Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120107 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report Ph II_2015_20160620THIRD ANNUAL (2015) REPORT FOR THE P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 2 RICHLAND TOWNSHIP BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared for: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Prepared by: CZR Incorporated June 2016 THIRD ANNUAL (2015) REPORT FOR THE P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 2 RICHLAND TOWNSHIP BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared for: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Prepared by: CZR Incorporated June 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................1 1.1 History ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Location.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria..................................................................................... 2 2.0 REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................................2 2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season............................................................................ 2 2.2 Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 3 3.0 2015 RESULTS..............................................................................................................3 3.1 Rainfall...........................................................................................................................3 3.2 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................3 3.3 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 3 3.4 Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 4 4.0 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................4 LITERATURECITED.......................................................................................................................6 Cover Photo: Aerial photo looking south over Phase 2, with Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 3 also visible. 5 August 2015. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 2 performance criteria, methods summary, and current status.......................................................................................................................... T-1 Table 2 Hydroperiods of 49 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 2 restoration site and three Rodman control wells during all rainfall conditions in 2015............................................................................................................................ T-2 Table 3 Hydroperiods of 49 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 2 restoration site and three Rodman control wells during WETS normal and below normalrainfall in 2015................................................................................................ T-9 Table 4 Third annual (fall 2015) survival of trees and shrubs planted in 48 0.3 -acre plots at P and U Lands Phase 2........................................................................................ T-16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Control Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Control Figure 3 Soils P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Control Figure 4 P and U Lands Phase2 and Rodman Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built LiDAR Figure 5 2015 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall Figure 6 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Longest 2015 Hydroperiods and Estimated Hydrologic Zones During All Rainfall Conditions Figure 7 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Longest 2015 Hydroperiods and Estimated Hydrologic Zones Excluding WETS Above Normal Rainfall APPENDICES Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Appendix B Selected Third Annual Restoration Photographs NOTE: Copy of entire report and hydrology data from monitoring wells included on accompanying CD. P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 History. The approximately 3,667 -acre P and U Lands restoration site is part of the PCS Phosphate Company Inc.'s (PCS) compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters authorized under United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Action ID: 200110096 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Water Quality Certification (WQC) #2008-0868 version 2.0. As described in the mitigation plan prepared for the pre -construction notification (PCN) to the USACE (CZR 2012), the site is to be constructed in three phases as shown on Figure 1. Wet conditions delayed construction in --138 acres of Phase 3; these acres were planted in 2015, will be monitored as Phase 4, and will be one year behind the remainder of the previously described Phase 3 area. This annual report concerns third annual monitoring of the 1,089 acres of Phase 2 of the P Lands portion, conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) of Wilmington, NC. (The P and U designation have no special meaning other than that was the historic label given to PCS and Weyerhaeuser properties with similar ownership agreements.) The design team consisted of Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, FL, the restoration design engineer, PCS, and CZR. Earthwork was performed by Sawyer's Land Developing, Inc. out of Belhaven, NC and supervised by the design team. Phase 1 and 2 restoration activities occurred September 2011 -March 2013. Phase 2 construction was authorized by five NC Division of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control permits for land clearing which were subsequently modified for the construction of the interior ditch plugs and perimeter berms and ditches. Planting of Phase 2 occurred March 2013. Further details of construction are included in the as built, first, and second annual reports (CZR 2014a, CZR 2014b, and CZR 2015). The P and U Lands site is a key component linking PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.'s (PCS) Parker Farm Mitigation Site, Bay City Farm Mitigation Site, Gum Run Mitigation Site, and the South Creek Corridor into a large and varied collection of restored wetland and preserved natural areas (South Creek Corridor Complex). The headwaters and upper valley of historic Gum Swamp Run, a tributary to South Creek, will also be restored as part of the P and U Lands mitigation site, Phase 3. Unlike most other PCS mitigation sites, the P and U Lands are not prior - converted agricultural fields. Other than the existing roads, all of Phase 2 acreage in which earthwork occurred was in some stage of silvicultural activity, usually various -aged pine stands, and contained regularly spaced ditches (deeper than the agricultural ditches on other restoration sites that were filled in as part of restoration work) and the bedding common to pine plantations. The removal of all standing timber and stumps and post-harvest debris presented particular challenges as the organic soils precluded safe burning of the timber slash on site. 1.2 Location. The P and U Lands site is located east and west of Bay City Road (SR 1002), approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Aurora, Richland Township, North Carolina. Bay City Road runs through the P Lands portion of the site, which is bounded on the east by SR 1918 (Peele Road is the unpaved extension of SR 1918) and on the south by "County Line Road" (a gated gravel road that functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico County border). The U Lands portion of the site lies west and southwest of Bay City Farm (the western portion of the P Lands site referred to as the "panhandle" separates Bay City Farm from the U Lands site). South Creek and the South Creek Canal form the northern and northwestern boundaries, Bonner/Rodman Road forms the western boundary, and the Pamlico/Beaufort County line forms the southern boundary of the U Lands (County Line Road itself is the southern boundary of only the eastern half of the U Lands as the western limit of County Line Road terminates at the midpoint of the south property line). The entire site is accessed via multiple gated roads along Bay City Road, Peele Road, County Line Road, and/or Jaime/Executive Road. The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River basin within the South Creek subbasin at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 latitude 35.233831 and longitude 76.775742. Portions of the site can be found on the USGS Aurora, Bayboro, South Creek, and Vandemere quadrangles (Figure 1). 