
Cheoah River 2-190-(22)a 04-04-04 C Tr 3.4 mi Aquatic Life Habitat degradation associated
with impoundment

Use Support Category Units Total Impaired
Length/Acres
Percent of Impaired
Monitored Waters
Aquatic Life Freshwater miles 9.2 mi 1.4
Recreation Freshwater miles/acres 30.7 mi/170.6 ac 31.3/100
Fish Consumption Freshwater miles 0.0 0.0
Water Supply Freshwater miles 0.0 0.0

Use support methods were developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk through
the development of use support ratings for five categories: aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation, shellfish harvesting, and water supply. These categories are tied to the uses
associated with the primary classifications applied to North Carolina rivers, streams, and lakes.
A full description of the classifications is available in the DWQ document titled Classifications
and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. This document is
available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

Executive Summary vii
Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Protection

Several streams in the Little Tennessee River basin
appear on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and as
urbanization continues the risk of impairment
increases. Balancing economic growth and water
quality protection will be a tremendous challenge.
Point source impacts on surface waters can be
measured and addressed through the basinwide
planning process and do not represent the greatest
threat to water quality in the basin.
Cumulative Effects
While any one activity may not
have a dramatic effect on water
quality, the cumulative effect of
land use activities in a watershed
can have a severe and long-lasting
impact.

The cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution are the primary threat to water quality and
aquatic habitat in the Little Tennessee River basin. Nonpoint source pollution issues can be
identified through the basinwide plan, but actions to address these impacts must be taken at the
local government level. Such actions should include:

• Develop and enforce local erosion control ordinances
• Require stormwater best management practices for existing and new development
• Develop and enforce buffer ordinances
• Conduct comprehensive land use planning that assesses and reduces the impact of
development on natural resources.

This basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that are
underway within the basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be
built. Individual homeowners can participate in resource protection by doing the following on
their own properties.

• To decrease polluted runoff from paved surfaces, households can develop
alternatives to areas traditionally covered by impervious surfaces. Porous pavement
materials are available for driveways and sidewalks, and native vegetation and mulch
can replace high maintenance grass lawns.
• Homeowners can use fertilizers sparingly and sweep driveways, sidewalks, and roads
instead of using a hose.
• Instead of disposing of yard waste, use the materials to start a compost pile.
• Learn to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the garden and on the lawn to
reduce dependence on harmful pesticides.
• Pick up after pets.
• Use, store, and dispose of chemicals properly.
• Drivers should check their cars for leaks and recycle their motor oil and antifreeze
when these fluids are changed.
• Drivers can also avoid impacts from car wash runoff (e.g., detergents, grime, etc.) by
using car wash facilities that do not generate runoff.
• Households served by septic systems should have them professionally inspected and
pumped every 3 to 5 years. They should also practice water conservation measures
to extend the life of their septic systems.
• Support local government watershed planning efforts and ordinance development.
viii Executive Summary

Impacts from Steep Slope Disturbance
Dramatic elevation changes and steep slopes define mountain topography. Building sites
perched along mountainsides provide access to unparalleled vistas and are a major incentive for
development. However, construction on steep slopes presents a variety of risks to the
environment and human safety.

Poorly controlled erosion and sediment from steep slope disturbance negatively impact water
quality, hydrology, aquatic habitat, and can threaten human safety and welfare. Soil types,
geology, weather patterns, natural slope, surrounding uses, historic uses, and other factors all
contribute to unstable slopes. Improper grading practices disrupt natural stormwater runoff
patterns and result in poor drainage, high runoff velocities, and increased peak flows during
storm events. There is an inherent element of instability in all slopes and those who choose to
undertake grading and/or construction activities should be responsible for adequate site
assessment, planning, designing, and construction of reasonably safe and stable artificial slopes.

Local communities also have a role in reducing impacts from steep slope development. These
impacts can also be addressed through the implementation of city and/or county land use and
sediment and erosion control plans. Land use plans are a non-regulatory approach to protect
water quality, natural resources and sensitive areas. In the planning process, a community
gathers data and public input to guide future development by establishing long-range goals for
the local community over a ten- to twenty-year period. They can also help control the rate of
development, growth patterns and conserve open space throughout the community. Land use
plans examine the relationship between land uses and other areas of interest including quality-of-
life, transportation, recreation, infrastructure and natural resource protection (Jolley, 2003).

