2_06010202 Upper LTN

20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
1
Figure 1-1: NLCD 2006 LaND Cover
Ü
2006 Land Cover
Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Agriculture
Woody Wetlands
UPPeR LittLe tennessee
RiveR sUbbasin
HUC 06010202
Includes: Nantahala River, Cullasaja River,
Little Tennessee River & Fontana Lake
WateRsHeD at a GLanCe
CoUnties:PoPULation:2006 LanD CoveR:PeRmitteD FaCiLities:
Clay, Graham, Macon, & Swain 2000: 33,168 Open Water...............2%NPDES
mUniCiPaLities:2010: 37,924 Developed.................5% Wastewater Discharge.........27
Franklin, Highlands aRea 789 mi2 Forested..................87% Wastewater Nondischarge.....4
ePa LeveL iv eCoReGions:Scrub.........................1% Stormwater...........................19
Broad Basins, High Mtns., Southern
Metasedimentary Mtns, Southern Crystalline
Ridges & Mtns.
Agriculture.................5%Trout Farms.............................3
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
2
Figure 1-2: upper LittLe teNNessee river subbasiN Map (060010202)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_^_
NN
N
N
N
N
NN NN
N
NN
NN
!k
!k!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
ddd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0#0#0
#0 #0#0
#0#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
X
X
#0
#0
X
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
X
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
X
#0
#0
#0
#0
X
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
SWAIN
MACON
JACKSON
HAYWOOD
CLAY
GRAHAM
CHEROKEE
TRANSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
Bryson
City
WebsterRobbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o t t C reek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird Cree k
Nantah
a
l
a

R
i
v
er
Cheoa
h
R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullas
a
j
a

R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Littl e Tennessee R.
T u c k a s e g e e River
Savan n ah Cree k
Tulula Creek
Forney C r e e k
Noland Cr e e k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
N antahala R i v e r
Littl
e
T
e
nnes
s
e
e River
S oco Cre e kDe
e
p Creek
O c o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H a z el C re e k
Santeetlah Cr.
Ü
NC Division of Water QualityBasinwide Planning UnitMarch 2012
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo Data
Not Rated
Impaired
Municipalities
County Boundaries
Roads
Legend
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)
¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2012 New Impairments 2012 New Impairments
0 31.5 Miles
Upper Little Tennessee River
Subbasin 06010202
Highlands
SWAIN
GRAHAM
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
3
WateR QUaLity oveRvieW
The Upper Little Tennessee River Subbasin,
hydrologic unit 06010202, was represented in
previous Basin Plans as Subbasins 04-04-01, 04-
04-02, 04-04-03, and 04-04-04. This subbasin
covers 789 sq. miles and is 87% forested; containing
portions of Nantahala National Forest and Great
Smoky Mountains National Park (Figure 1-1). There
are approximately 9,761 reservoir acres and ~1,083
classified stream miles, not including the numerous
unnamed tributaries. The Nantahala River is a major
tributary to the Little Tennessee River and drains
into Fontana Lake. A map of the subbasin showing
Impaired streams, monitoring and permit locations is
shown in Figure 1-2.
This subbasin contains some of the most pristine high
quality waters in the state and supports numerous
trout streams (Figure 1-3). Water quality issues
of concern in this subbasin include impacts from
developments on steep slopes, agricultural runoff,
trout farm waste, stream bank erosion, limited
riparian cover, failing culverts and individual onsite
wastewater failures. Waterbodies currently on the
2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters include: a 2
mile reach of the Little Tennessee River, Cullasaja
River, Mill Creek, Cat Creek, Rabbit Creek and Iotla
Branch. A new fish advisory was issued in 2008 for
Lake Fontana due to the potential mercury content in
walleye.
In 2011, The Little Tennessee Watershed Association completed their State of the Streams report. This
document is an excellent resource, covering land use changes, natural history, local biomonitoring program
results and restoration initiatives.
stReam FLoW
Stream flow is monitored at US Geological
Survey gaging stations. Flow, often abbreviated
as “Q”, is measured in terms of volume of
water per unit of time, usually cubic feet per
second (cfs). There are six gaging stations in
this subbasin. Figure 1-4 provides an example
of average stream flow over a 10 year period
and gives an idea of which years received
heavier precipitation. The flow rate in a stream
can impact the measurement of physical and
chemical parameters. In particular, droughts
can have major effects on parameters such as
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, and others by
reducing stream flow. For more information about
instream flow see Division of Water Resources
website: http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_
Registration/Instream_Flow/ or for USGS daily
discharge data: http://coweeta.uga.edu/dbpublic/hydrologic_data.asp.
Figure 1-3: streaM CLassiFiCatioNs
Highlands
Sylva
BrysonCity
Webster
Robbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
S c o t t C reek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Nantaha
l
a

River
Cheoa
h R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja

R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Littl e Tennessee R.
Tuc ka s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree k
Tulula Creek
Forney C re e k
Noland Cree k
Cartoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala Riv er
Little T
ennes
s
ee River
Soco Cree kDe
e
p Creek
Oc o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H a zel C re e k
Stream Classifications
WS-II;HQWWS-II;Tr,HQW
WS-III,B;TrWS-III;Tr,CAWS-IV
WS-IV,B;CAWS-IV;CA
WS-IV;Tr,ORWWS-IV;Tr,ORW,CA
WS-I;Tr,HQW
WS-IIIWS-III;Tr
ORW
HQW / ORW Buffer
WSW I or II
B;ORW
B;Tr,ORW
C;ORW
C;Tr,ORW
B
B;TrC
C;HQWC;Tr
Figure 1-4: Stream flow at USGS 03503000 little
tenneSSee river at needmore
(YearlY averaGe baSed on dailY meanS)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Av
e
r
a
g
e

Y
e
a
r
l
y

F
l
o
w
(c
u
b
i
c

f
e
e
t

p
e
r

s
e
c
o
n
d
)
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
4
bioLoGiCaL monitoRinG
Biocriteria have been developed using the diversity, abundance, and pollution sensitivity of the organisms
that inhabit flowing waterbodies in NC. One of five bioclassifications are typically assigned to each water
body sampled: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor. Not Impaired and Not Rated designations are
reserved for samples that were not eligible to be assigned one of the five typical bioclassification categories.
Typically, a “Not Impaired” rating is equivalent to a Good-Fair or better bioclassification and a “Not Rated”
designation is equivalent to a Fair or worse bioclassification. The reasons for not being able to assign one of
these five typical bioclassifications may be a lack of appropriate bio-criteria or atypical sampling conditions
(e.g., drought). These bioclassifications are used to assess the various impacts of both point source
discharges and nonpoint source runoff. The resulting information is used to document both spatial and
temporal changes in water quality, and to complement water chemistry analyses, ambient toxicity data, and
habitat evaluations. In addition to assessing the effects of water pollution, biological information is also used
to define High Quality or Outstanding Resource Waters, support enforcement of stream standards, and
measure improvements associated with management actions.
Biological samples were collected during
the spring and summer months of 2004
and 2009-10 by the DWQ-Environmental
Sciences Section as part of the five-year
basinwide sampling cycle. Twenty-one
benthic macroinvertebrate sites and six
fish community sites were evaluated
in 2009-10, representing 24 distinct
localities. Each basinwide biological
station monitored during the current cycle
is shown in Figure 1-5 and color coded
based on its current rating. The majority of
benthic macroinvertebrate samples taken
in this watershed received an Excellent
rating, while most fish community sites
resulted in a Not Rated status, due to
the absence of criteria for rating high
gradient mountain trout waters. For more
information about biological data in this
watershed, see the 2010 Little Tennessee
River Basinwide Assessment Report.
Detailed data sheets for each sampling
site can be found in Appendix 1-B.
Benthos
Among the benthic macroinvertebrate
sample sites, six sites improved, while the
remainder retained the same
bioclassification in 2009-2010 as observed in 2004 (Figure 1-6). There were an additional 51 benthic
samples taken to support special studies.
Fish
Among the six fish community sites,
two improved from 2004 while the
remaining sites maintained the same
bioclassification in 2009 from that
observed in 2004 (Figure 1-7). There
were an additional 38 fish community
samples taken to support special studies.
Figure 1-5: bioLogiCaL sites CurreNt ratiNgs
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
BrysonCity
WebsterRobbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C reek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird C ree k
Nantah
a
l
a