1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria. The primary goal of the entire project is to re- establish a self-sustaining functional wetland complex to allow surface flow to move through vegetated wetlands before reaching any stream. Mitigation yields are estimated and performance criteria are described for the project in detail in the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance criteria for Phase 2 are summarized in Table 1. Over time the 1,089 -acre Phase 2 portion of the site is expected to successfully re-establish approximately: 40 wetland acres of headwater forest, 562 wetland acres of non-riverine swamp forest, 135 wetland acres of hardwood flat forest, and 25 acres of open water in plugged ditches. The remaining 34 acres are comprised of existing roads, perimeter berms, and other man -dominated areas. Approximately 25,131 linear feet of jurisdictional waters in roadside ditches and canals have been plugged in order to increase the hydroperiods within the adjacent planted areas (these plugged jurisdictional ditches and canals are included in the 25 acres of reestablished open water). 2.0 REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season. A continuous electronic rain gauge on the adjacent Bay City Mitigation Site is downloaded once a month and its data are used in conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations (e.g., NRCS WETS data from NOAA's site at Aurora and rain gauges at other nearby monitoring sites) to determine normal rainfall during the monitoring period. Bay City data were compared to the WETS range of normal precipitation to determine if Bay City rainfall was within the normal range. The range of normal precipitation for this report refers to the 30th and 701h percentile thresholds of the probability of having onsite rainfall amounts less than or higher than those thresholds. The range of normal and the 30 -day rolling total data lines begin on the last day of each month and the 2015 Aurora monthly precipitation total is plotted on the last day of each month. Under the 2010 regional guidance from the Corps of Engineers for wetland hydroperiods, the normal growing season for Beaufort County is 28 February to 6 December or 282 days (WETS table for Beaufort County first/last freeze date 28 degrees F 50 percent probability) (US Army Corps of Engineers 2010). At the suggestion of the Corps' Washington regulatory field office, data collected between 1 February and 27 February provide important information related to analyses of site hydrology during the early growing season, but are not part of the hydroperiod calculation for success. 2.2 Hydrology. Figure 2 depicts the locations of hydrology monitoring equipment, Figure 3 shows the locations on Beaufort County soil polygons, and Figure 4 shows monitoring locations on the as -built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all wetland types on the site, 49 semi -continuous electronic LevelTroll water level monitoring wells (manufactured by InSitu) are deployed at a density of approximately 1 well/15 acres across all planted areas of Phase 2, with the exception of one well that was installed near a ditch to be used in conjunction with a nearby well to monitor lateral drainage effects from the open perimeter ditch. Exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence posts were built around all wells to reduce likelihood of disturbance or equipment loss by black bears. Three wells were installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman Road in the Ponzer soil P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 series as controls for the P and U Lands wells in the same soil type (Rodman Control Site, Figures 2 and 3). Electronic wells collect data every 1.5 hours, are downloaded once a month, and the data evaluated on an annual basis to document wetland hydroperiods. Wetland hydroperiods are calculated by counting consecutive days with water level no deeper than 12 inches below the soil surface during the growing season under normal or below normal rainfall conditions and then for all rainfall conditions. 2.3 Vegetation. The first annual survey of the 48 0.3 -acre planted tree and shrub monitoring plots occurred July -September 2013. The second annual survey occurred October - November 2014 and the third annual survey in August -October 2015. The plots represent 2 percent of the restoration area (Figure 2). Nuisance monitoring plots (1 meter square) were established in 2014 at the upper corner opposite the well (along the long axis of the plot) in all tree plots and all woody stems taller than 1 foot were counted and identified in 2014 and 2015. 2.4 Photographic Documentation. Seven permanent photo point locations were established along the perimeter of the restoration area (Figure 2). The first annual photos were taken 24 October 2013, the second annual photos were taken 23 October 2014, and the third annual were taken in December 2015. 3.0 2015 RESULTS 3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall in 2015 at Bay City was 56.4 inches, 2.4 inches more than last year. The 30 -day rolling total of 2015 Bay City rainfall was considered above normal WETS rainfall June 3 -July 5, October 2 -November 1, and November 18 -December 19 (Figure 5). Wetland hydroperiods were calculated for the entire year regardless of rainfall and also calculated with above normal rainfall periods excluded. The US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.uni.edu) provides a synthesis of multiple indices and reflects the consensus of federal and academic scientists on regional conditions on a weekly basis (updated each Thursday). In 2015, all 41 weeks of the growing season were considered normal with no drought status in the vicinity of the P and U Lands project area. 3.2 Hydrology. All wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods from 2013 to 2015 (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 6 and 7). All wells recorded at least two wetland hydroperiods longer than 14 days during all rainfall conditions, and two wells recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season including above normal rainfall (Table 2). Those two wells were the only wells to drop into a drier hydrologic zone when the time periods of above normal rainfall were excluded. Most of the wells recorded a wetland hydroperiod >25 to 75 percent of the growing season during all rainfall, and increased from 41 to 43 wells (the two wells previously mentioned) when the above normal rainfall period was excluded. Six wells had hydroperiods for >12.5 percent to 25 percent of the growing season. Tables depicting 2015 daily well readings and rainfall are included on a companion CD with this report. The reference wells in the Rodman Control Site recorded water levels similar to Phase 1 wells and the hydroperiods were not affected by the above normal rainfall (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 6 and 7). 3.3 Vegetation. When using only the number of planted stems that were unquestionably alive in the monitoring plots, the most conservative estimate of survival is presented. Many stems appeared dead or questionable, but based on prior monitoring experience, a stem needs to appear dead (or not be found) for two survey events before it can be confidently counted as dead. Appendix A contains the number of stems that were alive in each plot for the fall 2015 survey. P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 The Corps determined that three tree species have the possibility to outcompete young planted trees at a mitigation site and need to be monitored as nuisance species to ensure they do not take over a mitigation site. These species are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). In 2015, a total of 51 stems were found in all nuisance plots and only 11 stems were of the three species mentioned (21.6 percent). Of the 11 stems, one was a loblolly pine, seven were red maple, and two were sweetgum. Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of planting to the third annual fall survey was 66 percent, with a corresponding density of 240 trees per acre (Table 4). If trees with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead but could not be confirmed) are included with trees that were definitely alive, survival increases to 73 percent (because a stem could not be considered dead the first survey year) and a density of 265 trees per acre. Excluding unknown species/uncertain survivals, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and willow oak (Q. phellos) had the lowest survival of the 19 species (Table 4). Eight of the 15 remaining known species had survivals of 80 percent and higher, with two of them at 100 percent. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the first annual fall survey was 67 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per acre (Table 4). If shrubs with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead for the current survey event but will not be confirmed until next fall) are included with shrubs that were definitely alive (less conservative estimate of survival), survival increases to 75 percent and a density of eight shrubs per acre. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) had the lowest survival of the eight species and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), red choke berry (Aronia arbutifolia), and Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) had the highest survival (Table 4). Phase 2 is divided into three community types: headwater forest, non-riverine swamp forest, and hardwood flat. Survival of all zones was similar: 57, 53, and 58 percent, respectively. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density increases to 248 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density increases to 274 stems per acre. Plots with low stem survival are spread throughout Phase 2 and are not concentrated in any particular area of the site. No correlation can be made between low stem survival and soil series, water depth, or ponding duration. Plans are currently being made to address mortality for Phase 2. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g. red bay [Persea borbonia], sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana]) enhance the diversity and density of the site. The volunteers will be counted in year five. 3.4 Photographic Documentation. A few photos representative of 2015 conditions are included with this report (Appendix B). More are available upon request. 4.0 SUMMARY According to WETS rainfall calculations, Bay City rainfall was normal or below normal WETS rainfall except for June 3 -July 5, October 2- November 1, and November 18- December 19. Post -restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially began in 2013. All wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods from 2013 to 2015. In 2015, all wells recorded at least two wetland hydroperiods longer than 14 days and during all rainfall conditions, two wells recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season. During periods of WETS normal or below normal rainfall, most wells (43 of 49) had a wetland hydroperiod for >25 percent to 75 percent of the growing season. Six wells had hydroperiods for >12.5 percent to 25 percent of the growing season. Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of planting to the third annual fall survey was 66 percent, with a corresponding density of 240 trees P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the first annual fall survey was 67 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per acre. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density increases to 248 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density increases to 274 stems per acre. The conservative current tree density is below to the 260 stems required for success. Currently, plans are being made to address mortality and appropriate adaptive management steps will be coordinated with permitting agencies. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g. red bay, sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana], titi [Cyrilla racemiflora]) will enhance the diversity and density of the site. P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 LITERATURE CITED CZR Incorporated. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site. CZR Incorporated. 2014a. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2. CZR Incorporated. 2014b. First Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2. CZR Incorporated. 2015. Second Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2. Kirby, Robert M. 1995. The soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory guidance letter (RGL) 02-02. Guidance on Compensatory mitigation projects for aquatic resource impacts under the Corps regulatory program pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03. Minimum monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects involving the restoration, establishment, and/or enhancement of aquatic resources. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain region. Version 2.0. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. ERCD/EL TR -08-30, Vicksburg, MS. P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 2%777/ =%J/ $ �0 2 : _ _ _ _ = 0 5 E = m oa7k@"£ \R2 ma0 52E m ) @ S } -0 CO 7 E 2.2 CO Cn ° / R 77\�� M-> _/\/\§//��\ _ = w 2 2 « R\g//s\SE/) �kk///f(ƒ& 7§ 0@/ I a 0- a %® 6\® L§ 2 3 ƒ / $ % ± -0 I % ƒ k 2 % $ / : ) 7 = R \ E 3 0� 7= e\ 0 a /± k z\// 0)\$ U \ 0 0 2 w n% c= R r m m m m 2 m E = 5 = o — e e) m ° E�_ c / 0 \ § \ \ k k / / f $ \ ° o -41 LO = u " v m = — — / � 2 C/) — .0 mLf 2 / I $ e E \ � f $ / / 2 °E $ a / E \ / & M 7 0 M ® / O 2 D w 0) E 3 2 2 / y 0 > + 0 § 0 \ -- \ C � _ / y § \ /f3 O75 — _0 0 /_ \ Co / t o— > 0 E 0 (D k m @ : % @ E / m _� 2 / ° 6/ 5a ° � / ƒ ^I\ f % $ C ° % 2 E0 f 2 Cn k 0\/ 0 LO2 E o ? 0 y $ / E 2 2 E * � 2 / ƒ / 3 % \ % A / 2 / k Cz / ) 0 s . 2 ® c 2 CoE 5 0 E m / \ cc = 0 7 0 $ 2 M « E@ 0 2 f D \ % // § E % = R E E mE\ \0 Cn / / k C: o / k k 0 2 w m Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 a1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report 2m 2016 Phase 2: X B / 2 % \ % x \ / } CO � Coo \ ^2!! a CO CO % \ x CO 7 / 3 \ \ \ f x x x \ \ : \ § E / § J \ @ A \ �\ ƒ0 \ » _ \ \ § M » \ E 0 \\ k $ A / \ \\ & v & / a0 (D _ _ \ ® a \\0 }/k\ M az / \ 2 7\$ U)S 7 \ p 7 \ k \ G \ 77 \ - 5& /§\o 2 E = 3 0 = o 7 -0 ƒ}`_ \ \§\/ 0 \ \ § / \ 5 & 0 %� O «— � k \ /k0 -0 .