Population Growth and Changes in Land Use
The Little Tennessee River basin encompasses
all or portions of six counties and nine
municipalities. In 2000, the overall
population in the basin (based on the percent
of the county land area in the basin) was
79,493. The most populated areas are located
in and around Webster, Highlands, Sylva,
Dillsboro and Santeetlah.
Little Tennessee River Basin Statistics
(North Carolina Portion)

Total Area: 1,797 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 2,565 mi
No. of Counties: 6
No. of Municipalities: 9
No. of Subbasins: 4
Population (2000): 116,966*
Pop. Density (2000): 44 persons/sq. mile*

Water Quality Statistics

Aquatic Life
Percent Monitored Streams: 23.2% mi, 89.1% ac
Percent Supporting: 53.5% mi
Percent Impaired: 1.4% mi

Recreation
Percent Monitored Streams: 3.5% mi, 1.2% ac
Percent Supporting: 68.7% mi
Percent Impaired: 31.3% mi, 100% ac

* Estimated based on % of county land area that is
partially or entirely within the basin, not the entire
county population.

Between 1990 and 2000, county populations
increased by over 20,000 people. The fastest
growing county was Macon (21.2 percent
increase), followed by Jackson (19.0 percent
increase). County populations are expected to
grow by another 34,000 people (22.5 percent)
by 2020. This would result in a total
population of over 150,000 people in the six
counties partially or entirely contained within
the Little Tennessee River basin. Population
growth trends and the accompanying impacts
to water quality are discussed in Chapters 6
and 7.

Executive Summary ix
Expanding populations are typically characterized by a loss of natural areas and an increase in
impervious surface. Based on the current land cover information provided by the National
Resources Inventory (USDA-NRCS, 2001), there was a 77.5 percent decrease (10,700 acres) in
cultivated cropland in the Little Tennessee River basin from 1982 to 1997. Uncultivated
cropland increased by nearly 89.6 percent (6,900 acres). Pasture land decreased by 31.2 percent
(11,500 acres). Urban and built-up areas also increased by nearly 141 percent (30,200 acres).
Land use cover tables and statistics are included in Appendix III.

Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and runoff
of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater. The
impacts on rivers, lakes, and streams can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not
controlled. Thus, just as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is lost
(Orr and Stuart, 2000).

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surfaces (e.g.,
buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.) instead of absorbing into the soil. In some cases, stormwater
runoff drains directly into streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. In other cases, particularly in
urbanized areas, stormwater drains into streets and manmade drainage systems consisting of
inlets and underground pipes, commonly referred to as a storm sewer system. Stormwater runoff
is a primary carrier of nonpoint source pollution in both urbanized and rural areas. The impact of
stormwater runoff is particularly severe in developing areas where recently graded lands are
highly susceptible to erosion. Water quality impacts are also evident in urbanized areas where
stormwater runoff is increased by impervious surfaces and is rapidly channeled through ditches
or curb and gutter systems into nearby streams. For more information on stormwater as it relates
to growth and development, refer to Chapter 7.

There are several different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs may affect communities in the Little Tennessee River basin. The goal of DWQ
stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering
the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to accomplish this goal by
controlling the source(s) of pollution. For more information on statewide stormwater programs,
refer to Chapter 8.

Septic Systems and Straight Pipes
In the Little Tennessee River basin, wastewater from many households is not treated at a
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Instead, it is treated on-site through the use of permitted
septic systems. However, wastewater from some homes illegally discharges directly into streams
through what is known as a “straight pipe”. In some cases, wastewater can also enter streams
through failing septic systems. In highly susceptible areas, wastewater from failing septic
systems or straight pipes can contaminate a drinking water supply or recreational waters with
nutrients, disease pathogens (such as fecal coliform bacteria), and endocrine disturbing
chemicals.

