20130513 Ver 1_401 Application_20130513

Unhed Stafts Departnaelft of Agricuftwe
lo0w N RCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
North Carolina Area III
208 Malloy Street, Cashwell Oflice Park Suite C
Goldsboro NC, 27534
[phone]
20 1305 13
SUBGECT: ENG — PRIVATEER WRP Design Plans DATE: April 18,2013
Bladen/Cumberland County, North Carolina
TO: Emily Hughes FELE CODE: 2 10
USACE
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington NC 28403
Enclosed you will find a copy of the "ISSUE FOR PERMITTING" plan set for the Privateer Farms WRP
tract. This is the stream restoration tract we meet on in Bladen County on April 12, 2012. Everything
that we discussed that day on site is within the package to the best of my knowledge. Enclosed are the
following items:
One (1) set of Privateer Issued For Final Review/Permitting
One (1) Pre-Construction Notification Form
One (1) Project Narrative
Please let me know if you need any additional assistance with getting this project approved for a NW 27.
T hhank y
v 4
J Jo t
onathan Hinkle, PE
Civil Engineer
cc: Don Riley, Acting-ASTC for Water Resources (without attachments)
Renee Melvin, ASTC for Field Operations (without attachments)
Terri Ruch, State Engineer (without attachments)
Dean Bingham, Area III Supervisory Engineer (without attachments)
Bill Edwards, Biologist (without attachments)
File (with attachments)
MAY 1 0 2013
Helping People Help the Land
An Equal Opportunity PwMer and Employer
e19

United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
North Carolina Area III
208 Malloy Street, Cashwell Office Park Suite C
Goldsboro NC, 27534
[phone]
SUBGECT: ENG — PRIVATEER WRP Design Plans DATE: April 18,2013
Bladen/Cumberland County, North Carolina
TO: Emily Hughes
USACE
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington NC 28403
FILE CODE: 2 10
Enclosed you will find a copy of the "ISSUE FOR PERMITTING" plan set for the Privateer Farms WRP
tract. This is the stream restoration tract we meet on in Bladen County on April 12, 2012. Everything
that we discussed that day on site is within the package to the best of my knowledge. Enclosed are the
following items:
One (1) set of Privateer Issued For Final Review/Permitting
One (1) Pre -Construction Notification Form
One (1) Project Narrative
Please let me know if you need any additional assistance with getting this project approved for a NW 27.
Thank you,
Jonathan Hinkle, PE
Civil Engineer
cc: Don Riley, Acting-ASTC for Water Resources (without attachments)
Renee Melvin, ASTC for Field Operations (without attachments)
Terli Ruch, State Engineer (without attachments)
Dean Bingham, Area III Supervisory Engineer (without attachments)
Bill Edwards, Biologist (without attachments)
File (with attachments)
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

on
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
N Yes
El No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
N 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular F-1 Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F-1 401 Water Quality Certification - Express F-1 Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
N Yes El No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
N Yes El No
1 f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
El Yes
H No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
El Yes
H No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
El Yes
No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
NRCS WRP EASEMENT 66453207004K2
2b.
County:
Bladen/Cumberland
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Jerome, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
NA
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Johnson & Valentine
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
06407 page 396
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
512 Dandridge Dr
3e.
City, state, zip:
Fayetteville NC 28303
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Easement Holder
4b.
Name:
Don Riley, Acting Assistant State Conservationist Easements & Water Resources
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service
4d.
Street address:
4407 Bland Road Suite 117
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh NC 27609
4f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 873 -2103
4g.
Fax no.:
919 - 873 -2156
4h.
Email address:
don.riley @nc.usda.gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Jonathan Hinkle
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service
5c.
Street address:
208 Malloy Street, Cashwell Office Park Suite 'C'
5d.
City, state, zip:
Goldsboro NC 27534
5e.
Telephone no.:
919- 751 -0976
5f.
Fax no.:
919- 751 -9876
5g.
Email address:
jonathan.hinkle @nc.usda.gov
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0470 -26 -6317
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.819 Longitude: - 78.73938
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
3,317 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Indian Creek 18 -42 -1
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C - 09/01/1974
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
This tract is /was designated as prior converted (PC) land in accordance with the Food Security Act. The acreage was in
agriculture production up until enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program. The Farm Bill requires all NRCS held
easements within the WRP program to have hydrology restoration to the maximum extent practical.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Restore wetland hydrology.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Project involves plugging ditches with earthen berms to simulate a pre- ditched wetland conditions. The project also
includes some micro /macro topography with the creation of sloughes. These sloughes are intended to mimic shallow
headwater depression areas which existed prior to land smoothing or channelization. The project also involves the
restoration of Indian Creek through a Rosgen Priority II channel restoration. Construction equipment would include but
not limited to hydraulic excavators, tractor scrapers, dozers, and farm tractors. See attached Design Report for further
information.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes El No Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: NRCS has labeled the land as Prior Converted
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P)
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
or Temporary (T)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P)
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
or Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
WCS /Culvert Install
Indian Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
20
60
S2 ❑ P ®T
Culvert
Removal /Replacement
Indian Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
20
30
S3 ®P ❑ T
Culvert Install
Indian Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
20
50
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: The impacts listed above are for installation of water control structures and pipe replacement. S1 is an impact
associated with installing two water control structures in the boundary canal, this is shown on sheet 16 WCS #5 & #6. S2 is for
the removal of an existing culvert as shown on sheet 46. S3 is the installation of a culvert for a crossing as the project consist
of realigning the upstream channel so the existing culvert crossing must be replaced, this impact is also shown on sheet 46.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
— Permanent
(P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then com Iete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
K Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P)
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
required?
