COVE CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
PROJECT ATLAS
BROAD RIVER WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC UNITS
03050105040040 03050105040050 03050105040060
MCDOWELL AND RUTHERFORD COUNTIES NORTH CAROLINA
Modified from the original. All landowner information removed except PINs in tables, figures, and text. Introduction, Tables 1 & 2, and larger watershed Figures included only. (AJL, October 20, 2011)
Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27603
June, 2007
Earth Tech of North Carolina, Inc. 701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475 Raleigh, NC 27607
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Modified from the original. All landowner information removed except PINs in tables, figures, and text. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, Tables 1 & 2, and larger watershed Figures included only. (AJL, October 20, 2011) 1.0 General Information..................................................................................................................1 2.0 Mapping....................................................................................................................................1 3.0 Site Identification......................................................................................................................2 4.0 Potential Projects ......................................................................................................................4
TABLES Table 1. List of Sites after GIS Analysis and Their Potential as Projects ...................................... 7 Table 2. Landowner Information .................................................................................................... 9
FIGURES AND SUMMARIES Figure A. Vicinity Map................................................................................................................. 11 Figure B. Subwatershed Functional Status ................................................................................... 13 Figure Index .................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 1. Project 54....................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2. Projects 28, 34 ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3. Project 53....................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4. Projects 25, 29 ............................................................................................................... 41 Figure 5. Projects 18, 20 ............................................................................................................... 46 Figure 6. Projects 18, 20 ............................................................................................................... 64 Figure 7. Project 27....................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 8. Projects 50, 52 ............................................................................................................... 76 Figure 9. Project 33....................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 10. Projects 4, 5. ................................................................................................................ 83
i
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
FIELD DATA SUMMARIES Data point #: 54-1 ......................................................................................................................... 18 Data point #: 28-1 ......................................................................................................................... 22 Data point #: 28-2 ......................................................................................................................... 24 Data point #: 28-3 ......................................................................................................................... 26 Data point #: 28-4 ......................................................................................................................... 29 Data point #: 28-6 ......................................................................................................................... 31 Data point #: 28-7 ......................................................................................................................... 33 Data point #: 34-1 ......................................................................................................................... 35 Data point #: 53-1 ......................................................................................................................... 39 Data point #: 25-2 ......................................................................................................................... 43 Data point #: 18-1 ......................................................................................................................... 48 Data point #: 18-2 ......................................................................................................................... 50 Data point #: 18-3 ......................................................................................................................... 52 Data point #: 18-4 ......................................................................................................................... 56 Data point #: 20-1 ......................................................................................................................... 59 Data point #: 20-2 ......................................................................................................................... 61 Data point #: 18-5 ......................................................................................................................... 66 Data point #: 18-6 ......................................................................................................................... 68 Data point #: 18-7 ......................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX. Contact Information
ii
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
1.0
GENERAL INFORMATION
