HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081317 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20140514FOURTH ANNUAL (2013) REPORT FOR THE
HELL SWAMP /SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED MITIGATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2
Preparedgor:T
PCSThosphateZompany,anc.2
Preparedly:2
CZR2ncorporated2
MayZZ0142
FOURTH ANNUAL (2013) REPORT FOR THE
HELL SWAMP /SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED MITIGATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PreparedJor:2
PCS2'hosphate2✓ompany,2nc.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Preparedly:2
CZR2ncorporated2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
May2?0142
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
2
1.02 PROJECT27VERVIEW2 ................................................ ...............................
1.1 History. 2 ............................................................. ...............................
1.2 Location. 2 .......................................................... ...............................
1.3 Goals2and2) erformance2✓ riteria. 2 ..................... ...............................
2.0 REQUIREMENTS2 ...................................... ...............................
2.1 Normal2Rainfall2ind2; rowingLeason .2 .........................
2.2 Hydrology. 2 ...................................... ...............................
2.3 Vegetation. 2 ..................................... ...............................
2.4 HydrogeomorphicNonitoring2 )f.Ztreams2ind2,/alleys.2
2.5 Photograph ic2)ocumentation2 ........ ...............................
3.0 S U M MARY2)ATA2 .............................................................. ...............................
3.1 Rainfall. 2 .................................................................. ...............................
3.2 Hydrology2 ............................................................... ...............................
3.2.1 QA/ QC2) f2NellPerformance2 ............................... ...............................
3.2.2 Geomorphic2vlonitoring,2= Iowa= vents2 )nd24nnualLtreamzurveys.2.
3.2.3 Hydroperiods2 ....................................................... ...............................
3.2.3.1 Riparian2-leadwater23 ystems/ Bottom land s. 2 ..............................
3.2.3.2 Non- riparian2lardwood2= lat .......................... ...............................
3.2.4 Hydroperiod23omparison2oZontrolTorests. 2 ..... ...............................
3.2.4.1 Plum' slit. 2 ................................................... ...............................
3.2.4.2 Windley. 2 ....................................................... ...............................
3.2.4.3 Winfield2 ........................................................ ...............................
3.3 Vegetation. 2 ............................................................. ...............................
3.3.1 Riparian23uffer2 .................................................... ...............................
3.3.2 Riparian2kreas/ Bottomlands2 ............................... ...............................
3.3.3 Non- riparian2-iardwood2= tat. 2 ............................... ...............................
3.5 Photograph ic2Documentation. 2 ............................... ...............................
4.0 SUMMARY2.
LITERATURE2;ITED2.
2
2
..a
.212
..2
.2Z
.2?
.23
.23
.252
...........2
..........2i
..........
..........2�
..........2f
..........2i
..........�
..........�
..........23
..........2;
..........2;
..........�
..........2i
..........D
..........D
..........23
..........232
82
.202
Cover2'hoto:2 Aerial2photos2142November22013.22Top2photo-view2to2the2east.2Bottom2photo-
view2o2he&est.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
HeIlLwamp /ScottZreekNitigationLite72 ii2 PCS2)hosphate2✓ompany,2nc.2
Fourth2%nnualReport2 2 May720142
LIST OF TABLES
Table212 2
Performance2; riteria, 2nethods2;ummary,2ind2;urrent2; tatus. 2 ....... ...........................2--12
TableMa22
Wetland2hydroperiods2in220132of2922riparian2monitoring2wells2at2Hell2Swamp2
restoration2;ite2Juring2iormal2 and2all) 2ainfall2l ;onditions.2 ............ ...........................2--42
Table2ZbZ!
Wetland2hydroperiods2in220132of21112non- riparian2hardwood2flat2monitoring2
wells2at2- Ie112Swampaestoration2; ite2and21421 earby2�ontrolavells2Juring2iormal2
(and2 ll) 2tainfa112onditions. 2 ....................................................... ..............................2- -132
TableBa2
Summary2af2nonthly2 tisual2b bservations2b fZlow2n222013Zrom2lapper23cott2 ✓reek2
and2ts2ieadwater2;ystemsaUT1 2- 21T7) 2)nd232ributary2o2Smith2 :reekaUT8)23t2
He I Mwa m p2 ............................................................................... ..............................2- -232
Table2b2
Summary2of2visual2observations2of2flow29n220132From2Bay2City ,2Scarp,2Porter2
Creek, 2ind2D uckX;reek2 ............................................................. ..............................2- -242
Table922
Fourth2annuala 2013) 2; urvival2) f2rees2ind2; hrubs2planted2nZ2320 .22- acre2plots2
(riparian,'bnd2)on- riparian) lt2 - ellBwamp.. 2 .............................. ..............................2- -252
TableZ22
Survival2bf2trees2bnd2 5hrubs2planted2n21920. 017- acre2plots2n2 potential2Yiparian2
buffer2breas2it2HellLwamp2rom2)aselineRsummer2?010) 2o2a11220132 ..................2--262
Table2622
Survival2of2trees2and2shrubs2planted2in2122riparian20 .22- acre2plots2at2Hell2
Swamp2rom2mseline2 summer2010)2o2fa112?0132 ................... ..............................2- -282
Table2122
Survival2bf2trees23nd2shrubs2p lanted2n21112ion- riparian2).22- acre2plots23t2Hel12
Swamp2from1aseline2 summerZ! 010) 2o2 fall2013.. 2 ................. ..............................2- -292
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2122 He112Swamp2/icinity2Vlap2
Figure7122 He112SwampNonitoring2- ocations2
FigureB22 He1125wamp2MitigationLite2Monitoring2ocations2)n25oilLurvey2
FiguregA2 HellLwamp2Restoration2Nrea2Nell2 ocations2bn2\s26uilt2iDAR2
Figure24B2 He1125wamp�Control2Forest2 Nell2- ocations2)n2OO42-iDAR2
Figure2522 20132iell2;
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.12 History.22The21, 297- acre2- Ie112Swamp/ Scott,�Creek2Natershed2nitigation2;ite2s2a2
sign ificant2component2DfZhe2compensatory2mitigation2for2un avoid able2impacts2to2wetlands2and2
waters2as2authorized2by2Section24042Permit2Action2l D22001100962and2the2Section24012Water2
Quality2:;ertification2DWQ2' 2008 - 0868, 2v ersion2 2. 0. MZR2ncorporatedaCZR )2)f2ViImington,2VC2
monitors2hydrology2and2vegetation2of2the2Hel12Swamp2site, 2as2weI12as2three2other2iearby2sites2
(Wind Iey, 2' lum' s2P it, 2and2Ninfield) 2used2 as2hydro log icaI2controls .22Hydrogeomorphic2fnonitoring2
of2the2stream2v aIIeys2s2conducted2by2Baker2E ngi nee ring. 22Resto ration 2activities2at2HeIMwamp2
were2authorized2ay2the2VC2Di vision 2Df2CoastaI21Man age ment2bnd2CoastaI Area 2Vlan age ment2Act2
( CAMA) 2najor2l eve Iopment�Dermit233- 092as2tveII2bs2he2\ IC21Division2Df2- andResources2= rosion2
and 2Sediment2Control2' erm its, 2tvhich2tvere2ssuedJor2112Separate2p hases2bnd2further2J escribed2
in2the2As23uiUReport2( CZR22010) 2bnd2theJ3aseIine2bndTirst2AnnuaIJReport2 (CZR22011).22Nork2
occurred2rom212Ju1y220092Unti12222June7201023nd2b egan2n2areas2iotIubject2oJ✓AMA2r Bection2
404�urisdiction. 22Planting2Dccurred Zrom2February2o2May22 010, 2after2each2phase2Df2 restoration2
earthworkkaslompleted; :�olanted2, pecies2 and21ensities 2arealescribed2nl;ZR22010.2
1.22 Location. 22The2Hel 12Swamp2site2is2located2within2the2Pamlico2Hydrologic2Unit2
030201042of2the2Tar- Pamlico2river2basin2within2the2Pungo2Creek2subbasin2and2encompasses2
almost2the2entire2Scott2Creek2watershed2and2a2portion2of2the2watersheds2of2Smith2Creek2and2
Broad2Creek. 22Located2on2the2southwest2side2of2Seed2Tick2Neck2Road2 (SR21714)2Sn2Beaufort2
County, 2the2site: Js2approximately222miles2east- southeast2( straight- line2distance)2of2the2town2of2
Yeatesville, 2Pantego2rownship ,2JorthZarolina4Figure2l ).212
1.32 Goa ls2and2Performance2C rite ria. 22T he2primary2g oaI2:)f2the2project2l s2to2 ,estore232
self- sustainingZunctional2watershed2and2wetland/ stream2complex2to2allow2 surfacealow2to2move2
through2vegetated2wetlands2before2reaching2any2stream. 22Mitigation2yields2are2estimated2and2
performance2; riteria2ire2Jescribed2or2he,-project2n2Jetail2n2he2Compensatoryl4itigation2 °lan2or2
Restoration2)f2 fell ,Bwamp /ScottZreek2WatershedRCZR2 2009). 2Performancelriteria2)ndlurrent2
status2ire25ummarized2n2FableZ .2Dver2ime2he2- e112Swamp2 ;ite2s2)xpected2oauccessfully:2
reestablish2ipproximately:212
•2 19, 7832inearJeetaLF) 2f2:ero2and2irst- order25tream,2ncluding2he2
restoration2)f25 ix2iparian2ieadwater2 5ystems2and2hree2ow2)nergy2
streams;22
•2 212icres2)f2rar- Pamlico2iparian2) uffer, 2vith2idditional:�ootential2 auffer2
opportunity2f2s uitable25 tream25egments2orm2n2he2iparian2ieadwater2
systems;22
92 582 acres2) f2iparianJorestedIardwood &etlandaheadwater2o rest, 2
bottom I and Iardwood2orest2and2iverine2 2wampJorest), Nth 2;ome2
add itional1nhancement:�)otential ;2ind72
•2 8082icres2)f2ton- riverine2iardwood2lat;23nd2z
2 preserve2)r2ehabilitate2ipproximately :22
2
92 402 acres2)f2ion- riverine2iardwoodJlat2ncluding2i234- acre2state2)r2
regionally25ignificant" 2nature2iardwoodJlat;2
•2 282a cres2)f2iverine25 wamp2orest /bottomI and 21ardwood2o rest; 22
•2 182)cres2)f2ion- riverine2iardwood2lat;2ind22
92 2002)cres2) f2ireas2napped2is2Aplands2 m2helounty2;oil2;urvey.2
Hell23wamp /ScottZreekNitigationTDite22 12 PCSThosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2knnualReport2 2 May720142
An2a dditiona121032 3cres2i nderlain2Dy2hydric1oiIs2ire2l ncluded2is2 `potentia121on- wetl and "2
areas21ue2to2Jrai nag e2Dffects2from2peri mete r2l itch es2that2nust2 ,emain2Dpen.Z?Approxi mate ly2342
acres2at2he2iead2f2he2vatershed2s2nature2ion- riverine2tvet2iardwood2orest2nderlain2yZape2
Fear2; oiIathe2VindIey2ract) 2ind2i viI12:)e�) reserved 2to2heIp2nitigateJor�)ermitted2 -nine2l mpacts2to2
the2Bonnerton2non- riverine2wet2hardwood2area .22The2Plum's2Pit2 ract2(Arapahoe23oi1,2iardwood2
forested2Netland) 2ind2he2Ninfield2ractaAugusta ,2romotley,2)nd2Roanoke2;oils) are2ther2iearby2
hardwood2orested2✓ vetlands2at23imilar2) levations2o�)ortions2) f2�e112Swamp2ind2inderlain2 )y2;oil2
series2�napped2Dn2Hell2Swamp2as25hown2Dn2the2Beaufort2County25oil25urvey2 (Kirby21995).22AI12
three2racts2tviII2) e2nonitored? as2iydrologic2;ontrols2or2he2estored2iydrology2)f 2applicable2areas2
at2he2- IelMwampaitea Fig ure2l ).2
2
2.0 REQUIREMENTS
2.12 Normal2Rainfall2and2Growing2Season. 22An2onsite2continuous2electronic2rain2
gauge2s21ownloaded2Dnce2a2- nonth2and2ts2iata2are2ised2n2�onjunction2Nith21ataJrom2bearby2
automated 2Neather2;tationsai. e., 2JOAA' s2% uroraaite2ecause2he23eI haven aite2Nas2ot23ctive2n2
2013) 2to2determine2normal2rainfall2during2the2monitoring2period .22He112Swamp2data2were2
compared2to2the2W ETS2range2of2normal2precipitation2to2determine2if2Hell2Swamp2rainfall2was2
with in2the2iormal2ange. 22The2ange2Df2iormal�Drecipitation2for2this2eport2efers2o2the230t "2and2
70th Dercentile2thresholds2Df2the�Drobability2Df2iaving2Dnsite2rainfall2amounts2ess2than2Dr2ligher2
than2those2thresholds. 22The2ange2Df2iormal2and2the230- day2olling2total21ata2ines2Degin2Dn2the2
last2Jay2Df2--ach2nonth2and2the22 0132NETS- Auroral, no nth Iy2p recipitation2totaI2s2plotted2Dn2the2
last2JayIfIach2nonth.222
Under2he2Z 0102egional:2juidance2rom2he2✓ orps2) fEngineers2or2Netland2iydroperiods ,2
the2normal2growing2season2for2Beaufort2County2is2282February2to262December2or22822days2
( WETS2table2for2Beaufort2County2first/ last2freeze2date228° 2F2502percent2probability )2(US2Army2
Corps2of2Engineers22010). 22At2the2suggestion2of2the2Corps' 2Washington2regulatory2field2office ,2
data2collected2between212February2and2282February2provide2important2information2related2to2
analyses2:)f2site2hydrology2iuring2he2E)arly2tgrowing23eason, 2Dut2are2not2part2Df2the2hydroperiod2
calculation2or23uccess.222
2.22 Hydrology. 2Figure2221epicts2the2ocations2Df2hydrology2 -nonitoring2�quipment.22A112
well2 ocations2 are2also2iepicted2:)n2the2 Beaufort2County2Soil2Survey2sheet292 (Figure23)2and2Dn2
LiDAR2( Figures24A2and24B). 22To2document2surface2storage, 2hydrologyan2the2 Festored2iparian2
headwater2system, 2and2hydroperiods2of2all2wetland2types2on2the2site ,21112semi- continuous2
electron icEcotone2/v ater2evel2nonitoring2Nells2( manufactured2by2Remote2lData2Systems ,2nc.2:)r2
RDS) 2a re2Jeployed2at2a21ensity2 )f23pproximately212v vell/ 102acres2n2the2ion- riparian2metland2flat2
areas. 2d 4n2additional2122Nells2Nithin2he2�xpected2iparian2one2and2902Nells2n--402arrays 23cross2
the2stream2valleys2neasure2the2iydrology2f2the2- iparian2stream2systems2and2bottomlands2 (922
riparian2wells). 22Forty2( 40) 2gauges2( beta2nodels) 2to2record21ow2flow2events2were2alsoanstalled2
either2Nithin2)r2ear2?ach2) f2hese2tream2arrays2n2�arly22011 .2�The21ow2gauges2Nere2emoved2
in2201321ue2to2a21ecrease2n2eliability .)ZEach2stream2./alley2 array2 ;onsisted2Df2a2Nell2Dn2either2
side2of2the2perceived2valley2and2a2flow2gauge2in2the2valley2where2flow2had2been2evident2or2
seemed2likely2based2on2the2topography2of2the2valley2and2surrounding2area .22The2arrays2are2
approxi mate ly2i002eet2apartaa long 2he2ong2ixis) 2n2�ach2 ialIeyaat2east2323 rrays2per21 ,000 -foot2
reach; 2upstream, 2center, 2downstream). 22Observations2at2the2site2of2the2flow2gauge2during2vvel12
down loads2and2semi- annual2stream2surveys, 2rainfal1, 2and2geomorphic2position2are2used2to2
documentIvidenceIf21ow.2
At2the2ongest2, nonitored2control2site2( Windley2tract), 2three2electronic2wells ,2each2paired2
with2a2manual2vvell, 2have2been2monitored2since2March22007. 22Four2electronic2wells2have2been2
monitored2n2PIum' s2Pit2since2October220102and2seven2alectronic2rells2iave2 )een2-nonitored2n2
the2N infield2ract25 ince2July220114Figures232ind--4).2I2
Hell23wamp /ScottZreekNitigationTDite2z 22 PCS2'hosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2knnualPeport2 2 May210142
Electron ic2NeIIs2are2lr lownIoaded2ance2a2month2bnd2he2data2 (readings2every21.52iours)2
eva I u ated 2on 2a n 2a n n u a I 2bas i s2to2d ocu me nt2wetl and 2h yd rope ri od s. 22Wetl and 2hyd rope riods2a re2
caIcuIated2byZountingZonsecutive2= iays2mith2vateraeveI2 ataeast2122nches2aeIow2he2 ;oi12;urface2
d u ri n g 2th e2g rowing 2sea son2u nd e r2n orm a l2or2be I ow2n orm a I 2ra i nfa I 12co n d iti on s. 22Data2from 2th e2
Wind ley, 2Plum's2P it, 2and2 VinfieId23 ites2 are2ised2o2Dompare2o2aydroIogy2at2appIicable23 reas2bt2
HeIIZMamp. 2Because2af2_ lifferences2n2naturity2and2: listurbanceZharacteristics2 bf2the2-nitigation2
site, 2these2data2wiIl2aot2be2used2for2strict2success2or2performance2para meters, 2only2to2confirm2
local /region al2ydroIogicaI2esponse2o4) recipitati on. M/ isual2) bservations2)f21owZonditions23t2he2
vaIIey2arrays2a re2- ecord ed. 27d VoZontro123ite2for2the2flow2parameter2has2aeen2dentified ,23Ithough2
observationaI2data2from2another2nearby2PCS2mitigation2site2( Bay2City)2and2from2other2sites2
monito red 2or2b ther2PCS2projects2are2ncluded2Nith2his2eport2o23how2iow2)ther1itesZunctioned2
during2he2year.2
2
232 Vegetati on. 22The2fourth2annuaI2survey2of2the212320 .22- acre2pI anted 2tree2and2
shrub2monitoring2plots2occurred2in2October2and2November220132and2 -epresents2a2two2percent2
sample2)f2he2estoration2breaa Fig ure22 ).Mmallera0. 017 - acre) 2planted2ree.-�ond2;hrub2nonitoring2
plots2: were2also2surveyed2at2192stream2arrays2to2provide2an2estimate2of2stem2density2in2the2
potential2, iparian2buffer2areas .22Annual2-nonitoringZor2three2 iuisance25pecies2 [red2rnaple2(Acer
rubrum),Iweet2jumaLiquidambar styracif /ua),23nd2oblolly2pineaPinus taeda)]2)egan2n2201123nd2
hasZontinued23ince.22
2
2.42 Hydrogeomorphic2Monitoring2of2Streams2and2Valleys .22Scott2Creek,2the2main2
channel2thatZlows2through2the2site, 2begins2ts2headwaters�bnsite ,2and2flows2to2the2downstream2
extent2of2the2p rope rty2at2NC2Route299, 2where2the2creek2flows2through2a2 road 2culvert2and2
eventual ly2 _lischarges2to2l:lungo2Creek,2a2 ributary2o2he2l:lungo2River .ZFor2this2•eport,2the2nain2
channel2s2d ivided2nto2Upper2Scott2Creek2( USC), 2NhichZontains2the2constructed25ingle2thread2
channel2bnd2the2zero2arder2V alley2apstream, 2bnd2L ower2Scott2Creek2 (LSC).22Several2headwater2
tributariesaUT12-2UT8)2 vere2dentified, 2Using2L i DAR, 2historical23erials ,2bnd2<nowledge2bf2he2;ite2
(Fig uresMind23).2 2rwoZross2;ections2n2the2ScottZ-'reek23ingle2hread2 vhannel2;tream25egment2
are2r neasured23nnually2tiuring2the2 Pnonitoring2period;2the2bther2 ributaries2vere2tneasured2n2the2
thirda20l 2) 2ljear2ind2tviII2b e2neasured2n2he2fiftha2014 )2nonitoring2ljear.22
2
2.52 Photographic2Documentation. 22Twenty2( 20) 2permanent2photo2point2locations2
were2✓ stablished2at2, andom2tvell2ocations2andZive2Nere,3astablished2along2he2perimeter2af2he2
restoration2b reaa Fig ure22). 2Bhotographs2✓ vere2aken2n2he2fourZardina121irections2cis &ell2asIn2
add itional2d irection2to2�apture2as2nuch2af2the2vegetation2plot2as2possible2anless2t2Nas2already2
captured2§ n2the2other2four2photos. 22Photographs2at2the2fixed- point2stations2were2taken23n2July2
20102 (baseline)2 and2 each2 subsequent2fal12 during2 the2 monitoring2 period.2 2 Fourth2 annual2
photographs &ere2aken2n2November7Z013.2
22
3.0 SUMMARY DATA
3.12 Rai nfall. 22Total2rainfal12recorded2at2the2Hel12Swamp2rain2gauge2for220132was2
40. 412nchesaa2; onsiderable2lecrease2fromaast2jear' s2i0. 752nches )2bnd2otal2ainfa112ecorded2bt2
the2nearby2PCS2Duck2Creek2monitoring2site2was236. 162inches2 (also2a2considerable2decrease2
from 2ast2year' s252. 792nches). 22TheMETS230- year2Pange2bf2horma12 :1ata25hown2bn2Eigure252s2
derived2rom2he2atest23vailable2; 1ata2; et23nd2; omprises2he2years21971- 2000.29he230- day2olling2
total2of2Hell2Swamp220132rainfall2was2considered2withinMETS2normal2 Fange2or2below2normal2
(Figure25).222
2
The2JS2Drought2\Aonitor2( http:// droughtmonitor. un1. edu) 2provides2a2synthesis2Df2nuItiple2
indices2and2mpacts2and2- eflects2the2consensus2of2federa129nd2academic2scientists2an2 'egiona12
ccnditions2b n2b2NeekIy2basisaupd ate d2l✓ ach2Thursday). 22- Jsing2an2area -we ighted2;average,2North2
Carol ina' s2Beaufort2County2experienced2102weeks2in2the220132growing2season2with2drought2
status,2ess2hanaast2( rear. M112102Neeks& ereIonside red 2a bnormaIIy2dry2bnd2nost 2,Neeks&ere2n2
the2l ate2; pringaeight2onsecutive2N eeks2beginning2n2nid- April) .22rhe2l ast2wo2meeks2bccurred2n2
HeIlBwamp /ScottZreekVitigationBiteT 32 PCS2PhosphateZompany,2nc.2
F o u rt h 2%n n u a I 2R e p o rt2 2 May220142
the2early2fal1. 220nly2one2more2Neek2i n220132Nas2i n2drought2conditions2 (considered2abnormally2
dry), 2) ut2t2D ccurred2n2aarly2= ebruary, 2before2he2;tart3if2he2 growing2;eason.2 1- he2�arly2rlrought2
wee ks2likeIy2ca used 2waterA eve Is2at2severaI2( but2not2nost) 2NeIIs2to2 -Irop2below2- 122nches2and2
th erefore2n ay2i ave2; h orte n ed 2h e i r2vetla n d 2iyd ro period.
