The Middle Nolichucky Watershed Alliance heard a presentation Wednesday by a TVA official experienced in helping similar groups improve ground water in North Carolina.

Burline P. Pullin, a water resources specialist based at Norris, Tenn., with 26 years of TVA experience, said there is no “cookie-cutter” approach to a watershed improvement plan, nor should there be.

Every watershed (the term used for the area from which water drains into a stream or river) is different, she said.

Thus, Pullin stressed, a watershed action plan (WAP) should be tailored to the area it is being designed to improve.

In addition, she said, a plan should always be “a work in progress,” continually being updated and modified as conditions change.

As an example of what can be accomplished, Pullin gave a presentation on a plan she helped develop for the Haywood Waterways Association in Haywood County, N.C.

This area, southwest of Asheville, which includes parts of the Pisgah National Forest, is essentially the watershed for the Pigeon River. It includes Lake Junaluska, a popular retreat and conference center.

Sediment Biggest Problem

Sediment is by far the biggest problem there, Pullin said.

Lake Junaluska must be dredged annually, at a cost of about $750,000, to keep it from “turning into a wetlands,” Pullin said. He added that 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment, mostly earth, have been removed from the lake since 1964.

Despite the cost, the dredging continues because Lake Junaluska’s resorts and conference centers bring in about $13 million in tourism dollars each year.

The biggest sources of sediment in Haywood County, she said, are eroding and undermined stream banks, and the county’s 2,000 miles of unpaved, mostly mountain roads.

Haywood County’s watershed improvement effort started with 12 citizens, Pullin said.

One of the founding members invited Pullin to speak to the group, and she suggested they form a “technical advisory committee” to work on a long-range watershed improvement plan.

They asked her to chair the committee, and Pullin accepted. A draft document was prepared over the next two years, she said, ending in 2000.

One real advantage of having such a plan written down, she said, is that it is a great help when applying for grants.

To date, she said, the Haywood Waterways Association has been able to obtain $1.5 million in grants for improving water in its region.

Pullin said much progress has been made in improving stream banks there by providing alternative watering systems for cattle, limiting their access to streams, and improving stream crossings for farm animals.

Alternative Systems

Andrew Tolley, of the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation’s water quality office in Johnson City, said that excluding cattle from stream banks and providing alternative watering systems can produce “phenomenal turnaround” in the amount of sediment downstream.

However, he said farmers typically resist this change, because “that’s not how dad did it, or grandpa,” and some farmers see any effort to get them to change as an infringement of property rights.

Pullin said much success in excluding cattle from streams has been achieved in Haywood County because a local farmer who has tried the practice — and liked it — is also a community leader.

Some improvements also have been made regarding roads, Pullin said, with new rules adopted by Haywood County for future road development. The new rules are designed to reduce erosion and runoff.

However, she showed slides illustrating the kinds of erosion and runoff problems that still exist.

Pullin said it was challenging for the Haywood County group to identify non-point sources of sediment.

It eventually used a combination of “windshield surveys” by volunteers and interpretation of aerial photos.

She said the group consulted with employees at a U.S. Forest Service experiment station in developing recommendations for new road construction.

Another challenge, she said, was developing leadership, and maintaining relationships with elected officials.

She stated that a watershed action plan needs to be driven by a vision for what its members want their area’s watershed to be like in five, 10 or 20 years.