Chapter 2

Chapter 2
Little Tennessee River Subbasin 04-04-02
Including: The Tuckasegee River Watershed and Fontana Lake

2.1 Subbasin Overview

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 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.
Subbasin 04-04-02 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 1,021 mi2
Land area: 998 mi2
Water area: 23 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 42,815 people
Pop. Density: 24 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 93.5%
Surface Water: 2.3%
Urban: 0.6%
Cultivated Crop: 0.3%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 3.3%

Counties
Jackson, Swain and Graham
Municipalities
Dillsboro, Sylva, Webster, Forest Hills
and Bryson City
Monitored Streams Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 155.9 mi/10,947.9 ac
Total Supporting: 150.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 5.3 mi/10,947.9 ac

Recreation
Total Streams: 57.2 mi/170.6 ac
Total Supporting: 26.5 mi
Total Impaired: 30.7 mi/170.6 ac
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 35
"ó
"ó"ó"ó
"ó
"ó
"ó
"ó
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
[¡
po
po
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à !(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à!(à
!(à!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à
!(à !(à!(à
!(à
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[
[[
[[[[[
[[[[
[[[[
[[
[
GB11
GB13
GB14 GB16
GB17
GB19GB20
GB23GB24
GB26
GB27GB28
GB29
GB38
GF13
GF21
GF23
GF24GF26
GL10
GL11
GL12
GL16
GL19 GL18GL20
GL17
GL24
GL23
GL22
GB1
GB2 GB3
GB4 GB5
GB6 GB7
GF1
GF2
GF4
GF7
GL9
GL3
GL5
GL6
GL4
GL8
GL7
GA4
GA5
Little Tennessee River
Tellico Cr eek C owee Creek
R a b b it C r e e k
Ellijay Creek
W aln ut C re e k
U S-6 4
Little Tennessee River
F o rn e y C re e k
Noland Creek
O c o n alu fte e Riv e r
Alarka Creek
Co
n
l
e
y

C
r
ee
k
Tuckasegee River
Savannah Creek
Cullowhee Creek
S cott Creek
Wolf Creek
Tuckasegee River
W
e
s
t
F
o
r
k

T
u
c
k
a
s
e
g
e
e

R
i
v
e
r
C a n e y F ork
N
C-1
0
7
US-19
SWAIN
Yellow Creek
S w e et w ater C re ek Bryson City
Dillsboro
Webster
Sylva
Forest
Hills
JACKSON
SWAIN
Little Santeetlah Creek
Figure 5 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
November 7, 2006
0 5 10 15 202.5
Miles
®
Legend
NPDES Discharges
#*Major
#*Minor
Monitoring Stations
!(à Benthic Community[¡Fish Community
po Ambient Monitoring Station
[Lake Monitoring Station
"ó Recreation Locations
Aquatic Life Use Support Rating
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
Recreation Use Support Rating
County Boundary
Municipality
Subbasin Boundary
Primary Roads
Impaired
Impaired
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Alarka Creek
2-69-(2.5)
From Upper Long Creek to Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee
R.
13.1 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GF1 GF 2004
GB17 E 2004
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Habitat Degradation Construction
Bradley Fork
2-79-55-12-(11)
From Chasteen Creek to Oconaluftee River
2.1 FW MilesB;Tr,HQW S ND
GB1 E 2004
Brush Creek
2-46
From source to Little Tennessee River
6.3 FW MilesC S ND
GF2 G 2004
Caney Fork
2-79-28-(2.5)
From Mull Creek to Tuckaseegee River
1.3 FW MilesWS-III;Tr S ND
GF4 G 2004
GB27 E 2004
Conley Creek (Connelly Creek)
2-79-52
From source to Tuckasegee River
7.4 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GF7 NR 2004
GB13 G 2004
Cullowhee Creek
2-79-31a
From source to first crossing of NC 107 near Cullowhee
8.7 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GF13 GF 2004
GB29 E 2004
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:47 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Deep Creek
2-79-63-(16)
From Indian Creek to Juney Whank Branch
0.8 FW MilesWS-II,B;Tr,HQW S ND
GB5 E 2004
2-79-63-(21)
From Town of Bryson City water supply intake (located just
below Great Smoky Mountains National Park Boundary) to
Tuckasegee River
1.8 FW MilesB;Tr S ND
GB7 E 2004
Forney Creek
2-97
From source to Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake,
Little Tennessee River
9.5 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GB4 E 2004
Hazel Creek
2-146-(19)
From a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth to Hazel Creek
Arm of Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
0.9 FW MilesWS-IV;Tr,CA S ND
GB3 E 2004
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Calderwood Lake)
2-(167)b
From Fontana Dam to North Carolina-Tennessee State Line
Calderwood Lake Portion
107.5 FW AcresC;Tr NR NDGL21 ID
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Cheoah Lake)
2-(167)a
From Fontana Dam to North Carolina-Tennessee State Line
Cheoah Lake Portion
592.9 FW AcresC;Tr NR NDGL24 ID
GL23 ID
GL22 ID
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:48 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Fontana Lake below elev. 1708)
2-(140.5)
From the upstream side of Shoal Branch to Fontana Dam
1,696.7 FW AcresWS-IV,B;CA NR NDGL19 ID
GL20 ID
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Fontana Lake below elevation 1708 MSL)
2-(66)
From Nantahala River Arm of Fontana Lake to the upstream
side of mouth of Shoal Branch
5,568.1 FW AcresB NR NDGL16 ID
GL17 ID
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Including the backwaters of Fontana Lake at normal pool elevation 1708 fee
2-(26.5)b
From Subbasin 01/02 boundary to Nantahala River Arm of
Fontana Lake
11.9 FW MilesB S ND
GB24 G 2004
Moses Creek
2-79-28-8
From source to Caney Fork
4.1 FW MilesWS-III;Tr S ND
GB26 E 2004
Noland Creek
2-90
From source to Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake,
Little Tennessee River
10.8 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GB6 G 2004
Oconaluftee River
2-79-55-(16.5)
From Raven Fork to Cherokee Indian Reservation boundary
(approximately 0.4 miles downstream of Goose Creek)
8.3 FW MilesC;Tr S SGA4 NCE
GB11 E 2004
GA4 NCE
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:48 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Panther Creek
2-115
From source to Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
2.4 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GF21 NR 2004
GB16 G 2004
Nutrient Impacts Construction
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
Nutrient Impacts Agriculture
Savannah Creek
2-79-36
From source to Tuckasegee River
13.4 FW MilesC;Tr S I
GF23 G 2004
GB23 G 2004
GA8 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Scott Creek
2-79-39
From source to Tuckasegee River
15.3 FW MilesC;Tr S I
GF24 NR 2004
GB20 G 2004
GA11 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Failing Septic Syst
Fecal Coliform Bacteria MS4 NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Turbidity Unknown
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Habitat Degradation Construction
Stecoah Creek
2-130
From source to Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
7.4 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
GF26 NR 2004
GB14 G 2004
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
Nutrient Impacts Agriculture
Habitat Degradation Road Construction
Habitat Degradation Construction
Habitat Degradation Construction
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:48 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Tuckaseegee River (Bear Creek Lake)
2-79-(5.5)b
From Tennessee Creek to West Fork Tuckaseegee River
443.8 FW AcresWS-III,B;Tr NR NDGL10 ID
GL9 ID
Tuckaseegee River (Cedar Cliff Lake)
2-79-(5.5)c
From Tennessee Creek to West Fork Tuckaseegee River
131.4 FW AcresWS-III,B;Tr NR NDGL11 ID
GL12 ID
Tuckasegee River
2-79-(35.5)a
From Savannah Creek to UT 0.3 miles upstream of Yellow
Bird Creek
1.4 FW MilesC;Tr ND I GA9 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
2-79-(35.5)b
From UT 0.3 miles upstream of yellow Bird Creek to
Dillsboro Dam
0.5 FW MilesC;Tr ND S GA10 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
2-79-(38)
From Dillsboro Dam to Mack Town Branch
0.7 FW MilesC ND I GA12 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
2-79-(40.5)
From Mack Town Branch to Cochran Branch
17.7 FW MilesB S SGA5 NCE
GB19 E 2004
GA5 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Total Suspended Solids WWTP NPDES
Tuckasegee River (East Fork Lake)
2-79-(0.5)
From source to Tennessee Creek
4.4 FW MilesWS-III,B;Tr,OR S ND
GB38 E 2004
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:48 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River, below elevation 1708 MSL
2-(78)a
From Lemmons Creek to Peachtree Creek
170.6 FW AcresC ND I GA13 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Sediment Unknown
2-(89)
That portion of Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake
below the upstream side of the mouth of Noland Creek
1,019.0 FW AcresB NR NDGL18 ID
Twentymile Creek
2-178-(4)
From Proctor Branch to Lake Cheoah, Little Tennessee
River
3.0 FW MilesC;Tr,HQW S ND
GB2 G 2004
West Fork Tuckasegee River (Thorpe Lake below elevation 3492 MSL)
2-79-23-(1)
From source in Thorpe Lake Backwater at Elevation 3492
MSL to Thorpe Dam
1,388.5 FW AcresWS-III,B;HQW NR NDGL3 ID
GL5 ID
GL6 ID
GL4 ID
Wolf Creek (Wolf Creek Lake)
2-79-9-(1)
From source to Wolf Creek Dam
5.3 FW MilesWS-III,B;Tr,HQ NR NDGL8 ID
GL7 ID
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:49 DRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Little Tennessee 04-04-02SubbasinTable 5
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2006:
AL - Aquatic Life GF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation GB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
GA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
GL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results
Results:
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 150.6 FW Milesm
NR 5.3 FW Milesm
NR 10,947.9 FW Acresm
NR 9.5 FW Milese
ND 1,225.0 FW Miles
ND 1,508.8 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
26.5 FW MilesSm
30.7 FW MilesIm
170.6 FW AcresIm
9.5 FW MilesNR e
1,323.7 FW MilesND
12,286.1 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
1,377.2 FW MilesIe
12,456.7 FW AcresIe
13.3 FW MilesI
Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02Monday, November 20, 2006 11:05:49 DRAFT
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.