Ri
ver
Cheoah Riv
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullas
aj
a
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
L.Tenn. R.
Tuc k a s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree k
Tulula Creek
Forney C ree k
Noland Cr e e k
C
artoo gechaye Cr.
Nantahala R i ver
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
Soco Cree kDee
p Creek
Oc o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H az el C ree k
S a n teetlah Cr.
Bioclassifications
Benthic Community"à)Excellent"à)Good"à)Not Impaired"à)Good-Fair"à)Fair
"à)Not Rated"à)Poor
Fish Community
[¡Excellent[¡Good[¡Good-Fair[¡Fair
[¡Not Rated[¡Poor
Figure 1-6: beNthiC
MaCroiNvertebrate saMpLe status
8%
21%
71%
Benthos
Improved UnchangedDeclinedNew Site
Figure 1-7: Fish CoMMuNity
saMpLe status
5%9%
86%
Fish
Improved UnchangedDeclinedNew Site
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
5
In addition, over 20 years of fish community data collected by Dr. Bill McLarney of the Little Tennessee
Watershed Association (LTWA) was assessed for Brush, Cowee, Crawford Branch, Cullasaja, Ellijay,
Skeenah and Watauga Creeks. A discussion of IBI scores, fish abundance, diversity, and land cover
comparisons are detailed in the report Fishing for Answers: An Analysis of Biomonitoring Trends in Seven
Different Watersheds within the Little Tennessee River Basin. The LTWA biomonitoring data is available on
Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research website: http://coweeta.uga.edu/ltwa/.
LonG teRm ambient monitoRinG
The DWQ’s Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream stations strategically located for the
collection of physical and chemical water quality data. There are three AMS stations: G2000000, G0035000,
and G3500000 in this subbasin; data has been collected from these sites since 1968, 1981 and 1973
respectively.
To assist with an EEP Special Study, DWQ assessed the relationships between the concentrations of
pollutants detected at AMS station G2000000 with mean daily flow measurements obtained by the USGS’s
gaging station near Needmore, NC. Water quality data, representing 106 parameters, were available for
the period between July 1968 and December 2007, but only 25 parameters were analyzed. Pair-wise
comparisons providing correlation coefficients of concentrations for all 25 parameters with mean daily
discharge were calculated. Alkalinity (field), conductivity (field), pH (laboratory) manganese, pH (field), total
alkalinity, and water temperatures had significant negative correlations (p<0.05) with flow. Dissolved oxygen,
nitrite/nitrate, total aluminum, total iron, total nonfilterable residue, total residue and turbidity (laboratory)
had significant positive correlations (p<0.05) with flow; the remaining
11 parameters had no significant correlations with flow. Details of this
assessment are available on pages 96-114 of EEP’s Phase II WAT report.
The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters includes
concentration value graphs for AMS station G2000000 over a 11 year
period (2000-2010). Each major parameter is discussed, even if no
current impairment exists. The graphs are not intended to provide
statistically significant trend information, but rather an idea of how
changes in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings
over the long term. The difference between median and mean results
indicate the presence of outliers in the data set. Box and whisker plots of
individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data
between 2005 and 2009 by DWQ’s Environmental Sciences Section
(ESS) and can be found in the Little Tennessee River Basin Ambient
Monitoring Report.
pH
As seen in Figure 1-8, which represents
the data window for the 2010 303(d)
list, each ambient site had at least one
sample that fell below the pH standard
of 6su, but no stations exceeded
the standard in 10% or more of the
samples. Over 11 years there were
four incidences of pH dropping below
the minimal standard of 6su at ambient
station G2000000 (Figure 1-9). Two of
which occurred during the fall of 2007;
2007 also had the fewest samples (6)
taken.
.
Figure 1-8: PercentaGe of
SamPleS below the Ph 6
Standard between 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-9: SUmmarized Ph data at amS G2000000 Site between
2000-2010.
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
pH

SU
Median
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
6
Dissolved Oxygen
As seen in Figure 1-10, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, each ambient station did
not have any exceedances of their DO standards. Over the past 11 years, (Figure 1-11) no samples were
collected with dissolved oxygen levels below the 4mg/l instantaneous standard for Class C waters or below
6mg/l standard for trout waters at ambient station G2000000.
Figure 1-10: PercentaGe of
SamPleS exceedinG the do
Standard between 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%7% - 10%>10%
<6
<4
<4
Figure 1-11: SUmmarized do data at amS G2000000 Site between
2000-2010.
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DO

m
g
/
L
Median
Mean
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria occurs in water as a result of the overflow of domestic sewage and from other
nonpoint sources of human and animal waste, including pets, wildlife and farm animals. The fecal coliform
bacteria standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400
colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30).
Only results from a 5-in-30 study are used to indicate whether a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters
with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies. Other waters
are studied as resources permit.
As seen in Figure 1-12, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, two ambient stations
exceeded the 400 colonies/100ml in greater than 10% of the samples. There were eleven incidences of high
bacteria counts as indicated by several peaks in mean values over the eleven compared years, shown in
Figure 1-13. In 2008, a 5-in-30 was collected at AMS G2000000; data results did not exceed the standard.
However, an additional eight streams were sampled as part of a special study all indicating fecal coliform
bacteria levels that exceed state standards.
Figure 1-12: PercentaGe of SamPleS
exceedinG the fecal coliform
bacteria >400 colonieS/100ml
between 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%7% - 10%>10%

Figure 1-13: SUmmarized fecal coliform bacteria data at amS
G2000000 Site between 2000-2010.
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

(c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s

p
e
r

1
0
0

m
L
)
Geomean
Mean
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
7
Turbidity
As seen in Figure 1-14, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, two ambient sites had at
least one sample that was >50NTUs, but no stations exceeded the standard in 10% or more of the samples.
Over the past 11 years (Figure 1-15), six samples at AMS G2000000 exceeded the standard of >50 NTUs
for Class C waters.
Supplemental Ambient Monitoring
Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory collected water quality data at 12 locations within the Upper Little Tennessee
subbasin. Data collected includes:
1) Weekly stream grabs analyzed for DOC, TN, NH4-N, Cl, NO3-N, O-PO4, SO4, K, Na, Ca, Mg, and TP
from ~January 2010 to September 2011, plus six storm events,
2) Hourly conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity measurements from ~January 2010 to
September 2011 from Hach Hydrolabs, and
3) Stream TSS and TOS from 6 storm events from January 2010 to September 2011; samples were
collected by ISCO water samplers and includes stage data from pressure transducer which were later
converted to discharge data.
oRiGinaL samPLe sites smaLLeR stReam sites
1) Little Tenn. at Needmore USGS gage 7) Ball Creek Falls Branch
2) Little Tenn. at Prentiss USGS gage 8) Watauga Creek Mica City Creek
3) Cartoogechaye Creek at USGS gage 9) Jones Creek Hugh White Creek
4) South Skeenah Creek 10) Crawford Branch Willis Cove Creek
5) Caler Fork 11) Ray Branch Ammons Branch
6) Cowee Creek 12) Bates Branch
Coweeta staff plan to continue monitoring the 3 large stream sites (Little T at Needmore, Little T and
Prentiss, and Little T and Cartoogechaye) until mid 2013 for all the above metrics. In addition, monitoring
has begun in smaller streams to attempt to link land use directly to water quality with a focus on three land
use types: forested, traditional valley development, and mountain development.
Other measurements include physical measurements of the stream bed, including coarse woody debris,
width, depth, etc. and biological measurements such as salamander, fish, and macroinvertebrate surveys.
These data will be made available when published.
Figure 1-14: perCeNtage oF
saMpLes exCeeDiNg turbiDity
staNDarD betweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%
< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
>10
>50
>50
Figure 1-15: SUmmarized tUrbiditY data at amS G2000000 Site
between 2000-2010.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

N
T
U
Median
Mean
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
8
PRoteCtion anD RestoRation oPPoRtUnities
The following section provides more detail about specific streams where special studies have occurred
or stressor sources information is available. Within this document, biological sample site IDs ending in an
“F” denote fish community and a “B” denote macroinvertebrate community. Specific stream information
regarding basinwide biological samples sites are available in Appendix 1B. Use support information on all
monitored streams can be found in Appendix 1A. Detailed maps of each of the watersheds are found in
Appendix 1C or by clicking on the following small maps.
To assist in identifying potential water quality issues citizens, watershed groups and resource agencies can
gather and report information through our Impaired and Impacted Stream/ Watershed survey found here:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/impactedstreamssurvey.
HeaDWateRs LittLe tennessee RiveR WateRsHeD (HUC 0601020201)
This watershed encompasses 127,057 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 13,377 people.
The Little Tennessee River [AU# 2-(1)a] (C) from North Carolina-Georgia State
line to the confluence of Mulberry Creek has been Impaired since 2002, because
of a Fair bioclassification at site GF17, which was last sampled in 2004 and rated
again as Fair. However, the benthic population improved from Fair in 2000 to Good-
Fair in 2010 at site GB50. The Little Tennessee River watershed above sites GF17
and GB50 is approximately 56 square miles, mostly in Georgia. Water quality may have improved and is
reflected in the improvement of macroinvertebrate communities at site GB50 when the Fruit of the Loom
plant in Rabun Gap, GA, which accounted for over 95% of the total permitted industrial discharges to the
entire watershed, stopped discharging in 2006. There are four NPDES permitted facilities within the river’s
watershed in Georgia. WWTPs’ effluent, agriculture, road construction, small industries, urbanization,
residential development, and failing septic systems remain a concern. Beginning downstream of the NC/
GA state line, Little Tennessee River is Designated Critical Habitat for the Appalachia Elktoe mussel, further
raising the importance of clean water in the river.
Improving water quality in this reach will require corrective action by both nonpoint and point sources of
pollution. Local action is needed to address nonpoint source pollution through installation of BMPs and
riparian zone protection/restoration. Protective measures should be written into the NPDES permit for any
new operation at the old Rabun Mills (Fruit of the Loom) plant. The fish community site needs to be sampled
to assess biological changes due to the recent changes in industrial effluent contributions.
The Little Tennessee River [AU# 2-(1)b] (C) gains volume rapidly as it flows into North Carolina, becoming a
major river. Land use in the watershed south of Franklin is a mix of light commercial, agriculture, scattered
residences and broken tracts of forest. DWQ sampled the benthic community at GB10 resulting in a Good
bioclassification and found that water quality has improved at this location since the 1985, 1987, and 1999
samples. Past habitat problems include very poor riparian vegetation, lack of pools, and infrequent riffles.
Data collected at ambient monitoring station G0035000 showed incidences of low pH and high turbidity
levels but not enough to cause Impairment. Laurel Hills Homeowners Association WWTP discharges into the
Little Tennessee River and has incidences where their effluent exceeded limits with high BOD levels and low
pH levels.

