LTN_BasinPlan_2012with_Appendices

20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
1
intRoDuction
This 2012 document is the fourth five-year update of the Little
Tennessee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Previous basinwide
plans for the Little Tennessee River Basin were completed in 1997,
2002, and 2007 and are available from the DWQ Basinwide Planning
website. This basin plan was written to provide guidance for watershed
stakeholders, municipal planners, natural resource regulators, and
other environmental professionals with identifying and addressing water
quality stressors, sources, and emerging issues. This document can
be used in conjunction with the Supplemental Guide to Basinwide
Planning which provides general information about water quality issues
and DWQ programs.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits were
issued in 2012 for a five year period. Basinwide biological and lake
sampling last occurred in the Little Tennessee River Basin in 2009 and
will be conducted again in 2014.
The Little Tennessee River Basin spans over 1,797 square miles and is
divided into three subbasins, Figure 1-1. The Division of Water Quality
grouped these subbasins to conform to the federal system of river
basin management. Previously, DWQ had its own set of subbasins and
numbering system (formerly 040401, 040402, 040403, 040404), but is
now using the federal cataloging unit known as hydrologic unit codes
(HUCs), Figure 1-2. This report is organized by chapters at the 8-digit
hydrologic unit or subbasin level.
The Little Tennessee River is one of three North Carolina river basins
that flow westward into the Tennessee Region and eventually drain into
the Mississippi River, Figure 1-3.
This plan includes three chapters covering water quality information for
each of the subbasins:
£Chapter 1: Upper Little Tennessee River Subbasin HUC 06010202
£Chapter 2: Tuckasegee River Subbasin HUC 06010203
£Chapter 3: Lower Little Tennessee River Subbasin HUC 06010204
LittLe tennessee RiveR
BasinWiDe WateR QuaLity PLan
Highlands

Summary
Basin at a GLance
Land Area square miles....1,797
Stream Miles.....................2,501
Lake/Reservoir acres......14,171
counties:
Cherokee, Clay, Graham,
Jackson, Macon, Swain,
municiPaLities:
Bryson City, Dillsboro, Forest
Hills, Franklin, Highlands,
Robbinsville, Sylva, Santeetlah,
Webster
PoPuLation:
2000................................ 81,917
2010 ................................94,566
2006 LanD coveR:
Developed .........................5%Forested ..........................91%Agriculture .........................4%
ePa LeveL iv ecoReGions:
Broad Basins, High Mtns., Southern
Crystalline Ridges & Mtns., &
Southern Metasedimentary Mtns.
PeRmiteD FaciLities:
NPDES
Wastewater Discharge .........58
Wastewater Nondischarge ...13
Stormwater... ..........................38
Aquaculture Operations ...........4
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
2
Figure 1-1: LittLe tennessee river Basin Map
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
3
oveRvieW
The Little Tennessee River basin is located
within the Blue Ridge Province of the
Appalachian Mountains of western North
Carolina. It encompasses ~1,800 mi2 in
Swain, Macon, Clay, Graham, Cherokee, and
Jackson counties. Much of the land within
the basin is federally owned (49%) and in
the U.S. Forest Service’s Nantahala National
Forest (Joyce Kilmer/Slick Rock Wilderness
Area) or the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. The basin also includes the
Cherokee Indian Reservation.
The Little Tennessee River is one of three
major tributaries of Fontana Lake. The other
two are the Nantahala River and the
Tuckasegee River. The Cheoah River, the
fourth major tributary of the Little Tennessee
River in North Carolina, has its confluence
with the river below Fontana Lake.
The North Carolina section of the Little Tennessee River is typical of many other mountain rivers. The
gradient is relatively steep in most reaches of the river and the substrate is dominated by riffle habitats.
Most tributaries are high gradient streams capable of supporting trout populations in the upper reaches. The
Basin has one of the most outstanding and diverse aquatic communities within the entire state. It is home to
a variety of rare species, including crayfish, mussels, fish, aquatic insects, and amphibians. The stretch of
Little Tennessee River between Franklin and Fontana Lake (25 miles) has a faunal diversity that rivals any in
the state and perhaps in the nation. Forested land continues to comprise a large majority of this basin, owing
to its relatively pristine condition.
Although habitat fragmentation
due to dam construction has
occurred throughout this system in
North Carolina and Tennessee, it
continues to support an incredibly
rich and diverse ecosystem.
Mountain home development
on steep slopes is an increasing
environmental concern and
the lower reaches of many
tributary catchments are farmed
or developed resulting in the
increased potential for nonpoint
source problems.
Figure 1-2: Old dWQ SubbaSin- HuC SubbaSin COnverSiOn Map
04-04-02
04-05-02 04-04-01
04-04-04
04-05-01
04-04-03
03-13-02
03-13-01
03-13-01
06010202 06010203
06020002
06010204
0306010103060102
03060102
Old Subbasins
06010203 Tuckasegee
Major Waterbody
06010202 Upper LTN
06010204 Lower LTN
Legend
Federal Basin
French Broad-Holston
Upper Tennessee
Middle Tenn.-Hiwassee
Mississippi River & major tributaries
Tennessee River Region
Figure 1-3: TenneSSee river regiOn
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
4
WateR QuaLity summaRy
There are five ambient water quality monitoring stations within the Basin, of which turbidity and low pH are
the only parameters that have had incidences of exceeding surface water standards. Special Studies and
data collected by other groups have documented incidences of high turbidity levels, high nutrient levels
and high fecal coliform bacteria levels. Biological samples were taken at 39 macroinvertebrate and 12 fish
community basinwide sites with an additional 63 macroinvertebrate and 42 fish samples taken because of
special study requests. A majority of the macroinvertebrate sites have Excellent Bioclassification ratings
and most of the fish community sites resulted in a Not Rated status due to absence of criteria for rating high
gradient mountain trout waters.
biOlOgiCal SaMple SiTeS and raTingS beTWeen 2005-2011
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"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 ott C reek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Snowbir d C re e k
Nantaha
l
a
R
iver
Cheoah
Riv
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja R
iv
er
Little Tennessee River
Little Tennessee R.
Tucka s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney C ree k
Noland Cree k
Cartoo gechaye Cr.
Nantahala River
Little
T
ennessee River
Soco CreekDee
p Creek
Oc o naluftee R.
Caney F o rk
H azel C reek
Sa n te etlah Cr.
Fish
[¡Excellent
[¡Good[¡Good-Fair[¡Fair[¡Poor[¡Not Rated
Macroinvertebrate
"à)Excellent
"à)Good
"à)Not Impaired
"à)Good-Fair
"à)Fair
"à)Not Rated
"à)Poor
CHange in benTHiC MaCrOinverTebraTe
SiTe raTingS
11 %
26 %
2 %
63 %
Benthos
Improved
Unchanged
Declined
New Site
CHange in FiSH COMMuniTy SiTe raTingS

5 %5 %
44 %
Fish
Improved
Unchanged
New Site
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
5
Improved Waters
The Cullasaja River (Ravenel Lake) AU# 2-21-(0.5)a is no longer Impaired for biological integrity as the
benthic macroinvertebrate sample resulted in a Good-Fair Bioclassification rating in 2010. This is an
improvement over the Fair rating it received in the previous four samples.
Impaired Waters
Water quality data within a 5- year data sampling period is assessed every two years and reported to EPA
to meet requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Impaired waterbodies exceed
a surface water quality standard for that waterbody’s designated use; these waterbodies are listed on the
303(d) list. The following list in Table 1-1 includes waterbodies in which a parameter exceeded the standard
and enough samples were collected to meet criteria assessment.
taBLe 1-1: iMpaired Waters
WaTerbOdy ClaSSiFiCaTiOn aSSeSSMenT uniT #lengTH paraMeTer iMpaired year
Caler Fork Creek C 2-29-4 4.6 mi.EBIF 2012
Cat Creek C
2-23-4a
2-23-4b
2-23-4b
2.5 mi
0.5 mi.
0.5 mi.
FCB
EBIB
FCB
2012
2010
2012
Cheoah River C;Tr 2-190-(3.5)1.4 mi.Turbidity 2012
Crawford Branch C 2-22 2.7 mi.FCB
EBIB 2012
Cullasaja River (Ravenel Lake)WS-III;Tr 2-21-(0.5)b 0.7 mi.EBIB 1998
Bradley Creek C;Tr 2-33 3.7 mi.FCB 2012
Iotla Branch C 2-27-1 2.4 mi.FCB 2012
Iotla Creek C 2-27 5.5 mi.FCB 2012
Little Tennessee R.C 2-(1)a 2.1 mi.EBIF 2002
Mill Creek WS-III;Tr 2-21-3 1.3 mi.EBIB 1998
Rabbitt Creek C;Tr 2-23b 2.1 mi.EBIB
FCB
2010
2012
Rocky Branch C 2-26 2.3 mi.FCB 2012
Savannah Creek C;Tr 2-79-36 13.4 mi.FCB 2008
Scott Creek C;Tr 2-79-39 15.3 mi. FCB 2008
Sugarloaf Creek C 2-79-39-5-1 1.8 mi.EBIB 2010
Tellico Creek C;Tr 2-40b 1.0 mi.EBIB 2012
Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake C 2-(78)a 170.6 ac.FCB 2008
Tuckasegee River C 2-79-(38)0.7 mi.FCB 2008
Tuckasegee River C;Tr 2-79-(35.5)a
2-79-(35.5)b
1.4 mi.
0.5 mi.FCB 2008
UT Tuckasegee C 2-79-(24)ut4 1.3 mi.Low pH 2010
Watauga Creek C;Tr 2-24 5.4 mi.FCB 2012
EBIF= Ecological Biological Integrity Fish Community
EBIB= Ecological Biological Integrity Benthos (Macroinvertebrates) Community
FCB= Fecal Coliform Bacteria
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
6
Subbasin Water Quality Summaries
Upper Little Tennessee River Subbasin HUC 06010202
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 buffers, failing culverts and individual onsite wastewater failures.
Waterbodies currently on the 2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters include: a two
mile reach of the Little Tennessee River, Cullasaja River, Mill Creek, Cat Creek,
Rabbit Creek and Iotla Branch. Also 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.
Chapter 2: Tuckasegee River Subbasin HUC 06010203
This subbasin contains some of the most pristine high quality waters in the state and
supports numerous trout streams. Water quality issues of concern in this subbasin
include impacts from developments on steep slopes, agricultural runoff, stream
bank erosion, limited riparian buffers and individual onsite wastewater failures.
Waterbodies currently on the 2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters include: a 1.3 mile
unnamed tributary to the Tuckasegee River, Scott Creek, Sugarloaf Creek, Savannah
Creek and 170 acres of the Tuckasegee River Arm of Fontana Lake.
Chapter 3: Lower Little Tennessee River Subbasin HUC 06010204
This subbasin contains high quality waters and supports numerous trout streams.
Water quality issues of concern in this subbasin include agricultural runoff, stream
bank erosion, and individual onsite wastewater failures. There are currently no
waterbodies on the 2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters, however a new fish advisory
was issued in 2008 for Lake Santeetlah due to the potential mercury content in
walleye. Water quality improvements were made in West Buffalo Creek with the
removal of four trout farms that were contributing nutrients to Santeetlah Lake, in the
Cheoah River with the improved management of water releases from Santeetlah Dam to support aquatic
habitat, and in the Tellico River watershed by the restoration of forest and stream conditions impacted from
off-highway vehicle recreation.
LocaL initiatives & neeDs
One of the major assets this basin has to protect and preserve water quality are the local groups that are
actively participating in stream restoration, protection, monitoring, education, research and land acquisition.
Their specific activities are incorporated within the descriptions of water quality issues within the subbasin
chapters of this Basin Plan. DWQ supports and encourages these local groups to continue to identify
problems and solutions and to implement activities to improve and protect water quality.
Sediment Control
In 1995, a group of Little Tennessee River Basin stakeholders, particularly non-profit organizations and
public agencies, was convened as the Little Tennessee Non-Point Source Team (LTNPST) by the NC
Division of Water Quality. The participants in the LTNPST continue to meet on a regular basis to exchange
information and ideas and, at times, pursue collaborative opportunities. Various participants facilitated the
meetings and in 2007, NC Natural Heritage Program assumed a leadership role in convening meetings. In
2008, a Conservation Action Plan for the Upper Little Tennessee River Basin was assembled with assistance
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
7
from World Wildlife Fund, and with direction provided by LTNPST. In 2009, the stakeholders changed the
name of this informal group to “Partners for the Little Tennessee”.
The PLT has identified the need for a system of erosion and sediment control (E&SC) trainings within
the western North Carolina region as a priority, as some counties require contractors to have annual
E&SC training while other counties do not. Research about mountainous terrain E&SC best management
practices specific to western NC has been identified as a need. In November 2009, key PLT participants
(Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, Watershed Association of the Tuckasegee River, Little Tennessee
Watershed Association, Jackson-Macon Conservation Alliance, Southwestern Resource Conservation and
Development Service, NC Natural Heritage Program) invited the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition and
Haywood Waterways Association to a discussion about E&SC training for the seven westernmost counties
[Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Graham, Clay, Cherokee]. This steering committee has been meeting
since that time, working on the Regional Erosion and Sediment Control Initiative for Western North Carolina.
The steering committee continues to pursue grant funding and promote this effort which could have a
significant impact on the sedimentation problem in mountain region stream systems. In addition to the
benefit of reduced sedimentation, the initiative will benefit local economies and small businesses by helping
contractors create and retain jobs.
Franklin to Fontana Local Watershed Plan
Between 2008 and 2011, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program led a watershed study and
planning effort in the Little Tennessee River watershed between Lake Emory and Lake Fontana. This effort
included an assessment of the health of the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries, identification of the
major stressors that impact stream quality, development of a plan that names specific recommendations to
restore and protect watershed resources, and the production of an atlas of on-the-ground projects that can
provide the greatest benefit to the watershed. The data collected during this assessment greatly enhanced
DWQ’s existing dataset and provides valuable knowledge on site specific restoration needs. Implementation
of identified restoration and protection projects is encouraged.
Impervious Surfaces
Impervious surfaces alter the natural hydrology by preventing infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious
surfaces include roads, rooftops, and parking lots; all are characteristics of conventional growth and
development. As watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces, the ability of the landscape
to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished. Urbanization results in increased surface
runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak streamflows after rainfall. Bank scour from these
frequent high flow events tends to enlarge streams and increase suspended sediment. These effects are
compounded when small streams are channelized or piped, and storm sewer systems are installed to
increase transport of stormwater downstream.
Progressive planning is needed to protect our water resources to prevent exceeding a watershed’s
impervious surface threshold. Both counties and the municipal jurisdictions within the basin should
implement the voluntary Universal Stormwater Management Program (USMP) to address stormwater
runoff concerns. Under the USMP, a local government will be able to meet the different post-construction
requirements for many existing stormwater strategies (HQW, Phase 2 NPDES, etc) with just a single set of
requirements.
Trout Farms
Macroinvertebrate and chemical sampling data collected in streams used by and adjacent to trout farms
indicated negative impacts to water quality standards. In an effort to improve and protect water quality,
while supporting the trout farm industry in the region, a collaborative approach has been undertaken which
includes trout farmers, NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, NC Cooperative Extension
and DWQ. The outcome of the collaborative work should lead to a better understanding of farm operations,
best management practices (BMPs), water resource/quality protection and regulatory needs for all parties.
The NCG530000 permit is anticipated to be renewed in July 2012. Any necessary permit modifications to
fully protect surface waters used by trout farm operations will be considered and discussed by DWQ and
stakeholders during the renewal period. Possibilities may include individual permits for certain farms, farm-
specific BMP plan requirements and system modifications.
20
1
2

D
W
Q

L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
R
iv
e
R B
as
i
n
WiDe W
at
e
R Q
ua
Lit
y
P
Lan
:
sum
m
a
Ry
8
The economic impact of trout farms in the rural counties within which they are located is considered
important. The past six years have seen a decrease of ten percent of the total number of trout farms in
the state. Various reasons account for the changes, including an aging farmer population, land valuation
increases and, considered most significant, an increase in water temperatures. Options are being
considered to maintain current production levels in light of the water temperature change.
Bacteria
Whether a stream is classified for primary recreation (B) or not,
the nature of mountain streams lead to a heavy recreation use.
High levels of fecal coliform bacteria have been detected in several
streams due to the increase in monitoring during a special study.
The bacteria normally would have gone undetected because DWQ’s
limited monitoring resources primarily focus on Class B waters. The
detected instream high bacteria counts reinforce the need to reduce
non-point source pollution, focus on limiting livestock access to
streams, implement agriculture BMPs, promote domestic pet waste
pick-up, control urban stormwater and repair failing septic systems.
WaDE
The discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage can be extremely harmful to humans and the aquatic
environment. Pollutants from illegally discharged household wastewater contain chemical nutrients, disease
pathogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Special study requests led to an increase in number of
streams sampled for bacteria and have led to several new stream impairments. As of 2012, there are 58
stream miles and 171 lake acres Impaired because of high fecal coliform bacteria levels. The economies of
the counties in this basin are highly dependent upon river recreation, especially for tourists and seasonal
residents. Reducing bacterial contamination is crucial for supporting a tourist economy. In order to protect
human health and maintain water quality, straight pipes must be eliminated and failing septic systems should
be repaired.
Recent budgetary changes caused the dissolution of an important program that provided significant water
quality as well as human health and quality of life benefits. The Wastewater Discharge Elimination (WaDE)
Program formed to identify and correct straight-piped wastewater discharges and failing septic systems,
lost funding for all activities. The work that had been accomplished by the program assisted in the reduction
of fecal coliform levels in several watersheds across the region. The Division of Water Quality in the
Asheville region receives regular phone calls from health department personnel, county personnel and other
agencies seeking assistance to help families in need of septic system repairs. Funds need to be reallocated
to reestablish the WaDE program or allocated to County Health Departments to assist in detecting and
eliminating straight pipes and septic failures.
DWQ Asheville Regional Office Outreach
The Asheville Regional Office (ARO) has recently embarked upon a long-term, outreach initiative designed
to establish partnership and understanding across the wide variety of industries and organizations within its
management area. To accomplish its mission and obtain its goals, the DWQ understands that partnership-
building, continuous education efforts and leveraging of resources are required. In that direction, the ARO
has launched several efforts with more to come:
• Western North Carolina is home to a large set of active environmental organizations (EOs) involved
in numerous initiatives, many involving water quality. Those organizations, located across the nineteen
counties of the Asheville Regional Office, house many resources, including experienced staff, community
members and local knowledge. The DWQ employs experienced staff as well, with regulatory and technical
expertise. Clearly, leveraging the resources of EOs and the DWQ would benefit all parties in the common
mission of protecting water quality. In late 2011, DWQ staff launched an effort in pursuit of such partnering.
EOs from across the western region along with DWQ personnel will convene several summits during 2012
to develop a better understanding of the work being done across the region and how to mutually benefit from
building partnerships.
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
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
1
WateRsHeD at a gLance
counties:PoPuLation:2006 LanD coveR:PeRmitteD FaciLities:
Jackson, Swain 2000: 41,737 Open Water.............1%NPDES
municiPaLities:2010: 49,162 Developed...............5% Wastewater Discharge........22
Bryson City, Dillsboro, Forest Hills, Sylva, Webster Forested.................89% Wastewater Nondischarge....8
ePa LeveL iv ecoRegions:aRea 734 mi2 Scrub......................1% Stormwater..........................16
High Mtns., Southern Metasedimentary Mtns,
Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mtns Agriculture...... ........4%Animal Operations...................0
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
tuckasegee RiveR
subbasin
HUC 06010203
Includes: Tuckasegee River, Caney Fork, Scott Creek,
Savannah Creek & Oconaluftee River
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
2
Figure 1-2: TuCkasegee river subbasiN Map (06010203)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"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
N
N
N
NN NN
N
NN
NN
¾Ì
!k
!k!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
dd
d
d
d
d
dd
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
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dddddddddddddddddddddddddd
d
d d
d
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
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#0X#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#0X
#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 r eek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird Creek
Nantah
a
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoa
h
R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Culla
s
a
j
a

R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Little 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.
Nantahala R i v e r
Little
T
e
nnes
s
e
e River
So co Cree kDe
e
p Creek
O c o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
Hazel C re e k
Santeetlah Cr.
Ü024681
Miles
2010 Use Support
Supporting
No Data
Not Rated
Impaired
Municipalities
County Boundaries
Roads
Legend
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
Tuckasegee River
Subbasin 06010203
NC Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit
Sept. 2011
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)
^_Lake
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
3
WateR QuaLity oveRvieW
The Tuckasegee River Subbasin, hydrologic
unit 06010203, was represented in previous
Basin Plans as Subbasin 04-04-02. This
subbasin covers 734 sq. miles and is 89%
forested; containing portions of Nantahala
National Forest and Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (Figure 1-1). There are
approximately 3,429 reservoir acres and
~998 classified stream miles, not including
the numerous unnamed tributaries. The
Tuckasegee River drains into Fontana Lake
just downstream of Bryson City.
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, stream
bank erosion, limited riparian cover and
individual onsite wastewater failures.
Waterbodies currently on the 2010 303(d)
list of Impaired waters include: a 1.3 mile
unnamed tributary to the Tuckasegee River,
Scott Creek, Sugarloaf Creek, Savannah
Creek and 170 acres of the Tuckasegee
River Arm of Fontana Lake. A map of
the subbasin showing Impaired streams,
monitoring and permit locations is shown in
Figure 1-2.
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 four gaging stations in this subbasin.
Figure 1-4 provides an example of average stream
flow over a 11 year period and gives an idea of
which years received heavier precipitation. For
more information about instream flow see DWR
website: http://www.ncwater.org/About_DWR/
Water_Projects_Section/Instream_Flow/welcome.
html.
The flow rate in a stream can impact the
measurement of physical and chemical
parameters. In particular, droughts can have major
affects on parameters such as dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, pH, and others by reducing stream flow.
Most recently this subbasin was in drought conditions in 2007 and 2008 (see page 17 AMS Report). Drought
effect on discharge in the Tuckasegee River was somewhat reduced by the almost daily releases of water
Figure 1-3: sTreaM CLassiFiCaTioNs
ORW
HQW / ORW Buffer
HQW
WSW I or II
HQW / WSW
Stream Classifications
Highlands
Franklin
S c o tt C reek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Nantah
a
l
a
R
iver
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Tucka s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree k
Forney C re e k
Noland Cr e e k
Ca
rtoo gechaye Cr.
Nantahala R iv er
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
Soco Cree kDee
p Creek
Oc o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H a z el C re e k
WS-IV
WS-IV,B;CA
WS-IV,B;ORW,CA
WS-IV;CA
WS-IV;Tr,CA
WS-IV;Tr,ORW
WS-IV;Tr,ORW,CA
WS-II,B;Tr,HQW,CA
WS-I;HQW
WS-I;Tr,HQW
WS-II,B;Tr,HQW
WS-II;HQW
WS-II;HQW,CA
WS-II;Tr,HQW
WS-II;Tr,HQW,CA
B
B;ORW
B;Tr
B;Tr,HQW
B;Tr,ORW
C
C;HQW
C;ORW
C;Tr
C;Tr,HQW
C;Tr,HQW:#
C;Tr,ORW
WS-III
WS-III,B;HQW
WS-III,B;Tr
WS-III,B;Tr,CA
WS-III,B;Tr,HQW
WS-III,B;Tr,ORW
WS-III:@
WS-III;CA
WS-III;HQW
WS-III;ORW
WS-III;Tr
WS-III;Tr,CA
WS-III;Tr,HQW
WS-III;Tr:@
For more information regarding stream classifications see:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/
Figure 1-4: Stream flow at USGS 03513000 tUckaSeGee
river at BrySon city (yearly averaGe BaSed on daily meanS)
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
200020012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
4
from the Duke Energy hydroelectric facility at the lower end of the West Fork of the Tuckasegee River.
The Oconaluftee River, with no dam control, the drought effect was more pronounced. Annual average
streamflow for 2007 was the lowest in since data collection in ~1946. Low precipitation over the 2007-08
winter accentuated the drought with recovery not starting until the storms in November 2008.
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. The results of biological investigations
have been an integral part in North
Carolina’s basinwide monitoring
program.
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. Fourteen benthic
macroinvertebrate sites and three fish
community sites were evaluated in
2009-10, representing seventeen
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. Several fish community sites
resulted in a Not Rated status, due to
the absence of criteria for rating high
gradient mountain trout waters, while
others rated Good. There were an
additional 8 samples taken at new
locations.
Benthos
Among the benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites, four sites improved,
two declined and eight retained the same bioclassification in 2009-2010
as observed in 2004. There were an additional four benthic samples taken
to support special studies. Figure 1-6 shows the distribution of these
samples.
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)
"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
Nantaha
l
a

R
iver
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasa
j
a
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
L.Tenn. R.
Tu cka s e g e e River
Savan n ah Cree k
Tulula Creek
Forney C re e k
Noland Cre e k
C
artoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala Riv er
Little T
ennes
s
ee River
Soco Cree kDee
p Creek
Oc o n aluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H azel C re e k
BioclassificationsBenthic 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
22%
45%
11%
22%
Benthos
Improved
Unchanged
Declined
New 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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
5
Fish
Among the three fish community sites, two improved from 2004 while the
one remaining site maintained the same bioclassification in 2009 from that
observed in 2004. There were an additional four fish community samples
taken to support special studies. Figure 1-7 shows the distribution of
these samples.
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.
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 is one AMS station (G8600000) in this
subbasin; data has been collected from this site since 1973. The following discussion of ambient monitoring
parameters includes concentration value graphs for AMS station G8600000 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 System Report.
pH
As seen in Figure 1-8, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, ambient site G8600000
had at least one sample that fell below the pH standard of 6su, but it did not exceed the standard in 10%
or more of the samples. Over 11 years (Figure 1-9), there were four incidences of pH dropping below the
minimal standard of 6 su at AMS G8600000.
At a Random Ambient Monitoring System site (G4210000) on an unnamed tributary to Tuckasegee River at
State Road 1172 near East Laport, samples taken recorded low pH levels resulting in Impairment.

Figure 1-7: Fish
CoMMuNiTy saMpLe sTaTus
29%
14%57%
Fish
Improved
Unchanged
Declined
New Site
Figure 1-8: PercentaGe of SamPleS
exceedinG the Ph <6 Standard
Between 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-9: SUmmarized Ph data at amS G8600000 Site Between 2000-2010
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
6
Dissolved Oxygen
As seen in Figure 1-10, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, ambient station
G8600000 did not have any exceedances of 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.
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) are prioritized for 5-in-30 studies.
As seen in Figure 1-12, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, ambient station
G8600000 exceeded the 400 colonies/100ml in at least one sample. There were eight incidences of high
bacteria counts as indicated by several peaks in mean values over the eleven compared years, shown in
Figure 1-13 . There are three waterbodies Impaired because of elevated fecal coliform bacteria detected in
5-in-30 data collected in August 2005: Savannah Creek, Scott Creek and Tuckasegee River.

Figure 1-10: perCeNTage oF saMpLes
exCeeDiNg The Do <4 sTaNDarD
beTweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%
< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-11: suMMarizeD Do DaTa aT aMs g8600000 siTe beTweeN 2000-2010.
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DO

m
g
/
L
Median Mean
Figure 1-12: PercentaGe of
SamPleS exceedinG the fecal
coliform Bacteria >400
Standard Between 2004-2008
Macon
0%
< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-13: SUmmarized fecal coliform Bacteria data at amS
G8600000 Site Between 2000-2010.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
r
o
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
7
Turbidity
As seen in Figure 1-14, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list, ambient site G8600000
did not have any samples that exceeded 50NTUs. Over the past 11 years (Figure 1-15), only one sample at
exceeded the standard of >50 NTUs for Class C waters.