This Project Atlas is designed to accompany the Watershed Management Plan for the Cove Creek watershed, which includes Upper Cove Creek, Cedar Creek and Bills Creek. These correspond to Hydrologic Unit 03050105040040, Hydrologic Unit 03050105040050, and Hydrologic Unit 03050105040060 in the Broad River Basin. The atlas is intended to assist the Implementation Staff of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and local resource professionals in locating potential watershed improvement projects identified in the Watershed Management Plan and initiating project development. Hard-copy maps showing potential project sites at the sub-watershed scale as well as at the individual site scale are included in this document. A digital GIS database, provided on CD, includes additional data layers not displayed on the field maps as well as the complete attribute tables for all data layers. Large maps based on USGS topographic quadrangles and aerial photography are also provided at a scale convenient for navigation around the watershed. Tables, figures, and data summaries are inserted consecutively at the end of this report for more convenient use in the field. The Hydrologic Units are located in eastern Buncombe, northwestern Rutherford, and southern McDowell counties in the Blue Ridge physiographic province of North Carolina (Figure A). The nearest towns are Marion to the north and Lake Lure to the southwest. Both towns are outside the watershed boundaries except for a very small portion of the Lake Lure municipal jurisdiction. Small, unincorporated communities within the study area boundaries include Sugar Hill, Whitehouse, and Bills Creek. The entire study area is rural in character, with small farms dominating the landscape in the floodplains. Some residential developments are being built on the forested upper slopes as retirees and vacationers begin to look beyond the Lake Lure area for property. Additional characteristics of the study area are summarized below in the results of the assessment procedures. 2.0
MAPPING
The atlas was developed using mapping, data, field observations, and other information that was compiled and analyzed for Technical Memo No. 1: Sub-watershed Functional Assessment and Ranking by GIS Analysis, Technical Memo No. 2: Screening for Field Assessment Sites by GIS Analysis, and the Watershed Management Plan. The technical memos are all included in the appendices to the Watershed Management Plan. These reports should be consulted for detailed information on GIS information sources and analysis and GIS updates and calculations that were performed by Earth Tech. Figure B in this atlas shows the 32 sub-watersheds in the study area and their functional status. Functional status was determined by relativizing certain functional indicators (impervious cover, riparian buffer protection, cleared land, and stream-road crossings) into values for each sub-watershed, and then ranking the subwatersheds by these values. Briefly, the base mapping was developed using GIS data available in the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) Basin Pro 8 data package, and other sources according to procedures documented in the Technical Memo No. 1, with updates to buffer classification. The detailed hydrography data available in Basin Pro 8 was verified with 2005 aerial photography. Where the hydrography data was found to deviate from actual stream locations, new layers were created for streams and buffers by digitizing these features as they 1
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
appeared on aerial photography. Buffers were delineated along the streams at distances of 10 and 30 feet from the stream. Three buffer categories were defined and stream segments were classified by visual inspection of the aerial photo according to these categories: A – Forested:
Buffer is completely forested.
B – Partially Forested: Some trees are present in the riparian buffer, or buffer consists of shrubs and/or pine plantation. C – Clear:
No trees or shrubs are present in the riparian buffer. Buffer consists of managed herbaceous land or impervious surface.
Segments with a buffer quality classification of B or C were selected for further site identification analysis as described below.
3.0
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Potential project sites listed in this atlas were identified through a combination of GIS analysis and field observations. Thirty-six sites were identified by the GIS screening process, and landowner visits and field data collection were conducted from June through October 2006. Sites were numbered with a Project ID beginning at 1. Because relatively few potential sites were identified, landowner contact and field visits were attempted at all locations regardless of subwatershed functional status or priority. As a result of the landowner visits and field data collection, only fourteen of the original thirty-six sites were determined to be potential projects. Screening criteria are listed below. Stream Restoration Site Criteria • Stream classified as perennial or intermittent, per new EEP criteria • Inadequate buffer protection (buffer quality class B or C) • 2000 feet minimum length • Five or fewer landowners • Valley slope 4% or less • Maximum drainage area of 10 square miles Wetland Restoration Site Criteria • Non-forested land use • Soil map unit classified as Hydric A or B • Area of hydric soil 3-4 acres or greater • Three or fewer landowners
2
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Stream Mitigation Site Screening Process After the sites were identified using the GIS methodology described in Technical Memo No. 2, results were compared to notes taken during windshield surveys. Sites were added or eliminated based on this information, along with information about the landowners obtained from local resource professionals. The number of landowners listed in the criteria for stream restoration sites is five or fewer. Thirty-six sections of stream longer than 2000 feet were identified. Of these, 23 crossed five or fewer landowners. The other 13 crossed more than five landowners. These sites have been included because the majority of them are much longer than 2000 feet and a subset of interested landowners may be identified, still with a project of sufficient length to be viable. For the purposes of this report, those projects with more than five landowners have been split up into reaches composed of five or fewer landowners and greater than 2000 feet of stream. Actual projects may have different combinations of landowners. Field work was conducted to document conditions at the potential project sites and assess some general functional indicators of stream morphology, in-stream habitat, and buffer and landscape conditions. In accordance with the revised scope of work, sampling was conducted only on sites identified as potential projects and where permission was received from the landowner. No attempt was made to distribute the sampling locations across the entire study area or to stratify the sampling based on different land use types. Documentation at each site included photographs, GPS coordinates, presence of habitat for Threatened and Endangered species, presence of exotic invasive species, and notes on the potential for mitigation project implementation. Scores or values for various field assessment parameters, including in-stream habitat, buffer condition, and landscape condition were determined at each individual sampling point. Figures 1 through 10 show individual sites and locations of the individual sampling points on both aerial photographs and topographic maps. Earth Tech personnel visited each site during the late summer and early fall of 2006.