Middle Creek [AU# 2-8] (C;Tr) drains southern Macon County and a small portion of northern Rabun County,
GA. The creek’s benthic (GB49) and fish (GF19) communities were sampled in 2009 resulting in Excellent
ratings. There is one single family residence domestic wastewater discharge (NCG550392) into the Creek.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
9
Tessentee Creek [AU# 2-9] (C;Tr) is an 8 mile trout creek draining southern Macon County. Land use in the
Tessentee Creek catchment is mostly forested, but includes lesser areas of cropland, pasture, Fraser Fir
Christmas farms and second homes. There are no NPDES permitted discharges in the catchment. DWQ
sampled the basinwide benthic site, GB46 in 2009 resulting in an Excellent rating and fish community site,
GF28 resulting in a Good rating.
Tributaries to Tessentee Creek (listed in the table below) were also sampled in 2009 as part of a Use
Attainability Study to determine suitability for supplemental classification as trout waters (Tr). The request
was expanded to have Tessentee Creek and its tributaries sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates to
determine whether they were suitable as High Quality Waters and Outstanding Resource Waters as
well. Later in 2009, DWQ collected trout from seven of the eight tributaries, with multiple age classes of
rainbow trout collected from six of the sites sampled. The presence of multiple age classes of trout provides
evidence of natural trout reproduction and survival within the Tessentee Creek watershed. Based on 2009
and 2011 benthic macroinvertebrates samples collected from the Tessentee Creek watershed, seven sites
received an Excellent bioclassification and therefore qualify for consideration for the High Quality Waters
classification. Moreover, two Federal and State Species of Special Concern were found in Tessentee Creek
(Hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis and Smoky Dace, Clinostomus sp. cf. funduloides) as well as
in four tributaries. The combination of Excellent bioclassifications within this catchment plus the presence
of resource values (Hellbender and Smoky Dace) further qualifies the catchment for classification to
Outstanding Resource Waters.
Name Assessment Unit #Sample Site ID Bioclassification Rating
Cadon Branch 2-9-1 GB193 Excellent
Nichols Branch 2-9-2 GB192 Good
Whiterock Branch 2-9-3 GB191 Good
Possum Branch 2-9-4 GB190 Excellent
Stillhouse Branch 2-9-5 GB189 Excellent
Wheatfield Branch 2-9-6 GB188 Excellent
Buckeye Creek 2-9-7 GB187 Excellent
Evans Branch 2-9-8 GB186 Excellent
On the contrary, Tessentee Creek received a Poor rating as part of LTWA’s Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
(SVAP) biomonitoring efforts.
Coweeta Creek [AU# 2-10] (B;Tr) was sampled again in 2009 at site GB45. This site has rated Excellent
since sampling commenced in 1994. The majority of the watershed is undisturbed forest, in part, associated
with Coweeta Creek Hydrological Laboratory. A protected, forested watershed combined with a minimally
disturbed riparian zone and instream habitat have resulted in a temporally stable, diverse, and pollution
intolerant macroinvertebrate benthic community. There is one single family residence domestic wastewater
discharge (NCG550364) and one minor WWTP from Willowbrook Park (NC0070394) discharging into the
creek.
Skeenah Creek [AU# 2-13] (C,Tr) is not monitored by DWQ, but it is monitored by the LTWA. Skeenah
Creek’s Water Health Report Card notes its fish community IBI score as being Fair and using LTWA’s Stream
Visual Assessment Protocol the stream also rated Fair. The LTWA notes the stream is impacted from limited
riparian cover, past agricultural activities and more recently road building and developments. They have also
noted the disappearance of the endemic Smoky Dace with the decline in the biotic integrity of the stream.
The Smoky Dace is classified as both a Federal and State Species of Special Concern.
Cartoogechaye Creek [AU# 2-19-(1), AU# 2-19-(10.3) & AU# 2-19-(10.5)] (WS-III;Tr, WS-III;Tr,CA, & B;Tr) is
an 11 mile tributary to the Little Tennessee River that enters the river near the backwaters of Lake Emory.
The creek’s watershed drains west-central Macon County and is characterized by steep mountainous terrain
in its headwaters reaching an elevation of 5324’ at Wayah Bald. The headwaters are mostly within the
Nantahala National Forest and habitat and stream conditions remain mostly unimpacted. The stream and
tributaries in the lower elevations are surrounded by alluvial valleys and land use consists of cattle pasture
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
10
and some large-lot residential areas. Before Cartoogechaye Creek enters the Little Tennessee River, it goes
through an area within the town limits of Franklin with more dense residential and some light industrial/
commercial property. The creek provides drinking water to the Town of Franklin.
DWQ sampled Cartoogechaye Creek for possible bacterial contamination in September 2011, completing
five samples within 30 days resulting in a geometric mean of 273 colonies/100 ml which exceeds the
standard. This creek qualifies to be listed on the 303(d) list in 2014. The sampling site is located at the Town
of Franklin WTP, which is just upstream of the town limits and the more commercial zone. Surveys in the
watershed indicate that livestock farming without the use of BMPs (e.g.,cattle exclusion fencing), may be the
main cause of elevated fecal coliform levels. There may be some contribution from failing septic systems,
but surveys by the WaDE program indicated this was not a major problem. Action to address this issue
should include working with the local Soil and Water Conservation District to provide cost-share funding for
the implementation of BMP’s where livestock have access to the creek.
Biological data collected by DWQ indicated the benthic community at site GB40 rated Good in 2009 and
2004, but was Excellent in 1999. The habitat was good, indicating the decline is likely due to a change in
water quality. Site GB41, in the headwaters, rated Excellent in 2004 and the fish community at site GF6
rated Good.
The Little Tennessee Watershed Association (LTWA) completed the Cartoogechaye Creek Municipal
Watershed Assessment in 2008. They monitored fish communities in the Cartoogechaye watershed at 14
locations. Their monitoring results indicate a high incidence of the parasitic infection called blackspot.
Blackspot is often associated with organic enrichment, but can be found in healthy streams. LTWA reports
blackspot was in decline in 2006, but a resurgence was seen in 2009. Further monitoring will determine if
the trend will continue. LTWA also evaluated several tributaries to Cartoogechaye Creek. Blaine Branch
and Mill Creek (not to be confused with Mill Creek in Highlands) suffer from channelization, bank erosion,
development, and riparian zone disturbance. Allison and Jones Creek continues to suffer from cattle access
and Allison Creek is under increased pressure from development.
CULLasaja RiveR WateRsHeD (HUC 0601020202)
The upper Cullasaja River Watershed is located in southeastern Macon County and
contains most of the Town of Highlands and surrounding lands with an estimated
2010 population of 5,604. The 59,263 acre watershed lies on the Highlands Plateau,
a high elevation area noted for exceptionally high rainfall (80 - over 100 inches per
year). The watershed was historically logged and many of the streams dammed and/
or channelized. Estimates provided by the Upper Cullasaja Watershed Association
(UCWA) indicate land use in the watershed was approximately 50 percent
residential-commercial-industrial (high level of impervious cover), and 50 percent forested as of 2004.
Within this watershed, the Cullasaja River [AU# 2-21-(0.5)a & 2-21-(0.5)b] (WS-III;Tr) from its source to
Macon Co. SR-1545 (4.4 miles) and Mill Creek [AU# 2-21-3] (WS-III;Tr) from its source to Mirror Lake (1.3
miles) are listed as Impaired on North Carolina’s 303(d) list. The watershed is developed in golf courses,
residences, and an urban center. The upper Cullasaja River and its tributaries are impounded numerous
times in three golf course communities, while Mill Creek drains half of the town of Highlands. The 2010
benthic sample collected at site GB48 rated Good-Fair which is an improvement over the Fair rating it
received in the previous four samples and therefore the upper segment [AU# 2-21-(0.5)a] of the River is
now Supporting. A lower pH (5.4) level was measured in 2010; the 2010 observations were substantially
lower than the 2000 (6.7), 2001 (6.7) and 2004 (6.8) measurements and suggests a reduction in non-point
pollution inputs which tend to have neutral to high pH characteristics. Many sites in this basin with minimal
non-point pollution have very low pH values.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
11
The Wildcats Cliffs County Club WWTP (NC0075612) facility which discharges into the Cullasaja River
has had several permit violations since 2007. As this facility ages an evaluation should be conducted to
determine if rehabilitation or replacement of the facility would be the better course of action.
In 2002, DWQ completed an assessment of the biological impairment for the Upper Cullasaja River
Watershed. A wide range of data was collected to evaluate potential causes and sources of impairment.
Data collection activities included: benthic macroinvertebrate sampling; assessment of stream habitat,
morphology, and riparian zone condition; water quality sampling to evaluate stream chemistry and toxicity;
analysis of stream bed sediment for chemistry and toxicity; and characterization of watershed land use,
conditions and pollution sources. A total of 17 benthic samples were collected, ranging from Fair on the
Cullasaja River (site GB48) to Excellent in Big Creek (site GB51). The study determined that sedimentation
is a significant problem in many of the impoundments, but the primary causes of biological impairment in
the Cullasaja River are dam related issues including the prevention of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
colonization and migration, lower water levels, increased temperature, and shifts in food availability. The
lack of organic microhabitat (sticks and leaf packs), pesticides, elevated cadmium, and low dissolved oxygen
levels also contribute to impairment. Several other streams were also evaluated during the study. Big Creek
[AU# 2-21-5-1-(0.5)], Houston Branch [AU# 2-21-5-1-3-(2)], and Ammons Branch [AU# 2-21-2] watersheds
are mostly forested with minimal disturbance and considered Supporting for aquatic life. Saltrock Branch
[AU# 2-21-1] (WS-III), however, is heavily impacted by a golf community and would benefit greatly from
habitat restoration efforts. Because of its small size, it is Not Rated for aquatic life. Skyline Lodge & Village
WWTP which discharges into Big Creek had exceeded its effluent BOD limit in 2010.
DWQ’s Lakes Assessment Unit evaluated Lake Sequoyah [AU# 2-21-(3.5)b] in summer 2009. The lake, is
classified as WS-III and Trout Waters (Tr). Out of 15 samples taken at three locations within the lake in 2009,
five samples exceeded the 10 NTU turbidity standard. Lake Sequoyah is Not Rated because of an
insufficient number of samples (10 samples in one location over a 5 year period is needed to assess for Use
Support). The lake was also considered to be eutrophic during May conditions and algal growth is limited by