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.
uPPeR tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD (Huc 0601020301)
This watershed encompasses 152,466 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 15,325 people. A majority of the watershed is within a WS-III area.
West Fork Tuckasegee River/ Thorpe Lake [2-79-23-(1)] (WS-III,B;HQW)
also known as Glenville Lake, is a man-made
impoundment on the Tuckasegee River located in
Jackson County. The lake is used for recreational
fishing, swimming, and boating. Owned by Duke
Energy, the reservoir also has been used for
hydroelectric power generation since its construction in 1941. Thorpe
Lake was monitored by DWQ in 2009, which determined the Lake is still
oligotrophic as it has been since it was first monitored in 1988. Trillium
Figure 1-14: PercentaGe of SamPleS
exceedinG the >50 tUrBidity Standard
Between 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-15: SUmmarized tUrBidity data at amS G8600000 Site
Between 2000-2010.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Tr
u
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
8
Links & Village WWTP discharges into Hurricane Creek which a tributary to Thorpe Lake. The facility has
had several permits violations over the past five years, including exceedances for BOD, TSS, ammonia and
low DO.
Wolf Creek (Wolf Creek Lake) [2-79-9-(1)] (WS-III,B;Tr,HQW) Wolf Creek Reservoir is a small hydroelectric
reservoir built by Nantahala Power and Light Company in 1955 on the Tuckasegee River and is currently
owned by Duke Energy. Wolf Creek Reservoir has a forested watershed. The shoreline of the lake has a
relatively low density of private homes, however evidence of land clearing and new home construction was
observed in 2009. Monitoring by DWQ field staff of Wolf Creek Lake was conducted monthly from May
through September, 2009. Data collected indicated that the lake’s trophic state to be oligotrophic. This
trophic state has not changed since monitoring by DWQ began in 1988.
Tuckasegee River [AU# 2-79-(0.5)] (WS-III,B;Tr,ORW) was sampled at site GB38 in 2009 resulting in an
Good benthos bioclassification.
Tuckasegee River/ Bear Creek Lake [2-79-(5.5)b & 2-79-(5.5)c] (WS-III,B;Tr)
is a hydroelectric impoundment of the Tuckasegee River. Most of the 194 mi2
upland drainage area is forested with steep slopes and clean, fast-moving
streams. Bear Creek Lake was built in 1953 and is currently owned by Duke
Energy. DWQ field staff monitored Bear Creek Lake five times from May
through September in 2009. This reservoir has remained oligotrophic since
it was first monitored by DWQ in 1994. In past evaluations of Bear Creek
Reservoir, it was observed that the shoreline was predominantly forested with
a relatively undisturbed drainage area that helped to maintain the reservoir’s
low nutrient concentration and very clear water. It was noted in 2009 that residential development has
significantly increased along the shoreline and in the watershed of this reservoir.
Tuckasegee River/ Cedar Cliff Lake [2-79-(5.5)c] (WS-III,B;Tr) is a picturesque mountain lake on the
Tuckasegee River. The lake is owned by Duke Energy and was built in 1952. Water quality in the lake
supports swimming, boating, and trout fishing. The name of the lake was probably derived from a sheer rock
cliff, which faces it from the north. This lake was sampled in 2009 by DWQ, which determined the Lake is
still oligorophic as it has been since it was first monitored in 1988.
Unnamed tributary to Tuckasegee River [2-79-(24)ut4] was sampled for macroinvertebrate communities
in 2007 resulting in a Not Impaired status. A Random Ambient Monitoring System site (G4210000) also
collected data along this tributary between Jan. 2007 - Dec. 2008. Data collected included normal field
parameters along with metals, volatile organics, semi-volatiles, and pesticides. Over 18% of the samples
had low pH, but no other water quality problems were detected. This creek is now Impaired for Aquatic Life
because of the low pH levels.
Caney Fork [AU# 2-79-28-(2.5)] (WS-III;Tr) drains a small portion of east-central Jackson County, a mostly
forested landscape, and ultimately feeds into the Tuckasegee River. Caney Fork, for most of it’s length, is
paralleled by roadway and is lined by agricultural fields and residences. The stream is lacking significant
riparian vegetation and is often denuded on both sides streambanks. However, most of the watershed is
forested thereby protecting the Excellent water quality that has persisted in Caney Fork over the last two
decades. The stream was sampled at sites GB27 and GF4 resulting in an Excellent benthos and Good fish
community bioclassifications.
Moses Creek [2-79-28-8] (WS-III;Tr) is a tributary of Caney Fork. This stream has a catchment that is largely
forested with only the lower segment paralleling a rural residential road. It was noted that riparian loss was
occurring due to residential lawns, some upstream agriculture, and the nearby road. The Creek was sampled
at site GB26 in 2010 resulting in an Excellent benthos rating.
Cullowhee Creek [AU# 2-79-31a & b] (C;Tr ) flows north through Jackson County in the southwestern portion
of North Carolina. The majority of the headwaters are forested and of good water quality. The lower portion
of the watershed includes Western Carolina University, light commercial, and residential development.
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
9
The stream through this section was historically moved and channelized resulting in poor habitat and flood
protection. In 2009, DWQ sampled Cullowhee Creek at two locations upstream of the university. The benthic
community at site GB29 rated Excellent, and the fish community at GF13 received a Good bioclassification.
The biologists noted high levels of sand, silt and macrophytes. Although Cullowhee Creek rated as Excellent
in 2009, habitat degradation is an issue and may negatively affect the fauna in the future.
oconaLuFtee RiveR WateRsHeD (Huc 0601020302)
This watershed encompasses 120,226 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 8,833 people.
Bradley Fork {AU# 2-79-55-12-(11)] (B;Tr,HQW) a tributary to the Oconaluftee
River, is located within Great Smoky Mountain National Park and as such has a
completely undeveloped and forested watershed. This stream has high recreational
usage among the public as it lies next to a campground just inside the park border
The creek was sampled in 2009 at site GB1 resulting in an Excellent benthos
bioclassification.
Oconaluftee River [AU# 2-79-55-(16.5)] (C;Tr) is a large tributary to the Tuckasegee River draining the
eastern portion of Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The lower segment of this river is tracked on both
sides by roads and receives large amounts of urban runoff from Cherokee. High development pressures
have introduced sediments into the river and removed large amounts of riparian vegetation. The River was
sampled in 2009, at site GB11, resulting in an Excellent benthos bioclassification, however the Excellent
rating is likely supported from the unimpacted tributaries as conditions in the Oconaluftee River itself are
deteriorating.
miDDLe tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD (Huc 0601020303)
This watershed encompasses 104,486 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 19,373 people.
Savannah Creek [AU# 2-79-36] (C;Tr ) watershed drains the west-central portion of
Jackson County. Savannah Creek itself flows alongside US 441 and NC 116 for
much of its length before joining the Tuckasegee River near Webster. Traditionally,
land use in the watershed was agricultural with light residential and commercial
activity along the transportation corridors. Residential development is increasing
substantially and elevating sediment and erosion concerns. DWQ does not have an
ambient monitoring station but DWQ did sample fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in Savannah Creek
as part of a Class B (Recreation) use-attainability study for the Tuckasegee River initiated in 2003. The
samples exceeded state standards and indicate Savannah Creek, from its source to the Tuckasegee River
(13.4 miles), is Impaired in the recreation category. The sources of fecal coliform contamination are
unknown, but may include failing septic systems and/or agricultural runoff. DWQ also sampled the fish and
benthic communities at sites GF23 and GB23, both resulting in Excellent ratings. However, these data do
not reflect the habitat threats posed by development in the watershed. Many stream reaches have been
channelized and riparian vegetation removed.
The Watershed Association for the Tuckasegee
River (WATR) is currently writing a watershed plan
and coordinates sampling in the Savannah Creek
Watershed. Data collected at Savannah Creek and
its largest tributary, Greens Creek, from July 2003
through September 2010 show turbidity levels that
exceed the 10 NTU standard for trout habitat waters.
savannaH ck.gReens ck.
n 89 87
exceeDing 10 ntus ~37%~33%
mean 19.4 9.7
meDian 7.7 7.5
maximum 450 80
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
10
Measurements exceeded turbidity standards 37% of the time for Savannah Creek and 33% for Greens
Creek [AU# 2-79-36-11]. These results were obtained despite the regional drought conditions. Monthly
sampling also detected high flow and high turbidity conditions during the summers of 2007 and 2008.
WATR notes that DWQ’s sample site at NC116 is not representative
of stream conditions. The monitoring site at bridge on NC116 has
a relatively large gradient as compared to stream reaches up and
downstream. The station occupies a small water gap in a local ridge and
it has a rocky substrate. These factors combine to yield a short zone
that does not accumulate deposited sediments and is favorable habitat
for macroinvertebrates WATR recommends that if it is necessary to
acknowledge this biologically productive stream segment, then Savannah
Creek should be divided into three assessment reaches. Moving
upstream from the confluence, the first reach is a section of stream that
is characterized by low gradient. It passes through a wide floodplain with
agriculture, and stream banks are unstable and eroding. The second
assessment reach starts with the high gradient segment at Bridge along NC116. In the upstream
direction it forms a large curve in an isolated patch of flood plain, again dedicated to agriculture. This
reach extends into a larger water gap paralleled by Rt 116. The high gradient section in the water gap, a
place frequented by anglers, marks the upper end of this section. The third assessment reach starts at
the mid point in the water gap and extends upstream for the remaining length of Savannah Creek.
Since the temporary moratorium on construction in 2008 and the downturn in home building in 2009,
the relative effect of construction on erosion and turbidity has decreased significantly. Enforcement, and
especially clarity and enforcement of temporary and final vegetative cover, remains critically important
to improving water quality in the Savannah Creek watershed. Developing agriculture buffers and public
education on maintaining fallow land, road ways and road ditches are recommended. Fecal coliform
contamination sources in the Savannah Creek watershed should be identified and corrected. Additionally,
sediment and erosion control problems should be addressed to prevent further habitat degradation.
Water Quality Initiatives
WATR is working diligently to inform the public on the critical role of stream side buffers in maintaining a
healthy aquatic ecology and good water quality. Partnering with the Town of Dillsboro WATR volunteers and
staff have build the Stream Buffer Demonstration Trails at Monteith Farmstead Park. These short nature
trails with educational signs are specifically aimed at informing the landowners, and stream-side landowners
in particular, about the necessity of riparian buffers to healthy mountain streams. This work has been
supported by Resourceful Communities Program. WATR also has conducted youth environmental education
events funded by the Cherokee Preservation Foundation, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and by WATR members and contributors.
Scott Creek [AU# 2-79-39] (C;Tr) is a large,
swift tributary to the Tuckasegee River. Draining
northeastern Jackson County, US 19/23 and Old
US 19/23 parallel the creek is for most of its length.
The stream passes through many residential
areas before entering the urban environment in
Sylva and Dillsboro. DWQ sampled fecal coliform
bacteria concentrations in Scotts Creek as part of
a Class B Recreation use-attainability study for the
Tuckasegee River initiated in 2003. The samples
exceeded state standards and indicate Scotts
Creek, from its source to the Tuckasegee River
(15.3 miles), is Impaired in the recreation category. Rafting on Scott Creek
The sources of fecal coliform contamination are unknown, but may include failing septic systems, leaking
sewer systems and/or nonpoint source runoff. In 2009, DWQ evaluated the benthic macroinvertebrate
community at site GB167 resulting in an Excellent bioclassification. This is an noted improvement compared
to the 2004 conditions, however the Creek still has turbidity and habitat issues. The stream channel is highly
modified and the bank is armored by riprap.
The Morningstar of Jackson WWTP facility discharges into Blanton Branch (AU# 2-79-39-10) which is a
tributary to Scott Creek. In 2010 the facility exceeded fecal coliform bacteria levels.
A small pond dam failure in the Balsam Mountain Preserve development occurred on June 7, 2007.
The resultant sediment and debris slide entered Sugarloaf Creek [AU# 2-79-39-5-1] (C) and finally the
lower segments of Scott Creek. A special benthos study was completed in 2007 to assess the impacts
from the dam failure. A total of three streams were sampled in this study. Two of the streams sampled
(Sugarloaf Creek and Scott Creek) were directly affected by the sediment. The third stream, Licklog
Branch [2-79-39-3-6] (C), was sampled as a comparative reference site to Sugarloaf Creek and was
similar in both landuse and drainage area. Results of the study indicate that the dam failure did affect the
macroinvertebrate community in Sugarloaf Creek as it had a “Fair” bioclassification while the reference
site was “Good”. The downstream reaches of Scott Creek received an “Excellent” bioclassification.
Tuckasegee River [2-79-(35.5)a & 2-79-(35.5)b & 2-79-(38)] (C;Tr) receives effluent from the municipalities
of Sylva, Webster, and Dillsboro and drains almost the entirety of Jackson County. The River is Impaired for
recreational uses due to exceedances of the fecal coliform bacteria levels. The Jackson County WWTP has
had numerous permit violations within the five years, including exceedances in fecal coliform bacteria, BOD,
TSS levels and low pH.
Downstream [AU# 2-79-(40.5)] the in the Tuckasegee River a biological sample was taken in 2009 at site
GB19 resulting in an Good benthos bioclassification. The most significant event for aquatic biology in the
Tuckasegee River watershed was the removal of the low-head dam at Dillsboro in early winter of 2009. Prior
to dam removal, Duke Energy pumped out and removed much of the impounded sediment. Dam removal
allows fish species to migrate upstream, with the potential for host species for the endangered Appalachian
Elktoe Mussel to also migrate upstream. As part of the dam removal, the river bank along the former
impoundment has been restored with stone armoring at the toe of the slope affected by water level changes
caused by daily discharge related to hydroelectric generation.
Camp Creek [AU# 2-79-49] (C) watershed, including the Beck Branch [AU# 2-79-49-1] (C) watershed,
encompasses approximately 4.5 square miles in northwestern Jackson County. The creek is a tributary to
the Tuckasegee River. Visible landuses in the watershed include forest, rural residential, infrastructure
(secondary roads and US 441), commercial, active pastures, horse pastures, and fallow fields. There is one
NPDES permitted discharger to Camp Creek (NC0074250) with no recent permit violations. DWQ received a
request to reclassify Camp Creek to trout waters in 2004. In 2005, the fish community was sampled at
several sites in the Camp Creek watershed to determine if determine if there were wild, reproducing
populations of trout in Camp Creek and Beck Branch. The survey did indicate significant habitat problems in
the watershed. The primary habitat problems were unstable, eroding stream banks, and narrow or non-
existent riparian vegetation. In this Camp Creek reclassification/use attainability study, it was determined
after sampling 4 locations that only the upper 2.3 square mile watershed of the creek met the trout waters
regulation criteria. Suitable instream habitats were present at the lower two sites on Camp Creek for trout,
but the lack of wide forested riparian zones and nonpoint source runoff may prevent their occupation of
those reaches of the creek on a year-round basis. Stream restoration activities would benefit the likelihood
of trout recolonizing, inhabiting on a year-round basis, and reproducing in the middle and lower reaches of
the creek. (memorandum 20050605).
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe miDDLe tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD
Permit #Permit TypeOutfall locationFacility Name
NCG210134StormwaterScott CrT&S Hardwoods Inc
NCG100168StormwaterScott CrDr Automotive
NC0032808WWTPBlanton BrMorningstar of Jackson
NCG050383StormwaterScott CrStonewall Packaging, LLC
NCG080191StormwaterYellow Bird BrUnited Parcel Service Inc
WQ0005207Non-dischargeWastewater
RecyclingJackson Paper Manufacturing Company
NCG140158StormwaterScott CrSouthern Concrete Materials Inc
NC0020214WWTPScott CrSylva WWTP
NCG551046WastewaterSavannah Crsingle family residence
NCG080730
NCG080731StormwaterSouth Fork Blair
CrRolling Frito-Lay
WQ0005763Non-dischargeBiosolidsTuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
NC0039578WWTPTuckasegee RJackson County WWTP
NCG110111StormwaterTuckasegee RTuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
NCG160031StormwaterTuckasegee RDillsboro Asphalt Plant
NCG020247StormwaterTuckasegee RDillsboro Quarry
NCS000295StormwaterScott CrJackson Paper Manufacturing Company
NCG550375WastewaterW Fork Dicks Crsingle family residence
NC0074250WWTPCamp CreekGateway Chevron
NC0000264WWTPTuckasegee RJackson Co Industrial Park
NC0084441WWTPConnelly CrSmoky Mountain Country Club
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
11
The sources of fecal coliform contamination are unknown, but may include failing septic systems, leaking
sewer systems and/or nonpoint source runoff. In 2009, DWQ evaluated the benthic macroinvertebrate
community at site GB167 resulting in an Excellent bioclassification. This is an noted improvement compared
to the 2004 conditions, however the Creek still has turbidity and habitat issues. The stream channel is highly
modified and the bank is armored by riprap.
The Morningstar of Jackson WWTP facility discharges into Blanton Branch (AU# 2-79-39-10) which is a
tributary to Scott Creek. In 2010 the facility exceeded fecal coliform bacteria levels.
A small pond dam failure in the Balsam Mountain Preserve development occurred on June 7, 2007.
The resultant sediment and debris slide entered Sugarloaf Creek [AU# 2-79-39-5-1] (C) and finally the
lower segments of Scott Creek. A special benthos study was completed in 2007 to assess the impacts
from the dam failure. A total of three streams were sampled in this study. Two of the streams sampled
(Sugarloaf Creek and Scott Creek) were directly affected by the sediment. The third stream, Licklog
Branch [2-79-39-3-6] (C), was sampled as a comparative reference site to Sugarloaf Creek and was
similar in both landuse and drainage area. Results of the study indicate that the dam failure did affect the
macroinvertebrate community in Sugarloaf Creek as it had a “Fair” bioclassification while the reference
site was “Good”. The downstream reaches of Scott Creek received an “Excellent” bioclassification.
Tuckasegee River [2-79-(35.5)a & 2-79-(35.5)b & 2-79-(38)] (C;Tr) receives effluent from the municipalities
of Sylva, Webster, and Dillsboro and drains almost the entirety of Jackson County. The River is Impaired for
recreational uses due to exceedances of the fecal coliform bacteria levels. The Jackson County WWTP has
had numerous permit violations within the five years, including exceedances in fecal coliform bacteria, BOD,
TSS levels and low pH.
Downstream [AU# 2-79-(40.5)] the in the Tuckasegee River a biological sample was taken in 2009 at site
GB19 resulting in an Good benthos bioclassification. The most significant event for aquatic biology in the
Tuckasegee River watershed was the removal of the low-head dam at Dillsboro in early winter of 2009. Prior
to dam removal, Duke Energy pumped out and removed much of the impounded sediment. Dam removal
allows fish species to migrate upstream, with the potential for host species for the endangered Appalachian
Elktoe Mussel to also migrate upstream. As part of the dam removal, the river bank along the former
impoundment has been restored with stone armoring at the toe of the slope affected by water level changes
caused by daily discharge related to hydroelectric generation.
Camp Creek [AU# 2-79-49] (C) watershed, including the Beck Branch [AU# 2-79-49-1] (C) watershed,
encompasses approximately 4.5 square miles in northwestern Jackson County. The creek is a tributary to
the Tuckasegee River. Visible landuses in the watershed include forest, rural residential, infrastructure
(secondary roads and US 441), commercial, active pastures, horse pastures, and fallow fields. There is one
NPDES permitted discharger to Camp Creek (NC0074250) with no recent permit violations. DWQ received a
request to reclassify Camp Creek to trout waters in 2004. In 2005, the fish community was sampled at
several sites in the Camp Creek watershed to determine if determine if there were wild, reproducing
populations of trout in Camp Creek and Beck Branch. The survey did indicate significant habitat problems in
the watershed. The primary habitat problems were unstable, eroding stream banks, and narrow or non-
existent riparian vegetation. In this Camp Creek reclassification/use attainability study, it was determined
after sampling 4 locations that only the upper 2.3 square mile watershed of the creek met the trout waters
regulation criteria. Suitable instream habitats were present at the lower two sites on Camp Creek for trout,
but the lack of wide forested riparian zones and nonpoint source runoff may prevent their occupation of
those reaches of the creek on a year-round basis. Stream restoration activities would benefit the likelihood
of trout recolonizing, inhabiting on a year-round basis, and reproducing in the middle and lower reaches of
the creek. (memorandum 20050605).
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe miDDLe tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD
Permit #Permit TypeOutfall locationFacility Name
NCG210134StormwaterScott CrT&S Hardwoods Inc
NCG100168StormwaterScott CrDr Automotive
NC0032808WWTPBlanton BrMorningstar of Jackson
NCG050383StormwaterScott CrStonewall Packaging, LLC
NCG080191StormwaterYellow Bird BrUnited Parcel Service Inc
WQ0005207Non-dischargeWastewater
RecyclingJackson Paper Manufacturing Company
NCG140158StormwaterScott CrSouthern Concrete Materials Inc
NC0020214WWTPScott CrSylva WWTP
NCG551046WastewaterSavannah Crsingle family residence
NCG080730
NCG080731StormwaterSouth Fork Blair
CrRolling Frito-Lay
WQ0005763Non-dischargeBiosolidsTuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
NC0039578WWTPTuckasegee RJackson County WWTP
NCG110111StormwaterTuckasegee RTuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority
NCG160031StormwaterTuckasegee RDillsboro Asphalt Plant
NCG020247StormwaterTuckasegee RDillsboro Quarry
NCS000295StormwaterScott CrJackson Paper Manufacturing Company
NCG550375WastewaterW Fork Dicks Crsingle family residence
NC0074250WWTPCamp CreekGateway Chevron
NC0000264WWTPTuckasegee RJackson Co Industrial Park
NC0084441WWTPConnelly CrSmoky Mountain Country Club
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
12
Conley Creek (Connelly Creek) [2-79-52] (C;Tr) is a small tributary to the Tuckasegee River and drains a
small portion of southeastern Swain County. Only the lower portion of the watershed is developed, consisting
mostly of residences and a golf course, while majority of the upper watershed is forest. The stream follows a
road for much of its length which has reduced or removed the riparian on one side for much of the segment.
However, overall habitat was good and the stream banks were stable with little erosion. The Creek was
sampled in 2009 resulting in an Excellent benthos bioclassification.
LoWeR tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD (Huc 0601020304)
This watershed encompasses 92,429 acres and has an estimated 2010 population of
5,630 people. A majority of the watershed (the northern portion) falls within the Great
Smoky Mtn National Park.
Deep Creek [2-79-63-(16) & 2-79-63-(21)] (B;Tr) flows through a primarily forested
area and has high recreational use draining into the Tuckasegee River. The lower
1.8 miles of the creek are not within the Great Smoky Mtns National Park and the
land use turns to agriculture. Sedimentation was noted in this reach of the Creek
but not enough to prevent the sample site GB7 from receiving an Excellent benthos
bioclassification. The Creek has maintained an Excellent rating for the last 20 years.
However, Deep Creek experienced effluent overflow from a sewer spill in 2010 that was captured on video.
The video can be viewed through this youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/user/RogerWATR
Noland Creek [2-90] (C;Tr) lies within the south central portion Great Smoky Mountain National Park and
drains into Fontana Lake. It is an undeveloped and forested watershed. The habitat of Noland Creek is
exceptional and consists of a series of cascades, riffles, and pools; site GB6 rated Excellent in 2009.
Forney Creek [2-97] (C;Tr,ORW) lies within and drains the south-central portion of Great Smoky Mtns
into Fontana Lake. It is an entirely undeveloped and forested watershed. The habitat of this stream is
as expected for a stream in a natural setting and consists of a series of riffles, cascades, and pools with
excellent riparian zones. The Creek rated Excellent in 2009 at site GB4.
Tuckasegee River [2-(78)a] (C) downstream of Bryson City from Lemmons Creek to Peachtree Creek is
Impaired for Recreational uses due to exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria levels. Just upstream is AMS
station G8600000 which also detected high levels of fecal coliform bacteria and had several incidences of
low pH. Bryson City’s WWTP discharges into the Tuckasegee River and over the last five years has had
several incidences of permit violations, including fecal coliform bacteria and TSS.
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
13
notabLe WateRs
Table 1-1 lists waterbodies identified as needing additional protection and potential restoration actions. The
fourth and fifth 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.
TabLe 1-1: NoTabLe waTers
Stream Name AU#Class.Stressor Source Status Actions
Needed
Cullowhee Creek 2-79-31a 2-79-31b C;Tr sediment, nutrients development S S&E, P
Oconoaluftee R 2-79-55-(16.5)C;Tr sediment development S S&E, P
Savannah Creek 2-79-36 C;Tr
fecal coliform
bacteria,
sediment
development, agriculture, failing
septic systems
I S&E,
BMPs
Scott Creek 2-79-39 C;Tr
fecal coliform
bacteria,
sediment
non-point source runoff, failing
septic systems, impoundments
I R,
BMPs
Tuckasegee R
2-79-(35.5)a
2-79-(35.5)b
2-79-(38)
[2-(78)a
C; Tr
C; Tr
C
C
fecal coliform
bacteria WWTP, non-point source runoff I BMPs
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 mgnt
controls, S&E= sediment and erosion controls
TabLe 1-2: NpDes perMiTs wiThiN The TuCkasegee river subbasiN
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe tuckasegee RiveR subbasin
PeRmit #PeRmit tyPe outFaLL Location FaciLity name
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe uPPeR tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD
NC0075736 WWTP Grassy Swamp Cr Whiteside Estates Inc
WQ0017530 Non-discharge irrigation Highlands Cove
WQ0028693 Non-discharge reuse Mountaintop Golf & Lake Club
NC0066958 WWTP Hurricane Cr Blue Ridge School
NC0059200 WWTP Hurricane Cr Trillium Links & Village LLC
NC0038687 WWTP Trout Cr Singing Waters Camping Resort
WQ0031427 Non-discharge irrigation Legasus of North Carolina LLC
NCG500127 Wastewater W Fork Tuckasegee R Thorpe Hydroelectric Station
NCG500126 Wastewater W Fork Tuckasegee R Tuckasegee Hydroelectric Station
NCG500125 Wastewater W Fork Tuckasegee R Cedar Cliff Hydroelectric Station
NCG500124 Wastewater W Fork Tuckasegee R Bear Creek Hydroelectric Plant
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
14
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe tuckasegee RiveR subbasin
PeRmit #PeRmit tyPe outFaLL Location FaciLity name
NCG500123 Wastewater Tennessee Cr Tennessee Cr Hydroelectric Station
WQ0029233 Non-discharge reuse Bear Lake Reserve
NCG550374 Wastewater Tilley Cr Cullowhee Valley Baptist Church
NCG510066 groundwater remediation Tuckasegee R Lewis Oil Company
NC0074624 WTP Tuckasegee R Western Carolina University
NCG150027 Stormwater Ditch to Tuck. R Jackson County Airport
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe oconaLuFtee WateRsHeD
NCG500129 Wastewater Oconaluftee R Bryson Hydroelectric Station
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe miDDLe tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD
NCG210134 Stormwater Scott Cr T&S Hardwoods Inc
NCG100168 Stormwater Scott Cr Dr Automotive
NCG050383 Stormwater Scott Cr Stonewall Packaging, LLC
NCG140158 Stormwater Scott Cr Southern Concrete Materials Inc
NCS000295 Stormwater Scott Cr Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co.
NC0020214 WWTP Scott Cr Sylva WWTP
NC0032808 WWTP Blanton Br Morningstar of Jackson
NCG080191 Stormwater Yellow Bird Br United Parcel Service Inc
WQ0005207 Non-discharge Wastewater Recycling Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co.
NCG551046 Wastewater Savannah Cr single family residence
NCG080730
NCG080731 Stormwater South Fork Blair Cr Rolling Frito-Lay
WQ0005763 Non-discharge Biosolids Tuckasegee Water & Sewer Authority
NC0000264 WWTP Tuckasegee R Jackson Co Industrial Park
NC0039578 WWTP Tuckasegee R Jackson County WWTP
NCG110111 Stormwater Tuckasegee R Tuckasegee Water & Sewer Authority
NCG160031 Stormwater Tuckasegee R Dillsboro Asphalt Plant
NCG020247 Stormwater Tuckasegee R Dillsboro Quarry
NCG550375 Wastewater W Fork Dicks Cr single family residence
NC0074250 WWTP Camp Creek Gateway Chevron
NC0084441 WWTP Connelly Cr Smoky Mountain Country Club
nPDes PeRmits WitHin LoWeR tuckasegee RiveR WateRsHeD
NCG530095 Wastewater Cooper Cr Cooper Creek Trout Farm
NC0061620 WWTP Tuckasegee R Hide Away Campground
NC0026557 WWTP Tuckasegee R Town of Bryson City
NCG210098
NCG210095 Stormwater Tuckasegee R Powell Industries
WQ0005557 Non-discharge Wastewater Recycling Mini Apolis Grand Prix Corp
NCG050249 Stormwater Cochran Br Consolidated Metco Inc
NCG140395 Stormwater Cochran Br Southern Concrete Materials Inc
NCG210392 Stormwater ditch to Cochran Br Zickgraf Hardwood Flooring LLC
NCG160199 Stormwater ditch to Cochran Br Hmc Paving & Construction Co Inc
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
:
tuc
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uc
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
3
)
15
ReFeRences & useFuL Websites
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

NC Division of Water Resources
Flow- http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Instream_Flow/
Watershed Association for the Tuckasegee River (WATR)
http://watrnc.wordpress.com/
20
1
2

N
C

D
W
Q

L
i
t
t
l
e

T
e
n
n
e
s
s
e
e

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

P
l
a
n

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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
1
WateRsHeD at a GLanCe
Counties:PoPuLation:2006 LanD CoveR:PeRmitteD FaCiLities:
Cherokee, Graham, Swain 2000: 7,012 Open Water...............2%NPDES
muniCiPaLities:2010: 7,480 Developed.................3% Wastewater Discharge..........9
Robbinsville, Santeetlah aRea 274 mi2 Forested..................93% Wastewater Nondischarge....1
ePa LeveL iv eCoReGions:Agriculture.................2% Stormwater............................3
High Mtns., Southern Metasedimentary Mtns. Trout Farms.............................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
LoWeR tennessee RiveR
subbasin
HUC 06010204
Includes: Tulula Creek, Snowbird Creek,
Santeetlah Creek & Cheoah River
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
2
Figure 1-2: Lower Tennessee river subbasin Map (HuC 06010204)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
N
!k!k
!k
!k!k
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
QQ
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
CLAY
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Franklin
Bryson
City
Robbinsville
Santeetlah
Snowbir d C r e e k
Nantah
a
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoa
h

R
i
v
e
r
L ittl e Tennessee R.
T u c k a s e g e e River
Tulula Creek
Forney C r e e k
Noland C r 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
D
e
e
p Creek
H a z el C r e e k
Sa n t e e tlah Cr.
Ü
0 2 41
Miles
2010 Use Support
Supporting
No Data
Not Rated
Impaired
Municipalities
County Boundaries
Roads
Legend
Lower Little Tennessee River
Subbasin 06010204
!k Aquaculture
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
SWA IN
CHER O KEE
GRAH AM
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
3
WateR QuaLity oveRvieW
The Lower Little Tennessee River
Subbasin, hydrologic unit 06010204,
was represented in previous Basin Plans
as Subbasin 04-04-04. This subbasin
covers 274 sq. miles and is 93% forested;
containing portions of Nantahala National
Forest and Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area.
(Figure 1-1). There are approximately
980 reservoir acres and ~420 classified
stream miles, not including the
numerous unnamed tributaries. Several
tributaries flow into Santeetlah Lake,
an impoundment on the Cheoah River.
The Cheoah River drains into the Little
Tennessee River (Cheoah Lake) just
before the Tennessee / North Carolina
border. A map of the subbasin showing
Impaired streams, monitoring and permit
locations is shown in Figure 1-2.
This subbasin contains high quality waters
and supports numerous trout streams (Figure 1-3). Water quality issues of concern in this subbasin include
agricultural runoff, stream bank erosion, and individual onsite wastewater failures. There are no waterbodies
on the 2010 303(d) list of Impaired waters, although the 2012 303(d) will include a portion of the Cheoah
River because of high turbidity levels. A fish advisory was issued in 2008 for Lake Santeetlah due to the
potential mercury content in walleye. Water quality improvements were made in West Buffalo Creek with the
removal of four trout farms that were contributing nutrients to Santeetlah Lake, in the Cheoah River with the
improved management of water releases from Santeetlah Dam to support aquatic habitat, and in the Tellico
River watershed resulting from the restoration of forest and stream conditions impacted from off-highway
vehicle recreation.
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
is one gaging station 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. For more information
about instream flow see DWR website: http://
www.ncwater.org/About_DWR/Water_Projects_
Section/Instream_Flow/welcome.html.
Stream flow conditions were assessed between
2005-2009 and detected drought conditions in
2006, 2007 and 2008 (see page 16 AMS Report).
In particular, droughts can have major effects on
parameters such as dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, and others by reducing stream flow.
Figure 1-3: sTreaM CLassifiCaTions
Santeetlah
Snowbir d C r e e k
Cheoa
h
R
i
v
e
r
L ittl e Tennessee R.
Tulula Creek Nantahala R i v er
H a z el C re e k
Sa n t e e tlah Cr.
B
B;TrC
C;HQWC;Tr
C;Tr,HQWWS-I;HQW
WS-I;Tr,HQW
WS-IIIWS-III;Tr
Stream Classifications
HQW / ORW Buffer
HQW
WSW I or II
HQW / WSW
Figure 1-4: sTreaM fLow aT usGs 0351706800 CHeoaH
river near TapoCo
(YearLY averaGe based on daiLY Means)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
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. Four benthic macroinvertebrate sites and three fish community sites
were evaluated in 2009-10. Each basinwide biological station monitored during the current cycle is shown in
Figure 1-5 and color coded based on its current rating. As seen
on the map, the majority of benthic macroinvertebrate samples
taken in this watershed received an Excellent or Good ratings.
Two fish community sites rated Good and one resulted in a Not
Rated status, due to the absence of criteria for rating high
gradient mountain trout waters. There were 10 samples taken at
new locations.
Benthos
Among the benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites, one site
improved, and three retained the same bioclassification in
2009-2010 as observed in 2004 (Figure 1-6). There were an
additional eight benthic samples taken to support special
studies.
Fish Among the three fish community sites, one improved
from 2004 while the other two represent new sample locations
(Figure 1-7).
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.
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)
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
Robbinsville
Santeetlah
Snowbir d Cre e k
Cheoa
h
Riv
e
r
L.Tenn. R.
Tulula Creek Nantahala R i v e r
H a z el C re e k
S a n t eetlah 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%
25%
67%
Benthos
Improved
Unchanged
Declined
New Site
Figure 1-7: FiSh CoMMuNity SaMpLe StatuS
33%
67%
Fish
Improved
Unchanged
Declined
New 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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
5
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 is one AMS station (G9550000) in this
subbasin; data has been collected from this site since 1973. The following discussion of ambient monitoring
parameters includes concentration value graphs for AMS station G9550000 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, ambient site G9550000
had at least one sample that fell below the pH standard of 6su. Over these 11 years (Figure 1-9) there were
three incidences of pH dropping below the minimal standard of 6 su in the samples collected by DWQ.
Figure 1-9 shows are decline in pH values with a jump in 2010.
Dissolved Oxygen
Over the past 11 years (Figure 1-10), no
samples were collected with dissolved
oxygen levels below 6mg/l standard for
trout waters. As seen in Figure 1-11,
which represents the data window for the
2010 303(d) list, AMS station G9550000
did not have any exceedances of its DO
standards.
Figure 1-8: perCeNtage oF SaMpLeS exCeeDiNg the ph <6 StaNDarD BetweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-9: suMMarized pH daTa aT aMs G9550000 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
7.3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
pH

SU
Median
Figure 1-10: suMMarized do daTa aT aMs G9550000 siTe beTween
2000-2010.
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DO

m
g
/
L
Median
Mean
Figure 1-11: perCeNtage oF
SaMpLeS exCeeDiNg the Do <6
StaNDarD BetweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
6
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 to be 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.
There were several incidences of high bacteria counts as indicated by
several peaks in mean values, shown in Figure 1-12. Over 11 years there
were 10 samples with bacteria colony counts over 400/100ml. As seen in
Figure 1-13, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d) list,
ambient station G9550000 did have samples that recorded high bacteria
levels.
Turbidity
Over 11 years (Figure 1-14) there were seven samples with that exceeded the 10 NTU standard for water
classified for trout protection. As seen in Figure 1-15, which represents the data window for the 2010 303(d)
list, ambient site G9550000 had at least one sample that was >10NTUs, but did not exceed the standard in
10% or more of the samples.
Figure 1-12: suMMarized feCaL CoLiforM baCTeria
daTa aT aMs G9550000 siTe beTween 2000-2010.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

(
co
l
o
n
i
e
s

p
e
r

1
0
0

m
L
)
Geomean
Mean
Figure 1-13: perCeNtage oF
SaMpLeS exCeeDiNg the FeCaL
CoLiForM BaCteria >400
StaNDarD BetweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%< 7%7% - 10%>10%
Figure 1-14: suMMarized TurbidiTY daTa aT aMs G9550000 siTe
beTween 2000-2010.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