2
3.22 Hydrology.Z The2irst2uI12jear2bf2post- restoration2iydrology2lata2for2the2 antire2aite2
was220112Decause2construction23ctivities2prevented2all2vells2rom2being2nstalled2at2he25tart2Df2
the22010Zjrowing2; eason. ZHowever, 2/ vells2vere2nstalled23s2; oon2as2onstruction2n23n2irea2vas2
complete, lo2lata2/ verelollected2luring2a2arge:�portion2)f2heZ1 010Zjrowing2eason2bver2nost2)f2
the2ite. 22Tables2lepicting2201321aily2Ne112- eadings2and2ainfa1123re2ncluded2bn2a2om pan ion2 :,D2
to2his2eport.2
2
3.2.1 QA /QC of Well Performance. 221n22011, 2approxi mate ly2one2third2of2the2
Hell,'Bwamp2n rells2Nere2ested2or:�Derformance2according2o2nonitoring2equirements2 ;pecified2n2
ERDC2TN- WRAP- 05- 2aUS2Army2Corps2)f2E ngineers22005) 2222The2esting2vas21escri bed An2he2
second2annual2( 2011) 2nonitoring2eport2( CZR22012). 22ln22013, 2an2additional2242:)f2the2intested2
wells& ere2ested2ind2a1l2dnet2he:�)erformance2riteria .2
2
3.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring, Flow Events and Annual Stream Surveys. Two2
cross2ections2( 723nd2B) 2n2the23ingle2thread2r hannel2) f2upper2Scottxreek2Nere2 rstablished23t2
baseline2and2are2measured2annually. 22The2fourth2annual2measurement2of2those2two2cross2
sections2occurred2in2December220132and2no2areas2of2concern2were2identified .22Appendix2A2
contains2the2omplete23aker2 geomorphica eport, 2/ vhich2ncludes2i2figure23howing2the2ocation2:)f2
all2�ross2-,ections2r ind2the2profiles2:)f2E)ach2�ross23ection2neasured2n22013 .22= ach2�ross2;ection2
exhibited2ninor2lifferences2 from2as- built2�onditions, 2Dut2those2lifferences2 =ire2�xpected2n2hewly2
constructed2restoration2sites. 22The2channel2and2floodplain2changes2observed2along2the2cross2
sections2are2attributed2o2lood2ieposition ,2oil2; ettling, 2naturing2egetation ,2and2;light2ilifferences2
inIurvey2od4)oint2ocations.22
Monthly2)bservations2at21ow2nonitoring2tations2locumented2ictive21ow2lt2east2
once23t2332) f2he'-402) bservation:�pointsaTable23), 2i vhich2a1so2neans,'�8ctive21ow2vas2llocumented2
somewhere2in2every2stream2valley2in220132except2for2UT22and2UT42 (Appendix2B2and2on2the2
companion2:, D2o2ihis2eport). 2�Active21ow2was2locumented2n2JT42 1uring2the2tream2urveys.)ZL
Slightly2more2flow2events2were2documented2at2most2observation2points2at2the2other2monitored2
sitesaTable23). 2Photographs2and2v ideo2) f21ow2aken2Juring2nonthly2;ite2 visits23re23Iso2ncluded2
on2he2om pan ion23D2o2his2eport .22
2
TheZirst2stream23urvey2:)ccurred2272January220l l 2nrhen2E)ach2ieadwater2valley2
was2valked2o2letermine2he2ocations2for2nstallation2b f2he2ow2low2jauges .ZAuring2hat2;urvey,2
flow2f2arying2amounts2and2lepths& as2hoted2n2a1most2all2he2alleys2and2at2iImost2)very2jauge2
location. 22A2second2stream2su rvey2was2cond ucted2at2the2end2of2the2year2(302November2-212
December22011). 22Active21ow2vas2) ccurring2Juring2he2econd2tream2 ;urvey2it2JT82and2 -ower2
Scott2Creek, 2but2was2not2discernible2in2other2valleys, 2although2water2was2present .22However,2
evidence2f4)ast2low2avents2Nas2iioted2luring2he2; econd2tream2 ;urvey2n2JT3,2JT6,2JT7,2JT8,2
and2JpperLcottZreekasorting, 2deposition, ahallow2hannel2eatures ,2lebris /wrack,23nd2braids2r2
meanders).Z Refer2io2Appendix232f2the2econd2annual2eport2(CZR22012 )2or2a2ummary2)f2ihe2
two2; urveys, aelected:�ohotos, 2and2nap2)falocumented2 Stream2eatures.2
2
For2each2subsequent2survey, 2all2the2headwater2valleys2at2Hell2Swamp2were2
walked2from2the2downstream2end2to2the2upper2reaches2to2document2active2flow2with2video2 (if2
possible), 2)r2B vidence2b f2past21ow2Avith4) hotographs2a ndZGPS21ata .22fhe2hird2bnd2ourthIurveys2
in2 1012athird2innual23nonitoring2year) 2bccurred272June23nd211 ,bnd2132jecember210122ind2he2
find ings2Av ere2Jescribed2nAppendix232Df2he2hird2annual2teportaCZR22013 ).2AIso,2ideo2f21ow2
from2he2Decemberaurvey2at2 / arious2ocations2i vas2ncluded2b n2helompanion2✓D2o2hat2eport.ZL
Active2ow2low2n2 tarious2vater2lepths& as2b bserved2n2l- ower2S cottZreek2and:4)ortions2bf2Jpper2
Scott2:, reekasingle2hread2and23bove) 2n2Doth2he2June2and2Jecemberlurveys .Z During2the2June2
Hell23wamp /ScottZreekavlitigationLiteZ2 42 PCS2PhosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2 knnualPeport2 2 MayZ20142
survey, 2io23ctive2low2)r2 rvater2/vas3)bserved2n2 ny3if2he2annamed2ributaries 2and2io2iideo2/vas2
taken2)f2- ower2)r2J pper2Scott23 reek, 2) s21ow2Nas2)f2ow2telocity23nd2NOU ld2iot2e2�asilyaeen2n2
a2i ideo. 27he2,vinter2; urvey2)ccurred2)ver2wo2iays2n2) ecember2N ith2iearly21 .52nches2)f2'ainfa112
occurring2between2the2two2days. 22The2112December220122survey2Jay2was2nuch 2like2the2June2
su rvey2Nith2he2E)xception2DfZlow2videoa -ecorded2 n2Lower2Scott2Creek2iear2he2 -nouth2Df2UT6.22
There2N ere2io2Dther2Dbservations2)f23ctiveJlow2Dr2Nater2n23 ny2Df2he2)ther2annamed2ributaries2
on 2hat21ay2�xcept2JT6 .22After2he2l 22December2ain2�vent, 2he23tream2�rossing2between2 -ower2
Scott2Creek23nd2Jpper2Scott2Creek2was2- evisited2Dn2132December220122and2active2Flow2 video2
wasa- ecorded. 22S eve ra12videos2Df2activeZIow2were2alsoa- ecordedZor2UT8 .22ln2addition2to2active2
flow, 2physical2Features2noted2du ring 2stream2surveysan220122included2bed2and2bank ,2sediment2
transport2 and /or2 scour,2 sediment2 sorting,2 debris2 wrack,2 and2 matted2 vegetation2 parallel2 to2
down stream2low.222
The2Fifth2and2sixth2surveys2occurred29- 102July2and210- 112December22013,2he2
fourth 2year2Dfanonitoring. 222Every2VaIIeya; ontained2vater, 2--ven2f2Dnly2 Donfined2to2ts2lower2.-nd.22
Active2Flow2i n2varied2water2depths2was2visible2and2documented2with2video2i n2aI12the2unnamed2
tri butaries2with2the2exception2of2UT2 .22Active2flow2was2docu me nted 2fo r2th e2fi rst2ti me2i n2the2
project' s2historya- iear2the2- nouth2of2UT52during2he2December23urvey .221 n2addition2o2he210 -112
December23urvey2vi sit, 2b ioIogists2eturned2o2he2ialIeys2Df2JT52and2JT62heJoIlowing2Neek2n2
December2182in2an2attempt2to2re- acquire2flow2video2lost2due2to2corrupted2fil es. 22FIow2was2
documented2where2conditions2similar2to2those2during2the210- 112December2survey2existed .221n2
add ition2 o2active2flow, 2physical2 teatures2noted2, Juring23tream23urveys2n2 20132ncluded2bed2and2
ban k, 2sediment2transport2and/ or2scour, 2sediment2sorting, 2debris2wrack ,2and2matted2vegetation2
paral lel2o2lownstream2low.ZZ2
2
Until2the2planted2trees2and2shrubs2reach2enough2height2to2shade2the2valleys ,2
development2of2dense2herbaceous2vegetation2will2continue2to2occur2in2many2areas .22This2
herbaceous2ayer2an2attenuate2low2) vents2ind2educe2/elocity2)elow2he�ooint2)f2cour2nnd2an2
also2) bscure2ecognition2) r:�)revent2ormation2) f2) ther2ncipient2 ,hannel2ormation2eatures.2l2
2
3.2.3 Hydroperiods. 22The2najority2f2all2wells2exhibited2wetland2hydroperiods2
regard less2)f2- ainfall2onditions2n22 013aTables22 A,'�bnd2ZB, 2Figure23)2and2a2few2-nore2Nells2iad2
wetland2iydroperiods2than2n 2201123nd22 012. 22AIso, 2- nany2N ells2Nere2n2a2Netter2:one2han2ast2
year. 2Nost2Nells2iad2; everal2Netland2iydroperiods2hroughout2he2year2and /or2ariousbther2lays2
scattered2throughout2the2growing2season2where2water2levels2were2- 122inches2or2shallower.22
Rehydration2of2the2site2will2likely2continue2as2the2site2equilibrates2to2its2new2hydrology .22The2
reported2hydroperiods2btaenaocations2 Nere2possibly23horter2than2Nhat2actually2Dccurred2lueao2
we112nalfunctions. 22fhese2gaps23re2hown2) n2he2nonthly2ables2hat2Jepict220132Jaily2ioon2Nell2
read ings2ind2ainfaI12ncluded2n2he2om pan ionZD2o2his2eport .2l2
2
3.2.3.1 Riparian Headwater Systems / Bottom lands.22n22013,2nost2)f2he2
riparian2wells2( 762out2of292) 2exhibited2a2wetland2hydroperiod2greater2than212 .52percent2of2the2
growing23eason2 (Table22A,2FigureTD), 2132- nore2Nells2 han2ast2year .22TheZour2Nells2hat2Jidaiot2
exhibit2a2wetland2lydroperiod2greater2han262percent2may2be21ue2toanicrotopography2or2o2the2
well2being2located2slightly2upslope2of2the2riparian2v alley2edge ,2r2o2drawdown2by2the2adjacent2
stream2iydrology. 7d41 12ut2wo2)f2he2iparian2Nells23Iso2neasured2 Nater2ables2;hallower2han2 -122
inches2ontinuously2etween21 2=ebruary23nd7 172 ebruaryaTable71A).2
2
3.2.3.2 Non - riparian Hardwood Flat. Only2hree2 )f2he21112rvells21id2iot2
exhibit2a2Netland2- iydroperiod2and2nost2Nells2exhibited2b2Netland2iydroperiod20reater2than212 .52
percent2Df2heagrowing2season2( 892Nells) 2( Table22B, 2Figure2B). 22Six2Df2the2892Nellsa ,ecorded2a2
wetland2hydroperiod2for2longer2than2752percent2of2the2entire2growing2season .22The2lack2of2a2
wetland2iydroperiod2it2he2hree2Nells2- nighta) e2Jue2toanicrotopography .22A112)ut2our2Nells2also2
measured2water2tables2shallower2than2- 122inches2continuously2from212February2through2272
February.222
Hell23wamp /ScottZreekNitigation2jite7l 52 PCS2'hosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2knnual2Report2 2 May/10142
2 1n2he2Netland2anhancement23rea, 2/ vhere�)re- construction2:lata2�xists2or2
two2NeI Is, 2hose2ivelIs2iave2ecorded2onger2iyd rope riods2post- construction.272
3.2.4 Hydroperiod Comparison to Control Forests.
3.2.4.1 Plum's Pit. AI12four2wells2were2drier2n220132han2n22012 ,23ut2
still2ecorded2/vetland2iydroperiods. 2? 12Two2ivells2recorded2heir2ongest2iydroperiods2n2he2?62o2
12. 52percent2, ange2and2two2wellsaecorded2their2 ongest2hydroperiods2n2he2?252to2752percent2
rangeaTable22B, 2FigureTD). 22AI12) f2he2Nells2n220132, ecorded2ess2 ;umulative2Aays2/vhere2/vater2
tables2nrere25hallower2han2- 122nches2han2n22012, 2but2hey2a112 -ecorded2wetland2Nater2ables2
many2- nore2lays2Dther2han2he2consecutive2days2:)f2heir2iydroperiods2 (Table22B).2ZFhree2Nells2
also2neasured2vater2ables2 ;hallower2han2l20nchesJrom21 Tebruary2hrough227Tebruary23nd2
the2ourth2mell2recorded2hose2evels2or2 2021ays2n2hat2period2( Table 22B).2Zfhese23Avells2recorded2
similar2iydrologic2 batterns2is2) ther2niells2n25 imilar2opographic2positions�t2lellzwamp .22
2
3.2.4.2 Wind /ey.22nZ2 013, 2ill2hree2Atells2iad2onger2iydroperiods2han2n2
2012x27, 22 8, 2and2312percent). Mnly2b ne2Nell2iad2nore2�umulative2days2han2t onsecutive2days2
and2t2U nly2iad2hree2) xtra2l: lays4Table2Z B, 2= igurel).2 N112bf2he2tvells2also2Measured2 roater2ables2
shallower2than2- 122inches2from212February2through2272February2 (Table22B).22These2wells2
recordedaimilar2iydrologic:�oatterns2as2) ther& ells2n2; imilar2opographic:�positions2at2 -Iell2swamp.22
2
3.2.4.3 Winfield. 22 ln220132bnly2Dne2of2he2seven2Nells2did2iot2axhibit2a2
wetland2hydroperiod2(Table22B, 2Figure26). 22Four2af2theaemaining25ix2wells2exhibited2a2vvetland2
hydroperiod2orZ> 62p ercent2o212. 52percent2) f2he2growing2; easonaone2 Pnore2hanaast2year)2nnd2
the2other2wo2forZ252o2752percent2( Table22B, 2Figure26) 2( one2nore2han2last2year ).22AI12wells2
except2he2)ne2/ vith2he2ongest2; ontinuous2iydroperiod, 2recorded2Nater2ables2hallower2han2122
inches2at2bther2imes2han2he2ongest2hydroperiod2 ind2$ ix2vells2tecorded2hose2evels2or2Most2 br2
all2of2February2( Table22B). 22These2vvells2- ecorded2similar2hydrologic2patterns2as2other2wells2n2
similar2opographic2positions2it2Hell2Swamp .Z2
2
3.32 Vegetation.2 2 By2 use2 of2 only2 the2 number2 of2 planted2 stems2 that2 were2
unquestionably2alive2in2the2monitoring2plots, 2the2most2conservative2estimate2of2survival2is2
presented.2 2 Many2 stems2 appeared2 dead2 or2 questionable,2 but2 based2 on2 prior2 monitoring2
experience, 2 i1tem2heeds2o2appear2dead2( or2hot2) e2ound) 2or2wo2 ;ampling2Dvents2)efore2t1an2
be2Confidently2bounted23s2iead. 22Tables24- 72iocument2�urrent2; urvival2Df28112 iegetation:plots2)y2
size2bategory2and2/ vetland2rnitigation2C one2ompared2o2) aseline2and23re21escribed2n2nore2iletail2
in25ections3)elow. 22n23ummary, 2he2density2bf2all2rees2n22013 ,2based2Dn2he21232riparian2and2
non- riparian2plots, 2tr vas23542tinquestionably2a1ive2 >;tems2per2acre;2he2density2bf2 all2tinquestionably2
alive2S hrubs2Nas2122$ tems2per2icre; 2and2he2lensity2bf2ill2rees, 2;hrubs,2)nd2inknown2;tems2hat2
were20nquestionably2ilive &as23662Stems2,)er2acre2( Table). 2Appendix2 ;2rontains2he2iumber2bf2
stems2hat& ere2alive2nlach:�olot2or2he2) aseline2s amplinglvent2.and2or2he2a117 20132;urvey.2T2
2
Add itional2reatment2olontrol2he2nvasivelommon2eed2 (Phragmites australis)2)ccurred2
1- 22D ctober220132Lising2b2�ombination2)f2:3lyphosate2bnd2mazapyr .7lrreatments2Nere2bpplied2n2
the2lower, 2. inplanted2§wampy2area2bf25cott2--reek, 2he2ower2bnd2 bf2he2JT62and2JT72ial ley, 2he2
Iower2and2D f2JT5, 2and2along2he2filled2 l;hannel2bf2he2'ormer2Scott2; reek2Dhannel.22rhis2/vas2he2
fourth2year2iif2reatment2and2t2appeared2hat2he2Jensity2 :)f2he2reed2 Nas2ess2han2 )ther2years.22
The2reed2appears2diminished2and2occurs2in2only2spotty2patches2in2he2areas2that2have2been2
treated. 7dv1ore2applications2 ire2 inticipated2or2 it2east2)ne2nore2jear2f2iecessary.22
2
The2Corps2determined2hat2hree2ree2species2have2he2possibility2o2butcompete2 .young2
planted2rees2 it2a2Mitigation2Site2Jue2o2heir2quick2growth2 ind2heed2o2be2Monitored2as2hu isance2
species2o2ensure2hey2do2not2ake2over2a2mitigation2site. 22The2hree2species2are2oblolly2pine2
(Pinus taeda),2red2napleaAcer rubrum ),23nd2;weetgumaLiquidambar styraciflua).ZResults2bf2he2
firstZuisance2monitoring2survey, 2which2occurred2in2the2second2year2 (2011)2of2site2monitoring,2
indicated2that2Nhen2a ll2hree25pecies2Were2aombined, 2hey2- epresented247 .82percent2af2he21802
Hell23wamp /ScottZreekNitigationZ;ite72 62 PCS2PhosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourthalnnual2Report2 2 May720142
stem slountedan2he21232iuisance:�Olots. 22fhe2) mount2)faobloIly4'bine2tvas2dentified2 )s2a4-)otentia12
pro blem2n2hree2pIots. ZFor2h aore2nformation2See2he2S econd2a nnua12 (2011)2eport2(CZR22012).2
Results2a f2he2; econd21uisance2nonitoring2urvey ,2 vhich2accurred2n2he2hird2yeara2012 )Baf25ite2
monitoring, 2ndicated2hat2A then2a112hree23pecies2uvere2: ombined ,2hey2epresented240�Dercent2af2
the23702stems2counted2in2the21232nuisance2plots. 22The220122monitoring2sh owed 2that2other2
species2iot2; onsidered2iuisance2rees2ivere2)stablishing2hemselves ,2educing2he2percentage2bf2
the2iuisance2rees .ZFurthermore,2nm2 012, 23ix:2plots2; ontained27 8�)ercent2 af2he2iuisance2;tems.22
Results2a f2he2hird2uisance2nonitoring2urvey, Bonducted2n22013 ,2vereaimilar2o2hose2nZ1012.ZZ
Nuisance2stems2comprised238. 52percent2of2all2stemsan2the2nuisance2plotsan220132 (Figure28).22
Again, 2he2najority2of2auisance23tems2 (70.1 percent) 2ivere2n23ix2plots ,2bIthough2ane2of2he2p1ots2
from2ast2year2s2ot2isted2n2he2op25 ix2his2jear2and2a ne:�)1ot2hat2 /vas2ot2isted2ast2year,2s2ow2
listed2n2he2op2Dercent. 2Five2bf2he2ix2plots2n220132ontained,�E7 .2�Dercent2bf2he2pine2-,tems,2
one2p 1ot2Contained292. 32percent2af2he2naple25tems, 2bnd2bne2olot2 t;ontainedTD6.02percent2bf2he2
sweet2gum2;tems. 2�Only�bne2a f2he25 ix2J ontained2nore2han2a ne2iuisance2;pecies .)Z1fhe2est2af2
the2nuisance2stems2are2scattered2across2the2plots. 22The2six2plots2are2all2on2the2edges2bf2Hell2
Swam p2adj ace nt2o2a xi sting 4) ineatands2a r2nixed2orest, 2/ vhere2nvasions2 af2iuisance2;pecies2are2
more2likely2to2occur2( Figure28). 22A2plan2to2reduce2loblolly2pine2in2the2worst2areas2will2be2
implemented2n72014.72
3.3.1 Riparian Buffer. Overall2urvival2) f2rees2hat2vere2bnquestionably231ive2
in2heZ 92iparian2a uffer�)lots2rom2 aaselineamid- summerZZ 010) 2o2all220132vas2 762percent,2vith2
a2; orresponding2lensity2a f23502rees:�per2acreaTable23), 23Iightly2ess2 ;tems2han2ast2jear.72frees2
with2ncertain2urvival25 tatusastem2appeared2lead2a utlould2iot2 aelonfirmed)2tvere2iot2ncluded2
inlalculations .ZlSweet2aayaMagno /ia virginiana),2ed2aayaPersea palustris),2vater2upeloaNyssa
aquatica ),2and23weet2pepperbush2(C /ethra alnifo/ ia) 2aad2he2owest23urvivals2 (38,20,240,2and2382
percent, 2espectively) 2Nhen2he2i ncertain23tems2are�bxcluded2( Table25).22Ten2(up2From2aight2i n2
2012,2but2 own2 from2122n22011) 2bf2he2192ree2 5pecies2iad2302percent2ar: greater25urvival,2with2
five2a f2he2aightltO004)ercent2urvivalawater2iickorygCarya aqua tica],2/hite2aakgQuercus alba],2
water2aakgQ. nigra],2ivillow2aakgQ. phe/1 os ]2and2,ommon:i)ersimmongDiospyros virginiana]).212
Only2three2shrub2species2represented2by2only2a2few2stems2were2found2in2the2
riparian2a uffer2plots; 2ikely2lue2o2he2a verallZow2Jensity2af25hrubs23cross2he2Site23nd2he25ma112
size2a f2he2a uffer4)lot. Mvera112; urvival2a f25 hrubs2rom2) aselineamid- summer22010)2neasurement2
to2all22 0132,vas237,I)ercent2or25 tems2hat2vere2nquestionably2alive2tvith2a1orresponding2lensity2
of2252shrubs2per2acre2( Table25), 2both2sIightly2higher2than21ast2year .22Survival2in creased 2to2752
percent2 and2 282 stems2 if2 questionable2 stems2 are2 included.2 2 Buttonbush2 (Cephalanthus
occidentalis, 212stem) 2had2the2lowest2survival2( 02percent) 2and2swamp2doghobble2(Leucothoe
[genus2changed2to Eubotrys] racemosa, 212stem) 2had2the2highest2survival2 (1002percent).22The2
survival�bf2he2hird25pecies ,2/irginia2/villowa /tea virginica), 2n creased 2rom2ast2year .ZButton bus h2
survivalas2nuch2higheran2the2other2two2wetland2area2types2and2swamp2doghobble2survivalas2
much2ower.2
Densityan2he2potential2- iparian2buffer2areas2for2all2rees2and2shrubs2combined2
after2he2a1122 01323urvey2vasTo752tems:2per23cre2or2a112pecies2Unquestionably231ive ,aess2han2
Iast2year. 22The2; urrent2lensity2s2nuch2iigher2han2he232023tems2equired2or23uccess ,lo2rven2
though2densities2and2survivals2are2 1ower2than21ast2year, 2it2is2anticipated2thatZhe2densities2wil l2
remain2above2he2tninimum2equired2amount .22Theaiparian,',buffer2plots2t ontain2en2ree2Species2
with2survival2of2802percent2or2greater, 2which2results2in2a2diverse2habitat ,2especially2when2
considering2here2areaeven2a ther2ree2 5pecies2epresented2n2he2cone.Z?