§_ 'D_@ c EC E C: 1 \ _ = 5 = N ± EG2= .q£ ^ /\&�_ o =a�L6� "-\ \ \\ \ f\ n Z 0 \r ƒJ\ et \5 I 0 — \ \ 5t 2f Pak u Lands Restoration 9e Third Annual s 9, Phase 2: X B / 2 % \ % x \ / } CO � Coo \ ^2!! a CO CO % \ x CO 7 / 3 \ \ \ f x x x a Phase 2: X B / 2 % \ % x \ / } CO � Coo \ ^2!! a CO CO % \ x CO 7 / 3 \ \ \ f & Cl) a \ \ \ % E E \ �\ \ 7 / \\ k \ / \\ & & / % (D & = a 2 7\$ 7 7/ p \ \ \ \ \ \ & CO \ \ \ Phase 2: X B / 2 % \ % x \ / } CO � Coo \ ^2!! a CO CO % \ x CO 7 / 3 \ \ \ f to 2 \ \ E E IL � CO CU CO/ M PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 \ % \ \ E E to 2 \ \ E E IL � CO CU CO/ M PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 0 LO I- A A 0 LO Ln N A 0 LO N N_ A 0 N O AI V 0 0) T i OL N d O U 00 N U N 0 @ j U -0 0 O U� N N O N LL C 00 O -r- p N U 3 '— m > -0 Q) m 7 N (N LL O r M UU) N L f0 O LL r N X 00 v N 00 M O O (N r N L O 00 r N N r O M M LO tl- N M M O { I X I X I X I X Lq It N LO CO O O M r N N N N N r N O to 2 M CL T-3 ti N O D 0- I- C14 - I- N (Y) N L ' N M (.0 CO N N r N N L9 a) > O N N a_ CO d 0 - CO O' f0 -0 f0 i N O June 2016 0 CO C N N l!7 O r O — O (9 N a0 >O > N � m P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report { I X I X I X I X Lq It N LO CO O O M r N N N N N r N O to 2 M CL T-3 ti N O D 0- I- C14 - I- N (Y) N fl- N M (.0 CO N <O N L9 O N a_ T d 0 - CO O' i i N N June 2016 M CO N N l!7 O r O 67 d' a0 Lf) { I X I X I X I X Lq It N LO CO O O M r N N N N N r N O to 2 M CL T-3 ti N O D 0- I- C14 - I- N (Y) N fl- N ti N N M d a_ d d 0 - PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 0 LO r` A 0 LO r` LO N A 0 LO N A 0 LO N O AI (D V U N (0 N ) a) M O ) O � _ QJ J N LL j 7 00 N 3 -0Q M CO ) O � _ QJ J N LL j 7 00 O N LL N � N _N .O O x 00 LO G N i (D CD L N C N G 00 r r` N N x @ LO M O X 0 x C (O x N O N O O N N Cfl V LO CO M CO r` N N >N O O C9 N 00 N N d M N > (N N Cl) N M N M M (O N M N N O N N 00 ' J N � M � P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report T-4 x i x x X x CO (O x N O N O N N N Cfl V O CO M CO Cl) N (.0 O O C9 N 00 N M N 00 N d M N CO N M N (N N Cl) N M N M M (O N M N N O N N 00 ' J N � r` CA CN N (D O N LO r` IT O O d' N LO r` r- 00 O N N N N r` r` r` N N (N N CQO a) G) 1- 2 Z D a a CL P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report T-4 x i x lO C�7 N N Co CO D d a. x LO O CO 00 i N M N T LO r` r` N N CO o_ PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 CO (O N N O N O N N N Cfl W CO M CO N M N N N a7 C) N O � � a) lO C�7 N N Co CO D d a. x LO O CO 00 i N M N T LO r` r` N N CO o_ PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 0 Ln I— A A 0 LO Ln N A 0 Ln N N_ A 0 N AI (D V O 0) O T i OL N aa'U)00N U (0 0 @ j U -0 0 O U� N N O N LL C 0 O -r- C) r-U 3 '— m > -0 M 0 7 N N LL E - 0 U U N L f0 O LL N r— � N X r` N X 00 4 N X 0 0 OM � N N O 7 W (-0i 6) N M Ln � N � N 6 � � N 0 T-5 11 x x y 0 LO N r- 04 M 0 d O h r- N v 0 N It 0 rl- t1 - L ' 0 N 00 N LO N \O a > 6 r N i Ln 0 f0 -0 f6 0 O A N N N June 2016 M_ CO O N N LO — 00 N >N > N 0 M LC) LO r— m N M X 0 0 OM � N N O 7 W (-0i 6) N M Ln � N � N 6 � � N 0 T-5 11 x x y 0 LO N r- 04 M 0 d O h r- N v 0 N It 0 rl- t1 - L ' C14 N N i 0 a > 6 r CO 00 N f0 -0 f6 O Q N C PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 O — 00 N >N > N � m P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report X 0 0 OM � N N O 7 W (-0i 6) N M Ln � N � N 6 � � N 0 T-5 11 x x y 0 LO N r- 04 M 0 d O h r- N v 0 N It 0 rl- t1 - C14 N N i 0 6 r 0) C 00 00 !_ N m 0 U PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 0 LO I- A 0 LO LO N A 0 LO N N_ A 0 N O AI V O O O T i OL N d O U 00 (N U (0 0 @ j U Q 0 O U� N 0) O N LL C 00 O -r- C) r-U 3 '— > -a M CD 7 N N LL E - 00 U U N L f0 O LL N r- � N y 00 M N L 00 LO N N N CO 6) O) - ti 0 6 O N 00 N N N 00 N W N 00 LO N N N M LO M � r - O N CO O 00 N N N N M N I N N N N N L ' x x x x -0 @ X X X X X O X 0 C y 00 M N L 00 LO N N N CO 6) O) - ti 0 6 O N 00 N N N 00 N W N 00 LO N N N M LO M � r - O N CO O 00 N N N N M N I N N N N N T-6 r - N N O ti I I --I r N N (I O � 6 D _ � � 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 L ' a > N -0 @ f0 f0 O 0 C O O - 00 N >N > N � (6 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report T-6 r - N N O ti I I --I r N N (I O � 6 D _ � � 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 X / x x x x @ R f \ / ? $ $ ® x x x LO@ J / e / / \ e \ e \ CO R a .\ \ o G / � \ 00 \ N \ I $ (N\\ f « a 4 a 2 4 a a 0) (N A f p/ p/ p\ p 0 0) £»on & 2 Cl) / / \ 2 $ \ ® Q) ƒ°°00N \ \ / ='L2 = g N § \ & $ & \ & k \ a & a & = a /§40 \ � �-0 / / 3 S .//`= s= G 3 a E/ a E 7 2 p 2 \ } \ LL 0 -r- \ \ \ O a '- -0 _ @ _ \\/\ \ \ \ _ _ N ± E @ 2 = ===a e a .- +�_ a o = / {\ 9 U) w a w a I- a ® ®\ \ s m o CO CU _ q $ G \ 2 \ (L X x x x x @ R f R \ ? $ $ \ J / e / / \ e \ e \ CO / � \ 00 \ N \ (N\\ « a 4 a 4 a 4 a a 0) (N 2 p/ p/ p\ p 2// ® / \ \ / a N \ a \ \ / / 3 S \ \ \ \ x � \ Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 s7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report 2m 2016 x B \ \ � Co » w w * \ 2 .\ \ a N R c \ ® = 7 a %3\ L? � 7 _ \ \ \ Cl) s 4 = » & * a k / ? \ % 7 2 p 3 & \ � Co Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual s 9, T-8 x x OR \ \ PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 » w w * 2 .\ m a N R c \ m s o $ %3\ � 7 _ s k / ? \ % _ \ $ � 2 i Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual s 9, T-8 x x OR \ \ PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 U) LU O LO L 7 U U O N � O O L O L U N C � O E E N -O U O N !Y ❑ N O 1 L a) C > O O O Z 00 C r 0-0 = C LB (B O i � O N -O N a)> O LC0 Z ^� r LL 1 L C O C U J O ❑ N (6 d � CU U O _ C M U C O O - 0 7 CU � 0X C E - CLO a) CO r 'C O M N i 0-' N O U C C O O O � fn L Q O C OL Q O N -0-0 O -0 N 2 C U O M O O E O -Q L P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 O A O Lr) X x X X L6 N n C N o U Ln p N x X X X O N 7 n 2 -° Lr) N r (I (D V � � . O M CO N Lfl 00 M 00 00 N 0-0 M M M N M N d d D O N 00 N CO CO CO N CO N N CL O U N r ti O ti ti O ti O r` f� 00 O ti00 O M M N N N Lr) r 1 (O I � r Ln r LO r I r L? LO r 1 L(') r 1 L (0 ❑ T N N O N CO N N 00 N N N N N N C6 O N N r 00 N N N r r N N r r N r r N r r N r r r NLf) r r r (N r r f00 N -O f > U O > N - ❑ M O (D (D M CO N CO L- CO r (4 O 0) LO O M 0 U O -0 (n N LL O -C U U) >'U O N L � ❑ (D2 CO O Lf) O N O O O LO MO C) r r r 00 r r r 7 ON LL C L r C a 1 00 UC `� N 3O LL O N P- r N U) N N N N N N N 3 > 0 O r N M<G L-- CO ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ 0- 0- 0- 0- a a 0- a P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 0 I— C15 CO M r - r` N p r` D 0_ X I X I X I X I X I X I— 0 Lf I- A r` 0 r` r` LO r` r` X LO 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ a- N n C O c M U •� LO N M M M U) _O O N '0 A 2 0 u7 •- N N N •- N Cfl N N AI (D v oT 'it. O CU a) �: M -0 r` C15(0 r N00 M r U N r r 00 N 00 � (9 s � 00 CU � s Cb N C N N � N N N N N N 70 CO O O N N N L -0 0 N L O U Ln < p s c N N O N LL (n L r C O 00 O L (n N _m >' >U mo 0 > - " CO .p CO O O O N LL >_CD 00 N L L O tl N T N N N U O � N -0 0 C O p - Cfl M >O � O > 0_ f - P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report 0 I— C15 CO M r - r` N p r` D 0_ X I X I X I X I X I X M N - I M - I M - I M - I M - I M 'It M I- Cfl N N CO d N N N M 07 r r r r r r N I N I N I N I N I N I— CO r` r` r` r` r` 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ a- --10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 M M M M M M N •- N •- N •- N •- N N N r r r r r r r 00 00 00 00 00 w N N N N N N N N N N N p N N M N - I M - I M - I M - I M - I M 'It M I- Cfl N N CO d N N N M 07 r r r r r r N I N I N I N I N I N N CO M Cfl 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ a- --10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 Third Annual s 9, x LO \ / 2 f \ x ƒ \ ƒ / (D\ _) \ ® X X x / & \ a p ^ / \ $ 7 / q y : \ 0 6 '0 \ z y e % AI f 0 0) 2g\f w w r E \ & \ \ \ _ 00 \0) EnN ~ ~ 99 / / q o a o / / N / / Cb N ^ / Cb 91 N (0 / ¢o \f 23 CO M k 2 $ $ / $ \ / 7 / 2 \ \ \ LL C = , _ o=mt U R - CO 2 \ ) > C.0 c o \2/\ % / \ = = q LL E % m CO /\«q 20ƒ }\C� w & w /M a m a R m \ iso \ M _ 0 \ / % — \ \ Z) / / Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase G9 Third Annual s 9, x LO \ / 2 f \ x / \ x / + - OD N - / \ / \ % / 2 � PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 / (D\ _) \ \ $ / & w a p / \ $ 7 / \ x / + - OD N - / \ / \ % / 2 � PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2m 2016 00 00 N Lf) U 00 O N ' � N N � � C) m (fl (0 r I- N It 00 2 D a X O M 00 N N N O X I X I` 0 Cb CO Il - Lf ) CO It I- CO a N A 0 r- I- N ti LO 00 (0 r X LO LO 00 7 00 N n N Q0 C N N N O c ULO •5 N LO Ln M (fl O (fl U) 't - _O O N '0 A 2 0 Lq N (6 AI (D v 00) T 'it ._ O CU -0M MO ti U� L O N CO O U00 N I N N 00 N a N 70O O L O -6 LO O U c (1) CD ON LL C a) L r 00 C O L to N a) >' > U mo 0 a) m Co > a L co (.0 ir CO O O N LL >_CD 00 N L L O LUL N a)TN N U O � N -0 0 C O M _ 00 M >O � O > a c� P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report 00 00 N Lf) U 00 O N ' � N N � � C) m (fl (0 r I- N It 