N
T
U
Median
Mean
Figure 1-15: perCeNtage
oF SaMpLeS exCeeDiNg the
>10 turBiDity StaNDarD
BetweeN 2004-2008
Macon
0%
< 7%
7% - 10%>10%
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
7
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.
CHeoaH RiveR WateRsHeD (HuC 0601020401)
This watershed encompasses 137,710 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 7,332 people. There are six subwatersheds that drain into Santeetlah Lake, which
then flows into Cheoah River and eventually the Little Tennessee River.
Tulula Creek [AU# 2-190-2-(0.5)] (WS-III; Tr) subwatershed drains ~18,300 acres within the southeastern
corner of Graham County. The whole watershed is classified as a WS-III and the headwaters drain
Nantahala National Forest. For much of its length, US 129 and a railroad parallel the creek as it courses
down the valley before flowing through the urban areas in and around Robbinsville. Land use in the
headwater portions are generally forested, but the mainstem valley is mostly agriculture and residential.
Tulula Creek was sampled in 2009 and received a Good benthos (GB22) and fish (GF29) ratings. Biologists
noted bluegreen algal mats with the possibility of upstream straight-piping or nonpoint-source erosion
contributions of nutrients, but also noting the stream supports its supplemental designation as trout waters.
Sweetwater Creek [AU# 2-190-3-(0.5)] (WS-III; Tr) drains ~9,000 acres. The entire subwatershed is
classified as WS-III with headwater portions in Nantahala National Forest and much of the rest of the
drainage is used for hay production. Sweetwater Creek was sampled (GF36) by DWQ fish biologists
for the first time in 2009 resulting in a Good Bioclassification rating. Water quality conditions support its
supplemental designation as trout waters. The Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District is aware
of streambank stability problems and has assisted landowners along the creek with planning and installing
BMPs. The District plans to continue to devote conservation resources to this watershed but will require
landowner participation.
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe CHeoaH RiveR WateRsHeD
Permit #Permit Type Outfall location Facility Name
NC0083071 WTP Rock Cr Town of Robbinsville WTP
NC0025879 WWTP Long Cr Town of Robbinsville
NCG180053 Stormwater Long Cr Stanley Furniture Comp.
NCG200437 Stormwater Atoah Cr Graham Co. Recycling Facility
NC0079090 Wastewater Snowbird Cr Coldwater Farms, Inc.
NCG530076 Wastewater Little Snowbird Cr Hemac Inc- Fish Farm
NCG140260 Stormwater Chedah R Southern Concrete Materials
WQ0031396 Non-discharge reuse Santeetlah Lakeside
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
8
Snowbird Creek [AU#s 2-190-9-(0.5) & 2-190-9-(15.5)] (C;Tr) subwatershed is ~29,950 acres. Snowbird
and Little Snowbird Creeks are supplementally classified as trout waters, with the upper portion of Snowbird
Creek, within the boundary of Nantahala National Forest, also being classified as HQW. The 2009 benthos
sample (GB25) in Snowbird Creek resulted in an Excellent Bioclassification. There is one permitted
(NC0079090) trout farm with a discharge into Snowbird Creek.
West Buffalo Creek [AU# 2-190-12a] (C;Tr) drains ~10,625 acres. The creek is classified as trout waters and
as it flows into Santeetlah Lake it becomes classified for primary recreation also. The last benthic samples
taken in this subwatershed were during the 1990’s and all resulted in Excellent Bioclassifications.
West Buffalo Creek Arm of Santeetlah Lake [AU# 2-190-12b] (B;Tr) is Not Rated due to inconclusive
temperature and DO data. However, it was on the 303(d) list (289 acres) of impaired waters due to nutrient
enrichment (chlorophyll a) based on special studies conducted by the DWQ in 1993 and 1999. Nutrient
concentrations were especially high immediately downstream of trout farms on West Buffalo Creek. The
Clean Water Management Trust Fund awarded $1.25 million dollars to support the buyout of the four trout
farms on the West Buffalo Creek arm responsible for the largest contributions of nutrients to the creek. The
four farms were fully decommissioned by the end of March 2004.
During the spring, summer, and fall of 2005, the Division of Water Quality conducted a special study of West
Buffalo Creek and the West Buffalo Creek arm of Santeetlah Lake. This study was conducted to document
changes or improvements to the water quality of Buffalo Creek following the de-population and dismantling
of the trout farms. The study examined both physical, chemical and biological water quality parameters
on West Buffalo Creek and Santeetlah Lake to determine the degree of nutrient reduction obtained from
the trout farm removal. Results from that study indicate that the nutrient reduction strategy was effective.
Nutrient loading into the West Buffalo Creek arm of the lake was reduced up to 92 percent and algal blooms
were diminished.
Santeetlah Creek [AU# 2-190-19] (B;Tr) drains ~20,900 acres, all of which is in Nantahala National Forest.
Three Significant Natural Heritage Areas are also located in this subwatershed including: Stratton Meadows,
Santeetlah Bluffs and Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area.
Santeetlah Lake subwatershed drains ~22,450 acres. Within the subwatershed, Long Creek [AU# 2-190-
4-(5)] drains from tributaries classified as WS-I, Tr, HQW and flows into the Cheoah River. Downstream of
Robbinsville, DWQ, in 2009, collected a benthos sample in the Cheoah River [AU# 2-190-(3.5)] (C;Tr) at site
GB133 resulting in a Good Bioclassification. Turbidity data collected at AMS G9550000 through 2010 show
exceedances in turbidity levels causing the Cheoah River from the Town of Robbinsville’s proposed water
supply intake to Mountain Creek [AU# 2-190-(3.5)] to be Impaired on the 2012 303(d) list.
The Robbinsville WWTP (NC0025879) discharges into Long Creek and is old and outdated, has limited
capacity and for years has failed to meet compliance criteria. Robbinsville proposed a relocation of the
existing WWTP to a larger 12-acre site on the Cheoah River, approximately 0.2 mile downstream of
the present location on Long Creek. DWQ conducted a water quality study of the Cheoah River Arm of
Santeetlah Lake to assess current water quality conditions near the site of the proposed relocation and
expansion of the Robbinsville WWTP and outfall. DWQ field staff sampled sites located upstream and
downstream of the current Robbinsville WWTP outfall on Long Creek, upstream of the confluence of Long
Creek and the Cheoah River, at the vicinity of the proposed new outfall on the Cheoah River and upstream
of US Hwy 129 on the Cheoah River. Study results indicated that the current discharge does affect nutrient
concentrations in Long Creek, but its effect appears to be negligible downstream in the Cheoah River and in
the lake (Memorandum 20100105). In 2011, the Town of Robbinsville received ~$4.6 million grant to build a
new WWTP facility that will relocate the discharge from Long Creek into the Cheoah River.
Santeetlah Lake [AU# 2-190-(5)] (B;Tr) is owned by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) and is
used to generate hydroelectric power as well as for recreational purposes. Santeetlah Lake is classified for
the protection of primary recreation and propagation of trout (B; Tr). Santeetlah Lake is a deep lake with
a maximum depth of 213 feet and a mean depth of 56 feet with an average retention time of 161 days.
Santeetlah Lake continues to demonstrate low biological productivity (oligotrophic).
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
9
In September 2008, a fish consumption advisory was announced for Santeetlah Lake due to high levels of
mercury found in walleye fish. Santeetlah Lake is also under the statewide consumption advisory for
largemouth bass – also associated with elevated levels of mercury found in this fish.
In August, 2008, the Asheville Regional Office reported an algal bloom in the Cheoah River arm of
Santeetlah Lake downstream of the US Hwy 129 bridge. An analysis of a phytoplankton sample from the
bloom indicated that the dominant algae were filamentous blue greens Anabaena plantonica, Anabaena
spirodes and/or Anabaena circinalis. Filamentous blue-green algae form significant blooms that discolor the
water and produce taste and odor problems in drinking water. In 2009, no surface blooms of Anabaena sp.
were observed in the Cheoah River by DWQ staff.
Santeetlah Dam is located on the Cheoah River [AU# 2-190-(22)a] (C;Tr) in Graham County. The Santeetlah
Development was completed in 1928, and consists of a dam, pipeline/tunnel, and powerhouse. Santeetlah
Dam creates Santeetlah Reservoir, which has a normal full pool area of approximately 2,881 acres and a
drainage area of 176 square miles. The normal full pool elevation of Santeetlah Reservoir is 1,940.9 feet
(USGS).
The Santeetlah powerhouse is located on the left bank of the Little Tennessee River (Cheoah Reservoir)
about five miles upstream of Cheoah Dam. Water is withdrawn from Santeetlah Reservoir through an intake
in the Santeetlah Dam and is passed through a 5-mile tunnel and pipeline to the powerhouse located on the
Little Tennessee River.
The Santeetlah Development is operated as a storage impoundment in accordance with an annual operating
curve, which establishes target seasonal reservoir levels. The current operating curve was adopted in
2004 as part of the Tapoco Project Relicensing Settlement Agreement. Under the current operating guide,
Santeetlah Reservoir is operated to maintain high recreational elevations during the summer months,
followed by fall drawdown to allow for collection of rainfall and runoff during the late fall, winter, and early
spring. The current operating curve was developed to also provide protection and enhancement for a
variety of other resources and uses, including aquatic species and habitat, water quality, reservoir wetlands,
archaeological sites, and scenic appearance throughout the year. During the period April 1 to November
1, the maximum drawdown at Santeetlah Reservoir is 4-5 feet. The reservoir is filled during the month of
March at such a rate that by April 1 the maximum drawdown is 5 feet. During the period December 1 to
March 1, the maximum drawdown is 10 feet. During the month of November, the reservoir is drawn down
at such a rate that by December 1 the maximum drawdown is 10 feet. Prior to the Relicensing Settlement
Agreement, there were no regular flow releases from Santeetlah Dam into the Cheoah River. Water from
Santeetlah Reservoir was diverted to the powerhouse located on the Little Tennessee River upstream of
Cheoah Dam. The drainage area for the Cheoah River below Santeetlah Dam was made up of leakage from
the dam, tributary inflow and occasional spills from the dam. The lack of flow severely impacted the benthic
community (GB15) in this reach and resulted in Impairment in the aquatic life category from Santeetlah Dam
to Rock Creek (3.4 miles). Beginning September 1, 2005 as part of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement,
Tapoco began releasing minimum flows designed to enhance and protect the biologic community in the
Cheoah River below the dam. The benthic community at site GB15 was resampled in 2008 resulting in a
Good Bioclassification and the river is no longer Impaired.
As an additional enhancement, Tapoco established a fund intended to improve resource management in
the river. The fund provides monetary support to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, US Forest Service, Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies may use the fund to monitor biology and
habitat in the river, add large woody debris (habitat), manage gravel and vegetation (bank stabilization),
and other natural resource stewardship activities including threatened and endangered species recovery
efforts, exotic species control, and environmental outreach and education directly related to segments of the
Cheoah River and Little Tennessee River affected by dam operation. The complete consensus agreement
can be found in the Tapoco (FERC #2169), Final License Application filed with FERC. These and other
associated documents can be obtained at: http://www.ferc.gov.
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
10
Yellow Creek [AU# 2-190-29] (C;Tr) was sampled for the first time in 2009 at site GF37 and was given a
Not Rated status. No reproducing populations of trout were detected in this trout classified stream, however
there was no evidence of water quality impairments.
teLLiCo RiveR WateRsHeD (HuC 0601020403)
This watershed encompasses 20,771 acres and has an estimated 2010 population
of 12 people. Land use in this general area is composed of large tracts of relatively
undisturbed forest associated with the Nantahala National Forest. Streams here are
high gradient with heterogeneous rocky substrates and well-developed riffle-pool
sequences.
The US Forest Service (USFS) manages a large Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV)
recreation area located within the upper Tellico River watershed in northern
Cherokee County. According to the USFS, the use of the OHV area has resulted
in water quality issues to nearby waterbodies. In an effort to determine possible impacts from the OHV
system DWQ sampled 12 streams for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2009. The data generated from
these collections suggest adverse impacts to many of the streams in the OHV despite the Excellent
bioclassification ratings. The smallest of the streams sampled for this study showed the most noteworthy
impacts to the benthic communities relative to reference sites. Adverse sediment-mediated effects on the
benthos communities in Jenks Branch, and the two lower reaches of Tipton Creek were noted. The specifics
of this study are available in requesting BAU memorandum 20090817, from DWQ.
Tellico River [AU# 2-195] (C;Tr) samples at sites GB181, GB183 & GB182 resulted in Excellent benthos
bioclassifications
Peckerwood Creek [AU# 2-195-4] (C;Tr) sample at site GB180 resulted in an Excellent benthos
bioclassification
Tipton Creek [AU# 2-195-5] (C;Tr) samples at sites GB177, GB178 & GB179 resulted in Excellent benthos
bioclassifications
Jenks Branch [AU# 2-195-5-2] (C;Tr) sample at site GB185 resulted in an Excellent benthos bioclassification
In October 2009, the USFS closed the Upper Tellico OHV trail system due to sediment loading to the Tellico
River and its tributaries. Many of the trails were located adjacent to streams, on steep slopes and were
highly eroding. The USFS was violating its own standards of preventing visible sediment from reaching
perennial and intermittent stream channels and state water quality turbidity standards of 10 NTUs. Field
surveys sited 1,889 sources of visible sediment along the 34 miles of trails, which was negatively impacting
brook trout habitat. In 2010, the USFS Tusquitee Ranger District obliterated ~26 miles of degraded trails and
completed restoration activities to allow natural forest regeneration to occur. DWQ surveyed the area in 2011
and noted that water quality issues have been resolved and stream banks are stable.
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
11
uPPeR teLLiCo Lake WateRsHeD (HuC 0601020404)
This watershed encompasses 65,629 acres and has an estimated 2010 population of
72 people.
Little Tennessee River (Cheoah Lake/Calderwood Lake) [AU# 2-(167)a]
(C;Tr) is a narrow, deep impoundment of the Little Tennessee River on
the North Carolina/Tennessee border. Inflow to this Lake is dominated
by the hypolimnetic discharge from Fontana Lake, located directly
upstream. The upstream portion of the Lake flows swiftly in response to
this discharge and temperatures in the Lake are generally low. The Lake
was monitored by DWQ field staff monthly from June through August
2009. Surface water temperatures were cool in this Lake, ranging from
7.8 C to 21.1 C. Surface dissolved oxygen ranged from 8.4 mg/L to 9.9
mg/L and were elevated to the low water temperatures which allowed
more oxygen to dissolve into the water. Surface pH values ranged from
6.6 s.u to 7.5 s.u. Secchi depths, which ranged from 1.8 meters on an overcast day following a rain event
to 7.6 meters, indicated that the water clarity was very good. Lake Cheoah continues to have very low
biological productivity (oligotrophic) since 1988.
Twentymile Creek [AU# 2-178-(4)] (C;Tr,HQW) was sampled in 2010 at site GB2 resulting in an Excellent
benthos bioclassification. Twenty Mile Creek lies within and drains North Carolina’s western portion of Great
Smoky Mountain National Park (GSMNP) and ultimately joins the Little Tennessee River (Cheoah Lake)
downstream of Fontana Dam. It has an undeveloped (hiking trails aside) and forested catchment. The
habitat of this picturesque stream is as expected for a stream in a natural setting and consists of a series of
cascades, riffles, and plunge pools. Typical of undisturbed mountain streams, the specific conductance was
very low.
nPDes PeRmits WitHin tHe uPPeR teLLiCo Lake WateRsHeD
Permit #Permit Type Outfall location Facility Name
NC0027341 Wastewater Little Tenn. R TVA Fontana Hydro Plant
NCG500050 Wastewater Little Tenn. R Alcoa Santeelah Powerhouse
NCG500049 Wastewater Little Tenn. R Alcoa Cheoah Powerhouse
NC0023086 WWTP Little Tenn. R Fontana Village Resort
NC0023281 WWTP Little Tenn. R Tapoco Lodge Inc.
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
:
L
oWeR L
it
t
Le ten
n
e
s
s
e
e
sub
b
a
s
i
n

(
H
uC
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
4
)
12
notabLe WateRs
Table 1-1 lists waterbodies identified as needing additional protection and potential restoration actions. The
fourth and fifth 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
Little Tenn. River
(Cheoah Lake)
2-(167)b C;Tr turbidity unknown IM P, BMPs
Tulula Creek 2-190-2-
(0.5)
WS-III; Tr nutrients non-point source runoff, straight
pipes
S P, BMPs
West Buffalo
Creek Arm of
Santeetlah Lake
2-190-12b B;Tr temperature,
DO, nutrients
trout farms IP P
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 mgnt
controls, S&E= sediment and erosion controls
ReFeRenCes & useFuL Websites
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp
NC Department Health and Human Services
Fish Advisory- http://epi.publichealth.nc.gov/fish/current.html
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

NC Division of Water Resources
Flow- http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Instream_Flow/
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
1
Chapter topiCs
££SWCD
££EEP
££319£Grants
££WaDE
soiL anD WateR conseRvation DistRict oPeRations
The£soil£and£water£conservation£districts£in£North£Carolina£are£comprised£of£a£five-member£Board£of£
Supervisors£for£each£county£in£the£state£staffed£by£resource£professionals£in£the£district,£usually£with£federal,£
state,£and£local£funds.££This£group£establishes£local£resource£priorities.£This£structure£allows£the£local£district£
to£call£upon£federal,£state,£local,£non-profit,£non-government,£and£other£natural£resource£groups£for£technical,£
financial,£planning,£and£implementation£support£to£restore,£enhance,£and/or£maintain£the£natural£resource£
base£at£the£local£level.££
the noRth caRoLina agRicuLtuRaL cost shaRe PRogRam
The£NC£Agricultural£Cost£Share£Program£(NCACSP)£was£established£in£1984£to£help£reduce£agricultural£
nonpoint£runoff£into£the£state’s£waters.£The£program,£administered£by£the£NC£Division£of£Soil£and£Water£
Conservation£(now£within£the£NC£Department£of£Agriculture£and£Consumer£Services)£and£managed£by£
the£local£districts,£helps£owners£and£renters£of£established£agricultural£operations£improve£their£on-farm£
management£by£using£best£management£practices£(BMPs).£These£BMPs£include£vegetative,£structural£or£
management£systems£that£can£improve£the£efficiency£of£farming£operations£while£reducing£the£potential£for£
surface£and£groundwater£pollution.£The£NCACSP£is£implemented£by£the£Division£of£Soil£and£Water£(DSWC),£
which£divide£the£approved£BMPs£into£five£main£purposes£or£categories:£
•£Sediment/Nutrient£Delivery£Reduction£from£Fields££-£Sediment/nutrient£management£measures£include£
planned£systems£that£prevent£sediment£and£nutrient£runoff£from£fields£into£streams.£Practices£include:£field£
borders,£filter£strips,£grassed£waterways,£nutrient£management£strategies,£riparian£buffers,£water£control£
structures,£streambank£stabilization,£and£road£repair/stabilization.£
•£Erosion£Reduction/Nutrient£Loss£Reduction£in£Fields££-£Erosion/nutrient£management£measures£include£
planned£systems£for£reducing£soil£erosion£and£nutrient£runoff£from£cropland£into£streams.£Practices£include:£
critical£area£planting,£cropland£conversion,£water£diversion,£long-term£no-till,£pastureland£conversion,£sod-
based£rotation,£stripcropping,£terraces,£and£Christmas£tree£conservation£cover.£
•£Stream£Protection£from£Animals££-£Stream£protection£management£measures£are£planned£systems£for£
protecting£streams£and£streambanks.£Such£measures£eliminate£livestock£access£to£streams£by£providing£
an£alternate£watering£source£away£from£the£stream£itself.£Other£benefits£include£reduced£soil£erosion,£
sedimentation,£pathogen£contamination£and£pollution£from£dissolved,£particulate,£and£sediment-attached£
substances.£Practices£include:£heavy£use£area£protection,£livestock£exclusion£(i.e.,£fencing),£spring£
development,£stream£crossings,£trough£or£watering£tanks,£wells,£and£livestock£feeding£areas.£
LocaL conseRvation
initiatives
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
2
•£Proper£Animal£Waste£Management£-£A£waste£management£system£is£a£planned£system£in£which£all£
necessary£components£are£installed£for£managed£liquid£and£solid£waste£to£prevent£or£minimize£degradation£
of£soil£and£water£resources.£Practices£include:£animal£waste£lagoon£closures,£constructed£wetlands,£
controlled£livestock£lounging£area,£dry£manure£stacks,£heavy£use£area£protection,£insect£and£odor£control,£
stormwater£management,£waste£storage£ponds/lagoons,£compost,£and£waste£application£system.£
•£Agricultural£Chemical£(agrichemical)£Pollution£Prevention££-£Agrichemical£pollution£prevention£measures£
involve£a£planned£system£to£prevent£chemical£runoff£to£streams£for£water£quality£improvement.£Practices£
include:£agrichemical£handling£facilities£and£fertigation/chemigation£back£flow£prevention£systems.£
A£full£listing£of£all£the£BMPs£and£the£categories£they£are£grouped£in£is£available£at£the£following£link£(under£
Section£V:£Best£Management£Practice£Guidelines):£ http://www.ncagr.gov/sw/acspprogrammanual.html
The£practices£mentioned£above£(please£note,£this£is£a£partial£list)£have£calculated£water£quality£benefits£
associated£with£the£implementation£of£the£BMP.££The£benefits£calculated£include:£affected£acres,£nitrogen£re-
ductions,£phosphorus£reductions,£tons£of£soil£saved,£and£the£proper£management£of£nitrogen£and£phospho-
rus£resulting£from£animal£waste.£Within£the£Hiwassee£Basin£from£2001,£598£individual£BMPs£were£installed£
that£affected£over£6,400£acres.££The£majority£of£these£practices£are£categorized£as£“Stream£Protection”£
measures.££Stream£Protection£practices£accounted£for£nearly£48%£of£the£affected£area.££Nitrogen£and£phos-
phorus£reductions£were£achieved£primarily£by£Erosion/Nutrient£Reduction£practices.££however,£over£83%£of£
the£soil£savings£was£achieved£through£Streamside£Protection£practices.££
BMPs£installed£by£the£NC£Agricultural£Cost£Share£Program£for£the£period£January£1,£2001£through£Decem-
ber£31,£2010£are£shown£in£the£map£below:
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
3
aQuacuLtuRe
There£are£4£permitted£trout£farms£in£the£Little£Tennessee£River£Basin,£including£the£largest£commercial£
trout£hatchery£in£the£eastern£United£States.£This£number£excludes£farms£not£meeting£permit£coverage£
requirements£related£to£annual£fish£production£and£feed£usage.£Cold-water£fish£farms£are£required£to£
obtain£an£NPDES£general£fish£farm£permit£if£they£harvest£over£20,000£pounds£of£fish£per£year,£feed£more£
than£5,000£pounds£per£month,£and£discharge£more£than£30£days£per£year.£(See NPDES General Permit
NCG530000£for£more£information.)£Macroinvertebrate£and£chemical£sampling£data£collected£in£streams£
utilized£by£farms£indicate£negative£impacts£to£water£quality£standards.£Additional£data£need£to£be£collected£
and£analyzed.£
In£an£effort£to£support£the£industry£in£the£region£and£improve£and£protect£water£quality,£a£collaborative£
approach£has£been£undertaken£which£includes£trout£farmers,£NC£Department£of£Agriculture£and£Consumer£
Services,£NC£Cooperative£Extension£and£DWQ.£The£collaborative£work£outcomes£should£be£a£better£
understanding£of£farm£operations,£BPMs,£water£resource/quality£protection£and£regulatory£needs£for£all£
parties.£The£NCG530000£permit£will£be£renewed£in£July£2012.£Any£necessary£permit£modifications£to£fully£
protect£surface£waters£utilized£by£trout£farm£operations£will£be£considered£and£discussed£by£DWQ£and£
stakeholders£during£the£renewal£period.
During£this£process,£DWQ£encourages£trout£farms£to£contact£their£local£extension£service£and/or£research£
institutions£to£use£management£measures£such£as£those£recommended/developed£by£DWQ£in£Collaborative£
Assessment£for£Watershed£and£Streams£(CAWS)£Project£(funded£by£an£EPA£104(b)(3)£grant):£
•£Use£hand£feeding£as£much£as£possible£to£reduce£the£amount£of£food£that£enters£the£raceways£and£stream;£
•£Use£high£quality£feed,£which£results£in£less£manure£production;£
•£Clean£raceways£regularly£and£land£apply£the£manure£as£fertilizer;£and£
•£Consider£reducing£the£amount£of£fish£being£raised£if£the£assimilative£capacity£has£been£exceeded.
nc ecosystem enhancement PRogRam (eeP)
EEP£uses£watershed£planning£at£two£scales£(basinwide£and£local)£to£identify£the£best£locations£to£implement£
stream,£wetland£and£riparian£buffer£restoration/enhancement£and£preservation£projects.£The£EEP£planning£
process£considers£where£compensatory£mitigation£(under£provisions£of£the£Clean£Water£Act)£is£needed,£and£
how£mitigation£efforts£might£contribute£to£the£improvement£of£water£quality,£habitat£and£other£vital£watershed£
functions£in£the£state.£Watershed£planning£requires£GIS£data£analysis,£stakeholder£involvement,£water£
quality£monitoring,£habitat£assessment£and£consideration£of£local£land£uses£and£ordinances.£It£is£a£multi-
dimensional£process£which£considers£science,£policy£and£partnership.
For£more£information£on£EEP’s£mission,£processes£and£products,£please£visit£http://portal.ncdenr.org/
web/eep/home.
RiveR basin RestoRation PRioRities
EEP£River£Basin£Restoration£Priorities£(RBRPs)£are£focused£on£the£identification£of£Targeted£Local£
Watersheds£(TLWs)£within£the£8-digit£Cataloging£Units£(subbasins)£that£comprise£individual£river£basins.£
TLWs£represent£priority£areas£(14-digit£Hydrologic£Units£or£HUs)£for£the£implementation£of£stream£and£
wetland£mitigation£projects.£GIS£screening£factors£considered£in£the£selection£of£TLWs£include:£documented£
water£quality£impairment£and£habitat£degradation,£the£presence£of£critical£habitat£or£significant£natural£
heritage£areas,£the£presence£of£water£supply£watersheds£or£other£high-quality£waters,£the£condition£
of£riparian£buffers,£estimates£of£impervious£cover,£existing£or£planned£transportation£projects,£and£the£
opportunity£for£local£partnerships.£Recommendations£from£local£resource£agency£professionals£and£the£
presence£of£existing£watershed£projects£are£given£significant£weight£in£the£selection£of£TLWs.£RBRP£
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
4
documents£(and£TLW£selections)£for£each£of£the£17£river£basins£in£North£Carolina£are£updated£periodically£
to£account£for£changing£watershed£conditions,£increasing£development£pressures£and£local£stakeholder£
priorities.
£The£most£recent£update£to£the£Little£Tennessee£River£Basin£TLWs£occurred£in£2008.£Nineteen£14-digit£HUs£
(of£63£total£in£the£basin)£have£been£selected£as£TLWs£by£EEP£in£the£Little£Tennessee£River£basin:
Upper Little Tennessee Subbasin (06010202):
££-£Upper£Little£Tennessee£River/£Middle£Creek£(06010202020010);
££-£Coweeta/£Tessentee£Creek£(06010202020020);£
££-£Cartoogechaye£Creek£(06010202020030)
££-£Upper£Cullasaja£River£(06010202030010)
££-£Lower£Cullasaja£River£(06010202030020)
££-£Rabbitt/Watauga£Creek£(06010202040010)
££-£Iotla/Crawford/upper£Burningtown£Creek£(06010202040020)
££-£Cowee£Creek£(06010202040030)
££-£Tellico/Lower£Burningtown£Creek£(06010202040040)
££-£Brush/Rattlesnake£Creek£(06010202060010)
Tuckaseegee River Subbasin (06010203):
££-£Caney£Fork£(06010203010060)
££-£Cullowhee£Creek£(06010203010070)
££-£Lower£Scott£Creek£(06010203020010)
££-£Upper£Scott£Creek£(06010203020020)
££-£Savannah£Creek:££06010203020030
££-£Soco£Creek:££06010203030080
Lower Little Tennessee Subbasin (06010204):
££-£Tulula£Creek£(06010204010010),
££-£Sweetwater£Creek£(06010204010020)
££-£Long/Atoah£Creek£(06010204010030)£
The£2008£Little£Tennessee£RBRP,£including£maps£and£a£summary£table£of£Targeted£Local£Watersheds,£can£
be£found£at£http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/little-tennessee.£
LocaL WateRsheD PLanning
EEP£Local£Watershed£Planning£(LWP)£initiatives£are£conducted£in£specific£priority£areas£(typically£a£cluster£
of£two£or£three£Targeted£Local£Watersheds)£where£EEP£and£the£local£community£have£identified£a£need£to£
address£critical£watershed£issues.£The£LWP£process£typically£takes£place£over£a£two-year£period,£covers£a£
planning£area£around£50£to£150£square£miles,£and£includes£three£distinct£phases:£I£-£existing£data£review£
and£preliminary£watershed£characterization£(largely£GIS-based);£II£–£detailed£watershed£assessment£
(including£water£quality£&£biological£monitoring£and£field£assessment£of£potential£mitigation£sites);£and£
III£–£development£of£a£final£Project£Atlas£and£Watershed£Management£Plan.£EEP£collaborates£with£local£
stakeholders£and£resource£professionals£throughout£the£process£to£identify£projects£and£management£
strategies£to£restore£enhance£and£protect£local£watershed£resources.£
There£is£one£LWP£in£the£basin,£Franklin£to£Fontana.££This£plan£is£summarized£in£the£Upper£Little£Tennessee£
Subbasin£section.£££
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
5
eeP PRojects
In£the£Upper£Little£Tennessee£River£Subbasin,£there£is£one£restoration£project£in£the£Franklin£to£Fontana£
Local£Watershed£planning£area.£The£Cat£Creek£project£restored£almost£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.££
In£addition,£EEP£contributed£funds£to£protect£the£4,500£acre£Needmore£Tract,£which£includes£riparian£
wetland,£field,£and£forest£along£the£Little£Tennessee£River£and£numerous£high£quality£tributaries.
There£is£one£EEP£restoration£project£in£the£Tuckaseegee£River£Subbasin.£The£Junes£Branch£project£will£be£
constructed£in£2012£and£will£restore£the£stream£channel£and£riparian£area£on£a£3,000£ft£reach£on£the£outskirts£
of£Sylva.£
There£are£three£EEP£restoration£projects£that£have£been£constructed£in£the£Lower£Little£Tennessee£River£
Subbasin.£The£East£Buffalo£Creek£project£restores£about£3,000£ft£of£stream£channel£and£riparian£area£and£
preserves£almost£9,000£ft£of£additional£headwater£forested£stream£channel.£The£Snowbird£Tributaries£project£
restores£only£about£600£ft£of£stream£channel£and£riparian£area£but£preserves£7,500£ft£of£additional£forested£
stream£channel£along£tributaries£to£lower£Snowbird£Creek.££The£Tulula£Bog£project£is£a£large£project£in£a£
Significant£Natural£Heritage£Area,£and£it£restored£almost£9,000£ft£of£stream£channel,£preserved£about£5,000£
additional£stream£feet,£restored£81£acres£of£riparian£wetland,£and£protected£141£additional£wetland£acres.£
section 319 gRant PRogRam
Section£319£of£the£Clean£Water£Act£provides£grant£money£for£nonpoint£source£demonstration£and£
restoration£projects.£In£2009/2010,£approximately£$450,000£was£available£annually£through£base£funding£
for£demonstration£and£education£projects£across£the£state.£An£additional£$2£million£was£available£annually£
through£incremental£funding£for£restoration£projects£on£impaired£waters£statewide.£All£projects£must£provide£
non-federal£matching£funds£of£at£least£40£percent£of£the£project’s£total£costs.£Project£proposals£are£reviewed£
and£selected£by£the£North£Carolina£Nonpoint£Source£Workgroup,£made£up£of£state£and£federal£agencies£
involved£in£regulation£or£research£associated£with£nonpoint£source£pollution.£Information£on£the£North
Carolina Section 319 Grant Program£application£process£is£available£online£as£well£as£descriptions£of£
projects£and£general£Section£319£Program£information.
The£Little£Tennessee£Watershed£Association£was£granted£an£award£in£2010£for£watershed£restoration£
planning£in£the£Upper£Cullasaja£Watershed.£The£project£involves£review£of£past£data£and£collection£of£new£
baseline£data£to£be£analyzed£and£combined£into£an£approved£nine£element£watershed£restoration£plan.£
WaDe
In£the£Little£Tennessee£River£basin,£wastewater£from£many£households£is£not£treated£at£wastewater£
treatment£plants£associated£with£NPDES£discharge£permits.£Instead,£it£is£treated£onsite£through£the£use£of£
permitted£septic£systems.£Wastewater£from£some£of£these£homes£illegally£discharges£directly£to£streams£
through£what£is£known£as£a£“straight£pipe”.£In£other£cases,£wastewater£from£failing£septic£systems£makes£
its£way£to£streams£or£contaminates£groundwater.£Straight£piping£and£failing£septic£systems£are£illegal££
discharges£of£wastewater£into£waters£of£the£State.
The£discharge£of£untreated£or£partially£treated£sewage£can£be£extremely£harmful£to£humans£and£the£
aquatic£environment.£Pollutants£from£illegally£discharged£household£wastewater£contain£chemical£nutrients,£
disease£pathogens£and£endocrine£disrupting£chemicals.£Special£study£requests£in£the£Little£Tennessee£
River£Basin£led£to£an£increase£in£number£of£streams£sampled£for£bacteria£and£have£led£to£several£new£
stream£impairments.£As£of£2012,£there£are£58£stream£miles£(11£streams)£and£171£acres£of£Fontana£Lake££
Impaired£because£of£high£fecal£coliform£bacteria£levels.£The£economies£of£the£counties£in£this£basin£are£
highly£dependent£upon£river£recreation,£especially£for£tourists£and£seasonal£residents.£Reducing£bacterial£
contamination£is£crucial£for£supporting£a£tourist£economy.£In£order£to£protect£human£health£and£maintain£
water£quality,£straight£pipes£must£be£eliminated£and£failing£septic£systems£should£be£repaired.£
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
:
L
oc
a
L ini
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
&