In order to protect human health and maintain water quality, straight pipes must be eliminated
and failing septic systems should be repaired. The NC Wastewater Discharge Elimination
(WaDE) Program is actively helping to identify and remove straight pipes (and failing septic
systems) in the western portion of North Carolina. This program uses door-to-door surveys to
locate straight pipes and failing septic systems, and offers deferred loans or grants to
x Executive Summary

homeowners who have to eliminate the straight pipes by installing a septic system. Refer to
Chapter 8 for more information on septic systems and straight pipes.

Water Quality Stressors
Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and
benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Certain stressors are
associated with specific use support categories. Whenever possible, water quality stressors are
identified for Impaired waters as well as waters with notable impacts. For example, in the
recreation category, violations of the fecal coliform bacteria standard are the reason for
impairment; therefore, fecal coliform bacteria is the stressor for Impaired waters in this category.
A discussion of the two most significant stressors in the Little Tennessee is presented below and
a summary of all stressors and their sources is presented in Figures i & ii.

Figure i Stressors Identified for Streams in the Little Tennessee River Basin

0
50
100
150
200
250
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Habitat Degradation
Lack of Organic Material
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Low pH
Nutrie nt Im
pacts
Sedim
ent
Total Suspended S
olids
Toxic Im
pacts
Turbidity
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s

&

A
c
r
e
s
Stream Miles Acres

Executive Summary xi
Figure ii Sources of Stressors Identified in the Little Tennessee River Basin
F rm
0
50
100
150
200
WWTP
NPDES
MS4 NPDES Agriculture Land Clearing Impervious
Surface
Road
Construction
Unknown Impoundment Failing Septic
Systems
Construction
Miles
ecal Colifo Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans as well as
ns
he presence of disease-causing bacteria tends to affect humans more than aquatic creatures.

n
e
abitat Degradation
other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria do not actually pose a
direct danger to people or animals. However, where fecal coliform are present, disease-causing
bacteria may also be present and water that is polluted by human or animal waste can harbor
other pathogens that may threaten human health. Pathogens associated with fecal coliform
bacteria can cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid fever in humans. Some pathoge
can also cause infection in open wounds.

T
High levels of fecal coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage or animal wastes that
could make water unsafe for human contact (swimming). Fecal coliform bacteria and other
potential pathogens associated with waste from warm-blooded animals are not harmful to fish
and aquatic insects. However, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria may indicate contaminatio
that increases the risk of contact with harmful pathogens in surface waters. Most new stream
impairments that were identified in the Little Tennessee during this assessment period were du
to fecal coliform bacteria contamination. Over 30 miles of stream are now impaired for
recreation in this basin. These streams are discussed in Chapter 2.

H
River basin, nearly 200 stream miles are suffering from at least one form
ediment fills in pools and embeds or covers riffle habitat areas. Sediment may come from

In the Little Tennessee
of habitat degradation. Quantifying the amount of habitat degradation is very difficult in most
cases. The most common stressors associated with physical habitat degradation are sediment,
lack of organic material and stream channelization.

S
disturbed land in the watershed via runoff through storm sewers, ditches and roads or may be
from stream banks that are eroded during high flow events. In many disturbed and developed
xii Executive Summary

watersheds, increased surface runoff becomes more common as impervious surfaces prevent
infiltration of rain into the ground. In addition to the loss of instream habitat as noted above,
sediment also can alter fish feeding and damage gills. During high flow events, suspended
sediment can scour habitats as well as fish and insects.

Organic materials (wood and leaf) in streams are important as habitat and as a food source. A
s
hannelized streams are characterized by having little habitat diversity. Straightened stream
les
res to be
are
ic
o assess instream habitat degradation requires extensive technical and monetary resources.

f
WQ recommends the use of careful planning to maintain riparian buffers and the use of good
ement

ther chemical and biological factors can also impact water quality. These include excess algal
ocal Involvement
and agencies are able to combine professional expertise and local knowledge
ple in
ies and
lack of organic habitat can reduce the diversity of benthic and fish species. A lack of organic
habitat may also result from reduced riparian area quality associated with unstable stream bank
and a lack of stream shading. Organic material in streams can form temporary dams that slow
waters during high flows, reducing stream bank erosion and providing increased habitat.

