20120107 Ver 1_401 Application_20120212

�O\ PotashCorp' 2® 1 2 0' 0 7 PotashCorp Aurora
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
Jam'
February 2 2012
Ms Karen Higgins Supervisor FEB ` 6 2012
Wetlands Buffers Stormwater — Compliance & Permitting Unit DENR MTER QUALITY
Division of Water Quality WETLANDa AND STORMATERBFANCH
NC DENR
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
Dear Ms Higgins
PCS Phosphate is restoring and enhancing wetlands and streams on some large tracts of land
south of Aurora along the Bay City Highway (SR 1002) near the headwaters of South Creek to
use for wetland and stream mitigation associated with USACE Action ID 200110096 Enclosed
are five copies of a Compensatory Mitigation Plan and a PCN 401 WQC GC 3689 application
for the wetland and stream restoration and enhancement work on approximately 3 700 acres on
what is called the P and U Lands project Also enclosed are 4 additional copies of this cover
letter and a check in the amount of $570 00 for the permit fee
The majority of the acreage within the P and U Lands has been in loblolly pine timber
production for decades and has had a considerable drainage network developed over that time
Our intentions are to complete the earthwork and tree planting over a 3 year time frame Please
call me at [phone] if you have questions concerning this information or e mail me at
jfurness@pcsphosphate com
Sincerely
rey C Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
PC R M Smith/23 11 020 w /encl
M Brom w/o encl
S Cooper CZR w /encl
J Hudgens — CZR w /encl
J Ricketts w /encl
1530 NC Hwy 306 South Aurora NC USA 27806 T [phone]
PotashCorp. I www potashCorp com

0
fil ,
ZR
INCORPORATED
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 28403 1725
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwilm @czr inc com
TO Ms Karen Higgins Supervisor Wetlands Buffers Stormwater — Compliance &
Permitting Unit Division of Water Quality NCDENR
FROM Julia Kirkland Berger
DATE 3 February 2012
SUBJECT PCN for 401 WQC GC 3689 and Supporting Document 1
(Compensatory Mitigation Plan for PCS Phosphate P and U Lands Restoration)
WE ARE SENDING YOU
5
Cover letter from Jeff Furness Senior Scientist PCS Phosphate Company Inc
PCN for 401 WQC GC 3689 for P and U Lands which includes application form
Exhibit A (sheets 1 — 3) and Supporting Document 1 (Compensatory Mitigation
5
Plan for the P Lands and U Lands Restoration Site Richland Township Beaufort
County NC which includes plan text tables figures and appendices)
1
Check for $570 00 to NCDENR Division of Water Quality
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
® As required Copies of same documents sent separately to US Army Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Field Office in Washington NC
Signed
Julia Kirkland Berger
cc Mr Jeff Furness and Mr Ross Smith PCS Phosphate Company Inc
Mr Sam Cooper and Mr Jim Hudgens CZR Incorporated
Mr Jonathan T Ricketts Jonathan T Ricketts Inc
CP #1745 59 32
2151 Alternate Al South SUITE 2000 JUPITER FLORIDA 33477 3902
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] czrinc @czr inc com www CZRINC com