Wetland Mitigation Site Screening Search To identify potential wetland restoration sites, the hydric soil areas (as described above) were intersected with cleared land. There are no hydric soils within the portion of Buncombe County that is in the study area. In McDowell and Rutherford Counties, both Type A (100% hydric) and Type B (containing hydric inclusions) soils were included in the screening. There are less than 6 acres of Type A hydric soil in the study area. In Rutherford County, there are two Type B soil map units with significant percentages of hydric inclusions. These are Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex with 60% hydric inclusions, and Wehadkee silt loam, with 75% hydric inclusions. In order to find restorable areas at least two acres in size, four acres for Fluvaquents and three acres for Wehadkee were used as the search criteria. One site on Type A soil, a golf course, was identified but was later ruled out based on field observation. Upon examining the site, it was deemed that restoration would be impractical due to the location of the site within the golf course, the existing constraints within the golf course and the extent of modification necessary to restore the appropriate hydrology to the site. Two
3
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
other very small sites associated with potential stream restoration projects were identified during field work. No sites were identified within Type B soils by the GIS analysis. A hazard analysis and full investigation of constraints were beyond the scope of this report. Any potential constraints observed during field sampling were noted and are included in the data summaries of the sample sites.
4.0
POTENTIAL PROJECTS
For the purposes of this watershed management plan, sites identified in the GIS screening were broken down into five categories (Table 1): 1. Visited - Potential project for EEP - this category refers to sites that were visited and at which data was collected. Based on visual observation and data analysis, these sites have been deemed suitable for mitigation projects conducted by the EEP, either as Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, or Preservation projects, or a combination thereof. 2. Visited - Potential project for NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation Distrct (SWCD), or other - this category refers to sites that were visited and at which data was collected, however based on visual observation and data analysis the streams did not appear to require the level of restoration that is typically suitable for an EEP project. Streams in this category might require livestock exclusion fencing, riparian zone management, or some other form of conservation practice which can be provided through programs conducted by the NRCS, SWCD, or other agency. 3. Visited - No project - this category refers to sites that were visited and at which data was collected, however, based on visual observation and data analysis, these sites did not exhibit a need for restoration, or they possessed physical constraints which would make any restoration or conservation practices impractical. 4. Not Visited - Refused entry or contact attempts failed- this category refers to sites that were not visited because the landowners either refused entry for data collection, or never responded to mail solicitations or phone calls. 5. Not Visited - Ruled out by mapping or drive-by - this category refers to sites that were not visited due to their being ruled out either by drive-by observation of the watershed or evaluation of aerial photography and topographic maps. Sites were ruled out primarily based on constraints such as roads running alongside the stream, or from having a prohibitively high slope. Also, in some cases the land use/land cover data used in the GIS screening model did not correspond with up to date aerial photography, and several sites had since grown over with vegetative cover. In total, 36 sites were identified by GIS screening. Earth Tech attempted to visit all sites not otherwise ruled out. Data was collected at 27 individual sampling locations (hereinafter referred to as “data points”) on a total of 13 sites. Many sites could not be visited due to lack of permission from those landowners that were contacted. Data points are numbered based on the stream site at which they were collected. Data collection methods and results are described in Technical Memo No. 3.
4
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Of the 36 sites identified in the GIS screening, 22 were ruled out based on observations or because they did not meet the drainage area size criteria of a maximum of 10 square miles. The remaining 14 potential projects are summarized in this report with a one page summary, followed by the results of data collection where applicable. Five of the six sites that were placed into Group 4 (Refused entry or contact attempts failed) have been included in the potential project summaries with information based on aerial photography and contour data analysis. While these five sites could not be visited to verify GIS screening results, they may still yield potential projects. Table 1 lists all 36 sites that were identified through GIS analysis, and lists their potential as projects. The table also summarizes the potential type of mitigation and BMPs that could be conducted at each site. Of these sites, only those in Groups 1, 2 and 4 are suitable for stream mitigation. Five sites, including all but one of the Group 2 sites, were further eliminated because they had a drainage area greater than ten square miles. The Group 2 site that did meet the criteria for drainage area could not be split into five landowner projects that were greater than or equal to 2000 feet in length, thus it was eliminated as well. Because a subset of interested landowners may still be found, potential projects with more than five landowners have been split up into reaches composed of five or fewer landowners and greater than 2000 feet of stream. Actual projects may have different combinations of landowners. The 14 sites (potential projects) that resulted from the final screening and summarized at the end of this report are highlighted in the table. Table 2 lists the landowners associated with the 14 potential projects, including parcel identification numbers and mailing address. See the Appendix for additional landowner contact information and notes on calls and visits. Figures 1 through 10 show the 14 individual sites on both aerial photography and topographic mapping. Following the maps are single page data summaries of each project, and data sheets that summarize key data collected at visited potential projects (Groups 1 and 2). Each data collection site was assigned a numerical code (Data point #) for the purposes of data management and for referencing on a map. Included with the data is a depiction of the surveyed cross-section, as well as values for bankfull width, bankfull depth and bankfull area. Each crosssection is shown from left bank to right bank looking downstream, and the approximate bankfull stage is shown as a horizontal line. The elevations of the cross-section points are relative to the first surveyed point on each cross-section, which was assigned an arbitrary elevation of 100 feet. Also included in the summaries are photos showing conditions at each data collection point. Figure 1 in Technical Memo No. 3 depicts where the data collection points are located within the watershed. Project Summaries, which follow each figure, provide information on each potential project, including the number of landowners, names of landowners, drainage area, the type of mitigation proposed, an approximate length of feet, estimated mitigation units and a summary of landowner interest. As mentioned above, Group 4 sites (Not visited-refused entry or contact attempts failed) are included in these summaries, as they may still yield potential projects. The information listed for these Group 4 sites, including the type of mitigation proposed, is based entirely off of GIS analysis, and thus is tentative pending field verification.
5
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Data Summaries, are included after each project summary, and summarize key field data collected at each data point. The numbering of each data point is based on the site Project ID at which the data point was sampled, with subsequent data points numbered in ascending order as they were collected downstream. Thus, the most upstream data point collected on each site is [Project ID]-1, the next data point downstream is [Project ID]-2, etc.
6
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X X
5,6 5,6 4 2 4 9 2 3 1
X X X
X X
10 10
X
7 8 8
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Visited - Potential Project for EEP 5 Not Visited - Ruled out by mapping or drive-by 2 Visited - Potential Project for NRCS, SWCD or other 4 Not Visited - Refused entry or contact attempts failed 3 Visited - No project *Viewed from road, appears to be good project but no landowner response **Proposed type of restoration is based on GIS analysis, rather than field data Sites highlighted in yellow are those summarized at the end of this report
7
Fig Num
X X X
Wetland Restoration
P P I&P P I I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P I P P P P I&P P P I I I&P P P P
Stormwater BMPs
Stream Status*
3661 11100 13000 2600 5550 2300 3200 2900 7593 3900 2152 2411 3613 3169 1329 2685 2000 4200 3018 2400 2300 2438 1822 2193 2080 2491 2596 3849 2567 3220 2407 3447 4983 5279 2604 3790
Livestock BMPs
Length of Stream (feet)
5 23 18 5 9 4 7 3 1 1 6 8 10 9 7 13 2 3 6 11 4 3 2 4 5 4 4 11 2 2 6 10 9 3 4 6
Agricultural BMPs
Number of Parcels
5 19 17 4 7 4 4 2 2 1 4 3 11 9 4 10 2 4 6 5 2 2 2 4 5 3 3 10 2 1 6 8 8 3 4 5
Buffer Enhancement
Number of Owners
Cove Creek Frasheur Creek Greasy Creek Old Boney Creek Morgan Creek & UT UT Cove UT Bills UT Morgan Harris Creek Wood Branch Cove Creek Cove Creek Harris Creek Cove Creek Cedar Creek Otter Creek UT Bills** Bills Creek** Cedar Creek Stone Creek** UT Cedar** Youngs Crk & UT ** UT West Fork Cove Taylor Creek Otter Creek Bright Branch Cedar Creek Morgan Creek Morgan Creek* UT Old Boney UT Otter UT Otter UT Bills West Fork Cove Creek Chalk Creek & UT Bills Creek
Buffer Restoration
Stream Name
COVE06 COVE09 COVE11 COVE07 COVE03 COVE07 BILL01 COVE03 COVE08 COVE01 COVE07 COVE11 COVE08 COVE07 CEDR05 COVE12 BILL03 BILL03 CEDR07 COVE11 CEDR07 CEDR08 COVE02 CEDR03 COVE13 COVE02 CEDR05 COVE03 COVE06 COVE07 COVE13 COVE13 BILL01 COVE03 COVE14 BILL01
Stream Preservation
Sub-watershed ID
11 18 20 25 28 29 33 34 53 54 15 16 21 38 9 26 4 5 10 27 50 52 1 2 3 6 8 22 24 30 31 32 35 37 41 45
Stream Enhancement
Project ID
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Stream Restoration
Group
Table 1. List of Sites after GIS Analysis and Their Potential as Projects
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
This page left intentionally blank
8
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Table 2. Landowner Information Project_Id 4 4 5 5 5 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 25
STREAM_NAM Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Bills Creek Bills Creek Bills Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Frasheur Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Greasy Creek Old Boney Creek Old Boney Creek Old Boney Creek Old Boney Creek
PIN 0663006213930000 0663004247490000 0663004131200000 0663003049120000 0663003117390000 0686000397990000 0676-00-97-3935 0686-00-05-9837 0686002257050000 0686001288770000 0686001288770000 0686-00-06-6785 0686-00-15-7158 0686-00-15-7158 0686-00-13-7604 0676-00-69-6312 0686-00-05-7184 0686-00-04-6116 0686-00-14-6564 0686-00-07-3156 0676-00-67-9958 0676-00-99-0169 0686-00-16-4282 0686-00-16-4282 0686-00-06-2893 0676-00-53-9719 0676-00-56-5847 0676008200930000 0676-00-75-1478 0686000296010000 0676-00-44-3114 0676009238750000 0676007291560000 0676-00-72-3657 0676-00-72-1859 0676-00-35-7960 0676-00-37-7819 0676-00-44-9598 0686000240380000 0686002106020000 0676-00-63-7284 0676009273850000 0686006388770000 0686008329940000 0686007428400000 0686007493370000
NAME1
NAME2
ADDR1
9
ADDR2
CITY
STATE
ZIP
Cove Creek Project Atlas June 2007
Project_Id 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 50 50 50 50 52 52 52 53 54
STREAM_NAM Stone Creek Stone Creek Stone Creek Stone Creek Stone Creek Stone Creek Stone Creek Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Youngs Creek Youngs Creek Youngs Creek Harris Creek Wood Branch
PIN 0686006056050000 0686007037660000 0686006083860000 0685008804770000 0685008804770000 0685007989900000 0685008937570000 0697-00-77-7255 1607-00-06-3862 1607-00-06-3862 0697-00-98-6754 0697-00-89-8247 1607-00-16-7154 1607-00-07-2646 0697-00-97-8430 1607-00-18-4331 0686-00-86-1188 0686-00-85-4848 0686-00-76-1211 0686-00-76-0592 0653029731610000 0653028502550000 0653028508700000 0653027784520000 0653029664350000 0698-00-72-1558 0698-00-61-9732 0674002942250000 0675001064270000 0675001071670000 0674002908580000 0664007504180000 0664007652870000 0664007600310000 0686-00-28-4742 0688-00-77-8666
NAME1
NAME2
ADDR1
10
ADDR2
CITY
STATE
ZIP
MADISON Dill
ing h
am C
re e k
m Ar
YANCEY
ro st
ng
Cr
k ee
BURKE er Riv
Morganton South Muddy Creek
C
a wb ata
Marion
MCDOWELL
Montreat
§ ¦ ¨ 40
Old Fort
BUNCOMBE Black Mountain
t u 221
Creek
t u
ad Bro
74
r
Co Ce
Bi ll
Chimney Rock
k
da
r Creek
Cove Creek HU 03050105040040
sC r eek
Lake Lure
t u
ro
t u
B nd
ea
er
co Se
64
64
dR
74
r ive
")
Ruth Rutherfordton Spindale
Bills Creek HU 03050105040050
Hendersonville
RUTHERFORD
r
t u
ve Ri
a Bro
9
HENDERSON
ad
Cl
ee Cr
Riv
ve
9
")
Cedar Creek HU 03050105040060
C re e
k
Crooked
Bostic Forest City
Hendersonville
POLK Flat Rock
§ ¦ ¨ 26
Saluda
Columbus Br oa
Tryon
TN
NC 0
GA
SC
º
2.5
Miles
dR
ive
r
FIGURE A VICINITY MAP 5
Cove Creek Local Watershed Plan Bills Creek, Cedar Creek and Cove Creek McDowell, Buncombe and Rutherford Counties North Carolina
MCDOWELL
CEDR02
an Br
d
gar H
CEDR05
COVE02
F st We
ill R d
ar
ork v Co
RUTHERFORD
MCDOWELL
COVE05
k
Ell io
ree eC
CEDR04
Mud Cut Rd
COVE03
tC re e k
Br idg e Wilk ers
Cedar Creek HU as Fr
Harris Creek
Mil lC
ree k
COVE04 Br an ch
on W ay
Ma rk
sC
ee Cr ur he
y as re G
BUNCOMBE h Long Branc
Ck .
COVE12
Otter C
d
St on e
COVE11
reek
ch
Wa sh Bra n
Taylor Creek
Coon Branch
COVE13
SR#1316
h Gringer Branc
Cr
ee k
s ter
SR #1 31 4
in Pa
COVE14
r Rd
CEDR07
ee k
SR#1328
e Park
CEDR04
un R
01 #10 SR
CEDR05
Cov e
Rd .
He mp hill R
Cedar Creek
Ha m
Tig ht R
Cr
Cr ee k
Rd
or ga n
d
Sa lly
CEDR01
Ga
Cree
k Rd
Bil ls
SR#1 31
COVE15
Cove Creek HU
reek
Cr
2
ee k
Rd
Cove C
Buffa lo Cr eek R d
Ceda r
d pR
CEDR06
ey
Lake Lure CEDR10
Cr
SR #1
334
CEDR09
Pi n
Rd
SR#13 11
e Cov
CEDR08
ee k
COVE16
RUTHERFORD
SR #1
33
3
BILL03 Old Mi ll R d
BILL02 Ho we ll
Rd
Ho o
Dr
ve r
Freem an Tow n Rd
Rd
#1 SR
BILL04 Ra in
reek Bills C
bo w
33
7
Rd
d
Lilli an
ve Co
ree kR
d. Winesap R
BILL01 Bu ffa lo C
Legend Ra pid s
Shoreline Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream
BILL05 Rd
t u 74
Mc En
Highest Moderately High
1183
Moderately Low
C ov
BILL01
BILL06
eek
64
Functional Ranking
e Cr
t u
ree kR
SubWatersheds
SR#
lo Sh oals
Rd
Bills Creek HU Buf falo C
14-digit HU
tire
Lake Lure
Buffa
d
Han ey's
M
COVE07
Rd.
k ee Cr
Br an ch
h nc CEDR02
Greasy Ck.
Ch al k
a Br
COVE10
COVE06
Mon tford
ne Ca
n Ledford L
COVE09
ree k
Rd
k COVE08
Cedar Creek HU
Rockhouse Rd
CEDR03
Shell Rd
t-S u
COVE01
Rd
For
ch
Old
BUNCOMBE
Hi ll
ree kR
Su g
rC
ht
Ce da
ig Br
rt Rd Old Fo
Lowest
Lake Lure
Bills Creek HU
POLK McDOWELL
RUTHERFORD 0
º
0.5
Miles
FIGURE B SUBWATERSHED FUNCTION
1
Cove Creek Local Watershed Plan Bills Creek, Cedar Creek and Cove Creek McDowell, Buncombe and Rutherford Counties North Carolina
´
t u 70
OLD FORT
§ ¦ ¨
§ ¦ ¨
§ ¦ ¨ 40
40
40
54
6
1 CE D R0
25 COVE11
CEDR06
13
07 DR CE
CEDR04
7
VE CO
R0 5
28
COVE07
6
COVE12
E03 CO V
4
20
CEDR03 CE D
3
2
0 VE CO
5
9
CEDR02
29
0 VE
COVE10
53
08
CO
BUNCOMBE
CO VE 04
VE CO
18
1
2
COVE05
0 VE
MCDOWELL
V
34
CO
CO
1 E0
COVE1427
50
16 VE
RUTHERFORD
2
BIL
4 BILL0
9
BIL
10
5
BILL 0
4
L03
CHIMNEY ROCK VILLAGE
52
C O
L0 1
CEDR10
33
CEDR09
8
CEDR08
COVE15
BIL
L0 5
64
BI LL
t u
06
LAKE LURE
Project numbers inserted to provide spatial context. (AJL, October 20, 2011)
Legend
Map Pages
POLK
Potential Projects
RUTHERFORDTON
Streams SubWatersheds Municipal Boundary
0
1
2
4 Miles
INDEX MAP