phosphorous. More information is available from DWQ’s Lake & Reservoir Assessment Report.
The Upper Cullasaja Watershed Association (UCWA) has noted Lake
Sequoyah, along with most impoundments in the watershed, has
shown significant impacts from sediment deposition. Much of this
sedimentation occurred prior to the enacting of local sediment and
erosion control measures but continues as development on steep
slopes progresses. Reducing current sediment loads and removing
existing sediment deposits are high priorities for many local watershed
residents. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan aggravated flooding and erosion
problems in the watershed leaving large sediment deposits near
critical drinking water intakes. The Town of Highlands, Upper Cullasaja
Watershed Association, and the Mirror Lake Improvement Association are working together to secure funds
to remove built-up sediment in the lakes and pave eroding gravel roads.
Water Quality Initiatives
The Upper Cullasaja Watershed Association (UCWA) and the Town of Highlands have taken significant steps
towards addressing water quality issues. Since its inception, UCWA’s primary focus has evolved from rainfall
measurement and erosion control to understanding and implementing effective stormwater management
in the watershed. UCWA received a Regional Geographic Initiative grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to determine stakeholder concerns and issues within the watershed and define possible
solutions. In 2004, UCWA compiled their findings in the Upper Cullasaja River Watershed Strategy and Action
Plan. The action plan divides the watershed into four subbasins including: Upper Cullasaja River, Mill Creek,
Monger Creek, and Big Creek. General recommendations are given for the entire watershed and specific
tasks are outlined for each watershed. With help from UNC’s Highlands Biological Station, an addendum
was published “Water Quality Monitoring of the Upper Cullasaja Watershed, Highland, NC” to the 2004 Action
Plan that included a detailed assessment of the Cullasaja River, Mill Creek, Monger Creek, and Big Creek
and an assessment of stream restoration opportunities in those watersheds.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
12
The following needs were identified by DWQ and UCWA after completing watershed assessments:
• Evaluate and implement the following at each of the impoundments in the upper Cullasaja River watershed;
minimum and/or bypass flows, sediment transport devices, and fish passages. Doing so will allow passage
of aquatic organisms and help address sediment build up, elevated temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen
levels. If the problems associated with dams are not addressed, then the recovery potential for the Cullasaja
River is limited and other strategies listed below will have limited effect.
• Complete restoration projects at all sites identified in the Upper Cullasaja Watershed Strategy and Action
Plan. Successful completion will improve habitat conditions and stormwater management in the watershed.
• Pesticide and nutrient management programs should be evaluated and improved to further decrease the
use of these materials and their potential to enter lakes and streams. Homeowners and landscapers should
also be educated about the responsible use of pesticides, fertilizers, and hydroseed mix.
• Woody vegetation should be planted along cleared streams, and large woody debris and rock clusters
should be placed in the stream channel where wooded buffers are not planted. This action will stabilize
eroding streambanks, provide shade, and produce leaf packs and other organic instream habitat.
In addition, the LTWA with the assistance of students at the UNC’s Highlands Biological Station and UCWA
are completing a nine element watershed restoration plan for the Upper Cullasaja River. This process
is funded through DWQ’s NPS 319 grant program and will outline additional restoration implementation
activities.
The Cullasaja River [AU# 2-21-(5.5)] (B;Tr) from dam at Lake Sequoyah to Little Tennessee River (10.6
mi) is noted as having improved water quality conditions with 2010 Excellent ratings at benthic sites GB79
and GB39. The Cullasaja School’s WWTP facility has had several permit violations since 2007, including
exceeding BOD and flow levels.
Turtle Pond Creek [AU# 2-21-8] (C;Tr) is a 4 mile creek that has consistently rated Excellent for its benthic
community since sampling commenced in 1999 at site GB47.
Peeks Creek [AU# 2-21-16] (C,Tr) is not monitored by DWQ, but is monitored annually by LTWA since 2004.
In the fall of 2004, a landslide moved debris down this drainage over 2 miles to the Cullasaja River. Since
then, natural stream restoration has occurred and fish populations have returned giving it a Good IBI fish
score in 2010. Monitoring details are discussed in Peeks Creek Health Report Card.
Walnut Creek [AU# 2-21-17] (C;Tr) a 4.5 mile tributary to the middle reaches of the Cullasaja River and is
adjacent to the Ellijay Creek watershed. It is a high gradient Southern Appalachian-type trout stream with
plunge pools and riffles. DWQ sampled the fish and benthic communities in 2004 (sites GF30 and GB43).
The benthic site was sampled in response to complaints of dead fish, soapy water, and development. There
are no NPDES discharges in the watershed, but conductivity was elevated for a mountain stream. The
results from the benthic sample suggest instream habitat appears to be declining. Increased residential
development along the stream banks and agricultural activities in the watershed are affecting the riparian
and in-stream habitats by increasing the sediment load. The stream is significantly embedded with sand
at site GB43. The fish site technically qualified as a regional reference site based on land use calculations
and despite noted sediment problems. The fish community was typical of many un-impacted trout streams
(low species diversity, a reproducing population of naturalized rainbow trout, and mottled scuplin being the
numerically dominant species). This stream was not resampled in 2009.
Ellijay Creek’s [AU# 2-21-23] (C;Tr) 7.2 miles drains the east-northeast region of Macon County. The
creek was sampled at site GF14, in 2004 and 2009 resulting in Good bioclassifications and it is currently
supporting its supplemental classification as a trout waters (Tr). Although in 2009, fish species present
indicate upstream nonpoint nutrient runoff. Riparian zones were noted as narrow with a fairly open canopy,
pasture or roads are adjacent to the creek. As part of LTWA’s Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP)
biomonitoring efforts Ellijah Creek was assessed and received Fair rating.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
13
nantaHaLa RiveR WateRsHeD (HUC 0601020203)
This watershed encompasses 112,202 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 2,070 people. The majority of the watershed falls within the Nantahala National
Forest.
Moore Creek [AU# 2-57-17] (C;Tr,ORW) was sampled in 2008 by DWQ. The purpose was to evaluate the
possible effects on Moore Creek and downstream reaches of the Nantahala River as the result of a sediment
release from two in-line ponds located on Moore Creek. Four sites were sampled, upstream of the Moore
Creek ponds, downstream of the ponds and on the Nantahala upstream of Moore Creek confluence and
downstream of the confluence. Moore Creek-upstream benthic macroinvertebrate collection resulted in a
Not Impaired bioclassification and would have received an Excellent rating using mountain EPT criteria had
this stream’s watershed exceeded three-square miles. Moore Creek-downstream is located approximately
0.25 miles downstream of the two in-line ponds from which the sediment was released and is about 0.5
miles below the upstream sample reach. This sample resulted in a Not Rated bioclassification and would
have received a Fair rating using mountain EPT criteria had this stream’s watershed exceeded three-square
miles. Habitat quality between these two locations were essentially the same and further supports the
conclusion that the large discrepancy between the downstream and upstream benthic macroinvertebrate
communities is related to the sediment release and not a result of habitat differences. The invertebrate
sample collected on the Nantahala River upstream and downstream of the Moore Creek confluence resulted
in an Excellent ratings, although the downstream location had noted sediment accumulation.
Nantahala River [AU# 2-57-(0.5)] (B;Tr,ORW ) straddles the Macon County-Clay County line and is upstream
of Nantahala Lake. It’s waters are derived from small mountain streams that reside within Nantahala
National Forest, and thus has colder water than many other rivers of similar size. The river has consistently
rated Excellent for its benthic community since sampling commenced in 1984 at site GB42. At ambient site
G3500000 several incidences of low pH were recorded.
Nantahala Lake [AU# 2-57-(22.5)a] (B;Tr) is an impoundment of the
Nantahala River. Duke Power Company owns this reservoir, which was
impounded in 1942 for hydroelectric power. The lake is 76 meters deep at
the dam at maximum pool. Nantahala Lake was monitored five times from
May through September 2009 by DWQ field staff. No water quality issues
were detected. Nantahala Lake demonstrates it is oligotrophic and has
exhibited these trophic conditions since DWQ began monitoring in 1981.
Nantahala Mountain Village WWTP discharges into Nantahala Lake and
has had several permit violations for exceeding ammonia permit limits.
Below Nantahala Lake the Nantahala River [AU# 2-57-(22.5)b] (B;Tr) is highly regulated with daily releases
that greatly influence water chemistry, water depth and velocities. The benthic site at GB8 rated Good in
2009. A Random Ambient Monitoring System site (G3700000) also collected data along this reach of the
river between Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010. Station G3700000 was located on Nantahala R. off of SR 1310 near
Beechertown. Data collected included normal field parameters along with metals, volatile organics, semi-
volatiles, and pesticides. No water quality problems were detected, although there was one sample with low
pH and one sample with high dissolved copper content. The Nantahala Outdoor Center wastewater facility
has had permit violations for exceeding fecal coliform bacteria and TSS levels.
Whiteoak Creek [AU# 2-57-45a, 2-57-45b, & 2-57-45c] (C;Tr) is a 3.6 mile creek with its headwaters in
Nantahala National Forest. The creek rated Good-Fair in 2009 at site GB36, the same rating it received
in 2004. Since first being sampled in 1988, this waterbody has rated Fair twice and Good-Fair four times.
This segment is located downstream of a trout farm, which appears to be adversely affecting the benthic
community. Previous DWQ investigations (B-881209, B-900220, B-900720, B-050218) clearly documented
the effects of untreated wastewater in this creek. Abnormally large and thick mats of aquatic plants have
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
14
been a historic issue in Whiteoak Creek from 1998 to present.
Otter Creek [AU# 2-57-45-10] (C;Tr) is a 3.8 mile tributary to Whiteoak Creek. In October 2011, a special
study request was made to assess macroinvertebrate communities upstream and downstream of trout
farms. Data results on Otter Creek showed similar EPT richness values between the upstream and
downstream sites. However, the increase in EPTBI value is significant and indicative of degradation