00 2 D a X O M 00 N N N O X I X (0 r r— r r I` N Cb CO Il - CO CO It CO a N r- I- N ti 00 (0 LO 00 00 7 00 N Q0 N N N N r. - LO Ln M (fl O (fl M 't - I- (0 r r— r r X (Y) r N 00 00 a PC X ti CO CO N O � i 00 7 N N N •- Ln (s) 0) LO M r S PhospN X O t` N O O a ate Compa Jun X c0 N CO O ~ M `- L 00 N N 0 N � N (D M 67 a iy, Inc. e 2016 N N CO Il - 00 CO a a X (Y) r N 00 00 a PC X ti CO CO N O � i 00 7 N N N •- Ln (s) 0) LO M r S PhospN X O t` N O O a ate Compa Jun X c0 N CO O ~ M `- L 00 N N 0 N � N (D M 67 a iy, Inc. e 2016 X ti M CO N � � (O O 00 r r N I� r LO 00 CD M 00 0) r N M m X 0 CO CO ti N � r Ci 7 N N N LO (D M Q0 r 3 X M CO ti N Cb 7 N N N LO (D LO r rl- N LO m X LO 0 (D 0) M r N CD m X I X I-- 0 ti Lf M a_ I- CO CO A A 0 NN LO •- C.? 11 X LO N n 00 C Cb N O c N N ULO •5 N r N U) _O O N -LO '0 A N 2 0 u7 N AI (D v oT 'it ._ O CO -0 � 0 U CO M L O O N 00 CO U N N CO LL') ; O 0 N f N , 70O O L -0 0 O O 0.)U c (1) CD ON LL fn L r 0 C a) 0 O L O N a> >' > U mo 0 OO CO (O L - CO O 6 N O N LL 00 L L O U- 04 a)TN N U O � N -0 0 C O N - 67 M >4) � O > a f - P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report X ti M CO N � � (O O 00 r r N I� r LO 00 CD M 00 0) r N M m X 0 CO CO ti N � r Ci 7 N N N LO (D M Q0 r 3 X M CO ti N Cb 7 N N N LO (D LO r rl- N LO m X LO 0 (D 0) M r N CD m X I X LO I Il - r r N I-- ti m ti M M a_ PCS Phosphate CO CO NN •- C.? r 7 00 r Cb N N N N N r N � -LO W M N M LO I Il - r r N N ti m 00 m a_ a_ PCS Phosphate Compa Jun X ti M CO ti N LO � � r i C?a0 i N � N N M M Cl) 00 r rl- N D_ iy, Inc. e 2016 X CO M CO I - (0 `O � N N N Q0 N r` N O r` M M 0 N O M Lf ) r C0r I- N N A N 0 LO r` X LO N n C O c ULO •5 N U) _O O N '0 A 2 10 0 u7 N AI (D v oT 'it. O CU a) �: M -0 r` U OL N N 00 cC j O U N N Lf) a) O � � N � Ob 00 N co N N r` 70 CO O O L -0 0 UO O a) CD O N LL fn L C a) r 00 O L O N U 3 a) >':CO > U mo 0 a) m Co > a L co m - CO O O LO O N LL 00 L L O U- 04 r` aTN D .� N U O N 0 m C O U O O M j P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report X CO M CO I - (0 `O � N N N Q0 N r` N O r` M M Lf) M LO 0) 4 N r r` N N O CL X r - CO r r` N M O a X r` M CO r` O a0 i i N N N LO O O m V O a PCS Phi X r` ch CO r` Lfl Ci N N N LO O O L(� )sphate Cc 0 M N r` M N � Ln r O N � N N LO LO00 O O � N N r r 00 O_ O E (0 a CO 0 mpany, Inc. June 2016 N O M (0 r C0r N N N N � Lf) M LO 0) 4 N r r` N N O CL X r - CO r r` N M O a X r` M CO r` O a0 i i N N N LO O O m V O a PCS Phi X r` ch CO r` Lfl Ci N N N LO O O L(� )sphate Cc 0 M N r` M N � Ln r O N � N N LO LO00 O O � N N r r 00 O_ O E (0 a CO 0 mpany, Inc. June 2016 PandUI Third Anr 0 L! ) ti A 0 Ln r X rn N C n O c ULO •5 N _O LC) O N '0 A 2 0 Lq N (9 AI CD v o 0) T �. O M I-- U 0 O CO cri N Ch U 00 N r N (n C6 C> � N N O (U - L -0 0 (V 7 O -6 0-)U c () CD O N LL U L r 0 C (U 0 O L to N a) >':CO > U mo 0 OO Co r L COir O 6 LO ON LL CD 00 L L O U- N r` N T N L M N > j U O s i s (] s � � s _ands Restoration Site Phase 2 ival Report X X OI rl- I� N r r ti C (h N O 0 c -i O cyi Cn C) 0 C) 0- 0- -0 (D00 (D r C%) r 00 N N N N N ~ N LO O CD ( 9 OI rl- I� N r r T-15 1 X r'- r - N � Lf) `- 00 ' C-4 N N M (D 00 (D r ti N X 00 ti N Lf7 � 00 ' N N N C) (D M r LC') X rn M 00 r - N 00 ' N N N O (9 0') r 00 N r r - N ;S Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 C N N O 0 o O Cn 0 T-15 1 X r'- r - N � Lf) `- 00 ' C-4 N N M (D 00 (D r ti N X 00 ti N Lf7 � 00 ' N N N C) (D M r LC') X rn M 00 r - N 00 ' N N N O (9 0') r 00 N r r - N ;S Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 C O 0 o U E 0- 0- -0 T-15 1 X r'- r - N � Lf) `- 00 ' C-4 N N M (D 00 (D r ti N X 00 ti N Lf7 � 00 ' N N N C) (D M r LC') X rn M 00 r - N 00 ' N N N O (9 0') r 00 N r r - N ;S Phosphate Company, Inc. June 2016 a (n LO o 2 U U) O O N O 00 C14 O O M O CO M NN LC) 0 0 a o > CU V M @ O (O O O O (:O LO W Lf) N O W -t -4 (O O M H CO f� O O O 0) M C-- �O O W Cb 0) C" Q U) C U > MO Lr) 0) O Cb M 0 0 LO 0 Cp CO 6) N CO p a Q O L() f� 00 O O N CO CO N O CO f� O CO M M M N WMCO � O Co fM W (-4 4 O LO 10 d M NMW C`) N (n E N LO O O M 0 0 LO r --M M M M O N Cb V V O CD LO N O C Cl) N � (0 u- N 0 L OMONMN )OO 00 "t (O cc CO r N M NQ Cl) M@ N V MWOOMZO V LO Cl)O M LO — V O M — N '0 � n to 't ti LO V LO Cn LO rn E N O O O O N O M OO— O 1" M C N (n C6 CO r-- O r-- _ _ LO M M 00 M O V Q O N LO CO VCO CO CO M O LO I� O Cl) N� LO 1 M ti (O �' It Cl) .� O M O Ln O t` (b M M 00 O M C.0 O OO N (T CT O p M CO O 1p r CO "T CIJ O r LO CO ,I -(O �LO LO N C" LO N @ co Q U CO N Q) d (D ECU v) LD a o E C Cz Q •U p 0 p O Y O @ p N U) w Y N O (U (U U Y L S Q fU Q CO O Y @p t Y (D Q. N p0 C (z O T Q. (U O Q. 3: Q Q 3 U U 4 j C .2 M C N O @ O Y O (U M a "a (U N -O (V O (t >� 0 U > Cn Q O R > (n Cn 7 J O Cn > Q. CO Cn H Cn of N M CUm ami y (o � a CO c CU Q3 EU) °= M (n c CO O G) m CU (D .(3) (Z N 0 iZ O Cn (n o -M O co (Dr 0c) CO (i v° CO v crj ZI o c _ (U w M k to Cd CO N :'i O ;'? y E-11 ti U M J M U U U U LLL Zz Z� a 0 C'1 C'1 C'1 Cl F� � U g a P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-16 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 a En E LO o � U U � M N M O M a o > CU V > M @ Cl) O O O CO M d' �� O M CO W V N LO t- H U) U C U 0 (D OO CO C) O M f- Lf) t, a Q 00 LO 00 CO CO CO CO M N Ln N N CON M r- 04 N N E N U Lf) � N O LO O N O O N C4 e- C) 00 N O C M N � OS u - M(":) Ln LO C14 -t (fl Lf) O I" N to LOf> N Q Cvj pW p V (O 0 0 CO 00 V� O O O Ln eN- E N N U) O O N O O— O O O M O N N T n N C: {� T T U) O3 CO >W a p V Lf) (0 O O Cn eN- � 00 00 le M .or LO 0 0) C: 4)M M Ln O CO C-) to i- T LO N r. - O W CU CO U U U) +_ E 41 C CO � N d I l0 NCO CU C iO ~ N n E O CL N U fp .O U 3 _7 m 4 U ate) N 3 Y 0) m L L L (1) C:U: 0 -p .� Q -O O O N -O O Y .0 L N 4-- Y _ > Q' CO U) > _ % in u- = 0- C R G Q) o N 0)O O O ° E = 0 ECU @° m a o G o C U m U m �e ,� a, E E c 3 ,_ y m 0 a) y O C cn vi Q U U Q) C E O U M CD CD U) M a) L CD CD m C: CL E M y w c ul O K CD L a c O N E CD N a m O c c E _m Q M m U O C E C U M 4) N L N U (O 0- (n N O N O c O Y M O U � C � a) 4) _0 a) O O O_ O O n � a) U -O m @ Na) O O a) a � CL � a) a =a as E C m m m a a) N Y cu L .— CUm � C 7 O C y O L .N a aS N O O 6 W 0) aa)) o @ � U 7 N a � 3 M O C c > a) a) CO (O a a) 7 7 N U C N O U + N a3 3 CU m N .� m a � N U E H d P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 AURORA'`' i 1 _ .SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR "�::' --_ I -. - l I 1t.Yy. wm I � P LANDS SOUTH CREEK - y CORRIDOR S PHASE —PHASE_ y o PHASE 2 P L+DS Y HOLLOWELL TRACT PHASE �-� BAY CIT M .. _ PHASE3eP�om,. I \ Y'IFCR PHASE 1 \l PHASE 4 ° PARKER FARM U LANDS g P LANDS SECTIONS A -J , LAT: 35' 14' 15.04" LONG: 76'46'19.20" .��^ f RODMAN CONTROL -- -- —SITE CASEY TRACT — - _ PHASE 4 - -" U LANDS P LANDS 9 _ U LANDS In m _ _ _ 5 w ...vr. LEGEND P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND 0 5,500 11,000 PARKER FARM BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET NORTH CAROLINA VICINITY M A P P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 AND RODMAN SITE LOCATION PLANDS PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, P LANDS_VIC_ NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 05/05/16 FILE: AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH2 2015 WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. '41v CP#1745.59.32.2 �^ ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRESUI DRIVE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, lV_ K NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 NAD83, FEET, 1:24000 -SCALE, WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG INCORPORATED TEL 910/392-9253 FIGURE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910/392-9139 SOUTH CREEK CANAL EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN I CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2 rn ZO RC -3 rr, z o -i -<n b PHASE 4 U LANDS O 70 ODrU LANDS O SOURCE: PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 U LANDS N I BAY CITY No. '- P P LANDS PLPS 12 BENFEWELL ROAD PLPS 13 ,09, 107 108 p 106 i` 103 10 105 ,024 PLPS 11 1 ROYAL ROA 9s 97 