T
B1 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Perimeter ditch shall remain open to minimize disturbance to all aquatic organisms during construction.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Please see erosion and sediment control practices on the design sheets.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: NA
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6.
Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a.
Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g.
If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h.
Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
<2 %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The purpose of the project is restoration,
impervious percentage is below the regulated threshold <24 %.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
NA
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Page ] 1 of 11
P N Form — Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

PROJECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Project:
PRIVATEER FARMS
Wetland Reserve Project
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
Issue: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW /PERMITTING
Date: 04/17/2013
Date: 04/17/2013
Issue: FOR REVIEW /PERMITTING
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
BACKGROUND
The Privateer Farm, easement 66453207004K2, was enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) in 2007. The
tract is bisected by Cumberland and Bladen Counties, approximately 16 miles from Fayetteville, North Carolina.
The easement is approximately 3,317 acres and located within the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030005010 which lies within the Cape Fear River Basin. The site is bordered to the south by a Boy Scout Camp;
east by Bushy Lake State Natural Area; north and west by farm land (see Appendix Map 01 for the Overall Site
Map).
The site lies within an area of North Carolina that is dominated by Carolina Bays in the upper coastal plain.
There are four of these bays located within the easement, three have been significantly manipulated and the
fourth has been altered slightly. Prior to an easement being placed on the property the farm had approximately
1,500 acres of tillable land and 40 poultry barns. The site had drainage infrastructure implemented during the
mid to late 1970s and early 1980s; it is expected that the Farm Bill of 1984 is what stopped the draining and
clearing activities. This drainage infrastructure included two perimeter ditches along the east and west portion of
the property and also had two canals through the center of the farm. The average dimensions of these canals are
20 foot wide by 6 foot depth; throughout the year average depth of flow is approximately one (1) foot. During the
2011 hydro period NRCS observed flows less than six (6) inches within some of the drainage network; also during
larger rain events a flow depth of five (5) foot have been observed. Prior to the site being drained NRCS staff
members have documented that site was comprised of a multi- threaded stream, hardwood swamp forest. It is
believed these streams had varying depths from approximately four to six (4 -6) inches and as deep as twelve (12)
inches within the shallow sections. The streams had varying bed profile having very shallow sometimes
relatively steep flow (given the valley falls one foot in a mile) areas and deep pools created from wind thrown
logs or debris jambs. Several former NRCS employees who lived in the area noted large Bald Cypress (Taxodium
distichum) and Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) within the area that grown men couldn't reach
around. One of the goals of the project is to restore this habitat back to the pre- disturbed condition; however,
other properties drain through this network making a complete Rosgen priority I impossible do to hydraulic -
trespass issues.
The site has an adjacent easement (approximately 430 acres) on the overall tract (approximately 5,600 acres) held
by North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Umbrella Bank. The restoration consists of filling an
existing main farm drainage way and completing a stream restoration project.
The easement based on historic topography from USGS QUAD maps (Jerome, Durant, Roseboro 1959) and visual
reports from NRCS staff (who view the site prior, during, and after drainage) is comprised of a multi- threaded
channel stream network and several Carolina Bays. See Appendix Map 02 for the Historic Topography Map.
Based on eye - witness accounts the site review the sand hills where dominated by Longleaf Pines ( Pinus palustrus)
and the wetlands where dominated by Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Hardwoods (Oak, Green Ash, Sweet
Gum, Red Maple) and, Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). The predominate soil ( >80 %) on the site is
Croatan Muck which has the following characteristics (NRCS Soil Survey):
CT — Croatan Muck (Loamy, siliceous, thermic Terric Haplosaprists)
Typical Profile
0 to 34 inches: Muck
34 to 40 inches: Mucky Sandy Loam
40 to 70 inches: Sandy Clay Loam
70 to 80 inches: Sandy Clay Loam
Frequency of Ponding: Frequent
Page 1 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

Setting
PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
Landform: Pocosins
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent Material: Woody Organic Material
According to the State Soil Scientist Croatan is designated as a rarely flooded soil however he stated this should
be changed based on what he has seen within similar landforms. He has observed these soils being between
frequently — flooded and permanently flooded.