downstream. (BAU Memorandum 120201).
Water in Dicks Creek [AU# 2-57-42] (C;Tr) was historically impounded at Dicks Creek Pond and diverted
into Duke Energy’s Nantahala Hydroelectric Project. As part of the 1999 agreement between Duke Energy,
NCDENR, USDA, and USFWS, this diversion ceased and flows in Dicks Creek were allowed to pass
through Dicks Creek dam, into the Nantahala River. In 2003, Duke Energy agreed to restore additional flow
in Dicks Creek as part of its mitigation for impacts caused by the Nantahala Hydroelectric Project. DWQ
sampled the benthic community in Dicks Creek at site GB9 to determine the condition of the stream prior
to the introduction of new, stable flows. This site received a Good-Fair bioclassification in 2004. Additional
sampling is needed to evaluate the stream response to restored flows.
aLaRka CReek-LittLe tennessee RiveR WateRsHeD (HUC 0601020204)
This watershed encompasses 130,309 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 15,445 people. The Town of Franklin’s WWTP is the only NPDES permit with limit
violations since 2007; the facility was in violation for exceeding its BOD and TSS
limits. The facility is in the process of upgrading portions of its treatment works and
has been compliant with its whole effluent toxicity testing.
Crawford Branch [AU# 2-22] (C) was sampled for macroinvertebrates in two
locations in May 2010, in support of the EEP’s local watershed planning (LWP) effort. The upstream site
received a Good bioclassification based on small stream criteria and the downstream site received a Fair
rating. Both Crawford Branch sites have poor habitat and riparian zones are narrow and the substrate is
filled with sand and silt. The stream is straight from channelization and lacks adequate pool habitat. The
benthic macroinvertebrate community clearly declines in Crawford Branch as it flows through the town of
Franklin. Five fecal coliform bacteria samples were also taken as part of the EEP special study between July
20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards with a maximum coliform
count of 2600 and a geometric mean of 1308 cfu/100ml. The source of fecal coliform bacteria was not
detected during stream walks of Crawford Branch as described in the special study report, but elevated
fecal values typically occurred at the same locations as elevated NOx, possibly indicating a common source
of both. Water samples were also collected to test for the presence of urban pollutants (aluminum, silver,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc). Only aluminum, iron
and zinc were detected at low levels and the results indicate further sampling is not warranted.
The Lake Emory [AU# 2-(1)c] (C) segment of the Little Tennessee River is a run-of-river impoundment
created in the 1920’s by construction of Porter Bend Dam at Franklin. DWQ considered it shallow and
eutrophic based on samples collected in 1988. In 1994, DWQ Lake Assessment Unit ceased sampling this
reservoir because sediment accumulation prevented boat access. Sediment deposition had become so
pronounced that vegetation had become established on sediment bars and the upstream areas resembled
a braided stream rather than a lake. DWQ determined Lake Emory was no longer functioning as a reservoir
and Tennessee Valley Authority gave it an ecological health rating of Very Poor. The USGS conducted
an analysis of sediment loads to Lake Emory from 2000-2001. The study compared sediment loads from
the Cullasaja River, Cartoogechaye Creek, and the mainstem Little Tennessee River. This study noted
that riparian agricultural activities and increasing urbanization in the upper portion of the watershed in
the towns of Highlands and Franklin have increased the river’s sediment load. The study also notes the
dam has trapped many of those sediments, protecting the downstream habitat in the Needmore area.
However, during the FERC dam relicensing process Duke Energy reported that Lake Emory has limited
sediment retention capacity and the incoming sediment is being passed through the impoundment and
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
15
flowing downstream into the reach of the Little Tennessee River known for its ecological significance (Duke
Energy 2003). In 2010, DWQ issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the FERC relicensing
of the Franklin Hydroelectric Project (# 2603). A condition of the permit includes a Long-Term Sediment
Management Plan that will protect existing aquatic life uses in downstream waters.
Downstream of Lake Emory, water quality and habitat improves significantly. This downstream section of
river is noted as one of the healthiest major rivers in the Blue Ridge region and supports a nearly complete
biological community, including sensitive and protected species such as the spotfin chub, sicklefin redhorse,
olive darter, slippershell mussel and Appalachian Elktoe mussels. The limited capacity of Lake Emory to
trap sediment and the possible organic and metal contaminants attached to sediments both trapped within
the Lake’s sediment and those sediments moving through the impoundment is a concern to protecting
downstream conditions. Investigations by USGS and Western Carolina University (as reported in EEP’s
Watershed Plan) indicate metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb) and organic pollutants are present in legacy sediments
in Lake Emory and the Little Tennessee River. These contaminants may negatively impact aquatic biota,
especially those associated with bottom substrates, such as mussels.
The heavy sediment in Lake Emory and increasing loads in the downstream reach demonstrates the need
for strong sediment and erosion control, wetland restoration, and streambank stabilization throughout the
entire watershed. Macon County has adopted a Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance that should
help reduce erosion problems originating from certain new land disturbing activities.
Additional research indicates that since
2005, there has been a >90% decline in
the abundance of Appalachian elktoe and
slippershell (Alasmidonta viridis) mussels in the
Little Tennessee River between Franklin Dam
and the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir. This
reach of the Little Tennessee River formerly
supported the strongest populations of both
species, but slippershell has now dropped
below detection at multiple monitoring sites and
Appalachian elktoe has become rare. Research
into causes of this decline are on-going by NC
State University and US Geological Survey. No single, definitie casual factor has been identified to date,
but increased sedimentation, as well as elevated levels of manganese, and an explosion of a recently
established population of the exotic Asian clam (Corbicula flumminea), have been observed and may be
contributing factors. (Personal communication, S. Fraley, NCWRC).
Rabbitt Creek [AU# 2-23b] (C;Tr) watershed lies northeast of Franklin and drains the Holly Springs
community. DWQ evaluated the fish community at site GF22 in 2004, when it received a Good-Fair
bioclassification. The creek’s benthic community was sampled by DWQ in 2008 and 2009 as part of an
EEP special study. Samples collected resulted in Poor, Good-Fair and Good ratings. During these sampling
efforts, the Biologists noted sedimentation especially in pools, beaver activity, and channelization. Five fecal
coliform bacteria samples were also taken in Rabbitt Creek as part of the EEP special study between July
20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards with a maximum coliform
count of 1300 and a geometric mean of 510 cfu/100ml. The Creek is Impaired.
Cat Creek [AU# 2-23-4a & 2-23-4b] (C) suffers from severe habitat degradation due to land clearing
activities, channelization, livestock access, unpaved roads and several small impoundments. In 2000, a
half-mile reach of Cat Creek was re-channelized and the riparian zone was cleared. This action resulted in a
significant increase in streambank erosion and sediment delivery to Rabbitt Creek. Cat Creek was sampled
four times by DWQ, in 2008, as part of an EEP special study resulting in an Impaired status for the lower
0.5 miles [AU# 2-23-4b]. Five fecal coliform bacteria samples were also taken as part of the EEP special
study between July 20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards with a
maximum coliform count of 1000 and a geometric mean of 443 cfu/100ml.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
16
Both Rabbitt and Cat creeks show instream habitat degradation caused by toxic and sediment impacts.
Identified sediment sources include, livestock access to streams, stream bank erosion, unpaved roads.
Toxicity impacts to the benthic community were attributed to the large tomato farm at the confluence of Cat
and Rabbit Creeks. The tomato farm went into production in 2008 and a sample comparison from pre & post
growing season noted a decline in macroinvertebrate taxa collected (Special Study see page 60 for Memorandum
addendum 20090429). The samples in the upper reaches of Cat Creek resulted in Not Impaired ratings, a
sample taken just above the tomato farm resulted in a Good-Fair rating and the sample below the tomato
farm received a Poor rating. The tomato farm has since converted to growing blackberries and thus sampling
the macroinvertebrate communities in both Rabbitt and Cat creeks is suggested, preferably in the fall after
the growing season.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s restoration project on Cat Creek included the restoration of ~9,000
ft of stream channel and riparian area and 8 acres of riparian wetland through old and current cattle pasture
and an old golf course.
The LTWA has been sampling the fish community in Rabbit Creek for many years and the IBI score has
fluctuated from Very Poor in the 1990’s to Fair & Poor in recent years. Recovery from disturbance during
golf course construction and removal of cattle access may be responsible for some improvement, but
subsequent declines could also be associated with the large tomato farm and pesticide use and a bridge
replacement project. The negative changes also appear to be related to increasing sedimentation originating
from poor land use practices. As part of LTWA’s Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) biomonitoring
efforts Rabbit Creek was assessed and received Fair rating and received a Poor IBI score reported on
LTWA’s Health Report Card. DWQ supports LTWA’s efforts to include Franklin High School students in
restoration and protection activities in this subwatershed.
Coon Creek [AU# 2-24-3] (C) was sampled in 2008, at site GB160, and received a Good rating as part of an
EEP special study. The creek was noted as having severe bank erosion and sediment within the channel.
Watauga Creek [AU# 2-24] (C;Tr) was sampled for macroinvertebrates in 2008, at site GB161, and received
a Good rating as part of an EEP special study. Five fecal coliform bacteria samples were also taken as part
of the EEP special study between July 20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed
state standards with a maximum coliform count of 1100 and a geometric mean of 417 cfu/100ml. The
creek was noted as being impacted from animal agriculture. As part of LTWA’s Stream Visual Assessment
Protocol (SVAP) biomonitoring efforts Watauga Creek was assessed in two locations and both received Fair
ratings. In 2009, the LTWA completed a restoration project to help improve fish passage on Watauga Creek;