3.3.2 Riparian Areas /Bottomlands.2 2 Within2 the2 122 plots2 located2 in2
riparian/ bottomland2ireas, 2) verall23Urvival2)f2rees2rom2 aaselineamid- summer22010)2o2all2Z0132
was2752percent2for2stems2unquestionably2dive, 2with2a2�orresponding2lensity2Df23102Stems2per2
acre2( Table26), 2vhich2s21ightly2iigher2than2ast2year. 2-�Out2bf2he2honfidently 2dentified23pecies,2
red 2aay2and2weet2bayaaad2heaowest23urviva12nZ1 0132( 62and23 �aercent ,2espectively).22Survival2
of2vater2upelo2vas2iot2hat2t nuch2higher2at2182percent.Z ZSurvival2af2�)ight2 )f2he2182planted2ree2
Hell23wamp /ScottBreekNitigationBiteZZ 72 PCS2'hosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2knnualReport2 2 MayZ10142
species2was2902percent2or2greater2( more2than21ast2year) 2and2three2of2these2eight2were21002
percentamore2han2ast2jear). MveraIIIurviva12 bf2,hrubs2rom lase Iine2 (mid- summer22010)2o2a112
2013Zvas2 32p ercentJor25 tems2hat2Nere2Unquestionably2b1ive, Zvith2i2 ;orres pond ing2Jensity2)f232
shrubs2 ber2 bcre, 2ess2han2ast2jear2 (Table23).M /irginia2tvillow2( /tea virginica)2s2he2nain2;hrub.222
2
Density2n2he2iparian/ bottomlands23reasJor2i112rees2ind2 ;hrubs2;ombined2ifter2
the2fa11220132survey2was23162stems2per2acre2for2all2species2unquestionably2alive .22Eight2tree2
species2iave2d2jreater2han2902p ercent2§ urvival, 2Atith2hree2inore2hot2far2 behind,&hich2esults2n2d2
diverse2iabitat, lspecially& hen2t; onsidering2here2) re2ive2norelpecies2epresented2n2he2 !one.2
2
3.3.3 Non- riparian Hardwood Flat. Overall2survival2of2trees2unquestionably2
alive2in2the21112plots2representing2the2non-riparian2hardwood2flat2area2from2baseline2(mid-
summer22010) 2toZa11220132Nas2862percent, 2✓ vith2a2corresponding2density2bf23592trees2per2acre2
( Table27), Z; Iightly2ess2han2ast2year. 22Trees2mith2Uncertain25 urvival2 ;tatus2(stem2bppeared2lead2
but23ould2iot2)e2; onfirmed) 2nrere2iot2ncludedan2; alculations. 2Dut2 bf2he224lonfidently2dentified2
tree23pecies ,25ourwood2(Oxydendron arboreum) 2and2- ed2bay2had2he 2owest23urvival2(02and2112
percent, 2espectively) 2uuhen2he2i ncertainitems2a re2bxcluded2bnd21123pecies2iad290�Dercent2Dr2
greater2survival, 2two2of2which2were21002percent- common2persimmon2and2possumhaw2 (Ilex
decidua)2RTabl ell ).M
OveraII23Urviva12bf25hrubsJrom2t )aseline2( mid- summer2 2010)2o2fa11220132vas2802
percent2for23tems2hat2li vere2Unquestionably2a1ive, 2/ vith2a23orresponding2density2 bf21323hrubs2per2
acre2( Table27), 23imilar2o3ast2year .22,Swamp2rose2(Rosa palustris )2iad2he2owest25urvival2Nhen2
excluding2he2Uncertain25 tems2( 02percent) 2but2Was2epresented2b y2)nly2l 25tem2bnd2was2followed2
bylpicebush2(Lindera benzoin, 226�)ercent) 2( Table27) .22Possumhaw2ViburnurnaViburnum nudum)2
had2helighestlurvival2( 1002percent) khen2) xcluding2incertain2; tems2and2ive2)ther2;pecies2iad2
greater2han2802percent2 ;urvival.2M
2
Density2n2he2hon- riparian2iardwood2flat2hreas2for2a112rees2hnd2 ;hrubs2Combined2
after2the2201323urvey2was23722stems2per2acreZor2a1123pecies2i nquestionably2alive2(832percent2
survival) aTable2l). Mven2hough2densities2are2; lightly2ower2han2ast2jear ,2both2density2bstimates2
are2ligher2han2he2equired22602; tems2and2helite2s2diverse2NithZ 72reelpeciesInd2ive1hrub2
species2Nith2h2g reater2han2802percent25urvival. 22 42otal2b f233�)1anted2ree2and2 ;hrub25pecies2ire2
unquestionably23live2n2he2ion- riparian23reas.2
2
3.52 Photographic2Documentation. 22A2few2photos2' epresentative2of220132conditions2
are2paired2with2b aseline2photos2at2he23ame2ocation2for2comparison2 (Appendix2D).22More2are2
available2apon2equest.222
4.0 SUMMARY
Accord ing2to2VVETS2rainfall2estimates, 230- day2ro11ing2tota12rainfaI12amounts2were2within2norma12
range2for2 nost2b f2he2jear, 2m ith2b nly2b2ew2periods2b f2) elow2hormal2ainfalla Fig ure25 ).2According2
to2the2US2Drought2Monitor, 2102weeks2during2the2growing2season2were2tn2 drought2and2all2were2
classified2as2) bnormally2dry. 2Eight2> f2hose2veeks2tvere2 )arly2n2he2jrowing2;eason.2
Post- restoration2vetland2iydrology2ind21ow2nonitoring2or2; uccess2bfficially2 )egan2January2Z011.22
Most2vells2bn2the2bntire2He112Swamp25ite, 2ncluding2those2n2the2hine2headwater2valley23ystems ,2
recorded2i vetland2hydroperiods2during2periods2b f2iormal2D r2) elow2iormal2ainfa11 .MNells23t.?lum's2
Pit2bnd2/ Vindleylontrol2forests2ecorded2tvetland2iydroperiods2; imilar2o2iydroperiods2 bf25imilarly2
Iocated2Hell2Swamp2wells2and2the2Winfield2control2forest2wells2recorded2a2range2of2wetland2
hydroperiods2similar2to2that2of2similarly2located2Hell2Swamp2wells .22Evidence2of2flow2(braided2
patterns, 2channel2formation, 2flowing2vvater, 2sediment2sorting) 2has2been2seen2in2some2areas2of2
most2)f2he2;tream2talley2; ystems ,2ncluding2he2;ingle- thread2: hannel 2for2he2hird2jear2n2a2ow.22
Hell23wamp /Scott2Creek2Mitigation25ite22 82 PCS2?hosphate2Company,2nc.2
Fourth2 knnual2Report2 2 May220142
OveraI125urvival2of2trees2anquestionably2aIive2n2the21921parian2buffer2plotsZrom2baseline2(m id-
sum mer22010) 2to2fa11 220132was2762percent, 2with2a23orresponding2lensity2f26502trees2per bcre.2Z
Overa1125 urvival2cf25 hrubs2n2he2p otentialaiparian2) uffer28reas2from2Daselineamid- summer22010)2
to2fa1 1220132was2672percent2for2stems2that2were2unquestionably2alive ,2with2a2corresponding2
density2)f22 52shrubs�Der2bcre. ZSurvival2lensity2n2he2ootentialaiparian2uffer23reas2for2a112trees2
and2 shrubs2 combined2 after2 the2 20132 survey2 was2 6752 stems2 per2 acre2 fort a112 species2
unquestionably2i1ive.22
Overall2survival2ofZrees2unquestionably2alive2n2the2other2122riparian2plots2from2baseline2(mid-
summer22010) 2to2fa11220132Nas2752percent, 2d vith2a2corresponding2lensity2f23102trees2per2acre .22
Overa1125urvival2Df2a hrubs2n2he2iparian2 plotsgrom2)aseline2( mid- summer22010)2toga11220132vas2
434)ercent2or23tems21hat2vere2 inquestionably2ilive, 2vith2alorresponding2 iensity2bf252;hrubs,'Per2
acre. 22Survival21ensity2n2the212aiparian2plots2for2b112trees2and2shrubs2 iombined23fter2the220132
survey2vas23162;tems:�per2icre2 for2iIlTpecies2Unquestionably23live .212
Overall2survival2:)f2 rees2n2 he21112ion- riparian2iardwoodZIat2plotsZrom2baseline2 (mid - summer2
2010) 2survey2to2fa11220132was2862percent, 2with2a2corresponding2density2cf23592trees2per2acre .2Z
Overa112 surviva12 oft shrubs2 in2 the2 hardwood2 flat2 areas2 from2 baseline2 (mid - summer2 2010)2
measurement2to2fa11220132was2802percent2for2stems2that2were2unquestionably2alive ,2with2a2
correspond ing2lensity2f21323hrubs2per23cre. 22Survival2lensity2n2he2hon- riparian2iardwoodzlat2
areas2for2all2 rees2and2shrubs2combined2after2the220132survey2was23722stems2per2acre2for2all2
species2inquestionably2ilive .272
2
Overallaurvival2b f2iIl2;tems2. inquestionably2ilive2it21e112Swampas2314)ercent2vith2366atems:2per2
acre. 22AI 12p I a nted2areas2are2cu rrently2a bove2density2success2req u i rements2for2each2type2of2
mitigation23nd2; urvival2) f2; everal2; pecies2) f2rees2s2iigh, 2, quating2o2i21iverse2iabitat2ocross2he2
site.2
HellLwamp /ScottZreek2vlitigation2LSite22 92 PCS2lhosphateZompany,2nc.2
Fourth2knnualReport2 2 May220142
LITERATURE CITED
CZR21ncorporated. 222009. 22Compensatory2Mitigation2Plan2for2Restoration2of2Hell2Swamp /Scott2
Creek2Natershed.2
CZR2ncorporated. 72010. 2As- Built2Report2or2hea- lellZ;wamp/ Scott2✓reek2Restoration2Site.71
2
CZR21ncorporated22011. 22Baseline2and2First2Annual2Report2for2the2Hel12Swamp /Scott2Creek2
Restoration25ite.2
CZR2 I ncorporated2 2012.2 2 Second2 Ann ua 12 (2011)2 Report2 for2 the2 He112 Swam p /Scott2 Creek2
Restoration25ite.2
CZRancorporated22013. 12fhird Ann uaIa2012) 2Report2or2he21e112Swamp /ScottZreek2Restoration2
Site.2
Kirby,ORobertZA. 221995. 22The23oil23urvey2) fBeaufort2--ounty, 2` lorth2:;arolina .ZNatural2Resources2
Conservation2Service,2JSDA.2
U.S.2Army2Corps2of2Engineers. 222002. 22Regulatory2gjuidance2 etter2(RGL)202- 02.22Guidance2Dn2
Compensatory2 mitigation2 projects2 for2 aquatic2 resource2 impacts2 under2 the2 Corps2
regulatory4)rogram4)ursuant2o2 5ection24042)f2heZlean2 Nater2Nct2ind25ectionO O2)f2he2
Rivers2and2-larbors2Nct.2
U. S. 2Army2Corps2of2Engineers ,2EPA,2NC2 Nildlife2Resources2Commission ,2and2NC2Division2of2
Water2)uality. 712003. 72StreamaNitigationBuidelines .72Nilmington,2AC.2
2
U.S.28,rmyBorps2)fa=ngineers. 72005. 2Fechnica125tandard2or2Nater- Table2Nonitoring2)fBotential2
Wetland2Sites. 2WRAP2Technical2Notes2Collection2 (ERDC2TN- WRAP- 05- 2.)2U.S.2Army2
Engineer2Research2ind2DevelopmentBenter ,2Vicksburg,aNS2
2
U. S. 2Army2Corps2of2Engineers2and2NC2Division2of2Water2Quality .222007.22Draft2nformation2on2
stream2- estoration2Nith2emphasis2Dn2the2; oastal2plain .2242Apri12upplement2o2JSACOE,2
et2i1.22003.2
2
U.S.2Army2Corps2of2Engineers. 222008. 22Regulatory2Guidance2Letter2 (RGL)208- 03.22Minimum2
monitoring2requirements2for2compensatory2mitigation2projects2involving2the2restoration ,2
establishment,a nd/ ora; nhancement2)f2iquatic2esources.2
2
U.S.2Army2Corps2)f2=-ngineers.Z2 010. ZRegional23upplement2o2he2Corps2Df2Engineers2Netland2
del ineation2nanual: 2Atlantic.2bnd2SuU�oastalR)lainaegion .MJersion2L.0.2ZPJ.S.2Nakeley,2
R. W. a- ichvar, aandB. V. Aoble, a' ds. 7ERCD /EL2FR- 08- 30,2/icksburg,WS.2
Hell23wamp /ScottBreekaNitigationBite72 102 PCS2DhosphateBompany,2nc.2
Fo u rth 2%n n u a I Re port2 2 May720142
m
0
c
c
v
m
Table21. 7Performancelriteria, 2nethodsaummary ,Indlurrentatatus.
Type of Mitigation
Performance Criteria
Documentation Methods
Dimension & Controls
Current Status
282 ebruary2-2i20ecember;
834)ercent2)f2tells2iad2i2
NOAA2NETS21ata2or2
hydroperiod2--12.5202152
922;emi- continuous2
normal2ainfall;2/alley2
percent2)f2he2jrowing2
>_12.5207252ind2>12.52o275
monitoring2vells�arrays);2
dimensions2�s2ndicated2�y2
season, 212�ercent2iadI2
percent2iydroperiod2vithin2
onsite2ain2gauge;2is- built2
LiDAR,�rossaections,2
marginal2�ydroperiod� >6-
the2opographic2'alley2
crossIections
comparison2o251ontro12
12.5�ercent�f2he2growing
sites, 23nd2agency2
season),2bnd2t4bercent21id2
Riparian2vetland2estoration
notlxhibitIketland2
(headwater2orest2mc12
concurrence
hydroperiod.
bottomland2iardwood)
Survival2)f2260:?)1anted2
Vegetation:�)lotsIn22
SurvivalJor23112rees�anc12
trees4)er2icre4using2
percent2)f2he2;ite;2122
shrub2;pecies)2)fter2he2
e�lantentedkoody
riparian�lots4HS42,2 -IS53,
Annual2nonitoring
2013aampling2)vent�vas2
5-2je
5- �ear�ld�lanted2voody2
HS67,2-IS70,21S75,2-iS79,
31623tems4)er2icreR69 %2
HS82,2-IS91,21S92,2-IS93,
survival)2or2023pecies2
stems
HS94,2-IS123)
unquestionably231ive.2
Flow2rom2a pperZcottZreek
is2)ow21elivered2J irectly2nto
the2vooded2iparian&etland
instead2)f2nto2helxcavated
diversion1hanne1231ong2he
northldge2)f2he2voods.22
Riparian2vetland2
Increase2n2tetland2
Semi - continuous2
28Tebruary2- 120ecember;
The2;hannel&as2illed2is2
enhancement
hydroperiod2rom�re-
monitoringkells;2)nsite2
Belhaven2�10AA2NETS2iata'
part2)f2he2estorationIQ
restorationlonditions
rain2jauge
for2iormal2ainfall
ScottZreek&atershed.72
Additional ly,2)verland21ow2
from2he&atershed2iorthV
the2vooded2iparianketland
can2iowInter2his&etland2
without2)eing2liverted2)ffsite
by2heIldlhannel.
m =
o (D
c —
� v
E 3
v C/)
o
(D
0
v
CD
N
0
3
v v
o
A �
N
Table21.2continued).
Type of Mitigation
Performance Criteria
Documentation Methods
Dimension & Controls
Current Status
90 %2f&ells2iad2i2
hyd roperiod2-6 %2)f2he2
11125emi- continuous2
282= ebruary2- 12December;
growing2;eason,2vith2302
?64)ercent22hydroperiod2or,
monitoring2nrells4l2nrell /10
NOAA2NETS21ata2or2
percentV21vells1aving12
hydric2nineral2;oils
acres);2)nsite2ain2,lauge
normal2ainfall,2;omparison2
hydroperiod2�12.54bercentIf
W2 lontro12;ites
the2growingaeason,23nd232
percent21id2iot2�xhibit232
Non- riparianketland2
wetland2iydroperiod.
resto ratio nahardwood2lats)
Survival2)fZ?604)lanted2
Survival2lensity2orIll2rees
trees:�)er2icre4using2
Vegetation4)lots2)nZ12
(and2;hrub2;pecies)23fter2he
acreage�lanted2n2rees)2)f
percent2)f2he1ite;21112
Annual2nonitoring
2013�ampOer1ce
5- �ear�ld�lanted2ivoody2
plots
483%2
372atems�er�cre�83 %2
stems
survival)2or23llapecies2
unquestionably2 live.
The2iydroperiods2at2he2wo
Semi - continuous2
282:ebruary2-2�20ecember;
wells2tvith:�)re- restoration2
Non- riparian&etland2
Increase2n2vetland2
monitoring&ells2-IS2,2
NOAA2NETS21ata2or2
data2n creased 2rom4)re-
enhancement4hardwood2
hydroperiod2rom4re-
HS17,2S18;nsite2ain2
� �
normal2ainfall,�omparison2
restorationlnd2�S2ano� re-
flats)
restoration1onditions
gauge
to2lontrolaites
data)�xhibited2i2
hydroperiodVZl8:�Oercent2n
2013.
Photographs2)f2low2
omeIraided�)atterns2ind2
codepons
channel2ormation2iave2
Linear2eet�f�redit�ased2
deposits,2lebris2lows,2
deposits, ,Zsedi s,2
Corps2ind2)WQApril22007
beenaeen2n2;ome?areas2)f
Zero2o2irst2)rderatream2
on2nost2apstream2ocation2
wrack2ines,ainuosity,2
lnformation;
Information;�alendar�ear;2
most2�tream�alleys.�lowing
s.,Tlo
restorationkithin2iparian2
of21ow2locumented2it2east
braided2eatures,lhannel2
lhave AA2NETS21ar;
a
water2�asmeen2� n2n2h
het
headwateraystem
twice�eryear2n2 2jears2)ut
features);aemi- continuous
f all;
rmal2ainfall;210
for2i rmal2
singleias2) d2;han 2
of�i2
monitoring2,vell�rrays;2
c e ormal2
other- hannels.2Videonf2
rainfall2
some2lowlvents2s2ncluded
GPS;�pen�hannel21ow2
onIom pan ionZD2o2his2
�
monitoringlquipment.
o m
� v
3
c
W U)
n
0
a
v
m
O
3
N �
<
ly �
o
� n
N
TableA .2concluded).
Type of Mitigation
Performance Criteria
Documentation Methods
Dimension & Controls
Current Status
Flowing&ater2ias2)een2
seen2n2he2;ingle- thread2
channelBnIumerous2tisits
TwoBankfull2wents2n2
Photos2rvinter2and2; ummer ;2StreamWitigation23uidelines2
and2ecorded2)y2jauges.2
separate2jears2luringZ2
channela tability2�nalysis
Apri1 22003
Evidence2)f2)ut2)f2)ank2
years2)f2nonitoring
events2flso2ias2)een2ioted.
Vid eo2)f2;ome21ow2)vents2s
on2i1ompanionZWo2his2
report.
Survival2lensity2n2he2192
First2)r2;econd2)rder2;tream2
restoration
potential2iparian2)uffer2
80:?)ercent2;urvival2)f2
areas2or2ill23tems2ifter2he
planted2reelpecies2mithin2
20131ampling2tvasX752
502eet2A2;tream2m2)ach2
Established2tegetation2
StreamWitigation23uidelines
stems er crea70 /02
side2;fter252jearsaoO202
plots; 3)lant2;u rviva12
Apri172003
survival)2or2illapecies2
trees ) er2icre- :�Oer2)uffer2
analysis
unquestionably23live.22
criteria)
Density2n2he2meIuffer:�)lot
with in2heaingle2hread2
segment2s21172;tems:�Oer2
acre2or23112ilive.
15A2�1 CAC1213.02602f a r-
Pamlico2RiverBasin2
MitigationBrogram2or2
Survival2lensity2n2he2192
502eet2me2)r2)oth2;ides2)f2
RiparianBuffers;BWQ2252
potential2iparian2)uffer2
stream2eature2hownIn2
Mon itoring2orj)lanted2ree �
Jan uary7008Llarification2
areas2or2fll23tems2ifter2h e
Ri p arian2)uffer2estoration
USGS2)rBountyaoil2urvey
survival2/vithin2,stablished2
#2008- 017;2or2ero2)rder2
20132;ampling2nras2752
or�eroBrder�tream2
�
plots2it�ears21,B,2indBi.
streams, 2lexibleBufer2
stems2per23cre2or2112
segment&ithB202rees:�Oer
mitigation2f2ipproved2)y2
species2anquestionably2
acre23t2naturitya52jears)
EMC2is2;tated2n24012
alive.72
certification2lated2152
January72009aDW Q #2008-
0868
1 aNith2)levations2anging2romMeet2aboveNSL2o2ess2han2 Boot, 2he2ion- riparian2nineralglats2at2- IellBwamp2vill2iave232ange2)f2hydroperiods2ncreasing2iownslope2nto2he2i parian2
wetlands.22
ZZ)ocu mentati on 2nay2)e2or2ictive2xa)ast2l ow2:ond iti on s; 2nay2ncl ude2)ther2ag en cy -23 pproved2;tructu ra 12)1 ements2x2ise2)f2ech n ical2)q u i pment2i ot2m list.
0 m
c —
D v
c
v co
o
o n
m
77
v
0
S
CO
cn
0
cn
m
m
C-)
0
� 3
v v
N �<
O -
� 0
Table 2A. Hydroperiods in 2013 of 92 riparian wells (includes 80 stream array wells) at Hell Swamp restoration site during all rainfall conditions.