voLun
t
a
Ry inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
P
Rog
Ram
s
6
The£NC£Wastewater£Discharge£Elimination£(WaDE)£Program£was£actively£helping£to£identify£and£remove£
straight£pipes£(and£failing£septic£systems)£in£the£western£portion£of£North£Carolina.£This£program£used£door-
to-door£surveys£to£locate£straight£pipes£and£failing£septic£systems,£and£offered£deferred£loans£or£grants£to£
homeowners£who£had£to£eliminate£the£straight£pipes£by£installing£a£septic£system.£This£program£was£cut£
from£the£State£budget£and£is£no£longer£in£operation.£
As£of£2009,£WaDE£surveys£in£the£Little£Tennessee£Basin£resulted£in£215£wastewater£violations.£
county PRoject aRea sePtic suRvey comPLeteD vioLations RePaiRs
Macon Nanatahala 447 44 18
Swain Upper£Nantahala 266 53 32
Swain Alarka 104 28 6
Graham Tulula 435 90 55
The£following£maps£show£areas£surveyed£by£the£WaDE£program.
Septic System Survey and Repair Project
NantahalaLake
NantahalaRiver
WAYAH
Franklin
Highlands
64
28
106
MACON
0 3 6Miles
C:\1-WaDE\GIS\Projects\MaconMacon_Nantahala_92_10_2009.mxd
TotalHomes Visited 671
CompletedSurveys 447
WastewaterViolations 44RepairsCompleted18PendingPermits0
ProjectStatus
Statusas of:Nantahala 02/10/2009
WastewaterDischargeEliminationProgram
Legend
Violation
RepairedViolation
FailingSystem
BlackwaterDischarge
GraywaterDischarge
Other
SurfaceWater
PrimaryRoad
NantahalaProjectArea
USFS
Septic SystemSurvey and Repair Project
Robbinsville
SweetwaterCreek
TululaCreek
143
129
USFS
129 28
143
129
0 2.5 5Miles C:\1-WaDE\GIS\Projects\GrahamGraham_Tulula_9-25-07.mxd
TotalHomes Visited 836CompletedSurveys435
WastewaterViolations 90RepairsCompleted55PendingPermits16
ProjectStatus
Statusas of:
WastewaterDischargeEliminationProgram
TULULA 01/30/2009
Legend
RepairedViolation
USFS
Violation
FailingSystem
BlackwaterDischarge
GraywaterDischarge
Other
SurfaceWater
PrimaryRoad
TULULAProjectArea
SepticSystem Survey and RepairProject
19
19
19
28
143
28
FontanaLake
0 5,500 11,000Feet
S:\WaDE\GIS\ProjectsSwain_Alarka_02-12-2009.mxd
TotalHomesVisited 276CompletedSurveys104
WastewaterViolations 28RepairsCompleted6PendingPermits4
ProjectStatus
Statusas of:
WastewaterDischargeEliminationProgram
Alarka 02/12/2009
Legend
Violation
RepairedViolation
FailingSystem
BlackwaterDischarge
GraywaterDischarge
Other
SurfaceWater
PrimaryRoad
AlarkaProjectArea
Septic System Survey and Repair Project
19
NantahalaRiver
19
19
19
28
143
129
28
FontanaLake
0 12,000 24,000Feet
TotalHomesVisited 467CompletedSurveys266
WastewaterViolations 53RepairsCompleted32PendingPermits18
ProjectStatus
Statusas of:
WastewaterDischargeEliminationProgram
UpperNantahala 02/12/2009
S:\WaDE\GIS\ProjectsSwain_UpperNantahala_02-12-09.mxd
Legend
Violation
RepairedViolation
FailingSystem
BlackwaterDischarge
GraywaterDischarge
Other
SurfaceWater
PrimaryRoad
UpperNantahalaProjectArea
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
:
F
oRes
t
Ry
1
FoRestRy
FoRestRy in the LittLe tennessee RiveR basin: 2012 UPDate
FoRestLanD oWneRshiP*
Approximately 56% of the forestland in the basin is privately-owned, with the remainder being publically-
owned land, primarily the Nantahala National Forest and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
* The ownership estimates come from the most recent data published by the USDA-Forest Service (“Forest Statistics
for North Carolina, 2002.” Brown, Mark J. Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004).
FoRest WateR QUaLity RegULations
Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act of 1973 (Article 4-GS113A, referred to as “SPCA”). However, forestry operations may be exempted from
specific requirements of the SPCA if the operations meet the compliance performance standards outlined
in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0100 - .0209, referred to as
“FPGs”) and General Statutes regarding stream and ditch obstructions (GS 77-13 and GS 77-14).
The FPG performance standard rule-codes and topics include:
.0201 Streamside Management Zone (SMZ)
.0202 Prohibition of Debris Entering Streams and Waterbodies
.0203 Access Road and Skid Trail Stream Crossings
.0204 Access Road Entrances
.0205 Prohibition of Waste Entering Streams, Waterbodies, and Groundwater
.0206 Pesticide Application
.0207 Fertilizer Application
.0208 Stream Temperature
.0209 Rehabilitation of Project Site
The NC Forest Service (NCFS) monitors forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned
laws and/or rules. In addition, the NCFS works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought
to its attention through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be
resolved by the NCFS are referred to the appropriate State agency for enforcement action. During the period
September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2010 there were 137 sites in the basin inspected for FPG compliance
with 85% of the sites in compliance upon the initial site inspection.
otheR WateR QUaLity RegULations
In addition to the multiple State regulations noted above, NCFS monitors the implementation of the following
Federal rules relating to water quality and forestry operations:
£ The Section 404 silviculture exemption under the Clean Water Act for activities in wetlands;
£ The federally-mandated 15 best management practices (BMPs) related to road construction in wetlands;
£ The federally-mandated BMPs for mechanical site preparation activities for the establishment of pine
plantations in wetlands of the southeastern U.S.Other Water Quality Regulations
FoRestRy best ManageMent PRactices
Implementing forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) is strongly encouraged to efficiently and
effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. In 2006, the first ever revision to the North Carolina
forestry BMP manual was completed. This comprehensive update to the forestry BMP manual is the
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
:
F
oRes
t
Ry
2
result of nearly four years of effort by the NCFS and a forestry Technical Advisory Committee consisting of
multiple sector stakeholders, supported by two technical peer-reviews. The forestry BMP manual describes
measures that may be implemented to help comply with the forestry regulations while protecting water
quality. Copies of the forestry BMP manual can be obtained at a County or District office, or online: http://
www.ncforestservice.gov/water_quality/bmp_manual.htm.
From 2006 to 2008, the NCFS conducted its second cycle of BMP implementation site assessment surveys
to evaluate the use of forestry BMPs, and qualitatively assess the strengths and weaknesses of BMPs in
regards to protecting water quality. Statewide, the BMP surveys were completed on 212 active logging sites
and the average BMP implementation rate observed during this survey was 85 percent.
£• In the Little Tennessee basin we surveyed 6 sites, evaluated 275 individual BMPs, and observed a
BMP implementation rate of 72 percent.
A copy of the survey report (PDF, 5MB) is available from the website http://www.ncforestservice.gov/
publications/WQ0210.pdf. These periodic, recurring BMP surveys serve as a basis for focused efforts in the
forestry community to address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP development,
implementation and training.
PRotecting stReaM cRossings With bRiDgeMats
The NCFS provides bridgemats on loan to loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during
harvest activities in an effort to educate loggers about the benefits of installing crossings in this manner.
Temporary bridges can be a very effective solution for stream crossings, since the equipment and logs stay
completely clear of the water channel. Bridgemats are available for use in this river basin, and have been for
several years. Periodic status reports, a list of bridgemat suppliers, and additional information are available
at http://www.ncforestservice.gov/water_quality/bridgemats.htm.
FoRest haRvesting, RegeneRation & PLanning
During this last planning period an estimated 649 acres of land were established or regenerated with forest
trees across the basin. During this same time period, approximately 607 acres had a final harvest conducted
and 3,393 acres had an intermediate harvest conducted. In addition, 593 individual forestry-related
management plans were produced for landowners, encompassing more than 31,400 acres of forestland.
chRistMas tRee PRoDUction
The Christmas tree industry is predominant across many counties in the North Carolina mountains. It should
be noted that the N.C. Forest Service does not oversee regulations or land-clearing activities associated
with Christmas tree production. These activities are not considered forestry (“silviculture”) activities,
but are instead deemed to be an agricultural or horticultural activity. Personnel with the County Soil &
Water Conservation District or USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) can provide BMP
assistance. Additional information about Christmas trees is available from the N.C. Cooperative Extension
Service: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/ctnotes/index.html
noRth caRoLina FoRest seRvice (ncFs) contacts FoR the LittLe tennessee RiveR basin:
Office Location Contact Person Phone
Sylva District (District-9)Assistant District Forester [phone]
Western region (Region-3)Asst. Regional Forester [phone]
State Central Office, Raleigh Nonpoint Source Branch - Forest Hydrologist [phone]
Griffiths Forestry Center, Clayton Water Quality & Wetlands Staff Forester [phone] Ext. 230

20
1
2

NC
DW
Q

Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1A

Appendix 1A
Use Support Ratings for All Monitored Waterbodies
IR & 303(d) list Category Codes
IR
Category
Integrated Reporting Categories for individual Assessment Unit/Use Support Category/
Parameter Assessments. A single Assessement Unit (AU) can have multiple assessments
depending on data available and classified uses.
1 Supporting the assessed use no criteria exceeded (NCE) for a parameter of interest (POI) in a
Use Support Category (USC).
1nc DWQ have made field determination that parameter in exceedance is due to natural conditions.
1b Parameter is supporting uses in the AU and there is a management strategy in place to address
exceedances of the parameter.
1r Parameter is supporting uses in the AU and there was restoration activity to address past
standards violations of this parameter.
1t Parameter is supporting uses in the AU and there is an approved TMDL for the parameter.
2 All monitored uses are supporting or not rated and there are no impaired assessments in the AU
3a Parameter assessment is Not Rated due to insufficient or inconclusive data.
3b Parameter assessment is Not Rated due to insufficient or inconclusive data and there is a
management strategy in place to address exceedances of the parameter.
3n2 Not Rated for Chlorophyll a. Exceeds the evaluation level but there are less than 10 samples.
3c No Data available for assessment
3t No Data available for assessment –AU is in a watershed with an approved TMDL
4b Parameter assessment is impaired and there is a management strategy in place to address exceedances
of the parameter.
4c Parameter assessment is impaired and there is a dam upstream or downstream that is causing exceedances of the parameter.
4cr Impaired for loss of Recreation use and there is no data for TMDL (swimming advisories posted)
4cs Impaired loss of Shellfish Harvesting us, no data for TMDL (non-approved area)
4ct Impaired for the assessed USC/POI and the AU is in a watershed that is part of TMDL study area for the
POI.
4t Parameter assessment is impaired and there is an approved TMDL for theparameter.
4s Ecological/biological integrity is Impaired and there is separate category 5assessment for another aquatic
life parameter.
5 Parameter assessment is impaired and a TMDL development is required for the parameter.
5r Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Headwaters Little Tennessee River 0601020201Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Little Tennessee River 06010202Little Tennessee River Basin Subbasin
Headwaters Little Tennessee River 0601020201Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Cartoogechaye Creek2-19-(1)From source to a point 0.5 mile
downstream of Lenior Branch
7.7 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Coweeta Creek2-10 From source to Little Tennessee River 4.6 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER
2-(1)a From North Carolina-Georgia State line to
the confluence of Mulberry Creek
2.1 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2004 20025
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER
2-(1)b From the confluence of Mulberry Creek to
the confluence of Cartoogechaye Creek
15.9 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)No Criteria Exceeded Recreation 20081
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Middle Creek2-8 From source to Little Tennessee River 8.8 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Tessentee Creek2-9 From source to Little Tennessee River 8.1 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Cullasaja River 0601020202Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Ammons Branch2-21-2 From source to Cullasaja River 0.8 FW Miles WS-IIIHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20011
Big Creek (Randall
Lake)
2-21-5-1-(0.5)From source to a point 0.7 mile upstream
of mouth
3.4 FW Miles WS-
II;Tr,HQW
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20011
Big Creek Arm of
Lake Sequoyah
2-21-5-1-(4)From a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth
to Lake Sequoyah, Cullasaja River
0.6 FW Miles WS-
II;Tr,HQW,CA
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20001
10/20/2010 Page 135 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Cullasaja River 0601020202Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Cullasaja River2-21-(5.5)From dam at Lake Sequoyah to Little
Tennessee River
10.6 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Cullasaja River (Lake
Sequoyah)
2-21-(3.5)b From backwaters of Lake Sequoyah to dam
at Lake Sequoyah
42.1 FW Acres WS-III;Tr,CAHHHH
Low Dissolved Oxygen Potential Standards Violation Aquatic Life 20083a
Low pH Potential Standards Violation Aquatic Life 20083a
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
Cullasaja
River(Ravenel Lake)
2-21-(0.5)a Source to 0.6 miles downstream of US64
(head of Mirror lake)
3.7 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2004 19985
Cullasaja
River(Ravenel Lake)
2-21-(0.5)b From 0.6 miles downstream of US64 (head
of Mirror lake) to Mirror lake
0.7 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2004 19985
Ellijay Creek2-21-23 From source to Cullasaja River 7.2 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Houston Branch2-21-5-1-3-(2)From Dam at Highlands Reservoir to Big
Creek
0.9 FW Miles WS-II;HQWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20001
Mill Creek2-21-3 From source to Mirror Lake, Cullasaja River 1.3 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 1991 19985
Saltrock Branch2-21-1 From source to Cullasaja River 0.8 FW Miles WS-IIIHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20013a
Skitty Creek (Cliffside
Lake)
2-21-6-(1)From source to Dam at Cliffside Lake 1.9 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20001
Turtle Pond Creek2-21-8 From source to Cullasaja River 4.0 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Walnut Creek2-21-17 From source to Cullasaja River 4.5 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20043a
Nantahala River 0601020203Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
10/20/2010 Page 136 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Nantahala River 0601020203Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Dicks Creek2-57-42 From source to Nantahala River 3.3 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Nantahala River2-57-(0.5)From source to Roaring Fork 3.5 FW Miles B;Tr,ORWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)No Criteria Exceeded Recreation 20081
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Nantahala River2-57-(22.5)b From Nanthahala Lake Dam to Nantahala
River Arm of Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee
R.
18.2 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Whiteoak Creek2-57-45b From SR 1397 to SR 1423 1.0 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Legacy Nutrient Listing no Water Quality S Data Inconclusive Aquatic Life 19983a
Whiteoak Creek2-57-45c From SR 1423 to Nantahala River 3.6 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Alarka Creek-Little Tennessee River 0601020204Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Alarka Creek2-69-(2.5)From Upper Long Creek to Fontana Lake,
Little Tennessee R.
13.1 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Bradley Creek2-33 From source to Little Tennessee River 3.7 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Brush Creek2-46 From source to Little Tennessee River 6.3 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Burningtown Creek2-38 From source to Little Tennessee River 11.7 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Caler Fork Creek2-29-4 From source to Cowee Creek 4.6 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Cat Creek2-23-4a From source GB171 off Preserve Drive 2.5 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
10/20/2010 Page 137 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Alarka Creek-Little Tennessee River 0601020204Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Cat Creek2-23-4b From GB171 off Preserve Drive to Rabbit
Creek
0.5 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2008 20105
Coon Creek2-24-3 From source to Watauga Creek 3.1 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Cowee Creek2-29 From source to Little Tennessee River 4.0 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Dalton Creek2-29-4-2 From source to Caler Fork Creek 2.2 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Iotla Branch2-27-1 From source to Iotla Creek 2.4 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2008 20105
Iotla Creek2-27 From source to Little Tennessee River 5.5 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Lakey Creek2-34 From source to Little Tennessee River 3.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER (Including the
backwaters of
Fontana Lake at
normal pool
elevation 1708 fee
2-(26.5)a From to a point 0.4 mile upstream of N.C.
Hwy. 28 (located 0.42 mile upstream of
mouth of Iotla Creek) to subbasin 01/02
border
10.0 FW Miles BHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)No Criteria Exceeded Recreation 20081
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER (Including the
backwaters of
Fontana Lake at
normal pool
elevation 1708 fee
2-(26.5)b From Subbasin 01/02 boundary to
Nantahala River Arm of Fontana Lake
11.9 FW Miles BHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
10/20/2010 Page 138 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Alarka Creek-Little Tennessee River 0601020204Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Matlock Creek2-29-5 From source to Cowee Creek 4.3 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Rabbitt Creek2-23b From Elmore Branch to Little Tennessee
River
2.1 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2008 20105
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Rattlesnake Creek2-44 From source to Little Tennessee River 3.1 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Tellico Creek2-40 From source to Little Tennessee River 5.9 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Watauga Creek2-24 From source to Little Tennessee River 5.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Younce Creek2-38-8 From source to Burningtown Creek 3.7 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Fontana Lake 0601020205Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Eagle Creek2-159-(6)From Pinnacle Creek to Eagle Creek Arm of
Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
1.7 FW Miles WS-
IV;Tr,ORW,C
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
Hazel Creek2-146-(19)From a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth
to Hazel Creek Arm of Fontana Lake, Little
Tennessee River
0.9 FW Miles WS-
IV;Tr,ORW,C
A
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER (Fontana Lake
below elev. 1708)
2-(140.5)From the upstream side of Shoal Branch to
Fontana Dam
1,696.7 FW Acres WS-IV,B;CAHHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
Panther Creek2-115 From source to Fontana Lake, Little
Tennessee River
2.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20043a
10/20/2010 Page 139 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Fontana Lake 0601020205Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Payne Branch2-166 From source to Fontana Lake, Little
Tennessee River
1.0 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr,CAHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
Pilkey Creek2-132 From source to Fontana Lake, Little
Tennessee River
1.8 FW Miles C;Tr,ORWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
Shehan Branch
(Possum Hollow
Creek)
2-147-(0.7)From Bearpen Branch to Hazel Creek Arm
of Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
0.6 FW Miles WS-
IV;Tr,ORW,C
A
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
Stecoah Creek2-130 From source to Fontana Lake, Little
Tennessee River
7.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20043a
10/20/2010 Page 140 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Upper Tuckasegee River 0601020301Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Tuckasegee River 06010203Little Tennessee River Basin Subbasin
Upper Tuckasegee River 0601020301Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Caney Fork2-79-28-(2.5)From Mull Creek to Tuckaseegee River 1.3 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Cullowhee Creek2-79-31a From source to first crossing of NC 107 near
Cullowhee
8.7 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Moses Creek2-79-28-8 From source to Caney Fork 4.1 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Tuckaseegee River
(Bear Creek Lake)
2-79-(5.5)b From Tennessee Creek to West Fork
Tuckaseegee River
443.8 FW Acres WS-III,B;TrHHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
Tuckaseegee River
(Cedar Cliff Lake)
2-79-(5.5)c From Tennessee Creek to West Fork
Tuckaseegee River
131.4 FW Acres WS-III,B;TrHHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
Tuckasegee River
(East Fork Lake)
2-79-(0.5)From source to Tennessee Creek 4.4 FW Miles WS-
III,B;Tr,ORW
HHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
UT TUCKASEGEE R2-79-(24)ut4 Source to TUCKASEGEE R 1.3 FW MilesHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Not Impaired Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
Low pH Standard Violation Aquatic Life 2008 20105
West Fork
Tuckasegee River
(Thorpe Lake below
elevation 3492 MSL)
2-79-23-(1)From source in Thorpe Lake Backwater at
Elevation 3492 MSL to Thorpe Dam
1,388.5 FW Acres WS-
III,B;HQW
HHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
Wolf Creek (Wolf
Creek Lake)
2-79-9-(1)From source to Wolf Creek Dam 5.3 FW Miles WS-
III,B;Tr,HQW
HHHH
Water Quality Standards Water Supply No Criteria Exceeded Water Supply 20081
10/20/2010 Page 141 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Oconaluftee River 0601020302Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Oconaluftee River 0601020302Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Oconaluftee River2-79-55-(11)From Bradley Fork to Raven Fork 4.9 FW Miles C;Tr,HQWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Oconaluftee River2-79-55-(16.5)From Raven Fork to Cherokee Indian
Reservation boundary (approximately 0.4
miles downstream of Goose Creek)
8.3 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Middle Tuckasegee River 0601020303Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Beck Branch2-79-49-1 From source to Camp Creek 1.2 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20053a
Camp Creek2-79-49 From source to Tuckasegee River 4.4 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20053a
Conley Creek
(Connelly Creek)
2-79-52 From source to Tuckasegee River 7.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20043a
Licklog Creek2-79-39-3-6 From source to Dark Ridge Creek 1.7 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
Savannah Creek2-79-36 From source to Tuckasegee River 13.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
Scott Creek2-79-39 From source to Tuckasegee River 15.3 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20071
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Not Rated Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20043a
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
Sugarloaf Creek2-79-39-5-1 From source to Soapstone Creek 1.8 FW Miles CHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2007 20105
Tuckasegee River2-79-(35.5)a From Savannah Creek to UT 0.3 miles
upstream of Yellow Bird Creek
1.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
10/20/2010 Page 142 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Middle Tuckasegee River 0601020303Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Tuckasegee River2-79-(35.5)b From UT 0.3 miles upstream of yellow Bird
Creek to Dillsboro Dam
0.5 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
Tuckasegee River2-79-(38)From Dillsboro Dam to Mack Town Branch 0.7 FW Miles CHHHH
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
Lower Tuckasegee River 0601020304Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Deep Creek2-79-63-(16)From Indian Creek to Juney Whank Branch 0.8 FW Miles WS-II,B;Tr,HHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Deep Creek2-79-63-(21)From Town of Bryson City water supply
intake (located just below Great Smoky
Mountains National Park Boundary) to
Tuckasegee River
1.8 FW Miles B;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Forney Creek2-97 From source to Tuckasegee River Arm of
Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
9.5 FW Miles C;Tr,ORWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Gray Wolf Creek2-96 From source to Tuckasegee River Arm of
Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
2.2 FW Miles B;ORWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20051
Noland Creek2-90 From source to Tuckasegee River Arm of
Fontana Lake, Little Tennessee River
10.8 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Tuckasegee River2-79-(40.5)From Mack Town Branch to Cochran Branch 17.7 FW Miles BHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)No Criteria Exceeded Recreation 20081
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Tuckasegee River
Arm of Fontana Lake,
Little Tennessee
River, below
elevation 1708 MSL
2-(78)a From Lemmons Creek to Peachtree Creek 170.6 FW Acres CHHHH
Fecal Coliform (recreation)Standard Violation Recreation 2005 20085
10/20/2010 Page 143 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Lower Tuckasegee River 0601020304Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Tuckasegee River
Arm of Fontana Lake,
Little Tennessee
River, below
elevation 1708 MSL
2-(89)That portion of Tuckasegee River Arm of
Fontana Lake below the upstream side of
the mouth of Noland Creek
1,019.0 FW Acres BHHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
10/20/2010 Page 144 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Cheoah River 0601020401Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Lower Little Tennessee River 06010204Little Tennessee River Basin Subbasin
Cheoah River 0601020401Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Cheoah River2-190-(22)a From Santeetlah Dam to Rock Creek 3.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20081
Cheoah River2-190-(22)b From Rock Creek to Calderwood Lake, Little
Tennessee River
5.9 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Cheoah River2-190-(3.5)From the Town of Robbinsville's proposed
water supply intake, to Mountain Creek
1.4 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Fecal Coliform (recreation)No Criteria Exceeded Recreation 20081
High Water Temperature Potential Standards Violation Aquatic Life 20083a
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Little Santeetlah
Creek
2-190-19-7 From source to Santeetlah Creek 3.3 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Snowbird Creek2-190-9-(15.5)From Polecat Branch to Santeetlah Lake,
Cheoah River
5.6 FW Miles C;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Excellent Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Tulula Creek2-190-2-(0.5)From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream
of mouth
12.8 FW Miles WS-III;TrHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom Good-Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
West Buffalo Creek
Arm of Santeetlah
Lake
2-190-12b From SR 1148 to Santeetlah Lake, Cheoah
River
280.0 FW Acres B;TrHHHH
High Water Temperature Data Inconclusive Aquatic Life 20083a
Low Dissolved Oxygen Data Inconclusive Aquatic Life 20083a
Upper Tellico Lake 0601020404Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER (Calderwood
Lake)
2-(167)b From Fontana Dam to North Carolina-
Tennessee State Line Calderwood Lake
Portion
107.5 FW Acres C;TrHHHH
Turbidity Potential Standards Violation Aquatic Life 20083a
10/20/2010 Page 145 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Parameter Reason for Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
NC 2010 Integrated Report
Category
Upper Tellico Lake 0601020404Little Tennessee River Basin Watershed
LITTLE TENNESSEE
RIVER (Cheoah Lake)
2-(167)a From Fontana Dam to North Carolina-
Tennessee State Line Cheoah Lake Portion
592.9 FW Acres C;TrHHHH
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Life No Criteria Exceeded Aquatic Life 20081
Twentymile Creek2-178-(4)From Proctor Branch to Lake Cheoah, Little
Tennessee River
3.0 FW Miles C;Tr,HQWHHHH
Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Good Bioclassification Aquatic Life 20041
10/20/2010 Page 146 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010