C
channels increase water velocity during rain events and prevent the formation of pools and riff
seen in naturally sinuous streams. Streams can become channelized due to watershed
development, where streams are moved and straightened to allow for roads and structu
built. This type of channelization is most common in highly urbanized areas where the streams
are usually a stormwater conveyance. Ditching to drain land for forestry, agriculture and
development also channelizes streams. These streams are often maintained as ditches and
not allowed to recover to a more natural state. Channelization can also occur by the force of
large amounts of water running off the land. These high flows overrun natural bends and the
sediment from eroded stream banks is deposited in the stream, resulting in low diversity aquat
habitats. These streams are most closely associated with urbanized and urbanizing areas.

T
Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed to
prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been impacted by
activities that caused habitat degradation. As point-source discharges become less of a source o
water quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation need
to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.

D
land use management practices during all land disturbing activities to prevent habitat
degradation. In addition, watersheds that are being developed need to maintain manag
practices for long periods to prevent excessive runoff that is the ultimate source of the habitat
degradation noted above. Streams with noted habitat degradation are discussed in the subbasin
chapters (Chapters 1-4).

O
growth, low dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus levels, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Chapter 6 provides definitions and recommendations for reducing impacts associated with
physical, chemical, and biological factors.

L
Local organizations
not present at the state and federal level. This allows groups to holistically understand the
challenges and opportunities of local water quality concerns. Involving a wide array of peo
water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests and encourages
others to become involved and invested in these projects. Working in cooperation across
jurisdictional boundaries and agency lines opens the door to additional funding opportunit
Executive Summary xiii
eases the difficulty of generating matching or leveraged funds. This could potentially allow local
entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because funding sources are
diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized
project, the better the chances for success.

the
he collaboration of local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ applauds the
ive
ater Quality Standards and Classifications
ater quality is generally good and even excellent.
the Little Tennessee River basin, several municipalities and smaller outlying communities are
a
n
f water
griculture and Water Quality
e and/or herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination, and

several streams throughout the basin, DWQ noted evidence and observed several areas where
e
s in
T
foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to protect water
quality. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperat
strategies throughout the state. Several local watershed projects are highlighted throughout the
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-4). Chapter 13 also examines the local and federal initiatives
underway in the Little Tennessee River basin.

W
Throughout the Little Tennessee River basin, w
Chapter 5 discusses water quality standards and classifications and includes maps showing the
designated Water Supply (WS) watersheds, High Quality Waters (HQW), and Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW).

In
being pressured to expand. This often involves construction and/or development in areas of
pristine waters along several tributaries of the Little Tennessee, Tuckasegee, and the Cullasaj
Rivers. HQW and ORW are supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater classificatio
placed on a waterbody. Special management strategies are often associated with the
supplemental HQW and ORW classification and are intended to prevent degradation o
quality below present levels from point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

A
Excess nutrient loading, pesticid
sedimentation are often associated with agricultural activities, and all can impact water quality.
Chapter 9 provides information related to agricultural activities in the Little Tennessee River
basin and also identifies funding opportunities for best management practices (BMP). During
this assessment period, the North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) funded
BMP projects totaling $199,407 (Table iii). BMPs included planned systems for reducing soil
erosion and nutrient runoff, planned systems for protecting streams and streambanks, and the
installation of planned systems to manage liquid and solid waste to prevent or minimize
degradation of soil and water resources.

In
livestock had direct, easy access to the streams. Fencing, or livestock exclusion, prevents
livestock from entering a stream and provides an area of vegetative cover, which can secur
streambanks, lower stream velocities, trap suspended sediments, and decrease downgradient
erosion. Livestock exclusion is also effective in reducing nutrient, bacteria, and sediment load
a stream (Line and Jennings, 2002). For more information on either of these agricultural funding
opportunities, see Chapter 9.

xiv Executive Summary

Table iii Summary of NCACSP projects in the Little Tennessee River Basin

Purpose of BMP
Erosion Reduction1 Sediment Reduction2 Stream Protection3 Animal Waste4
Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($)
Total
Cost ($)
32.2 acres 4,203 5.51 acres 11,805 20 units 21,068 3 units 35,133 Subbasin
04-04-01 5,485 ft.5,580 65,984
14.1 acres 1,878 1 unit 1,089 630 units 61,950 6 units 37,446 Subbasin
04-04-02 230 ft. 392 5,321 ft.6,417 109,172
10 acres 2,250 Subbasin
04-04-03 2,250
15 units 20,806 Subbasin
04-04-04 814 ft.1,195 22,001