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
percent of
Well
where water
Dec where
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
2:6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is
season
or above
1-
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
16
4/29 -5/14
42
27
139
6.4
X
18
11/7-11/24
81
2/28 -5/19
53
27
162
28.7
X
50
6/17 -8/6
72
2/28 -5/10
67
27
142
25.5
X
22
11/2-11/23
70
2/28 -5/8
70
27
150
24.8
X
22
11/2-11/23
75
27
110
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
79
26
63
<17
NA
<6
X
23
2/28 -3/22
19
3/24 -4/12
82
27
172
36
7/21 -8/26
12.8
X
17
10/9 -10/25
35
11/2-12/6
91
27
85
20
2/28 -3/19
7.1
X
78
2/28 -5/16
21
6/29 -7/19
92
27
203
27.6
X
19
8/11 -8/30
60
10/8 -12/6
45
2/28 -4/13
93
27
139
17
10/9 -10/25
15.9
X
23
11/2-11/24
Cn
D v
3
v Cl)
o
o (7
m
v
o'
v
0
v
m
0
0
v�
� v
N `<
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
percent of
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
Well
where water Dec where
Dec where
i
Dates
growing
<6
2:6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25 %
>25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is
season
or above
1-
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
94
26
84
<17
22
NA
<6
X
123
27
81
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
UT1 -1A
27
78
20
2/28 -3/19
7.1
X
22
2/28 -3/21
UT1 -1C
27
120
19
3/25 -4/13
7.8
X
22
4/16 -5/8
76
2/28 -5/14
26.9
UT1 -2A 27
136
X
19
7/1 -7/19
81
2/28 -5/19
28.7
UT1 -2C 27
173
X
24
6/30 -7/23
76
2/28 -5/14
UT 1 -3A 27
120
26.9
X
20
6/30 -7/19
75
2/28 -5/13
UT1 -3C
27
114
26.6
X
20
6/30 -7/19
74
2/28 -5/12
19
8/11 -8/29
UT2 -1A
27
179
26.2
X
18
10/9 -10/27
35
11/2-12/6
77
2/28 -5/15
20
8/11 -8/30
UT2 -1 C
27
189
27.3
X
19
10/9 -10/28
36
11/1-12/6
3 Cp
D v
C
� 3
�
C
v �
o
o C7
m
v
0
T
0
v
m
n
0
v v
N
o
� n
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
percent of
Well
where water Dec where
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25 %
>25 -75 %
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is'-
season
or above
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
86
2/28 -5/24
21
6/29 -7/20
UT2 -2A
27
191
30.5
X
20
8/11 -8/30
23
11/2-11/24
86
2/28 -5/24
22
6/29 -7/21
UT2 -2C
27
192
20
8/11 -8/30
30.5
X
17
10/9 -10/25
23
11/2-11/24
74
2/28 -5/12
19
8/11 -8/29
UT3 -1 A2
27
167
26.2
X
18
10/9 -10/26
35
11/2-12/6
76
2/28 -5/14
20
7/1 -7/20
UT3 -1 C
27
179
26.9
X
20
8/11 -8/31
57
10/10 -12/6
UT3 -2A
27
144
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
45
2/28 -4/13
15.9
UT3-3A
27
79
X
19
4/20 -5/9
50
2/28 -4/18
UT3 -3C
27
97
17.7
X
20
4/20 -5/10
s
Dv
3
c
L Cn
CD
o C7
� m
K
cfl
v
o'
0
w
v
co
0
0
W v
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
percent of
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
Well
where water
Dec where
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
2!6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is
season
or above
1-
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
UT3-4A
27
81
45
72
2/28 -4/13
15.9
25.5
X
X
UT34C
27
110
2/28 -5/10
UT3 -5A
27
192
160
2/28 -8/6
56.7
X
UT3 -5C2
27
99
72
2/28 -5/10
15.9
X
23
2/28 -3/22
UT3 -6A 27
87
8.2
X
22
3/24 -4/14
45
2/28 -4/13
UT3 -7A 27
79
15.9
X
18
4/20 -5/8
45
2/28 -4/13
UT3 -7C 27
92
15.9
X
20
4/20 -5/10
UT3 -8A
27
97
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
UT3 -8C
27
101
75
2/28 -5/13 26.6
X
79
2/28 -5/17 28.0
UT3 -9A
27
118
X
21
6/29 -7/20
UT3 -9C
27
173
161
2/28 -8/7
57.1
X
71
2/28 -5/9
UT4 -1A
27
164
17
10/9 -10/26
25.2
X
35
11/2-12/6
89
2/28 -5/27
UT4 -1 C2
27
185
20
8/11 -8/30
31.6
X
59
10/9 -12/6
— C/)
v
D
ED 3
�
c -!�
v Cn
o
o n
(D
77
0
v
o�
T
3
O
U)
v
m
n
O
�3
v v
N �
o —
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water
Dec where
Dec where
growing
Dates '
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25 %
>25 -75 %
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is'-
season
or above
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
45
2/28 -4/13
UT4 -2A
27
90
15.9
X
18
4/20 -5/8
118
2/28 -6/25
26
6/29 -7/25
UT5 -1A
27
236
41.8
X
29
8/11 -9/9
58
10/9 -12/6
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
UT5 -1 C
27
184
22
10/8 -10/29
X
36
11/1-12/6
UT5 -2A
27
160
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
UT6 -4A
27
138
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
45
2/28 -4/13
UT6 -4C
27
149
15.9
X
33
4/16 -5/19
UT6 -5A
27
130
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
45
2/28 -4/13
UT6 -5C
27
85
15.9
X
18
4/20 -5/8
UT6 -6A
27
101
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
UT6 -6C 27
97
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
45
2/28 -4/13
UT7 -1A 27
132
15.9
X
23
4/16 -5/9
46
2/28 -4/14
UT7 -1 C
27
129
16.3
X
23
4/16 -5/9
CI) 3
D v
3
c
v C/)
o
o (�
v
0
Z5
T
0
v
m
0
0
v v
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
percent of
days 28 Feb -6 days 28 Feb -6
Well
where water
Dec where Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
>_6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25 %
>25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is - water table is
season
or above
1-
(282 days)
12" or above 12" or above
78
2/28 -5/16
UT7 -2A
27
151
20
6/30 -7/19
27.7
X
19
8/11 -8/29
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
UT7 -2C
27
146
X
17
11/7-11/23
UT7 -3A
27
131
76
2/28 -5/14
26.9
X
UT7 -3C
27
212
180
2/28 -8/26 63.8
2/28 -3/21
X
22
UT8 -1 A
27
131
7.8
X
17
10/8 -10/24
75
2/28 -5/13
UT8 -1 C 27
163
26.6
X
17
10/8 -10/24
75
2/28 -5/13
UT8 -2A
27
148
20
7/1 -7/20
26.6
X
21
11/2-11/22
UT8 -2C
27
101
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
49
2/28 -4/17
UT8 -3A
27
88
17.4
X
19
4/19 -5/8
UT8 -3C
27
85
71
2/28 -5/9
25.1
X
UT84A
27
115
76
2/28 -5/14
26.9
X
81
2/28 -5/19
UT8 -4C
27
136
28.7
X
24
6/30 -7/23
UT8 -5A
23
30
<17
NA
<6
X
— C/)
v
D
3
c
L C/)
� o
0
C7
(D
X_
Ef
v
o�
v
0
0
v
m
n
0
3
v �
� v
N �
C5
-P, Z)
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
percent of
Well
where water Dec where
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25 %
>25 -75 %
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is'-
season
or above
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
UT8 -5C
27
30
20
2/28 -3/19
7.1
X
UT8 -6A
27
97
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
K
UT8 -6C
27
107
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
88
2/28 -5/26
28
6/29 -7/26
USC -1A
27
221
31.2
X
29
8/11 -9/9
58
10/9 -12/6
81
2/28 -5/19
21
6/30 -7/20
USC -1C
27
200
28.7
X
28
8/11 -9/8
58
10/9 -12/6
USC -2A
27
89
<17
NA
<6
X
USG -2C
27
81
19
2/28 -3/18
6.7
X
45
2/28 -4/13
USC -3C
27
108
15.9
X
18
4/20 -5/8
USC -4A
27
84
21
2/28 -3/20
7.4
X
22
2/28 -3/21
USC -4C
27
115
7.8
X
17
4/20 -5/7
160
2/28 -8/6
USC -5A
27
231
56.7
X
23
11/1-11/24
77
2/28 -5/15
USC -5C2
27
119
27.3
X
22
6/30 -7/21
D v
3
c
v cl)
o
m
o n
� m
v
o�
v
Z7
0
U)
3
v
cn
0
0
v v
O —
� n
Table 2A. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
percent of
Well
where water
Dec where
Dec where
Dates '
growing
a6
o
L 6- 12.5/0
0
>12.5 -25 /o
0
>25 -75 /o
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is1-
season
or above
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
160
2/28 -8/6
USC -6A
27
172
31
8/11 -9/11
56.7
X
59
10/8 -12/6
160
2/28 -8/6
USC -6C
27
278
26.7
X
118
8/11 -12/6
87
2/28 -5/25
28
6/29 -7/26
USC -7A
27
216
30.8
X
30
8/11 -9/10
58
10/9 -12/6
88
2/28 -5/26
30
6/29 -7/28
USC -7C
27
222
31.2
X
32
8/11 -9/12
58
10/9 -12/6
88
2/28 -5/26
25
6/29 -7/23
USC -8A2
27
213
30
8/11 -9/11
31.2
X
18
10/9 -10/27
35
11/2-12/6
87
2/28 -5/25
24
6/30 -7/23
USC -8C
27
208
29
8/11 -9/10
30.8
X
17
10/9 -10/25
35
11/2-12/6
m =
o (D
c
c)
3
> v
3
c
v C/)
o (�
m
m
R
v
0
m
N
VS
I
v
0
En
v
m
n
0
�3
m v
N
O —
A 0
Table 2A. (concluded).
'Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column.
`Well malfunction resulted in an estimation of exact hydroperiod length and so reported hydroperiod could possibly be shorter
than what occurred.
Hydrologic Zone
Cumulative
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
percent of
days 28 Feb -6
days 28 Feb -6
Well
where water
Dec where
Dec where
Dates
growing
<6
o
z6-12.5%
0
>12.5 -25 /o
0
>25 -75 /o
>75 -100
table is -12"
water table is -
water table is
season
or above
1-
(282 days)
12" or above
12" or above
USC -9A
27
149
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
USC -9C
27
137
76
2/28 -5/14
26.9
X
USC -10A
27
138
86
2/28 -5/24
30.5
X
160
2/28 -8/6
USC -11A
27
216
26.7
X
17
8/11 -8/27
94
2/28 -6/1
USC -11 C
27
121
37
6/29 -8/4
33.3
X
28
8/11 -9/9
USC -12A
27
126
78
2/28 -5/16
27.6
X
110
2/28 -6/17
USC -12C
27
191
39
6/29 -8/6
39.0
X
27
8/11 -9/8
91
2/28 -5/29
USC -13A
27
171
29
6/29 -7/27
32.2
X
27
121
17
8/11 -8/27
USC -13C
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
'Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column.
`Well malfunction resulted in an estimation of exact hydroperiod length and so reported hydroperiod could possibly be shorter
than what occurred.
m=
o (D
c —
3 C/)
Dv
B
c
m Cn
coo
o C7
m
v
o'
m
71
w
zT
0
0
3
v
co
0
0
v v
<�
N -
O —
.p n
Table 2B. Hydroperiods in 2013 of 111 non - riparian hardwood flat monitoring wells at Hell Swamp restoration site and 14 nearby control wells during all
rainfall conditions.
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water
Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
' growing
Dates
<6
o
' > -6 -12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25% >25 -75 /o >75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
1
27
282
138
282
78
2/28 -12/6
100.0
X
22
27
2/28 -5/16
27.7
X
77
2/28 -5/15
3
27
177
27.3
X
35
11/2-12/6
4
27
106
70
2/28 -5/8
24.8
X
71
2/28 -5/9
5
27
127
25.2
X
35
11/2-12/6
72
2/28 -5/10
6
27
155
25.5
X
35
11/2-12/6
30
2/28 -3/29
7
27
163
19
4/20 -5/9
10.6
X
17
8/11 -8/27
8
27
105
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
218
2/28 -10/3
9
27
278
77.3
X
60
10/8 -12/6
10
27
137
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
11
23
37
<17
NA
<6.0
X
90
2/28 -528
40
6/29 -8/7
12
27
143
31.9
X
37
8/11 -9/18
42
10/26 -12/6
221
2/28 -10/6
13
27
281
78.4
X
60
10/8 -12/6
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
c�D
o C7
m
v
o'
m
n
Cn
3
0
0
3
v
CD
0
0
v m
N
O -
�0
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z 6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
14
27
133
90
20
2/28 -3/19
7.1
X
15
27
91
2/28 -5/29
32.3
X
16
27
92
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
49
2/28 -4/17
17
27
107
17.4
X
19
4/20 -5/9
91
2/28 -5/29
18
27
164
29
6/29 -7/27
32.3
X
20
8/11 -8/30
23
2/28 -3/22
19
27
159
8.2
X
19
4/20 -5/9
20
27
108
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
86
2/28 -5/24
28
6/30 -7/27
21
27
196
30.5
X
22
10/9 -10/30
35
11/2-12/6
22
27
143
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
30
2/28 -3/29
23
27
129
13.8
X
39
4/1 -5/9
24
27
129
79
2/28 -5/17
28.0
X
46
2/28 -4/13
25
27
86
16.3
X
17
4/20 -5/7
26
27
282
282
2/28 -12/6
100.0
X
27
27
142
86
2/28 -5/24
50.4
X
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
c�D
o C7
m
v
o'
(D
71
E,
T
zT
0
0
S
N
(D
C7
0
v v
N �
o —
�0
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z 6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
90
2/28 -5/28
28
27
165
28
6/29 -7/26
31.9
X
18
8/11 -8/28
2/28 -5/14
76
29
27
181
20
8/11 -8/30
27.0
X
35
11/2-12/6
23
2/28 -3/22
30
27
90
17.0
X
48
3/24 -5/8
46
2/28 -4/13
31
27
127
16.3
X
19
4/19 -5/8
30
2/28 -3/29
323
27
73
10.6
X
17
4/20 -5/7
33
27
88
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
343
27
124
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
35
27
97
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
36
27
147
78
2/28 -5/16
27.7
X
89
2/28 -5/27
30
6/29 -7/28
37
27
220
31
8/11 -9/10
31.6
X
21
10/9 -10/29
35
11/2-12/6
46
2/28 -4/13
38
27
149
16.3
X
20
4/20 -5/10
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
coo
o C7
m
v
o'
m
71
8
n
Cn
3
0
0
3
v
m
0
0
v m
N �
O -
�0
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75% >75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
71
2/28 -5/9
39
27
176
25.2
X
18
8/11 -8/28
40
27
282
282
2/28 -12/6
100.0
X
41
27
101
18
2/28 -3/17
6.4
X
43
27
70
18
2/28 -3/17
6.4
X
44
27
97
70
2/28 -5/8
24.8
X
45
27
131
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
46
27
129
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
86
2/28 -5/24
24
6/29 -7/22
47
27
188
30.5
X
19
8/11 -8/29
17
11/7-11/23
86
2/28 -5/24
48
27
137
30.5
X
22
6/29 -7/20
49
27
108
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
23
2/28 -3/22
50
27
115
8.2
X
18
4/20 -5/8
51
27
98
18
2/28 -3/17
6.4
X
46
2/28 -4/13
52
27
146
16.3
X
19
4/20 -5/9
77
2/28 -5/15
54
27
184
26
6/29 -7/24
27.3
X
22
11/2-11/23
m=
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
coo
o C7
m
v
o'
m
T
zT
0
0
3
v
(o
n
0
v v
N -
O —
� n
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75% >75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
78
2/28 -5/16
55
27
156
27.7
X
23
6/30 -7/21
56
27
141
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
57
27
123
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
58
27
138
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
59
27
120
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
60
27
113
78
2/28 -5/16
27.7
X
well
malfunction
61
prevented data 127
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
collection in
February
2/28 -4/13
45
62
27 137
16.0
X
29
4/20 -5/9
2/28 -5/15
77
21
6/30 -7/20
63
27
164
27.3
X
22
10/9 -10/26
20
11/2-11/21
64
27
102
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
45
2/28 -4/13
65
27
91
16.0
X
28
4/20 -5/8
66
27
66
20
2/28 -3/19
7.1
X
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
c�D
o C7
m
v
o'
m
71
E8
zT
0
0
3
v
CD
0
0
v v
N �
O —
.p n
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75% >75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
92
2/28 -5/30
38
6/29 -8/5
68
27
145
32.6
X
25
8/11 -9/14
59
10/9 -12/6
76
2/28 -5/14
69
27
167
27.0
X
17
8/11 -8/27
71
2/28 -5/9
71
27
139
25.2
X
29
7/9 -8/7
72
27
135
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
77
2/28 -5/15
73
27
109
27.3
X
19
7/1 -7/19
46
2/28 -4/14
74
27
103
16.3
X
20
4/20 -5/10
49
2/28 -4/17
76
27
90
17.4
X
19
4/20 -5/9
79
2/28 -5/17
77
27
186
23
6/29 -7/21
28.0
X
18
8/11 -8/28
45
2/28 -4/13
78
27
117
16.0
X
19
4/20 -5/9
80
27
114
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
75
2/28 -5/13
17
8/11 -8/27
81
27
175
26.6
X
18
10/9 -10/26
35
11/2-12/6
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
c�D
o C7
m
v
o'
(D
71
8
C7
Cn
T
zT
0
0
3
N
(D
n
0
v�
N `G
O
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
83
27
107
20
2/28 -3/9
7.0
X
16
2/28 -3/15
84
27
170
20
6/29 -7/18
7.0
X
17
8/11 -8/27
2/28 -5/19
81
85
27
180
22
6/29 -7/20
28.7
X
18
11/2-11/19
22
2/28 -3/21
86
27
103
7.8
X
19
4/19 -5/8
87
27
126
72
2/28 -5/10
25.5
X
88
27
109
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
81
2/28 -5/19
39
6/29 -8/6
89
27
115
28
8/19 -9/16
28.7
X
17
10/8 -10/24
35
11/2-12/6
90
27
80
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
23
2/28 -3/22
30
4/20 -5/10
95
27
192
21
6/29 -7/19
21.3
X
22
8/9 -8/31
60
10/8 -12/6
963
27
132
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
�J o
m
o C7
m
v
o'
m
71
N
0
I
0
3
v
co
0
0
v v
N �
o —
�0
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water
Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
u
>_6 -12.5 /o
o 0
>12.5 -25 /o >25 -75 /o >75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
12" or above'
77
2/28 -5/15
23
6/29 -7/21
97
27
178
27.3
X
19
8/11 -8/30
17
10/8 -10/24
45
2/28 -4/13
98
27
165
16.0
X
29
4/20 -5/9
49
2/28 -4/17
99
27
104
17.4
X
33
4/20 -5/13
2/28 -5/27
89
1003
27
162
31.6
X
17
7/9 -7/26
101
27
109
86
2/28 -5/24
30.5
X
102
27
71
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
49
2/28 -4/17
103
27
113
20
4/20 -5/10
17.4
X
17
7/9 -7/24
104
27
113
71
2/28 -5/9
25.2
X
105
26
36
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
106
27
64
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
1073
27
107
46
2/28 -4/14
16.3
X
108
27
282
282
2/28 -12/6
100.0
X
109
27
95
72
2/28 -5/10
25.6
X
110
27
139
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
111
27
93
72
2/28 -5/10
25.6
X
78
2/28 -5/16
112
27
136
27.7
X
21
6/29 -7/19
-n a:
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
coo
o C7
m
v
o'
m
A
0
0
3
N
co
0
0
v v
N -
O -
�0
Table 2B. (continued).
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
Dates '
growing
<6
z6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25% >25 -75%
>75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
y )
12" or above'
1133
27
78
44
2/28 -4/12
15.6
X
114
27
107
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
115
27
177
161
2/28 -8/7
57.1
X
116
27
114
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
1173
27
119
75
2/28 -5/13
26.6
X
118
27
66
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
119
27
77
23
2/28 -3/22
8.2
X
120
26
50
<17
NA
<6
X
87
2/28 -5/25
121
27
157
30.9
X
29
6128 -7/26
122
25
26
<17
NA
<6
X
124
27
62
18
2/28 -3/17
6.4
X
Control
wells
Ref 1
27
76
76
2/28 -5/14
27.0
X
Ref2
27
79
79
2/28 -5/17
28.0
X
Ref3
27
90
87
2/28 -5/25
30.9
X
PP1
20
60
19
2/28 -3/18
2/28 -5/10
6.7
X
72
PP2
27
144
25.5
X
21
6/29 -7/19
93
2/28 -5/31
28
6/29 -7/26
PP3
27
228
32.9
X
29
8/11 -9/9
59
10/9 -12/6
PP4
27
108
29
2/28 -3/28
10.3
X
WFA
27
83
83
2/28 -5/21
29.4
X
m=
o (D
c —
�C/)
Dv
B
c
m �
�J o
m
o C7
m
v
o'
m
71
N
N
S
O
O
S
v
CD
0
O
N �
N �
O —
�P n
Table 2B. (concluded).
'Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column.
2Located in an existing jurisdictional wetland and not in a control wetland forest.
3Well malfunction resulted in an estimation of exact hydroperiod length and so reported hydroperiod could possibly be shorter than what occurred.
Hydrologic Zone
Consecutive
Days 1 -27 Feb
Cumulative days 28
days 28 Feb -6
Percent of
Well
where water
Feb -6 Dec where water
Dec where
�
Dates
growing
<6
u
>_6 -12.5 /o
o 0
>12.5 -25 /o >25 -75 /o
>75 -100
table is -12" or
table is -12" or above
water table is -
season (282
above
days)
12" or above'
WF -2
27
62
24
2/28 -3/23
8.5
X
WF -3
21
34
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
WF -4
25
39
22
2/28 -3/21
7.8
X
WF -5
4
3
<17
NA
<6
X
WF -6
27
93
77
2/28 -5/15
27.3
X
WF -7 20
51
29
2/28 -3/28
10.3
X
'Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column.
2Located in an existing jurisdictional wetland and not in a control wetland forest.
3Well malfunction resulted in an estimation of exact hydroperiod length and so reported hydroperiod could possibly be shorter than what occurred.
