The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120107 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report Ph II_2014_20150818SECOND ANNUAL (2014) 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 September 2015 SECOND ANNUAL (2014) 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 September 2015 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 2014 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. 28 September 2014. 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 during all rainfall conditions in 2014 ................................................... T-2 Table 3 Hydroperiods of 49 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 2 restoration site during WETS normal and below normal rainfall in 2014 ................. T-10 Table 4 Second annual (fall 2014) 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 2014 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall Figure 6 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Longest 2014 Hydroperiods and Estimated Hydrologic Zones During All Rainfall Conditions Figure 7 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Rodman Longest 2014 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 Second 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. Second Annual Report September 2015 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 second 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 Report for P and U Lands Phase 2 and the first annual report (CZR 2014a and CZR 2014b). 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. Second Annual Report September 2015 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 70th 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 2014 WETS - 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. Second Annual Report September 2015 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. The plots represent a two percent sample 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. 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 and the second annual photos were taken 23 October 2014. 3.0 2014 RESULTS 3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall in 2014 at Bay City was 54 inches, almost 10 inches more than last year. The 30 -day rolling total of 2014 Bay City rainfall was considered above normal WETS rainfall June 19 -July 20 and August 3 -August 30 (Figure 5). Wetland hydroperiods were calculated for the entire year regardless of rainfall and also calculated when the two above normal rainfall time periods were excluded. The US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.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). For North Carolina's Beaufort County in 2014, during the 41 -week long growing season, the monitor reported the last four weeks of the growing season had a drought status of abnormally dry (DO) in the vicinity of P Lands project area; the remainder of the growing season was normal. 3.2 Hydrology. All wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods in 2013 and 2014 (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 6 and 7). All wells recorded at least two wetland hydroperiods longer than 14 days and during all rainfall conditions, five wells recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season (Table 2). Those five wells and one other well 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 greater than 25 percent to 75 percent of the growing season during all rainfall and when the above normal rainfall period is excluded. As evidenced by the cumulative days, many wells had water levels shallower than 12 inches below the surface in addition to the continuous hydroperiods (Tables 2 and 3). Tables depicting 2014 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. 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 2014 survey. P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 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. The three species are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). In 2014, a total of 31 stems were found in all nuisance plots and only seven stems were of the three species mentioned (22.6 percent). Of the seven, five were loblolly pine, one was red maple, and one was sweetgum. Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of planting to the second annual fall survey was 72 percent, with a corresponding density of 261 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 92 percent (because a stem could not be considered dead the first survey year) and a density of 334 trees per acre. Excluding unknown species/uncertain survivals, sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and willow oak (Q. phellos) had the lowest survival of the 19 species (Table 4). Nine of the 15 remaining known species had survivals of 90 percent and higher, with three 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 72 percent with a corresponding density of 8 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 98 percent and a density of 10 shrubs per acre. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) had the lowest survival of the eight species and red choke berry (Aronia arbutifolia) and possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) 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, 57, and 60 percent, respectively. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density increases to 270 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density increases to 356 stems per acre. The conservative current tree density is close to the 260 stems required for success, but there is a good possibility that many of the questionable stems will be alive at the next survey. Some areas had prolonged standing water that may have affected stem survival. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g. red bay [Persea borbonia], sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana]) are prolific and will 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 2014 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 19 -July 20 and August 3 -August 30. Post -restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially began in 2013. All wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods in 2013 and 2014. In 2014, all wells recorded at least two wetland hydroperiods longer than 14 days and during all rainfall conditions, five wells recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season. During periods of WETS normal or below normal rainfall, most wells had a wetland hydroperiod for greater than 25 percent to 75 percent of the growing season. Three wells had hydroperiods for greater than 12.5 percent to 25 percent of the growing season and one well was in the greater than six percent to 12.5 percent hydrologic zone. Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of planting to the second annual fall survey was 72 percent, with a corresponding density of 261 trees per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 to the first annual fall survey was 72 percent with a corresponding density of 8 shrubs per acre. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density increases to 270 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density increases to 356 stems per acre. The conservative current tree density is close to the 260 stems required for success. After the 2015 survey results have been analyzed, appropriate adaptive management steps to address mortality 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. Second Annual Report September 2015 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. 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. Second Annual Report September 2015 Pand uLands Restoration s6 Phase a1 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 0 $ % yEn k-00\ k k-0\ / *� f/ 0 2/ 2 m/ 0 2%§ ■ 0® \ 5 m% e m> m 2 7 -0 k£ ® % � a \ / E 2 q 2 ƒ E CO E% m E ƒ$ƒ k M E jkkf/E\/r/ E a/ o �$/ / / 2 � 2 / k \ ° ¥ ^ Elm 0 = . -- - c m ] 6 � w # CO -0 0 \ % ƒ ƒ 0 \ $ \ k § ƒ Q @ 0 E o = @ c § \ 0) / \ 2 0 k $ / C 2 / 2 C: k /� R/ / k ° E ( C� ° m E 0 § % \ _0 C N E _ / r / / f > \ 3 / k 0 -CM 'Y > 0 E/ ./ .. . . ¥ C /C/) 222 ° C / E » 2 °G Al§� % $ g 3 E o f f Cn 2 k 0\/ 0 f'O ® 0 E o 0 0 0 2 / E 0 E R m / -0/ $ I / 2 / k CU / 0 / 0 . 2/7 0 k 0 -jk 2 9 E 0 m o 2 § �.E E §.$ / > f / E E 0 @ � 2 R E \ Q CO / \o \ CL� / E (n / kf03 R e Pand uLands Restoration s6 Phase a1 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 O C L CO 0) �L 7 U) 0) O L O U C O E O ry N a) c O (D C O 0 LO ti A O X X X X LO N A 0 LO N LO % N_ A 0 LO N r CO AI w v T O Co N LO Cfl CO LO CLr5 O d 4 M O N L6 N 00 a)N cli It � O O 63 N co 00 Cfl M 00 N O O M O N W N U 4) r r 00 O r C) r \ Lf) r f� � r Lf) \ f� N r `- Lf) r \ f� r , r Lf) r f� r 00 O r , CO D , N N 00 N , co , M , N , co , M , N , r M r- , N , N O M, N CV CO W M O r N CO � N CO O N CO N CO Co Co M O N 3 3 M j U L O 0) N CD M M O It f-- It M O M Cfl M f-- M Cfl N O N d' CD LO O N -4LO N N r N r I� co r r- M M r- M d' N r- N r r M N (V LL ) L � (n 0) 3CO 0 Q 3 4) O O LO O CD 00 CO 0 �' M LO LO V O 3 _ a r N N N N 3 N N LL L i 00 41 U N � � L L O O i L N p- ' N a) to r r` N N N N N O L (B6 Q O r N CO It LO CG CD Cfl M CD >— D D D D D 0- a_ 0- a_ 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 »777 2 g o = /\/0 Cl) / CD A / \ / c # / / K $ > a « / \ ^ \ ± /& A — !22 / \ 3 A -- \ N § i + 7 $ ® 4 i > \/\ � 7 CO 3 ¢ u 8 0 CN \ AI f »777 2 g o = /\/0 Cl) Pand uLands Restoration s% Gael as PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 CD / \ 2 c # / / 2 e $ > a « / \ R /& A — !22 & \ 3 A -- N § i + » \ & 4 i > \/\ 7 CO 3 ¢ u \ 7 % % % \ 2 \ \ / 2 ®b 3 o $ (D ° ± § / / O32 f�/\ $k§= Cl) & \ 7 / ) _ = a ± E » m c /$n »�z # o = (D\� 2 n % ® _$ /\M 2 Pand uLands Restoration s% Gael as PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 0 Ltd X n 0 LC) r` X X X X X X X X X Ltd N A 0 LO N LO N_ A 0 Lq N r AI to v o C T .