activities included removal of an abandoned dam and a damaged culvert which was replaced with a free-
spanning bridge and streambank restoration.
Rocky Branch [2-26] (C) was sampled as part of the EEP special study to assess fecal coliform bacteria
contamination. Five samples taken between July 20- August 18, 2009 detected bacteria levels that exceed
state standards with a maximum coliform count of 780 and a geometric mean of 370 cfu/100ml.
Iotla Creek [AU# 2-27] (C) watershed contains large amounts of agriculture and the Macon County Regional
Airport. Impacts from these land use practices are evident in both DWQ and LTWA sample results. DWQ
sampled this stream in two locations in 2004 and 2009. The fish and benthic communities were evaluated
downstream of the airport at sites GB33 and GF15 and both rated Good. The stream was also sampled at
as part of an EEP special study with the upper site receiving a Good-Fair rating and the lower site a Good
rating. Biologists noted sediment problems and nutrient enrichment. Samples collected by LTWA confirm the
instream habitat in Iotla Creek is some of the poorest in the basin and much of the lower reach has been
channelized. Five fecal coliform bacteria samples were also taken as part of the EEP special study between
July 20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards with a maximum
coliform count of 1600 and a geometric mean of 917 cfu/100ml. Three small tributaries were found to have
high fecal levels and need to be investigated further to try and determine the source of the elevated fecal
coliform bacteria
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
17
Iotla Branch [AU# 2-27-1] (C) was sampled at site GB152 as part of an EEP special study, in 2008, and
received a Good-Fair rating. The creek was noted as having poor overall habitat with channels and pools
filled in with sediment. In 2007, water samples showed elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. A 5-in-30
days study was completed in 2008 to assess if the stream was meeting water quality standards; the samples
did not indicate standard violations. However, in 2009 the stream was resampled as part of the EEP special
study between July 20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards with
a maximum coliform count of 2300 and a geometric mean of 1306 cfu/100ml. The tributaries with primarily
agricultural land uses should be further investigated as sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
Cowee Creek [AU# 2-29] (C;Tr) drains the northeast corner of Macon County, an area with historical ruby
mining operations and scattered residential and pasture areas. DWQ sampled the fish community at site
GF8 in 2004 and the benthic community at site GB31 in 2007 and 2009. The fish community was rated
Good and the benthic community rated Excellent both years, improving steadily from Good-Fair in 1994. The
benthic community was also sampled upstream at site GB156 and rated Excellent in 2008 as part of the EEP
special study. Biologists noted turbid water and slight sedimentation.
LTWA collected fish samples on Cowee Creek and three of its larger tributaries: Caler Fork, Matlock
Creek, and Beasley Creek. Their results compare well with the DWQ samples and indicate the fish
community in the downstream reach is in good health, but also note an increase in stream temperature
and disappearance of trout. Significant sedimentation impacts are noted in and above Caler Fork from
failing roads in the Wildflower development. LTWA measured the single largest drop in stream health
at their site on Caler Fork. They report turbidity problems on this stream even during dry spells. Caler
Fork received a Fair IBI fish rating; details of their monitoring results are described on their Health Report
Card. LTWA noted Matlock Creek is also deteriorating, perhaps due to an increase in organic loading
from development. Beasley is in good condition and supports a healthy population of rainbow trout.
DWQ sampled Caler Fork [AU# 2-29-4] (C) in Sept. 2010 and it received at Poor fish community rating
at site GF62 leading to its Impaired status on the 2012 303(d) list. The Creek was also sampled as part
of the EEP special study, in 2008, at site GB154 resulting in a Good rating. Samples were also take in
Matlock Creek [AU# 2-29-5] (C) at GB155 resulting in a Good-Fair rating and Dalton Creek [AU# 2-29-
4-2] (C) at site GB172 resulting in a Not Impaired rating, Dalton Creek was sampled again in May 2010,
using the small stream criteria received an Excellent bioclassification.
Bradley Creek [AU# 2-33] (C;Tr) was sampled in 2008 at site GB148 and received a Good rating as part
of an EEP special study. The creek was noted as having rocks coated with an abundance of aufwuchs and
poor riparian and edge habitat. Five fecal coliform bacteria samples were also taken as part of the EEP
special study between July 20- August 18, 2009 which detected bacteria levels that exceed state standards
with a maximum coliform count of 770 and a geometric mean of 314 cfu/100ml. Bradley Creek was also
monitored by the LTWA’s biomonitoring program and received a Fair IBI fish rating; details of their monitoring
results are described on their Health Report Card. In early 2011, the LTWA completed a restoration project to
improve fish passage and reduce sedimentation caused by streambank scour; activities included removal of
two damaged culverts which were replaced with a free-spanning bridge and streambank restoration.
Lakey Creek [AU# 2-34] (C;Tr) was sampled for macroinvertebrates in 2008 at site GB149 and received a
Good rating as part of an EEP special study. The stream was noted as having poor riparian cover.
Burningtown Creek [AU# 2-38] (B;Tr) is the largest tributary to the Little Tennessee River downstream of
Franklin. Compared with much of the county, its watershed is largely undeveloped excepting light residential
and agricultural activities. The stream provides habitat for several sensitive species including the spotfin
chub, hellbender salamander, smoky dace, and the sicklefin redhorse. DWQ sampled the fish community at
GF3 in 2004 and benthic communities at sites GB30 in 2009, GB34 in 2007 and GB147 in 2008 as part of
an EEP special study, all resulted in Excellent Ratings.
LTWA monitors Burningtown Creek and two of its tributaries, Younce Creek and Left Prong Burningtown
Creek. Their data shows a healthy fish population in Burningtown Creek and the Left Prong. They report
impacts from cattle near the mouth of Burningtown Creek. LTWA notes Younce Creek is degraded, but
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
18
by unknown causes. However, Younce Creek [AU# 2-38-8] (C) was also sampled by DWQ with the
latest samples resulting in Excellent ratings at both sites, GB150 and GB151.
Tellico Creek’s [AU# 2-40a, 2-40b & 2-40c] (C;Tr) fish community was sampled in 2004 resulting in a Good
rating and the benthic community, at site GB28, in 2009 resulting in an Excellent rating. The creek was
sampled several miles upstream from GB28 in 2010, in response to concerns regarding the Tellico Trout
Farm located along the creek. The upstream sample location rated Good and downstream of the farm rated
Fair. Based on the Fair rating a one mile segment [AU# 2-40b] of the Creek is now Impaired. Tellico Trout
Farm claims to be the largest commercial hatchery in the eastern United States. At the trout farm, Tellico
Creek drains 6.6 square miles of largely forested land, much of it in Nantahala National Forest. In 2008,
ambient data was collected downstream of the trout farm showing, increased nutrient levels, a decrease in
dissolved oxygen and pH, and specific conductance, water temperature, turbidity, and total suspended solids
increased compared to the upstream sample. Also, in August 2008, DWQ staff observed that the trout farm
was diverting the entire flow of Tellico Creek through the trout runs; similar stream conditions were observed
recently in August 2010 (details of the ambient water quality data collected in 2008 & 2009 are found on
page 57 of EEP’s Phase II report). It also appears that the trout farm is influencing the stream’s substrate and
growth of aquatic moss in Tellico Creek. The substrate below the trout farm discharge is noticeably filled in
with silt and fine sediments and there is abundant growth of aquatic moss on the rocks and in the leafpacks.
These conditions were not seen upstream of the farm. Based on the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
results, the Tellico Trout farm is a significant contributor of pollution to Tellico Creek. DWQ’s Asheville
Regional Office is monitoring water quality conditions and may require permit changes or enhancements.
In July 2010, fish community sample collected by the LTWA in Tellico Creek downstream of the trout
farm reported a very low catch rate and small fish of all species scarce or lacking. The community was
characterized by extremely low numbers of sculpins, a high number of fish associated with sediment, a high
proportion of omnivores and herbivores, a relatively high proportion of specialized insectivores, and a high
darter/sculpin ratio. The LTWA concluded that the biotic integrity is declining in Tellico Creek (although no
species have been eliminated) and that the decline is probably related to nutrient enrichment (McLarney,
2010).As part of LTWA’s Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) biomonitoring efforts Tellico Creek was
assessed and received a Good rating, but received a Fair IBI score reported on LTWA’s Health Report Card.
Rattlesnake Creek [AU# 2-44] (C) was sampled in 2007 as part of the EEP special study and rated as Not
Impaired. The creek flows along a forested corridor and is one of the healthiest tributaries to the Little
Tennessee River and it was noted as having some of the best habitat amongst all those sampled for the
special study (although habitat conditions are limited due to bedrock substrate). Ambient data was also
collected as part of the Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) sample between Jan. 2007 - Dec.
2008. Station G3080000 was located on Rattlesnake Creek at Big Dog Road near Lauada. Data collected
included normal field parameters along with metals, volatile organics, semi-volatiles, and pesticides; no
water quality problems were detected.
Brush Creek’s [AU# 2-46] (C) fish community was sampled in 2009 at site GF2, resulting in a Good rating.
Good habitat and riparian conditions were present, but upstream nonpoint sediment runoff sources should
be investigated.
Alarka Creek [AU#s 2-69-(0.4), 2-69-(0.5), & 2-69-(2.5)] (C;Tr; HQW) 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.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
19
Little Tennessee River [AU# 2-(26.5)a & 2-(26.5)b] (B) was sampled near Iotla Creek (GB35) in 2009 with
noted water quality improvements resulting in a Good benthic rating. Downstream the river runs along 13
miles of Needmore Game Lands (4,525 acres) in which the river has seen an increase in recreational use
and fishing. The river was sampled at site GB24, in 2007, resulting in an Excellent rating.
Fontana Lake WateRsHeD (HUC 0601020205)
This watershed encompasses 107,019 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 1,425 people.
Panther Creek [AU# 2-115] (C;Tr) in northeastern Graham County, is a high gradient
tributary to the Panther Creek Arm of Fontana Reservoir. Habitat and water quality
are good, the benthic community has rated from Excellent at site GB16 in 2009.

Stecoah Creek [AU# 2-130] (C;Tr) 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 benthic community sampled in 2009 at site GB14 rated Excellent and the fish community at
site GF26 was Not Rated but noted higher conductivity levels and siltation.
Hazel Creek [AU# 2-146-(0.5)] (C;Tr,ORW) was sampled in 2009 resulting in an Excellent benthic
bioclassification.
Tuskeegee Creek [2-136] (C) is a tributary to the Little
Tennessee River (Fontana Lake) and drains northern
Graham county. The catchment is primarily forested
with rural residential development and pastures and
fallow fields along the state secondary roads. There
are no NPDES permitted dischargers to the creek or to
any of its tributaries. In 2007 a request to evaluate the
Tuskeegee Creek watershed for the supplemental Tr
waters classification was made. DWQ sampled two sites
on the mainstem reach of Tuskeegee Creek in 2007 to
determine if a wild, reproducing population of trout exists.
The creek’s tributaries were not sampled for trout because
of their small size, lack of sufficient flow, or inaccessibility
via public roads. A reproducing population of rainbow trout
was found at one of the two sampling sites, but the habitat
conditions during the sampling of this site were found to be less than optimal. Therefore, the Tuskeegee
Creek watershed was re-sampled for trout and sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2011 to provide
additional data for consideration of the Tr, HQW, or ORW classifications for the watershed.
Fontana Lake is located along the southern boundary of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It
provides power and flood control on the Little Tennessee River. Fontana Lake is owned by the federal
government and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Construction on the dam was begun in 1942
and was completed in 1944. At a height of over 480 feet, the Fontana dam is the highest dam east of the
Mississippi River. The upstream 5,568 acres [AU# 2-(66)] of the lake is classified for primary swimming (B)
and the downstream 1,697 acres [AU# 2-(140.5)] is classified WS-IV B CA.
tRoUt ReCLassiFiCation ReQUest
Tuckeegee Tributaries Assessment Unit #
S.Fork Tuckeegee Creek 2-136-1
N.Fork Tuckeegee Creek 2-136-2
Cindy (Sandy) Branch 2-136-3
Apple Tree Branch 2-136-4
Chestnut Log Branch 2-136-5
Maple Branch 2-136-6
Garland (Flat) Branch 2-136-7
Bailey Branch 2-136-8
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
20
Fontana Lake was sampled monthly from May through September 2009 by DWQ. Dissolved oxygen and
water temperature readings in 2009 were similar to readings measured by DWQ staff on previous sampling
trips. The thermocline near the dam generally occurred at a depth of 15 meters from the lake surface. Since
1981, the trophic state of this lake has been consistently oligotrophic.
In September 2008, a lake fish consumption advisory was announced for
Fontana Lake based on high levels of mercury found in walleye fish. Fontana
Lake is also under a statewide consumption advisory for largemouth bass
due to mercury contamination.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began a monitoring program for its
reservoirs in 1990 as a means of collecting data to assess the integrity or
“health” of the aquatic ecosystems of these reservoirs. The TVA monitored
Fontana Reservoir in 2010. Data results from this monitoring determined that the Ecological Health Rating
was Fair. This reservoir has received this rating since 1995. The bottom life, one of the parameters used in
the TVA’s monitoring program, has consistently rated Poor and this may be the reason for the overall Fair
rating. (www.tva.com/environment/ecohealth/fontana.htm)
FRankLin to Fontana LoCaL WateRsHeD PLan
A Summary of a Comprehensive Watershed Planning Effort
Between 2008 and 2011, the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program led a
watershed study and planning effort in the
Franklin to Fontana watershed. The Franklin to
Fontana watershed is a 154 square mile area
that encompasses the Little Tennessee River
watershed between Lake Emory and Lake
Fontana. It lies within north Macon County and
a small portion of south Swain County, and it
includes much of the Town of Franklin.
The Franklin to Fontana watershed was chosen
for study due to the interest of both local and
regional stakeholders in its natural resources
and cultural landscape. This area is of great
ecological significance, and it includes a 23-mile
free-flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River
that hosts a highly diverse aquatic community,
including a number of rare, threatened or endangered fish and mussels. The area includes many tributaries
to the Little Tennessee River, including Cowee, Burningtown, Iotla, Watauga, Cat, Rabbit, Brush, and Tellico
Creeks. This primarily rural watershed is a mix of pasture, forest, and residential land, but there is notable
development pressure on existing agricultural and forested land.
The objectives of this effort were to assess the health of the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries,
identify the major stressors that impact stream quality, develop a plan that names specific recommendations
to restore and protect watershed resources, and produce an atlas of on-the-ground projects that can
provide the greatest benefit to the watershed.
A Team Effort
A Local Advisory Committee (LAC) comprised of representatives of local governments, conservation
organizations, and resource agencies, was formed to oversee the project. The LAC established watershed
study and planning objectives, carried out field studies, provided data, and developed management
recommendations for the watershed plan.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
21
Findings
An assessment of stream and upland conditions revealed that a
large portion of the watershed is highly functioning, or healthy,
including much of the Cowee subwatershed and the Burningtown,
Tellico, Brush, Sawmill, and Needmore subwatersheds. These
subwatersheds have a high amount of public and privately-owned
forest and are generally associated with healthy fish and aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities.
The most highly impacted subwatersheds are those of Iotla
Creek, Watauga Creek, Cat and Rabbit Creeks, and the Franklin
area, including Crawford Branch. Aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities were severely impacted by toxic impacts associated
with a large tomato farm along Cat and Rabbit Creeks. Stream
habitat is severely degraded in the Cat and Rabbit Creek and
Iotla Creek subwatersheds; poor habitat was linked to a lack of woody riparian buffers, extensive stream
straightening, livestock access to streams, and unpaved roads. In Franklin, Crawford Branch fish and
aquatic macroinvertebrate communities are highly degraded, impacted by urban stormwater, water quality
problems, and poor habitat. Tellico Creek biological communities were found to be impacted by waste
inputs from a trout farm in its upper reaches.
Fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient levels were high in numerous subwatersheds; high fecal bacteria levels
were often associated with livestock access to streams in rural subwatersheds, and high fecal bacteria
levels in urban Crawford Branch are still under investigation. Assessment of mussel populations in the Little
Tennessee River demonstrated continued decline in the federally endangered Appalachian Elktoe and other
mussel species populations. High levels of metals were found in Lake Emory sediments, but copper levels
in downstream Little Tennessee sediments were low.
The primary stressors to streams in the Franklin to Fontana watershed include the following:
1. Lack of woody streamside vegetation
2. Channel modification/straightening
3. Excess sediment inputs
4. Excess nutrient inputs
5. Bacterial contamination
6. Stormwater runoff
7. Tomato pesticides
8. Barriers to fish passage
Recommendations Developed:
The recommendations developed for the Franklin to Fontana Watershed
Management Plan represent what were identified to be the most effective
solutions to address the primary watershed stressors and to protect
healthy streams across the Franklin to Fontana area. These thirty-six
recommendations are summarized and grouped into four categories:
Conservation Projects, Policy and Institutional Measures, Educational
Activities, and Research and Assessment Activities.
Conservation projects include specific on-the-ground projects and general
recommendations for landowners who would like to improve water quality
and habitat of streams on their land. One key general recommendation for
landowners is to maintain and plant a streamside buffer of native trees and
shrubs, which can greatly improve stream habitat and stream bank stability,
filter pollutants, and provide cooler water needed by mountain fishes like
trout. Specific stream and wetland restoration projects and agricultural best
management practices (BMPs) were proposed for the most highly impacted
Franklin to Fontana Planning Timeline
June 2008: Plan started, Local Advisory
Committee established
January 2009: Preliminary Findings &
Recommendations Report completed,
intensive watershed assessment tasks
begin
January 2010: Watershed plan
recommendation development begins
October 2010: Watershed Assessment
Report completed
January 2011: Project Atlas completed
July 2011: Watershed Management
Plan completed
Good fish habitat in Matlock Creek
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
22
rural subwatersheds. Stream-side reforestation projects were proposed along the Little Tennessee River.
Forty retrofit stormwater BMPs were suggested for specific sites in Franklin. In order to conserve the natural
and cultural heritage of the Franklin to Fontana watershed, both forestland and farmland preservation
projects were proposed across the study area.
A number of policy and institutional measures related to state and local government programs are needed
to address both existing and future threats to stream health. Two new ordinances would be particularly
effective at protecting resources, including a county steep slope ordinance and a stormwater management
ordinance. Existing sedimentation and erosion control programs and ordinances can be modified to increase
their efficacy in streamside vegetation protection and provide consistent training and rules across Western
North Carolina.
Education is a key element in achieving many of the strategies named above and is fundamental to
increasing public awareness of the value of streams and rivers. A local environmental education program is
essential to encourage environmental stewardship, and a number of specific elements of that program are
spelled out in the Plan.
Continued research and assessment are needed to better understand watershed stressors, protect and
restore aquatic resources, and to target conservation activities. In particular, continued investment into
understanding the ecology of mussels in general and the cause of the Appalachian Elktoe decline in the
Little Tennessee River in particular are important to mussel and aquatic habitat conservation both in the
Little Tennessee River and in Western North Carolina at large. The Little Tennessee Watershed Association’s
highly successful stream biomonitoring program not only provides an on-going picture of stream and river
health, but it also serves to educate area citizens through volunteer opportunities; this program is essential
to community-based conservation of watershed resources.
The Franklin to Fontana watershed is an ecologically and culturally rich area. Everything that we do can
impact stream and river health both in the Franklin to Fontana watershed and in downstream waters; the
Franklin to Fontana Watershed Management Plan identifies a number of ways to live and work and play in
the watershed that will conserve and improve the health of the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries.
For more information on the Franklin to Fontana watershed planning effort, including the full Watershed
Management Plan, see: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/little-tennessee.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
23
notabLe WateRs
Table 1-1 lists waterbodies identified as needing additional protection and potential restoration actions. The
third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream
based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff
and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact. The
last column includes a list of recommended actions.
Stream Name AU#Class.Stressor Source Status Actions
Needed
Cartoogechaye
Creek
2-19-(1)
2-19-(10.3)
2-19-(10.5)
WS-III;Tr
WS-III;Tr,CA
B;Tr
nutrients, fecal
coliform bacteria development, agriculture
S P,
BMPs
Little
Tennessee R.
2-(1)b C low pH, habitat
degradation WWTP, Non-point sources S, IP P
Blaine Branch 2-19-13 C habitat degradation channelization, bank erosion,
development, riparian zone
disturbance
NR R
Mill Creek 2-19-9 WS-III habitat degradation channelization, bank erosion,
development, riparian zone
disturbance
NR R
Mill Creek 2-21-3 WS-III;Tr habitat degradation impoundments, low water
levels, temperature, sediment,
pesticides, flow modification,
stormflow scour, development
I R
Cullasaja River 2-21-(0.5)b WS-III;Tr habitat degradation impoundments, low water
levels, temperature, sediment,
pesticides
I R
Saltrock
Branch
2-21-1 WS-III habitat degradation golf course NR R
Walnut Creek 2-21-17 C;Tr habitat degradation,
sediment, elevated
conductivity
development, agriculture S, IM SS,
BMPs
Alarka Creek 2-69-(2.5)C;Tr habitat degradation,
nutrients
non-point source runoff, failing
septic systems, limited riparian
cover, agriculture
S R,
BMPs
Bradley Creek 2-33 C; Tr fecal coliform
bacteria, nutrients,
habitat degradation
limited riparian cover,
unfenced livestock
I R,
BMPS
Caler Fork 2-29-4 C sediment development on steep slopes I BMPs
Cat Creek 2-23-4a
2-23-4b
C sediment, toxicity,
habitat degradation,
fecal coliform
bacteria
channelization, land clearing,
livestock, impoundments, lack
of riparian cover, pesticides
I R,
BMPs
Crawford
Branch 2-22 C sediment, habitat
degradation,
channelization,
fecal coliform
bacteria
development, agriculture I R,
BMPs
Iotla Creek
Iotla Branch
2-27
2-27-1
C sediment, nutrients,
fecal coliform
bacteria
channelization, agriculture I
I
R,
BMPs
Moore Creek 2-57-17 C;Tr,ORW sedimentation impoundments NR P, R
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
24
Stream Name AU#Class.Stressor Source Status Actions
Needed
Rabbitt Creek 2-23 C; Tr sediment, toxicity,
habitat degradation,
fecal coliform
bacteria
development, agriculture,
beavers, channelization,
pesticides
I R,
BMPs
Rocky Branch 2-26 C fecal coliform
bacteria
I
Tellico Creek 2-40 C;Tr sediment, nutrients,trout farm, flow alterations I Ag
BMPs,
NMC
Whiteoak
Creek 2-57-45a C;Tr nutrients trout farm NR BMPs,
NMC
Watauga Creek 2-24 C, Tr fecal coliform bacteria agriculture I R, BMPS
Younce Creek 2-38-8 C habitat degradation S SS
Tuskeegee Cr
+ 8 tributaries
2-136 C --S P, SS
AU # = Assessment Unit # or stream segment/reach
Class. = Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL)
Stressor = chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the
standards for their designated use.(e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc. )
Status = I=Impaired, IM= Impacted, S=Supporting, IP= Improving,
Actions Needed = R= restoration, P= protection, SC= stormwater controls, SS= stressor study, E= education, LO= local ordinance, BMPs, SSP= species protection plan, F= forestry BMPs, Ag= Agriculture BMPs, NMC= nutrient mgmt controls.
NpDes perMits
nPDes PeRmits DisCHaRGinG to UPPeR LittLe tennessee RiveR sUbbasin
PeRmit #PeRmit tyPe oUtFaLL LoCation FaCiLity name
nPDes PeRmits DisCHaRGinG to LittLe tennessee RiveR
NCG551116 Wastewater Little Tennessee R.single family residence
NCG550866 Wastewater Little Tennessee R single family residence
NC0060844 WWTP Little Tennessee R Laurel Hills HOA
NCG070136 Stormwater Little Tennessee R Cemex Construction
NCG520024 Stormwater Little Tennessee R Mountain Sand
nPDes PeRmits WitHin CULLasaja sUbWateRsHeD
NC0051381 WWTP Saltrock Br Highlands Falls Country Club
NC0021407 WTTP Cullasaja R Town of Highlands
NC0075612 WWTP Cullasaja R Wildcat Cliffs Country Club
NC0067326 WWTP Cullasaja R Macon County Schools
NC0059552 WWTP Cullasaja R Highlands Falls Community
NCG550658 Wastewater Cullasaja R Highlands-Cashiers Animal Clinic
NC0036692 WWTP Big Cr Skyline Lodge & Village
NC0032778 WTP Big Cr Town of Highlands
NCG110104 Stormwater ditch to Cullasaja. R Highlands WWTP
NCG550389 Wastewater Little Buck Cr single family residence
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
25
nPDes PeRmits DisCHaRGinG to UPPeR LittLe tennessee RiveR sUbbasin
PeRmit #PeRmit tyPe oUtFaLL LoCation FaCiLity name
NCG550170 Wastewater Buck Cr single family residence
NCG550162 Wastewater Buck Cr single family residence
NCG550444 Wastewater Buck Cr single family residence
nPDes PeRmits WitHin nantaHaLa WateRsHeD
NCG530062 Wastewater Whiteoak Cr.Whiteoak Trout Farm
NCG530072 Wastewater Whiteoak Cr.Coldspring Trout Farm
NC0067318 WWTP Partridge Cr.Macon County Schools
NCG500136 Wastewater Nantahala R./Lake Duke Nantahala Hydroelectric
NCG530121 Wastewater Rowlin Cr.Nantahala Trout Farm
NCG160030 Stormwater Nantahala R./Lake Nantahala Asphalt Plant
NCG020065 Stormwater Nantahala R./Lake Nantahala Talc & Limestone
NC0057193 WWTP Nantahala R./Lake Nantahala Outdoor Center
NC0037737 WWTP Nantahala R./Lake Nantahala Village
WQ0003441
WQ0003442 Wastewater recycling Non-discharge Nantahala River Gem Mine
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe aLaRka CReek- LittLe tenn. WateRsHeD
NCG080728 Stormwater Crawford Br.Rolling Frito-Lay
NCG210393 Stormwater Ditch to Little Tenn. R Zickgraf Hardwood Flooring
NCG120083 Stormwater Ditch to Little Tenn. R Macon County Landfill
NC0021547 WWTP Little Tenn. R.Town of Franklin
NCG550300
NCG550299 Wastewater Little Tenn. R.single family residence
WQ0022711 Irrigation Non-discharge Macon County
WQ0034616 Irrigation Non-discharge North Macon K-4 School
NCG150005 Stormwater Iotla Cr.Macon County Airport
NCG020262 Stormwater UT to Iotla Cr.Rose Creek Mine
NCG520016 Wastewater Mason Br.Old Cardinal Gem Mine- sand dredging
WQ0006560 Recycling Non-discharge Mason Mountain Mine
NCG520017 Wastewater Caler Fork Cr.Maceffie Gems & Land- sand dredging
NCG020146 Stormwater Cowee Cr.Sheffield Mine
NCG140400 Stormwater Alarka Cr.Smoky Mtn. Ready Mix
NCG551010 Wastewater Alarka Cr.single family residence
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe PantHeR CReek sUbWateRsHeD
NCG210055 Stormwater Wolf Cr.Dehart Lumber Co.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R ba
s
i
n
P
Lan
:
U
PP
eR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sUbb
a
s
i
n

(
H
U
C

0
6
0
1
0
2
0
2
)
26
ReFeRenCes & UseFUL Websites
Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research
http://coweeta.uga.edu/
USGS Hydrologic Data- http://coweeta.uga.edu/dbpublic/hydrologic_data.asp
Duke Energy
Franklin Hydroelectric Project- http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Franklin_Vol_IIId.pdf
Land Trust for the Little Tennessee /Little Tennessee Water Association
http://www.ltlt.org/ or http://www.ltwa.org/
State of the Streams- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/2011SOSsmall.pdf
Cartoogehcaye Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Cartoogechaye_report_final_
web_version.pdf
LTWA Biomonitoring Trends- http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/10415.pdf
LTWA Biomonitoring Program- http://coweeta.uga.edu/ltwa/
SVAP- http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/10519.pdf
Skeenah Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Skeenah_ck_mini.pdf
Peeks Cr.Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Peeks_ck_mini.pdf
Rabbitt Cr. Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Rabbit_ck_mini.pdf
Caler Fk. Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Caler_Fork_mini.pdf
Bradley Cr. Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Bradley_ck_mini.pdf
Tellico Cr. Health Report- http://www.ltwa.org/sites/all/files/images/Tellico_ck_mini.pdf
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/little-tennessee
Phase I- http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_Tennessee/New/5_Supporting%20Documents%20
I-II_F2F_Jan09.pdf
Phase II- http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=2806346&na
me=DLFE-41508.pdf
Phase III-http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_Tennessee/New/F2F_WMP_Final_21July2011.pdf

NC Division of Water Quality
Biological Assessment- http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=de0dbb2d-3417-
44c4-9736-1710d2e18d43&groupId=38364
Ambient Report- http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ac3b7afe-e2f1-4d1e-93df-
c2ba9d897888&groupId=38364
Lakes & Reservoir Assessment- http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=0b586b2a-
6851-4783-a4e1-a7f58b2549f4&groupId=38364
303(d) List- http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
Impaired & Impacted Survey- http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/impactedstreamssurvey
Cullasaja River- http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c75eb8e2-0354-4490-
88ab-771d9b7871d0&groupId=38364
NC Department Health and Human Services
Fish Advisory- http://epi.publichealth.nc.gov/fish/current.html
NC Division of Water Resources
Flow- http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Instream_Flow/
Upper Cullasaja Watershed Association
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=bda0b403-848d-4951-b7fe-
d8f365505a71&groupId=38364
http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/10518.pdf
Tennessee Valley Authority
Monitoring- http://www.tva.com/environment/ecohealth/fontana.htm