Table 3a. Summary of monthly 2013 visual observations (see Table B -1) from
upper Scott Creek and its headwater systems (UT1 -UT7) and a tributary to Smith
Creek (UT8). (Numbering of flow stations starts with the most downstream station
at each tributary.)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site
Fourth Annual Report
T -23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
May 2014
Number of months
Number of months
Flow station
with visual
observation of
Flow station
with visual
observation of
flow
flow
USC -1 B
2
UT3 (continued)
USC -21B
3
UT3 -6B
2
USC -313
4
UT3 -7B
3
USC -413
7
UT3 -8B
1
USC -51B
3
UT3 -913
0
USC -6B
3
UT4 -1 B
0
USC -7B
2
USC -81B
1
UT4 -2B
0
USC -9B
5
USC -10B
6
UT6 -3B 1
USC -11 B
1
UT6 -4B 2
UT6 -5B 2
UT6 -6B 1
UT1 -1 B
5
UT1 -2B
1
UT1 -3B
2
UT7 -1 B
2
UT1 -4B
2
UT7 -2B
UT7 -3B
1
0
UT2 -1 B
0
UT8 -1 B
UT8 -2B
6
5
UT3 -1 B
2
UT3 -2B
4
UT8 -3B
5
UT3 -3B
3
UT8 -4B
0
UT3 -4B
1
UT8 -5B
3
UT3 -5B
0
UT8 -6B
4
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site
Fourth Annual Report
T -23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
May 2014
m=
o (D
c
�U)
> v
B
c �
v Cn
o
o C7
m
cQ�
v
0
M
LO
m
T,
N
0
Cn
ZY
M
m
0
0
v v
< 0
O -
-PI 0
Table 3b. Summary of visual observations of flow in 2013 from Bay Ciy, Scarp, Porter Creek and Duck Creek
Number of months
Number of months
Flow station (# of site visits) with visual
Flow station (# of site visits) with visual
observation of flow
observation of flow
LC/
Porter Creek
BCF1 (12) most upstream 6
PCF1 (14)
5
BCF2 (12)
BCF3 (12) 7
BCF4 (12) most downstream 8
*PCF2 (7)
5
HF1 (12) 2
Scarp
Duck Creek
UD1 -F1 (12) 1
DKCW1F (14) upstream
3
UD1WF1 (12) upstream 0
UD1WF2 (12) downstream 0
DKCW2F (14) downstream
4
UD8F1 (12) downstream 8
DKCW3F (14) upstream
3
UD8F2 (12) upstream 11
DKCW4F (14) downstream
6
*Removed in June 2013 due to logging activities
Table 4. Fourth annual (fall 2013) survival of trees and shrubs planted in 123 0.22 -acre plots (12 riparian
and 111 non - riparian) at Hell Swamp.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site T -25 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
Tagged at
Fall 2013 stems
Alive
Unsure
Total
Alive
baseline'
RIPARIAN PLOTS
NON - RIPARIAN PLOTS
Trees
Trees
Stems
1,098
819
27
846
Density
416
310
10
320
370
Shrubs
Stems
399
319
5
Stems
35
15
4
19
Density
13
6
2
7
Unknown
5
6
TOTAL NON - RIPARIAN
Stems
78
0
0
0
TOTAL RIPARIAN
287
9,363
Density stems +24.4ac
450
Total stems
1,211
834
31
865
Density stems +2.64ac
459
316
12
328
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site T -25 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
Tagged at
Fall 2013 stems
baseline'
Alive
Unsure
Tota13
NON - RIPARIAN PLOTS
Trees
Stems
10,169
8,756
277
9,033
Density
417
359
11
370
Shrubs
Stems
399
319
5
324
Density
16
13
0
13
Unknown
Stems
414
1
5
6
TOTAL NON - RIPARIAN
Total stems
10,982
9,076
287
9,363
Density stems +24.4ac
450
372
12
384
Tagged at
Fall 2012 stems
baseline'
Alive
Unsure
Tota13
ALL PLOTS
Trees
Stems
11,267
9,575
304
9,879
Density
416
354
11
365
Shrubs
Stems
434
334
9
343
Density
16
12
0
13
Unknown
Stems
492
1
5
6
TOTAL ALL PLOTS
Total stems
12,193
9,910
318
10,228
Density stems +27.06ac
451
366
12
378
'The number tagged at baseline has been adjusted to reflect the proper identification of species in the fall
sampling event and extra planted stems found in subsequent monitoring years. The baseline survival
columns were not adjusted for this.
2Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current
sampling event and dead if at both the current and last sampling events the stem was not unquestionably
alive.
3Total includes alive + unsure.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site T -25 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
0 m
c —
C)
D v
c
v �
� o
m
0 C)
7L m
CD
cQ'
v
0
S
LO
m
N
rn
v
n
0
m
v
CD
C)
0
B
v v
� c
N
O �
A C7
Table 5. Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 19 0.017 -acre plots in potential riparian buffer areas at Hell Swamp from baseline (summer 2010) to fall 2013.
Scientific name
Common name
Tagged at
baseline'
Alive
Baseline stems
Unsure
Total3
Alive
Fall 2013 stems
Unsure
Total3
Percent Survival4
Alive Total3
Large trees
Carya aquatica
water hickory
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
100
100
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
35
33
0
33
32
1
33
91
94
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
5
5
0
5
2
0
2
40
40
Nyssa biflora
swamp black gum
39
32
1
33
25
2
27
64
69
Prunus serotina
black cherry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Quercus alba
white oak
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
100
100
Q. falcata
southern red oak
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
100
100
Q. laurifolia
laurel oak
14
17
0
17
13
0
13
93
93
Q. lyrata
overcup oak
38
30
0
30
31
2
33
82
87
Q. michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
30
30
0
30
24
1
25
80
83
Q. nigra
water oak
11
8
0
8
11
0
11
100
100
Q. pagoda
cherrybark oak
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
--
--
Q. phellos
willow oak
4
3
0
3
4
0
4
100
100
Q. spp.
oak
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
--
--
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
36
33
2
35
28
1
29
78
81
Ulmus americans
American elm
14
13
0
13
12
1
13
86
93
Small trees
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
8
9
0
9
3
0
3
38
38
Cyrilla racemiflora
titi
5
5
0
5
3
0
3
60
60
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
7
5
0
5
7
0
7
100
100
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
1. opaca
American holly
4
4
0
4
2
0
2
50
50
Magnolia virginiana
sweet bay
13
9
2
11
5
0
5
38
38
Oxydendron arboreum
sourwood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Persea palustris
red bay
6
8
0
8
0
1
1
0
17
Total tree stems
275
251
5
256
208
9
217
76
79
Density
859
784
16
800
650
28
678
o m
c —
Dv
c �
c
c
v U)
� o
m
o 0
7L m
CD
v
0
S
LP
9
N
V
n
U)
0
Cn
s
W
CD
0
0
�3
v v
� c
O_ _
? n
Table 5. (concluded).
baseline survival columns were not adjusted for this.
2Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last
sampling events the stem was not unquestionably alive.
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
Tagged at
Baseline stems
Fall 2013 stems
Percent Survival4
Scientific name
Common name
baseline'
Alive
Unsure
Total3
Alive
Unsure2
Total3
Alive
Total3
Shrubs
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Ilex glabra
ink berry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Ilex verticillata
winterberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Itea virginica
Virginia willow
10
7
0
7
7
1
8
70
80
Leucothoe racemosa
Swamp doghobble
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
100
100
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Vaccinium corymbosum
high bush blueberry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Viburnum nudum
possum haw viburnum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
--
Total shrub stems
12
9
0
9
8
1
9
67
75
Density
38
28
0
28
25
3
28
Unknown sp.
20
10
14
24
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Total stems
307
270
19
289
216
10
226
70
74
Total density
959
844
59
903
675
31
706
'The number taaaed at baseline
has been adiusted to reflect
the orooer identification of species and findina more planted stems in the fall samolina event. The
baseline survival columns were not adjusted for this.
2Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last
sampling events the stem was not unquestionably alive.
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
o m
c =
U)
3
D m
3
v U)
CD
o
o C7
CD
v
0
m
N
CO
n
Cn
v
0
v
CD
0
0
v�
N `<
CD =
� 0
Table 6. Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 12 riparian 0.22 -acre plots (2.64 acres sampled) at Hell Swamp from baseline (summer 2010) to fall 2013.
'The number tagged at baseline has been adjusted to reflect the proper identification of species and finding more planted stems in the fall sampling event. The baseline
survival columns were not adjusted for this.
2Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last sampling
events the stem was not unquestionably alive.
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
Tagged at
Baseline stems
Fall 2013 stems
Percent surviva14
Scientific name
Common name
baseline'
Alive Unsure Tota13
Alive Unsure Tota13
Alive Tota13
Large trees
Carya aquatica
water hickory
3
2
0
2
3
0
3
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
180
173
0
173
165
5
170
92
94
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
149
149
7
156
27
4
31
18
21
Nyssa biflora
swamp black gum
28
24
0
24
22
0
22
79
79
Q. laurifolia
laurel oak
25
21
0
21
23
0
23
92
92
Q. lyrata
overcup oak
210
196
1
197
198
2
200
94
95
Q. michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
63
50
0
50
56
0
56
89
89
Q. nigra
water oak
3
4
0
4
3
0
3
100
100
Q. pagoda
cherrybark oak
6
2
0
2
6
0
6
100
100
Q. phellos
willow oak
139
124
1
125
129
3
132
93
95
Q. spp.
oak
5
7
5
12
0
0
0
0
0
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
202
182
15
197
153
11
164
76
81
Ulmus americana
American elm
16
16
0
16
15
0
15
94
94
Small trees
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
18
17
0
17
8
0
8
44
44
Cyrilla racemiflora
titi
9
7
0
7
6
0
6
67
67
I. opaca
American holly
10
10
0
10
4
1
5
40
50
Magnolia virginiana
sweet bay
15
16
0
16
0
1
1
0
7
Persea palustris
red bay
17
14
3
17
1
0
1
6
6
Total tree stems
1,098
1,014
32
1,046
819
27
846
75
77
Density (stems- 2.64ac)
416
384
12
396
310
10
320
Shrubs
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
4
4
0
4
2
2
4
50
100
Itea virginica
Virginia willow
19
20
0
20
12
1
13
63
68
Leucothoe racemosa
swamp doghobble
2
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
50
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
5
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
Vaccinium corymbosum
high bush blueberry
1
1
0
1
Viburnum nudum
possumhaw viburnum
4
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Total shrub stems
35
36
0
36
15
4
19
43
54
Density (stems- 2.64ac)
13
14
0
14
6
2
7
Unknown sa.
78
26
77
103
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Total stems
1,211
1,076
109
1,185
834
31
865
69
71
Total Density (stems- 2.64ac)
459
408
41
449
316
12
328
'The number tagged at baseline has been adjusted to reflect the proper identification of species and finding more planted stems in the fall sampling event. The baseline
survival columns were not adjusted for this.
2Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last sampling
events the stem was not unquestionably alive.
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
Table 7. Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 111 non - riparian 0.22 -acre plots (24.4 ac sampled) at Hell Swamp from baseline (summer 2010) to fall 2013.
The number tagged at baseline has been adjusted to reflect the proper identification of species in the fall sampling event and extra planted stems found in subsequent monitoring years. The
ZSurvival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last sampling events the stem was
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report T -29
Tagged at
Baseline stems
Fall 2013 stems
Percent survival
Scientific name
Common name
baseline'
Alive Unsure` Total"
Alive Unsure` Total"
Alive Total"
Large trees
Carya aquatica
water hickory
170
161
1
162
162
2
164
95
96
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
90
98
0
98
83
2
85
92
94
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
1178
1,180
2
1,182
1112
22
1134
94
96
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
500
502
5
507
260
31
291
52
58
Nyssa biflora
swamp black gum
703
694
3
697
579
10
589
82
84
Prunus serotina
black cherry
30
32
0
32
16
5
21
53
70
Quercus alba
white oak
262
232
2
234
255
3
258
97
98
Q. falcata
southern red oak
172
157
0
157
165
2
167
96
97
Q. laurifolia
laurel oak
715
636
34
670
629
15
644
88
90
Q. lyrata
overcup oak
795
786
2
788
776
5
781
98
98
Q. michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1634
1,533
18
1,551
1438
64
1502
88
92
Q. nigra
water oak
884
786
14
800
812
22
834
92
94
Q.pagoda
cherrybark oak
646
603
12
615
550
27
577
85
89
Q. phellos
willow oak
639
584
4
588
609
7
616
95
96
Q.spp.
oak
62
121
57
178
1
5
6
2
10
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
694
679
14
693
601
13
614
87
88
Ulmus americana
American elm
507
503
0
503
455
19
474
90
93
Small trees
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
123
121
3
124
75
11
86
61
70
Cyrilla racemiflora
titi
16
14
0
14
13
1
14
81
88
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
38
35
0
35
38
0
38
100
100
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
5
6
0
6
5
0
5
100
100
/. opaca
American holly
32
31
1
32
22
0
22
69
69
Magnolia virginiana
sweet bay
190
188
2
190
91
11
102
48
54
Oxydendron arboreum
sourwood
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Persea palustris
red bay
82
69
12
81
9
0
9
11
11
Total tree stems
10,169
9,753
186
9,939
8,756
277
9,033
86
89
Density (stems= 24.4ac)
417
400
8
407
359
11
370
Shrubs
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
34
32
0
32
29
1
30
85
88
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
38
23
0
23
36
0
36
95
95
Ilex glabra
ink berry
18
19
0
19
14
0
14
78
78
Ilex verticillata
winterberry
24
21
0
21
21
0
21
88
88
Itea virginica
Virginia willow
197
179
5
184
166
3
169
84
86
Leucothoe racemosa
Swamp doghobble
9
1
0
1
3
1
4
33
44
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
27
31
2
33
7
0
7
26
26
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Vaccinium corymbosum
high bush blueberry
49
47
0
47
41
0
41
84
84
Viburnum nudum
possumhaw viburnum
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
100
100
Total shrub stems
399
356
7
363
319
5
324
80
81
Density (stems= 24.4ac)
16
15
0
15
13
0
13
Unknown sp.
414
170
5
Total
Total stems
10,982
10,279
653
10,932
9,076
287
9,363
83
85
Total Density (stems= 24.4ac)
450
421
27
448
372
12
384
The number tagged at baseline has been adjusted to reflect the proper identification of species in the fall sampling event and extra planted stems found in subsequent monitoring years. The
ZSurvival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event and dead if at both the current and last sampling events the stem was
3Total includes alive + unsure.
4Percent survival was calculated as: (Fall /Baseline tagged) X 100.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report T -29
s
lt
l } t Stole bC fY
BROAD Fl ePines'
1 �• /jj RT. 264 - ; SEED TICK NE
PLUM'S PIT
y �. C,• 'i, _ - `��' / . I \ CONTROL _
�r•.N .':'' { _ _. . FOREST -
, � �; � �,.a� � •� �`�'\ WINDLEY / � LONGINDf• 78' st' 07.0038 RT. -99.
q /LATfNDE 35 51' 31.4188'
Y+iraKNe°. j _ -^ A FOREST
L J, I/ ..
�;. .. HELL SWA
PUNGO \� '9 SCOITI'.CREMIF
CREEK ROAD
li WINFIELD
CONTROL i tt
FOREST
t � I
V.
u
r.
Pt,
Mdln ce.. C .�
0 5,000 10,000
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
HELL SWAMP -SCOTT CREEK V I r I N I TY k/I O P
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
LEGEND
— — — — HELL SWAMP PROJECT BOUNDARY
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: BFG /TL,
CONTROLFOREST
DATE:
05/09/14
FILE: HELLSMP_VIC_2013
SOURCE:
A
CP# 174559.66
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
R 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, NAD83, FEET, 1:24000 - SCALE, USGSTOPOTILEO83.SID,
AND USGSTOPOTILE113.SID, USGS QUADRANGLES RANSOMVILLE AND PANTED ,
_
INCORPORATED
K WILMINGTON, NORTELC9ROLINA 28403
FIGURE 1
WEB SITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
ENWRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910/392 -9139
LEGEND
PP4 - -- PROJECT BOUNDARY (1,296.87 ACRES)
A A CONTROL FOREST
PP1
A - ACCESS ROAD
'i PP2 PP3
EXISTING ROAD
•- ACCESS ROAD PLUM'S PIT
CONTROL FOREST GATE
o WELL LOCATIONS
HS -5
HS -3 ® • ACCESS ROAD HS -1 WELL NUMBER
HS -2 O• S -4� .
CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
®HS -10 �:: HS -15 o TREE /SHRUB PLOT MONITORING LOCATION
00 0
FJS -8 HS -9 HS -11 D — VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
HS -1 •OHS -20 VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
:S -16 0 Do HS -:5 WITH TREE /SHRUB MONITORING PLOT
HSR1 HS- HS -24 O PHOTO STATION
HSR2 n
HSR3\ HS -27 HS -29 HS -33 ;// HS -3 PLANTING ZONES (1,263.02 ACRES)
O
�y HS -26 O• HS 28 O0 � 0 HS -34 D UPLAND (117.29 ACRES)
� HS -39
HS -36 HS -37 HS -45 HS -46
� HS -38 � i 0 � VALLEY 1 (35.08 ACRES)
•O ` �• O • • •� HS- o
VALLEY 2 (34.55 ACRES)
WINDLEY
L CONTROL FOREST HS -48 OHS -51 0 —
ZONE 1 (308.61 ACRES)
HS -49 HS -50
ZONE 2 (190.32 ACRES)
HS -60 HS -61 0
00 D0 HS -6 00 • ZONE 3 -1 (116.67 ACRES)
® ZONE 3 -2 (154.49 ACRES)
HS -7
•
O HS -73 HS -83 ZONE 4 -1 (140.33 ACRES)
ACCESS ROAD
HS -84 HS -85 HS -86 ZONE 4 -2 (165.68 ACRES)
1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE:
1. ACTUAL PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARIES DIFFER
SLIGHTLY IN SOME AREAS FROM THIS FIGURE.
2. VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
CONSIST OF TWO SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS
ON THE OUTER EDGES OF THE VALLEY WITH FLOW
OBSERVATION POINTS NEAR THE MIDDLE OF THE
VALLEY, BETWEEN THE WELLS.
V
f To - PP4
Sb .4 t PP1 PP2
A
/ Ds PP3
� 1 �\` PLUM'S PIT
Ap CONTROL FOREST
/1�) HS -50 • HS 70 Ap
/ • S -2 HS -30 HS -4 HS -6 Sb LEGEND
�
/ C f ` HS- — — — HELL SWAMP BOUNDARY
/ • 9 •
S- OHS-14\
HS -10• • • To CONTROL FOREST
S -8 H 11 �7
{fit `/ 1 • WELL LOCATIONS
HS -19
.,,i i•�;� c -16 HS -20 HS -21 HS -22 HS 3 HS -1 WELL NUMBER
o HSR1 HS -24 HS -25 Pt A CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
HSR2 USC / A — VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
HSR3\ HS -2 � o HS 9 HS -3 HS -33 • HS -35 VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
/yi► • •
HS -26 S -28 • • S -30 • HS -32 • • HS -34 • l WITH TREE /SHRUB MONITORING PLOT
{�}
HS
-37 T
/ HS -38 HS -40 HS -45 HS -46 PHOTO STATION
• • O • O • • • • • g� SOILS
HS -36 HS -3 HS -41 HS -4 HS -43 HS -44 HS -47 SYMBOL SOIL NAME
/ WINDLEY
CONTROL UT6 E
UT7 To At AUGUSTA
FOREST HS -48 UT1 HS -54 HS -58 HS -5 At "t Cf CAPE FEAR FINE SANDY LOAM
t T J �• • O • O 6 OHS -57 O O
/ DS DRAGSTON
HS -49 HS -50 HS -5 S -52 HS- 55A�NS -5Me MUCKALEE
—4 •
Pt PORTSMOUTH
ti y�j I HS -53 HS -67 UT2 HS -691 Ro ROANOKE Sb
S -61 y$ 62 -64 HS -65 HS -66 1 HS A�1 To TOMOTLEY LOAMY SAND
• 1 0 O • ♦ •HS -70 • To Ds' , % _.
HS -60 H -63 HS -68
I WATER FEATURES
HS 80 UT5 • AaA � PERENNIAL
n.`i )� DS Sb Me
~ INTERMITTENT
- I HS -72 � -74 -
I • HS -78 HS -79 C'
H - S -77 C1*l, S -81 HS -82 ' I HS -83 -
I
HS -84 HS -8 H' -86 S -88 A S? UT3 0 1 HS -94 AaA To S
• • • • • • HS -95 AP
HS -89 HS -90 HS -91 �H C14
AaA
l HS -97 Pt ` HS -102 UT4 ' Ap DS Ap A
` HS 96 • HS- 8 HS-99 \ HS- • S -101 ® OHS- 103 \�^ \ \ HS -10 / L' rj B
'I HS -104 \ \ \\ AaA At
HS -106 HS , ,1 9 � S HS -113
•
7� : HS -10: 5 -108 - � • • -1 •
` HS -110 S 11 ,
�, 0%.. TaB AaA pt, 0 1,200 2,400
At � 6 ` HS -112 � �, _� SOURCE:
I'
WF5 HS -114 HS -115 ` /f"I 117 SOIL SURVEY OF BEA GRIC TUREN, NORTH CAROLINA
!• US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE
• SCALE IN FEET
• • HS-118� 1'�' ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
� HS -116 \
WINFIELD A4 U HS -12` \ �� G Ap <\ c HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
CONTROL �` .S -1 \ � I AaA. ', n� MONITORING LOCATIONS ON SOIL SURVEY
OREST WF3 ® /
A HS -119
WF1 AWF2 000 HS -12 ps PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
0_1 HS -124 D5 {�e3A AaA SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
•�.0"
HS -123 k DATE: 05/09/14 FILE: HELLSWP_SOILS_2013
At �° n �t2 TaB � CP #1745.59.66
'� V 5 A t �' 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
yc �_A(Pow%ZR WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 Z
�[) - \, S O �- ENVIRONM NTOALR CPORATED TEL ONSULTANTS FAX 910/392 -9139 FIGURE 3
--ftop 11000,
PP4
C PP1
`
`PP2 A PP3
O ACCESS ROAD PLUM'S PIT
HS -1 CONTROL FOREST
HS -5 HS -6
s O • HS -7•
SOURCE: HS -123
AS BUILT LIDAR PROVIDED BY:
JONATHAN RICKETTS ENGINEERING,
3450 NORTHLAKE BLVD., PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, PHONE 561_630_6700
LEGEND
HS -3
ACCESS ROAD
PROJECT BOUNDARY (1,296.87 ACRES)
• • HS -4
1,13)0
ACCESS ROAD
HS -2
•
WELL LOCATIONS
HS -1
• HS -10
• HS -15
CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
6
HS -14
6.000
HS -8 HS -9 HS -11 HS -12 HS -13
6,0n0
8.000
HS -16 HS -190 HS -20 HS -21
HS -23 HS -25
7.000
9
7.000
8.000
HSR1
HS -17 HS> HS -22
HS -24
9.000
HSR2
11
1 9.00
14,000
HSR3
HS -27 HS -29 HS -31
HS -32 HS -33 HS
-35
° ° ° ° °HS -30 e
HS -26 HS-28
•
e •
HS -34
•
HS -36 HS -37 HS -38 HS -40 HS -41 HS -42
HS -45
HS -46
• • • • • • •
0 0 O
• •
HS -39
HS -43 HS -44
HS -47
WINDLEY
CONTROL
HS -48 HS -51
HS -54 HS -55
HS -58
FOREST
• O O A •
e • •
• • •
HS -49 HS -50 HS -52 HS -53
HS -56
HS -57 HS -59
O
HS -60 HS -61 HS -64 HS -65 HS -66 O HS -67
HS -69
HS -70
• O HS -620 • • •
O O O
O •
HS -63
HS -68
HS -71
H• S -72 HS -74 HS -75 HS -76 HS -77 HS-78 HS -79 HS -81
HS -S3
• ° ® •
O
° S °
• •
HS -73
H80
HS -82
HS -84 HS -85 HS -86 HS -90 HS -92
ACCESS ROAD
HS -94
• • o HS -87 HS -88 HS -89 a
0
HS -91 ° HS-93
a HS -95
0
HS -102 HS -104
• ° • • O •
HS -96 HS -97 HS -98 HS -99 HS -100 HS -101
O • O
HS -103
e
HS -105
HS -107 HS -108 HS -110
HS -112
ACCESS ROAD
® ° a
•
/WF7 HS -106 HS -109
HS Ill HS -113
WF6 HS -114 HS -115
/A A
HS -117
HS -118
WF5
O • •
e
/
WF4 HS -116
WINFIELD A
/
CONTROL HS -120
FOREST WF3 •
A HS -119 HS -121
ACCESS ROAD
HS -122
LWF1
F2
HS -124
=
SOURCE: HS -123
AS BUILT LIDAR PROVIDED BY:
JONATHAN RICKETTS ENGINEERING,
3450 NORTHLAKE BLVD., PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, PHONE 561_630_6700
LEGEND
2
0.000
PROJECT BOUNDARY (1,296.87 ACRES)
CONTROL FOREST
1,13)0
ACCESS ROAD
GATE
•
WELL LOCATIONS
HS -1
WELL NUMBER
A
CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
El moans 7aele
1 0.04 52133.
2
0.000
1.000
3
1,13)0
2.013)
4
Z.000
5
31)00
4.00)
6
4,000
6.000
7
6,0n0
8.000
8
8,000
7.000
9
7.000
8.000
■
10
8.000
9.000
■
11
1 9.00
14,000
12
10.000
11.000
13
11.000
12.000
14
12.000
13.000
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
I —
Legend
A CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
— CONTROL FOREST
'L---'HELL SWAMP -SCOTT CREEK
ELEVATION (FEET)
�0
�0 -1
�1 -2
�2 -3
=3 -4
=4 -5
=5 -6
n �11�
1 e -
a
=6- 7 0 800 1,600 3,200
=7-8 I I I I
= 8 _ 9 Scale in Feet
=9 -10
O10 — 11 SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, SEPTEMBER 2004,
11 - 12 BEAUFORT COUNTY, LIDAR, INC STATEPLANE, NAD 83, FEET, WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, BEAU2021P, INC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
12 -13 HTTP:// GISDATA.LIB.NCSU.EDU /DEM /NC_20F
1
/
I
f
/
°I
I
I �-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
N-ow.4- SMn
r• h
k 1k
4a
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
CONTROL FOREST WELL LOCATIONS ON 2004 LIDAR
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
FILL: 1745566 /OONTOU R_ DATA/
DATE: 05/09/14 HELSWMP /2013 ANNUAL REPORT/
HELL SWAMP LIDAR 2013
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2 CP #1745.59.66
�$ WILMINGTON, INC 28403
INCOaao aAreD TEL: 910/392 -9253 FIGURE 4B
FAX: 910/392 -9139
{.. .
N-
`S
C14311" A
` .,
„
I —
Legend
A CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
— CONTROL FOREST
'L---'HELL SWAMP -SCOTT CREEK
ELEVATION (FEET)
�0
�0 -1
�1 -2
�2 -3
=3 -4
=4 -5
=5 -6
n �11�
1 e -
a
=6- 7 0 800 1,600 3,200
=7-8 I I I I
= 8 _ 9 Scale in Feet
=9 -10
O10 — 11 SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, SEPTEMBER 2004,
11 - 12 BEAUFORT COUNTY, LIDAR, INC STATEPLANE, NAD 83, FEET, WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, BEAU2021P, INC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
12 -13 HTTP:// GISDATA.LIB.NCSU.EDU /DEM /NC_20F
1
/
I
f
/
°I
I
I �-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
N-ow.4- SMn
r• h
k 1k
4a
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE
CONTROL FOREST WELL LOCATIONS ON 2004 LIDAR
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
FILL: 1745566 /OONTOU R_ DATA/
DATE: 05/09/14 HELSWMP /2013 ANNUAL REPORT/
HELL SWAMP LIDAR 2013
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2 CP #1745.59.66
�$ WILMINGTON, INC 28403
INCOaao aAreD TEL: 910/392 -9253 FIGURE 4B
FAX: 910/392 -9139
National Water &Climate
•
•
•
Figure 5. 2013 HELL SWAMP and WETS- AURORA RAINFALL
12
NOTES:
Data for WETS Monthly Rainfall for all of 2013 comes from WETS /Aurora rainfall totals due to inactive Belhaven Station .
"Range of Normal" and "WETS Monthly Rainfall Total" plotted on last day of each month.
10
"Range of Normal" refers to the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds of the probability of onsite rainfall amounts outside of the normal range (based on
historical averages from 1971 - 2000).
8
WETS Data subject to periodic revision. Data shown are latest available from Portland, OR office of Water &Climate Services
Cpntpr
c
2-
=
0
6
c
2.
4
CFO
0
2
0
y3
��� 5e,
Oti
Oti
py O> pti Oy� Oti Oti Oti Oti Oy p,
X2013 Hell Swamp Rain Gauge Daily Rainfall -2013 Hell Swamp 30 -day Rolling Total • 2013 Monthly WETS /Aurora Rainfall Totals
2013 WETS 30 -yr 30% less chance 1971 -2000 2013 WETS 30 -yr 30% more chance 1971 -2000 2013 Hell Swamp Monthly Rainfall
National Water &Climate
•
•
•
Figure 5. 2013 HELL SWAMP and WETS- AURORA RAINFALL
NOTES:
VALLEY ARRAY SYMBOLS MAY NOT BE VISIBLE ON PP4Q
SOME PRINTED VERSIONS — SEE ELECTRONIC VERSION. PP1
COLORED POLYGONS ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION PP2A
OF TOTAL ACRES REPRESENTED BY WELL PP3
HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON 1 WELL PER
10 ACRES OF WETLAND FLAT, 2013 AERIALS OF ACCESS ROAD
THE SITE, AS BUILT LIDAR, AND KNOWLEDGE OF PLUM'S PIT
THE SITE CONDITIONS. POLYGONS DO NOT CONTROL FOREST
REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORY
BOUNDARIES.
c�
0 HS -50 0 HS
ACCESS ROAD
0 S -30 S-4 HS -6
HS-2
O S 8 S -100 O HS -14 Hs -15 0 1200 2400
13C HS -1 HS -12
13
12C H _190 - = USC -10C SCALE IN FEET
HS 6 HS -21 HS-22 1-15-23 HS -25
O HS -170 12 O O O O O
REF1 HS -18 11 9C HS -24
REF2 USC 8C
REF3 HS -27 HS -29 30 gq 7C HS -35
O O HS-320 H 33 O S 28 O O HS -31 7A O HS -34 O
WINDLEY 6A 6C
37
CONTROL HS -36 HS - HS -38 HS -45 HS -46
FOREST O O O OHSH 41O HS -45A O OHS -44 0 0 HS -470
5C HS -4
HS -48 U 1 C 4A HS -54 HS -55 UT6 6C 3A UT7
C O O O 6 O O 3C O
O O 49 S -50 0 51 HS OS 2C UT2 HS -56 S -C HS -5 HS -59
2C 1
3A 3C
2A
H - HS -67 2A 2C HS 69 5A 2A 2C
HS -60 HS -6 UT1- = USC -3 2 1A HS -71
O O H -620 0 HS -640 O O 1C 1q OHS -68 4C OHS- 0
S -63 HS -65 S -66 1 A 4A 1 C
1C
9C HS -75 = 5-78 = 2C \HS 80 UT5
\b
H HS -74 0S -72 9A 8C 7C 5C OHS -7 HS -707 HS -79
HS -73 8A 4C 3C 1C 2A HS -81 HS 82 HS -83
7A A 5A
4A 3A 2A 1q Access ROAD
OS -84 OHS -85 O -86 O O o o T3 1A 1C HS -94
1C HS -92 0 HS -95
HS -87 HS -88 HS -89 S -90 HS -91 HS -93
1A
HS -97 2A U 4 LSC
0 O O 0 O O OS1 O n
S -96 S -98 HS -99 HS -100 HS -101 HS -103 HS -104 —HS -105
ACCESS ROAD
W H - 06 6A HS -112 HS -113
S -107 8 HS -110
O O HS -109 6C O - O O
WINFIELD HS -111
CONTROL WF6
� 5A
FOREST - HS -114 HS -115 5C HS -11
WF5 0 0 4A HS0-11 O HS011
WF4 UT8 4C
ACCESS ROA
S -1 0
WF3 0 3A
0
HS -119 C H -121
WFF11 0 WF2 124 HS -122
2A
PUNGO CREEK HS -123 1C o
(SR 1715) OAD q
EXISTING CULVERT
LEGEND
HELL SWAMP BOUNDARY
CONTROL FOREST
ACCESS ROAD
LSC
LOWER SCOTT CREEK
USC
UPPER SCOTT CREEK
O
WELL LOCATIONS
HS -1
WELL NUMBER
CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
—
VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
VALLEY WELL ARRAY /FLOW OBSERVATION POINT
WITH TREE /SHRUB MONITORING PLOT
O
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
HYDROLOGIC
ZONES
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
0
• _ <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE (59.27 ACRES)
WINDLEY CONTROL FOREST (0.72 ACRES)
WINFIELD CONTROL FOREST (41.72 ACRES)
D
O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE (231.92 ACRES)
WINDLEY CONTROL FOREST (16.83 ACRES)
WINFIELD CONTROL FOREST (30.70 ACRES)
PLUM'S PIT CONTROL FOREST (9.80 ACRES)
D
Q = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE (205.98 ACRES)
WINDLEY CONTROL FOREST (0.79 ACRES)
O
Q = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE (702.63 ACRES)
WINDLEY CONTROL FOREST (15.51 ACRES)
WINFIELD CONTROL FOREST (15.80 ACRES)
PLUM'S PIT CONTROL FOREST (27.32 ACRES)
®
O = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
HELL SWAMP MITIGATION SITE (60.25 ACRES)
NOTE:
LIDAR CONTOURS WERE USED TO DRAW HYDROPERIOD
ZONE POLYGONS. CONTOURS ARE NOT SHOWN.
•Q ACCESS ROAD
HS -1
12 0 HS -50 •� HS-
/ HS -3 HS -4 O HS -6 0
2 4/ ■ HS2 O•
/ O HS -9 Q 0 Q
• Or --- nO HS -10 • •0 •
/ HS -8 HS -11 HS -12 HS -13
HS -19•Q HS -20 = USC -10C
/HS -16 HS -21 HS -22
� AH0 • ea::, HS -17 HS -18
REF1 31
REF2 U`SC'
REF3 X HS -29 HS -31
OH• -26 �• S -27 0� S -28 �• O• HS -30 •0
/
HS -36
•
Q
HS-37
• O
HS -38
�• �• HS 39 40 • HS 41 • HS -42
O G
WINDLEY
CONTROL
L FOREST
HS -48
•
•�
HS -49
•
HS -50
UT1
O• �•
HS -51 HS -52
10
HS -61 O
HS -60.0
0•
HS -62 •
HS -72
- PP=
PP1
HS -74 O
O•
HS_;;:
HS-84
HS -85
HS -86
0•
•O
0
HS -33 HS -35\
HS -32D O HS -34 D `\
Q O HS -45O HS -46
HS -43 HS -44 HS -47 `
HS -54 HS 55 UT6 O O UT7
[-U-T72 HS XS-57 S -57 HS -5 HS -59
HS -64
HS -53 HS -67 HS -69
Q I HS -71
• • • • • +O • HS -70 0
HS -63 HS -65 Q HS -660 HS -68
HS -75 = 6A HS -78 = 2C HS i8 5 O
3.76 H .77 HS -79
T i
THS -81 HS -82
UT3
OHS8 HS 89 0 HS -92
HS-87 -90 �
HS -97 O
HS-96o • HS-98 HS-99 H�S_100
NF7 HS -106
HS -107 HS -108
A • •O •o
W F6 `\
WF5 HS -114
WF4 0
WINFIELD A
CONTROL
FOREST WF3 O•
AL HS-
W - WF2 ACCESS ROAD
PUNGO CREEK HS -12:
ASR 1715) OAD
% HS -102 1 UT4
HS-101 C:�• c5:IH S -103
HS -115 /
O HS -11 /
UT8
HS -120
19 HS -1210
04es -110 •";> HS -113
HS -111
HS -112 (�
31 HS-1
�ft— %*.
HS -124
--17
122
HS-94
HS-93
LSC
•HS -105
S-104
ACCESS ROAD
15
HS -83
ACCESS ROAD
L7
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
2013 Nuisance Plot Summary (123 10'x10' plots)
Total stems found in all plots 530
Total nuisance stems in all plots 204
Percent of nuisance stems in all plots 38.5
Total loblolly pine ( #stems /percent all stems) 131/24.7
Total sweet gum ( #stems /percent all stems) 47/8.9
Total red maple ( #stems /percent all stems) 26/4.9
LEGEND
— —
PROJECT BOUNDARY (1,296.87 ACRES)
- PP=
PP1
CONTROL FOREST
A
PP2 A
PP3
ACCESS ROAD
EXISTING ROAD
PLUM'S PIT
CONTROL FOREST
GATE
•
WELL LOCATIONS
�ACCESS ROAD
O• `� HS 15
HS -14
O
HS -1
A
1
X1
WELL NUMBER
CONTROL WELL LOCATIONS
TREE /SHRUB PLOT MONITORING LOCATION
NUMBER OF PINE STEMS
�^
♦
NUMBER OF RED MAPLE STEMS
HS -23 O HS-25
• • •
O HS -24 O
1
♦
NUMBER OF SWEET GUM STEMS
HS -33 HS -35\
HS -32D O HS -34 D `\
Q O HS -45O HS -46
HS -43 HS -44 HS -47 `
HS -54 HS 55 UT6 O O UT7
[-U-T72 HS XS-57 S -57 HS -5 HS -59
HS -64
HS -53 HS -67 HS -69
Q I HS -71
• • • • • +O • HS -70 0
HS -63 HS -65 Q HS -660 HS -68
HS -75 = 6A HS -78 = 2C HS i8 5 O
3.76 H .77 HS -79
T i
THS -81 HS -82
UT3
OHS8 HS 89 0 HS -92
HS-87 -90 �
HS -97 O
HS-96o • HS-98 HS-99 H�S_100
NF7 HS -106
HS -107 HS -108
A • •O •o
W F6 `\
WF5 HS -114
WF4 0
WINFIELD A
CONTROL
FOREST WF3 O•
AL HS-
W - WF2 ACCESS ROAD
PUNGO CREEK HS -12:
ASR 1715) OAD
% HS -102 1 UT4
HS-101 C:�• c5:IH S -103
HS -115 /
O HS -11 /
UT8
HS -120
19 HS -1210
04es -110 •";> HS -113
HS -111
HS -112 (�
31 HS-1
�ft— %*.
HS -124
--17
122
HS-94
HS-93
LSC
•HS -105
S-104
ACCESS ROAD
15
HS -83
ACCESS ROAD
L7
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
2013 Nuisance Plot Summary (123 10'x10' plots)
Total stems found in all plots 530
Total nuisance stems in all plots 204
Percent of nuisance stems in all plots 38.5
Total loblolly pine ( #stems /percent all stems) 131/24.7
Total sweet gum ( #stems /percent all stems) 47/8.9
Total red maple ( #stems /percent all stems) 26/4.9
APPENDIX A
2013 Hydrogeomorphic Stream Surveys and Cross Section
Measurements
BAKER ENGINEERING 2013 HELL SWAMP CROSS SECTION
MEASUREMENT
1.0 Geomorphic Monitoring
For monitoring stream success criteria, 34 permanent cross - sections were installed following construction
in 2010. In accordance with the Hell Swamp Mitigation Plan (July 2009), three cross - sections were
established per 1,000 foot reach of stream/valley restoration. The permanent cross - sections are used to
monitor channel formation and scour over time. For the riparian headwater systems (no defined channel
construction), these cross - sections were measured for the as -built report and will also be measured at
Years 3 and 5 if channel features form. For the Scott Creek single thread channel stream restoration
segment, two cross - sections were measured for the as -built report and are surveyed annually during the
monitoring period.
1.1 Geomorphic Success Criteria
Valleys should remain stable with minimum changes through the monitoring period; however,
these cross - sections may show minor changes in flow patterns as valleys develop.
1.1.1 Permanent Cross - section Monitoring Results
Two permanent cross - sections (7 and 8) are established in the Scott Creek single thread
channel. Year 4 monitoring data from these two cross - sections were collected in December
2013. Cross - sectional data collected during this monitoring event were compared to the as-
built baseline data collected in 2010, Year 2 data collected in 2011 and Year 3 data collected
in 2012 (Figures 1 and 2). Cross - sectional graphs and data from each of the monitored cross -
sections are presented below. In the presented cross - section graphics, the floodprone lines
displayed are relative to the maximum thalweg depth of each individual channel. Cross -
section 7 is a riffle and will have a lesser value than that of the deep pool in cross - section 8,
resulting in the differences of the floodprone elevation lines.
Permanent cross - section 7 is located across a riffle at station 47 +66 on Scott Creek (Figure
3). This cross - section also transects the UT1 valley approximately at station 23 +50.
According to the Year 4 survey data, the channel features in riffle cross- section 7 have
remained relatively stable since as -built conditions. No significant areas of concern regarding
the channel along this cross - section were noted following Year 4 monitoring. However, the
survey data did record some changes in the thalweg portion of cross - section 7. It was noted
following Year 4 monitoring that the thalweg elevation is approximately 0.4 feet lower in
2013 than was measured following as -built elevation conditions. This lowered thalweg
elevation observed in the channel doesn't appear unstable and is a natural process in channel
development. The cross - section also indicates some lower elevation changes in the thalweg
region on the lower portion of UT1 since as -built conditions. This measured elevation
change may indicate a movement toward channel development with the UT1 valley. During
the cross - section survey no indications of instability were present. This area of UT 1 will be
closely observed during Year 5 of monitoring.
The survey data also recorded some changes in the floodplain along cross - section 7 in Year 2,
Year 3 and Year 4. The channel and floodplain changes observed are attributed to channel
development, flood deposition, soil settling, vegetation maturity, and slight differences in
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site A -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix A May 2014
survey rod point locations. Both the riffle and floodplain observations noted are expected
with newly constructed restoration sites, where some minor adjustments are common.
Permanent cross - section 8 is located across a pool at station 52 +81 on Scott Creek (Figure 3).
According to the Year 4 survey data, the channel features in pool cross- section 8 have also
remained stable since as -built conditions. The Year 4 survey data show that cross - section 8
has experienced some minor deposition within the pool area of the channel since as -built
conditions. Minor deposition is common for pools in restored meandering channels, and will
likely vary from year to year depending upon the flow frequency and magnitude. The Year 4
survey data also recorded some changes in the floodplain along cross - section 8. The changes
observed were found to be very similar to the Year 3 survey data, indicating very little
adjustment since 2012. The channel and floodplain changes observed along cross- section 8
are attributed to flood deposition, soil settling, vegetation maturity and slight differences in
survey rod point locations. Both the pool and floodplain observations noted are expected
with newly constructed restoration sites, where some minor adjustments are common.
According to the Year 4 survey data, cross - sections 7 and 8 have experienced some slight
adjustments and settling since as -built conditions. The channel, pool, and floodplain changes
observed along cross sections 7 and 8 can be attributed to flood deposition, soil settling,
vegetation maturity, and/or slight differences in survey rod locations. Both the pool and
floodplain observations noted are within expectations for a recently constructed restoration
site where minor adjustments are common as the site matures. No areas of appreciable scour
were observed within the Scott Creek single thread channel stream restoration segment.
1.1.2 Additional Monitored Cross - sections
Seven additional permanent cross - sections (1, 2, 25, 26, 27, 33, and 34) were noted during
monitoring Year 3 to have exhibited slight changes within the channel during a site field visit
in November 2012. In accordance with the Site Mitigation Plan, these additional cross -
sections were not re- surveyed during Year 4 monitoring. However, these cross - sections and
possible others are scheduled to be re- surveyed following monitoring Year 5.
1.1.3 Areas of Concern
No areas of concern have been identified for the restored headwater prongs.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site A -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix A May 2014
4
3
c
0 2
c�
m
w
1
A
5
4
3
c
0 2
(D 1
w
0
-1
Figure 1. Hell Swamp Cross - section 7
Note: The floodprone lines
displayed are relative to the
maximum thalweg depth of each
individual channel.
As -Built Year 2
Year 3 Year 4
- -[� -- Bankfull - - -0 -- Floodprone
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (ft)
Figure 2. Hell Swamp Cross - section 8
9--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
Note: The floodprone lines
displayed are relative to the
maximum thalweg depth of
each individual channel.
As -Built Year 2
Year 3 Year 4
- - -0 - -• Bankfull -- o -- Floodprone
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site A -3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix A May 2014
A
5OOT7
NOTE:
POST - CONSTRUCTION CONTOURS WERE
DEVELOPED FROM LIDAR DATA COLLECTED
BY TUCK MAPPING SOLUTIONS INC. AND
PROCESSED BY MATRIX EAST. LLC.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Figure rA 5
- 388ftegencyParkway 0 725 1,450 2,900 .`' G
' Cary,Ntlh C—Ina 27518 Stream Mitigation Plan Map
Phone: 9194815488 Feet
Fax 919 463 Hell Swamp Site
U, c.,,,„,,, ic r.,,,.i, nn,, cot,.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix A
P(r Phn h�f.f _ —, Ins
May 2014
APPENDIX B
2013 Evidence of Flow and Stream Survey Results in Each Tributary
or Headwater System
2013 STREAM SURVEYS OF HELL SWAMP HEADWATER VALLEY SYSTEMS
On 9 -10 July and 10 -11 December 2013, all the headwater valleys at Hell Swamp were walked to
document active flow with video (as appropriate) or evidence of past flow with photographs and GPS
data. A table showing the daily rainfall immediately preceding the surveys is at the end of this text.
Every valley contained water, even if only confined to its lower end. Active flow in varied water depths
was visible and documented with video in all the unnamed tributaries with the exception of UT2. Active
flow was documented for the first time in the project's history near the mouth of UT5 during the December
survey. In addition to the December 10 -11 survey visit, biologists returned to the valleys of UT5 and UT6
the following week on December 18 in an attempt to re- acquire flow video lost due to corrupted files.
Flow was documented where conditions similar to those during the December 10 -11 survey existed.
During each survey, each system was walked from the downstream end to the upstream reaches
and evidence of flow events and formation of any channel features were noted. In addition to active flow,
physical features noted included bed and bank, sediment transport and /or scour, debris wrack, vegetation
matted down parallel to downstream flow, or lack of vegetation. When evidence of channel formation was
longer than 10 feet, the perceived channel was walked with a GPS unit and data points were collected
along the axis, and at the beginning and end of the feature. Until the planted trees and shrubs reach
enough height to shade the valleys, development of dense herbaceous vegetation will continue to occur
in many areas. This herbaceous layer can attenuate flow events and reduce velocity below the point of
scour and can also obscure other incipient channel formation features. Photos of certain stream features
are included after the text descriptions below.
Lower Scott Creek (LSC). This segment includes the most downstream reach of the stream
portion of the project (fill of the channelized section of old Scott Creek and diversion of upstream flow
back into the swamp above the filled channel section) and ends upstream at the first stream crossing
constructed at the location of the old Scott Creek culvert under the former farm road. No stream arrays
are located in the lower Scott Creek filled ditch or vegetated swamp forest.
During both the July and December surveys, the lower end of the filled ditch up to the mouth of
UT6 continued to exhibit stream features including bed and bank formation, a meandering profile,
sediment transport, lack of vegetation, and low- to high - velocity active flow. The filled segment contained
water from bank to bank from the project edge upstream beside the old ditch spoil to the mouth of UT 6
where it enters into the vegetated Scott Creek swamp forest and becomes indistinct (Photos 1 and 2).