� O L6 0 00 LO 00 6) 00 00 N CO O U) 70 O CO N N O M r-� N N M 6 N a 00 O to d Cfl CO to CO COto CN M to to O N M O r- to M to O N N N N N N N NN N N N Q N N N N Lf') i i i i CU 0 1 00 M 00 i O O N , i , CO M LO i i 00 N i 00 � ' 0o i i 00 N i 00 O 00 ' O 00 ' N N (D N N N GO N N N CO ti N N wN N � O O N N CO NN N CO N O N N O O U N 00 @ :5 N -O j U N L6 LO O N rl- O d' O 't O ~ LO CO O O) ~ CO O CO 't O CO B (6 (D00 � C O O 00 �' 00 00 00 O 00 O 00 00 O U O � C N LL O -r- C) U 3 a� CO CU 0 a� toCN LO N (6 (0 000 000 (D (D LO t~o � OD CO N N N N N N N N N N 7 O N LL E L i go U ( N L L 76 O �L N N I- =' N (n N N N N N N N N N N a) (V N _a O CU -0 (TO 0 00 N CO LO 00 COO ti ti ti >— P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 O O Ln M Ln X - N 0— n a) M , N f� LOO M N v X xv 0') X .= Ltd r r N A 0 Ln N Ln N r A O Ln N r Al (0 v a o C T O M rn v oo N 70 O CO N M(0 O (C a) 'T 10 N 'zT O -zt (O N N (0 M O r-- N - LC) ti Lf) (fl Ln M 0 00 M N ' N N 00 M co 00 N 00 O N a) N N (D ti O N (O N N N U N a) @-F, N -O j U j -0 N 0 M (0 � Lf) O (0 (fl00 O -;z M (0 � OO M � O OO N O - 00 U O � C CV LL O L U a� CO CU 0 > a� o o w � 00 w (C N N N N C" 7 O N LL E L i go U(n N L L M O LL CV r (n N N N N C" O O N-0 O CU -0 C>, 0 M a- a- a a n ti r —1 N (0 N ti N LO .- M N ON s rl- N —1 CF) M Ln LO N rl- N P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 O N M Ln - - N 0— LO a) M , N f� N M N (O 0 0 0') O .= r r ti N LO .- M N ON s rl- N —1 CF) M Ln LO N rl- N P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 O Ln n O LO X x X X X Ln N A 0 LO N Ln X N_ A O Ln N r Al v o zY) T C O CB LO N N 0 CO 70 O N M LC) O M M 0 00 Cfl N N Cfl M O CO N M LO C(O �t LO N N M (D NN LO .- O .- i .N- .�- M i LO LO O LO0') LO r CU 0 00 N 00 A e' M N 00 M 00 0O M N 00 N 00 N O i O N C6 M i 00 N N r N r N � N U N 00 @-F, N -O j U N > 0 0 00 ;--M O N LO 00 d V O CO d•00 � CO d• M M M 00 CO N N M �- M N CO M N N CO M CO C CV LL O -r- C) U 3 a� C) CO O O-6 (0 O N LO LOC) O N N N N N 7 O N LL E L i go U ( N L L f6 O N N I- CV ' ( N N N N N N 0) (V N _a O CU -0 C>, 0 to 00 O O 00 00 00 00 O) W >- D D D D D d 0- d d d n P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 -80 x ® x ! \ / \ \ \ % x x x x x x n = & $ _ = & a > \ & N \ / \ \ \ � \ N & —CO w » & } a a / w / / $ % / $ Q \a a \ \ \ \ \ CN \ \ Al \ $ 8 3 f ■ & _ »777 2 g o = 00C)_ ) % \ ¢ ¢ ¢ % ¢ / \ � IL E 0- # w c = _ # > $ o w _ $ a a & // iz�/ &\ $\ \ & \\\ CO \ = \ \ \ & i a a}& w&& \ J& i \/\ 7 CO 3 ¢ u .$ k 2 3 ° s ® ®b 3 % \ \ E \ I \ G / 7 / ? \ o $e= ° ± § / / O32 f /\ 2 k§= c N r # N = o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 7 / _ = a ± E » m c /$2^ »�z # o = {\� 9 w w w w w w w 2 n a a a a a a a ® _$ /\M 2 % \ \ \ k k k \ 4 E E E iL iL (L I x x x x \ \ \ \ e # n = & $ _ = & a > \ & N / \ \ \ � \ N & —CO w » & } a a / / $ % / $ $ \a a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ 8 3 / ■ \ \ § 0- IL E 0- P and U Lands Resto PawuQQsRs ms% Gael a7 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 O Ln n O LO X x X X X X Ln N A 0 Ln N Ln x N_ A O Ln N r Al (fl v o zY) T c• O M 00 00 r` 00 M 0 0 70 O N M N CQ M M �- ON 00 Cfl O CO Cfl Cfl M T N M Cfl N M CO CO N CO CO CO CO O � N CO N N N LO N Co LO N N LO N - - Lf) - M - O — i L() Lfi L(i t` W N CU 0 1 N M N N M N LO N N — O N N O N N N M O N C\O N O N GO N CO r` M �O N CO N CO N COCO (A U) N 00 @ :5N -O j U N M d r` Cfl 00 Lr) r` d O rl- rl- O d• CO O O 00 N LO rl- O 7 N (.fl Oo 00 00 N CO N N00 00 6J rl- M r 6J U O 2 C CV LL O -r- C) U 3 a� O O Cfl CD CD N (0 N It N N N N N N N 7 O N LL E L i oo U ( N L L f6 O N N I— CV ' f� f� rl- rl- rl- rl- ( N N N N N N N a) (V N �Q O -0 C>CU 0 O O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ _O Z) D D :3 D D D 0- 0- 0- d d d 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 e / / / % \ ? / \ A / � 9 \ \ K \ # $ ± \ ^ ƒ / \ \ a \ / 7 $ \ a A \ I y & e M \ 2 AI f »777 f \ S f 0 CO \�CN �CN 2 \ \/\ 7 CO 3 ¢ u \ \ k 2 3 .$ 2 2 $ e= ° ± § / / O32 f�// f/§= \7/\ g « a ± e / CO \ / e In I / % \ ? / \ � 9 \ \ N \ # $ / ƒ / \ \ a \ / \ a \ \ \ CO \ / e In I / \ / I ■ \ / \ 7 % \ \ % \ 7 \ \ \ # $ \ / \ \ a \ / \ a \ \ \ & CD M \ \ / \ / I ■ \ \ / I Pand uLands Restoration s% Gael aQ PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 / \ 7 % \ \ % \ 7 $ / \ \ \ \ \ / I Pand uLands Restoration s% Gael aQ PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 3 A LU 0 �> $ \& E .§ E a x x x x _ / aU) (1)/ =— \ § \-80LO 0 / 0 / x =a 0 w_ §-0 _= I y E z 0 x \ / A� .. _ 1515 v \� 0'M- ® / 15. M a c g o r # 0 E o 3 f / 7 \ \ \ N 15CD ƒ�`� M a$ ƒa \ \ -'t m $ # e n a + o = CO CO # e_ / 7 E 4 * » \ \ ^ \ & \ \ \ » \ / » \ ƒ \ j \LO / \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ / 10) & _ & + & a 2 & + & 4 + #J \ / _ \ M \ 0. _ _ = a 0 = =o M./ k` 9n r w It r c = w r a o a o# c o r a \ \ 2/ 7 t t a w e w= w#(N w CO CO t t _ = t ± 2= o=mN \ \ o $ - \$ \f J�\� kLU 2�\2 CO \ % 2 f D = a E / 4f & 2 ME ._ § c ==m04 / .2- 0 \o% \k # }/ \ _ ° g \ \ \ \ \ \ » ± .