20
1
2

NC
DW
Q
Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1B

Appendix 1B
Biological Assessment
Macroinvertebrate and Fish Site Sample Results
The full report is available on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/reports
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)21.4
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)27
pH (s.u.)5.9
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L TENNESSEE R OFF SR 1629 GB50 08/04/10 Good-Fair
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.000000 -83.381667 2-(1)a Broad Basins
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Stream Classification Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C250.6
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
50 (Fallow Fields)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None
Visible Landuse (%)25 0 25 0
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)16
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)3
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)58
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Sand, gravel, cobble, silt with a trace of boulder
Bioclassification
08/04/10 11014 72 24 5.72 4.61 Good-Fair
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Taxonomic Analysis
Numerous intolerant EPT taxa were collected in 2010 that were not present in 2000 and include the mayflies Paraleptophlebia spp., Neoephemera
purprea , the stonefly Leuctra spp., and the caddisflies Polycentropus spp ., Lype diversa, and Neophylax consimilis. In addition, many pollution tolerant
chironomids which were abundant in 2000 were completely absent in 2010 and include Cricotopus bicinctus , C. fugax , C. infuscatus. These data
suggest more favorable water quality conditions in 2010 relative to 2000.
Data Analysis
This sampling location is below Commissioner Creek. The large improvement in the benthic macroinvertebrate metrics at this location since the 2000
collection strongly suggests improved water quality at this location.
Fair09/11/00 8303 67 15 6.35 4.08
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)27.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)35
pH (s.u.)6.5
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)4
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L TENNESSEE R SR 1113 GB24 08/05/10 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 2 06010202 35.326389 -83.523611 2-(26.5)b Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B 375 1800 50 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 ------10 ---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Town of Franklin WWTP NC0021547 1.65
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)4
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)80 Substrate mostly cobble (50), boulder (20), and bedrock (20); some silt (10)
3.36 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/05/10 11090 89 39 4.19
08/05/04 9461 95 42 4.04 3.03 Good
3.81 Good
08/09/99 7957 75 31 4.59 3.44
Taxonomic Analysis
The decrease in EPT richness (15 taxa) occurred as a result of a net loss of baetid mayflies including the intolerant Baetis pluto and Acentrella turbida as
well as the rare Iswaeon davidi. However, the rarely collected Heterocloeon petersi has occurred at this site over the past 11 years. As expected in a
large, productive river, flat-headed mayflies were abundant and were represented by 6 taxa and included the first basinwide site record of Epeorus vitreus.
Caddisflies were rich with 22 taxa, the most this site has seen during basinwide sampling. Hydropsychids dominated and, along with other net-spinning
caddisflies, were very abundant. First basinwide records for this site included Leucotrichia pictipes, a species typical of warm water, open-canopied
rivers, Ceraclea ancylus, and two species of Pycnopsyche. Stonefly richness was half of that found in 2004 (2 vs. 4 taxa) and consisted entirely of riffle
dwelling perlid stoneflies. Perlids are long-lived (2 years) as larvae so their presence over the last 16 years suggests overall stable habitat and water
conditions.
Data Analysis
This most downstream site on the Little Tennessee River occurs in southeastern Swain county well below Franklin. The river at this point has two
channels. The east channel was sampled in 2004 and the west channel sampled in 2010. These channels are very different as the east channel is
primarily bedrock and the west has a good mix of substrates. Overall habitat in the west channel was good, particularly root mats and riffles, although
pools were somewhat lacking. The specific conductance was low for a river downstream of a WWTP and the pH was also low for a large productive river.
The BI was slightly elevated over the 2004 value (but remained lower than even earlier samples) and the EPT richness decreased, albeit only slightly.
Water quality in the Little Tennessee at this site remains Good although it tends to fluctuate slightly, possibly contingent on the flow regime.
Good
07/13/94 6587 82 39 4.46
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)24.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)27
pH (s.u.)6.9
Channel Modification (5)5
I t H bit t (20)9
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L TENNESSEE R SR 1651 GB10 08/04/10 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.122222 -83.377778 2-(1)b Broad Basins
Stream Classification Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C400.7
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)30 10 50 10
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None
Instream Habitat (20)9
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)3
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)45 Substrate Sand, silt, gravel, cobble, trace of boulder
Bioclassification
08/04/10 11015 93 35 5.03 4.12 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
10/20/99 7993 62 29 4.16 3.27 Good-Fair
07/22/04 9435 93 37 5.30 3.62
Taxonomic Analysis
There were numerous pollution intolerant taxa present in the 2004 and 2010 samples that have not been present from the previous three samples. These
taxa include the mayflies Baetisca carolina , Drunella allegheniensis , Epeorus vitreus , Leucrocuta spp . and the caddisflies Brachycentrus spinae,
Hydroptila spp., Rhyacophila fuscula , and Neophylax consimilis. The presence of these taxa suggest improved water quality at this site relative to the
1985-1999 monitoring period.
Data Analysis
Since the 1985 Fair bioclassification and the 1987 and 1999 Good-Fair ratings, invertebrate collections at this site in 2004 and 2010 have resulted in two
consecutive Good bioclassifications. Since 2004, the EPT diversity has been stable and much higher than EPT data obtained in the previous three
collections. The 2004 and 2010 data suggest improved water quality at this location relative to the 1985, 1987, and 1999 samples.
Good-Fair
08/06/85 3536 52 18 5.48 4.66 Fair
08/05/87 4196 64 20 5.59 4.73
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)22.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.1
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)35
pH (s.u.)6.4
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)10
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)25 25 50 0
Stream Classification Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B250.5
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.235000 -83.395833 2-(26.5)a Broad Basins
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L TENNESSEE R NC 28 GB35 08/05/09 Good
()0
Bottom Substrate (15)3
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)10
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)8
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)58
Taxonomic Analysis
Several EPT taxa were present for the first time in 2009 and included the mayflies Iswaeon anoka, Plauditus dubius GR, and the caddisfly
Brachycentrus spinae . The addition of these intolerant taxa coupled with the simultaneous reduction of several pollution tolerant taxa (such as the
chironomids Ablabesmyia mallochi, Cricotopus bicinctus , and Cryptochironomus fulvus) resulted in a the lowered BI (and EPTBI) in 2009. These trends
may indicate improving water quality in this watershed.
Data Analysis
The EPTS, BI, and EPTBI have all been improving since 1987 . The 2009 sample resulted in the highest EPTs, the lowest BI and the lowest EPTBI
observed at this location and also resulted in an improved bioclassification of Good. THe first non Good-Fair rating at this site. The improving invertebrate
metrics indicate gradually improving water quality and is supported by the specific conductance data which has also been improving (128 µS/cm in 1999,
37 µS/cm in 2004, and 35 µS/cm in 2009). The 2005 assessment of this site noted that the drastic decline in conductivity from 2005 relative to 1999 may
have been related to a reduction in local gem mining activities.
Good-Fair
08/06/87 4197 75 28 5.37 4.29 Good-Fair
07/26/94 6621 57 27 4.88 4.07
Good-Fair
08/24/99 7978 86 32 5.27 3.65 Good-Fair
07/22/04 9448 71 32 5.07 4.13
Bioclassification
08/05/09 10791 85 37 4.66 3.55 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate bedrock, boulders, sand, gravel and sand
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)24.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.7
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)25
pH (s.u.)6.7
Bioclassification
MIDDLE CR SR 1635 GB49 08/03/10 Excellent
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.052222 -83.374444 2-8 Broad Basins
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
C; Tr 1930 7 0.3
Stream Classification Elevation Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
25 (residential)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Visible Landuse (%)25 0 50 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)11
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)68
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate rubble, boulder, sand, silt and gravel
2.37
Bioclassification
08/03/10 11013 38 2.77 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Taxonomic Analysis
The 1999 sample produced the lowest EPT taxa richness ever recorded at this location. Since the 1999 collection, several new records of intolerant taxa
were present in both 2004 and 2010 and include the mayflies Baetis tricaudatus, Serratella serrata, Paraleptophlebia spp, the stonefly Perlesta spp and
the caddisflies Ceratopsyche bronta, Nectopsyche exquisita , Lype diversa, Rhyacophila fuscula, and Neophylax consimilis .
Data Analysis
The new records of intolerant invertebrates collected in 2004 and 2010 suggest that water quality improved after the 1999 Good-Fair collection. The
relatively stable EPTS and EPTBI from 2004 and 2010 suggest that the water quality is also generally stable.
Excellent
08/24/99 7979 25 3.94 Good-Fair
07/22/04 9427 43
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)21
pH (s.u.)6.1
Bioclassification
TESSENTEE CR SR 1684 GB46 07/30/09 Excellent
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.066944 -83.368056 2-9 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
14.4 7 0.3
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Visible Landuse (%)25 25 50 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)3
Total Habitat Score (100)73
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Boulder, bedrock, cobble, gravel and sand with a trace of silt
Bioclassification
07/30/09 10788 52 2.70 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Taxonomic Analysis
There are numerous intolerant taxa that have been present at this location since monitoring commenced in 2004 and included the mayflies Drunella
allegheniensis , Serratella serratoides, Epeorus vitreus, the caddisflies Micrasema wataga, Glossosoma spp, Dolophilodes spp , Nyctiophylax celta and
the long-lived stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis and Paragnetina immarginata.
Data Analysis
The consistent Excellent bioclassifications and persistent intolerant benthic macroinvertebrate community (and long lived stoneflies) suggests stable and
favorable water quality in this catchment. This conclusion is further supported by the specific conductance data which has been low and quite similar
through time at 18 µS/cm in 2004 and 21.3 µS/cm in 2010.
Excellent07/22/04 9430 47 2.36
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)16
pH (s.u.)5.9
Channel Modification (5)5
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0
B;Tr 12.1 2100 7 0.2
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.062778 -83.400556 2-10 Broad Basins
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Bioclassification
COWEETA CR SR 1114 GB45 07/29/09 Excellent
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)16
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)92
Taxonomic Analysis
A stable, diverse, and pollution intolerant EPT fauna resides in Coweeta Creek. Abundant intolerant taxa collected in 2009 that characterize this site
include the mayflies Epeorus vitreus, Paraleptophlebia spp, the stoneflies Tallaperla spp, Perlesta spp, and the caddisflies Ceratopsyche bronta, C.
sparna , Lepidostoma spp and Dolophilodes spp.
Data Analysis
Coweeta Creek has been sampled here on four occasions with each sample producing an Excellent bioclassification. The majority of the watershed is
undisturbed forest, in part, associated with Coweta 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 macrobenthic community.
Excellent07/27/94 6622 ---39 ---2.75
Excellent
08/21/99 7948 ---39 ---2.88 Excellent
07/22/04 9429 ---45 ---2.62
Bioclassification
07/29/09 10787 ---41 ---2.73 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate mostly cobble and gravel
WS‐III;Tr 2110
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)33
pH (s.u.)6.0
Channel Modification (5)5
Bioclassification
CARTOOGECHAYE CR SR 1146 GB40 07/28/09 Good
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.156389 -83.455556 2-19-(1)Broad Basins
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
57.0 17 0.0
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m) Stream Depth (m)
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Visible Landuse (%)25 75 0 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear/turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)2
Light Penetration (10)5
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)68 Substrate boulder, cobble, gravle, sand, and silt
Bioclassification
07/28/09 10784 30 3.24 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
08/24/99 7977 41 2.81 Excellent
07/21/04 9446 31 3.03
Taxonomic Analysis
With the exception of the 1999 sample, the invertebrate composition at this location is remarkably unifrom. In fact, 23 common EPT species have been
collected at this site in at least three of the four total collection events and include the pollution intolerant mayfles Drunella allegheniensis , Serratella
serrata, Epeorus vitreus, the stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis , Leuctra spp., and the caddsiflies Brachycentrus appalachia , Dolophilodes spp, and
Neophylax consimilis .
Data Analysis
With the exception of the Excellent rating from 1999, the water quality at this site has been very stable. Indeed, the specific conductance has also been
very uniform through time with a measurement of 33 µS/cm in 1999, 31 µS/cm in 2004, and 33 µS/cm in 2009. The biological uniformity is further
demonstrated in that 40% of all the taxa ever collected at this location have been collected in at least three of the four total collections.
Good07/27/94 6623 30 2.91
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)22.4
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46
pH (s.u.)5.4
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)16
B tt S b t t (15)6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
CULLASAJA R US 64 GB48 08/03/10 Good-Fair
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.068889 -83.188889 2-21-(0.5)a Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS‐III; Tr 5 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)45 0 0 30
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Bottom Substrate (15)6
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)69 Substrate sand, silt, gravel, and cobble with a trace of bedrock and boulder
Bioclassification
08/03/10 11010 91 29 5.15 3.83 Good-Fair
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Fair
07/25/01 8537 41 10 6.67 6.04 Fair
07/21/04 9433 58 14 5.67 4.73
Taxonomic Analysis
The EPT diversity at this site has more than doubled since the the most recent sample in 2004 and represents the highest EPT diversity ever observed
here. EPT taxa collected here for the first time included the mayfly Centroptilum spp., the intolerant and long-lived perlid stoneflies Acroneuria abnormis,
Paragnetina immarginata, and the caddisflies Micrasema wataga , Glossosoma spp ., Hydroptila spp., Oxyethira spp., Triaenodes marginatus ,
Neophylax consimilis, and N. mitchelli. The addition of these taxa, and particularly of the long-lived perlid stoneflies, indicates that water quality at this
location has improved relative to previous years.
Data Analysis
All four previous samples resulted in Fair bioclassifications. This site improved substantially from earlier samples with every benthic macroinvertebrate
metric showing improvement. Of interest is the pH. 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. Indeed, many sites in this
basin with minimal non-point pollution have very low pH values. Examples of this can be seen at Snowbird Creek (SR 1120) and Tellico Creek (SR 1367)
with 2010 pH measurements of 5.6 and 4.9 respectively.
Fair
06/23/99 7869 47 14 5.63 4.88 Fair
08/28/00 8280 65 18 6.25 5.27
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)24.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)29
pH (s.u.)6.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
B tt S b t t (15)13
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 0 25 0
Stream Classification Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B; Tr 12 0.5
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.125278 -83.285278 2-21-(5.5) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
CULLASAJA R SR 1678 GB79 08/03/10 Excellent
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)81
Taxonomic Analysis
There are numerous pollution intolernat taxa that have been present at this location at each of the five collections and include the mayflies Epeorus
vitreus , Maccaffertium ithaca, M. pudicum , Neoephemera purprea , the stoneflies, Tallaperla spp., Acroneuria abnormis , Paragnetina immarginata,
Pteronarcys spp., and the caddisflies Ceratopsyche morosa, and C. sparna. In addition, several taxa were collected for the first time at this location in
2010 and included the intolerant mayflies Heterocloeon curiosum, Procloeon spp., Drunella allegheniensis and the caddisfly Triaenodes perna . The new
intolerant taxa collected in 2010 further support the trend of improving community metrics observed at this station since monitoring commenced in 1991.
Data Analysis
The consistent Excellent bioclassifications, high species diversity and low biotic indices are all indicative of a pollution intolerant invertebrate community
typical of a largely undisturbed watershed. These conclusions are further supported by the low specific conductance values observed (20 µS/cm in 1999,
29 µS/cm in 2010). Overall, the benthic invertebrate community metrics (S, EPT, BI and EPTBI) have generally been improving since the first sample in
1991.
Excellent
10/15/91 5749 95 48 3.67 2.90 Excellent
07/26/94 6602 85 42 3.60 2.73
Excellent
10/15/96 7214 86 45 3.31 2.36 Excellent
06/22/99 7862 90 50 3.36 2.29
Bioclassification
08/03/10 11012 103 51 3.26 2.35 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate boulder, cobble, gravel, with a trace of sand and bedrock
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)24.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)33
pH (s.u.)7.1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
CULLASAJA R SR 1668 GB39 08/03/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.164444 -83.325833 2-21-(5.5)Broad Basins
Stream Classification Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B; Tr 2100 20 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 25 25 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None N/A N/AB; Tr
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
S()
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)12
Bottom Substrate (15)10
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)63
ST EPT BI EPT BI
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Sand, silt, gravel, cobble and bedrock.
Bioclassification
08/03/10 11011 116 50 4.30 3.08 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID
08/05/04 9462 86 42 4.27 3.42
Data Analysis
The 1999 and 2010 samples were structurally quite similar. The slight decline in bioclassificaton seen in 2004 was largely due to the lack of certain taxa
collected in 1999 and 2010. These taxa included the mayflies Leucrocuta spp, Stenacron pallidum , and the caddisflies Micrasema bennetti ,
Hydropsyche venularis, Ceraclea ancylus, Neureclipsis spp, Nyctiophylax spp and Polycentropus spp . With the ossible exception of Hydropsyche
venularis and Micrasema bennetti , these taxa are generally restricted to slow pools along the stream margin. Their presence in 1999 and 2010 and
absence in 2004 suggests that this habitat type was poorly developed or absent during the 2004 sample. Therefore, the slight decreased in
bioclassification seen in 2004 was likely not related to a water quality change but may have been the result of reduced habitat availability, possibly related
to low flow conditions. This assertion is supported by the water quality data as specific conductance was 22 µS/cm in 2004 and 33 µS/cm in 2010.
Good
08/10/99 7961 99 51 3.74 3.09 Excellent
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)13
pH (s.u.)5.7
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 5.5 3320 10 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.075278 -83.260278 2-21-8 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TURTLE POND CR SR 1620 GB47 08/20/09 Excellent
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)11
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)84
Taxonomic Analysis
Several taxa were collected for the first time at the site in 2009. Most notable was Micrasema sprulesi, for which the BAU has fewer than 25 records.
Other taxa collected for the first time included the stonefly Sweltsa spp and the caddisflies Goera calcarata, Mystacides spp, Molanna blenda, and
Rhyacophila minor.
Data Analysis
Turtle Pond Creek is approximately three miles northwest of Highlands and about 0.5 stream-miles above the confluence with Cullasaja River. Though
the site has a significant amount of sand, a diverse benthic community was supported. All benthic macroinvertebrate metrics have been stable at this
location since monitoring commenced in 1999 and all bioclassifications have been Excellent.
Excellent
06/22/99 7866 ---42 ---1.90 Excellent
07/23/04 9428 ---49 ---2.10
Bioclassification
08/20/09 10827 ---46 ---2.24 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate mix of cobble, sand, boulder, and gravel
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)21.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)49
pH (s.u.)6.6
Channel Modification (5)3
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 25 25 0
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
10.0 5 0.3
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.234444 -83.398333 2-27 Broad Basins
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
IOTLA CR SR 1372 GB33 08/04/09 Good
Channel Modification (5)3
Instream Habitat (20)16
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)0
Riffle Habitat (16)10
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)58
Taxonomic Analysis
Several intolerant taxa absent from the 1994 Good-Fair sample but present at each of the four subsequent Good collections included the mayflies
Telagonopsis deficiens , Heptagenia marginalis , the stonefly Perlesta spp , and the caddisfly Triaenodes ignitus.
Data Analysis
With the exception of the 1994 Good-Fair sample, Iotla Creek at this location has rated Good on four separate occasions. There has been very little shift
among the invertebrate community since the 1994 sample and suggests very stable and generaly favorable water quality in this catchment. This
conclusion is further supported by the stable conductivity at each observation (49 µS/cm in 2009, 39 µS/cm in 2007 , 40 µS/cm in 2004, and 42 µS/cm in
1999).
Good
07/27/94 6624 21 4.28 Good-Fair
08/10/99 7960 35 3.50
Good
07/22/04 9449 73 32 4.66 3.86 Good
05/24/07 10188 31 3.62
Bioclassification
08/04/09 10790 83 32 4.63 3.92 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate boulder, silt, sand, and cobble
C;Tr 1980
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)26
pH (s.u.)5.9
Channel Modification (5)4
Site Photograph
Water Clarity turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)25 50 25 0
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
26.0 6 0.2
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.262500 -83.409444 2-29 Broad Basins
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
COWEE CR NC 28 GB31 07/29/09 Excellent
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)6
Left Riparian Score (5)0
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)70
Taxonomic Analysis
Several pollution intolerant taxa absent from the 1994 Good-Fair sample have been present in the subsequent samples and include the mayflies
Serratella serrata , Heptagenia marginalis, Leucrocuta spp., Paraleptophlebia spp ., the stonefly Leuctra spp ., and the caddisflies Brachycentrus
nigrosoma, Lepidostoma spp., and Oecetis persimilis.
Data Analysis
This site improved to Good in 1999 and then improved to Excellent in 2004 and has remained Excellent in both of the subsequent collections. The only
small difference in the community noted at this location since 2004 was the very slight increase in the EPTBI. However, the data suggest no significant
change in the water quality since 2004.
Good
07/26/94 6620 24 3.31 Good-Fair
08/10/99 7962 35 2.37
Excellent
07/22/04 9451 38 2.82 Excellent
05/23/07 10187 43 2.81
Bioclassification
07/29/09 10786 40 2.94 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Boulder, cobble, gravel
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)20.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)20
pH (s.u.)6.0
Channel Modification (5)4
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BURNINGTOWN CR SR 1371 GB30 08/04/09 Excellent
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.266389 -83.473056 2-38 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B;Tr 24.8 1950 10 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 25 25
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)10
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)77 Substrate mix of bolder, rubble, gravel and sand
Bioclassification
08/04/09 10789 --- 37 --- 3.41 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Excellent
08/10/99 7959 ---39 ---3.06 Excellent
08/03/04 9477 ---43 ---3.12
Taxonomic Analysis
Few differences existed with the common and abundant EPT taxa between the 2004 and 2009 samples. Although some changes in the benthic
community in 2009 included the absence of the caddisfly Micrasema watauga (abundant in 2004 and common in 1999) and the stonefly Pteronarcys spp
(common in 2004 and 1999, and abundant in 1994) but absent in 2009. The rest of the differences between 2004 and 2009 at Burningtown Creek
involved the absence/presence of rare taxa. Despite the few differences the EPT community here appears diverse and generally pollution intolerant.
Data Analysis
Burningtown Creek rated Excellent in 2009, the same rating it received in 2004 and 1999. Though EPT diversity remains high here, the Biotic Index has
steadily increased since first being sampled in 1994 suggesting that the benthic community is becoming slightly more pollution tolerant over time.
Good07/26/94 6619 ---30 ---2.89
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)23
pH (s.u.)5.6
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0 0
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
12.0 6 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 1 06010202 35.281944 -83.507500 2-40 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TELLICO CR SR 1367 GB28 07/29/09 Excellent
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)3
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)81
Taxonomic Analysis
Although several intolerant taxa were present in 2009 and included the mayflies Drunella conestee , Epeorus vitreus and the stoneflies Tallaperla spp,
Acroneuria abnormis , Paragnetina immarginata, there were several edge-dwelling caddisflies that were absent or reduced in abundance in 2009 relative
to previous collections. These taxa included Brachycentrus spinae, Goera spp and Pycnopsyche spp. The absence or reduction in these taxa may be
related to a reduction in their favored habitat due to drought induced low flows. However, changes in water chemistry cannot be ruled out.
Data Analysis
Although there is a large trout farm approximately 1.8 miles upstream, there appears to be little impact to the benthic macroinvertebrate community as
this site continues to rate Excellent and harbors many intolerant taxa. It is possible that dilution effects of several tributaries located between this location
and the trout farm is having a positive influence on the invertebrate community. However, the EPTs in 2009 was the lowest on record and corresponded
to a small increase in the specific conductance (23 µS/cm in 2009) which was elevated relative to the 1999 (16 µS/cm) and 2004 (17 µS/cm)
observations. A reduction in flow in 2009 relative to earlier samples may support the elevated conductivity data due to a weakening in tributary dilution
effects. Further, a reduction in flow also supports the lack of the edge-dwelling caddisfly taxa. Additional monitoring at this location is strongly
recommended.
Excellent07/14/94 6586 84 43 3.24 2.37
Excellent
08/09/99 7958 108 54 3.30 2.24 Excellent
08/03/04 9476 93 44 3.29 2.33
Bioclassification
07/29/09 10785 93 40 3.07 2.35 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and a trace of silt
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)21.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)17
pH (s.u.)6.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)15
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
NANTAHALA R FSR 437 GB42 07/21/04 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 3 06010202 35.126944 -83.619167 2-57-(0.5) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B; Tr, ORW 52 3065 22 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)80 10 0 10 ---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Bottom Substrate (15)15
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)5
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)88 Substrate mostly boulder, cobble and gravel with some sand and silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
07/21/04 9445 92 49 2.90 1.60
7976 100 49 3.11 2.02
Bioclassification
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
07/26/94 6627 77 48 2.40 1.95 Excellent
08/24/99
07/10/91 5655 94 54 2.34 1.48
Taxonomic Analysis
Sampling in 2010 yielded the highest EPT richness yet in this upper reach of the Nantahala River. The EPT community at this site included some
previously uncollected taxa including the rare mayfly Litobrancha recurvata as well as the mayflies Procloeon spp and Epeorus subpallidus. The
stonefly community was very similar to that seen in previous samplings. Caddisflies previously uncollected included the silt-loving Phylocentropus, the
uncommon long-horned Triaenodes taenius and the stone casemaker Psilotreta frontalis. Non-EPT benthos was rich, particularly in chironomids, but not
abundant.
Data Analysis
The Nantahala River at FSR 437 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. While both total and EPT
richness increased, the respective biotic indices also increased over previous values although not dramatically. However, habitat and physico-chimical
parameters were very supportive of a diverse macroinvertebrate fauna which was the productive and intolerant community one would expect from a
stream supplementally classified as ORW. This site retains an Excellent bioclassification.
08/04/10 11016 108 56 3.01 1.93
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)12.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)25
pH (s.u.)6.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
NANTAHALA R OFF US 19-74 BE QUEENS CR GB8 08/04/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 3 06010202 35.286111 -83.667500 2-57-(22.5)b Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B;Tr 142.0 1960 20 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)66 33 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
()
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)5
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)85 Substrate mostly rubble with some boulder and gravel
Bioclassification
08/04/09 10782 93 37 3.90 2.42 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good
08/23/99 7953 ---35 ---2.25 Good
07/20/04 9438 83 35 4.19 2.26
Taxonomic Analysis
A diverse EPT community resides in this section of the Nantahala River although there is little difference among the taxa found in 2009 from previous
collections. Among the dominant taxa that appear year after year include the mayflies Serratella deficiens, Maccafffertium modestum, M. ithaca, the
stoneflies Leuctra spp and Isoperla holochlora, and the caddisflies Micrasema watauga and Glossosoma spp. Although more taxa were found in 2009
than any of the previous six collections, very few taxa new to this location were collected.
Data Analysis
This segment of the Nantahala River rated Good in 2009, the same rating it has received since 1993. It was first sampled in 1984, rating Good-Fair,
followed by the same rating two years later. This portion of the Nantahala River is highly regulated with daily releases that greatly influence water
chemistry, water depth and velocities. Though some edge taxa are limited here, overall, the macroinvertebrate community has adjusted to this artificial
hydrologic regime and is currently stable.
Good
11/15/93 6419 65 32 4.07 2.15 Good
07/26/94 6617 71 36 3.64 2.15
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)28
pH (s.u.)6.8
Channel Modification (5)3
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)10
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
ALARKA CR SR 1185 GB17 07/29/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010202 35.378611 -83.472222 2-69-(2.5) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 25.0 1952 9 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)20 80 ------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Bottom Substrate (15)10
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)78 Substrate Cobble, boulder, and gravel with some bedrock, sand, and silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
07/29/09 10769 110 53 3.59 2.66
9453 101 46 3.88 2.67
Bioclassification
Excellent
2.99
Excellent
08/09/99 7956 86 51 3.62 3.03 Excellent
08/02/04
Taxonomic Analysis
Sampling resulted in the highest total taxa richness and EPT levels yet seen in this stream since it was added as a basinwide site. Approximately half of
the EPT collected were mayflies (26 taxa) of which at least one third were abundant. Two intolerant mayflies (Ephemeroptera) not collected since 1994,
Baetisca spp and Brachycercus spp, were collected in 2009. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) were rich and abundant as a group while the caddisflies were
dominated by Brachycentrus spinae and hydropsychids. Additionally, five intolerant caddisflies were collected for the first time here and
includedCeraclea spp, Mystacides spp, Rhyacophila carolina, and Neophylax mitchelli.
Data Analysis
While the watershed is primarily forested, the main stem of Alarka Creek is followed closely by a road resulting in mostly residential development along
the stream channel. It was noted that since the last sampling event, native rock was removed from the channel downstream of the site (see photo above)
by landowners adjacent to the stream to armor the immediate banks and to construct a gabion. This removed a significant amount of local habitat but did
not affect the bioclassification. Sampling in 2009 resulted in the lowest biotic index ever measured in this stream. In fact, Alarka Creek has never rated
lower than Excellent and maintains this rating in 2009 indicating that the water quality is very stable.
Excellent07/11/94 6580 91 48 3.70
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)28
pH (s.u.)5.1
Channel Modification (5)3
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)8
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
WHITEOAK CR SR 1397 GB36 07/28/09 Good-Fair
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
MACON 3 06010202 35.221944 -83.615278 2-57-45b Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 7.1 3300 7 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)00100
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)3
Total Habitat Score (100)71 Substrate mix of boulders, rubble, gravel and silt
Bioclassification
07/28/09 10783 57 21 4.84 1.73 Good-Fair
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Good-Fair
08/09/90 5426 60 20 5.83 2.20 Fair
07/21/04 9443 63 26 4.53 2.34
Taxonomic Analysis
Only three EPT, all caddisflies, were abundant at this site on Whiteoak Creek in 2009 and included Glossosom spp, Ceratopsyche sparna, and
Lepidostoma spp. Low EPT taxa richness combined with high numbers of pollution tolerant taxa such as oligocheates, leeches, chironomids, and other
dipterans reflect an organically enriched aquatic environment. Large numbers of the filter feeding black fly, Simulium sp, were collected in summer 2009
and 2004, an increase from 1990 suggesting that additional organic particulates are entering Whiteoak Creek. This is the only site in the Little
Tennessee Basin where the dipeteran Limnophora spp was collected in 2009. This taxa resides in the aquatic mosses that dominate the benthos in this
enriched aquatic environment.
Data Analysis
Whiteoak Creek rated Good-Fair in 2009, 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
BAU investigations (B-, 881209, B-900220, B-900720, B-050218) clearly documented the effects of untreated wastewater here. Abnormally large and
thick mats of aquatic plants have been a historic issue in Whiteoak Creek from 1998 to present. These mats consisted mostly of Hylotheca mucosa with
some Vaucheria spp intermixed. Hyloceca mucosa is a widespread green alga usually occurring in acidic, oligotrophic aquatic environs. The degraded
condition of this waterbody persists 1.5 miles downstream to Whiteoak Dam.
Good-Fair
01/23/90 5159 83 39 3.91 2.26 Good-Fair
05/15/90 5278 79 35 4.06 1.96
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)24
pH (s.u.)6.6
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)70 20 ---10 (road)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 9.2 1739 8 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Graham 2 06010202 35.390833 -83.624444 2-115 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
PANTHER CR SR 1233 GB16 07/29/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)3
Total Habitat Score (100)86
Taxonomic Analysis
The EPT richness in Panther Creek increased by more than 25% over 2004 levels to reach the highest richness yet measured in this waterbody. Although
increases were seen in all three insect orders, it was primarily driven by increases in caddisfly taxa. Many taxa were new records for this stream and
included the mayflies Diphetor hageni and Epeorus dispar , the stonefly Beloneuria spp and the caddisflies Mystacides spp and Triaenodes perna/helo .
Data Analysis
This site on Panther Creek is about 0.25 miles upstream of Fontana Lake. The high gradient stream follows a road and is impacted mostly by residential
development and runoff, although the watershed is only lightly developed. In-stream habitat and physico-chemical parameters were good and no
sediment problems or riparian issues (except for a road corridor) were noted. Previous observations of high periphyton biomass were not seen during
2009 sampling. The only non Excellent bioclassification observed at this site was in 2004 and that assessment was short of Excellent by just one EPT
taxon. Overall, the water quality at this location has been quite stable through time.
Excellent07/13/94 6585 ---37 ---1.93
Good
08/10/99 7963 ---39 ---2.15 Excellent
08/04/04 9457 ---35 ---2.07
Bioclassification
Excellent07/29/09 10701 ---45 ---2.13
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Cobble, gravel, and boulder with some bedrock
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)54
pH (s.u.)6.8
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)15
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
STECOAH CR SR 1237 GB14 07/29/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Graham 2 06010202 35.395556 -83.679167 2-130 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 8.9 1801 5 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)20 60 20 ---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)79 Substrate Cobble and gravel with some boulder and gravel
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
07/29/09 10700 --- 41 --- 3.18
9458 --- 30 --- 2.94
Bioclassification
Excellent
3.51
Good
08/11/99 7964 --- 39 --- 2.94 Excellent
08/04/04
Taxonomic Analysis
EPT richness increased by more than 33% from that measured in 2004 and was the highest observed here since sampling commenced. In addition, the
stonefly community was the richest ever measured in Stecoah Creek with eight taxa collected while only five were collected in 2004.
Data Analysis
Stecoah Creek is a tributary to Fontana Lake and drains the northeastern portion of Graham County. Almost the entire stream corridor is developed for
both residential and agricultural use leaving the forested landscape mostly around small tributaries to Stecoah Creek. At the time of sampling, flows were
high and water was turbid making sampling difficult. Although benthic substrate was good, riparian vegetation was narrow or absent and some erosional
areas were noted. Stecoah Creek has cycled between Good and Excellent since 1994 suggesting that water quality in this stream, though relatively
stable, may be adversely affected by non-point source runoff during high flow years and positively affected during times of drought when non point
pollution inputs are lower. This was likely the case in 2009.
Good07/13/94 6584 ---29 ---
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)12
pH (s.u.)6.4
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 ------10 (gravel road)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-IV; Tr, ORW, CA 44.8 1720 22 0.4
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010202 35.473611 -83.722778 2-146-(19) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
HAZEL CR NR MOUTH GB3 07/28/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)90
Taxonomic Analysis
A very high total of 61 EPT were recorded in Hazel creek in 2009, similar to the 2005 EPT richness. The benthic community composition was very similar
to previous years and was composed of many pollution sensitive taxa. While most of these taxa were previously collected, a few were collected for the
first time in Hazel Creek including only the second NC record of the flatheaded mayfly Epeorus subpallidus and the third NC record of the baetid
Acentrella barbarae which was described from Great Smoky Mountain National Park in 2006. Other newly collected taxa included the caddisflies
Phylocentropus spp , Molanna spp , and Oligostomis pardalis .
Data Analysis
Hazel Creek drains a southeastern portion of Great Smoky Mountain National Park into Fontana Lake. Hazel Creek is paralleled by a gravel road for
much of its length but otherwise has a completely forested watershed. While the sampling site is near the historic town of Proctor which was flooded to
create Fontana Lake in 1944, very little evidence of the urbanization of Hazel Creek remains. Habitat was excellent and flows were normal creating a
succession of riffles and pools for macroinvertebrate colonization. Historically high total taxa, EPT richness and EPT abundance (332) values were
obtained in 2009. Although the biotic index did increase slightly in 2009, this was largely due to the collection of 11 beetle taxa (most of which are
pollution tolerant species). Overall, the benthic macroinvertebrate metrics have remained remarkably stable at this location and is the result of the entirely
protected and forested nature of the watershed.
Excellent
07/12/94 6583 95 47 2.81 1.85 Excellent
08/11/99 7967 106 56 2.89 1.87
Excellent
08/03/04 9456 96 46 3.29 2.17 Excellent
08/03/05 9682 108 60 3.00 2.14
Bioclassification
07/28/09 10696 118 61 3.17 2.13 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Cobble and boulder with gravel and sand, some silt
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1635
Location
8 digit HUC
06010202 -83.36361111
7
04/30/09
Mottled Sculpin (36%) Most Abundant Species 2009
65 Cobble, gravel, sand, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
19
16
58
23
5.8
Clear
5
16
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
13.4
8
3
1
10
7
4
4
7
9.1
Yellowfin Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace,
Brown Trout, Redbreast Sunfish
Bioclassification
Excellent
Good
NCIBISample Date
562004-44
Sample ID
2009-24
Gains -- Whitetail Shiner, Mountain Redbelly Dace, Western Blacknose Dace, Brown Trout, Greenfin Darter
Losses -- Rainbow Trout, Largemouth Bass. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-3
individuals/species; Rainbow Trout represented only by young-of-year and excluded from the sample.
04/30/09
05/17/04
0.4
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
85
None
2115
Forested/Wetland Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains southern Macon County and a small portion of northern Rabun County, GA; tributary to the Little Tennessee River; site is ~ 1.1 miles
above the creek's confluence with the river; no municipalities within the watershed. Habitats -- primarily runs, plunge pools, snags, narrow riparian zone
along the right bank in residential use. Water Quality -- pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u. in 2004 and 2009. 2009 -- the collection of one
individual of Greenfin Darter improved the rating from Good to Excellent; except for the darter metric, all other metric scores were comparable to reference
site values (i.e., score = 5). 2004 & 2009 -- 21 species are known from the site, including 11 species of cyprinids, 5 exotic species, 4 intolerant species, 2
species of darters, and the Smoky Dace (Special Concern); dominant species has been the Mottled Sculpin (38% and 36%); no reproducing trout
populations found at this lowermost site.
Rural Residential
15
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
0
Subbasin
1
Latitude
35.05194444
Agriculture
Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2)
12.2
Date Station ID
GF19
Site Photograph
Excellent
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
0
Waterbody
MIDDLE CR
AU Number
2-8
County
MACON
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Broad Basins
Longitude
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
TESSENTEE CR
AU Number
2-9
County
MACON 35.06527778
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mtns.
Longitude
-83.37777778
04/30/09
Date Station ID
GF28
95-38 16
Site Photograph
Forested/Wetland
25 (feedlot & cattle pasture)0
NPDES Number
---
Sample Date
52
Subbasin
1
Latitude
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Reference SiteStream Width (m)
7
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains southern Macon County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the Little Tennessee River; site is ~ 0.6 miles above the
creeks' confluence with the river. Habitats -- riffles, runs, silty shorelines, side snags, deep chutes; narrow riparian zone along the right shoreline in
residential land use; unstable banks. Water Quality -- low specific conductance in 2004 and 2009. 2009 -- more fish collected than at any other site in
2009; 2.6 times more fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (1,476 vs. 578), especially in the numbers of Mottled Sculpin (40%), Central Stoneroller (18%),
River Chub (11%), Tennessee Shiner (7%), and Yellowfin Shiner (7%); Hatchery Supported Trout Waters, no trout collected except young-of-year Brown
Trout. 1995-2009 -- 23 species known from the site, including 9 species of cyprinids, 6 exotic species, 4 intolerant species, 2 species of darters, and the
Smoky Dace (Special Concern); dominant species has been the Mottled Sculpin (20, 39, and 40%); no reproducing trout populations found at this
lowermost site; no substantial changes in this community among the three monitoring periods.
Rural Residential
15
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Gains -- Fatlips Minnow, Creek Chub, Snail Bullhead, Green Sunfish, Losses -- Golden Redhorse. All
species gained or lost were represented by 1individual/species, except for Creek Chub (n = 13) and Golden
Redhorse (n = 10).
04/30/09
05/18/04
0.4
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
60
Elevation (ft)
Snail Bullhead, Green Sunfish, Redbreast
Sunfish
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
52
56 Good
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
13.5
8
5
1
10
2004-46
10
Sample ID
2009-25
2
4
7
9.4
18
6.1
Clear
5
18
Mottled Sculpin (40%) Most Abundant Species 2009
70 Cobble, gravel, sand, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
19
16
05/03/95
2040
Drainage Area (mi2)
14.8
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1636
Location
8 digit HUC
06010202
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1524
Location
8 digit HUC
06010202 -83.3075
8
77 Cobble, bedrock, boulder, gravel, silt, sandSubstrate
Species Total
19
20
50
31
6.9
Clear
4
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
16.2
10
2
2
9
16
7
4
5
9.1
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBISample Date
562004-51
Sample ID
2009-26
45
Elevation (ft)
None
2070
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
20
Watershed -- drains the east-northeast region of Macon County; tributary to the Cullasaja River; site is ~ 0.6 mile above the creek's confluence with the
river. Habitats -- swift flow; riffles, runs, plunge pools, side snags, narrow riparian zones (road and pasture) contributing to a fairly open canopy. 2009 --
almost twice as many fish collected in 2009 than in 2004 (1,132 vs. 590), especially the numbers of Central Stoneroller and Mottled Sculpin, but only one
individual of one darter species; increase in the abundance of Central Stoneroller and River Chub are indicative of upstream nonpoint nutrient runoff and
enrichment. 2004 & 2009 -- 22 species known from the site, including 10 species of cyprinids, 5 intolerant species, 3 species of darters, but all darter
species represented only by one individual per species, and the Smoky Dace (Special Concern); Mottled Sculpin is the dominant species (44% and 29%);
stream is supporting its supplemental designation as trout waters (Tr). Possible upstream nonpoint nutrient runoff and decline in the NCIBI score warrant
continued monitoring in 2014.
Rural Residential
15
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle Gains -- Fatlips Minnow and Gilt Darter. Losses -- Green Sunfish, Greenfin Darter, Tuckasegee Darter. All
species gained or lost were represented by 1 or 2 individuals/species.
04/30/09
05/20/04
Subbasin
1
Latitude
35.16611111
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
0.5
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
040
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mtns.
Longitude
04/30/09
Date Station ID
GF14
Most Abundant Species 2009 Central Stoneroller (31%), Mottled
Sculpin (29%) Exotic Species 2009 Rainbow Trout, Redbreast Sunfish
Waterbody
ELLIJAY CR
AU Number
2-21-23
County
MACON
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
off SR 1378
Location
8 digit HUC
06010202 -83.39805556
5
River Chub (26%) Most Abundant Species 2009
69 Cobble, boulder, sand, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
22
18
48
41
5.7
Slightly turbid
5
17
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
15.3
6
4
2
8
10
4
5
8
8.9
Yellowfin Shiner, Brown Trout, Redbreast
Sunfish, Green Sunfish
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBISample Date
442004-48
Sample ID
2009-27
0.4
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
40
Elevation (ft)
None
1995
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
10
Watershed -- drains north-central Macon County, including the area around the Macon County airport; tributary to the Little Tennessee River; site is ~ 0.2
miles above the creek’s confluence with the river. Habitats -- heterogeneous habitats (riffles, runs, sandy bottom pools, and snags, undercuts, boulder
crevices, rip/rap); lower one-third of the reach had a higher gradient and better habitats than did the upper two-thirds of the reach. Water Quality -- in 2004
and 2009 pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u and conductivity elevated for a mountain stream. 2009 -- one specimen of the Federally
Endangered Spotfin Chub was collected; site's proximity to the river may increase the diversity metrics and rate the community higher (Good) than what it
should be (Good-Fair) more fish, total species, species of darters and cyprinids collected in 2009 than in 2004; abundance of River Chub and Central
Stoneroller are indicative of upstream nonpoint nutrient runoff and enrichment. 2004 & 2009 -- 25 species known from the site, including 10 species of
cyprinids and 4 species of darters; dominant species is the River Chub (23% and 26%).
Rural Residential
40
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Gains -- Spotfin Chub, Telescope Shiner, Fatlips Minnow, Creek Chub, Black Redhorse, Brown Trout,
Tuckasegee Darter. Losses -- Mountain Brook Lamprey, White Sucker, Bluegill. All species gained or loss
were represented by 1-34individuals/species, except for Telescope Shiner (n = 16).
05/01/09
05/19/04
020
Subbasin
1
Latitude
35.23444444
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
05/01/09
Date Station ID
GF15
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
Waterbody
IOTLA CR
AU Number
2-27
County
MACON
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Broad Basins
Longitude
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
BRUSH CR
AU Number
2-46
County
SWAIN
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Longitude
04/29/09
Date Station ID
GF2
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
00
Subbasin
2
Latitude
35.31777778
Agriculture Other (describe)
Yes
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains southern Swain County; tributary to the Little Tennessee River; site is ~ 0.2 miles above the creek's confluence with the river and
within the state-owned Needmore Tract; no municipalities within the watershed. Habitats -- riffles, runs, plunge pools; wide riparian zones providing
excellent canopy over the stream; silt-covered rocks contributing to the very turbid conditions when walking in the stream. 2009 -- total species richness
and diversities of cyprinids and darters were slightly lower than expected, all other metric scores were comparable to reference site values (i.e., score = 5);
38 specimens of the Federally Endangered Spotfin Chub were collected. 2004 & 2009 -- 20 species known from the site, including 9 species of cyprinids,
6 intolerant species, and 2 species of darters; seasonal migrants from the river include Whitetail Shiner, Telescope Shiner, and Spotfin Chub; dominant
species in 2004 were Mottled Sculpin (25%) and Warpaint Shiner (16%). Upstream nonpoint sediment runoff sources should be investigated.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Gains -- Spotfin Chub, Telescope Shiner, Black Redhorse, Rainbow Trout. Losses -- Smoky Dace, Western
Blacknose Dace, Redbreast Sunfish, Green Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass. All species gained or lost were
represented by 1-4 individuals/species, except for Spotfin Chub (n = 38) and Telescope Shiner (n = 12).
04/29/09
05/19/04
0.3
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
100
Elevation (ft)
None
1830
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
7.5
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBISample Date
502004-50
Sample ID
2009-23
8
14
7
7
10
9.9
Species Total
15
16
52
29
6.6
Clear
5
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
06010202 -83.51555556
6
87 Cobble, boulder, silt, gravel, sandSubstrate
16.7
8
5
5
Most Abundant Species 2009 Whitetail Shiner (18%), Warpaint Shiner
(18%)Rainbow Trout Exotic Species 2009
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C
off SR 1129
Location
8 digit HUC
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
STECOAH CR
AU Number
2-130
County
GRAHAM
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Longitude
Date Station ID
GF26
Site Photograph
Not Rated
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
025
Subbasin
2
Latitude
35.39527778
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains northeastern Graham County; tributary to Fontana Reservoir; site is ~ 1.5 miles above its mouth; no municipalities within the
watershed. Habitats -- extensive riffles, chutes, plunge pools; degraded riparian zones and unstable banks; livestock with access to stream above the
reach; more upstream development (i.e., campground and mobile homes) than in 2004. Water Quality -- conductivity elevated for a mountain stream in
2004 and 2009; pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u. in 2009. 2009 -- community is dominated by omnivores+herbivores (Central Stoneroller
and River Chub); Mottled Sculpin, an indicator of cold-cool water, constituted only 3% of the fish; darters absent; Hatchery Supported Trout Waters, three
stocked Brown Trout collected (236-313 mm TL). 2004 & 2009 -- 12 species known from the site, but no darters; site appeared to be degraded by straight-
piping or nonpoint-source runoff which may be contributing nutrients to this stream; dominant species are River Chub (36% and 33%) and Central
Stoneroller (14% and 19%). Stream is supporting its supplemental designation as trout waters (Tr), but the dominance by River Chub and Central
Stoneroller, the silt on the substrate, and the widening of NC 28 in the Stecoah Valley warrants continued monitoring of this site in 2014.
Rural Residential
30
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle Gains -- Green Sunfish (n = 8), Smallmouth Bass (n = 1). Losses -- none.
04/28/09
06/03/04
0.4
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
45
Elevation (ft)
None
1810
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
9
Rainbow Trout, Green Sunfish
Bioclassification
Not Rated
Not Rated
NCIBISample Date
---2004-68
Sample ID
2009-19
15.4
10
3
1
10
16
2
4
10
10.0
39
5.8
Clear
5
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
River Chub (33%) Most Abundant Species 2009