Distinct segments of scour ranging in depth from 2 to 6 inches were evident from the mouth of UT6 up to
the beginning of the filled ditch (Photo 3). Active flow during the July and December surveys was video
recorded near the confluence of Lower Scott Creek and the filled ditch section and further above near the
confluence of LSC and mouth of UT6 (Videos 1 to 3). The discontinuous flow paths noted in the 2012
surveys entering the swamp through breaks in old construction spoil piles between the downstream end
of UT6 and the constructed crossing (former farm road) were not observed in 2013 due to almost
complete inundation. No other flow or evidence of flow was noted upstream of the UT6 confluence
except for a short 35- to 40 -foot channel just below the stream crossing. During the December survey,
medium flow was observed entering LSC through this channel with scour and sinuosity (Video 4). As
observed in previous surveys, diffuse flow visible upstream across the constructed crossing became
concentrated and directed into LSC most noticeably at this feature.
Constructed Single Thread Channel of Upper Scott Creek. This segment begins
approximately halfway between stream well arrays one and two (Photo 4). Below this segment, flow is
diffuse and no channel development was evident. Also, Typha species were dense in valley areas below
this segment. Though vegetation in portions of this channel segment was dense to very dense (with
Juncus species), low to medium flow was observed in this segment during both surveys (Videos 5 to 7).
Vegetation is very clearly oriented in the direction of flow throughout the constructed channel.
Upper Scott Creek (USC). This segment begins above the constructed single thread portion of
Scott Creek approximately 100 feet upstream of valley well array four, and vegetation began to decrease
in the flow paths (Photos 5 and 6). Flow paths and vegetation matted parallel to flow were evident from
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
above the confluence with the single thread channpel to above the permanent stream crossing (between
well arrays five and six) in both the July and December surveys. Very low to low flow was observed
during the December survey just upstream of the single thread channel and around valley well array 5 but
was not evident with video. The valley began to widen upstream of the USC stream crossing, and a
braided channel was distinguishable up to well array six. Very low flow could be seen in 6 to 10 inches of
water but was again unnoticeable in video. Upstream of array six Juncus and Carex species density
increased slightly, and flow paths were indistinct until approximately midway between arrays seven and
eight where a flow path becomes obvious (Photo 7). Low, diffuse flow was recorded at the flow
monitoring location USC -713 in approximately 5 inches of water (Video 8). Juncus species became
exceptionally thick and continuous just upstream of well array eight obscuring any flow path(s) until
approximately halfway to array nine (Photo 8) where the flow path continued up to flow monitoring
location USC -913 with low to medium flow recorded during both stream surveys (Videos 9 and 10).
Active flow in visible flow paths during both 2013 surveys continued upstream to USC -10B
(Videos 11 and 12). Areas of bed and bank formation, a nick point feature, and a fork or island feature in
the channel were all persistent flow evidence noted from previous surveys and continued to be observed
just downstream of USC -10B (Photos 9 to 11).
UT8. The length of the entire UT8 stream valley was inundated during both the July and
December stream surveys, but some stream features such as bed and bank and sediment scour were still
visible. Active medium flow was observed in 7 to 8 inches of water near the most downstream well array
and beyond leading into the roadside ditch at the southern project boundary (Videos 13 and 14).
Increased flow and channel sinuosity were observed during the December survey up to and slightly
above the UT8 permanent stream crossing (Video 15). This channel has been noted in previous annual
surveys and appears to show continued development. Upstream of the stream crossing flow was
reduced and more diffuse. Low flow over an approximately 20 to 25 -foot wide channel continued
upstream to valley well array two (Videos 16 and 17) and diffuse flow in 6 to 9 inches of water continued
up to UT8 -3B (Videos 18 and 19). Just upstream of well array three, water was ponded in a depression
to the northwest of the UT8 stream valley, and no flow was visible in this area (Photo 12). Water was
distributed out in the valley between UT8 -3B and UT8 -4B and clumps of Juncus species give way to
wetland grasses with a few clumps of Typha species (Photo 13). Very low to low flow was observed in
places, but was not noticeable on video. Recordable flow was not observed until the vicinity of UT8 -5B,
where approximately 75 feet upstream of UT8 -5B, low flow was observed during both 2013 stream
surveys on both sides of a persistent fork with bed and bank features (Videos 20 and 21). Medium flow
was evident in another fork with sediment scour just upstream of the last fork feature during the
December survey (Video 22). The uppermost limit of video recordable flow during the July survey was
approximately 200 feet upstream of well array five (Video 23); though, an extremely low flow rate not
evident with video was observed at UT8 -6B. Low flow in 4 inches of water just upstream of UT8 -6B was
observed in the December survey, but flow above this point became diffuse and not visible (Video 24).
UT7. No stream features, flow paths, or other evidence of flow from previous stream surveys
were noted during last year's (2012) stream surveys. Low flow was visible during both 2013 stream
surveys at UT7 -1 B in a flow path which continued upstream for approximately 20 -30 feet (Videos 25 and
26). This flow path was easily recognized with slight scour and vegetation oriented in the direction of
flow, but no definite bed and bank was evident. Thick vegetation obscured any evidence of or visible flow
upstream until approximately midway between well arrays one and two. Low to medium flow could be
seen during both surveys in a flow path near and in between a small colony of black willow trees (Videos
27 and 28). Vegetation was still very thick here and some sediment scour was noticed between the
trees. The sediment scour and willows may be located in or near an old filled agricultural drainage ditch.
Thick vegetation continued to cover the valley floor, and no potential flow paths or active flows were
observed until the flow location UT7 -2B. Low flow was observed here in July and was the upper limit of
flow (Video 29). Upstream from UT7 -213, very dense Baccharus and Juncus vegetation prevented
observation of flow or other potential evidence of flow. Water was ponded throughout most of the valley
width and all the way to the uppermost portion of UT7.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
UT6. Stream features observed in previous years' surveys were again visible in the 2013
surveys; a well- formed channel at the confluence of UT6 and lower Scott Creek with bed and bank and
sinuosity contained active flow which continued into LSC (Video 30). Pools of ponded water connected
the previously mentioned channel to where the UT6 valley becomes more apparent again just above
UT6 -3B (Photo 14). [Large, deep vehicle ruts were likely the cause of the depressions where water has
ponded in this area] However, a new feature was observed in the December 2013 survey between the
mouth of UT6 and UT6 -3B with active flow, sediment scour, and vegetation matted parallel to flow for
approximately 20 -25 feet (Video 31 -18 December 2013). This feature was collected as a line feature with
GPS equipment. Upstream of UT6 -3B low flow could be observed in a braided channel between UT6 -3B
and well array four during the December survey (Video 32 -18 December 2013). No flow paths or other
evidence of flow were observed at array four. Between UT6 -4B and UT6 -5B water appeared to be only
ponded and was confined in the lowest elevations of a narrow valley. Low flow was observed over
approximately 30 -35 feet during both surveys in the vicinity of UT6 -5B in a few inches of water (Video 33;
Video 34 -18 December 2013). The vegetation dramatically increased upstream of array five and
remained similar for the rest of the valley. Very low to low flow was observed furthest upstream around
UT6 -6B. Flow was seen during both surveys to approximately 20 feet above UT6 -6B (Video 35; Video
36 -18 December 2013). Continued dense and matted vegetation obscured possible flow or evidence of
flow any further upstream.
UT5. Natural channel development appears to be inhibited, or at least interrupted, by a large
tracked vehicle rut up the long axis of the valley and the entire lower valley is dissected by ruts across the
long axis, and the same conditions existed during the July survey. However, low to medium flow was
observed just upstream of the ponded water in the vicinity of the most downstream well array (Video 37-
18 December 2013). Sediment scour was noticeable in portions of a flow path of approximately 5 -10 feet
in length. A point feature was collected with GPS equipment at this location. In addition, a perceived flow
path, with an appearance unlike numerous man -made ruts in the valley, was observed approximately 200
feet downstream of well array two (Photo 15). Though no active flow was observed, this feature showed
slight sediment scour, vegetation oriented parallel to flow, and was collected as a line feature with GPS
equipment.
UT4. A short meandering flow path near the downstream end between UT4 -1 B and the forested
swamp around Lower Scott Creek had active low flow during the December survey (Video 38); this
segment was dry in 2012. Low to medium flow was observed approximately 20 feet upstream of the
UT4 -1 array and 50 feet downstream of UT4 -1 B (Videos 39 and 40). No active flow was observed at
UT4 -2B, and standing water in the valley continued upstream. Below the old farm road many man -made
ruts dissect this valley and were often the only portions of the valley above UT4 -2B filled with standing
water during both stream surveys.
UT3. Active flow was observed during both stream surveys near UT3-1B, but no defined flow
path or channel development was evident (Video 41). Large ruts exist and run perpendicular to the
stream valley between UT3-1B and UT3 -2B interrupting natural stream development. Medium sized
Baccharus shrubs are extremely dense in this section. Low flow was visible for approximately 10 -20 feet
in either direction of UT3 -2B (Videos 42 and 43); channel development was present but weak. Around
UT3 -2B and up to UT3 -3 array the vegetation thins and the invert of the valley becomes more apparent.
During the July survey, low flow was observed in 3 inches of water approximately 10 feet upstream and
downstream of UT3 -3B (Video 44) and approximately 100 feet upstream of UT3 -4B (Video 45). No flow
was observed at UT3 -4B in December; however, a flow path with slight sediment scour and lack of
vegetation was clearly visible at the flow location and continued upstream 20 to 30 feet (Photo 16). Five
to 6 inches of water with no discernible flow was observed near UT3 -5B and continued above the UT3
permanent stream crossing with several colonies of Typha species present throughout the valley.
Ponded water and thick, matted vegetation obscured previously noted 10 -20 foot flow paths. Man -made
ruts aligned perpendicular to the stream valley were abundant upstream of the stream crossing. No
defined flow path or channel development was noted, but active low flow was documented during both
surveys approximately 20 -30 feet upstream of UT3 -6B (Video 46). Woody vegetation was reduced just
upstream of well array seven. UT3 -7B is upstream from the well array, and low to medium -low flow was
observed in an approximate 20 -foot flow path at this location (Videos 47 and 48). Very thick and
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
overhead high vegetation was evident around well array eight, and low flow was observed in July at UT3-
8B (Video 49). Above this point standing water (approximately 5 -10 inches) covered most of the valley up
to just beyond the most upstream well array (UT3 -9).
UT2. There was no evidence of flow at the time of either 2013 survey. The valley is densely
rutted and heavily vegetated with herbaceous species in the top portion of the valley. Standing water (1 -3
inches) was present in the upper portion of the valley during the December survey. Approximately 0.5 to
3 inches of water was ponded near the first well array in both surveys.
UT1. Active low to medium -low flow was observed at the mouth (confluence with the constructed
single thread of USC) and just upstream at UT1 -1 B during both stream surveys (Videos 50 and 51). Flow
lessened and the channel appeared to become braided approximately 25 feet upstream of UT1 -1 B. The
valley also widens in this vicinity, and flow is noticeably less channelized. Dense, matted vegetation not
oriented in the direction of flow covered the valley floor up to UT1 -313, and very low flow was visible over
short lengths in some areas. No active flow was observed at or upstream of UT1 -213 in the December
survey. In July, some slight sediment scour was visible in the flow path of the upper most active flow at
UT1 -313 (Video 52). UT1 is not as rutted in the upper portions as some other valleys, but there is some
interruption of potential development by ruts.
Rainfall immediately preceding stream surveys in 2013.
Date
Rainfall (in)
Date
Rainfall (in)
6/27/2013
0.2
12/1/2013
0.00
6/28/2013
0.42
12/2/2013
0.00
6/29/2013
0.58
12/3/2013
0.05
6/30/2013
0.64
12/4/2013
0.01
7/1/2013
0.75
12/5/2013
0.00
7/2/2013
0.07
12/6/2013
0.12
7/3/2013
0.04
12/7/2013
0.46
7/4/2013
0.00
12/8/2013
0.00
7/5/2013
0.00
12/9/2013
0.16
7/6/2013
0.01
12/10/2013
0.01
7/7/2013
0.00
12/11/2013
0.00
7/8/2013
0.00
7/9/2013
1.5
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Lower Scott Creek (Photos 1 to 3)
Photo 1. View upstream, flow and channel formation in the filled ditch
segment; view upstream and to west. 09 July 2013.
Photo 2. Flow and channel formation upstream from photo 1 location and
near mouth of UT 6 (dead trees in distance to right). 09 July 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Photo 3. High flow and sediment scour above the filled ditch segment near
the confluence of UT 6. 10 December 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Constructed Single Thread Channel Scott Creek (Photo 4)
Photo 4. Biologist (center of background) standing at downstream end of
single thread; vegetation oriented in direction of low flow. 11 December
2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Upper Scott Creek (Photos 5 to 11)
ti
Photo 5. View upstream from the upper end of the constructed single
thread portion of Scott Creek. Low flow in the foreground decreased
upstream into visible flow paths lacking vegetation. 11 December 2013.
Photo 6. View downstream of flow path near valley well array five. 10 July
2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Photo 7. View upstream, visible flow path approximately midway between
well arrays seven and eight. 11 December 2013.
Photo 8. View downstream from approximately midway between well
arrays eight and nine; flow path with some bed and bank and sediment
scour visible. 11 December 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Photo 9. View upstream, persistent fork feature just downstream of USC-
10B with active flow. 10 July 2013.
Photo 10. View upstream, close to same location as above. 11 December
2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Photo 11. Nick point feature and sediment scour just downstream of fork
feature shown in photos 9 and 10. 11 December 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
UT8 (Photos 12 and 13)
Photo 12. View upstream, water ponded to the northwest of stream valley
just upstream of well array three. 10 December 2013
Photo 13. View upstream, UT8 stream valley view upstream above UT8 -4B;
wetland grasses other than JuncusRover the stream valley. 09 July 2013
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
UT6 (Photo 14)
Y
1
Photo 14. Valley becomes more evident just above UT6 -313; view
downstream. 10 July 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -13 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
UT5 (Photo 15)
Photo 15. View downstream, flow path approximately 200 feet
downstream of the most upstream well array (UT5 -2). 18 December 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -14 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
UT3 (Photo 16)
Photo 16. View downstream, lack of vegetation in a flow path just
upstream of UT3 -46. 11 December 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -15 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report- Appendix B May 2014
Table B -1. Daily rainfall immediately preceding and during monthly site visits to Hell Swamp in
2013.
Date
Rainfall (in)
Date
Rainfall (in)
Date
Rainfall (in)
1/1/2013
0.1
6/6/2013
0.49
10/6/2013
0.04
1/2/2013
0.39
6/7/2013
0.68
10/7/2013
1.42
1/3/2013
6/8/2013
0.13
10/8/2013
0.88
1/4/2013
6/9/2013
10/9/2013
0.81
1/5/2013
6/10/2013
0.38
10/10/2013
0.18
1/6/2013
0.03
6/11/2013
10/11/2013
0.01
1/7/2013
6/12/2013
10/12/2013
1/8/2013
0.01
10/13/2013
1/9/2013
7/1/2013
0.75
10/14/2013
0.01
7/2/2013
0.07
10/15/2013
2/1/2013
7/3/2013
0.04
10/16/2013
2/2/2013
0.03
7/4/2013
10/17/2013
2/3/2013
0.01
7/5/2013
2/4/2013
0.01
7/6/2013
0.01
11/5/2013
0.01
2/5/2013
7/7/2013
11/6/2013
0.75
2/6/2013
7/8/2013
11/7/2013
2/7/2013
0.32
7/9/2013
1.5
11/8/2013
2/8/2013
0.72
7/10/2013
11/9/2013
0.01
11/10/2013
2/28/2013
0.01
7/29/2013
0.24
11/11/2013
0.02
3/1/2013
7/30/2013
11/12/2013
0.01
3/2/2013
7/31/2013
0.27
11/13/2013
0.01
3/3/2013
8/1/2013
0.24
11/14/2013
0.04
3/4/2013
8/2/2013
0.16
11/15/2013
0.16
3/5/2013
0.32
8/3/2013
0.04
11/16/2013
0.05
3/6/2013
0.11
8/4/2013
0.01
8/5/2013
12/3/2013
0.05
3/24/2013
0.34
8/6/2013
0.01
12/4/2013
0.01
3/25/2013
0.01
8/7/2013
12/5/2013
3/26/2013
8/8/2013
0.21
12/6/2013
0.12
3/27/2013
12/7/2013
0.46
3/28/2013
8/27/2013
12/8/2013
3/29/2013
8/28/2013
0.13
12/9/2013
0.16
3/30/2013
8/29/2013
0.04
12/10/2013
0.01
3/31/2013
0.13
8/30/2013
0.01
4/1/2013
0.11
8/31/2013
0.01
4/2/2013
4/3/2013
9/1/2013
0.46
9/2/2013
0.21
4/25/2013
9/3/2013
0.62
4/26/2013
9/4/2013
0.01
4/27/2013
9/5/2013
0.01
4/28/2013
4/29/2013
0.28
4/30/2013
0.01
5/1/2013
0.48
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site B -16 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
Table B -2. Hell Swamp - Flow Observation Data for 2013 (depth in inches). Arrays at UT6 -1 B and -21B were not set up because deep wet ruts prevented valley construction. In flow column: H =
high, M = moderate, L = low, N = none, and P = ponded with no discernible flow. A shaded cell denotes flow was observed. NM= Monitoring of UT5 did not begin until June 2013.
FEII
1/8- 1/9/13
Flow Depth 11
2/6- 2/7/13
Flow Depth
3%6/13
Flow Depth
4/2- 4/3/13
Flow Depth
4/30/13 - 5/1/13
Flow Depth
6/11-6/12/13
Flow Depth
7/9- 7/10/13
Flow I Depth
8/6- 8/7/13
Flow Depth
9/3- 9%5/13
I Flow Depth
10/15- 10/16/13
Flow Depth
11/12- 11/13/13
Flow Depth
12/10- 12/11/13
Flow Depth
USC -1B
N
5
-
N
5.5
N
2.5
N
4
N
0
*L
8
N
0.25
N
2
N
0
*L
5.5
USC -2B
*L
14
-
N
14.5
N
12
N
14
N-7-7-
*L
19.5
N
0
N 11
N
9.75
*L
17.25
USC -3B
*L
10
N
8.5
*L
11
N
6
N
9
N
0
*L
18.5
N
4.25
N 5
N
5.25
*M
16
USC -4B
*L
4
*L
2.75
*M
5.75
L
1
*M
3
N
dry
*H
N
0.25
N
0
N
0
*W
USC -5B
N
2
N
1.5
N
3
N
1.5
*L
2.5
N
dry
*L
3
qN
N
0.25
N
0
N
0
*L
2
USC -6B
N
7
N
6.75
N
10
N
7.75
N
8
N
4
*L
9
L
6
N
5.5
N
5
*L
7.5
USC -7B
N
5.5
N
5
N
7
N
5
N
6
N
1.5
*L
10.5
N
2
N
3
N
2.75
*L
4.25
USC -8B
N
4
N
2.5
N
4
N
3
N
4
N
dry
*L
4.5
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
2.5
USC -9B
*M
3
N
3
*L
4
N
2
*L
3
N
dry
*M
3.5
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
1.5
USC -10B
*M
3.75
*L
3.25
*L
4
N
2
*L
3
N
dry
*L
3.5
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
1.5
USC -116
*L 9.75
N 9
N 11.5
N
8.5
N
10
N
4
N 9.25
N 0
N
2.25
N
0.00
N 0
N
7
UT1 -1B
*L
2
N
2
*L
2
N
0
*M
2
N
0
*L
8
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 0
*M 5.75
UT1-2B
N
4.5
N
4.5
N
5.5
N
4
N
6
N
0
*L
6.5
N
0
N
1.25
N
0
N 0
N 3.25
UT1 -3B
N
4
N
2.25
N
4.5
N
2.5
*L
4
N
0
N
1
N
0
N
0.25
N
0
N 0
*M 4.5
UT1 -4B
N
4
N
4.5
N
4
N
3
N
4.5
N
0
N
1.5
N
0
N
1
N
1.25
N 0
N 4.25
UT2 -1B N
1 N 0.25 N 0.5 N 0 N 0.25 N dry N 1 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 1
UT3 -1B
N
1.5
N
1.25
N
3
N
0.25
*L
2
N
0
N 3
N
0
N
0
N
0.25
N 0
*L
2
UT3 -2B
N
2
N
1
*L
3
N
0.25
*M
2
N
0
*L
2.25
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
1.75
UT3 -3B
N
1.5
N
0.5
N
0.5
N
0.5
L
2
N
0
*L
1.5
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
2.25
UT3 -4B
N
2
N
2
N
1.5
N
1.25
N
2.25
N
0
*L
2.75
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 1.5
UT3 -5B
N
5
N
5
N
5
N
2.5
N
4
N
0
N
6.5
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 4.75
UT3 -6B
N
3
N
2.5
N
2
N
1.5
N
3
N
0
*L
5.25
N 0
N
1
N
0
N
0
*L
2
UT3 -7B
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
1
*L
2.75
N
0
*M
3.75
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
2
UT3 -8B
N
4
N
1.25
N
3
N
1
*L
2
N
0
N 5
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
2
UT3 -9B
N
5
N
6
N
6
N
4.5
N 5
N
0
N 6
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
5.5
UT4 -1B
N
2
N
2
N
3
N
0.25
N
2
N
1.75
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 0
N
2.5
UT4 -2B
N
2
N
1.5
N
3
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
1.75
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 0
N
2
UT5 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM N 0 N 1.5 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 3
UT6 -3B
N
4.5
N
4.5
N
5
N
4
N
0.25
N
0
*L
8.5
N 0
N
1
N
9.25
N
2.5
N
4
UT6 -4B
N
1.25
N
0.5
N
1.5
El
N
0
N
0.25
N
0
*L
2
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
1.5
UT6 -5B
N
1.75
N
2
N
2
N
0.1
N
0.25
N
0
*L
7
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
2.25
UT6 -6B
N
3.25
N
3
N
4
N
2
N
3
N
0
*L
4.25
N 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
2.25
UT7 -1B
N
2.5
N
2
N
2.5
N
1.5
N
0.5
N
0
*M
5.25
N 0
N
0.25
N
0
N 0
*L
2.5
2T7-2B
N
1.5
N
1
N
1.5
N
1
N
0.5
N
0
L
3.75
N 0
N
0
N 0
N 0
N 2.5
UT7 -3B
N
2
N
0.25
N
2
N
0.25
N
0.25
N 0
N
2.75
N 0
N
0
N 0
N 0
N 0
UT8 -16
*L
6
*L
6
*M
6.5
N
5
*L
6
N
0
*M
6.75
N 1.75
N
1.5
- -
N
0
H
8,5
UT8 -2B
*L
5
*L
3
L
5
N
3.25
N
4
N
0
*L
4
N
0
N
0
-
N
0
*L
5.5
UT8 -3B
*L
7
*L
7
M
9
N
2
N
6.5
N
0
*L
9.75
N
0
N
0
-
N
0
*M
9
UT8 -4B
N
6
N 5
N 6
__N__72
N
4
--N-7-0
N
5
N
0
N
0
-
N
0
N
5.5
UT8 -5B
*L
4
N 3
L
3.5
N
1
N
3
N
0
N
2.25
N
0
N
0
-
N
0
*L
4
UT8 -6B
*L
5.5
N 5
L
5
N
0.5
N
4.5
N
0
IL
*L
3.5
N
0
N
0
N
0
*L
4.45
*Video of flow available.
- Accidentally skipped.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report B -17
Table B -3. Flow Observation Data for 2013 at other sites monitored by PCS (depth in inches). In flow column: v = very, H = high, M = moderate, L = low, N = none, and P = ponded with no discernible flow. A
"Y" indicates flow but no rate determined. Flow events are highlighted.