@ #\ ®_\ p= \50 k§& 0 75 0 _0-0 'r§ 2 CO 7 S (D®Cl) m to % M4 § / / / § § a / E\ a E z E 0- P and PawuQQsRs U Lands Restoms% Gael 210 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 i n A n x x x x x x x x n N A i n N n x A n N i Dl D V 0 O Lf) (DO'� CO Co M O M "O NN N M M M M CO Cl) CO O 00 N O M O N M �O O � M CO M O CO O O N O f- M M M O O — N O N N — N N N N N N N N N dLn r r r CO r r r r r �p ' M i M i N V Co Co M CO 00 00 ' Co N M N O O r N M N O CD N M N 00 N M N 00 N M N W N M N W N M N W N M N O N M N 05 O U (0 -,t O Lo O co r- � N N r• N O O M ti M N N Lo co W O co � O r- co O O co W a7 O co W 07 Lo O 00 O O co W O - N (N LL � N O U -0 ❑ M (O N r- M M M 6) M p LO t~ O N N O O O O _ N N N N N N N (N U- 00 N L O� N � r ' N N N N N N N N N N N j Q O L6 � M M O N M It LO P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 0 LO 1` n 0 Lf) 1` x x x x x x x x x x Ln N n C N o U LO N O LO O N 2 -80 N i Al (9 V O O M 00 00 Cl) M CO CO M N 6) M 3 N -0 Q O� N CO Cl) M CO (1) CO (0 (0 N CO O) O 00 "T `° `° `'' 10 `' °' `O 4) N N N10 N N N N N N N N N � N N CD N N M i L[) i Lf') Ln C i i CO ( i i i i Lf) i Ln @ ❑ Cb 00 N i N N M N N 00 N C N i N t` N W N N N M N 00 N M N M M N 00 M N 00 M N W M N W N M CD N M > U -0 0 ❑ M T 'a' M 00 to 00 to to O to 00 00 to 00 CID 00 M O LO O U0-0 6) 47 G7 co M co M c0 M M M M c0 M 1- M N N CO M N O N LL U2 i 00 O N m >' _a > U M M 0 ❑ > .� M Cfl L!) t- (I1 r M M CO V � M f6 2� c O N N N N N N N N M O N LL E , co UU) N L L M O a) N � N N (A N N N N N N N NCn N N � N Cll > O .M+ -0 M ❑ to 1- 00 C) O N M Ln - 1- 1l- 1-- r CO 00 00 00 c0 M D D D D Z) Z) a 0- 0- a a 0- 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 i n n i n N A i n N n n n N 9 Al D v C O N U 00 N U a) CO O U Q ❑ CO (D O � - a) (N LL 00 N U U -0 ❑ CO (D O � (N LL 00 U N L O ai LL N � r N U m > Q O O � a) x 00 CO N � L? r N Cl) N a0 00 � O N r - N 00 (L x O N r LO i?5 O Cbi N N — N M OD N 04 N N I- N ti 00 2 x I x 0 Q ti CXR O LfJ � N e - N CO N N r M O M N Cn N 2 00 Cis 4 C 0- d r• 4 O) 4 N 7 CO M M M LO N (D N '.0 00 '.0 a N LO CO 'j- N (0 N O r N to O O N N N N i i i r r r r i N (p CO i 00 C'4 W -- W N M N — N Ob N W 00 N M 00 N M 00 N M NM CD N N M O N w N N 00 N 00 Cb W CO ':T CO (fl 't M co (fl co co 1�- co f� M N M M M N N — 00 co r- M — M M M Q ti CXR O LfJ � N e - f� I M I CO I (D m M N O N N N 00 M O M 00 Cn 2 f� I M I CO I (D m M N O P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-13 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 N N N N N M � 0- d 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-13 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 CO CSO — C(O CSO 00 CSO CO CSO � C4 M (\O N (D "T CSO M C\O O N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N d In r LO r r L!) r CO r CO r In N In r L!) r li'y r In r CO Cb CO N W WCO CO W M W M ❑ NCOCIA M M N M N M N M N N M N M N M N M N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 N M N 00 N CA N 00 N W N W N W M > U -0 0 ❑ Cp 00 00 � 00 M 00 00 00 CL7 00 LO M It CO CO CO LO 00 0-0 00 CA M CA M CA O) (A CA M 00 00 co M CO M 00 M CO M (D O N LL C N , 00 O CO N m >' > U M 0 ❑ > CO M CO L!) CO f-- h Cn M M CO O LO CO M O O O f6 2� c O N N N N N N N N N N 7 O N LL E , 00 UU) N L L M O LL N r - CV O N N (N N N N N N N N N � N N O O M .M+ MU ❑ Ln CO 00 0) O r N M Ln _ T W W CA O _O O_ O _O O O a a a a a 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-14 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 0 LO r - n 0 LO ti x x x x x x x x x x x Ln N n C N o U LO N O LO O N 2 -80 N i Al CO V O O O M 00 00 00 a) eP N 00 00 00 00 U O� N CO CO CO Cl) (0 CO Cl) CO CO CO CO O) O 00 CO CSO — C(O CSO 00 CSO CO CSO � C4 M (\O N (D "T CSO M C\O O N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N d In r LO r r L!) r CO r CO r In N In r L!) r li'y r In r CO Cb CO N W WCO CO W M W M ❑ NCOCIA M M N M N M N M N N M N M N M N M N 00 N 00 N 00 N 00 N M N 00 N CA N 00 N W N W N W M > U -0 0 ❑ Cp 00 00 � 00 M 00 00 00 CL7 00 LO M It CO CO CO LO 00 0-0 00 CA M CA M CA O) (A CA M 00 00 co M CO M 00 M CO M (D O N LL C N , 00 O CO N m >' > U M 0 ❑ > CO M CO L!) CO f-- h Cn M M CO O LO CO M O O O f6 2� c O N N N N N N N N N N 7 O N LL E , 00 UU) N L L M O LL N r - CV O N N (N N N N N N N N N � N N O O M .M+ MU ❑ Ln CO 00 0) O r N M Ln _ T W W CA O _O O_ O _O O O a a a a a 0- P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-14 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 Ln r - A ti Ln N A 0 Lf ) N i LO N_ A N LO AI v O N C O N O O N N d M i j U O -0 - N N LL O N i j U i � O O - N (N LL O N N L O O - LL N r - N N j O (6 a� x N M LO r r O' Lf)i N N � O � N M O N N N x O M CD N N L r i N M N 00 W00 O7 O N x Ke CO N N L? r N M N 00 0) M O N O O r i O O N N O N M N N U) 7E-) L ! O (Z) U D E D- a O w P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-15 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 x x x rn rn w 0 0 0 LO N � 00� C) i O N i LON N Ln � C) O O O N iO LO N � N O N 00 N i N O 00 N i O N O c N i N N O N O O r N O O r t-- O r- r LO O � = O O CO M N — CO M CO M — N M CO N O a7 N N N CO U U P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-15 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 0 Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 a% PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 \\\ o o/ a o%/ o o#/ w r a g # c/, %3Q �a7 CO � G g== w LO# a) w w y c G y a, /= 0.)� a = o\/ CO < _ _ _ 00� _ /= _ } / � ƒ 2= = 8 0 # o = _ — # Cl) � 0 00 � z ±\ _= r c= = c CO w m = w=_ w CU = a= / r = m =## = w a a a ®$ R» Cl) ®#— r 2 7 9 a R$ G S� 7 r r 2 m/ E \� 3 o ®c "= c n= © o a®®= 2 c=® 04 0 0 \ a o CD N r= c g g r, - w j ) 2 c I§ 0 2$ 00$ 2 2§= 2 c© 2 \\ \ \ g # = m CO a _ _ - # 6 ƒ ® — % 2 $ S g \ Cl) @ g = 7 - a 3 / 2 r « = = Cl) r = _ � © # / — # « a m / )� o o o g——— o r///@$ o a o 0 E 2 3 2 = U) 2 2 0 = n r= _ —= 0= LO T 00 + 2 2 S/® 3 R \\ 2 2 g= r- © 2T \ Cl) \ = r=_# = m o= - m m m= m CN r a ®� 9"t = o a# G 2— w 9 — 4 2 2$= g © ©2 \ _ ^ \ 2 �4 0 2 + \ / \ 0 \ § 0 § E ) _ / 2 ± § \ e / » 3 \ = 2] 10-y 4 o 4) o 2` U ) a \ \ _ / b ! J o\ $ j � y Co f / 10=/ a/, g@ 2 E 2 R _°»% § /_ ° 5 D m % \ \) k§ 2 / } / � \ \ f / ƒ ± \ j / f \ d ƒ / f } / CO $CU » W CO \ CO -0 [ i ƒ CO @ o ) 7 e Co CO # \ % / CO / z ƒ E %& M% E 2 a E %# s' (§ a o E 2 ®\ C _ 2 a * a , o° o E@ \ Z� , 5 5 a 9 o g } = 2 y/ S m\ < \ m m a 5 m, o E E�, Z e g Z 3 m , : E s , m J m% , e) 2 ®7 , 9 \\%/ 7 Z 2 , _ a @ a / M \ 7 7 \ \ % % % % E 2 \ 7 % /�= o 0 0 o 12 # z« o a d d d R R k o 0 2= Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 a% PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 P and Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 a9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 R \ \ \ 2 = g « _ « / , m %3Q �a7 CO > \ ± / / S j j \ % ƒ 2n z== o w= y a, a a= ±\ _= w w r w CU 2 2 c 2«_/-$ 2 2 / 2 E En^ 7� z a 2 r = o $ m @ Cl) 2 \ \ ) \ C\1 � CD \ 04 ~ 5 f3 ®w — _ ®_ _= n 9 a C w E )� o N o o c o o m o\ C14 04 \ 2 \ / 9» G c ®/ 2/ 2 5 k/ ¥ a� \\ 2 2= 2<= 2� —0 k p MO a_ (� \� aw -§ /% fl) �2 j § C/) ± ±® § b / E ± _ ƒ / g ) \ \ k \ \ U ± _ _ / CO Cl) \ D 3 \ \ j \ } >_� ! } CO w \ \ U } ƒ \ ] [ � G m a E p f e g E \ E \ / 2 , \ � 7 2 E 5 { I / \ 3 -1d / A K / / / \ & / a ) P and Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 a9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 AURORA'`' i 1 _ .SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR "�::' --_ I -. - l I 1Wq' 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 P LANDS 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: 08/05/15 FILE: AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH2 2014 WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET. '41v CP#1745.59.32.2 �^ �J ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, lV_ L 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 1099,, j07 108 !/ 106 103 10 105 ,024 PLPS 11 1 ROYAL ROA 9s j 97 99 PLPS 10 1 ROYAL ROA X98 41*4 100! 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 b■ ■ M'1 " 0 BENFEWELL ROAD f■ I7 46 1090 —1 • 107 1080 106 103 10 � _ T� ■ ■ F 0105 0 O %All � � 102 y ■ a t 0104 ROYAL ROA V" 096 097 : g ROYAL ROAD •9$ too ¢ p89 067 P LA D 85 • Fs 094 092 088 0 0 -A • 3 a ■ 95093 091 090 86 84 Ali 740 iv - 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 Ilk 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 0 PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS Pr1Ase 1 BAY CITY FAfM ® WELL LOCATION /PHASE 4' -� r CONTROL WELL U LANDS - P LANDS Legend a_= BEAUFORT AND PAM UCO LI DA F E Elevation in Feet �r -A 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 O D O ® 2-4 BAY CITY No 3 =4-5 0 5-6 =6-7 AL 078 _ _ =8-9 =9-10 10-n -11-12 �- - 12-13 - 13-14 14-15 15-162 � ,5-2, D 1 BAY CITY No. - 021-4s 0 1,800 3,600 SCALE IN FEET MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR LINE ROAD P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 AND RODMAN COUNT,( m m s PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. -S RION SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG PORTTION POOF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE'15 : 08D5IS / / FILE: PLAN DS_WELL_LI DAR_ AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY G DATA WEBSITE WWW.CO.BEAU FORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, NAD 1983 FEET.{p PH2_2014.DWG 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 FIGURE 4 ENVIROINCOARPONRAANTS FAX 910%392-9253 92 9139 16 14 s 12 U C 10 T 8 C O et c� 6 2. 0 4 0 NOTE: Rainfall source from 9-20 Aug 2014 comes from the PA II rain gauge due to an animal attack on the Bay City rain gauge. Rainfall source from 16 Nov to 5 Dec 2014 from PA II because Bay City rain gauge was guessed to be clogged and not recording accurate data. "Range of Normal" and "WETS 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 • • • • • tiI�K a� eQ at fit, aJ o� �J� Sao eQ c� o� e� otia o��C ��` oyP �`S otia �, tiP tis y� ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 Bay City Daily Rainfall - Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2014 WETS -Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total 30% Less Chance 30% More Chance 2014 Bay City Monthly Rainfall Figure 5. 2014 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL SOUTH CREEK CANAL EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN CONTROL RC -1 SITE E RC -2 RC -3, JPHASE 4 LANDSc:' O �AODmU U LANDS 0 :17 O v D z Al J �0 BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 U LANDS 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. r-0 O mz o -<f N I BAY CITY No. 2 P LANDS 95 1 '94X 0921 091 0 67 0 069 68 m 65 63 L) 0 SMALL ' 640 062 -< ss ROA 0 0 N BAYCIVo 4 ROAD COUNTY P LANDS BAY CITY No. 3 BAY CITY No. BENFEWELL ROAU logo 0107 1080 106 105 100 100 0 � 102 04 019AL ROAD o96 097 ROYAL ROAD 098 08 08 P LA DS 088 85 8; 90 86 84 740 072 076 750 77 7E6 71' MAL 057 ROAD o P LANDS 0 1,200 2,400 SCALE IN FEET �F 820 -O 'VO '79 LEGEND PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH - ROADS + + PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS 0 WELL LOCATION 0 CONTROL WELLS HYDROLOGIC ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS D 0 = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (60.32 ACRES) O Q = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (597.13 ACRES) ® = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (80.20 ACRES) NOTE: HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD BOUNDARIES. a� 5J SOUTH CREEK CANAL 41 EXECUTIVE ROAD/ JAIME ROAD RODMAN CONTROL RC -1 SITE RC -2 rc> RC -3 mz bLE4 70 70 O 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 FARM PHASE 4 U LANDS N I BAY CITY NO. 2 P LANDS COUNTY LINE ROAD = 9 Z y N N w NOTE: P LANDS BAY CITY No. 3 BAY CITY No. HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE 0 1,800 3,600 WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD BOUNDARIES. SCALE IN FEET LEGEND BENFEWELL ROAD OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH — ROADS 1107 109 0 WELL LOCATION CONTROL WELL 1080 ZONES 106 D e = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (0 ACRES) 0 O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (14.69 ACRES) 105° 101 ° ° SEASON (68.06 ACRES) D O = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING 0 103 102 ® e = >75 - 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (159.34 ACRES) 104 'RO L ROA °y6 097 0 9 ROYAL ROAD °98 1000 08 P LANDS p8 F(n ° 9 °92 088 85o 3 < F Q 95 093 °91 90 0 86 ° 84 82 o p0 9 O 740 079 A o 72 76 67 ° g8 069 0 7� 0 81 070 71° SMALL: 73 ROAD75o 07 080 P LANDS 0 650 3 61 64° 660 qm LL °62 ROA 0 BAY CITY FARM PHASE 4 U LANDS N I BAY CITY NO. 2 P LANDS COUNTY LINE ROAD = 9 Z y N N w NOTE: P LANDS BAY CITY No. 3 BAY CITY No. HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE 0 1,800 3,600 WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD BOUNDARIES. SCALE IN FEET LEGEND PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH — ROADS 0 PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS WELL LOCATION CONTROL WELL HYDROLOGIC ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS D e = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (0 ACRES) 0 O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (14.69 ACRES) D O = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (68.06 ACRES) D O = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (495.56 ACRES) ® e = >75 - 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (159.34 ACRES) 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 second annual (2014) 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 1 st 2nd Common name Scientific name 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd Unknown ? 12 1 12 1 Serviceberry Red chokeberry Paw paw Amelanchier canadensis Aronia arbutifolia Asima triloba 1 1 1 1 8 7 2 River birch Betula nigra 4 1 1 5 7 11 15 17 27 American beautyberry Callicarpa americana 18 19 40 39 1 2 4 3 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 3 1 5 3 4 2 17 9 26 15 Water hickory Carya aquatica 1 3 2 3 2 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 13 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Buttonbush` Cephalanthus occidentalis 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 1 1 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 7 2 3 3 7 2 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 2 10 10 4 4 5 4 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina 14 14 20 17 16 15 1 2 1 2 Titi Cyrilla racemlflora 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 6 Persimmon Diospora virginiana 1 Strawberry bush Euonymous americana 18 9 6 5 18 10 5 3 7 1 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 23 17 57 28 37 20 6 2 123 67 Deciduous holly Ilex decidua 6 5 1 4 3 10 6 24 15 Inkberry Ilex glabra 9 1 19 12 7 2 13 12 11 5 Winterberry Ilex verticillata 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 2 1 4 4 6 2 10 5 22 12 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa 2 1 1 1 Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 100 130 110 166 128 113 84 1 55 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 8 7 5 5 6 4 2 2 21 18 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. Water tupelo N. aquatica 1 1 17 15 15 11 33 27 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 6 6 23 23 23 32 3 1 55 62 Red bay Persea borbonia Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2 1 4 6 1 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 15 64 30 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 2 4 2 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 98 86 162 112 117 94 99 60 476 352 Zone 3 63 64 65 66 69 70 71 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 st 2nd 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 2 39 39 26 23 22 19 18 19 40 39 1 2 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 1 4 3 13 9 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 6 8 8 2 2 10 10 9 9 7 6 12 12 14 14 20 17 16 15 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 6 1 1 18 9 6 5 18 10 5 3 7 1 3 7 15 14 33 32 19 19 31 26 13 12 4 3 6 5 1 4 3 10 6 24 15 14 5 9 1 19 12 7 2 13 12 11 5 21 13 13 5 10 2 4 19 19 17 18 3 3 21 20 10 12 10 10 15 15 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 61 52 116 100 130 110 166 128 113 84 79 55 106 90 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-1 Appendix A (continued) P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-2 Zone 3 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 1 8 3 1 1 3 4 1 25 2 Serviceberry Red chokeberry Paw paw Amelanchier canadensis Aronia arbutifolia Asima triloba River birch Betula nigra American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 4 5 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 37 9 10 4 4 9 9 10 10 22 20 7 7 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 2 1 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 Fetterbush Lyonia Iucida Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 1 2 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 12 11 10 13 11 18 17 11 10 17 17 2 2 13 12 20 20 11 10 15 15 22 23 9 9 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 5 33 34 15 17 2 4 10 10 3 3 22 19 13 12 5 8 14 15 Red bay Persea borbonia 1 1 1 1 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 2 1 4 4 1 2 1 1 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 2 1 6 4 8 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 9 3 8 1 3 1 3 3 4 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 22 16 26 14 2 6 3 5 3 5 7 12 10 3 4 23 18 3 2 12 10 4 3 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 22 10 14 2 4 25 5 10 2 8 6 1 8 4 3 4 11 1 6 4 8 7 9 11 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 8 3 5 1 3 12 4 1 4 5 2 8 1 5 14 3 5 1 6 2 4 3 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 17 19 20 23 24 29 32 10 12 3 4 26 29 30 35 14 14 15 16 24 25 24 24 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 1 1 1 3 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 100 81 99 53 65 45 112 72 122 114 106 97 27 29 96 81 84 75 113 75 80 70 133 99 79 82 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-2 Appendix A (continued) P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-3 Zone 3 85 86 87 88 89 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 5 9 1 2 6 1 20 11 3 1 2 Serviceberry Red chokeberry Paw paw Amelanchier canadensis Aronia arbutifolia Asima triloba 1 1 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 24 21 22 22 20 7 6 1 1 3 4 26 25 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 1 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 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 8 5 5 6 5 6 5 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 11 4 6 15 17 15 14 10 12 15 16 13 13 19 20 27 29 12 12 11 10 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 5 5 9 9 10 10 5 3 9 7 1 2 4 1 8 11 7 8 3 3 31 30 2 2 14 15 Red bay Persea borbonia Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 13 1 5 4 18 1 6 9 4 1 1 9 1 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 7 11 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 10 2 6 2 3 2 1 8 3 14 8 13 11 6 3 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 15 18 1 3 1 6 3 9 6 10 6 7 7 12 6 10 3 33 28 20 15 2 1 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 6 5 5 2 1 1 4 2 12 8 13 2 18 8 26 4 6 9 1 34 20 18 6 19 2 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 16 8 5 1 2 1 1 18 8 13 22 5 8 5 4 1 26 22 8 3 4 2 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia 1 Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 20 21 17 17 11 12 19 20 16 16 9 10 26 28 24 24 51 50 25 28 5 5 22 23 19 19 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 1 1 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 1 1 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 118 110 86 59 68 63 71 61 113 89 78 43 127 70 127 76 113 85 92 60 174 146 108 84 115 81 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-3 Appendix A (continued) Zone 5 61 Zone 3 101 102 103 109 Total 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 3 17 2 15 1 137 11 Serviceberry Red chokeberry Paw paw Amelanchier canadensis Aronia arbutifolia Asima triloba 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 17 14 River birch Betula nigra 11 6 1 American beautyberry Callicarpa americana 1 1 1 