99 PLPS 10 1 j ROYAL ROA X98 41*4 ,00! PLPS 59 89 87 P LANDS O 0`94� ng2 O\ O \ 88 86 851 %4 a83 95 93 (/\ 0 \\7� 74 76 67 -% 69 O 070 % % 75.40 ■ 77 7 0 71 SMALL 73 ROAD ✓� P LANDS 0 0 6 O 64 62 p, 66 SMALL ROAD PLPS 58 BAY CITY No. 4 COUNTY ROAD P LANDS BAY CIT'(No' 3 BAY CITY No' 1 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND 80 .I PLPS 7 P LANDS PLANTING AREA OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH - ROADS ® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS TREE SAMPLING PLOT • WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT (WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.) O CONTROL WELL PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION PLPS 1 AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE 2: 0 ZONE 2 HEADWATER FOREST 0 ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST D ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1 To J BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 SOUTH CREEK CANAL U LANDS EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD Pt BAY No 4 LEGEND P AND U LANDS PH2 (796.43 ACRES) 0 WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT (WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.) CONTROL WELL SOILS SYMBOL SOIL NAME Pt Ap ARAPAHOE (MINERAL) (12.70 ACRES) BENFEWELL ROAD Pt R 0 D M A N • 108 109 °107 CITY No. 3 Po PONZER (ORGANIC) (488.55 ACRES) PO 106 BAY Pt ° 103 102 101 OS SITE 104 ROYAL ROAD To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL) (1.87 ACRES) .96 °97 ° Wd WASDA (ORGANIC) (219.21 ACRES) RC -2 99 rn 20 ROYAL ROAD °98 10o° RC -3 me 87 P LANDS A Pt 89 FFC�p ® 94 2 91 90 °88 ° 85® .83 82 95 °93 86 PO 84 l Wd ° 9C pp OR ORGANIC. ®72 74 76 °79 •67 069 71 73 75 77 .78 80 81 68 ° 70 SMALL ROAD ° 0 65° Dao. 63• °62 61 BAY CITY NO' 0 1,800 3,600 CC° SMALL ROAD 0 BAY No 4 LEGEND P AND U LANDS PH2 (796.43 ACRES) 0 WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT (WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.) CONTROL WELL SOILS SYMBOL SOIL NAME Ap ARAPAHOE (MINERAL) (12.70 ACRES) Do DARE (ORGANIC) (0.07 ACRES) R 0 D M A N CITY No. 3 Po PONZER (ORGANIC) (488.55 ACRES) PO CONTROL BAY Pt PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL) (74.04 ACRES) RC -1 SITE To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL) (1.87 ACRES) Wd WASDA (ORGANIC) (219.21 ACRES) RC -2 rn 20 Q HYDRIC SOILS RC -3 me NOTE: PHASE o ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL N cITY NO. 2 OR ORGANIC. To U LA N D S c BAY 1 0 A BAY CITY NO' 0 1,800 3,600 Z 0 m D v SCALE IN FEET P LANDS U LANDS SOILS v P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 AND RODMAN Po o uNE ROAD couNTY SOURCE. PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. y N m m PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, D NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 Z 1' AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE " SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ _ WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,— 70 NAD 1983 FEET. - -- PLANDS_SOILS_PH2_ DATE: 05/12/16 FILE: p - _ _ - 2012 AERIALS DOWNLOAD FROM FROM NC ONE MAP WEBSITE: http://data.nconemap 01 419 CP#1745.59.32.2 - SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT " 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE Z R SUITE 2 - OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 TEL 910/392-9253 FIGURE 3 ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995 _INCORPORATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910/392-9139 b■ ■ M'1 " 0 BENFEWELL ROAD f■ I7 46 1090 —1 • 107 1080 106 103 10 � � � � _ T� ■ ■ F 0105 0 O %102 y ■ e 0104 ROYAL ROA V" 096 097 : g ROYAL ROAD •9$ too ¢ p89 067 P LA D 85 • �— 094 092 088 0 0 —A • 3 a ■ 95093 091 090 86 84 All 740 iv 14 - F .. 079 0 72 076 A,, + 0 67 • 69 O 0 68 070 710 SMALL 73 ROAD 75 0 7 7% � X11 DP LANDS - 65 63 61 (� 0 640 ® *62 • 66 SMALL ROAD PHASE? PHASE 3 0 cA sF LEGEND 0 n i c J ■ �O SOUTH CREEK CANAL EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD 820 �F . �O 8® 080 PHASE 2 PHASE 1 I O PHASE 3 W T— PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA f " r - 0 1 OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH N .,D ROADS ■ PHASES BAY CITY No. 4 ® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS Pr1Ase 1 BAY CITY FAfM WELL LOCATION /PHASE 4' -� r CONTROL WELL U LANDS - P LANDS Legend a_= Elevation in Feet E Value . A o 0-2 RODMAN - I CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2 r n ZO RC -3 r*1Z Z-1 PHASE 4 2 U LANDS BAY CITY No. O 70 Z O Z rn D, 70 P LANDS g U LANDS 0 0 D Z 0 D O 0 2-4 BAY CITNO. Y 3 =4-5 0 5-6 =6-7 AL 075 _ _ =8-9 =9-10 10-n -11-12 �- - 12-13 - 13-14 14-15 15-162 � ,5-2, D 1 BAY CITY No. - 021-45 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR LINE ROAD w` P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 AND RODMAN COUNT? ? m m s PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ PO- PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 06/08/16 FILE: PLAND5 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAU FORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET.{p 0_SELL_LIDAR_ CP#1745.59.32.2 NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND PAMUCO COUNTIES, LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET, % 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE L SUITE 2 WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 INCORPORATED FIGURE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FAX 910%392 9139 16 NOTE: Rainfall source from 2-6 June 2015 and 20 June 2015 comes from the PA2 rain gauge due the Bay City rain gauge being clogged. Rainfall source from 10 Aug 2015 to 8 Oct 2015 from the PA2 rain gauge due to an animal attack on the Bay City rain gauge. 14 "Range of Normal" and "Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total" plotted on last day of each month. "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). WETS Data subject to periodic revision. Data shown are latest available from http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.htm. 12 11Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total" refers to monthly totals from the PCS -Aurora 6 N NOAA Station. Periods of above normal rainfall include 3 June -5 July, 2 October -1 November, and 18 November -6 December 2015. c 4- 10 4- 2- >- 8 L C O et 6 c� T • 4 - • 2 0 ti� ti� ti� tih tih tih ti� ti� ti� tih tih eQotia 0 Q) 0ti tiP tis y� �O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 Bay City Daily Rainfall — Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2015 Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total 30% Less Chance 30% More Chance 2015 Bay City Monthly Rainfall Figure 5. 2015 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL HYDROLOGIC LEGEND ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA 0 0 = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH SEASON (97.07 ACRES) — ROADS 0 Q = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (608.19 ACRES) ® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS ® • _ >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING O WELL LOCATION SEASON (32.38 ACRES) CONTROL WELLS NOTE: O WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD ACTUALLY OCCURRED BOUNDARIES. coD 4 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Z7 0 D N U � 0 0 N J� SOUTH CREEK CANAL EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2\RC -3, b PHASE 4 U LANDS 70 w 0 A Z O Z D m o 0 U LANDS 0 0 D Z A O D SOURCE: PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB 02009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. BENFEWELL ROAD 1090 0107 1080 106 05 100 7010 0 0 04 102 0 L ROAD 096 0 97 © 9 ROYAL ROAD o98 1000 p8 p6 P LA DS A F 094 092 088 0 85o 0 8382 095 091 90 86 84 0 �0 9 740 079 � 072 076 0 0 67 g ©69 070 750 7% 81 g 7110 MAL `�3 ROAD 080 0 I 063 61 P LANDS 640 062 • 6610 c,kAL1I ROA BAY CITY No. 4 PHASE 3 PHASE I BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 U LANDS P LANDS BAY CITY NO. 3 r C) ZO mZ Z -i o { N BAY CITY NO' 2 BAY CITY NO' 1 �/ I I / P LANDS ► I F ROAD COUNTY 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET 07 60 aD D n -I 6 PHASE 2 { PHASE3 A 0 D N U A O O N 094 °92 Q 95 °93 °9 68 % 6 0 063 0 cI,A&I II ROAD 62 J1BAY CITY No' 4 0 BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 SOUTH CREEK CANAL U LANDS P LANDS EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2\RC -3, PHASE 4 U LANDS O �OD U LANDS o I ' SOURCE: PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB 02009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. BAY CITY No. 3 BENFEWELL ROAD 1107108° 1090 106 101 05° ° 0 0 103 102 104 '20 L R 096 097 on ROYAL ROAD 098 089 08 P LA DS 088 0 85 0 90 86 84 I 072 740 076 75 710 0 0 77 7 070 SMALL 73 ROAD o P LANDS 61 0 ro zo o 71 I / �Il � N I BAY CITY No. 2 P LANDS ROAD COUNTY BA No 1000 HYDROLOGIC LEGEND ZONES 807B WETLAND HYDROPERIODS PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA 0 O = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH SEASON (97.07 ACRES) — ROADS O Q = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (638.19 ACRES) + PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS ® • = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING WELL LOCATION SEASON (2.39 ACRES) O CONTROL WELL NOTE: O WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD ACTUALLY OCCURRED BOUNDARIES. 07 60 aD D n -I 6 PHASE 2 { PHASE3 A 0 D N U A O O N 094 °92 Q 95 °93 °9 68 % 6 0 063 0 cI,A&I II ROAD 62 J1BAY CITY No' 4 0 BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 SOUTH CREEK CANAL U LANDS P LANDS EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2\RC -3, PHASE 4 U LANDS O �OD U LANDS o I ' SOURCE: PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB 02009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. BAY CITY No. 3 BENFEWELL ROAD 1107108° 1090 106 101 05° ° 0 0 103 102 104 '20 L R 096 097 on ROYAL ROAD 098 089 08 P LA DS 088 0 85 0 90 86 84 I 072 740 076 75 710 0 0 77 7 070 SMALL 73 ROAD o P LANDS 61 0 ro zo o 71 I / �Il � N I BAY CITY No. 2 P LANDS ROAD COUNTY BA No 1000 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET 807B N8f 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET APPENDIX A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Appendix A. Individual tree/shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 2 first (2013) and third annual (2015) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre. Zone 3 63 Zone 2 104 105 107 108 Total 1st 3rd Common name Scientific name 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd Unknown ? 1 12 1 12 2 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis 1 1 1 8 7 2 Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 39 31 26 21 Paw paw Asima triloba 18 20 40 34 1 2 4 3 River birch Betula nigra 3 4 1 1 5 7 11 17 17 29 American beautyberry Callicarpa americana 1 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 13 1 5 1 4 2 17 13 26 17 Water hickory Carya aquatica 4 4 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 1 1 1 1 Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 1 2 3 3 6 3 Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 2 2 10 11 9 9 7 6 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 7 14 20 17 16 15 1 6 7 3 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 1 2 4 3 5 3 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina 1 Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 18 1 1 1 18 6 2 4 3 6 Persimmon Diospora virginiana 15 8 33 27 19 14 31 24 13 12 Strawberry bush Euonymous americana 6 5 1 4 3 10 3 24 15 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 23 15 57 24 37 20 6 2 123 61 Deciduous holly Ilex decidua 13 3 10 1 4 19 18 17 18 Inkberry Ilex glabra 21 19 10 13 10 9 15 16 1 1 Winterberry Ilex verticillata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 2 3 4 4 6 2 10 4 22 13 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa 61 49 116 90 130 88 166 110 113 80 Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 75 1 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 8 7 5 4 6 4 2 3 21 18 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. Water tupelo N. aquatica 1 1 17 14 15 12 33 27 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 6 6 23 24 23 34 3 55 64 Red bay Persea borbonia Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2 4 6 Oak Quercus spp. 1 1 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia Overcup oak Q. lyrata Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 11 7 8 3 9 5 36 17 64 32 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens 34 34 27 26 7 8 68 68 Bald cypress Taxodium distichum American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 4 1 1 4 2 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTALI 98 1 83 1 162 1 105 1 117 1 95 1 99 1 68 1 476 351 Zone 3 63 64 65 66 69 70 71 1st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 1 1 1 8 7 2 39 31 26 21 22 16 18 20 40 34 1 2 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 3 13 9 2 3 1 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 6 6 8 8 2 2 10 11 9 9 7 6 12 12 14 14 20 17 16 15 1 6 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 6 1 18 4 6 2 18 6 5 3 7 1 3 15 8 33 27 19 14 31 24 13 12 4 2 6 5 1 4 3 10 3 24 15 14 4 9 1 19 8 7 2 13 12 11 2 21 6 13 3 10 1 4 19 18 17 18 3 3 21 19 10 13 10 9 15 16 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 61 49 116 90 130 88 166 110 113 80 79 54 106 75 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-1 Appendix A. (continued) P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-2 Zone 3 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 1 8 3 1 3 4 25 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia Paw paw Asima triloba River birch Betula nigra American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 4 2 Water hickory Carya aquatica Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Buttonbush* Cephalanthus occidentalis Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 6 5 6 5 8 8 5 5 35 35 39 34 9 10 4 3 9 7 10 10 22 21 7 8 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 2 1 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina Titi Cyrilla racemiflora Persimmon Diospora virginiana Strawberry bush Euonymous americana Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Deciduous holly Ilex decidua Inkberry Ilex glabra Winterberry Ilex verticillata Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 1 1 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 1 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 1 2 2 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 9 9 2 1 5 6 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. Water tupelo N. aquatica 11 11 11 12 13 11 18 17 11 10 17 17 2 2 13 13 20 20 11 10 15 16 22 23 9 8 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 2 3 1 3 5 5 4 33 34 15 17 2 3 10 1 3 3 22 18 13 12 5 8 14 14 Red bay Persea borbonia 1 1 1 1 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 2 4 4 1 2 1 1 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. Iaurifolia 2 2 6 4 8 1 2 2 2 2 3 9 1 8 1 3 1 3 3 1 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 22 14 26 10 2 6 2 5 3 5 6 12 9 3 3 23 15 3 12 8 4 4 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 22 4 14 2 4 25 4 10 2 8 7 1 8 1 3 2 11 1 6 3 8 6 9 6 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 8 2 5 3 12 1 1 4 1 5 1 8 5 1 14 5 6 1 4 2 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 25 30 17 19 19 20 23 24 29 32 10 12 3 4 26 29 30 35 14 15 15 16 24 25 24 28 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 1 1 1 3 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTALI 100 73 99 49 65 45 112 64 122 114 106 95 27 21 96 66 84 69 113 67 80 67 133 94 79 77 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-2 Appendix A. (continued) P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-3 Zone 3 85 86 87 88 89 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 5 9 1 2 6 20 11 3 2 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis 1 Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 1 Paw paw Asima triloba River birch Betula nigra American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana Water hickory Carya aquatica Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Buttonbush* Cephalanthus occidentalis Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 12 10 2 2 27 22 21 21 22 19 7 6 1 1 3 4 26 24 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 1 1 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 1 1 1 1 2 1 Persimmon Diospora virginiana Strawberry bush Euonymous americana Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Deciduous holly Ilex decidua Inkberry Ilex glabra Winterberry Ilex verticillata Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa Spicebush Lindera benzoin 2 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 7 7 9 7 5 5 6 5 6 4 7 6 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. 