Additional information regarding population and land use changes throughout the entire basin
can be found in Appendices I and III, respectively.

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.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 5 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix VIII for more information about use
support ratings.

There were 20 benthic macroinvertebrate community and 9 fish community samples collected
during this assessment period. Data were also collected from two ambient monitoring stations.
Refer to the 2005 Little Tennessee Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/LTN2005.pdf and Appendix IV for more information
on monitoring.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 5 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and is used to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is
a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to
the end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No
letter indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same. For example, index
number 11-3-(14) might be split into two assessment units 11-3-(14)a and 11-3-(14)b.

44 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a
classification appropriate to the best-intended
use of that water. Waters are regularly assessed
by DWQ to determine how well they are
meeting their best-intended use. For aquatic
life, an Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, or
Poor bioclassification is assigned to a stream
based on the biological data collected by DWQ.
For more information about bioclassification
and use support assessment, refer to Appendices
IV and VIII, respectively. Appendix IX
provides definitions of the terms used
throughout this basin plan.

In subbasin 04-04-02, use support was assigned
for the aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption
and water supply categories. Waters are
Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data
in the aquatic life and recreation categories on a
monitored or evaluated basis. Waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on an
evaluated basis based on fish consumption
advice issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS). All waters are Supporting in the water supply category on an
evaluated basis based on reports from Division of Environmental Health (DEH) regional water
treatment plant consultants. Refer to Table 6 for a summary of use support for waters in
subbasin 04-04-02.
Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings
by Category in Subbasin 04-04-02
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life Recreation
Monitored Waters
Supporting 150.6 mi 26.5 mi
Impaired* 0.0
0.0
30.7 mi (54%)
170.6 ac (100%)
Not Rated 5.3 mi
10,947.9 ac
0.0
0.0
Total 155.9 mi
10,947.9 ac
57.2 mi
170.6 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 9.5 mi 9.5 mi
No Data 1,225.0 mi
1,508.8 ac
1,323.7 mi
12,286.1 ac
Total 1,234.5 mi
1,508.8 ac
1,333.2 mi
12,286.1 ac
Totals
All Waters** 1,390.4 mi
12,456.7 ac
1,390.4 mi
12,456.7 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored
miles/acres only.
** Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Appendix VI.

2.3.1 Beech Flats Prong [AU# 2-79-55-2a]

Current Status
Beech Flats Prong (2.3 miles), located in the GSMNP, is Impaired due to acidic conditions
resulting from exposure of Anakeesta rock formations in the vicinity of Newfound Gap as a
result of US Highway 441 construction. This conclusion is based on a Fair benthic
bioclassification assigned in 1995. Anakeesta rock contains elements that, when exposed to
water, produce low pH levels and high concentrations of heavy metals in adjacent streams. It is
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 45
fairly common throughout the southwestern Appalachian Mountains for road cuts or landslides,
mining activities or the use of fill material containing this rock to cause water quality impacts.

2007 Recommendations
No scientifically and economically defensible way to minimize the Anakeesta exposure has been
found. DWQ strongly discourages all construction projects that disturb Anakeesta rock
formations. DWQ does not plan to conduct further sampling on Beech Flats Prong.

2.3.2 Savannah Creek [AU# 2-79-36]

Current Status
The Savannah Creek watershed drains the west-central portion of Jackson County. Savannah
Creek itself flows alongside US 441 and NC 116 for much of its length before joining the
Tuckasegee River near Webster. Traditionally, land use in the watershed was agricultural with
light residential and commercial activity along the transportation corridors. Residential
development is increasing substantially and elevating sediment and erosion concerns.

DWQ sampled fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in Savannah Creek as part of a Class B
(Recreation) use-attainability study for the Tuckasegee River initiated in 2003 (See Section
2.3.4). The samples exceeded state standards and indicate Savannah Creek, from its source to
the Tuckasegee River (13.4 miles), is Impaired in the recreation category. The sources of fecal
coliform contamination are unknown, but may include failing septic systems and/or agricultural
runoff. For a description of Recreation Use Support assessment methodologies, refer to
Appendix VIII.

DWQ also sampled the fish and benthic communities at sites GF23 and GB23. The benthic
population declined from Excellent in 1994 to Good in 2004. The fish community received a
Good bioclassification. These results indicate Savannah Creek is Supporting aquatic life.
However, these data do not reflect the habitat threats posed by development in the watershed.
Many stream reaches have been channelized and riparian vegetation removed. Streambanks
have been stabilized with concrete slabs and riprap.

The Watershed Association for the Tuckasegee River (WATR) coordinates sampling in the
Savannah Creek Watershed as part of a larger the Volunteer Water Information Network
(Chapter 13) project. Data collected on tributaries and in the mainstem between July 2003 and
June 2005 indicated turbidity and suspended solid readings were well above the regional
average, despite 80 percent of these samples being collected during dry weather or after light
precipitation, when erosion due to rainfall is low. This condition usually occurs when there is
heavy sediment build-up in the streambed, when there is extensive streambank erosion, or in
high energy, fast flowing streams in headwater areas where watersheds have been cleared of
most trees. Suspended solid readings were highest in Greens Creek [AU# 2-79-36-11],
suggesting it may be a major source of sediment delivered to Savannah Creek. WATR plans to
sample other tributaries to Savannah Creek to assess the spatial pattern of erosion and sediment
transport.