1 Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Field
2 Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Field
3 Stream Protection from Animals
4 Proper Animal Waste Management
Total Benefits
Subbasin
Soil Saved
(tons)
(N)itrogen
Saved
(lb.)
(P)hosph-
orous
Saved
(lb.)
Waste-N
Saved
(lb.)
Waste-P
Saved
(lb.)
03-02-01 3,158 2,606 142 1,683 332
03-02-02 4,174.34 2,681.32 326.30 5,307.70 3,226.60
03-02-03 70 38 5
03-02-04 20.60 90 8

* The North Carolina Agricultural Nutrient Assessment Tool (NCANAT) contains two field-scale assessment
tools: the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) and the Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT).
NCANAT is a product of the cooperative effort between the NC State University, NC Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services, USDA-NRCS and the NCDENR. The tool consists of a function that allows comparisons to be
made before and after BMPs are installed. Gains and losses of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment due to BMP
implementation can be computed. The DSWC has adopted this program to calculate these losses for the NCACSP
reporting requirements.

Forestry and Water Quality
Based on land cover information provided by the North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database
(CGIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), 93 percent (358,300 acres) of land in the Little Tennessee River basin consists of
forestland. There was about 4 stream miles (AU# 2-23) that were noted or identified by stressors
associated with land clearing or forestry activities. Where forest harvesting is identified as a
source of water quality impact, DWQ will notify the Division of Forest Resources to investigate
for potential violations and the enforcement of management strategies. Chapter 10 presents more
information related to the impacts of forestry on water quality.

Water Resources
Chapter 11 presents information related to minimum streamflow requirements, interbasin
transfers, and the impact to water quality during drought conditions. The chapter also includes
the federal cataloging units, or hydrologic units, as they relate to the state subbasin boundaries.

Executive Summary xv
Natural Resources
The Little Tennessee River basin has one of the most outstanding and diverse aquatic
communities within the entire state. It is home to a variety of rare species, including crayfish,
mussels, fish, aquatic insects, and amphibians. The stretch of Little Tennessee River between
Franklin and Fontana Lake (25 miles) has a faunal diversity that rivals any in the state and
perhaps in the nation. Forestland continues to comprise a large majority of this basin, owing to
its relatively pristine condition. Although habitat fragmentation due to dam construction has
occurred throughout this system in North Carolina and Tennessee, it continues to support an
incredibly rich and diverse ecosystem. Chapter 12 presents information related to the ecological
significance of the basin and identifies endangered and threatened species, significant natural
areas and aquatic habitats, and public lands that are locally significant.
xvi Executive Summary
GA
TN
KY
SC
VA
NC
AL
!.
!.
!.
Robbinsville
Sylva
Franklin
N
a
n
tahala
R
i
v
er
L
i
ttle
Tennessee River
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
T E N NE S S E E
Highlands
Cullasaja R
i
v
e
r
Figure iii General Map of the Entire Little Tennessee River Basin
0 8 16 24 324
Miles
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
June 30, 2006*Data provided by National Atlas
®
Littl
e

Ten
n
essee River
Tellico River
Tuckasegee River
Che
o
a
h
River
Tennessee River Basin
Legend
!.Municipalities
State Line
Little Tennessee River Basin
Hydrology
Little Tennessee River
Cartoogechaye Creek
Little Tennessee River
F orn e y C r e e k
Noland Creek
Tuckasegee River Scott Creek
Tuckasegee River
C aney Fork
N
a
n
t
a
h
a
la

R
i
v
e
r
N
a
nta
h
ala Riv
er
Santeetlah
Lake
C
h
e
o
a
h
River
S n o w bird s C r e e k
Nantahala
Lake Thorpe
Lake
CLAY
CHEROKEE
MACON
GRAHAM
SWAIN
JACKSON
Cullasaja Riv
e
r
Franklin
Highlands
Sylva
Bryson City
WebsterRobbinsville
Forest Hills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah
Figure iv General Map of the Little Tennessee River Basin in North Carolina
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 15, 2006 606123
Miles
®
Fontana
Lake