3 Water tupelo N. aquatica 25 24 14 15 6 13 4 6 15 18 15 14 10 12 15 14 13 13 19 20 27 30 12 12 11 8 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 5 5 9 9 10 8 5 3 9 7 1 2 4 2 8 13 7 8 3 3 31 29 2 2 14 17 Red bay Persea borbonia 1 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 13 5 4 18 6 9 4 1 9 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. Iaurifolia 7 10 3 2 2 10 1 1 10 2 6 1 3 2 1 8 3 14 4 13 4 6 2 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 15 16 1 3 1 1 6 1 9 3 10 6 7 6 12 4 10 2 33 27 20 8 2 1 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 6 5 5 2 1 1 4 1 12 10 13 18 5 26 3 6 9 34 13 18 3 19 2 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 16 7 5 2 1 18 4 13 22 1 8 3 4 1 1 26 18 8 4 1 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 20 21 17 18 11 12 19 20 16 16 9 10 26 29 24 24 51 50 25 28 5 5 22 23 19 19 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 1 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 1 1 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTALI 118 106 86 55 68 59 71 70 113 84 78 37 127 62 127 72 113 84 92 1 58 174 129 108 61 115 77 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-3 Appendix A. (continued) Zone 5 Zone 3 62 101 102 103 109 Total Common name Scientific name 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd 1 st 3rd Unknown ? 3rd 2 17 15 5 137 3 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis 7 6 1 3 1 1 Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 3 1 1 3 17 12 Paw paw Asima triloba 1 1 1 1 River birch Betula nigra 1 5 4 American beautyberry Callicarpa americana 4 5 5 3 1 4 3 8 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 10 7 3 4 2 Water hickory Carya aquatica 2 1 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 1 1 Buttonbush* Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 1 Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 68 63 2 2 6 6 502 453 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 4 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 21 20 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 6 1 2 9 3 1 3 1 20 8 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina 6 12 7 14 14 26 20 5 3 11 Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 5 8 2 1 2 1 12 13 45 38 Persimmon Diospora virginiana 11 12 8 1 1 Strawberry bush Euonymous americana 5 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 4 4 Deciduous holly Ilex decidua 11 6 4 1 13 5 7 2 6 Inkberry Ilex glabra 5 19 20 11 8 10 10 7 7 5 Winterberry Ilex verticillata 6 6 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 3 2 4 4 1 3 3 3 27 31 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa 2 9 3 1 1 10 11 8 8 22 Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 12 13 8 4 2 9 2 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 2 2 1 1 1 32 2 2 Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 6 7 1 1 1 1 3 4 117 111 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. 3 Water tupelo N. aquatica 15 16 27 26 27 25 13 12 529 532 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 1 14 16 6 8 2 4 265 274 Red bay Persea borbonia 1 4 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 3 1 95 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 5 3 10 3 9 9 1 1 213 80 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 9 7 10 10 6 2 11 10 407 267 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 31 26 20 10 24 18 8 6 468 178 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 19 16 8 7 7 1 13 5 334 99 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 18 18 17 18 1 1 8 8 662 705 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 1 1 2 1 20 4 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 5 1 6 3 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTALI 190 173 122 100 111 73 105 78 3,905 2,825 Zone 5 61 62 67 68 90 91 92 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 2 5 3 7 6 1 3 1 11 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 6 4 5 5 3 1 4 3 8 2 1 10 7 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 5 5 9 8 3 1 4 4 2 2 8 6 12 7 14 14 26 20 5 3 11 13 5 11 2 1 14 2 5 3 11 11 12 7 11 12 8 1 1 1 2 5 5 4 4 10 11 6 4 1 13 5 7 2 6 4 6 5 19 20 11 8 10 10 7 7 5 2 6 6 3 3 1 20 6 13 2 3 15 2 9 3 1 1 10 11 8 8 22 22 12 12 12 13 8 8 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 32 15 56 51 108 90 114 87 61 1 49 73 58 73 40 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-4 Appendix A. (concluded) *Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-5 Zone 5 Total Common name Scientific name 1st 3rd Unknown ? 17 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia Paw paw Asima triloba River birch Betula nigra American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 10 1 Water hickory Carya aquatica 14 9 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Buttonbush* Cephalanthus occidentalis Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 6 5 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 26 15 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 15 9 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina Titi Cyrilla racemiflora Persimmon Diospora virginiana Strawberry bush Euonymous americana Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Deciduous holly Ilex decidua Inkberry Ilex glabra Winterberry Ilex verticillata 3 2 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 2 1 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 4 2 Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 30 27 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. Water tupelo N. aquatica 81 74 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 36 63 Red bay Persea borbonia 3 7 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 5 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 45 22 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 64 56 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 6 6 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 66 14 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 73 75 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 10 2 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 517 390 *Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Third Annual Report A-5 APPENDIX B Selected Third Annual (2015) Restoration Photographs NOTE: A 10 -foot pole marked in one -foot increments held by a biologist about 25 feet from the camera is visible in all photos. The photos are identified with the station number (see Figure 2), direction of view, and date taken. PLPS 8: northeast, top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 PLPS 9: southeast, top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 PLPS 10: southwest, top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 PLPS 11: east, top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 PLPS 12: southeast, top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2014 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016 PLPS 13: southwest (taken from the berm), top photo 9 December 2015, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Third Annual Report June 2016