79 Cobble, boulderSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
12
10
---
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1237
Location
8 digit HUC
06010202 -83.67805556
5
04/28/09
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)20.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.1
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)10
pH (s.u.)5.5
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)6
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)79
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TUCKASEGEE R SR 1140 GB38 08/17/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Jackson 2 06010203 35.200110 -82.991800 2-79-(0.5)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-III,B;Tr,ORW 11 3260 14 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (road)
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate mostly boulder, cobble, sand; some gravel and silt also present
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Bioclassification
08/17/09 10818 ---35 ---2.42 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Excellent
07/19/99 7906 ---46 ---1.86 Excellent
08/02/04 9473 ---36 ---1.83
Taxonomic Analysis
Excluding the more intensive Full-Scale sample obtained in 1989, the number of Ephemeroptera collected in 2009 was generally within the range for
the other EPT samples. However, both Plecoptera and Trichoptera were reduced in 2009, by 2-3 and 3-4 taxa respectively. The most conspicuous
absence from the sample collected in 2009 is Arctopsyche irrorata--this stressor-sensitive species was common in each of the four prior samples.
Another sensitive species, Malirekus hastatus , was also uncollected for the first time in 2009.
Data Analysis
This uppermost benthic basinwide site on the river is within five miles of the headwaters and about 15 miles west of Brevard. The site was sampled
using Full-Scale methods in 1989, then with EPT methods during each of the following sampling events. If a single additional taxon had been
collected at the site in 2009 the classification would have remained at Excellent and therefore, despite the Good bioclassification in 2009, it is evident
that water quality in this catchment has remained stable since sampling commenced in 1989.
Excellent
09/13/89 5077 101 47 3.50 1.79 Excellent
09/01/94 6696 ---39 ---2.26
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)27
pH (s.u.)6.0
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)11
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)3
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)63
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TUCKASEGEE R SR 1378 GB19 07/30/09 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Jackson 2 06010203 35.368889 -83.263333 2-79-(40.5)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B 347.0 1952 50 0.5
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)---90 ---10 (road)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Jackson County WWTP (Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority)NC0039578 3.5
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Cobble and boulder with some bedrock, gravel, sand, and silt
3.52 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
84 44 4.27 3.44
Bioclassification
07/30/09 10770 75 43 4.29
Excellent
07/21/99 7932 75 40 4.34 3.73 Good
08/04/04 9484
Taxonomic Analysis
A small reduction in both total and EPT richness occurred in 2009. Conspicuously absent in 2009, after being present since 1984, were the mayflies
Maccaffertium modestum and Neoephemera purpurea. Only 13 Trichoptera were collected in 2009 as compared to 21 in 2004 although most missing
taxa were rare in previous samples. The paucity of midge taxa was largely responsible for the reduction in the total taxa richness.
Data Analysis
This large river site receives effluent from the municipalities of Sylva, Webster, and Dillsboro and drains almost the entirety of Jackson County. A difficult
site to sample in any year, this site was assessed during higher flows and was not completely wadeable. Habitat was typical for a large river and, except
for the lack of sufficient riparian vegetation, had no significant deficiencies. Since the inception of sampling in 1984, the Tuckasegee River has improved
from Good-Fair (1984) to the current rating of Good. Had sampling produced one more EPT, this site would have rated Excellent in 2009. This suggests
that the water quality is not declining despite the slight drop to Good in 2009. This conclusion is further supported by the very stable biotic index and
EPTBI measured here since 1990.
07/14/94 6591 100 47 4.38 3.32 Excellent
08/10/90 5366 86 43 4.10 3.20 Good
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)25.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)26
pH (s.u.)7.5
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)7
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)40 20 30 10
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-III; Tr 40 2200 14 0.3
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
JACKSON 2 06010203 35.305000 -83.126111 2-79-28-(2.5) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
CANEY FK SR 1740 GB27 08/02/04 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Pool Variety (10)7
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)82
08/02/10 11088 107 52 3.13
Excellent
07/20/99 7912 97 53
Taxonomic Analysis
The benthic community in Caney Fork has remained very speciose over the past 20 years. While EPT richness slowly decreases, total richness is
trending up, due primarily to an increase in odonate and dipteran richness. These two groups contributed to the increase in the biotic index seen in the
last 10 years (relative to the EPT BI), although this is partially offset by fewer Chironmidae larvae in 2010. The EPT fauna has consistently remained,
over 4 basinwide cycles, both similar and productive (most likely due to the open canopy). Mayflies were dominated by baetids and included Caney
Fork's first record of Iswaeon anoka as well as the flat-headed mayfly Epeorus vitreus. Intolerant species of hydropsychid net spinners, such as
Ceratopsyche morosa , dominated, in terms of abundance, the caddisfly community suggesting slight enrichment. Finally, the stoneflies remained
amazingly stable with the same 6 taxa recorded over the last 15 years.
Data Analysis
Caney Fork, along with its tributary Moses Creek, drains a small portion of east-central Jackson County, a mostly forested landscape, and ultimately
feeds into the Tuckasegee River. Caney Fork, for most of it's length, is paralleled by roadway and is lined by agricultural fields and residences. It is
therefore lacking any significant riparian vegetation and is often denuded on both sides of the stream. However, most of the watershed is forested thereby
protecting the Excellent water quality that has persisted in Caney Fork over the last two decades. Other than loss of riparian vegetation (complete loss in
some areas), no glaring problems were noted with either physico-chemical parameters or in-stream habitat. Small amounts of silt were recorded but
appear to have a minimal effect on the benthos despite the occurrence of some substrate embeddedness.
07/15/94 6593 93 56 3.01 2.38
3.26 2.50
Bioclassification
Excellent
2.20
Excellent
Excellent
08/02/04 9474 107 54 3.39 2.33
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate good mix of cobble (40),gravel (30), boulder (20), and sand (10)
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)21.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)26
pH (s.u.)5.6
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
MOSES CR SR 1739 GB26 08/02/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
JACKSON 2 06010203 35.314722 -83.125556 2-79-28-8 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-III; Tr 8 2280 6 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)70 20 ---10 ---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)3
Total Habitat Score (100)81
ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate mostly cobble (50) and boulder (25), with some gravel (10)
Bioclassification
08/02/10 11089 --- 42 --- 1.64 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID
1.57 Excellent
08/02/04 9475 ---46 ---1.38
Taxonomic Analysis
The decrease in EPT richness seen in Moses Creek in 2010 from the previous 2004 high was due to the net loss of 4 mayflies taxa largly represented in
part by spiny crawlers (Drunella cornutella) and flat-headed mayflies (Leucrocuta spp, Rhithrogena spp, and Stenacron pallidum). Both stonefly and
caddisfly richness remained stable (8 and 18 taxa, respectively). While the stonefly community was similar to the previous 2 samplings (with the addition
of Amphinemura spp but the loss of Isoperla holochlora), a slight shift was seen in the caddisfly community. Filterers, particularly net-spinners such as
hydropsychids, became more dominant in both richness (with the addition of Ceratopsyche alhedra and C. morosa) as well as abundance. Furthermore,
brachcentrid caddisflies were much less common with 2 species, Brachycentrus nigrosoma and Micrasema wataga, disappearing altogether.
Data Analysis
Moses Creek is a tributary of Caney Fork which, in turn, drains into the Tuckasegee River. This stream has a catchment that is largely forested with only
the lower segment paralleling a rural residential road. Moses Creek is one of the few streams in the LTN that saw a loss of EPT taxa from the previous
sampling cycle, although this loss was relatively small. These losses were primarily seen among very intolerant taxa thus affecting the EPT BI which,
while low, is the highest yet seen for this stream. While very little silt was seen, it was noted that riparian loss was occurring due to residential lawns,
some upstream agriculture, and the nearby road. However, habitat was good overall and the specific conductance, while not exceedingly low like that of
an undisturbed stream, was not problematic. Water quality in Moses Creek remains solidly Excellent.
Excellent
07/20/99 7913 ---37 ---
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)32
pH (s.u.)6.9
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)9
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)4
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)3
Total Habitat Score (100)61
Taxonomic Analysis
EPT richness values have steadily increased in Cullowhee Creek to the current levels of 52 taxa since the inception of sampling in 1994. However, the
EPT biotic index has also increased leading to the conclusion that as more taxa are collected, a higher proportion of the total taxa are more tolerant to
urban stressors. This is seen in both the presence of facultative taxa like the mayfly Procloeon as well as the absence or rarity of previously occurring
intolerant taxa like the mayfly Serratella carolina and the caddisfly Rhyacophila fuscula. Some taxa recorded for the first time at Cullowhee Creek
included the mayflies Stenacron pallidum and Rhithrogena fuscifrons and the caddisflies Micrasema bennetti and Oligostomis pardalis. Plecoptera were
both taxa rich (8) and abundant. The rare mayfly, Epeorus subpallidus, was collected for only the 5th time in the state.
Data Analysis
Cullowhee Creek drains a small portion of western Jackson County and eventually drains into the Tuckasegee River. The sampling site lies above
Cullowhee and Western Carolina University amid light urban development reflected by the lack of significant riparian vegetation and the high degree of
embedded substrate in the stream. High levels of sand (25%) and silt (10%) have removed the interstitial spaces needed for some taxa to persist. High
productivity was noted as evidenced by the presence of copious amounts of the macrophyte Podostemum ceratophylum (riverweed), which is known to
increase macroinvertebrate abundance (high in this stream at 264) and provide substrate for epiphytic algae and rufugia for invertebrates. Although
Cullowhee Creek was rated as Excellent in 2009, habitat degradation is a serious issue and may negatively affect the fauna in the future if watershed
development continues unabated.
Good08/31/94 6681 ---32 ---2.44
Excellent
07/20/99 7914 ---43 ---2.91 Excellent
08/04/04 9481 ---47 ---2.61
Bioclassification
Excellent07/30/09 10773 ---52 ---3.07
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Cobble and sand with some gravel and boulder, silty
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)10 60 ---30 (park)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 18.9 2123 5 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Jackson 2 06010203 35.288333 -83.181667 2-79-31a Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
CULLOWHEE CR SR 1001 GB29 07/30/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)33
pH (s.u.)6.1
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)16
Bottom Substrate (15)7
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)4
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)70
Taxonomic Analysis
An increase in both mayfly and caddisfly taxa from 2004 levels brought the EPT richness to the highest level seen here. Many species absent in 2004
were collected in 2009 including many sensitive taxa like the mayflies Brachycercus spp , Heterocloeon curiosum, and Serratella serrata as well as the
caddisflies Brachycentrus spinae and Setodes spp. Other sensitive species were collected for the first time such as the burrowing mayfly Ephemera spp
(indicative of silt pools), and the caddisflies, Nyctiophylax spp, Lype diversa , and Fattigia pele. Fewer beetle and odonate taxa were collected in than in
previous samplings which helped to reduce the biotic index.
Data Analysis
Savannah Creek, a tributary to the Tuckasegee River, drains a moderately developed landscape. Many segments of the stream are channelized and have
had much of the riparian vegetation reduced or completely removed. The lower segment of the stream follows a road and has had most of the woody
vegetation removed, consequently limiting habitat and resources for colonizing macroinvertebrates. Sedimentation was evident in the stream as
embeddedness of bottom substrate was severe and large pools of silt and bank erosion were present. Slightly turbid water, normal in streams with
development in the catchment, was also noted. Despite the habitat and watershed challenges, Savannah Creek rated Excellent for the first time in 10
years as evidenced by increased EPT richness and a significantly lower overall biotic index. This improvement was likely the result of reduced non point
inputs of pollution due to drought effects.
Excellent07/26/94 6603 77 40 3.78 3.06
Good
07/21/99 7930 53 32 3.72 3.36 Good
08/04/04 9482 91 40 4.15 3.11
Bioclassification
Excellent07/30/09 10772 83 45 3.59 3.06
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Cobble and sand with some bedrock and gravel, extremely silty
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)60 30 ---10 (road)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 40.7 2004 12 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Jackson 2 06010203 35.345833 -83.237500 2-79-36 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
SAVANNAH CR SR 1367 GB23 07/30/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)39
pH (s.u.)6.1
Channel Modification (5)3
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)6
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)4
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)64
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
SCOTT CR UPS SR 1556 GB167 07/30/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Jackson 2 06010203 35.368889 -83.249444 2-79-39 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 58.9 1968 9 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)---90 ---10
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Sylva WWTP (Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority)NC0020214 0.5
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Gravel and cobble with some boulder and sand, silty
3.34 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
---37 ---3.23
Bioclassification
07/30/09 10771 98 46 4.12
Excellent
08/04/04 9483 74 35 4.07 3.23 Good
08/09/07 10309
3.65 Good-Fair
07/21/99 7931 70 36 4.07 3.09
Taxonomic Analysis
A significant increase in both total taxa and EPT richness has occurred since the last basinwide assessment in 2004. An almost 33% increase in EPT
can be accounted for by additional mayflies and caddisflies occurring since 2004. In particular, the number of baetid mayfly species has more than
doubled since monitoring began in 1994. Flat-headed mayflies were also abundant as a group with Rhithrogena exilis re-occurring for the first time in 15
years. Stonefly richness has remained relatively stable over time, varying between five and eight taxa (seven in 2009). In contrast, the caddisfly
community was comprised of 16 taxa, almost double what was collected in 1994. Hydropsychids were the dominant caddisfly group and was represented
by four species. Also, both beetle and midge richness increased in 2009, in part responsible for the increased total taxa richness and biotic index.
Data Analysis
Lying in northeastern Jackson County, many of Scotts Creek's tributaries drain unimpacted mountain slopes. However, the lower portion of this watershed
is largely urbanized and passes through both downtown Sylva and Dillsboro before draining into the Tuckasegee River. Additionally, the stream is
followed closely by major roads for much of it's length. The sampling site is on a reach that is channelized and stabilized with concrete riprap (see photo)
and is next to the Great Smoky Mountain Railroad parking lot. The habitat score reflects the embeddedness and lack of riparian vegetation. Downstream
of the Sylva WWTP, the specific conductance was low, although water levels were higher than normal due to recent rains. While the total taxa and EPT
richness increased, the biotic index also increased slightly. However the occurrence of 46 EPT helped Scott Creek attain its first Excellent rating for a
basinwide cycle. The water quality has increased steadily since sampling began although high fecal coliform levels and turbidity have historically been
problems in this waterbody. The Tuckasegee WSA has recently repaired old and leaking sewer lines within the catchment possibly contributing to the
higher water quality seen starting in 2007.
Good
07/14/94 6592 68 28 5.19
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)20.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)26
pH (s.u.)6.7
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)5
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)84
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
CONNELLY CR SR 1177 GB13 07/29/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010203 35.430556 -83.365278 2-79-52 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 13.4 1869 7 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 50 ------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Smoky Mountain Country Club NC0084441 0.12
Site Photograph
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Mostly cobble mixed with gravel and boulder, some bedrock
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
07/29/09 10713 ---44 ---2.46
9480 ---34 ---2.82
Bioclassification
Excellent
3.00
Good
07/21/99 7933 ---44 ---3.06 Excellent
08/03/04
Taxonomic Analysis
An EPT richness of 44 taxa collected in 2009 is the same as that obtained in 1999 but was significantly higher than that observed in 2004. This increase
was driven in part by an additional 7 mayfly taxa (22) over 2004 levels (15) and is the same number of mayfly taxa that were collected in 1999. Coupled
with this increase in richness is the decrease in the EPT biotic index to the lowest value recorded for this stream since sampling began in 1994. The
absence of some tolerant baetid mayflies such as Baetis flavistriga and the addition of intolerant ephemerellid mayfly taxa, including Drunella
allegheniensis , Serratella carolina, and Serratella serratoides, is responsible for the low EPT biotic index. Moreover, all but one taxa of the 7 Plecoptera
taxa collected were abundant. The caddisfly community observed was similar to previous years with the first record of Hydatophylax argus at this site
occurring in 2009.
Data Analysis
Connelly Creek is a small tributary to the Tuckasegee river and drains a small portion of southeastern Swain County. Only the lower portion of the
watershed is developed, consisting mostly of residences and a golf course, leaving the vast majority of the upper watershed n forest. The stream follows
a road for much of its length which has reduced or removed the riparian on one side for much of the segment. However, overall habitat was good and the
stream banks were stable with little erosion. EPT richness levels rebounded to 1999 levels thereby increasing its bioclassification to Excellent after rating
Good in 2004. Although this site was Good in 2004, that sample was only two EPT taxa short of receiving an Excellent bioclassification thus indicating
temporally stable water quality in this catchment.
Excellent07/14/94 6589 94 42 3.57
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)16.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.1
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)15
pH (s.u.)6.0
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
Bottom Substrate (15)15
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)95
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BRADLEY FK US 441 GB1 07/29/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010203 35.563333 -83.309722 2-79-55-12-(11)Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B; Tr, HQW 19.6 2254 12 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 ---------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate a mix of boulder, cobble, and gravel with some bedrock and sand
1.70 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
79 47 2.61 2.02
Bioclassification
07/29/09 10694 86 48 2.50
Excellent
07/22/99 7935 67 39 2.58 1.75 Excellent
08/03/04 9479
1.27 Good
10/12/95 6981 69 42 1.95 1.40
Taxonomic Analysis
The highest EPT richness and total taxa richness (ST) ever measured in this stream occurred in 2009. Increases in Plecoptera and Trichoptera over
previous samples were partly responsible for these increases and almost all taxa observed were intolerant or facultative species. One mayfly observed
Epeorus subpallidus, has never before been identified from this stream and is in fact only the 4th record of this species in NC. Of the EPT collected
during this sampling event, the mayfly Leptophlebia spp, the uncommon stonefly Agnetina capitata, and the caddisflies Ceraclea flava and Fatiggia pele
were also not collected prior to 2009.
Data Analysis
Bradley Fork, a tributary to the Oconaluftee River, is located within Great Smoky Mountain National Park and as such has a completely undeveloped and
forested watershed. This stream has high recreational usage among the public as it lies next to a campground just inside the park border. The 2009
sample produced a very low biotic index of 2.50, which is the lowest biotic index recorded for a basinwide sample at this site since sampling began in
1994. In addition, richness values for both total taxa and EPT have increased in the last ten years. These metrics indicate a stream with very high water
quality and is consistent with an all forested and protected watershed. Bradley Fork received an Excellent bioclassification for the third straight basinwide
cycle and the fourth straight sampling event.
Excellent
09/01/94 6682 ---31 ---
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)23.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.0
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)21
pH (s.u.)8.2
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)11
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)4
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)73
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
OCONALUFTEE R SR 1359 GB11 07/27/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010203 35.461389 -83.353611 2-79-55-(16.5)Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 284.0 1842 45 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)30 50 ---20 (road)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Cobble and gravel with some boulder and sand, silty at times
3.11 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
106 51 3.95 2.97
Bioclassification
07/27/09 10695 98 47 4.07
Excellent
07/22/99 7934 104 53 3.93 3.20 Excellent
08/05/04 9485
3.22 Excellent
07/14/94 6590 86 46 4.05 2.99
Taxonomic Analysis
A varied EPT community resides in this river although over the last ten years the fauna has become less rich. The reduction in EPT is exhibited in the
loss of some baetid mayfly taxa such as Acentrella and Plauditus and in the loss of the hydropsychid caddisfly taxa Diplectrona modesta and
Hydropsyche morosa although, overall, hydropsychids were the dominant group in the river. Both the stonefly community composition and richness were
maintained from prior years with the exception of the loss of Agnetina, which was not found for the first time in 15 years of sampling. Taxa collected in
2009 that have never before been collected from this site included the mayfly Heterocloeon anoka and the caddisflies Micrasema bennetti and
Glossossoma nigrior.
Data Analysis
The Oconaluftee River, a large tributary to the Tuckasegee River, drains the eastern portion of Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The lower segment
of this river is tracked on both sides by roads (including US 19) and receives large amounts of urban runoff from Cherokee. High development pressures
have introduced sediments into the river and removed large amounts of riparian vegetation. Podostemum ceratophylum was extremely abundant and
retained sand and silt which were subsequently released during sampling resulting in large plumes of turbid water. Substrates were also partially
embedded although not completely so. Despite a lower EPT richness relative to prior samplings, EPT abundance (282) was the highest ever recorded
and supports the hypothesis of increased secondary production associated with the high Podostemum biomass. The Oconaluftee River has maintained
its Excellent rating thanks in large part to the high quality, unimpacted streams (including Bradley Fork) in it's upper watershed.
Excellent
07/26/89 5029 88 47 4.13
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)19.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)14
pH (s.u.)4.8
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
20
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)80 ---------
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS-II, B; Tr, HQW 40 1815 14 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 2 06010203 35.466111 -83.431111 2-79-63-(16) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
DEEP CR W DEEP CR RD GB5 08/06/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)91
Taxonomic Analysis
The second highest EPT richness ever measured in this stream occurred in 2010. Increases in Ephemeroptera over previous samples were partly
responsible and almost all taxa observed were intolerant or facultative species. One mayfly collected, Acentrella barbarae, originally described from
GSMNP, has been recorded only seven times in NC, almost all of the records from park streams. EPT collected from this stream for the first time
included the baetid mayfly Pseudocloeon propinquum , the uncommon stone Agnetina capitata, and Triaenodes ignitus, the only long-horned caddisfly
found (other leptocerid taxa previously collected in Deep creek were absent in 2010).
Data Analysis
This site on Deep Creek, a tributary to the Little Tennessee River, is located at a campground within Great Smoky Mountain National Park and as such
has a mostly forested watershed. This beautiful stream has high recreational usage among the public and is popular as a tubing spot. The very low EPT
BI of 2.33, which is the highest yet recorded for a basinwide sample at this site, is indicative of a very intolerant EPT community. Also, EPT richness is
second only to that recorded in 1999. Habitat was very good although the lack of large pools is characterized by the presence of one continuous riffle.
These metrics indicate a stream with very high water quality. Deep Creek has maintained an Excellent rating for the last 20 years.
Excellent07/11/94 6579 ---41 ---1.93
Excellent
08/09/99 7954 ---47 ---2.09 Excellent
08/02/04 9410 ---43 ---1.79
Bioclassification
Excellent08/06/10 11093 ---45 ---2.33
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate mix of cobble (35), boulder (30), and gravel (25); some sand (10)
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)20.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.7
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)15
pH (s.u.)5.5
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
DEEP CR SR 1340 GB7 08/06/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 2 06010203 35.442500 -83.440278 2-79-63-(21) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
B; Tr 43 1750 13 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)---70 30 ------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
y( )
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)83 Substrate mix of cobble (30), boulder (20), gravel (20), sand (20); silty (10)
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
08/06/10 11094 --- 49 --- 2.26
9452 --- 38 --- 1.73
Bioclassification
Excellent
2.11
Excellent
08/09/99 7955 ---45 ---2.36 Excellent
08/02/04
Taxonomic Analysis
Gains seen in EPT richness between the 2004 and 2010 basinwide samplings were driven by increases in both mayflies (+7) and caddisflies (+4) while
stoneflies remained stable. The increase in mayflies was driven by an surge in baetid richness and included the first Deep Creek record of Heterocloeon
spp. and Acentrella nadineae. The appearance of the mayflies Baetisca spp and Ephemera spp in 2010 and the absence of both Epeorus vitreus and
Rhithrogena exilis , after 15 years of abundance, may be attributable to additional sediment inputs into the stream. Stoneflies were dominated by perlids
and the rare Agnetina capitata was collected. The caddisfly community was notable for the absence of Brachycentrus spinae which had been abundant
in the three previous basinwide samples and the addition of Hydatophylax argus (1st Deep Cr. record) and Oligostomis pardalis (1st Deep Cr. record),
two caddisflies that prefer slower, less turbulent waters.
Data Analysis
The SR 1340 sampling site on Deep Creek is approximately 3 miles below the site in GSMNP and drains the east-central portion of the park. EPT levels
in 2010 rebounded from a twenty year low to the second highest richness recorded. Additionally, the EPT BI, while not the lowest recorded at this site,
indicates a very intolerant EPT community resides here. As evidenced by the specific conductance measured, little impact can be seen from the 3 miles
of commercial, agricultural, and residential properties between this reach and the upstream park reach. While less available habitat is present for
colonization and more silt occurs in-stream than the park reach (most likely due to the agriculture), the additional sediment input and habitat deficiencies
are not severe enough to affect the EPT fauna dramatically. Deep Creek at SR 1340 maintains it's excellent water quality for 2010. It is recommended
that this site be dropped from Basinwide rotation as further upstream development seems unlikely.
Excellent07/11/94 6578 ---50 ---
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)21.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.1
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)12
pH (s.u.)4.7
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
NOLAND CR NR MOUTH GB6 07/28/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 2 06010203 35.454167 -83.527778 2-90 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr 20 1780 6 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 ------------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
()
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)96
ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate mix of cobble (35), boulder (30), and gravel (25), some sand (10)
Bioclassification
07/28/10 11092 45 45 1.31 1.31 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID
1.63 Excellent
08/03/04 9454 35 35 1.57 1.57
Taxonomic Analysis
Sampling in 2010 resulted in the highest yet recorded EPT richness in Noland Creek. An dramatic increase was seen in in caddisfly richness (+9) over
that which was collected in 2004. Also, the EPT BI decreased for the second straight cycle time due in part to the presence of some very intolerant
species of caddisflies that were not previously collected, including the uncommon Rhyacophila acutiloba and Neophylax mitchelli.The highest richness of
Plecoptera was observed in 2010 with eight taxa collected with the majority of taxa abundant. New taxa occuring in 2010 included the rarely collected
mayflies Epeorus subpallidus and Acentrella barbarae, which was described from GSMNP in 2006. The caddisfly Molanna spp was also previously
unrecorded from Noland Creek.
Data Analysis
Noland Creek lies within the southcentral portion Great Smoky Mountain National Park and drains into Fontana Lake. It is an undeveloped and forested
watershed. The habitat of Noland Creek is exceptional and consists of a series of cascades, riffles, and pools. The 2010 EPT BI is the lowest recorded in
the entire LTN basin during the current basinwide cycle, even among other GSMNP sites. The EPT richness for 2010 is also the highest yet seen at this
site. These metrics, coupled with the low specific conductance, indicate the very stable and intolerant benthic community one would expect from a
stream with little to no anthropogenic disturbance. The low pH is partially attributable to the Anakeesta soils that are interspersed throughout the park.
Noland Creek rates Excellent for the second time in 11 years.
Good
08/11/99 7966 40 40 1.63
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)10
pH (s.u.)6.2
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)95
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
FORNEY CR NR MOUTH GB4 07/28/09 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
Swain 2 06010203 35.468611 -83.566111 2-97 Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; Tr, ORW 28.0 1788 10 0.5
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 ---------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
None ------
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate Boulder and cobble with some bedrock and gravel, very little silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
07/28/09 10697 81 52 2.47 1.64
9455 78 44 2.62 1.80
Bioclassification
Excellent
1.49
Excellent
08/11/99 7965 81 46 2.59 1.58 Excellent
08/03/04
Taxonomic Analysis
Sampling in 2009 resulted in the highest yet recorded EPT richness in Forney Creek. An increase was seen in each EPT order over that which was
collected in 2004. In addition, the EPTBI decreased to pre 2004 levels due in part to three species of the intolerant mayfly Drunella and four species of
the intolerant caddisfly Rhyacophila. The highest richness of Plecoptera was observed in 2009 with 10 taxa collected with the majority of taxa either
common or abundant, including the rarely collected stonefly Agnetina capitata. New taxa occurring in 2009 included only the 3rd NC record of the mayfly
Epeorus subpallidus and the 4th NC record of mayfly Acentrella barbarae, which was described from Great Smoky Mountain National Park (GSMNP) in
2006. The caddisflies Hetroplectron americanum, Phylocentropus spp , and Ceraclea flava were also previously unrecorded from Forney Creek. Only 14
Chironomidae taxa were collected in 2009.
Data Analysis
Forney Creek lies within and drains the south-central portion of GSMNP into Fontana Lake. It is an entirely undeveloped and forested watershed. The
habitat of this stream is as expected for a stream in a natural setting and consists of a series of riffles, cascades, and pools with excellent riparian zones.
The biotic index and EPTBI has remained low with little variation and total taxa richness has likewise varied little over the last 15 years. These metrics,
coupled with a high EPT richness, indicate the very stable benthic community one would expect for a stream whose catchment is completely
encompassed within the GSMNP.
Excellent07/12/94 6581 79 46 2.43
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
CANEY FK
AU Number
2-79-28-(2.5)
County
JACKSON
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mtns.
Longitude
Date Station ID
GF4
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
020
Subbasin
2
Latitude
35.30472222
Agriculture
Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2)
50.2
Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- located in east-central Jackson County where it drains the Great Balsam Mountains; tributary to the Tuckasegee River; no municipalities
within the watershed. Habitat -- lower one-third of the reach has hay field and a road along its right and left shorelines, respectively, but is protected further
upstream by a narrow forested buffer; narrow riparian zones provide minimal shading; instream habitats consist of riffles, runs, and chutes with good side
pools. Water Quality -- pH in 2004 and 2009 slightly less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u.; specific conductance in 2004 and 2009 was 21 and
19 µS/cm, respectively. 2009 -- slightly lower total species and darter diversities than expected; all other metric scores were comparable to reference site
values (i.e., score = 5). 2004 & 2009 -- 18 species known from the site, including 9 species of cyprinids, 4 intolerant species, but only 3 species of darters,
and the Smoky Dace (Special Concern); dominant species is the Mottled Sculpin (37% and 53%); no tolerant species have ever been collected at the site;
no evidence of reproducing populations of trout at this lowermost site; no appreciable change in the fish community, instream and riparian habitats, or water
quality between assessment periods.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Losses -- Tuckasegee Darter, Black Redhorse, Rainbow Trout. Gains -- Mirror Shiner, Western Blacknose
Dace. All species gained or lost were represented by 1-4 individuals/species; Rainbow Trout represented only
by young-of-year and excluded from the sample.
04/27/09
06/01/04
0.6
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
80
None
2170
Forested/Wetland
None
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBISample Date
562004-62
Sample ID
2009-17
18.8
13
3
2
6
16
7
3
4
8.5
19
5.9
Clear
5
19
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Mottled Sculpin (53%) Most Abundant Species 2009
78 Cobble, boulder, bedrockSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
15
16
52
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-III,Tr
SR 1738
Location
8 digit HUC
06010203 -83.13777778
14
04/27/09
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
CULLOWHEE CR
AU Number
2-79-31a
County
JACKSON
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mtns.
Longitude
Date Station ID
GF13
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
25 (school yard)0
Subbasin
2
Latitude
35.29666667
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains southwestern Jackson County; tributary to the Tuckasegee River; no municipalities in the upstream watershed. Water Quality --
specific conductance in 2004 and 2009 was 33 and 30 µS/cm, respectively. Habitat -- higher quality riffles than in 2004; increased left bank stability and
quality of the riparian zone has improved since 2004 by becoming more stable and densely vegetated; fairly open canopy; debris dams trapping much of
the finer sediments in the upper one-third of the reach; instream habitats of riffles, runs, and deep snag pools. 2009 -- ~ 1.7 times more fish collected in
2009 than in 2004 (648 vs. 391), primarily Mottled Sculpin (387 vs. 190); very slight increase in darter diversity and a lower percentage of tolerant fish were
the reasons for the slight increase in the NCIBI score and rating; Hatchery Supported Trout waters, one stocked Brook Trout collected (360 mm TL), all
other Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout were wild; slightly lower cyprinid and darter diversities and percentage of omnivores+herbivores than expected; all
other metric scores were comparable to reference site values (i.e., score = 5). 2004 & 2009 -- 17 species known from the site, including 7 species of
cyprinids, but only 2 species of darters; dominant species is the cold-cool water indicator Mottled Sculpin (49% and 60%); stream is supporting its
supplemental designation as trout waters (Tr). No appreciable change in fish community or water quality between assessment periods.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle Losses -- none. Gains -- Tuckasegee Darter, 1 individual.
04/27/09
06/02/04
0.4
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
75
Elevation (ft)
None
2110
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
19.5
Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBISample Date
462004-63
Sample ID
2009-16
12.1
11
3
5
10
16
7
5
5
8.9
30
6.2
Clear
5
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Mottled Sculpin (60%) Most Abundant Species 2009
85 Cobble, gravel, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
17
16
50
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1545
Location
8 digit HUC
06010203 -83.18111111
10
04/27/09
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Waterbody
SAVANNAH CR
AU Number
2-79-36
County
JACKSON
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mtns.
Longitude
Date Station ID
GF23
Site Photograph
Excellent
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
025
Subbasin
2
Latitude
35.3375
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains northwestern Jackson County, paralleling much of NC 116 and US 23/441 all the way to the creek's headwaters; no municipalities
within the watershed; tributary to the Tuckasegee River. Habitat -- same as in 2004; minimal canopy; the riparian zones were in pasture, and an attempt
had been made to stabilize portions of the banks with rip/rap and concrete slabs; swift & deep riffles, chutes, runs, and plunges. Water Quality -- pH in
2009 was less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u.; specific conductance in 2004 and 2009 was 28/29 µS/cm. 2009 -- although the creek is not
Hatchery Supported Trout Waters in its lower reaches, one stocked Brown Trout (275 mm TL) was collected; all other Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout were
wild; increased diversity and a slightly more balanced trophic structure in 2009 accounted for its Excellent rating. 2004 & 2009 -- 18 species known from
the site, including 8 species of cyprinids and 4 intolerant species, but only 2 species of darters; dominant species is the Mottled Sculpin (39% and 36%);
only one tolerant fish (White Sucker) has ever been collected at the site; no evidence of reproducing populations of trout at this lowermost site.
Rural Residential
25
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle Losses -- none. Gains -- White Sucker, Brown Trout, Smallmouth Bass. All species gained were represented
by 1 or 2 individuals/species.
04/28/09
06/02/04
0.6
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
50
Elevation (ft)
None
2025
Drainage Area (mi2)
Forested/Wetland
36.5
Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout
Bioclassification
Excellent
Good
NCIBISample Date
502004-64
Sample ID
2009-18
12.1
12
1
2
6
15
4
3
4
10.2
29
5.4
Clear
3
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Mottled Sculpin (36%) Most Abundant Species 2009
68 Cobble, boulder, rip/rapSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
18
15
58
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
NC 116
Location
8 digit HUC
06010203 -83.23694444
11
04/28/09
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)22.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)13
pH (s.u.)5.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
Bottom Substrate (15)14
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TWENTY MILE CR NC 28 GB2 08/05/10 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
SWAIN 2 06010204 35.466944 -83.877500 2-178-(4) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Stream Depth (m)
C; TR, HQW 15 1300 9 0.2
Visible Landuse (%)100 ---------
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)
------
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Site Photograph
()
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)96 Substrate mostly cobble (35), boulder (25) and gravel (25)
Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
1.82
Bioclassification
08/05/10 11091 --- 41 --- 2.06 Excellent
Sample Date
Twenty Mile Creek lies within and drains North Carolina's western portion of Great Smoky Mountain National Park (GSMNP) and ultimately joins the Little
Tennessee River (Cheoah Reservoir) downstream of Fontana Dam. It has an undeveloped (hiking trails aside) and forested catchment. The habitat of this
picturesque stream is as expected for a stream in a natural setting and consists of a series of cascades, riffles, and plunge pools. 2010 marks only the
second sampling of this stream. Typical of undisturbed mountain streams, the specific conductance was very low. Also, while the EPT biotic index was
higher than in 2004, it still indicates a very intolerant EPT community. Species richness was much higher than in 2004 and may be partially attributed to
the presence of woody debris and microhabitat which was mostly absent in 2004. With such a high gradient it is likely that rain events would transport
woody debris and further lead to increased scour which would reduce benthic populations. Twenty Mile Creek garnered its first Excellent rating.
Good08/04/04 9459
Taxonomic Analysis
A total increase of 12 EPT was recorded in 2010 over 2004 sampling results. All three orders saw an increase in richness but the caddisflies increased
the most (E - 4, P - 2, T - 6). Additions to the caddisflies were 4 net-spinning species and included the relatively uncommon Ceratopsyche macleodi.
Additional caddisfly taxa recorded included Ceraclea ancylus, Rhyacophila atrata, and Goera spp. Baetid mayflies help contribute to the increase seen
in mayfly richness in 2010 and included only the fifth NC record of Acentrella barbarae, a mayfly originally described from GSMNP. An increase in the
number of flat-headed mayflies was also see with both Heptagenia marginalis and Leucrocuta spp being collected. The stonefly fauna remained stable
from 2009 and included Perlesta spp, a stonefly that typically emerges near the end of July.
Data Analysis
---29 ---
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)20.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.0
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)40
pH (s.u.)6.3
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Bank Erosion (7)6
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)4
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)77
Taxonomic Analysis
Both EPT and overall taxa lists from 1999, 2004 and 2009 were very consistent. Most of the abundant taxa found in 2009 were abundant in previous
samples (e.g. the mayflies Baetis flavistriga , B. intercalaris and Epeorus vitreus ; the stoneflies Lecutra spp and Paragnetina immarginata; a nd the
caddisflies Glossosoma spp , Ceratopsyche sparna, Cheumatopsyche spp and Dolophilodes spp).
Data Analysis
This section of the Cheoah River rated Good in 2009, the same rating as in 2004. This site is located in one of only two free-flowing sections of the
Cheoah River. There is little evidence that the WWTP is significantly suppressing benthic macroinvertebrates in this reach as a sample upstream of the
WWTP did not differ from a downstream sample in 1994. Moreover, approximately half a mile upstream of the 2009 sampling location are two historical
sites spanning five samples. These data originate in 1983 and suggest water quality in this reach (both upstream and downstream of the WWTP) is
Good and occasionally Excellent.
Good
08/12/99 7969 89 48 3.43 2.77 Excellent
07/19/04 9437 84 38 3.96 3.15
Bioclassification
07/27/09 10779 93 40 4.18 3.17 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Town of Robbinsville WWTP NC0025879 0.63
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate mixture of bedrock, boulder, rubble, gravel and silt
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)80 0 0 20
C;Tr 55.0 1960 12 0.3
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
GRAHAM 4 06010204 35.331944 -83.807778 2-190-(3.5)Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Bioclassification
CHEOAH R OFF SR 1138 UPS MOUNTAIN CR GB133 07/27/09 Good
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date
2000
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)18.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.8
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)40
pH (s.u.)6.2
Channel Modification (5)4
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none
Visible Landuse (%)25 50 25 0
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Road Other (describe)
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
WS‐III; Tr 28.6 9 0.2
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
GRAHAM 4 06010204 35.320556 -83.802500 2-190-2-(0.5) Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
TULULA CR SR 1275 GB22 07/28/09 Good
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)5
Bank Vegetation (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)73
Taxonomic Analysis
With the exception of the 1999 Excellent bioclassification, the overall trend in the invertebrate data suggest Good water quality in this catchment. Indeed,
there are numerous intolerant taxa that have been present from each of the four collections and include the mayflies Epeorus vitreus , Leucrocuta spp ,
Paraleptophlebia spp, the caddisflies Brachycentrus spinae, Lepidostoma spp, Rhyacophila fuscula, as well as the long-lived stoneflies Acroneuria
abnormis and Paragnetina immarginata .
Data Analysis
In general, the benthic macroinvertebrate data suggest stable and Good to Excellent water quality in this catchment since the initial 1994 collection
although the 2009 sample was borderline Excellent and produced the second highest EPTs recorded. Indeed had just one more EPT taxa been collected
this site would have received an Excellent bioclassification in 2009.
Good07/25/94 6615 78 34 3.81 3.01
Good
08/12/99 7968 85 40 3.57 2.69 Excellent
07/19/04 9436 60 31 3.23 2.73
Bioclassification
07/28/09 10780 88 39 3.77 2.70 Good
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Substrate Boulder, cobble, gravel and sand
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)17.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)6.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)10
pH (s.u.)4.9
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)9
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Bank Erosion (7)7
Bank Vegetation (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)96
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
SNOWBIRD CR SR 1120 GB25 07/28/09 Excellent
AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
GRAHAM 4 06010204 35.289167 -83.900278 2-190-9-(15.5)Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 16.9 2220 7 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0
Site Photograph
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate mostly boulder and rubble with some gravel and sand
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Bioclassification
07/28/09 10781 ---52 ---2.13 Excellent
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI
Excellent
08/12/99 7970 ---52 ---2.57 Excellent
07/20/04 9442 ---48 ---2.06
Taxonomic Analysis
A diverse and pollution intolerant EPT community continues to populate Snowbird Creek. Overall there has been little change in the benthic community
composition from the first sample collected here, in 1990. However, two noticeable differences in this years sample were the absences of the caddisfly
Ceratopsyche sparna (abundant in 1990, 1999 and 2004) and the mayfly Maccaffertium ithaca (abundant in 1990, common in 1999, 2004).
Nevertheless, Snowbird Creek contains several highly pollution sensitive taxa such as the caddisflies Apatania spp, Ceratopsyche alhedra and the
mayflies Ephmerella crenula and Drunella allegheniensis.
Data Analysis
Snowbird Creek rated Excellent in 2009, the same rating it received in each of its three prior samples. The very consistent Excellent bioclassifications are
indicative of the minimally disturbed forested watershed present here.
Excellent06/20/90 5320 ---49 ---1.80
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-III,Tr
SR 1260
Location
8 digit HUC
06010204 -83.79444444
11
04/29/09
Central Stoneroller (36%) Most Abundant Species 2009
85 Cobble, boulder, bedrockSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
15
14
48
25
5.6
Clear
5
18
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
14.5
13
5
3
8
16
4
6
7
10.1
Rainbow Trout, Redbreast Sunfish
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBISample Date
462004-69
Sample ID
2009-22
Gains -- Black Redhorse, Redbreast Sunfish, Bluegill. Losses -- Creek Chub, Tangerine Darter. All species
gained or lost were represented by 1 or 2 individuals/species.
04/29/09
06/04/04
0.5
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
80
None
2035
Forested/Wetland Other (describe)
No
Average Depth (m)
Watershed -- drains the southeastern corner of Graham County; US 129 and a railroad parallel the creek throughout its length. Habitats -- slick rocks,
plunge pools in mid-channel, bluegreen algal mats covering many of the rocks; most of the habitats were of high quality, except at the upper reach along
the right shoreline where there was no canopy and the riparian zone was a manicured residential lawn. Water Quality -- pH less than the water quality
standard of 6.0 s.u. in 2004 and 2009. 2009 -- total species richness was slightly lower than expected, especially among darters (n= 2) and minnows (n=6);
very slight decline in the percentage of omnivores+herbivores from 51% to 49%) resulted in the very slight increase in NCIBI score and rating; Hatchery
Supported Trout Waters, four stocked Brook Trout collected (200-291 mm TL); Rainbow Trout were all wild (n=28). 2004 & 2009 -- the presence of
bluegreen algal mats and the percentages of omnivores+herbivores (i.e., Central Stoneroller and River Chub) which were much greater than expected
continued to indicate possible upstream straight-piping or nonpoint-source erosion contributions of nutrients; 17 species known from the site including 7
species of minnows and 3 species of darters; dominant species have been Central Stoneroller (31% and 36%) and Mottled Sculpin (24% and 26%); stream
is supporting its supplemental designation as trout waters (Tr).
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
10
Subbasin
4
Latitude
35.30722222
Agriculture
Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2)
27.4
Date Station ID
GF29
Site Photograph
Good
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
0
Waterbody
TULULA CR
AU Number
2-190-2-(0.5)
County
GRAHAM
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Longitude
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
WS-III;Tr
SR 1214
Location
8 digit HUC
06010204
Waterbody
SWEETWATER CR
County
Mottled Sculpin (34%) Most Abundant Species 2009
89 Bedrock shelves, cobble, boulderSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
13 52
Rainbow Trout
10.0
32
5.8
Clear
5
19
5
4
8
16
Sample ID
2009-21
7
6
9
Bioclassification
Good
NCIBISample Date
Other (describe)
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
13.4
10
040
Elevation (ft)
1995
Drainage Area (mi2)
13.6
Forested/Wetland
This is the first fish community sample collected at this site. Watershed -- drains east-central Graham County; NC 143 parallels much of the creek; no
municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the Cheoah River. Habitats -- ledges and plunge pools, riffles, runs, poor quality riparian zones in terms of
invasive plants and trash from the highway; swift flow and slippery rocks. Water Quality -- pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u. 2009 -- total
species richness was slightly lower than expected, especially among darters (n=2) and minnows (n=7); other abundant species included River Chub (20%)
and Central Stoneroller (16%); very low percentage of tolerant fish (1%); intolerant species included Rainbow Trout, Rock Bass, and Greenfin Darter;
stream is supporting its supplemental designation as trout waters (Tr); and water quality is generally Good.
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle N/A
04/29/09
NPDES Number
4
Latitude
35.324966
No
Reference SiteStream Width (m)
-83.79335 2-190-3-(0.5)
0.5
Site Photograph
Good
---
7
Average Depth (m)
AU Number
50
Agriculture
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
GRAHAM
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Longitude
04/29/09
Date Station ID
GF36
Subbasin
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Erosion (7)
Bank Vegetation (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
GRAHAM
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Southern Metasedimentary Mountains
Longitude
04/28/09
Date Station ID
GF37
Subbasin
Site Photograph
Not Rated
---
6
Average Depth (m)
AU Number
0
Agriculture
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
4
Latitude
35.417284
No
Reference SiteStream Width (m)
-83.874636 2-190-29
0.4
This is the first fish community sample collected at this site. Watershed -- drains northern Graham County; no municipalities within the watershed;
tributary to the by-passed reach of the Cheoah River between its confluence with Calderwood Lake and Lake Santeetlah. Habitats -- Sand Hills-like with
tannin stained water, a substrate primarily of sand, wide forested riparian zones of American Holly and Mountain Laurel, and Fissidens common on coarse
woody debris; side pools, runs, and riffles; gradient changes dramatically ~ 0.5 miles below the site with steeper gradients and waterfalls. Water Quality --
low conductivity; pH less than the water quality standard of 6.0 s.u. 2009 -- naturally depauperate (species diversity and abundance) community; fewest
fish collected than at any other site in 2009 (n=186); Mottled Sculpin and darters absent; Hatchery Supported Trout Waters; no reproducing populations of
trout were found, but no evidence of water quality impairment.
Rural Residential
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Species Change Since Last Cycle N/A
04/28/09
NPDES Number
100
Elevation (ft)
1830
Drainage Area (mi2)
12.7
Forested/Wetland
Bioclassification
Not Rated
NCIBISample Date
Other (describe)
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
16.2
8
0
4
5
6
10
Sample ID
2009-20
7
6
10
9.1
19
5.6
Clear, tannin stained
5
18
Creek Chub (46%) Most Abundant Species 2009
79 Sand, cobble, gravel, bedrock, siltSubstrate
Exotic Species 2009
Species Total
6 ---
Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1242
Location
8 digit HUC
06010204
Waterbody
YELLOW CR
County