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 4 5 Water hickory Carya aquatica 3 1 4 4 8 4 1 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 10 7 3 1 1 1 Buttonbush" Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 1 1 Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 68 65 2 2 6 6 502 481 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 4 1 3 3 1 3 1 21 19 Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 20 11 Swamp dogwood Cornus foemina 1 1 1 1 6 6 Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 5 6 3 2 2 1 12 13 45 39 Persimmon Diospora virginiana 14 14 26 23 5 4 11 11 5 10 Strawberry bush Euonymous americana 1 11 2 3 3 10 11 12 7 7 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 1 2 3 Deciduous holly Ilex decidua Inkberry Ilex glabra 5 2 4 4 2 10 8 Winterberry Ilex verticillata 1 13 6 7 4 6 5 6 1 Virginia sweetspire Itea virginica 3 2 4 4 7 3 3 5 27 32 Swamp doghobble Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa 6 5 Spicebush Lindera benzoin 1 2 20 8 4 5 3 2 9 1 Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 2 2 10 11 8 8 22 22 2 2 Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana 6 7 1 1 1 1 3 4 117 109 Mulberry Morus rubra 1 1 1 Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. 32 15 3 53 Water tupelo N. aquatica 15 16 27 26 27 25 13 12 529 517 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 14 17 6 9 2 2 265 275 Red bay Persea borbonia 1 3 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 3 1 95 5 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 5 4 10 6 9 7 1 2 213 118 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 9 7 10 11 6 4 11 11 407 318 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 31 27 20 14 24 16 8 7 468 216 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 19 16 8 7 7 2 13 6 334 140 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia 1 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 8 662 669 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 1 2 1 1 2 1 20 7 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 5 2 6 3 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 190 178 122 111 111 76 105 83 3,905 2,997 Zone 5 61 62 67 68 90 91 92 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2 5 3 7 1 6 1 3 1 1 11 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 6 5 5 5 3 1 4 4 8 4 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 9 3 2 4 4 2 2 8 7 12 10 14 14 26 23 5 4 11 11 5 10 1 11 2 3 3 10 11 12 7 7 12 8 1 1 2 3 5 2 4 4 2 10 8 6 5 1 13 6 7 4 6 5 6 3 19 20 11 9 10 10 7 8 5 3 6 5 3 3 2 20 8 13 5 3 2 15 5 9 4 1 1 10 11 8 8 22 22 12 12 12 12 8 8 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 32 15 56 53 108 88 114 93 61 53 73 56 73 47 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second 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 Second Annual Report A-5 Zone 5 Total 1st 2nd Common name Scientific name Unknown ? 17 1 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia Paw paw Asima triloba River birch Betula nigra American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana 10 2 Water hickory Carya aquatica 14 7 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Buttonbush* Cephalanthus occidentalis Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 6 5 Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 26 19 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 29 Mulberry Morus rubra Unknown gum/tupelo Nyssa spp. Water tupelo N. aquatica 81 79 Swamp tupelo Nyssa biflora 36 51 Red bay Persea borbonia 3 4 Pond pine Pinus serotina Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Oak Quercus spp. 5 2 White oak Q. alba Laurel oak Q. laurifolia 45 25 Overcup oak Q. lyrata 64 58 Swamp chestnut oak Q. michauxii 6 5 Water oak Q. nigra Willow oak Q. phellos 66 26 Cherrybark oak Quercus pagodaefolia Dwarf azalea Rhododendron atlanticum Swamp azalea Rhododendron vlscosum Swamp rose Rosa palustris Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 73 74 American elm Ulmus americana High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 10 3 Possumhaw Viburnum nudum 1 Dusty zenobia Zenobia pulverulenta TOTAL 517 405 *Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Second Annual Report A-5 Selected Second Annual (2014) 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) and direction of view. Photos were taken 23 October 2014 and 24 October 2013. a PLPS 8: northeast, top photo 23 October 2014, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 PLPS 9: southeast, top photo 23 October 2014, bottom photo 24 October 2014 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 PLPS 10: southwest, top photo 23 October 2014, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 PLPS 12: southeast, top photo 23 October 2014, bottom photo 24 October 2014 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015 PLPS 13: southwest (taken from the berm), top photo 23 October 2014, bottom photo 24 October 2013 P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Second Annual Report September 2015