In 2009 John Ann Shearer, with the US Fish and Wildlife, performed a field investigation for threatened and
endangered plant species on the tract. Some of the species of concern that the agency identified were: White
Wicky (Kalmia cuneata), Southern Sheepkill (Kalmia caroliniana). These two species are not listed as threatened and
endangered, but are on the North Carolina Watch List of rare plants.
Photos
Photos of Indian Creek
Conditions
Photos of Indian Creek Existing Conditions
Photos of Existing Field Ditches
Page 2 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
PROJECT GOALS
The purpose of the project is to restore the easement in accordance with NRCS WRP Program Policy and
Guidance which states:
The purpose of WRP is to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on eligible private or Tribal lands
while maximizing wildlife habitat benefits.
Program Objectives
• Habitat for migratory birds and other wetland - dependent wildlife, including threatened and
endangered species and species of concern.
• Protection and improvement of water quality.
Attenuation of floodwater.
• Recharge of ground water.
• Protection and enhancement of open space and aesthetic quality.
• Protection of native flora and fauna contributing to the Nation's natural heritage.
• Contribution to educational and scientific scholarship.
The wetland, upland, and other habitat components of the WRP area will be restored, as defined
below, to the maximum extent practicable. NRCS will work with the landowner, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and other conservation partners to restore the native plant communities and
hydrologic regimes that maximize the habitat benefits for wetland - dependent wildlife in a cost -
effective manner.
■ Definition of Restoration
• The WRP regulation defines restoration as "the rehabilitation of degraded or lost habitat in a
manner such that —
• The original vegetative plant community and hydrology are, to the extent
practicable, reestablished; or
• A community different from what likely existed prior to degradation of the site is
established. The hydrology and native self - sustaining vegetation being established
will substantially replace original habitat functions and values and does not involve
more than 30 percent of the wetland restoration area.
• This flexibility exists to do the following:
• Enable NRCS to assist landowners with meeting their wetland and wildlife habitat
goals.
• Provide for a full array of varying wetland conditions that existed in the local area,
even if they cannot be shown to have existed on a particular site.
• Conduct restoration activities that provide valuable wildlife habitat and wetland
functions in locations where it is impossible to establish the original community or
hydrologic regime.
• Information on historic, original, and alternative communities should be documented to help
inform restoration and enhancement design considerations.
• When at -risk, threatened and endangered, and species of concern or unique, rare, or
declining habitat types are used for ranking purposes, an appropriate extent of the
restoration will be targeted to provide suitable habitat for those species or to restore the
identified habitat types. The restoration of these special- status species habitats and unique
habitat types may be part of the restoration of the original or alternative communities.
As outlined by policy, the goal of the project is to restore the habitat and community to the maximum extent
practical. NRCS staff along with the landowner, US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Wildlife Resource
Page 3 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
Commission, Michael Baker Corp (Engineering Firm who completed the NCEEP work on this tract), and US Fish
and Wildlife, developed the restoration plan for this WRP easement.
HYDRAULICS
The hydraulics of the restored stream, proposed culverts, and proposed water control structures were analyzed
for capacity and safety in accordance with the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) and then checked for
recurrence intervals exceeding guidance in the FOTG. Listed below are a few of the NRCS standards that have an
aspect within this restoration project.
FOTG — Standard 395 — Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (Job Approval Authority Class I)
Maintain, improve or restore physical, chemical and biological functions of a stream, and its associated
riparian zone, necessary for meeting the life history requirements of desired aquatic species.
Be based on a site - specific assessment of local hydrology, channel morphology, geomorphic setting, fish
and other aquatic species present, riparian and floodplain conditions, and any habitat limitations
including water quantity and quality, food supply, and restriction of upstream and downstream
movement of aquatic species using the NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, Version 2 or
comparable evaluation tool.
Manage adjoining riparian areas to support a diverse vegetation community suitable for the site
conditions and desired ecological benefits. Such benefits include stream temperature moderation,
recruitment of instream large wood and fine organic matter, input of riparian nutrients, habitat for
terrestrial insects and other riparian dependent species, streambank integrity, and filtration of
contaminants from surface runoff.
Design in- stream structures to be compatible with the dynamic nature of streams and rivers, facilitate
natural geomorphic recovery when possible, and minimize disruption of recreational and other
traditional uses of the stream corridor.
FOTG — Standard 578 — Stream Crossing
Design culverts and bridges consistent with sound engineering principles and adequate for the use, type
of road, or class of vehicle. Design culverts and bridges with sufficient capacity to convey the design flow
and transported material without appreciably altering the stream flow characteristics.
Size culverts to convey flows without overtopping the crossing, or the 2 -yr, 24 -hr peak discharge,
whichever is less. Crossings shall be adequately protected so that out -of -bank flows safely bypass
without damaging the structure or eroding the streambanks or the crossing fill. Additional culverts may
be used at various elevations to maintain terrace or floodplain hydraulics and water surface elevations.
FOTG — Standard 587 — Structure for Water Control (Job Approval Authority Class VI)
Structures shall be designed on an individual job basis, or applicable NRCS standard drawings shall be
adapted to meet site conditions and functional requirements. Each structure shall be designed for the
drainage area it controls.