20
1
2

NC
DW
Q

Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1C
Appendix 1C
Maps
20
1
2

NC
DW
Q

Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1C
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
BrysonCity
WebsterRobbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C reek
Ra
v
e
n For
k
Snowbir d C reek
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoah Riv
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Littl e T ennessee R.
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Creek
Noland Cree k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
see River
So co Cre e kDe
e
p Creek
Oc o naluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H azel Creek
Sant e e tlah Cr.
Te l l i c o C r e e k
W atauga Creek
Iotla C re e kBradley Creek
Cat Creek
Ü
NC Division of Water QualityBasinwide Planning UnitMarch 2012
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Legend
County Boundaries
Municipality
¢¡Ambient Monitoring
Subbasins
06010202
06010203
06010204
Caler Fork
0 105
Miles
Highlands
2012 New Impairments
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"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
N
N
N
NN NN
N
NN
NN
¾Ì
!k
!k!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
!k
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
dd
d
d
d
d
dd
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
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dddddddddddddddddddddddddd
d
d d
d
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
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#0X#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#0X
#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
BrysonCity
WebsterRobbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C r eek
Ra
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird Creek
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoah R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Little Tennessee R.
T u c k a seg e e River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Creek
Noland Cree k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
see River
S o co Cre e kDe
e
p Creek
Oc o naluftee R.
Caney F o r k
Hazel Creek
Santeetlah Cr.
Ü024681Miles
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Municipalities
County BoundariesRoads
Legend
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
Tuckasegee River Subbasin 06010203
NC Division of Water QualityBasinwide Planning UnitSept. 2011
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)
^_Lake
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
N
!k!k
!k
!k!k
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
QQ
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
CLAY
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Franklin
BrysonCity
Robbinsville
Santeetlah
Snowbir d C ree k
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoah Ri
v
e
r
Littl e T ennessee R.
T u c k a s eg e e River
Tulula Creek
Forney Creek
Noland Cre e k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
De
e
p Creek
H azel Creek
Sant e e tlah Cr.
Ü
0 2 41Miles
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Municipalities
County BoundariesRoads
Legend
Lower Little Tennessee River Subbasin 06010204
!k Aquaculture
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
SWA IN
CHER O KEE
GRAH AM
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"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
BrysonCity
WebsterRobbinsville
ForestHills
Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C r eek
Ra
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird Creek
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoah Ri
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
Little Tennessee River
Little Tennessee R.
T u c k aseg e e River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Creek
Noland Cree k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
see River
So c o Cre e kD
e
e
p Creek
Oc o naluftee R.
Caney F o r k
H azel Creek
Santeetlah Cr.
Ü
NC Division of Water QualityBasinwide Planning UnitMarch 2012
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Municipalities
County BoundariesRoads
Legend
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major 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 RiverSubbasin 06010202
Highlands
SWAIN
GRAHAM
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡
Q Q
Q
Q
#0
#0
#0
Snowbir d C re e kSanteetlah Cr .
GB177
GB179
GB178 GB181
GB182
GB184
GB180
GB185 T elli c o R i v e r
Tipton Creek
P eck er w o o d Creek
B o b Creek
J e n k s Bra nch
Mistletoe Creek
Snowbird Creek
B e arp e n B ra nch
Flat Bra n c h
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
0 0.750.375
Miles/
0601020403 Watershed
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
VT
nm
VT
Õ
ÕÕnm
nm
nm
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
k
k
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k
kkkkkk
k
k
43
<
<
d
d
d
d
d
d
ddd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
QQ
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
X
X
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
MACON
CLAY
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
BrysonCity
Robbinsville
SanteetlahLake
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Littl e T ennessee R.
T u c k a s eg e e River
Forney C reekNoland Cre e k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
D
eep CreekHazel Creek
NCG530121
NCG530076
NCG500050NCG500049
NC0083071
NC0079090
NC0027341
NC0025879
NC0023281
NC0023086
GB22
GB25
GB91
GB18
GB87
GB15
GB21
GB12
FB22
GB63
GB132
GB218
GB114
Sn o w bird Creek
Yellow Creek
Long Creek
Cheoah
River
T elli c o River
D eep Creek
Tulu la Creek
Sa w y e r Cree k
S w e et w ater Creek
Bear Creek
B ert C r e e k
S q ually Creek
F ranks Cre e k
Atoah Creek
Barker Creek
Co c hran Creek
T u s k e e gee Cree k
Little Snowbird Creek
H o oper Mill Creek
R o c k C r e e k
Hares Creek
Sant e e tl a h C r eek
Ollie B ra n c h
M ountain Creek
R o w lin Creek
Little Santeetlah Creek
S a ss a f r a s Creek
Long Branch
G9550000
GF56 GF54
GF52GF37
GF36
GF29
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 42
Miles
/
0601020401 Watershed
Õ
ÕVT
nm
VT
VT
VT
&
&&&&
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
|||
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
kkkkk
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
k
k
kkkk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k kkkk
k
k
kk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkk43434343434343434343
<
<
<
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
dd
dd
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
Q
QQ
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
X#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
GRAHAM
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Sylva
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o t t C r e ek
R
a
v
e
n For
k
Snowbird Creek
Cheoah R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Little Tennessee R.
Savan n ah Cree kTulula CreekNantahala R i v er
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
S o c o Cre e kOconaluftee R.
H azel C reek
Deep Creek
T u c k a s ege e River
Indian CreekHazel C r e e k
Noland Creek
F orney C reek
Lands Creek
Jonas Creek
Bear
C
r
eek
Cooper Creek
Proctor Creek
Al a r k a Creek
Mill Creek
Beech Flats Prong
O conaluft e e River
Rocky F
ork
N ettle C re ek
Left Fork Deep Cree
k
W esser Creek
Huggins Cre e k
S h e pherd Cr
e
ek
Kanati Fork
Pole Road Creek
H
orse Branch
Sahlee Creek
Bald Branch
Slab Camp Branch
Grassy Branch
Hammer Br
a
n
c
h
H u g gins Branch
Collins C r e e k
G eorges Branch
Dark Branch
B u c k n e r B r a n c h
GB6
GB4
GB5
GB7
GB11
GB90
GB86
GB13
GB65 GB135
GF7
NCG551010
NCG530095
NCG500129
NC0084441
NC0061620
NC0026557
NC0000264
0084441ACG8600000
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 31.5
Miles
/
0601020304 Watershed
Bryson City
!Ô
Õ
Õ Õ
ÕVT
nm
VT
VT
lnm
nm
nm
nm
VT
nm
VT
"M"M
"M
nmnm
nm
VT
nm
nm
nm
nm
0/
VT
&
&&&&
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
|
|
|
||
|
|
k
k
kkkk
k
kk
kkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k
kkk
kk
k
kk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
k
kkkk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kk
k
kkkkkk
kk
k
kkkk
kk
kk
k
kkkkkk
kk
k
k
k
kkkk
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k
kkkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
k
k kkkk
k
kk
kkkk
k
kkk
k
kk
kk
k
k
kk
kk
k
43
43
43
43
4343
43434343
434343
43
43
43
434343
43
43
43
434343
43
43
43
43
43
434343
43
43
43
43
43
4343
43434343
43
43
43
43
4343
43
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
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
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q QQ
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
X
#0
#0
X
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
X
#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
<
<<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
SWAIN
MACON
HAYWOOD
CLAY TRANSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
BrysonCity
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Raven Fork
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
Li
t
t
l
e
Tennessee River
Tulula Creek
Forney CreekNoland Cre e k
C
a
rtoog echaye Cr.
Nantahala River
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
S o c o Cre e kD
e
ep Creek
Oc o naluftee R.Hazel Creek
Buc k C r eek
Savannah Creek
Sols Creek
Ellijay C reek
Flat Creek
Mull Creek
Robinson Creek
Tilley Creek
Walnut Creek
Wayehutta Creek
Mill C re e k
Moses CreekCane Creek
C old CreekTennessee Creek
Chastine Creek
Bear Creek
Johns C re e k
Sugar Cre
e
k
Gladie Creek
Rough Butt Creek
Neddie Creek
Joe Creek
Bru s h C re ek
Little Pine Creek
Jeff
C
re
e
k
Pin e y Mount a i n C r eek
Mi n e B r a n c h
Long B r a n c h
NCG551100
NCG551046
NCG550866
NCG550444
NCG550415
NCG550374
NCG550300NCG550299
NCG550170NCG550162
NCG530081
NCG530080
NCG520024
NCG520017
NCG520016
NCG510066
NCG500127
NCG500126
NCG500125
NCG500124
NCG500123
NC0075736
NC0074624
NC0068918
NC0067326
NC0066958
NC0065889NC0063321
NC0063312
NC0060844
NC0059439
NC0059200
NC0052043
NC0039578
NC0038687
NC0022985
NC0021547
NC0020214
068918A01
068209ACB
068209ACA 065889A01063321ACF063321ACE063321ACC
021547ACB
0073261AC
0070548AC
0068918AC
0068209AC
0068128AC
0067326AC
0065471AC
0063312AC
0060844AC
0059439AC
0048585AC
0007048AC
NCG551046
NCG550657
NCG550375
NCG550374NCG520017
NCG520016
NCG510066
NCG500198
NCG500129
NCG500127
NCG500126
NCG500124
NC0084441
NC0074624
NC0074250
NC0061620
NC0032808
NC0000264
64262ACA1
074624ACA0074624AC
0069019AC
0064262AC
0061620AC
0032361AC
0007048AC
A l a rka Cr eek
S cott Creek
S o c o C re ek
Oco n aluftee River
Greens C r e e k
Shoal Creek
Camp C r e e k
Tilley Creek
Dark Ri d g e Cr e e k
W at a u g a C reek
Buff Creek
Wayehutta Creek
Co p e Creek
Cooper Creek
Moses Creek
C o w ee Creek
Coon Creek
C ane Creek
C al e r F or k Creek
Chastine Creek
Mull Creek
J o n e s Creek
Johns C re e k
Sols Creek
B r u s h y F orkSugar F o r k
M i c a C i t y Cr e e k
Gladie Creek
W esser Creek
Blanton Branch
U na C r e e k
Dills C
r
e
e
k
M ill Cr e e k
T
atham