WATR also evaluated fecal coliform concentrations in the Savannah Creek watershed. Their
results support DWQ’s findings and suggest contamination exists both upstream of and within
Greens Creek.

46 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

Water Quality Initiatives
After monitoring results noted Greens Creek was a significant contributor of both sediment and
fecal coliform bacteria, WATR embarked on an effort to develop a Watershed Action Plan. In
2004, WATR requested and received technical assistance from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

WATR volunteers embarked on a sampling project consisting of daily turbidity readings at 10
sites in the Greens Creek watershed and daily rainfall, throughout April 2005. The purposes of
the study were (1) to determine spatial and temporal patterns in turbidity, and (2) to evaluate the
turbidity values with respect to the DWQ limit of 10 NTU for trout-habitat waters. Greens Creek
drains a 9.4 sq. mile watershed within the 47 sq. miles of Savannah Creek watershed. This
nested watershed configuration will allow WATR and its partners to focus efforts first on Greens
Creek in order to gain early success via measurable criterion. Meanwhile actions on the larger
and more complex Savannah Creek Watershed can grow as funding and public awareness
expand. By focusing on the Savannah Creek Watershed, WATR is dedicated to making a
reduction in the pollution loading to the middle reach of the Tuckasegee River where the public
recreation is concentrated.

Sites were selected above the mouth of each main tributary, and also upstream of the tributary
confluence along the main stem of Greens Creek. These site pairs were used to determine the
relative sediment input for each tributary. The Unnamed Tributary (Site 9) is a special case. It
drains a small area that was heavily impacted by a developer who was cited and fined for
violating the Jackson County sediment control ordinance about the time of this project.
Therefore, the Unnamed Tributary was a known turbidity source from the onset of the project.
WATR’s turbidity data are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 Summary of turbidity along Greens Creek and in its tributaries collected daily during
April 2006 – Source: Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River

Site Site Name Min Median Max Average Freq greater
than 10 NTU
1 Greens Crk at Confluence 5.4 10.2 77.0 13.5 53%
2 Brooks Branch 13.9 23.3 154.0 28.9 100%
3 Greens Crk abv Brooks 5.7 9.9 69.2 12.7 47%
4 Brushy Fork 5.1 9.4 35.3 10.5 30%
5 Greens Crk abv Brushy
Fork
5.6 8.7 53.9 10.9 37%
6 Peewee Branch 14.0 19.2 77.4 21.7 100%
7 Sugar Fork 4.0 8.0 20.4 8.5 10%
8 Greens Crk abv Sugar Fork 4.7 7.9 55.8 10.1 17%
9 Unnamed Trib 19.6 28.1 751.0 62.5 100%
10 Upper Greens Creek 3.3 5.4 13.1 5.6 3%

These data suggest that the Unnamed Tributary, Peewee, and Brooks Branch should be the focus
of further assessment and, in time, the focus of restoration activities. These data, with other
corroborating measurements, will help in planning restoration activities for Greens Creek
watershed and, in turn, help improve conditions in Savannah Creek.

Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 47
2007 Recommendations
Fecal coliform contamination sources in the Savannah Creek watershed should be identified and
corrected. Additionally, sediment and erosion control problems should be addressed to prevent
further habitat degradation. A key challenge to stream restoration is gaining voluntary
participation and improvements from local landowners. In mountainous terrain, stream density
is significantly larger than in other parts of the state, and there are many stream-side landowners.
Upslope landowners also contribute sediment through gullies and across down-slope land
parcels. Consequently, public education and involvement is critical to load reductions. Sediment
reduction from excavation and construction activities will depend heavily on education of
excavators and contractors through Clear Water Contractor Courses and follow-up educational
opportunities. Achieving load reductions will also require dilligent enforcement of the county
erosion ordinance. Despite all the tools and BMPs available, innovation and extensive public
communication are still needed to address the challenges of erosion in mountainous watersheds.
With respect to fecal coliform loads, proposed reductions can utilize the WaDE program
extensively. The Greens Creek Watershed Action Plan is scheduled for completion in 2007. It
will provide site-specific strategies to reduce sediment and erosion impacts to Savannah Creek.
Funding should be directed towards implementing these strategies.

2.3.3 Scotts Creek [AU# 2-79-39]

Current Status
Scott Creek is a large, swift tributary to the Tuckasegee River. Draining northeastern Jackson
County, US 19/23 and Old US 19/23 parallel the creek is for most of its length. The stream
passes through many residential areas before entering the urban environment in Sylva and
Dillsboro.

DWQ sampled fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in Scotts Creek as part of a Class B
(Recreation) use-attainability study for the Tuckasegee River initiated in 2003. (See Section
2.3.4) The samples exceeded state standards and indicate Scotts Creek, from its source to the
Tuckasegee River (15.3 miles), is Impaired in the recreation category. The sources of fecal
coliform contamination are unknown, but may include failing septic systems and/or nonpoint
source runoff. For a description of Recreation Use Support assessment methodologies, refer to
Appendix VIII.

In 2004, DWQ evaluated the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities at sites GF24 and
GB20, respectively. GB20 is downstream of the Sylva WWTP and a few other small dischargers
and adjacent to the parking lot of the Great Smoky Mountains Railroad in downtown Dillsboro.
The stream channel is highly modified and the bank is armored by riprap. The site received a
low habitat score because of the poor riparian zone in Dillsboro, plus a relatively uniform
riffle/run habitat. The stream was very turbid after storms during the sample period and water
levels rose and fell quickly, reflecting the high amount of impervious surface in the watershed.
The fish community upstream of US19/23 was not rated in 2004 because it had characteristics of
a trout stream (low total species diversity, low diversities of darters and cyprinids, a low
percentage of omnivores + herbivores, and a high percentage of insectivores) and criteria have
yet to be developed for this type of fish community. Wild, young-of-year and stocked adult
brown trout were collected along with wild, young-of-year, juvenile, and adult rainbow trout.
Species collected at this site but not typically found in trout streams included redbreast sunfish,
bluegill, and largemouth bass. Although not rated, the community appeared to be supporting its
designated uses as trout (Tr) waters.
48 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

Water Quality Initiatives
The Watershed Association for the Tuckasegee River (WATR) coordinates sampling in Scotts
Creek as part of a larger the Volunteer Water Information Network (Mass, 2006). WATR’s
VWIN annual sampling program runs from July
through June. As of October 2006, WATR had
collected 38 months of VWIN data at 15 sites
(16 sites during the first 2 years) throughout the
watershed. WATR has also collected fecal
coliform data for the last 3 years, particularly
during 2004, which can be compared to DWQ
coliform sampling in 2005.

WATR’s data supports DWQ’s findings of
elevated fecal coliform concentrations and also
shows relatively higher average concentration of
suspended sediment compared to other streams
in Subbasin 04-04-02. See Table 8.

In 2006, WATR received funds to develop and
install a public turbidity meter. The novel
project will raise public awareness of turbidity concentrations by displaying real-time turbidity
values on a billboard near the creek. WATR with the help of faculty from Western Carolina
University will develop and install the real-time turbidity meter on Scotts Creek in Sylva. People
who drive or walk by will know the turbidity level and can see the conditions in the creek at the
same time. This meter coupled with public education efforts including a public survey before
and after the meter is activated and articles in the local paper will help inform the citizens of
Scotts Creek and beyond. The data will be electronically logged and used for assessment in
future planning and restoration projects.
Table 8 Mean TSS Concentrations
Source: Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River
Mean TSS
mg/L
Kirkland Crk 19.4
Greens Crk 16.2
Savannah Crk 19.1
Barkers Crk 14.3
Scotts Crk 34.7
Tuck. abv Barkers Crk 19.9
Tuck. blw Bryson City 16.9
Cullowhee Crk WCU 10.4
Tuck. abv Scotts Crk 11.4
Conley Crk 10.9

In the fall of 2004, WATR put together the Coliform Action Group, a group of advisors and
stakeholders who work cooperatively to identify coliform sources and develop solutions to
reduce contamination sources. In particular, WATR worked with the Tuckasegee Sewer and
Water Authority (TWSA) to sample along Scotts Creek above and within Sylva, with the
objective of defining source areas. Additionally, TWSA has made significant investments in
sewer line repair and replacement. Their efforts have identified and repaired or replaced many
old and leaking sewer pipes.

2007 Recommendations
Efforts to identify and repair or replace leaking sewer lines should continue. Additional efforts
to identify other sources of fecal coliform contamination are necessary. Monitoring to track
fecal coliform bacteria concentrations should continue. TWSA needs support for camera
inspections and other standard methods to detect fecal sources to Scotts Creek, followed by
corrective actions. To address sediment and turbidity concerns, a plan to reduce erosion in the
watershed should be developed. The plan should be implemented. Jackson County and the
Towns of Sylva and Dillsboro should implement stormwater control measures equivalent to or
stronger than Phase II stormwater requirements (See Section 8.2.2). Sediment and erosion
control ordinances must be strictly enforced.

Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 49
2.3.4 Tuckasegee River [AU# 2-79-(35.5)a, 2-79-(38), and 2-(78)a]

Current Status
In 2001, DWQ received a request to reclassify two Tuckasegee River reaches to Class B -
Recreation. The requested reaches included the river from Savannah Creek to Mack Town
Branch and Cochran Branch to the Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake. A study to
determine if fecal coliform bacteria levels met Class B standards was initiated in 2003. Initial
sampling revealed extremely elevated fecal coliform concentrations. The study was rescheduled
for 2005 to allow time for sewer and wastewater treatment upgrades to be completed. The study
was completed in 2005 and included sampling on major tributaries with suspected fecal coliform
contamination. With the exception of one sample location between Leatherwood and the
Dillsboro Dam, all sites evaluated in this study exceeded fecal coliform bacteria standards.
Therefore, the Tuckasegee River is Impaired in the Recreation category in these reaches (See
Figure 6). At the Dillsboro Dam, the watershed drainage area is approximately 347 mi2.

Figure 6 Recreation Impairment in the Tuckasegee River-Watershed

The Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority (TWSA) operates two wastewater treatment plants
that discharge to the upstream reach. WWTP #1 discharges directly into the Tuckasegee River
and WWTP #2 discharges to Scotts Creek. Each of these is required to monitor effluent bacteria
concentrations. Concentrations at WWTP #2 were consistently low. Concentrations were
50 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

elevated at WWTP #1, but did not coincide with DWQ measurements within the river.
Additionally, concentrations in Savannah Creek and Scotts Creek above WWTP #2 were the
highest in the study, suggesting sources other than the treatment plants are contributing to
impairment. These sources are unknown, but could include failing septic systems, illicit
discharges, and residential/agricultural runoff.

In December 2006, TWSA entered into a Special Order of Consent (SOC) with DWQ because of
chronic difficulties meeting discharge limits for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total
Suspended Solids (TSS), and Fecal Coliform in their NPDES permit. During the time in which
this SOC is effective, TWSA will operate under relaxed permit limits and follow a specific
schedule for improvements that will assure their compliance with the original permit limits by
2010. The schedule is as follows:
1. Completion of preliminary Engineering Report – June 1, 2006
2. Submit NPDES Renewal with flow increase – April 1, 2007
3. Submit Plans and Specs for Upgrade after issuance of Permit – May 1, 2008
4. Notice to Proceed for Construction – March 1, 2009
5. Complete Construction and submit engineering certification – August 1, 2010
6. Compliance with NPDES Permit Final Limits – December 1, 2010
7. Quarterly progress repots should be submitted to the Asheville Regional Office until the
completion of the project.
TWSA will be subject to a $1000 fine for each violation of this SOC and a $5,000 fine if the
final compliance deadline is not met.

The Bryson City Wastewater Treatment Facility discharges to the Tuckasegee River just
upstream of the lower study reach. This facility is also required to disinfect and monitor its
effluent concentration. The facility was fully compliant during the study, but fecal coliform
levels remained elevated in the river, suggesting again that other sources are contributing to
impairment in this reach. A dramatic spike in fecal coliform concentrations following a one-inch
rainfall points towards nonpoint sources of contamination. The plant has also suffered from
grease problems and has begun implementation of a grease elimination program that includes
flushing lines and an education component. The Bryson City also has a grease ordinance that
prohibits disposal of grease into the sewer system.

In addition to bacteria issues, sediment and turbidity are concerns in the Tuckasegee River. The
entire Tuckasegee River watershed drains to Fontana Lake, carrying a tremendous load of
sediment, trash, and woody debris. The swift and powerful currents slow as they enter the
backwaters of the lake downstream of Bryson City, depositing their load. Several feet of
sediment is deposited yearly and trash and woody debris block recreational access. These
deposits are heaviest following heavy rainfall events. WATR estimates 55,000 tons of sediment
were transported past Bryson City during the hurricanes of September 2004.

The Fontana Lake Users Association in cooperation with Swain County conducts an ongoing
trash and debris cleanup program. This program collects trash and floating woody debris
deposited in the Fontana headwaters after periods of heavy rain. Large floating trees are bundled
and anchored to the lakebed to replace fish habitat destroyed by excess sediment deposits.

2007 Recommendations
The Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River analyzed fecal coliform bacteria collected at
site GA5 and determined a seasonal trend in concentration may mask an upward trend in bacteria
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 51
concentrations. In the use-attainability study of the lower Tuckasegee River in Bryson City,
fecal coliform levels above the recreation-use limit were observed at the monitoring point at the
inflow of Cochran Branch, in the vicinity of the outflow of the Bryson City WWTP. It was
estimated that impairment did not extend up river because of measurements made at the ambient
station located in the center of Bryson City. Monthly measurements, when averaged together,
were below the regulatory limit indicating acceptable conditions (no impairment). A closer look
at the data suggests that this conclusion could be revisited.
The monthly data are shown in Figure 7. Looking only at the data points for the summer months
(June, July, and August) it appears that most years have at least one value over the retulatory
limit of 200 col/100 mL, and in the past 2 years the 3-month average value has exceeded the
limit (225 and 403 col/100mL for 2004 and 2005, respectively). Because it is the summer
months when recreational exposure usually occurs, a seasonal evaluation of bacteria
concentrations is needed.

Figure 7 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations Measured by DWQ at the Tuckasegee
River - Bryson City station. The 200 and 400 unit standards appear as straight dashed and
dotted lines, respectively.
1
10
100
1000
10000
J-93 J-94 J-95 J-96 J-97 J-98 J-99 J-00 J-01 J-02 J-03 J-04 J-05 J-06
F
e
c
a
l
C
o
lifo
rm

(#
/1
0
0
m
l)400
200

DWQ will complete a trend analysis that compensates for seasonality and flow to determine if
fecal coliform concentrations are rising at this site. Fecal coliform bacteria sources must be
identified. Once identified, a plan to reduce or eliminate those sources should be developed and
implemented.

To effectively reduce sediment deposits in Fontana Lake, erosion problems must be addressed
across the entire 1,571mile² watershed. Reductions at this scale require comprehensive programs
implemented by citizen groups, local governments, and service providers best suited to
implement such a plan. At a minimum, property owners should implement recommendations
included in Chapter 6 and the document “Improving Water Quality in Your Own Backyard.”
This pamphlet is available free of charge through the Division of Water Quality and online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf. The impacts from agricultural
operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management practices. There are a
variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these improvements more
52 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs. The Swain County
Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with choosing appropriate
BMPs and identifying funding. Local, State, and Federal governments should adopt and/or
enforce programs that require erosion control and low-impact development techniques.

2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current
status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is
identified by an AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VII.

2.4.1 Alarka Creek [AU# 2-69-(2.5)]

Current Status
Alarka Creek is a medium-size tributary to the Little Tennessee River Arm of Fontana Reservoir.
The creek’s watershed (25 mi2) drains southern Swain County. The headwaters are classified as
High Quality Waters, but land uses in the lower portion of the catchment are residential and
pasture. The benthic community sample at site GB17 indicates the water quality is Excellent.
However, the fish community at site GF1 reflects significant habitat problems, receiving only a
Good-Fair bioclassification. Also, an exceptionally large number of fish were collected,
indicating the stream may be nutrient enriched. Likely sources for excess nutrients include
nonpoint source runoff from lawns and/or failing septic systems. In many locations, the riparian
zone was narrow or nonexistent and manicured lawns reached to the stream bank.

The Swain County Soil and Water Conservation District identified concentrated livestock, row
cropping, Christmas tree farming, and new development projects as possible pollution sources in
the watershed. Swain SWCD is focusing efforts on this watershed.

2007 Recommendations
Where damaged or missing, a vegetated riparian zone should be reestablished. Sources of
nutrient enrichment should be identified and corrected. Property owners can use a variety of
techniques to reduce pollution caused by runoff from their property. Residents should refer to
Chapter 6 and the document “Improving Water Quality in Your Own Backyard.” This pamphlet
is available free of charge through the Division of Water Quality and online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf.

The impacts from agricultural operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best
management practices including streambank stabilization, livestock exclusion, off stream
watering systems, and critical area seeding. There are a variety of funding sources that can be
used to make installation of these improvements more affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9
describes many of these programs. The Swain County Soil and Water District and local NRCS
staff can assist farm owners with choosing appropriate BMPs and identifying funding.

Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 53
2.4.2 Camp Creek [AU# 2-79-49]

Current Status
DWQ received a request to reclassify Camp Creek to trout waters in 2004. In 2005, the fish
community was sampled at several sites in the Camp Creek watershed to determine if the
reclassification was appropriate. This survey was conducted outside the data window for this
assessment, so the data will not be used to assign a use support rating at this time. However, the
survey did indicate significant habitat problems in the watershed. The primary habitat problems
were unstable, eroding stream banks, and narrow or non-existent riparian vegetation.

2007 Recommendations
Stream bank stabilization and riparian zone restoration projects are needed in this watershed.
The Swain County Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist landowners with
choosing appropriate BMPs and identifying funding

2.4.3 Cullowhee Creek [AU# 2-79-31a & b]

Current Status
Cullowhee Creek flows north through Jackson County in the southwestern portion of North
Carolina. The majority of the headwaters are forested and of good water quality. The lower
portion of the watershed includes Western Carolina University, light commercial, and residential
development. The stream through this section was historically moved and channelized resulting
in poor habitat and flood protection. In 2004, DWQ sampled Cullowhee Creek at two locations
upstream of the university. The benthic community at site GB29 rated Excellent, but the fish
community at GF13 only received a Good-Fair bioclassification. These results suggest water
quality is good, but habitat problems are negatively affecting fish populations.

In 2004, a leaking sewer pipe was found in an unnamed tributary to Cullowhee Creek, but
ownership was questionable. TWSA assumed responsibility and replaced the leaking line. This
along with other sewer improvements around the Cullowhee community and an expanding
university population will likely bring increased demand for housing development.

Water Quality Initiatives
In June 2005, a major stream restoration project was initiated on approximately 5,000 feet of
Cullowhee Creek flowing through WCU. Discovery Land Company is funding the project as
mitigation for stream impacts caused during a development project in the Cashiers area. The
project will restore many of the stream’s functions lost during recent decades of substantial
development within the watershed. Such functions in the stream channel include improving
bank stability, sediment transport, and storm flow regulation. More information on this project
can be found at http://www3.wcu.edu/%7Emlord/CCRestoreWeb/CCRestorationHome.html

2007 Recommendations
DWQ should sample Cullowhee Creek downstream of the urbanized university area to track the
water quality impacts resulting from development in this expanding community. Best
management practices designed to control stormwater flow should be installed where possible
and new development projects should incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques.
Refer to Chapter 6 for information on LID.

54 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

2.4.4 Panther Creek [AU# 2-115]

Current Status
Panther Creek, in northeastern Graham County, is a high gradient tributary to the Panther Creek
Arm of Fontana Reservoir. Habitat and water quality are good, but the benthic community has
declined from Excellent to Good at site GB16. Both the benthic sample and a fish community
sample at site GF21 indicate nutrient enrichment. New residential development and small
agricultural operations are possible sources for nutrients.

2007 Recommendations
Monitoring should continue to determine if stream quality continues to decline. Residential
property owners can use a variety of techniques to reduce pollution caused by runoff from their
yards. Residents should refer to Chapter 6 and the document “Improving Water Quality in Your
Own Backyard.” This pamphlet is available free of charge through the Division of Water
Quality and online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf. The impacts
from agricultural operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management
practices. There are a variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these
improvements more affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs.
The Graham County Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with
choosing appropriate BMPs and identifying funding.

2.4.5 Stecoah Creek [AU# 2-130]

Current Status
Stecoah Creek, in northeastern Graham County, is a small tributary to Fontana Reservoir. The
recent NC 28 widening project occurred in the middle part of its watershed. This stream is
located in a more densely developed residential drainage than other streams in the subbasin.
Some channelization has occurred, and a significant amount of substrate (large rocks) has been
removed from the streambed for retaining walls around adjacent livestock areas or stream bank
protection. Areas along the bank near the residential and agricultural areas are actively eroding.
Riparian vegetation consists of mostly grasses and a few trees. The fish community at site GF26
indicated nutrient enrichment, possibly from straight piping and/or nonpoint source runoff.

2007 Recommendations
Restoration will likely improve conditions in Stecoah Creek. Restoration options should be
evaluated and if deemed feasible, a restoration plan for Stecoah Creek should be developed and
executed. In the meantime, residential landowners can use a variety of techniques to reduce
pollution caused by runoff from their property. Residents should refer to Chapter 6 and the
document “Improving Water Quality in Your Own Backyard.” This pamphlet is available free
of charge through the Division of Water Quality and online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf. The impacts from agricultural
operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management practices. There are a
variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these improvements more
affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs. The Graham County
Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with choosing appropriate
BMPs and identifying funding.

Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 55
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-04-02

The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.

This section also discusses ideas, rules, and practices in place to preserve and maintain the
pristine waters of the Little Tennessee River basin. This is particularly important because many
of the waters are designated high quality or outstanding resource waters (HQW and ORW,
respectively). Those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification may be eligible for
reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). These
streams are shown in Table 5. Special management strategies, or rules, are in place to better
manage the cumulative impact of pollutant discharges, and several landowners have voluntarily
participated in land conservation, stabilization, and/or restoration projects.

2.5.1 Fontana Lake Waste Recovery

Fontana Lake is a popular recreation site, and over many years has developed a large and
permanent population of houseboats in several of its coves. In the late 1990’s, local citizens
became concerned that untreated sewage produced on these boats was discharging directly into
the lake. High fecal coliform bacteria concentrations supported these concerns, and during
winter lake level drawdowns, when houseboats rest on dry land, straight pipes connected directly
to toilets were identified under many of the boats.

After confirming raw sewage was discharging into the lake, local citizens formed a partnership
to eliminate the discharges and create a sewage pumping and collection program called Fontana
Lake Waste Recovery (FLWR). The partnership includes houseboat owners, marina operator,
the Fontana Lake Users Association, and the Partnership for the Future of Bryson City/Swain
County. The program is supported by ordinances in Graham and Swain Counties that require
every houseboat owner to install a permanent toilet and sewage holding tank on their boat.
Marina and boat dock owners maintain pump-out stations and recovery boats to serve houseboats
within their harbor. Houseboat owners pay a yearly fee to fund the pump-out system. The
ordinances also specified that boats not in compliance could be removed from the lake.

The program became fully operational in 2005, and fecal coliform concentrations dropped
dramatically. The success of this program is largely due to the cooperation between a variety of
organizations and individuals. TVA and CWMTF provided substantial funding to build the
pump stations, retrofit the houseboats, and acquire pump boats. Swain and Graham counties
administer the program with marina and houseboat owner participation.

In 2006, WATR was asked to design and coordinate a monitoring program to determine the fecal
coliform levels in the lake and to determine if the required wastewater holding tanks were
effective.

Forty-one (41) sampling sites were identified in the vicinity of five marinas: Alarka, Greasy
Branch, Crisp, Prince, and Fontana. Each site was sampled at least twice; and the sites near
Alarka and Greasy were sampled a third time. The sites were chosen in order to have one site
upstream of all the houseboats (in the inundated portion of the feeder tributary) and subsequent
56 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

sites located roughly equidistant toward the main body of the lake. In addition, several
tributaries were also sampled farther upstream where the creeks were flowing and not inundated.
Data showed that Fontana Lake was very clean except for two particular sites, where measured
fecal coliform exceeded the NC health standard for organized recreational use, which is 200
col/100mL. One site located on Panther Creek upstream of all actively used houseboats is
downstream of a popular campground. The exceedence is judged to be caused by contamination
from the tributary and not from the houseboats. In the second case, two samples exceeding the
health standard were collected in the vicinity of a houseboat that was known to be out of
compliance with the ordinance. Soon thereafter, the offending houseboat was moved and access
was denied until it was brought into compliance.

In this study, the tributaries generally had more contamination than the water around the marinas.
The average fecal coliform concentration in the tributaries was 98 col/100mL, whereas the
average for samples collected near the marinas (excluding the samples collected upstream in the
inundated portion of the creeks) was 12 col/100mL, statistically different at the 0.01 level.
While none of the tributary samples exceeded the health standard, the sampling itself was
limited; and it appears likely that some of the tributaries are capable of exceeding that limit.
More assessment of the tributary fecal levels needs to be done in both Swain and Graham
counties.

The study concludes that tributaries feeding Fontana Lake are the most significant source of fecal
coliform contamination in the lake, and that wastewater from in-compliance houseboats no
longer poses unacceptable health risks. In short, this study shows the lake to be very clean with
only minor bacterial levels – well below levels of concern (McMillan and others, 2006).

DWQ applauds the initiative and creativity demonstrated during the creation of this program. It
is a model for interagency, government, and citizen cooperation.

2.5.2 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection

Municipalities and smaller outlying communities are being pressured to expand and this involves
construction and/or developing in areas along tributaries of the Tuckasegee River and the river
itself. HQW and ORW are supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater
classification(s) placed on a waterbody (Chapter 5). Management strategies are associated with
the supplemental HQW and ORW classifications and are intended to protect the current use of
the waterbody.

Waters in the Little Tennessee River Basin under special management strategies are designated
with a “@” or “#” symbol in the stream classifications schedule. The “@” identifies waters that
are subject to the specific actions specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0224, the High Quality Waters
(HQW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters designated as HQW. Point source discharges
are prohibited to segments classified HQW with a “#” symbol according to the provisions of 15A
NCAC 2B .0201 in order to protect the existing and anticipated usage of those waters.

A summary of the special management strategies for HQW and ORW waters can be found in
Chapter 5. Detailed information can be found in the document entitled Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina
(NCDENR-DWQ, 2004). This document is available on-line at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/codes_statutes.htm.
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 57
Many of the streams in this subbasin are also classified as trout (Tr) waters, and therefore, are
protected for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. There are no watershed
development restrictions associated with the trout classification; however, the NC Division of
Land Resources (DLR), under the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (SPCA), has
requirements to protect trout streams from land disturbing activities. Under G.S. 113A-57(1),
“waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine
visible siltation within the twenty-five percent of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing
activity, whichever is greater.” The Sedimentation Control Commission, however, can approve
land-disturbing activities along trout waters when the duration of the disturbance is temporary
and the extent of the disturbance is minimal. This rule applies to unnamed tributaries flowing to
the affected trout water stream. Further clarification on classifications of unnamed tributaries
can be found under Administration Code 15A NCAC 02B .0301(i)(1). For more information
regarding land-disturbing activities along designated trout streams, see the DLR website at
http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

Those streams noted as having Excellent bioclassifications in Table 5 may qualify for HQW or
ORW classification. There may also be many more streams in the basin that qualify for such
designation that DWQ has not monitored. DWQ relies on citizen requests to initiate the stream
reclassification process (See Section 5.1.4) and encourages requests for reclassification to HQW
or ORW when it is warranted. Appropriate stream classification will help to protect water
quality in the long-term.

Native Southern Appalachian Brook Trout occupy many high elevation streams in the Little
Tennessee River Basin. They are the only trout native to the southern Appalachian Mountains
and require clear, cold streams to survive. They are very sensitive to excess sediment. Efforts
to restore and expand their populations across the basin will benefit from designation as HQW or
ORW. Those streams that can support Native Appalachian Brook Trout should be identified
and evaluated for qualification as HQW or ORW.

2.5.3 North Shore Fontana Lake Stream Reclassification

In June 2005, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2005-97, directing the
Environmental Management Commission to initiate a rule-making process to adopt rules to
reclassify the entire watershed of all creeks that drain to the north shore of Fontana Lake between
and including Eagle and Forney Creeks.

In August 2005, DWQ biologists conducted a benthic community survey to evaluate the
appropriateness of ORW status for the streams identified by the NC General Assembly. While it
was not practicable to sample all 35 named streams, it was appropriate, given the protected and
pristine nature of the watershed, to select representative streams of varying drainage areas and
extrapolate the results of the assessed streams to the unassessed streams with similar drainage
areas. Therefore, seven sites were sampled, with drainage areas ranging from 0.5 to 44.8 square
miles.

Each site sampled received an Excellent bioclassification. Additionally, at least one rare species
was collected at every site. In Eagle Creek, biologists collected an extremely rare species that
has been collected only seven other times out of 5,800 benthic collections performed by DWQ.
Based on these results, DWQ believes all streams identified in Session Law 2005-97 deserve
58 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

ORW classification. At the time of this writing, the request for reclassification was moving
successfully through the approval process.

2.5.4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Hydropower Relicensing

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), under the authority of the Federal Power
Act, issues licenses for the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric
developments. Duke Energy operates several hydroelectric projects in subbasin 04-04-02
including the East Fork, West Fork, Bryson, and Dillsboro Projects. The operation of these
hydropower projects has provided an affordable and dependable supply of electrical power to a
growing population in western North Carolina since 1929. These projects were built and began
operations 50 – 80 years ago, well before modern regulatory requirements were in place. While
providing much needed power to a growing customer base, these same facilities have also
resulted in reduced flows and fluctuating flows in river reaches downstream from dams and
fluctuating reservoir levels. This has resulted in a variety of impacts to water related natural
resources. The licenses for these projects expired in 2005 and 2006. The process to relicense
these projects began in 1999.

The relicensing of these facilities will have a significant impact on the future health of these
important freshwater ecosystems as well as on the lives of the people and communities who
utilize and live adjacent to the resources. In late 2000, in an effort to identify issues and
stakeholder interests in the projects, Duke Energy assembled the Tuckasegee Cooperative
Stakeholder Team (TCST), consisting of stakeholders who represented various interests and uses
of the waters and related natural resources of the Tuckasegee River Basin upstream of Bryson
City. The TCST included state and federal resource agencies, local governments, adjacent
landowners, resource users, water dependent businesses, conservation organizations, Duke
Power and others. The TCST worked to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations for
the new license that addresses resource protection, enhancement, and mitigation measures
commensurate with project impacts. The documented result of this effort is called the Consensus
Agreement.

The Consensus Agreement is comprehensive in scope and includes numerous provisions for
resource management, protection, and enhancement opportunities including: new recreation
facilities and access areas, improvements in recreation and rule curve information, changes in
lake levels and rule curves, minimum flows and bypass flows, angling and boating recreation
flows, resource enhancement initiatives, shoreline management, sediment management, and
cultural resource protection. The complete consensus agreement can be found in the Bryson
(FERC #2601), Dillsboro (FERC #2602), East Fork Tuckasegee River (FERC #2698), or West
Fork Tuckasegee River (FERC #2686), Nantahala (FERC #2692) Final License Applications
filed to FERC. These and other associated documents can be obtained at: http://www.ferc.gov.

2.5.5 Kirkland Creek [AU# 2-79-61-(2)] and Other Tuckasegee River Tributaries

Current Status
DWQ did not sample Kirkland Creek during this assessment cycle, but reconnaissance by
WATR revealed fecal coliform contamination and elevated turbidity levels on par with Scotts
Creek and Savannah Creek. Those two streams are significantly degraded and will appear on the
2008 303(d) list of impaired waters (See Sections 2.3.2-4).

Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 59
In lower reach of the Tuckasegee River as it flows through Swain County, other creeks also have
problems but WATR’s monitoring data is more sparse. At Conleys Creek, for example, the
geometric mean concentration for fecal coliform was >484 col/100mL.

With volunteer help and generous assistance from the Jackson County Public Health
Department, who performed the laboratory evaluations, WATR sampled creeks in Swain County
for bacteria. These results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 WATR Monitoring: Bacteria Concentrations in Tuckasegee River Tributaries
Source: Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River
Location e. coli Fecal coliform
(MPN/100 mL) (col/100ml)
7/5/06 7/17/06 8/1/06 8/8/06 8/1/06 8/8/06
Tuck Abv Connelly 1460 52 143.9 107
Connelly Creek 200 246 101.4 77
Oconaluftee at Two Rivers Motel 2430 158 235.9 163
Coopers Creek 200 NA 73.8 90
Johnson Branch 683 686.7 13775 200 547
Kirkland Creek 740 341 74.9 61
Jenkins Branch 7060 6131 2420 48392 200 7375
Toot Hollow 740 481 2420 1112 200 560
Bryson Branch 630 146 2420 910 200 193
Tuck Below Bryson City 850 52 72.3 62
Lower Alarka Creek 520 122.3 81
EPA recommends the maximum e.coli level for organized recreation is 126 MPN/100mL

2007 Recommendations
Further assessment work is necessary to identify and rank the relative health of tributaries to the
Tuckasegee River. Biological community data is needed in addition to an intensive fecal
coliform investigation and turbidity/suspended solids analysis. The results of those surveys
should be used to secure funding for planning and to restoration of water quality. DWQ will
conduct monitoring as resources allow, and encourages WATR to continue its monitoring
efforts.

2.5.6 General Support for Volunteer Watershed Associations

WATR identified the following needs that must be met to assure their ongoing success and
effectiveness:

• Open and regular communication with state regulators, state agency representatives,
watershed experts, and city/county government workers is critical. The Little Tennessee
Non Point Source Team facilitated this communication during the last basinwide cycle. The
Team should continue to meet and adjust to changing watershed needs. In late 2005, the Non
Point Source Team initiated a web site for the dissemination of the information to the public
www.littleTbasin.org about water quality issues.
60 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

• Technical assistance is needed from EPA and NC State Extension.
• Continued collaboration with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the support of
Cherokee Preservation Foundation. WATR worked with the Cherokee Office of
Environment and Natural Resources to organize a regional workshop Partners for Water
Quality in the Little Tennessee River Basin and Clear Water Contractor courses designed to
train construction professionals on techniques used to avoid water quality impacts during
construction. Similar activities should be pursued in the next basinwide cycle.
• Form an Oconaluftee Watershed Group on the Reservation.
• Funding from a wide variety of sources is needed. Funds to pay for operational expenses are
particularly important.
• Watershed associations need training on data collection methods and Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) production. This will assure volunteer data is available for official
decision-making at appropriate scales.
• New citizen-based training programs, such as the Stream Monitoring Information Exchange
(SMIE), should be implemented. This system is being tested in WNC, but more training is
needed.
• Better communication is needed with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). In
late 2005, EEP issued a request for proposals for restoration projects on 15000 ft of streams
in the Tuckasegee River watershed. There was no consultation with local watershed
organizations prior to the request. Therefore, projects proposed by outside engineering firms
may conflict with ongoing efforts by local watershed organizations. Citizen cooperation for
such an endeavor is paramount.
• Flexible conservation easements are needed. In mountainous areas, streams are often
property divides with two landowners owning opposite stream banks, making agreement and
cooperation difficult. Flexibility and innovation in conservation easements used for stream
restorations is important to protecting aquatic and riparian habitat.
• Support is needed for watershed-wide data acquisition and assessment. Although WATR
has collected VWIN data on 11 tributaries to the Tuckasegee River, there are many more
streams that are suspected of contributing high loads of turbidity, sediment and fecal coliform
contamination. More that 80 percent of the watershed remains unmonitored by DWQ. There
are few grant programs in DWQ or EPA that focus primarily on monitoring.
• Better enforcement of trout stream buffers and buffer education for landowners is critical.
Currently, county inspectors poorly enforce the requirement for 25-ft natural buffers along
classified trout streams. Landowners with streamside properties need both education and
incentives for restoring the functionality of buffers, i.e., stream bank stabilization, sediment
trapping, and stream shading for temperature control.
• Long-term support for Clear Water Contractors Courses is needed. Erosion occurring during
excavation and development at building sites is a major source of turbidity and sediment to
the streams. In 2006, WATR facilitated the first Clear Water Contractor courses in the
watershed. The project was sponsored by the Cherokee Preservation Foundation, the
Cherokee Office of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Southwestern NC Resource,
Conservation, and Development Council. These courses are critical to engendering
environmental stewardship within the development community. These classes should be
held annually. A shorter refresher course should be developed for graduates of past courses.
The program should be expanded to include Macon and Graham Counties.
• A comprehensive data review and summary is needed. There are no programs to bring
together historic and current data to assess potentially unknown water quality problems, such
as residual contamination from past mining and agricultural operations. In Haywood County,
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 61
pesticide use led to groundwater contamination, and WATR knows of no systematic
assessment as to whether or not similar conditions exist in the Tuckasegee river watershed.
• Ecological and water quality data, such as those collected by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and by university professors, need to be combined to get a better idea of
conditions.
• Groundwater quality in the watershed should be systematically assessed.
• Effects of Christmas tree growing on water quality need to be documented for the special
conditions found in mountainous terrain.
• An economic cost benefit analysis to determine the value of trout and other sport fisheries;
stream and river access; clean and clear water; and undisturbed habitat to the Jackson and
Swain County economies needs to be completed.
• WATR needs to assist in citizen conservation efforts upstream from the Duke Energy
impoundments.

2.5.7 Septic System Concerns

Development of rural land in areas not served by sewer systems is occurring rapidly in the Little
Tennessee River basin. Hundreds of permit applications for onsite septic systems are approved
every year. Septic systems generally provide a safe and reliable method of disposing of
residential wastewater when they are sited (positioned on a lot), installed, operated, and
maintained properly. Rules and guidelines are in place in North Carolina to protect human
health and the environment. Water quality is protected by locating the systems at least 50 feet
away from streams and wetlands, limiting buildable lot sizes to a ¾-acre minimum, and
installing drain fields in areas that contain suitable soil type and depth for adequate filtration;
drinking water wells are further protected by septic system setbacks.

Septic systems typically are very efficient at removing many pollutants found in wastewater
including suspended solids, metals, bacteria, phosphorus, and some viruses. However, they are
not designed to handle other pollutants that they often receive such as solvents, automotive and
lubricating oil, drain cleaners, and many other household chemicals. Additionally, some
byproducts of organic decomposition are not treated. Nitrates are one such byproduct and are the
most widespread contaminant of groundwater in the United States (Smith, et al., 2004).

One septic system generates about 30 to 40 pounds of nitrate nitrogen per year (NJDEP, 2002).
Nitrates and many household chemicals are easily dissolved in water and therefore move through
the soil too rapidly to be removed. Nitrates are known to cause water quality problems and can
also be harmful to human health (Smith, et al., 2004).

Proper location, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of septic systems are critical to
the protection of water quality in a watershed. If septic systems are located in unsuitable areas,
are improperly installed, or if the systems have not been operated and/or maintained properly,
they can be significant sources of pollution. Additionally if building lots and their corresponding
septic systems are too densely developed, the natural ability of soils to receive and purify
wastewater before it reaches groundwater or adjacent surface water can be exceeded (Smith, et
al., 2004). Nutrients and some other types of pollution are often very slow to leave a lake
system. Therefore, malfunctioning septic systems can have a significant long-term impact on
water quality and ecological health (PACD, 2003).

62 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02

Local governments, in coordination with local health departments, should evaluate the potential
for water quality problems associated with the number and density of septic systems being
installed throughout their jurisdiction. Long-term county-wide planning for future wastewater
treatment should be undertaken. There are water quality concerns associated with both
continued permitting of septic systems for development in outlying areas and with extending
sewer lines and expanding wastewater treatment plant discharges. Pros and cons of various
wastewater treatment options should be weighed for different parts of the county (based on soil
type, depth, proximity to existing sewer lines, etc.) and a plan developed that minimizes the risk
of water quality degradation from all methods employed.

In addition, local governments, again in coordination with local health departments, should
consider programs to periodically inform citizens about the proper operation of septic systems
and the need for routine maintenance and replacement. Owners of systems within 100 feet of
streams or lakes should be specifically targeted and encouraged to routinely check for the
warning signs of improperly functioning systems and to contact the health department
immediately for assistance in getting problems corrected.

2.5.8 Floodplain Protection

The riverside land that gets periodically inundated by a river's floodwaters is called the
floodplain. Floodplains serve important purposes. They:

• temporarily store floodwaters,
• improve water quality,
• provide important habitat for river wildlife, and
• create opportunities for recreation.

Natural floodplains help reduce the heights of floods. During periods of high water, floodplains
serve as natural sponges, storing and slowly releasing floodwaters. The floodplain provides
additional "storage," reducing the velocity of the river and increasing the capacity of the river
channel to move floodwaters downstream.

When the river is cut off from its floodplain by levees and dikes, flood heights are often
increased. The construction of levees along the Lower Missouri River, for example, has
increased flood heights by as much as twelve feet. By contrast, protected floodplain wetlands
along the Charles River in Massachusetts store and slowly release floodwaters -- providing as
much "storage" as a medium-sized reservoir.

Natural floodplains also help improve water quality. As water courses through the floodplain,
plants serve as natural filters, trapping sediments and capturing pollutants. Nitrogen and
phosphorous (found in fertilizers) that wash off farm fields, suburban backyards and city streets
ignite a chemical chain reaction which reduces the amount of oxygen in the water, suffocating
fish and other aquatic organisms.

Many floodplain plants will use nitrogen and phosphorous before they can reach the river,
improving water quality. Many cities have built artificial wetlands to reduce water treatment
costs. Studies of heavily polluted waters flowing through Tinicum Marsh in Pennsylvania, for
example, have shown significant reductions in phosphorous and nitrogen. The water treatment
Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02 63
value of Georgia's 2,300-acre Alcovy River Swamp is more than $1 million a year. Floodplains
also play an important role in the recharging of groundwater supplies (American Rivers, 2006).

County governments are strongly encouraged to adopt and implement comprehensive floodplain
protection. Doing so will help protect its aquatic resources over the long-term. Guidance on
floodplain ordinance adoption is provided by the Association of State Flood Plain Managers at
www.floods.org.

2.5.9 Special Management Strategies for Threatened and Endangered Species

Several streams in Little Tennessee River subbasin 04-04-02 are home to federally listed
Threatened and Endangered Species. The Tuckasegee River hosts the Appalachian elktoe and
the Spotfin Chub. Section .0100 of the Administrative Code states the following:

Certain waters provide habitat for federally-listed aquatic animal species that are listed as
threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-
1544 and subsequent modifications. Maintenance and recovery of the water quality
conditions required to sustain and recover federally-listed threatened and endangered
aquatic animal species contributes to the support and maintenance of a balanced and
indigenous community of aquatic organisms and thereby protects the biological integrity
of the waters. The Division shall develop site-specific management strategies under the
provisions of 15A NCAC 2B .0225 or 15A NCAC 2B .0227 for those waters. These
plans shall be developed within the basinwide planning schedule with all plans completed
at the end of each watershed's first complete five year cycle following adoption of this
Rule. Nothing in this Rule shall prevent the Division from taking other actions within its
authority to maintain and restore the quality of these waters.

An interagency team from the USFWS, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC
Natural Heritage Program was asked to develop technical reports to support NCDWQ’s
development of site-specific management strategies to restore water quality in the Little
Tennessee River Basin. It is intended to provide a framework for getting additional stakeholder
input prior to formulating the water quality management strategy which will be completed
through rule-making by NCDWQ (with the requisite public involvement and Environmental
Management Commission oversight).

64 Chapter 2 – Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-02