Culverts and bridges shall be designed in accordance with Stream Crossing, Code 578.
All water control structures that impound water shall be checked for flotation and seepage and shall be
installed as "island" type structures.
Page 4 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
When installed for facilitating restoration or enhancement of wetland hydrology, or facilitating
development or management of shallow water wildlife habitat, the criteria for Wetland Restoration, Code
657, Wetland Enhancement, Code 658, or Shallow Water Development and Management, Code 646, shall
be followed as appropriate to the purpose.
FOTG — Standard 646 — Shallow Water Development and Management
To provide habitat for wildlife such as shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, mammals, fish, reptiles,
amphibians and other species that require shallow water for at least a part of their life cycle.
An adequate method for dewatering is required when water levels must be artificially lowered in order
to produce desired habitat condition.
Water levels must be able to be maintained between 1 to 18 inches in depth over the majority of the area
during periods of planned inundation. An exception to this criterion is made for floodplain habitats
connected to stream channels where water depths of up to 6 feet provide habitat for native fish species
that use these habitats during periods of inundation associated with high stream flows.
Criteria for Waterfowl Habitat - Areas planned to provide waterfowl feeding and resting habitat shall be
designed to facilitate gradual flooding of areas containing food plants to an average depth of 6 to 10
inches.
Criteria for Shorebird Habitat - Areas planned to provide shorebird habitat shall have exposed mudflats
and areas with 1 to 4 inches of water during seasonal periods of shorebird use.
FOTG — Standard 657 — Wetland Restoration
Timing and level setting of water control structures, if needed, will be based on the actions needed to
maintain a close approximation of the original, natural hydrologic conditions.
The original natural water supply should be used to reestablish the site's hydrology to approximate the
hydrologic conditions of the wetland type. If this is not possible, an alternate natural or artificial water
supply can be used; however, these sources shall not be diverted from other wetland resources. If the
alternate water source requires energy inputs, these shall be estimated and documented in the restoration
plan.
To the extent technically feasible, reestablish macrotopography and /or microtopography. Use reference
sites within the local area to determine desired topographic relief. The location, size, and geometry of
earthen structures, if needed, shall match that of the original macrotopographic features to the extent
practicable.
The stream was analyzed with empirical methods for plan, pattern, and profile; Hec -RAS to determine upstream
impacts to water surface elevation (pre & post analysis), Hec -RAS for shear strength /stream power analysis, and
reference reach data. The culverts and water control structures where analyzed for inlet & outlet barrel control,
weir flow control, auxiliary spillway flow, and Hec -RAS for culvert sizing.
The existing stream is a straight farm canal that was dug in the mid to late 1970s, currently it would be classified
as a Rosgen 'G5' channel. The goal of this project is to restore the channelized stream to an 'E5' stream
throughout the project, and approximately 1,500 feet of a'D5'. The existing stream has vertical banks and
massive bank wasting; the stream profile has very little riffle pool sequence. The stream has been maintained
over the years as drainage canal, therefore the profile is dug at a uniform slope with vertical banks. Minimal
Page 5 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
vegetation is present to support these banks from eroding. The creation of a high width to depth ratio channel,
such as exists downstream and in the reference area, is one of the primary goals of this project.
Reference Reach Empirical Formulas
To calculate stream parameters, NRCS used graduate work performed by Brian Lowther, a student at North
Carolina State University under the direction of Dr. Greg Jennings. The work looked at stream parameters in
reference reach quality streams throughout piedmont and upper coastal plain sites in North Carolina. These
parameters where discretized in order to develop empirical relationships to calculate stream pattern, profile, and
plan relationships. (http: // repository. lib. ncsu .edu /ir/handle/1840.16/1211) Table 1: Reference Reach Empirical Formulas,
summarizes the parameters used to develop the channel characteristics of the stream. These values where
checked against a reference reach in Kelly, North Carolina. The watershed for the reference reach is drastically
larger than the project site's drainage area, however it is one of few streams within this part of the state that has
little drainage infrastructure in place.
Table 1: Reference Reach Empirical Formulas
Dimension Parameters
Area of Bankfull
Abkf=
41.49
s ft
Width of Bankfull
Wbkf=
25.25
ft
Depth at Bankfull
Dbkf=
1.64
ft
Area of pool
Ap001=
101.06
sqft
Pool Depth
Dp001=
3.56
ft
Pool Widt
Wp001=
27.85
ft
Bankful Max Depth
Dbkfmax=
2.51
1 ft
Pattern Parameters
Meander Length
Lm=
308.22
ft
Meander Belt Width
Wblt=
70.07
ft
Radius of Curvature
R,=
86.29
ft
Profile Parameters
Pool Spacing
Zp001=
74.15
ft
Pool Length
Lp001=
33.44
ft
Riffle Length
Lnf=
21.90
ft
Riffle Slope
Snf=
0.00340
ft /ft
Discharge
Discharge JL
Q=
28.72
cfs
Rating Curves
To check the stream parameters above, NRCS used graduate work performed by Barbara Doll, a student a North
Carolina State University under the direction of Dr. Greg Jennings. This work examines stream parameters
throughout North Carolinas three regions. The work has been published on the North Carolina Stream
Restoration Programs website for several years and used for design analysis by consultants on thousands of
stream designs. The values for this project are shown in
Table 2: Rating Curve Calculations.
Page 6 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
Table 2: Rating Curve Calculations
Area of Bankfull (Abg1)
71.1
sqft
Flow at Bankfull (Qb1d)
93.7
cfs
Width of Bankfull (Wb1d)
26.1
ft
Depth at bankfull (Dbg1)
2.7
ft
Based on Brian Lowether's research and reference reach observed conditions, the values calculated from the
rating curves seem to be higher than expected. The rating curve analysis was only used as a check, as it is the
opinion of the design engineer that these values exceed reference conditions. Designing with the values above
would have most likely promoted a lower width -depth ratio stream however it would have been incised based on
local characteristics /observations.
Hec -RAS Pre & Post Water Surface Analysis
Hec -RAS version 4.1.0 and the flow rates reported above were used to develop surface water profiles, and
analyze the possible impact of the restoration project. Cross - sections were developed using LIDAR data and
supplemented with surveyed information collected by NRCS and NCDOT photogrammetry data collected during
the design phase of the EEP project discussed earlier. See the appendix for a detailed output and comparison
table of pre and post restoration analysis.
During the Hec -RAS pre & post analysis, staff completed test runs using various culverts under Privateer Farm
Road. The existing culverts are three 36 inch high density polyethylene culverts. These culverts in the proposed
condition will handle a slightly larger drainage area, therefore resizing was analyzed. The culvert sizes used in
the analysis were: 10' x 3' Box Culvert, 7' x 4' Box Culvert, 10' x 4' Box Culvert, 9' x 4' Box Culvert, 8' x 4' Box
Culvert, and 5' x 4' Box Culvert. There was minimal impact from the various culvert size selected; however in
order to minimize the hydraulic disconnect from upstream to downstream a 7' x 5' box with one foot of natural
bed material was selected. Water surface elevation immediately upstream of the culvert in the design flow is 71.3
ft. The road deck in this location is 75 ft immediately above the pipes and slopes to 72.5 ft towards the east and
west. Therefore, the freeboard of this culvert is approximately 1.2 feet. However with the broad flat nature of the
adjacent floodplain and the infrequent nature of this road being used during a high flow event, it is believed this
is adequate as this is an improvement from the existing infrastructure.
Riser — Barrel Water Control Structure Calculations
Staff analyzed the water control structures for capacity using the flow rates computed from the hydrology section
of this report.
Water Control Structure #01
The water control structure at Big Island Road is used to recreate the largest Carolina Bay on the tract. The
drainage area for the structure will be made up of the former tillable land to the north of the bay and property
just above the northern powerline, approximately 1.5 square miles. From the Cypress Creek Formula this would
yield a design flow rate of 14 cfs. This was analyzed in a spreadsheet model for weir flow, barrel flow, and
auxiliary flow. At the design flow rate the structure would have approximately 0.5 feet of head (WSE @ 78.5).
The bay rim restoration (Pathway #1 Improvements) is at a design elevation of 80 ft, therefore at the design storm
this structure has 1.5 feet of freeboard.
Page 7 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

PROTECT NARRATIVE
WRP Easement #: 66453207004K2
Water Control Structures #02 through #06
The water control structures at Mainstem station 107 +15 are used to divert water from the existing drainage canal
into the restored stream and also have a bypass system. This bypass is made up of two structures that discharge
back into the existing channel. The bypass flow allows a safety factor in case of a repair, allowing the site to
stabilize prior to any large events, and prevent blockages caused by nuisance animals. The drainage area for the
structure will be made up of the large watershed as shown on the attached maps, approximately 11.1 square
miles. Using the Cypress Creek Formula this would yield a design flow rate of 74 cfs, SCS Method 118 cfs, and
bankfull flow rate of 29 cfs. As a conservative estimate, staff used the 118 cfs flow rate from the SCS method to
determine head on these structures. Data was analyzed in a spreadsheet model for weir flow, barrel flow, and
auxiliary flow. At the design flow rate the structure would have approximately 2.6 feet of head (WSE @ 72.2).
The road under which these barrels pass is at elevation 76 ft; therefore at the design storm this structure has 3.8
feet of freeboard.
Water Control Structures #07 and #08
Two water control structures at the southern most portion of this project are used to develop shallow water
habitat creation. These structures are intended to allow the landowner to remove the boards at the northern
structure and allow water to flow into the shallow water area from offline cell #4 while the boards are closed on
the southern structure. This feature will only function during a bankfull plus flow event. The landowner will
then close the boards at the northern structure to hold the water within the shallow water area.
Modelins Conclusions
NRCS engineering staff used experience on previous projects when selecting the appropriate drainage areas, flow
rates, and models. The Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) states standard design criteria; however, staff
engineers analyzed various models and flow rates in order to determine if there would be any impact to
upstream stake holders. The selection of the 2 year return period storm using an SCS design method was selected
in accordance with standards and the flow was computed using Hec -HMS as outlined above. This selection
produced no adverse impacts to the upstream stake holders. The higher 2 year USGS Regression flow rate was
then checked. This also produced no adverse impact from existing to proposed conditions. To summarize the
model, this project has a broad flat floodplain. After bankfull flow the channel changes to "out of bank" with
sluggish low slope channel characteristics; typical of eastern North Carolina streams. The broad flat floodplain
will be temporarily inundated until tailwater relief is established and downstream water surface elevation begins
to drain towards the Cape Fear.
NRCS selected the Cypress Creek flow rates to analyze the hydraulic capacities of the water control structures as
this is a method that has historically been successful in this area. Through various NRCS programs EQIP, WRP,
CRP, CREP, and WHIP several hundred water control structures are analyzed with this method every year. The
equations calculate a lower flow rate than the SCS Method or USGS regression; however the equations were
derived for applications very similar to the Privateer Project. After the hydraulic capacities were analyzed from a
rating table, staff checked to ensure that each structure had approximately one (1) foot of free board and then an
additional half a foot (0.5) for wave action.
Page 8 of 8
Date 02/28/2013
Issue: FORPERMITTENG

416000 000000 412000000000 408000000000 404000
=7— -
a
1
400000 396000
392000
Af 4L
bp
r � ' RL
VP
ti
P
If
Al
ti i
r.
s
r
I o
IL
388000
4
REVIEWED BY: JDH
mer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS.
W. . ,
384000
AJJ
1�
'.0
380000
h
- r
— — r
- r
Legend �!
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
i� I V RC S
United States Department cf Agriculture
Natural ResnurcesConservatior Service
208 Malloy St
Goldsboro, NC 27534
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/
v
�£
u
r
io
—
v
PROGRAM
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
.o
2010 ORTHO IMAGE
PROJECT:
PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
c
LOCATION:
Cumberland County, NC
L
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
MAP #
1 OF 1
Feet
`o z
DATA:
Upon Request
3
a
Scale: 1:30,000 1 inch= 2,500 feet
DATE:
02/28/2013
PREPARED BY: JDH
388000
4
REVIEWED BY: JDH
mer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS.
W. . ,
384000
AJJ
1�
'.0
380000
h
- r
— — r
- r
Legend �!
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
i� I V RC S
United States Department cf Agriculture
Natural ResnurcesConservatior Service
208 Malloy St
Goldsboro, NC 27534
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/

4 x,6000 000000 412000
o
o
o
o
0
O
O
00
0
N
0
0
O
M
0
O
N
O
O
O
O
0
O
N
0
O
O
r,
0
N
0
O
O
c
0
N
O
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
Q0
O
N
a
0
a
coo E
0=
N
Z
416
b
.0
c
2
c
i
408000
—: ;;; � { V [►■ I I
�� b
1
404000
400000
396000
392000
I
t
388000
384000
380000
f/ r
=f ~� °P
Nk
its -'�� � '` , �.�-• ,� � .._ � .7
ti�r� �__ ��,�j � �• �—, r I , ti
—" ++
{ + I `.`'� .r 1 sYy I V Al -� �Ir' � f \ r' +1 t 11k 1�
ll ``• �' r„� 11 •r 4 11 fly Jr IF
IF
co I—
JI �''+ 1 I f . �� J, ;��.��� I J, i l I 7 J w •• �f x` 11 r I + + / Q' + ti. �Y� w V�/� !
rte,- , ,
J
I I I 1I I r- fI
jf I
1 14
41 4
14 4
L_ � 1 . �._ 1 1. - - - -L — ALL. � A. — , . � - -- f - �- L --Z � 1 1 �-
—� — —
�T } r ' s 1'
Al i
41 16, AD
Ck 4.90 � 11
Ito 1 Tk '' y' 1.4__ _-__- , 'I'l I �� �,���' ,r ----� �• I ' 3 _�` �•� 1 Cii
y_ '` { l� I •c`� y I j ';� }' rid } ! ! •.1 �I' �1Yj ' T ' +i T
I I 3I it
�L s
mfr
� � � 1 � ! � I + � � '��r � � I��C� tll} I k
I i r� "� l
q r
i � r I �
I � I rr� r 1► J �I + II I � �JL_�_— I � � � 1 �y r�, �' I � � .� y��
} I • V !;Fi � r'� it ��
Legend
O
O
O
00
O
N
0
0
O
M
0
N
�1 1
14
i
I � I
III
I� EASEMENT BOUNDARY
1 I� %
1959 CREEK CENTERLINES
r
HISTORIC TOPO
PROGRAM
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
USDA
= u i �I V RCS
PROJECT:
PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
Dnited States Departme nt. ofAgriculture
Na[uraI Resources Conservation Service
LOCATION:
Cumberland County, NC
z�
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet
MAP #
1 OF 1
208 Malloy St
Goldsboro, NC 27534
DATA:
Upon Request
a
http: / /www.nc.nres.usda.gov/
Scale: 1:30,000 f inch =2,500 feet
DATE:
02/28/2013
PREPARED BY: JDH
REVIEWED BY: JDH
Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS.
O
O
O
O
0
O
N
0
O
O
r,
0
N
O
O
O
0
N
O
O
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
Q0
O
N
D
D
D
n
0
N
V

°O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
N
396000
,yam,. - j ��- ��,��`'■ f I r
r
OFFLINE CELL #1
I
ill' ,• , �� � � �� " 41
M
392000 388000
-_ - `� 537 ,�` .ry�� .^•; •�•
V.
.;•. - s OFFLINE CELL #3 Tav
F
i
WIN
MAINSTEM
_ .. - ..
NR - z.
�k x*'16'
dw
_= y
PROGRAM WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
PROPOSED CONDITIONS PROJECT: PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
LOWER TRACT LOCATION: Cumberland County, NC
0 400 800 1,600 2,400 MAP # 1 OF 1
z Feet
DATA: Upon Request
3
Scale: 1:9,600 1 inch = 800 feet DATE: 02/28/2013 PREPARED BY: JDH REVIEWED BY: JDH
Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS
�-
['l O
r °o
o
N
1R �
_l
O
O
O
PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS #2
O
Legend °
PROPOSED CONTOURS
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
usDA 4 N RCS
Uni2ed States Department of Agricuhure
Natural Resources Conservation Service
208 Malloy St
Goldsboro, NC 27534
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/

a
r,
408000
404000
'�
_''
0- ft -
5 i {
PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS #1
r
PROGRAM WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
PROPOSED CONDITIONS PROJECT: PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
UPPER TRACT LOCATION: Cumberland County, NC
0 400 800 1,600 2,400 MAP # 1 OF 1
z Feet
DATA: Upon Request
3
Scale: 1:9,600 1 inch = 800 feet DATE: 02/28/2013 PREPARED BY: JDH REVIEWED BY: JDH
Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS
400000000000
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
19 r,
r,
1 o
.Owl` ',� -W f
Legend
PROPOSED CONTOURS
a ` EASEMENT BOUNDARY
LsDA
4 NR5
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
208 Malloy St
Goldsboro, NC 27534
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/
0
0
0
r,
0
N

Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS
fJiL+ T. , , .ter
+ f —. }'•'
k • #,yam w
.L _.i -fir ■1
�y `{
L
.`
,. 1 , w c
IE
*
Id
NCL
'J r*
'-
i 4'
T i .� ti' _ , i; a
•y�e�"`,�
••3.i
`
`
L k�
f t � X �ti
— r`•.�"if -' L' h 5 L 'y'1�xr` yq� t•
1W L
i, • r - tiL4ti
Fk i
L 37{1} yy
F
t t
- I•� -' . -� ** �J'
4 1 ;I.,
. }
` Rte•
rf 'i
.L'�•" �Jry+ ••
.• X ,
-
* .
■�
I
1
%N
NL
P16
L:61
N
+
i LL ' �+
A'+ • 4�,- •r 'TF �•i
T—
" ?1-_i:L• �. ':. 4Yb .i i NA
.• {`,
,�i i
jjj�
RL
l
,{]�+
`O r
' k
1. L � -7 •1 •k �F�i'i
} ,• I, 1,�f i '
4• � ' F 1 � 1 *' y � • �,
wA I'
r4 iy} -- i�r Iy�
� r �7�' � } ; ti�Yti -
'� ISA �F .i ,i Lam[ I } '. t'' w���
r� ,�' {�k'} + _ �' •'� ' * '� [ . �
ti .- .,'•r�l�.
+� y:`i�Yf�7 il• +••1;y''LM�w��" 4
••,I r f f� J' -' iLLiyr a .t = ` ••••irL' -
*-
'F 1
i {. 4, I
�4
.rn� . tiF�� *�•,`]L-' 1 r
n L t r. ' ,J # , 1� •'i� ti ICY+
• �y- -•,
k5•��i}T'.
•�
i, �'•
L
r
}}'�•',til -fJ•'k jvy • R7'_
3 • k`f4 `` •���
Rik
4 } 7 r # #}�{ .k { I� �1 �'• t; f T_Y. •''1d+•
j}•Yr-
ry i1'1
Y� .•
- _
-•
�rlati ' 'r �1
x.•06 �' ik L- y ? 4 �• - ` � •
* { 6 w T
•L
`ti V1
'r' nv•vj.�}
••'
y
fir. _ y f
•f
�'.'7 i 3'�!L�iy'f. -' 5 y
Ji , r
'� r .. •M k S y
�•
}L + _ - -'. 11•
1 \ r ,�
J
'-Y'7
{' '
R !� , L1".y�•,}.:I' S' .. ' I , t
i .ijk{4¢F�„� 1'i ` ��
`
Y+� LJ {
�l
T • �bL } .7
"r }• 5�`�L._
`I• •fir
•
'r
II ' :V. l•.k• ..��� �.. yi i l'
'} 1� ice,
�• •*
- J
'�Y
i yy t .. l J l..' Y .�
•�L i7r; �,� iy' �# -iyti,
+ '
4S �� J
Iiip
}444•x++4
_ .r 1 {'L'- I i.
}r }" "r
,-
_ F !
I �1 ■ Y r J4 '7!
■•• - 'J'�k` ■ i.
Y
�.•.'4
L• -
1.', ,i,,. n. } �r I
,� +'
_
. 4
di
ro
�
• '' F •
.fir ll_kl •i
I
■ f • N � r y ,
vt '"�
. �, — ''
- -
�+
i y.
IL
•� =� , - : rF• •'ai —
:F wy }• 4� _
tiA I
5 '•' �' ti ! •i 1■ •
'`AY
?; r Li
•• •• •� • • •
,
�, r
+- I
k'r'" r` •£ Pik
.'•�J
NJ
VA I
1111L
op
J-�
+}
jti �' •r - i� .
r �• r *
'yam''
_ it r .•4
-
-I. �4
'F • • • •
,••: •
`,` 8 1� `+ J 4
l
+}
•
��
J,� •r 4 2�■_7�I `# �i lrY
'i - ,+r .yam
IV,
T ` 7�. y,� •� •• •.�, . ••
IY •'^"£ t •• •, L-F••
' } YR.1F
�• -TT _
-
�rv� I
' ,i
{ -
iT
•••
•�. •,
I
'�
+ k
�
•• •,.
sue'
•
DA■ DIGITAL ELEVATION •D
Cumberland County, NC
.,
• 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet
•
•: .
L..
Upon Request
.... .
Scale: 1:30,000 1 inch = 2,500 feet
02/28/2013
PREPARED BY: JDH
REVIEWED BY: JDH
Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS

412000 408000
404000 400000 396000 392000
388000
384000
Drained Freshwater Marsh Pocosin
o°o
COO
ONY
ti
ti
Cleared Riverene Swamp Forest
�
Drained Hardwood Flat Riverine Swamp Forest
O
0
v
Cutover Bottomland Hardwood
• -
N
AFL
-
tr
O
O
Cutover Depressional Swamp Forest
I
Drained Pine Flat
O
O
PROGRAM
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
U�� �I
RCS
.o
O�
N
PROJECT:
PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
t
O
N
i
c
LOCATION:
-
-
�
United 5tates Department ofAgriculture
t
LA
A
0 11000 21000 4,000 1,000
Feet
MAP #
1 OF 1
o
+ ■ �'
` •
4rw
o
o
DATA:
•
o
N
a
N
http: / /www.nc.nres.usda.gov/
•
O
n
J J"
O
n
n
O
- _
-
n
O
Ah-
. . . . .
I
--- — )
O
n
O
N
n
O
N
-� - Legend
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
Cutover Hardwood Flat
` Drained Pocosin
WETLAND TYPE
Cutover Headwater Swamp
Drained Riverene Swamp Forest
O
+
ML A Bottomland Hardwood
Cutover Pine Flat
Freshwater Marsh
°
w Cleared Bottomland Hardwood
Cutover Pocosin
Hardwood Flat
o
w'� Cleared Depressional Swamp Forest
Cutover Riverene Swamp Forest
Headwater Swamp
_ Cleared Hardwood Flat
Depressional Swamp Forest
Human Impacted
Cleared Headwater Swamp
Drained Bottomland Hardwood
Managed Pineland
_ Cleared Pine Flat
Drained Depressional Swamp Forest
Pine Flat
o°o
Cleared Pocosin
Drained Freshwater Marsh Pocosin
o°o
COO
ONY
ti
Cleared Riverene Swamp Forest
�
Drained Hardwood Flat Riverine Swamp Forest
O
0
v
Cutover Bottomland Hardwood
Drained Headwater Swamp
N
o
tr
Cutover Depressional Swamp Forest
Drained Pine Flat
v
PROGRAM
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
U�� �I
RCS
.o
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
PROJECT:
PRIVATEER FARMS TRACT
� I
c
LOCATION:
Cumberland County, NC
United 5tates Department ofAgriculture
t
Natural Resources Conservation Service
A
0 11000 21000 4,000 1,000
Feet
MAP #
1 OF 1
208 Malloy St
z
DATA:
Upon Request
Goldsboro, NC 27534
a
http: / /www.nc.nres.usda.gov/
` Scale: 1:24,000 f inch =2,000 feet DATE: 02/28/2013 PREPARED BY: JDH REVIEWED BY: JDH
a
Disclaimer: NRCS makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of geographic features shown on this map. Spatial accuracy of measurement provided by source agencies can be obtained by contacting NRCS.