C
reek
East Fork Dicks CreekCrooked Cree
k
Mi n e B r a n c h
Cor b i n C r e ek
Barkers Creek
Joe Creek
Sutton Branch
Cashie Branch
Open Branch
Allens

B
r
a
n
c
h
Negroskull Creek
Long B r a n c h
Kitchin Bra
n
c
h
Jacks Cre e k
Licklog Creek
Grassy Creek
Tuckasegee Riv
e
r
Tuckasegee River
GB19
GB23
GB95
GB83
GB29
GB13
GB27
GB64
EB361
GB125GB161
GB122
GB164
GB163
GB197
EB246
GB169
GB196
GB172GB156
GF7 GF5
GF4GF61
GF59
GF34GF33
GF24
GF23
GF13
EF65 EF46
JACKSON
MACON
SWAIN
HAYWOOD
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningDecember 2011
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 31.5
Miles
/
0601020303 WatershedHQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
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
d
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
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
X
#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
<
<
<
<
!Ô
Õ
Õ Õ
ÕVT
nm
VT
VT
nm
nm
Õ
Õ
VT
"M"M
"M
"M
VT
nm nm
Õ
0/
VT
&
&&&&
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
|||
k
k
k
kkkk
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
k
kkkkk
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
k
k
kkkk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
k
k
kkkk
kkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k kkkk
k
k
kk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkk43434343434343434343
HAYWOOD
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Sylva
BrysonCity
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o t t C r e ek
Tuckasegee River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Creek
Noland Cre e k
Nantahala River
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
D
e
e
p Creek
Hazel Creek
NCG550382
NCG500129
NC0000264
0064688AC
0061620AC
Deep Creek
S
tr
a
i
ght
F
o
rk
Ocon aluftee River
Indian Creek
Soco Cree k
Tu c kasege e R iv er
Enloe Creek
Wrights Creek
Shoal Creek
Bunches Cr e e k
Cooper Creek
Beech Flats Prong
S till w e ll Creek
Mingus C r eek
Rocky F
ork
N ettle C reek
Left Fork Deep Cree
k
Hornbuckle Creek
Chastee n Creek Ledge Cree k
F
l
a
t
C
re
e
k
Tow String Creek
Blackro
c
k

Cr
e
e
k
Mingo Creek
Pole Road Creek
Jenkins Creek
G
ala
m
ore B
ra
n
c
hBecks Branch
Betts Branch
Cro o ked C r e ek
Taywa Creek
Open Branch
Sahlee Creek
P i geon Creek
Bulldie Creek
Chasm Prong
A
c
e Creek
Raven Fork
GB5
GB1
GB11
GB94
GB90
GB13
GB65
GB116
GB115
GB130
GB110
GB109
GB129
GB102
GB135
SWAIN
HAYWOOD
JACKSON
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 21
Miles
/
0601020302 Watershed
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d d
d
d
d
d
d
d
ddd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
ddd d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ Q
Q
Q
Q
Q QQ Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQ
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
X
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0#0
#0
#0 #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
<
<<<<<
<
<
<
<
<<
nm
!Ô
nm
Õ
VT
Õ ÕÕVT nmnmVT lVT
l
Õ
nm
nm
nm
nm Õ
VT
Õ
nm
nm
nm
nm
ÕVT"M"M
"M
"M
nmnm
nm
ÕÕVT
"M
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm Õ0/
VT
Õ
0/
&&&&&
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2|
|
|
||
|
|
k
k
kkkk
k
kk
kkkkk
k
kk
k
k
k
kk
kk
k
k
k
kkk
kk
k
kk
k
k
k
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kkk
kk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
kkkk
kk
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
k
k
kkkk
k
kkkkk
k
kk
k
k
k
kk
kk
k
k
k
kkkk
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kk
k
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk k
kk
kk
kk
k
k
kk
kk
kk
k
43
43
43
43
4343
43
43434343
434343
4343
43
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
43
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
43
43
43
4343
43
43434343
4343
43
43
43
43
4343
434343
43
SWAIN
MACON
HAYWOOD
TRANSYLVANIA
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
BrysonCity Dillsboro S c o t t C r e ekRaven Fork
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
L
i
t
t
l
e

Tennessee River
Tuckasegee River
Savan n ah Cree k
Forney CreekNoland Creek
C
a
rtoogechaye Cr.
Nantahala RiverLittle
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
S o c o Cre e kDeep Creek Oc o naluftee R.Hazel Creek
Buc k C r eek
Savannah Creek
Sols Creek
Ellijay Creek
Flat Creek
Mull Creek
Robinson Creek
Tilley Creek
Walnut Creek
Wayehutta Creek
Mill C re e k
Moses CreekCane Creek
C old CreekTennessee Creek
Chastine Creek
Bear Creek
Johns C re e k
Sugar Cre
ek
Gladie Creek
Rough Butt Creek
Neddie Creek
Joe Creek
Bru s h C reek
Little Pine Creek
Jeff
C
re
e
k
Pin e y Moun t a i n C reek
Mi n e B r a n c h
E
a
s
t
F
o
r
k

S
a
v
a
n
n
a
h

C
r
e
e
k
Long B r a n c h
NCG551100
NCG551046
NCG550866
NCG550444
NCG550415
NCG550374
NCG550300NCG550299
NCG550170NCG550162
NCG530081
NCG530080
NCG520024
NCG520017
NCG520016
NCG510066
NCG500127
NCG500126
NCG500125
NCG500124
NCG500123
NC0075736
NC0074624
NC0068918
NC0067326
NC0066958
NC0065889NC0063321
NC0063312
NC0060844
NC0059439
NC0059200
NC0052043
NC0039578
NC0038687
NC0022985
NC0021547
NC0020214
068918A01
068209ACB
068209ACA 065889A01063321ACF063321ACE063321ACC
039578A02039578A01
021547ACB
020214ACA
0073261AC
0070548AC
0068918AC
0068209AC
0068128AC
0067326AC
0065471AC
0063312AC
0060844AC
0059439AC
0048585AC
0020214AC
0007048AC
GF4GF13
EF62EF60 EB41
HB39
GB38
HB30
GB23
HB28
GB96
GB95
GB93
HB26
HB25
GB88
HB21 HB20
GB84
GB85
GB29
HB12
GB73
GB27
GB125
GB122
GB164
GB120
GB119
GB118
GB106
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningDecember 2011
Caney Fork
Cullowhee Creek
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 31.5
Miles
/
0601020301 Watershed
Wolf Creek
West Fork Tuckasegee R.
Thorpe Lake
Forest Hills
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
VT
VT
nm
nm
nm
VT
VT!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
k
k
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k
k
43
<
<
<
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
Q
QQ
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
X
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
SWAIN
MACON
GRAHAM
CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Franklin
BrysonCity
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Santeetlah
R
a
v
e
n Fork
Snowbird C ree k
Cheoah R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
L
i
t
t
l
e
Tennessee River
Littl e T ennessee R.
T u c k a s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Cree k
Noland Cre e k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
Nantahala R i v e r
Little
T
e
nnes
s
ee River
S o c o Cre e kD
e
e
p Creek
Oc o naluftee R.
Santeetlah Cr.
GB3 GB4
GB22
GB14
GB16
GB81
GB74
GB216
GB166
GB113
GB105
GB104
GB133
Yellow Creek
Hazel C r e e k
Sa w y e r Cre e k
Forney C re ek
Dr
y

C
r
e
e
k
Gunna C r e e k
Bear
C
reek
S w e etw ater Creek
Eagle Creek
Proctor Creek
W olf Cree k
Walkers Creek
Bee Creek
H
a
w
G
a
p Br
a
n
c
h
W a ti a Creek
Rock Creek
T u s k e e g e e C re e k
D efeat Branch
P i n n acle Creek
Ollie B ra n c h
M ountain Creek
S h ell Sta n d C r e ek
Pilkey Creek
H
orse Branch
Cody Bra
n
c
h
R o aring Creek
Slab Camp Branch
Mill Branch
Davis Bra nc h
Rowan Branch
Cold Spring Branch
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Fontana Lake )
GF56 GF54
GF52
GF36
GF26 GF21
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 42
Miles
/
0601020205 Watershed
Stecoah Creek
Õ
ÕVT
VT
Õ
nm
Õ
VT
nm
VT
"M"M
"M
nmnm
nm
VT
nm
nm
nm
VT
Õ
&
&&&&
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
|
|
||
|
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kkkk
k
k
k
kkk
kk
k
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kkkk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
k
k kkkk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
k
kkk
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
k
k
kkk
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
k
kkkkkk
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
k
k kkkk
k
k kk
kkkk
k
kkk
kkk
k
kkk
k
434343
43434343
434343
43
43
434343
43
43
434343
43
43
43
434343
43
43
434343
43434343
43
434343
43
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_NNNN
N
NNN NNNNN
NN
!k!k
!k
!k!k
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
ddd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q QQ
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
X
#0
X
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#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
SWAIN HAYWOOD
CLAY
GRAHAM
CHEROKEE
TRANSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C r e ek
Raven Fork
Snowbird Creek
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Cheoah R
i
v
e
r
Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
L
i
t
t
l
e
Tennessee River
Little Tennessee R.T u c k a s eg e e River
Sav
an n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney Cree kNoland Cre e k
Nantahala R i v er
Little

T
ennes
s
e
e River
S o c o Cre e kDeep Creek Oc o naluftee R.H azel C reek
Santeetlah Cr.
NCG551010
NCG550300
NCG520024
NCG520017
NCG520016
NCG500129
NC0084441 NC0074250
NC0057193
NC0026557
NC0021547
NC0000264
037737ACC
026557A02026557A01 0084441AC 0074250AC
0037737AC
0026557AC
GB7
GB28
GB24
GB37
GB77 GB76
GB13
GB34
GB30
GB64
GB17
GB150GB151
GB161
GB221
GB197
GB165
GB157
GB155GB205
GB202
GB196
GB172
GB160
GB173
GB148
GF7 GF5
GF3
GF2
GF1
GF75
GF74
GF73
GF72
GF71
GF70
GF68
GF67
GF66GF65GF64
GF61
GF59
GF34GF33
GF27
GF22
GF15
Tuckasegee River
Savanna h Creek
Brush C r e e k
A larka
C
r
e
e
k
Tellico C r e e k
Greens C r e e k
Camp C r e e k
B u r n i n gtown Creek
W a t a u g a Creek
W esser Creek
Ellijay Creek
I o tla Cree k
Lakey Creek
C o w ee Creek
Coon Creek
Bradley Creek
Ca l e r F or k Creek
Cat Cr eek
Partridge C r e e k
Silver min e Creek
Nantahala River [Nantahala La k e (Aquone Lake)]
Lickl og Cr
B r u s h y F ork
W a ti a Creek
Sugar F o r k
Rabbitt Creek
Ben Creek
O t t e r C r e e k
Whiteoak Cree
k
S a wmill Creek
Y ounce Creek
Bowers Cre
e
k
Rocky Branch
Barkers Creek
Wests
B
r
anc
hRattlesnake Cr e ek
Mill
C
r
e
ek
D e H a r t Creek
Big B ranch
Grassy Branch
C o l d S p ri n g C r e e k
Cochran Branch G8600000
G2000000
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningMarch 2012
d Stormwater
Permits
X Major Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 42
Miles
/
0601020204 Watershed
Franklin
SWAIN
MACON
Fontana Lake
New 2012 Impairments
nm
VT
nm Õ
nm
nm nm
Õ
Õ
nm
nm
ÕÕ
Õ
nm
VT
"M
"M
nmnm
nm
VT
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
VT
"M
Õ
&!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2 !¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2 !¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
|||
k
k
k
kkkkkk
k
k k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kkk
kk
kkkk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkk
k
k
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
k
k
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
k
kkkkkkkk k
k
k
k
k
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kk
k
k kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kk
k
kk
k
43
43
43434343
434343
4343
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
434343
4343
43
43
43
43434343
4343
43
434343
43
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
ddd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d dd d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
Q
QQ
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q QQ
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
X
X
#0
#0
X
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#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
SWAIN HAYWOOD
CLAY
GRAHAM
CHEROKEE
TRANSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
Highlands
Sylva
Franklin
BrysonCity
Robbinsville Dillsboro
Santeetlah S c o tt C r e ekRaven Fork
Snowbird C ree k
Cheoah River Beech Flats Prong
Tuckasegee River
Cullasaja
R
i
v
e
r
L
it
t
le
Tennessee River
Littl e T ennessee R.T u c k a s eg e e River
Savan n ah Cree kTulula Creek
Forney CreekNoland Cre e k
C
a
rtoo g echaye Cr.
S o c o Cre e kDeep Creek Oc o naluftee R.H azel Creek
Santeetlah Cr.
NCG530130
NCG530121
NCG530072
NCG530062
NCG500136
NC0067318
NC0057193
NC0037737
GF2
FF9
GF75
GF74
GF73
GF71GF70
GF69GF68
GF64
GF63
GF32
GF31
GF27
GF25
FF12
GB8
GB9 GB36
GB32
FB67 FB69
GB28
HB42
FB62
FB60
GB99
GB42
GB24
GB89 GB72GB41
GB69FB13
GB67
GB63
GB151
GB126
GB123
GB222
GB166
GB113
GB165
GB101
GB137
GB209
GB205
GB202
Brus h Cr e e k
T e lli c o C r e e k
Fran k s Creek
Tulul a C r e e k
W a ya h Creek
S w e et w ater Creek D
r
y

C
ree
k
B u r n i n g t o wn Creek
B e rt C r e e k
Nantah
ala

R
i
v
e
r
Jarrett Creek
Partridge C r e e k
A l l i s on Creek
Park Cre e k
Juts Creek
Rock Creek
Wine Spring Creek
Dicks C reek
Sa w mill Cree
k
Cartoogechaye Creek
G3500000
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 63
Miles
/
0601020203 Watershed
SWAIN
MACON
CLAY
Nantahala Lake
nm
VT
Õ
nm
Õ
nm
nm
"M
nm
"M
nm
nm
nm
Õ
0/
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
kk
k
k
k
k
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
k
kk
k
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
kkk
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
kk
k
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kk
kkkk43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343434343
<
<
<
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
Q
QQ QQQ
Q
Q QQ
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
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
MACON
TRANSYLVANIA
Highlands
SylvaDillsboro
Nantaha
l
a

R
i
v
e
r
Tuckasegee River
L
i
t
t
l
e

Tennessee River
Savan n ah Cree k
C
a
rtoogechaye Cr.
Nantahala RiverLittle Tennessee River
NCG550658
NCG550444
NCG550392
NCG550389
NCG550170
NCG550162
NC0075736
NC0075612
NC0067326
NC0064416
NC0061930
NC0059552
NC0051381
NC0036692
NC0032778NC0021407 064416ACA0065692AC0064416AC
GF51
GF50
GF47GF45
GF44
GF30
GF22
GF19
GF14
GF12
GF11
GB43
GB58GB47
GB59
GB98
GB97
GB93
GB52
GB84
GB85
GB82
GB79
GB39
GB53
GB44
GB57
GB80
GB51
GB125
GB191
GB188
GB161
GB120
GB157
GB106
GB192GB186
GB160
GB173GB171
Cullasaja River
Bu c k C r e ek
Ellijay C reek
Walnut Creek Mill C r e e k
Cat Cr e ek
S
h
oal
C
r
e
e
k
Ra b b itt Creek
Te s s e n t e e C r e e k
Little Buck Creek
Joe Creek
Br u s h Cr e e k
Mid
d
l
e

C
r
ee
k
Evans Bra
nch
Peeks Creek
Little Pine Creek
Crow Creek
W ildcat C re ekCorbin C r e e k
Gem Cr
e
e
k
Dodgen Creek
H a y es Mill Creek
Taylor Creek
Nickajack Cree k
Buckeye Creek
Piney K n o b Fork
Grassy Creek
Hickory Knoll Creek
K n o b Creek
Moss Branch
F ul c h er Branch
Rough Run
Mill Cre
e
k
Shoa l Creek DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 21
Miles
/
0601020202 Watershed
HighlandsT
u
r
t
l
e

P
o
n
d

C
r
e
e
k
B i g C r e e k
nm
Õ
nm
Õ
nm
nm Õ
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2!¤!2!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
!¤!2
k
k
k
k
kkk
k
k
k
k
kk
k
kkkkkk
kkkk
kk k
kkkkkk
k
kkk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
k
kkk
k
k
kkkkkkkk
kkkk
kk
kk
kkk
kkkkkkkk
kk
kk
kkkk43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343
4343
43
434343434343
<
<
<
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
dd
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Q
QQ QQ
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
QQQ
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
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
MACON
CLAY
CHEROKEE
Highlands
SylvaFranklinRobbinsvilleDillsboro Tuckasegee RiverSavannah Cree kTulula CreekNantahala R i v e r Little Tennessee River
NCG551116
NCG550866
NCG550392
NCG550364
NCG520024
NC0070394
NC0067326
NC0060844
NC0021547021547ACB021547ACA021547A01
0067326AC
0021547AC
GB46
HB42
GF38
GB49
GB10
GB50
GB82GB39
GB77 GB76
GB72
GB41
GB71GB40
GB191
GB188
GB192
GB134
GB186
GB173GB171
GF9
GF6
GF51
GF50
GF47GF45
GF44
GF43
GF42
GF41GF39 GF38 GF28
GF20
GF17
GF14
GF12
GF10
G3500000
G0035000
Cul l a saja River
Buck
C
r
e
e
k
Jones Creek
Middle Cre e k
Way a h Creek
Drym an F ork
Ca rt o o g e chaye Creek
B a ll C reek
Nantahala
R
iv
e
r
Cat Cr e ek
B
e
tt
y
Cre
e
k
A lli s o n C reek
P a r k Creek
Te s s e n t e e C r e ek
Kimsey Cree k
Shoal Cr eek
C o w e e t a Creek
Ellijay Cree k
P o p lar C o v e C r e e k
Bryson Branc h
Kilby Creek
Evans Bra
nch
C lo er B r a n ch
Peeks Creek
Moore Creek
M uskrat Creek
Le e C r eek
M
ill
C
r
e
ek
Bat e s Branch
Brushy Branch
Bearpen Cre e k
Bark
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
Nickajack Cre e k
Crow Creek
Buckeye Creek
Crawford Br a n c h
Jake Bran c hMulberry Creek
H ickory Knoll Creek
G
u
l
f
F
o
r
k
Blaine Branch
North Fork Skeenah Creek
Fall Br a n c h
S atser Branch
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-Discharge
HQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste ManagementCWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
0 31.5
Miles/
0601020201 Watershed
Little Tennessee River
Franklin
VT k
kk
43
<
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡[¡
¢¡
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
d
d
d
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0 #0
#0
#0CHEROKEE
TENNESSEE
Robbinsville
Santeetlah
Snowbir d C ree k Tulula Creek Nantahala R i v e r
H azel C reek
San t e e tlah Cr.
Yellow Creek
Cheoah
R
i
v
e
r
D eep Creek
Tw e ntymile Creek
S a n t e e t l a h C reek
C o c hran CreekRock C r e e k
Olli e B ra n c h
Moore Spring Branch
Little Santeetlah Creek
Beach Creek
F arley B r anch
Bear Creek
Gras s y B ra n c h
Hangover Creek
B
ob Branch
Laurel Branc h
G la d d e ns Creek
Dalton Branch
Welch Cove Br
E a s t B u ff alo Cre e k
Big Flat B r a n c h
Ryefield B r a n c h
H
or
s
e
cove Branch
NCG500050
NC0023281
NC0023086
GF37
GB2
GB18
GB15
GB12
DWQ- Basinwide PlanningJanuary 2012
0 21
Miles
/
0601020404 Watershed
d Stormwater
PermitsXMajor Discharge
#0 Minor Discharge
Q Non-DischargeHQW/ORW Areas
HQW/WSWWSWHQWORW
County BoundariesRoadsMunicipality<USGS Gage
Monitoring Sites
"à)Benthic Macroinvertebrate
[¡Fish¢¡Ambient
^_Lake
¢¡RAMS ('07-'08)¢¡RAMS ('09-'10)¢¡RAMS ('10-'11)
2010 Use SupportSupportingNo DataNot RatedImpaired
Ag-Cost Share BMPs
&Agri-Chemical Pollution PreventionDrought Response
!¤!2 Erosion/Nutrient Reduction|Sediment/Nutrient Reduction
k Stream Protection
43 Waste Management
CWMTF Projects
nm Acquisition-Buffers
!Ô Acquisition-Greenways
l Easements
Õ Restoration
0/Stormwater
VT Wastewater
"M Planning
SWAIN
GRAHAM
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER (Cheoah Lake, Calderwood Lake)
NCG500049
NC0027341
04-04-02
04-05-02 04-04-01
04-04-04
04-05-01
04-04-03
03-13-02
03-13-0103-13-01
06010202 06010203
06020002
06010204
0306010103060102
03060102
Old Subbasins
06010203 Tuckasegee
Major Waterbody
06010202 Upper LTN
06010204 Lower LTN
Legend
Federal BasinFrench Broad-Holston
Upper Tennessee
Middle Tenn.-Hiwassee
Mississippi River & major tributariesTennessee River Region

20
1
2

NC
DW
Q
Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1D
Appendix 1D
Ambient Monitoring Station Data Summary Sheets
The full report is available on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/reports
20
1
2

NC
DW
Q

Li
t
t
l
e
Te
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
Ri
v
e
r
Ba
s
i
n
Pl
a
n

Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1D
Ambient Monitoring System Station NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment
Location: LITTLE TENNESSEE RIV AT SR 1651 NR PRENTISS
Station #: G0035000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010202
Latitude: 35.12215 Longitude: -83.37432 Stream class: C
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 2-(1)
Time period: 01/17/2006 to 12/15/2010
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field D.O. (mg/L) 47 0 <4 0 0 7.6 7.8 8.4 9.8 10.8 11.7 12.9 47 0 <5 0 0 7.6 7. 8.4 9.8 10.8 11.7 12.9 8 pH (SU) 51 0 <6 4 7. 5.4 6 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.2 8 51 0 >9 0 0 5.4 6 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.2 Spec. conductance 50 0 N/A 15 21 22 26 29 72 116 (umhos/cm at 25°C) Water Temperature (°C) 52 0 >29 0 0 0.1 6.3 9 13.7 20 22.8 24
Other Hardness (m ) 4 0 N/A 6 6 6 7 10 11 11 g/L TSS (mg/L) 20 4 N/A 2.5 3.3 6.2 8.9 15 22.3 41 Turbidity (NTU) 53 0 >50 1 1.9 1.3 2.5 3.8 6.8 12 30.4 120
Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N 7 7 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 NO2 + NO 7 0 N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.19 0.19 3 as N TKN as N 7 7 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Phosphorus 7 1 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04
Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al) 6 0 N/A 17 17 21 50 69 77 770 0 0 5 0 5 0 Arsenic, total (As) 6 6 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cadmium, total (Cd) 6 6 >2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Chromium, total (Cr) 6 6 >50 0 0 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 Copper, total ( u) 6 6 >7 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C Iron, total (Fe) 6 0 >100 0 0 260 260 268 500 675 690 690 0 Lead, total (Pb) 6 6 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mercury, total (Hg) 4 4 >0.01 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 Nickel, total (N ) 6 6 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 i Zinc, total (Zn) 6 5 >50 0 0 10 10 10 10 11 13 13
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 53 104.6 9 17
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
Ambient Monitoring System Station NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment
Location: LITTLE TENNESSEE RIV AT NC 28 AT IOTLA
Station #: G2000000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010202
Latitude: 35.23490 Longitude: -83.39579 Stream class: B
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 2-(26.5)
Time period: 01/17/2006 to 12/15/2010
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field D.O. (mg/L) 47 0 <4 0 0 7.2 7.6 8.5 9.9 11.2 12.1 12.9 47 0 <5 0 0 7. 7. 8.5 9.9 11. 12.1 12.9 2 6 2 pH (SU) 52 0 <6 3 5. 5 6 6.3 6.6 7 7.2 7.5 8 52 0 >9 0 0 5 6 6.3 6.6 7 7.2 7.5 Spec. conductance 49 0 N/A 24 26 28 34 38 45 49 (umhos/cm at 25°C) Water Temperature (°C) 52 0 >29 0 0 0.9 6.1 9.4 14.6 21.2 24.8 26.4
Other Hardness (m ) 4 0 N/A 8 8 8 11 14 14 14 g/L TSS (mg/L) 19 6 N/A 4 4.8 6.2 7.3 12 27 37 Turbidity (NTU) 53 0 >50 3 5.7 1.9 3.1 4.1 7.1 13.5 29.6 100
Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N 53 38 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 NO2 + NO 53 0 N/A 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.26 3 as N TKN as N 51 36 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.49 Total Phosphorus 53 6 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.16
Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al) 6 0 N/A 21 21 24 36 43 46 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arsenic, total (As) 6 6 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cadmium, total (Cd) 6 6 >2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Chromium, total (Cr) 6 6 >50 0 0 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 Copper, total ( u) 6 6 >7 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C Iron, total (Fe) 6 0 >100 0 0 320 320 388 495 622 690 690 0 Lead, total (Pb) 6 6 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mercury, total (Hg) 4 4 >0.01 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 Nickel, total (N ) 6 6 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 i Zinc, total (Zn) 6 3 >50 0 0 10 10 10 11 14 15 15
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 53 63.2 7 13.2
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
Ambient Monitoring System Station NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment
Location: NANTAHALA RIV AT US 64 NR RAINBOW SPRINGS
Station #: G3500000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010202
Latitude: 35.09422 Longitude: -83.55992 Stream class: B Tr ORW
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 2-57-(0.5)
Time period: 01/17/2006 to 12/15/2010
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field D.O. (m L) 47 0 <6 0 0 7.7 8.2 8.7 10 10.9 11. 12.9 g/5 pH (SU) 51 0 <6 5 9. 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.5 6.6 7 7.2 8 51 0 >9 0 0 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.5 6.6 7 7.2 Spec. conductance 49 0 N/A 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 (umhos/cm at 25°C) Water Temperature (°C) 52 0 >29 0 0 0 4.4 7 11.5 16.1 18.8 20.1
Other Hardness (m ) 4 0 N/A 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 g/L TSS (mg/L) 21 17 N/A 2. 2. 2. 6.2 6.2 16 19 5 5 8 Turbidity (NTU) 53 15 >10 1 1.9 1 1 1 1.4 2.6 5.9 11
Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N 53 50 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 NO2 + NO 53 13 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.5 3 as N TKN as N 51 46 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.42 Total Phosphorus 53 38 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.1
Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al) 6 2 N/A 50 50 50 58 97 12 120 0 Arsenic, total (As) 6 6 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cadmium, total (Cd) 6 6 >0.4 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Chromium, total (Cr) 6 6 >50 0 0 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 Copper, total ( u) 6 6 >7 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C Iron, total (Fe) 6 1 >100 0 0 50 50 59 76 152 160 160 0 Lead, total (Pb) 6 6 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mercury, total (Hg) 4 4 >0.01 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 Nickel, total (N ) 6 6 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 i Zinc, total (Zn) 6 4 >50 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 33 33
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 53 9.4 2 3.8
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
Ambient Monitoring System Station NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment
Location: TUCKASEGEE RIV AT SR 1364 AT BRYSON CITY
Station #: G8600000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010203
Latitude: 35.42835 Longitude: -83.44595 Stream class: B
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 2-79-(40.5)
Time period: 01/17/2006 to 11/17/2010
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field D.O. (mg/L) 42 0 <4 0 0 7.3 8.2 9 10.4 11.4 12.4 13.8 42 0 <5 0 0 7.3 8.2 9 10. 11.4 12.4 13.8 4 pH (SU) 48 0 <6 4 8.3 5.6 6.2 6.4 7 7.9 8.5 9.1 48 0 >9 1 2.1 5.6 6.2 6.4 7 7.9 8.5 9.1 Spec. conductance 48 0 N/A 10 21 22 25 30 32 74 (umhos/cm at 25°C) Water Temperature (°C) 48 0 >29 0 0 3.2 6.8 9.8 14.6 21.3 23.6 27.1
Other Hardness (m ) 5 0 N/A 6 6 7 9 11 12 12 g/L TSS (mg/L) 21 10 N/A 3.5 5 6. 7.8 18 40.4 71 2 Turbidity (NTU) 50 0 >50 0 0 1.1 1.8 3 4.2 7.2 13.9 40
Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N 47 44 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 NO2 + NO 47 0 N/A 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.33 3 as N TKN as N 45 37 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.35 Total Phosphorus 47 3 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.15
Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al) 6 0 N/A 14 14 16 27 1322 2500 2500 0 0 2 5 Arsenic, total (As) 6 6 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cadmium, total (Cd) 6 6 >2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Chromium, total (Cr) 6 6 >50 0 0 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 Copper, total ( u) 6 5 >7 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C Iron, total (Fe) 6 0 >100 2 33. 180 180 240 410 165 330 3300 0 3 0 0 Lead, total (Pb) 6 6 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mercury, total (Hg) 4 4 >0.01 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 Nickel, total (N ) 6 6 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 i Zinc, total (Zn) 6 2 >50 0 0 10 10 10 13 19 22 22
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 50 44.2 3 6
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
Ambient Monitoring System Station NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment
Location: CHEOAH RIV AT SR 1138 AT ROBBINSVILLE
Station #: G9550000 Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010204
Latitude: 35.32910 Longitude: -83.80976 Stream class: C Tr
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 2-190-(3.5)
Time period: 01/17/2006 to 11/17/2010
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles results ND EL # % %Conf Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field D.O. (m L) 41 0 <6 0 0 7.1 7.9 8.4 9.5 10.6 12.1 12.7 g/ pH (SU) 44 0 <6 2 4. 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.4 5 44 0 >9 0 0 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.4 Spec. conductance 45 0 N/A 14 27 30 34 41 43 47 (umhos/cm at 25°C) Water Temperature (°C) 45 0 >29 0 0 5 6.9 11.2 15 19.4 22.9 24.7
Other Hardness (m ) 4 0 N/A 9 9 9 12 14 14 14 g/L TSS (mg/L) 19 10 N/A 2. 2.5 6.2 6.2 13 32 97 5 Turbidity (NTU) 47 1 >10 5 10.6 67.1 1 1.2 1.9 3.2 4.6 12 60
Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N 45 42 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 NO2 + NO 45 0 N/A 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.24 0.32 3 as N TKN as N 44 39 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.3 Total Phosphorus 45 16 N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.12
Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al) 6 0 N/A 73 73 74 13 1182 2900 2900 5 Arsenic, total (As) 6 6 >10 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Cadmium, total (Cd) 6 6 >0.4 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Chromium, total (Cr) 6 6 >50 0 0 10 10 10 25 25 25 25 Copper, total ( u) 6 5 >7 0 0 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 C Iron, total (Fe) 6 0 >100 1 16. 130 130 182 265 140 350 3500 0 7 8 0 Lead, total (Pb) 6 6 >25 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mercury, total (Hg) 4 4 >0.01 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 Nickel, total (N ) 6 6 >88 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 i Zinc, total (Zn) 6 2 >50 0 0 10 10 10 11 16 28 28
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 47 103.5 7 14.9
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence