20081313 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080819

nced H ?ctI o6
08 1 3 1 3
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE?U-LANDS t'Y1ifi CBEAUFO
RT COUNTY, NORTH dARO-LINA
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZRINCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
April 2008
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE U-LANDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... ................1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... ................1
2.0 Location, History, and Pre-Restoration Description ......................................................... ................1
2.1 Location ............................................................................................................... ................1
2.2 History .................................................................................................................. ................1
2.3 Pre-restoration Description .................................................................................. ................1
2.3.1 Soils ........................................................................................................ ................2
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status ............ ................2
2.3.3 Forested Areas ....................................................................................... ................2
2.3.4 Cleared Areas ......................................................................................... ................2
3.0 Site Selection Factors and Justification ............................................................................ ................2
3.1 Logistics ............................................................................................................... ................2
3.2 Cost and Technology ........................................................................................... ................3
3.3 Justification ........................................................................................................... ................3
4.0 Specific Goals, Target Functions, and Methods ............................................................... ................3
4.1 Goals ................................................................................................................... ................3
4.2 Target Functions .................................................................................................. ................3
4.3 Methods ............................................................................................................... ................5
5.0 Work Plan Methodology ................................................................................................... ................5
6.0 Planting Design ................................................................................................................ ................5
7.0 Data Collection for Monitoring .......................................................................................... ................5
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots ................................................................................. ................6
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring ........................................................................................... ................6
7.3 Reference Wetland .............................................................................................. ................6
8.0 Adaptive Management Strategies .................................................................................... ................6
8.1 Adaptive Management ......................................................................................... ................6
8.2 Long-term management ...................................................................................... ................7
9.0 Final Dispensation of Site ................................................................................................. ................7
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .....................................................................................................................14
Cover photo: Understory view of hardwood forest in the eastern portion of the U Lands
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan ii FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 U-Lands Vicinity Map (USGS topographic map) ..........
Figure 2 Soils Map (NRCS Soil Survey-Beaufort County ...........
Figure 3 1998 Color Infrared Aerial .............................................
Figure 4 LIDAR Intensity Map .....................................................
Figure 5 Biotic Communities .......................................................
Figure 6 Mitigation Areas ............................................................
LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A 2001 Corps Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms .............
B Agency Correspondence ...............................................................
C Selected Site Photographs ............................................................
..8
..9
10
11
12
13
.............14
.............23
.............25
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Attachment 4
FEIS Appendix I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The approximately 787-acre U-Lands site owned by PCS Phosphate is south of the
Pamlico River and southeast of Aurora and will provide a broad expanse of land for non-riparian
wetland mitigation. Most of the site consists of ditched and drained hydric organic soils. The site
is currently being clear cut in phases by Weyerhaeuser and is divided into clear cut areas,
regenerating clear cuts, and uncut forests. A large regenerating portion of the northeastern tip of
the property will be preservation land. The overall plan for the remainder of the site is to remove
the existing vegetation in the ditched areas, eliminate as much of the drainage network as
possible to restore the natural hydrology, and replant with appropriate wetland trees and shrubs,
in order to restore the area back to a non-riverine wet hardwood forest.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U-lands site is proposed to be part of the compensatory mitigation for future
unavoidable impacts to wetlands as evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement for PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation. The northern portion of the site, which has wetland hydrology and
soils, will be preserved to allow wetland vegetation to continue to naturally re-establish, after the
area was clearcut, from the seed bank and volunteer species. The southern portion, which has
been ditched and drained, will be restored to wetland conditions. This document describes the U-
Lands site and potential mitigation.
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location. The site is in Beaufort County, south of NC Hwy 306/33 and approximately
4.5 miles southeast of Aurora, Richland Township, North Carolina (Figure 1). It is southwest of
Bay City Farm (the western portion of the P-Lands site separates Bay City Farm from the U-lands
site) and south of the Gum Run Reference Forest. South Creek and the South Creek Canal form
the northern and northwestern boundaries, Bonner Road forms the western boundary, and
County Line Road (a gated gravel road that functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico county border)
forms the southern boundary. The site can be found on the USGS Bayboro quadrangle (Figure
1) and is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico river basin
within the South Creek subbasin.
2.2 History. The U-Lands acreage was included in the South of Highway 33 wetland
delineation, and CZR completed routine wetland determination data forms in February 2001
(Supporting documents A). The southern portion of the U-Lands was formerly known as Parcel
42 and the northern portion was formerly known as Parcel 41. Hydrology monitoring occurred on
the southern portion March 2001 through June 2002. In 2003, the CORPS determined the
southern portion of the U-Lands was drained and non-jurisdictional and the northern portion was
jurisdictional wetland (Supporting documents B). PCS Phosphate owns the mineral rights to this
site, and Weyerhaeuser Company has timber rights until 2012. The U designation has no special
meaning other than that was the historical label given to properties between PCS and
Weyerhaeuser with similar ownership agreements. To date, approximately 430 acres have been
clearcut, and there remain one-time, tree-cutting rights for the 360 acres that have not been cut.
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description. The southern portion of U-Lands was historically a
pine/hardwood forest but is now mapped as several different communities, all with the potential to
become wetland hardwood forest after restoration. Large portions of the site have been timbered
in recent years, with most of the rest of the site slated to be timbered before Weyerhaeuser's
timber rights expire in 2012. There are small areas of non-jurisdictional hardwood forest and
mixed pine/hardwood left on the southwestern half of the property, portions of which will most
likely be timbered. The rest of that section is a non-jurisdictional herbaceous community in the
early successional stage after clear cutting. The southeastern half of the property contains
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
portions of non-jurisdictional communities categorized as hardwood forest, pine forest, mixed
pine/hardwood forest, and shrub/scrub. The northern portion is currently mapped as wetland
scrub-shrub with the potential to become wetland mixed-pine hardwood forest over time.
2.3.1 Soils. Most of the site is underlain by hydric, organic soils. The major soils
mapped on the soil survey at this site are Dare muck and Ponzer muck. Ponzer muck is nearly
level, very poorly drained, occurs on broad flats and in shallow depressions on uplands. Dare
muck is nearly level, very poorly drained and occurs in shallow depressions on uplands. The
northern tip is underlain by Portsmouth loam, a nearly level, very poorly drained mineral soil and
Tomotely, a nearly level, very poorly drained mineral soil. There are also very small amounts of
Ponzer and Dare muck in the most northern tip, near South Creek (Figure 2).
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status. Several
approximately 3 ft wide and 2 ft deep east-west ditches occur along the entire southern area.
Most of those ditches appear to drain into two approximately 15 ft wide and 6-8 ft deep north-
south canals that parallel a dirt road crossing the middle of the site (Figure 3). The large roadside
canals flow to the north. The canal on the eastern side of the road flows through a culvert with a
flash-board riser into South Creek. Some of the eastern ditches, or portions of them, may
possibly drain into ditches on the P-Lands site, but due to lack of flow at the time of evaluation, it
was difficult to determine flow direction. According to the LIDAR map the site slopes down from
the southeastern portion to the northwestern portion, toward South Creek and the South Creek
Canal (Figure 4). The northern section also slightly slopes down from the southeastern to the
northwestern area, toward South Creek.
2.3.3 Forested Areas. Based on 2001 data forms and a site visit in the late fall of 2007,
vegetation in the forested area on the land to be restored consists of large red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red bay (Persea palustris and P. borbonia), titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and scattered loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda). The understory includes smaller versions of red bay and titi, as well as wax myrtle
(Morelia cerifera), and gallberry (Ilex glabra) interspersed with vines such as muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia), wild climbing hydrangea vine (Decumaria barbara), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). The herbaceous layer includes switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea) and
Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica) (Figure 5).
The western half of the northern area was characterized on wetland data forms in 2001
and visited in 2007. Common vegetation included two dominant tree species-red maple and
sweet gum, and several shrub, herbs, and vines-red bay, wax myrtle, American beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana), spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), scattered rushes (Juncus spp.),
Nepalese brown top (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), green brier
(Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine, yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), wild climbing hydrangea vine, false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) (Figure 5).
2.3.4 Cleared Areas. There are several recently timbered areas on the site and
potentially more over the next few years. Early successional, weedy species such as young red
maple, sweet gum, and loblolly pine comprise most of the vegetation, with scattered gallberry,
green briar (Smilax spp.), and panic grass (Panicum spp., Dicanthelium spp) (Figure 5).
Regrowth from stumps of timbered red bay, sweet gum, and red maple is occasionally evident.