Date
1/3/13
2/12/13
3/12/13
E-4/11/13
5/8/13
1 6/4/13
1 7/1 /13
7/31/13
1 8/28/13
1 9/25/13
10/22/13
11 /19/13
12/17/13
Site
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Flow
Depth
Flow
Depth
Flow
Depth
Flow
Depth
Flow
Depth
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Flow Depth
Bay City
DRY
N
DRY
N
0
N
DRY
N
0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
UD1 WF2
N
DRY
N 0.5
N DRY
N DRY
N
BCF1
M 5
L 5.5
L 4
L 3.5
N
0.25
N
DRY
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 0
N 2
L
2
M
5
BCF2
H
5
H
4
L 4.5
L 3
N 0
N
DRY
N
0
N
0
N
0
N 0
L 1
L
1.75
M
4
BCF3
M 11
M
9
N 6.5
N 7
L/M 3
N
DRY
L
4
N
0
N
0
N 2
L 4
L
4.75
L 9.5
BCF4
M -H
9
M
7.5 11
N 5.5
L 6
L 2.75
N
DRY
M
4 11
N
0
N
0
N 0.25
M
2
L
2.5
M
8
HF1 j
H
10
L M
8.25
N DRY
N 0
N 0
N DRY
N 2.25
N
0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
N 6.5
Controls
Scarp
1/23/13
2/20/13
3/19/13
4/17/13
5/14/13
6/13/13
7/18/13
8/20/13
9/17/13
10/9/13
11/6/13
12/4 - 12/5/13
UD1 -F1
N DRY
L 3
N DRY
N DRY
N DRY
N 0
N 0
N
DRY
N 0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
UD1 WF1
N
DRY
N 0
N DRY
N DRY
N
DRY
N
DRY
N
0
N
DRY
N
0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
UD1 WF2
N
DRY
N 0.5
N DRY
N DRY
N
DRY
N
DRY
N
0
N
DRY
N
0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
UD8F1
L
2
L 2.5
L 3
L 2
N
DRY
L 0.25
N
0
L
1.5
N
0
L 2
N 0
6�;�37q5�
N
L
3
L 4.5
L 3.5
L 3
L
3
M 1.5
N
0
M
2
L
2
H
4
L 2.5
Porter
Creek
1/3/13
1/29/13
2/27/13
3/26/13
4/25/13
5/21/13
6/19/13
7/16/13
8/13/13
9/10/13
10/8/13
11/5/13
12/3/13
12/30/13
PCF1
M 4.75
L 2.5
M 6.25
M 1
M 3
N 0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
N 0
N 0
N 0
N DRY
N DRY
*PCF2
L 4
L 3
H 12.75
L 4.25
L 5
N 0
N 5
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
*PCF2 removed from field on 6/20/13
Duck
Creek
1/3/13
1/30/13
2/28/13
3/27/13
4/24/13
5/21/13
6/19/13
7/17/13
8/14/13
9/11/13
10/9/13
11/6/13
12/4/13
12/30/13
DKCW1 F
L
3
L 1.5
L 2.5
N 0
N
1.5
N
0
N
0
N
0.25
N
DRY
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
DRY
M 2.75
DKCW2F
L
4
M 3.5
M
4.5
N 3
N
3
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
DRY
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
DRY
M 3
DKCW3F
L
6.5
L 7-ELI
M
6.25
N 5
N
6
N 0.5
N 0
N
0
N
DRY
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
DRY
N 3.75
DKCW4F
L
6
M
6
M
5.75
L 4
L L
4
N 2
N 0
N 0
N DRY
N
0
N
0
N 0
N DRY
L 2.75
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report B -18
APPENDIX C
Baseline and 2013 Stem Counts at Individual Plots at Hell Swamp
Appendix C1. Hell Swamp baseline (BL) and fourth (4th) 2013 annual riparian buffer plot totals. Number in each column indicates trees and shrubs unquestionably alive at sampling. Shrubs are indicated with an asterisk. Plot size is 0.017 acre.
Plot was not monitored at baseline.
2 Plots have not been established.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -1
USC -1113
USC -5113
USC -8113
USC -11B
UT1 -1B
UT1 -3B
UT2 -2B
UT3 -1B
UT3 -4B
UT3 -7B
UT4 -1B
UT5 -21131
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL 4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL 4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
Carya aquatics water hickory
1
1
1
*Cepha/anthus occidentalis buttonbush
1
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
1
*Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
5
7
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
Ilex decidua possumhaw
*l. glabra ink berry
L opaca American holly
1
1
1
*l. verticillata winterberry
Tea virginica Virginia willow
1
1
1
2
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
Nyssa aquatics water tupelo
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
1
3
3
6
1
3
3
2
3
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
1
1
1
3
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
4
4
Q. falcata southern red oak
1
1
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
2
1
3
3
4
4
2
3
2
Q. lyrata overcup oak
3
3
3
3
6
7
1
1
1
2
2
5
4
3
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
2
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
Q. nigra water oak
2
8
9
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
1
Q. phellos willow oak
1
Q. spp. oak
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
1
6
6
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
Ulmus americana American elm
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
11
2
16
16
18
15
20
18
14
14
19
11
23
20
15
8
10
12
13
13
16
7
0
10
Plot was not monitored at baseline.
2 Plots have not been established.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -1
Appendix C1. Hell Swamp baseline (BL) and third (3rd) 2012 annual riparian buffer plot totals. Number in each column indicates trees and shrubs unquestionably alive at sampling.
Shrubs are indicated with an asterisk. Plot size is 0.017 acre.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -2
UT6 -1 B2
UT6 -3113 2
UT6
-5B
UT7 -2B
UT8
-1 B
UT
-4113
UT8
-6113
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
6
Carya aquatica water hickory
1
*Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
1
3
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
3
2
*Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
2
1
2
2
1
1
13
13
Ilex decidua possumhaw
*1. glabra ink berry
I. opaca American holly
1
1
1
*I. verticillata winterberry
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
2
1
1
1
2
2
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
1
1
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
3
1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
3
1
2
2
1
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus albs white oak
Q. falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
2
2
1
1
Q. lyrata overcup oak
1
1
3
3
5
2
2
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
3
3
3
3
2
1
Q. nigra water oak
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
Q. phellos willow oak
1
1
2
2
Q. spp. oak
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
3
1
4
3
5
5
Ulmus americana American elm
4
4
2
2
1
1
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
18
11
17
16
17
6
21
17
22
20
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -2
Appendix C2. Hell Swamp baseline (BL) and fourth annual (4th) 2013 plot totals. Number in each column indicates trees and shrubs unquestionably alive at sampling. Shrubs are indicated with an asterisk. Plot size is 0.22 acre.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
Carya aquatics water hickory
6
6
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
3
2
6
4
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
6
4
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
4
6
Fagus grandifolia American beech
9
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
4
4
11
9
9
8
1
1
2
2
5
5
Ilex decidua possumhaw
L glabra ink berry
4
3
1. opaca American holly
*l. verticillata winterberry
Tea virginica Virginia willow
1
1
1
2
4
4
5
5
5
2
12
11
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
13
5
3
1
7
5
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
10
6
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
23
15
5
4
2
3
11
8
14
12
19
18
30
29
5
5
3
3
11
8
31
26
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
Prunus serotina black cherry
4
4
Quercus alba white oak
11
10
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
5
1
18
22
6
5
1
1
31
28
6
6
Q. lyrata overcup oak
1
1
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
14
5
15
10
31
23
37
35
24
24
16
16
22
19
18
16
18
18
13
13
12
8
Q. nigra water oak
7
8
17
18
24
30
7
9
19
19
22
27
3
5
27
19
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
29
24
22
22
14
13
55
52
27
21
10
11
Q. phellos willow oak
Q. spp. oak
1
5
7
2
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
11
11
Ulmus americana American elm
7
4
3
8
5
1
17
13
14
12
7
5
12
8
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
1
2
3
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
77
43
62
51
1 93
76
90
79
1 85
75
1 90
84
1 80
74
90
79
1 84
77
1 84
79
1 80
75
1 86
61
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -3
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
1
1
2
2
1
Carya aquatics water hickory
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
13
12
9
8
11
6
2
1
3
3
18
17
3
3
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1
4
3
1
1
1
1. opaca American holly
2
*l. verticillata winterberry
1
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
2
2
2
1
3
3
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
4
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
3
1
1
5
1
2
2
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
3
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
9
8
32
32
12
11
10
5
8
5
38
25
13
12
2
2
5
4
20
17
31
29
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
2
1
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
1
2
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
15
10
12
13
13
24
21
12
10
1
1
35
33
Q. lyrata overcup oak
5
5
8
8
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
28
20
14
12
26
23
48
47
36
36
23
18
18
15
13
14
14
27
26
28
26
24
24
Q. nigra water oak
28
17
18
15
18
7
12
11
2
2
5
2
3
4
20
20
52
52
21
22
1
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
9
9
12
11
6
3
1
1
1
1
Q. phellos willow oak
1
3
4
4
Q. spp. oak
1
2
2
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
4
3
14
12
2
2
Ulmus americana American elm
26
17
16
14
29
29
1
1
2
2
22
22
7
6
10
10
9
10
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
1
2
2
9
9
4
4
1
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
93 64
85 74
110 106
93 89
81 62
67 25
86 70
97 80
94 88
96 92
86 81
102 97
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -4
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -5
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
2
3
2
1
2
Carya aquatics water hickory
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
9
9
17
16
23
23
9
9
6
6
8
8
20
17
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
4
4
1
1
1
1. opaca American holly
*l. verticillata winterberry
*ltea virginica Virginia willow
2
1
8
8
2
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
2
3
3
3
1
10
6
4
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
5
1
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
3
2
5
3
1
3
3
6
6
13
11
4
29
25
40
35
28
29
2
1
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
2
1
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
6
6
11
16
20
19
35
33
21
17
3
2
23
23
34
35
18
16
31
27
Q. lyrata overcup oak
1
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
52
52
19
16
20
15
20
19
27
23
32
32
4
4
22
20
31
31
5
5
16
14
18
19
Q. nigra water oak
26
22
32
29
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
24
21
36
29
17
12
23
21
6
6
18
16
Q. phellos willow oak
2
1
1
7
8
1
Q. spp. oak
3
7
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
19
15
Ulmus americana American elm
24
21
8
7
42
41
13
12
3
3
28
27
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
4
4
3
2
1
2
5
5
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
2
2
TOTALS
95 91
72 65
95 82
103 91
104 92
98 88
90 81
1 70 60
103 97
83 78
100 93
103 80
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -5
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -6
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
2
3
5
1
1
2
2
2
8
2
Carya aquatics water hickory
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
4
4
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
4
5
1
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
11
11
33
32
14
14
10
9
12
11
21
20
10
9
9
9
3
2
17
16
29
27
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1
1
1. opaca American holly
*1. verticillata winterberry
Tea virginica Virginia willow
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
1
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
1
2
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
2
7
4
1
1
3
3
8
4
3
10
6
16
7
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
3
3
7
4
13
3
4
1
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
8
7
5
4
8
6
8
7
13
10
10
3
2
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
3
1
1
1
6
5
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
30
27
13
11
37
32
27
28
15
13
27
22
22
17
Q. lyrata overcup oak
20
18
12
11
10
8
26
26
10
10
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
31
25
17
17
26
25
15
9
24
23
1
2
2
43
40
13
13
37
39
11
12
28
27
Q. nigra water oak
1
1
2
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
17
10
20
20
24
25
2
2
Q. phellos willow oak
9
7
14
15
25
24
2
2
6
6
3
6
Q. spp. oak
2
3
1
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
9
9
16
16
4
4
5
4
10
10
Ulmus americana American elm
6
6
29
26
28
26
19
16
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
4
2
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
105 82
106 89
117 104
73 58
89 85
85 64
76 57
99 88
77 74
110 100
114 87
85 73
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -6
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -7
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
Carya aquatics water hickory
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
7
8
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
1
2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
23
19
31
14
14
4
4
17
17
26
26
36
34
15
15
15
13
25
23
26
26
14
14
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
6
4
*l. verticillata winterberry
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
2
1
1
5
5
1
2
2
2
2
5
5
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
1
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
1
2
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
4
2
2
1
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
1
1
7
7
3
7
1
6
1
20
3
1,9
12
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
5
10
8
17
14
5
5
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
1
1
Persea palustris red bay
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
9
15
19
30
29
17
17
1
1
2
Q. lyrata overcup oak
2
2
20
22
18
19
12
11
27
28
27
11
14
14
24
25
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
8
12
22
17
18
19
18
10
10
1
1
4
9
9
15
16
23
22
Q. nigra water oak
22
25
1
1
7
13
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
3
16
19
1
37
36
Q. phellos willow oak
2
4
6
22
20
8
8
7
21
9
9
15
18
Q. spp. oak
2
9
8
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
2
2
16
12
5
3
1
7
4
6
15
11
10
9
8
Ulmus americana American elm
19
18
6
6
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
42 46
94 0
100 90
94 87
114 99
71 68
71 65
71 58
64 70
97 76
111 106
97 91
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -7
Appendix C2. (continued)
1 The area in the vicinity of plot 105 was not planted
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -8
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
5
2
2
2
4
2
Carya aquatics water hickory
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
1
1
2
2
1
1
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
2
1
2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
9
9
20
20
19
19
23
23
3
3
10
10
17
10
9
14
13
10
10
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
1
*l. verticillata winterberry
*ltea virginica Virginia willow
12
10
1
2
6
6
6
5
3
2
5
5
3
3
2
1
1
5
4
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
4
5
2
2
1
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
19
17
22
15
21
12
36
11
13
12
16
19
1
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
21
16
9
9
3
2
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
1
6
4
2
2
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
Q. lyrata overcup oak
1
10
10
30
30
12
14
13
17
30
30
29
28
23
24
40
41
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
22
24
10
10
22
27
14
14
2
3
17
18
7
7
27
27
Q. nigra water oak
10
25
30
41
13
11
1
22
32
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
12
12
2
6
17
18
Q. phellos willow oak
20
20
9
9
14
19
1
13
14
14
13
13
12
Q. spp. oak
18
16
1
1
3
11
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
4
1
26
25
7
7
12
12
21
18
8
6
13
8
8
6
Ulmus americana American elm
4
4
19
20
6
6
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
1
1
1
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
92
82
91
73
77
74
115
113
96
89
97
89
82
58
92
82
62
70
101
67
95
72
102
99
1 The area in the vicinity of plot 105 was not planted
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -8
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -9
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
7
2
1
2
7
3
1
1
5
14
Carya aquatics water hickory
17
16
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
2
2
6
6
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
2
1
3
3
5
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
6
6
1
Fagus grandifolia American beech
10
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
7
8
1
18
18
16
16
31
29
36
29
10
9
20
19
3
3
19
19
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1
1
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
4
3
2
*l. verticillata winterberry
3
2
*ltea virginica Virginia willow
3
4
1
1
1
1
5
3
2
2
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
2
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
1
4
3
2
1
1
6
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
1
25
17
7
2
11
2
20
12
8
6
5
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
10
10
11
4
15
14
4
2
2
2
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
7
4
Quercus alba white oak
27
28
Q, falcata southern red oak
10
10
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
1
Q. lyrata overcup oak
1
1
2
26
26
10
16
18
17
33
34
16
15
11
10
7
6
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
22
26
11
10
1
3
10
10
3
3
1
17
18
Q. nigra water oak
2
4
3
5
3
3
15
16
17
23
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
10
14
2
6
30
24
Q. phellos willow oak
28
28
7
9
3
4
15
16
18
18
20
20
Q. spp. oak
17
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
10
10
12
10
33
31
36
35
29
29
17
15
1
21
18
12
12
22
10
Ulmus americana American elm
14
14
8
7
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
3
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
95 76
54 44
67
67
110 100
106 99
98 99
109 85
82 72
90 77
76 69
79 45
103 88
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -9
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -10
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
5
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
4
8
Carya aquatics water hickory
4
4
12
11
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
2
2
3
1
6
2
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
2
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
1
1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
5
4
Fagus grandifolia American beech
1
15
16
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
16
16
16
14
10
10
47
44
38
36
15
8
1
1
5
4
14
4
26
25
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1
1. glabra ink berry
1
1
1. opaca American holly
3
2
*1. verticillata winterberry
4
4
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
6
5
1
1
3
1
3
1
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
2
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
4
3
4
1
2
1
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
14
11
11
6
11
4
28
2
6
14
1
14
2
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
8
5
27
26
4
2
1
1
2
1
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
2
2
1
2
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
7
6
14
14
Q, falcata southern red oak
9
10
20
20
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
17
18
5
6
1
2
1
Q. lyrata overcup oak
8
8
11
11
20
20
25
23
26
24
25
24
3
4
10
4
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
13
12
27
26
4
3
8
8
1
15
11
Q. nigra water oak
14
14
10
10
9
8
1
2
23
20
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
40
41
22
15
Q. phellos willow oak
3
18
18
28
30
21
25
14
14
3
2
15
15
4
3
Q. spp. oak
1
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
1
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
33
31
2
2
25
19
6
5
27
15
14
18
25
14
13
7
Ulmus americana American elm
18
17
1
1
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
4
TOTALS
107 93
96 91
82 73
102 94
91 81
132 122
110 96
114 65
54 47
68 40
70 22
104 74
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -10
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -11
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL 4th
BL 4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
6
1
1
1
2
1
Carya aquatics water hickory
11
10
12
13
18
19
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
2
2
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
1
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
1
1
4
4
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
2
2
8
9
Fagus grandifolia American beech
5
4
9
9
4
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
9
8
17
17
7
7
18
27
5
4
9
9
30
30
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1
1
3
3
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
3
3
1
1
2
1
*1. verticillata winterberry
2
2
4
4
1
Tea virginica Virginia willow
5
5
3
3
2
3
7
5
2
1
3
1
2
3
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
1
2
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
4
2
7
6
1
1
5
2
1
4
3
2
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
17
8
20
15
9
1
16
7
20
3
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
10
8
22
13
5
2
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
2
Persea palustris red bay
3
1
2
1
2
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
3
1
2
2
2
Quercus alba white oak
12
8
22
22
23
23
2
Q, falcata southern red oak
20
16
14
13
8
9
2
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
21
23
1
2
Q. lyrata overcup oak
8
8
24
24
25
34
2
17
16
17
17
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
14
15
27
27
21
19
11
10
24
2
12
10
3
3
Q. nigra water oak
22
23
24
23
30
30
17
17
18
2
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
15
14
1
21
2
Q. phellos willow oak
9
10
19
19
15
18
18
19
20
20
Q. spp. oak
1
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
13
12
24
23
15
13
14
12
8
8
Ulmus americana American elm
5
5
18
18
4
2
2
2
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
1
2
1
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
2
TOTALSI
92 82
1 89 81
1 96 81
1 111 102
1 89 75
1 98 97
1 95 90
1 95 102
1 0 0
1 81 34
101 80
106 87
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -11
Appendix C2. (continued)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -12
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL 4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL 4th
Unknown Unknown
4
3
1
4
1
Carya aquatics water hickory
14
14
15
16
12
13
19
19
19
19
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
1
2
2
1
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
6
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
Fagus grandifolia American beech
6
4
10
10
15
6
6
4
9
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
22
22
17
17
30
30
15
15
11
12
15
15
7
6
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
4
4
1
1
5
3
3
3
2
1
*1. verticillata winterberry
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
5
5
1
1
3
4
5
6
4
4
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
1
1
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
3
2
2
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
1
1
3
2
2
4
4
1
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
7
8
12
10
20
10
18
15
4
3
1
16
9
10
7
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
1
9
8
1
2
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
2
2
1
1
1
Prunus serotina black cherry
1
1
4
1
3
2
4
2
Quercus alba white oak
26
26
19
19
24
25
27
26
20
20
Q, falcata southern red oak
23
24
21
21
16
25
9
10
7
7
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
1
1
1
Q. lyrata overcup oak
14
14
46
47
17
17
31
31
12
19
6
6
22
22
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
6
6
16
14
9
14
2
2
Q. nigra water oak
24
24
16
16
17
16
26
25
28
28
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
Q. phellos willow oak
21
21
17
13
8
10
14
14
20
20
1
1
18
17
27
28
Q. spp. oak
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
16
15
8
8
19
18
33
32
13
13
24
22
25
25
Ulmus americana American elm
1
1
1
2
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
1
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
102 96
117 111
103 101
94 90
104 100
97 85
114 108
95 102
98 91
97 92
94 83
97 94
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -12
Appendix C2. (concluded)
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -13
121
122
123
124
Scientific name Common name
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
BL
4th
Unknown Unknown
1
4
4
Carya aquatics water hickory
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush
1
1
2
Cyrilla racemiflora titi
1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American beech
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
17
17
10
11
12
19
18
18
Ilex decidua possumhaw
1. glabra ink berry
1. opaca American holly
2
*1. verticillata winterberry
*Itea virginica Virginia willow
4
4
3
3
4
*Leucothoe racemosa Swamp doghobble
1
*Lindera benzoin spicebush
1
Magnolia virginiana sweet bay
5
Nyssa aquatica water tupelo
15
12
7
3
12
1
14
4
Nyssa biflora swamp black gum
1
Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
Persea palustris red bay
1
1
4
Prunus serotina black cherry
Quercus alba white oak
Q, falcata southern red oak
Q. laurifolia laurel oak
4
3
Q. lyrata overcup oak
26
26
25
25
22
23
13
13
Q. michauxii swamp chestnut oak
15
15
7
9
Q. nigra water oak
Q. pagoda cherrybark oak
Q. phellos willow oak
17
16
24
24
8
9
25
25
Q. spp. oak
*Rosa palustris swamp rose
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
19
19
12
11
7
9
15
13
Ulmus americana American elm
2
2
*Vaccinium corymbosum high bush blueberry
*Viburnum nudum possumhaw viburnum
TOTALS
100 96
94 89
96 77
93
77
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Report C -13
/_1, »01I9]►:497
Selected Fourth Annual (2013) Restoration Vegetation Photographs
The photos represent a range of conditions on the site. A 10 -ft pole marked with one -foot increments is in
each photo for a height reference. The fourth annual photos (bottom photos) are paired with the baseline
photo (top photo) from the same location.
HS8 photo station; view is to the east. 13 July 2010.
n
HS8 photo station; view is to the east. 29 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
HS34 photo station; view is to the south. 14 July 2010.
HS34 photo station; view is to the south. 29 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
UT1 -3 photo station; view is upstream (west- northwest). 14 July 2010.
11�
�16
UT1 -3 photo station; view is upstream (west - northwest). Planted oak is visible in the
right foreground. 29 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
HS112 photo station; view is to the north. 13 July 2010.
HS112 photo station; view is to the north. 30 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
q
USC -2 photo station; view is downstream. 14 July 2010.
USC -2 photo station; view is downstream. 29 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
UT8 -6 photo station; view is downstream (southwest). 13 July 2010.
UT8 -6 photo station; view is downstream (southwest). 30 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
UT3 -7 photo station; view is towards well 7C (north - northwest). 13 July 2010.
UT3 -7 photo station; view is towards well 7C (north- northwest). 30 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014
HS37 photo station; view is to the east. 13 July 2010.
HS37 photo station; view is to the east. 29 October 2013.
Hell Swamp /Scott Creek Mitigation Site D -8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report May 2014