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
3.1 Logistics. Site selection is of primary importance in any wetland restoration project
since that which was previously a wetland will have a higher likelihood of feasibility, sustainability,
and success if restored. Also important in site selection is adjacency to existing wetlands in a
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
similar landscape position whose presence indicates appropriate hydrological conditions for
hydric soil and consequent vegetation communities. Adjacent wetlands are also able to serve as
seed banks, refugia for mobile animals while the restoration site matures, and reference sites that
may be used to assess restoration success. This project adds an important headwater area of
South Creek to the adjacent approximate 2,900 acre P-Land site, the 709-acre Bay City Farm
mitigation site, and approximately 1,500 acres of preservation land in the South Creek Corridor
mitigation site.
3.2 Cost and Technology. Restoration of the site will require no special technology or
complex engineering since only ordinary surficial land-moving equipment is necessary to prepare
the site. All surface work will be based on LIDAR (light detection and ranging) and/or
topographical survey data and a water budget and model predictions of soil behavior (based on
permeability, texture, and stratigraphy) by a registered professional engineer. There is no
identified source of pollutants other than what might be present from normal agricultural practices
nearby, so pollutant remediation is not required to restore the site.
3.3 Justification. According to the CORPS, the southern portion of the site is drained
and non-jurisdictional and does not have the required hydrology to meet all three wetland
parameters, and is therefore able to be considered for mitigation by restoration. The northern
section is jurisdictional wetland and would be considered for wetland preservation.
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
4.1 Goals. The purpose of restoration activities of the U-Lands site is to successfully
restore approximately 658 acres of non-riparian wet hardwood forest and preserve approximately
119 acres of non-riparian wetland that will most likely become wet mixed pine/hardwood forest
(Figure 6). The goals will be achieved on a multi-spatial scale with these specific objectives:
• To restore wetland hydrology by capturing and storing rainfall, which for the past
three to four decades has been carried off the site by a system of ditches and
canals (site)
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in soil
character, topography, and hydroperiods (site)
• To serve as a corridor within the Holistic South Creek Corridor Complex
• To improve water quality and provide watershed protection (site, watershed, and
region)
• To provide wildlife habitat (site, watershed, and region)
• To allow a wetland vegetation community to naturally restore itself from the seed
bank and volunteer species through succession (preservation site)
4.2 Target Functions. Functions of wetlands and waters are the physical, chemical, and
biological processes and attributes of a wetland that in conjunction operate as guarantors of
water quality and are important components of food webs and habitat. The 1990 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the
Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and RGL
02-2, require the replacement of aquatic functions which are unavoidably lost or adversely
affected by an authorized permitted activity. Many wetlands have multiple functions, and while
accurate assessment of wetland functions is a dynamic field, scientists do agree that all wetlands
either increase or decrease a specific component of the hydrologic cycle.
Successful replacement and/or uplift of any of the wetland functions is driven by proper
mitigation site selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions of the site will
support. The specific functions which are targeted for the U-Lands site are:
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION - Generally, wetlands are thought of as
nutrient sinks for nitrogen, phosphorus, suspended solids, sulfur, and carbon and are
efficient at transformation and removal of some of these elements, depending on loading
rates and retention times. This function is enhanced with low gradient and abundant
vegetation, although, depending on site conditions, phosphorus adsorption to wetland
soils can be greater than its accumulation. in plant biomass. Experience at the 2,800-acre
PCS Parker Farm hardwood wetlands mitigation site in Beaufort County indicates that
volunteer herbaceous wetland vegetation can cover new mitigation sites within one year.
The planted trees, volunteer herbs and forbs, and the slope of the site that averages less
than 0.2%, will enable this function.
ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT - Decomposed matter (detritus)
forms the base of the aquatic and terrestrial food chain and wetlands with high plant
productivity are able to produce, collect, and export organic matter, depending upon
landscape position. The ability of a wetland to transport organic matter downstream
requires a hydrologic link to other wetlands areas and the proper balance between
vegetation and open, non-stagnant water with a neutral pH. Many receiving waters in the
coastal plain of North Carolina are naturally more acidic due to lower gradient and higher
levels of tannins in the water column. Located on primarily interstream flats, the export of
any organic matter will be slow and occur most frequently during wetter seasons when
organic matter is prevalent and water levels are higher. Most export will be via drainage
into South Creek.
FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE - The ability of a
wetland to alter floodflow and store stormwater depends on landscape position in the
watershed, degree and type of vegetation cover, microtopography of the site, and
configuration of outlets of the wetland. The reduction or delay of peak flows from runoff
and precipitation by a wetland can decrease flood damage. Wetland characteristics that
increase storage time and allow outflow intermittently are best at performing this function.
The U-Lands occur on interstream flats associated with the headwaters of South Creek.
Restoration of the U-Lands will decelerate the current rapid delivery downstream of
stormwater via ditches and canals and increase and prolong storage capacity on site.
Aquatic resources downstream of this mitigation site, including South Creek and the
Pamlico River/Sound estuary, will benefit from restoration and preservation of these
lands.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE - Wetlands which retain precipitation
and/or surface water long enough for percolation into the underlying sediments or
aquifers exert control on the hydraulic head and either recharge groundwater and/or
discharge it when fully charged. Elevation of the wetland relative to the underlying
groundwater, perimeter to volume ratio, and soil porosity of the wetland sediments
determine the recharge/discharge potential in any given precipitation event or season.
Systems of ditches discharge rainfall at a rate that delivers a slug of water quickly
downstream and off-site preventing local groundwater recharge and a slower discharge.
Plugging or filling such ditch systems for restoration projects will capture local
precipitation and recharge local groundwater tables and restore more normally scaled
and timed discharge events.
WILDLIFE HABITAT - Wetlands, streams, and their associated uplands form complex
and diverse habitats that are essential and attractive to various types of resident and
visitor wildlife species for food, shelter, and breeding sites for all or part of their life cycle.
Some species depend on wetland water cycles for all or portions of their life cycles e.g.,
nearly all amphibians and many migratory birds use wetlands regularly. The existing and
restored wetlands on the U-Lands site will provide additional sources of food and cover
for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic insects. The site and
F'C5 Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
landscape position of this site will support watershed and corridor protection that can
provide important habitat to species that are sensitive to community edges and those
species requiring contiguous areas of unbroken habitat.
¦ AQUATIC DIVERSITY -While no stream is currently, or proposed on the site, permanent
or semi-permanent pools of water could function as habitat for aquatic animals or animals
that require water for part of their lifecycle. The pools form as a result of
microtopography, or disturbances such as an uprooted tree.
4.3. Methods. Restoration work will be focused on the southern portion, which is drained
and includes removal of the manmade drainage features and re-creation of surface roughness
that will reestablish variable hydrological conditions of a duration and frequency comparable to
adjacent similar wetlands and an approximation of the historical conditions. The site will then be
planted with an appropriate mix of wetland trees and shrubs commonly found in similar reference
sites or known to historically exist on similar sites. Areas of mature or regenerating wetland forest
will be preserved.
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY
The concept of the restoration work is to remove the manmade drainage features and
restore the site's natural topography. Prior to restoration activities, a surveyor will prepare a site
specific contour topographical map of the entire site and/or LIDAR maps will be used to assist
with areas outside of the boundaries of the property. Field testing of the soil groups will be
performed using compact constant head permeameters which test the lateral conductivities of the
soils. A water budget will be used to document the soil characteristics relative to climatic inputs
and evapotranspiration and understand the expected hydrology during the growing season post-
restoration. Current plans indicate a water budget may be utilized from the P Lands, a nearby
PCS mitigation site, due to similar soils, site conditions, and topographic position. The water
budget is used to calculate how the seasonal pattern of water level fluctuations (inflow, outflow,
storage) may affect the hydrograph (hydroperiod) at a given site. Basic components required to
evaluate a water budget for a wetland site are meteorology, soils, vegetation, hydrology, and
hydraulic components of the soils.
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN
A strategy for vegetative restoration of the U-Lands will be designed to reflect soil
characteristics, grading, field observations, expected hydrology, and seedling availability. To
accommodate varying hydrologic regimes planting zones will be designated based on
topography.
A variety of wetland hardwood tree species will be considered for planting. In addition to
trees, some shrubs will be incorporated into the plan to promote and offer a diverse landscape.
Restored areas will be planted with bare-root seedlings and tublings of native tree and shrub
species that are known to have occurred historically in the area and on similar sites.
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING
Periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that the restored wetlands are operating as
designed and to document success criteria. These efforts will include installation and data
collection of rain gauges and groundwater wells, periodic photographic documentation, and
vegetation monitoring. Efforts will last a minimum of five years, or until success criteria have
been successfully documented. Photographs will be taken periodically throughout the monitoring
year to visually document hydrologic conditions, stability, vegetation growth, and the evolution of
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
the restoration site. Permanent photo point locations will be established and marked to facilitate
photographs being taken at the same locations each year monitoring is taking place.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports. Reports will
include the data collected during the monitoring year, comparison to data from past years and
reference locations, and assessments of whether the site is on trajectory for meeting defined
success criteria.
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots. Vegetation monitoring plots will be established over 2
percent of the restoration areas. Individual plots will be 43 feet x 203 feet in size (approx. 0.2
acre). Plots will be located to represent a range of conditions across the restoration site.
Immediately after planting has occurred, planted stems within vegetation plots will be flagged and
counted. Each year after restoration and prior to leaf fall in autumn, vegetation plots will be
sampled. All living stems of woody vegetation within each plot will be identified and counted,
including planted stems and colonized species. General observations will be made during
sampling to describe the survivability of stems outside the vegetation monitoring plots, and other
vegetation planted across the site (live stakes, transplants, permanent seeding, etc.).
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring. Monitoring wells will be used for extensive post-monitoring of
hydrology in order to determine the success of restoration of wetland hydrology. Data from an
automatic rain gauge at the Bay City Farm mitigation site will be used in conjunction with data
from the nearby automated weather station at PCS to determine rainfall during the monitoring
period.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the project site to document post-
restoration water table. Data from these wells will be downloaded monthly. These data will
determine if the water table at the project site has been elevated sufficiently to restore conditions
similar to those at adjacent wetlands.
7.3 Reference Wetland. Reference wetlands may be available in the immediate area
that may be suitable for this project. Reference wetlands can be used to identify plant species
and hydrologic regimes that should be used in restoration of the site.
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Principles of adaptive management have become increasingly used as a tool to elevate
the likelihood of success of wetland mitigation projects throughout the United States. Since
ecosystem behavior and natural disturbances cannot always be accurately predicted nor can
human mistakes always be identified in advance, adaptive management provides a somewhat
formalized process for the iterative and interactive approach to assessment and management of
wetland mitigation projects. However, adaptive management does not equate to perpetual
maintenance.
8.1 Adaptive Management. Certain expected natural hazards which might affect
successful restoration are fire, flood, erosion, invasive species, and herbivory. Inaccurate
construction can also affect performance and function of the restored area. Strategies to
minimize effects from natural hazards and human mistakes include:
Sections affected by wildfire during the monitoring period will be assessed for
degree of damage and replanted at a spacing calculated to restore specified tree
density.
Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits, rice and cotton rats, and field mice will be
reduced by the foxes, feral dogs and cats, hawks and owls resident in nearby
natural areas. Reductions in rodent herbivory will be achieved by the erection of
simple PVC perches at interior locations on the site to encourage raptor use. If
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4
monitoring indicates deer numbers are jeopardizing tree survival, decisions will
be made, in coordination with appropriate agencies on what, if anything, can be
done.
¦ Construction errors will be identified early in the mitigation process with an as-
built report which contains spot elevations (i.e., plugs and inverts of any pertinent
culverts). Any correction effort will be coordinated with permitting agencies such
that the intended water regime is met.
• Planting errors in spacing density or diversity will be avoided by diligent
monitoring of and coordination with planting crews to ensure fidelity to the
planting plan. 'An accounting of tree plot and monitoring well numbers and
locations will be included in the as-built.
¦ Design flaws may not be caught as early in the process, but if monitoring or
observation (i.e., excessive standing water) indicates a potential design problem,
remediation options will be explored with permitting agencies.
¦ Monitoring wells at nearby sites were subject to frequent disturbance and
occasional destruction by black bears, despite efforts to armor the wells against
them. Barbed wire fences may be constructed around the more expensive
continuous monitoring wells.
8.2 Long Term Management. Long term management will be aided by a controlled-
access gate on the main entrance road of the property. It is anticipated that once the area starts
to naturalize, that no long term management will be needed.
9.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE
With agency concurrence of success of the site, arrangements with a suitable non-
governmental organization or government agency will be made such that a conservation
easement in perpetuity is transferred to such organization or agency. Permitting agencies will be
consulted during the decision and negotiation of final dispensation.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 4

1 6 ? ? ?1

-oi

............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
how p
...................
................ . . . . . . . .
0 m Z, Ar -
'A 76
.N
w W or "Wen team "n"a R -S.
tgi
al
I . I am
. +11
0 m Z, Ar -

x
. .. ........
v
P,
I 1w
SCALE: AS
SHOWN
APPROVED
BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
DATE: 5/06/08
1
FILE: ULANDS-1998AER-FEIS.MG
CP#1 745.59
v-,
4709 COLLEGE
ACRES DRIVE
-r
C
WILMINCTON,
NORTH
TEL
SUITE
CAROUNA 29403
910/392-9253
91(1/392-9139
2
FIGURE 3
FAX

W�o
Legend
U LANDS
ELEVATION (FEET)
=0-5
M5�6
= 6.7
=7 8
=8-9
JU 9. lo
lo - 11
11 - 12
12-13
13-14
14 - 15
N%
0 Aw is w �,q
N
RM
0 116
- 14,
Y",
ICA im
a,
1k,
Im !A 0 i
IN m M,
i L !J 407,;z 4
M, Pi 0
vo ou ", fir
U LANDS LIDAR
0 600 1,200 2.400
I
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Scale in Feet
WURCE. CAROLINA
SCALE AS SHOM
APPROVEO By
DRAW4 BY aFG
PLODOP-N MAPPING PROOMM.
�IJPORT AND PAMLICO CWNTIES, LIDAR. NC —TEPLANE,
NAD 83, FE�, �.NCROODMAPG CCM
DATE 5MMB
11111 LIIIACR1111111
SUIM 2
CP*1745 50
DRAFT
itZR
W NOTON, W BAW
ML 91013924�
—
FIGURE 4

.-N
1 77;;' ;�
LEGEN
LI -LANDS (786.68 ACRES)
CREEKS/OPEN WATER
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PROJECTE
CLIMAX
11MIUNI
�_'. PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
0.00
0.00
I B PERENNIAL STREAM
0.00
0.00
INTERMITTENT STREAM
0.00
0.00
2
WETLAND BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX
0.00
0.00
3
WETLAND BOTTOMILAND HARDWOOD FOREST
0.00
0.00
4
WETLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE
0.00
0.00
5
WETLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE
118.78
0.00
6
WETILAND PINE PLANTATION
O.DQ
0.00
7
WETLAND HARDWOOD FOREST
0.00
658.17
8
WETLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST
0.00
118.78
9
WETLAND PINE FOREST
0.00
0.00
10
WETLAND POCOSIN - BAY FOREST
0.00
0.00
11
WETLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST
0.00
0.00
12
POND
0.00
0.00
13
WETLAN D MAINTAINED AREA
O.Do
0.00
14
UPLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE
300.80
0.00
15
UPLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE
131.18
0.00
16
UPLAND PINE PLANTATION
0.00
0.00
17
UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST
65.58
0.00
18
UPLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST
123.05
0.00
19
UPLAND PINE FOREST
37.56
0.00
20
UPLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST
0.00
0.00
21
UPLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND
0.00
0.00
22
UPLAND NON - VEGETATED/MAINTAINED AREA 9.73
9.73
U -LANDS
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
0 1,500 3,000 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN JAPPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
SCALE IN FEET DATE: 5/03/08 FILE: ULAN DS- wo-rom -FEIS. DWG
NOTE: FIRST NUMBER BEFORE SLASH REPRESENTS CURRENT
CONDITIONS, SECOND NUMBER AFTER SLASH REPRESENTS
PROJECTED CLIMAX COMMUNITY CP#1 745.59
SOURCE: AERIAL MACE PROVIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
II' SUITE 2
OF TRANSPORTATION, 1998 COLOR -INFRARED DIGITAL ORTHO MOSAICS. WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA 28403
F. NC STATEPLANE, COLORTILE111SID AND COLORTILE14O.S
NADI53. FEE D.
WEBSTE: WWW.NCD0T.DRG I.CD_ TEL [phone] FIGURE 5
E -E-1 -11- FAX 91OZ392-9139

in
Y4 -