ot WAiF9o9
r
y
O "C
20120107
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A Applicant Information
1
Processing LL x
la
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
lb Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 27 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes ❑ No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in lieu fee program
❑ Yes ® No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1 h
below
® Yes ❑ No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2
Project Information
2a
Name of project
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phases 1 2 and 3
2b
County
Beaufort and Pamlico
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Aurora
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e
NCDOT only T I P or state
project no
N/A
3
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
PCS Phosphate Company Inc
3b
Deed Book and Page No
Beaufort County 1706/0741 1732/0268 1737/0682 1024/0588 1768/388 392 Pamlico
County 561/586 589
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
D
3d
Street address
1530 NC HWY 306 South
3e
City state zip
Aurora NC 27806 FEB - 6
3f
Telephone no
1 252 322 8249
3g
Fax no
1 252 322 4444 wo, AND STORWMATEROFMCK
3h
Email address
jfurness @pcsphosphate corn
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ❑ Other specify
4b
Name
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
4d
Street address
4e
City state zip
4f
Telephone no
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
5c
Street address
5d
City state zip
5e
Telephone no
5f
Fax no
5g
Email address
B
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
The P and U Lands are comprised of a total of 11
parcels Eight parcels in the P and U Lands are currently
owned by PCS and shown on Beaufort County GIS with
the following PINs 15026401 15026897 15026403
15027014 15008524 15008523 15026399 and
15026398 three additional portions of larger
Weyerhaeuser owned parcels transferred to PCS but
have not yet been entered in the Beaufort (2 parcels) or
Pamlico County(1 parcel) online databases However
the deed book and page numbers for all parcels are
shown in 3b
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 233831 Longitude 76 775742
(DD DDDDDD) (DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
+/ 3 667 acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc) to
proposed project
Gum Swamp Run
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
C Sw NSW
2c
River basin
03020104 unit of Tar Pamlico
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
Approximately 3 667 acres south of the Pamlico River and southeast of Aurora are owned by PCS Phosphate Company
Inc (PCS) and are collectively called the P Lands and the U Lands The 787 acre U Lands portion of the P and U Lands
Restoration Site is located west of the P Lands Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this proposed restoration project contains
approximately 2 000 acres east of SR1002 (Bay City Road) Phase 3 contains the approximately 1 667 acres west of
SR1002 including the remaining acres of the P Lands and the 787 acres of the U Lands Figure 1 of the attached
mitigation plan (contained within Supporting Document 1 of this application) depicts the entire project area and all three
phases of the restoration of P and U Lands on the Aurora NC USGS quadrangle Figure 3 of the plan depicts the soils of
the project area Figures 5A and 5B depict the LiDAR contours of the project area and Figure 6 depicts existing drainage
features of the project area
Most of the Phase 1 area was in silviculture of variably aged stands of loblolly pine (Pmus taeda) in ditched hydnc organic
sods and has recently been timbered Figure 7 depicts the biotic communities as of July 2010 and as projected post
restoration Most areas of timber in Phase 2 and Phase 3 will also be harvested by Weyerhaeuser prior to onset of
restoration activities The surrounding land uses of the P and U Lands and the Phase 1 area include wetland mitigation
silviculture and agriculture
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
+/ 652 05 acres within the P and U Lands (Figure 4 of the mitigation plan) shows all jurisdictional areas within the project
area Exhibit A (sheets 1 2 and 3) of this application depicts each proposed impact area listed in Section 2a and
Section 4a of this application
3c
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
0 linear feet of stream with +/ 97 845 linear feet of waters of the US (roadside ditches) (Exhibit A of this application
Figure 4 of the mitigation plan)
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The overall purpose of the project is to restore the vegetation and hydrology of the historic wetlands of the P and U Lands
impacted by years of manipulated drainage and sdvicultural activities and to restore the historic contours of the riparian
headwater system of Gum Swamp Run including a low energy stream and adjacent headwater valley (Figure 8 of
mitigation plan)
3e
Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used
Restoration (reestablishment) will occur in the drained non jurisdictional areas which were previously wetlands and
restoration (rehabilitation) will occur in the degraded jurisdictional areas Enhancement will occur in those jurisdictional
areas where the existing trees will remain but the areas are affected by the lateral drainage from adjacent ditches which
will be filled or plugged as part of the project The project will involve a minimal amount of earthwork to plug or fill interior
ditches and canals and minor grading adjacent to the Gum Swamp Run headwater stream /valley system restoration
Perimeter ditches will be constructed along the boundary of much of the site These perimeter ditches will allow the
existing offsite drainage that passes through the site to be transported around the site s perimeter Additionally the
ditches will help avoid hydrologic trespass onto adjacent parcels Slightly elevated areas will be constructed parallel to
these perimeter canals as monitoring access routes /roads and as further insurance against hydrologic trespass
Recontounng of the site is not required The site will support a complex of riparian and non riparian wetlands Timbering
and stump removal will result in surface roughness that is anticipated to retard runoff of rainfall and allow the recharge of
surface water into the sod To minimize compaction construction equipment expected to be used for perimeter ditch
excavation plug installation and the perimeter access berm construction consists of tracked backhoes tracked
bulldozers and mini dump trucks See Figures 5A/B 6 8 and 12 of the mitigation plan and Appendices B and D
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4 Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes [:1 No ❑Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the pasty
Comments
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type
® Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company CZR Incorporated
Name (if known)
Other
4d If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations (JD) or State determinations and attach documentation
Corps Preliminary JD for entire 2 900 acre P Lands signed 16 August 2010 On 25 January 2005 the Corps issued a
JD for the entire 10 211 acres within the potential PCS mine continuation area referred to as the S33 Tract (Action ID No
200510457) This tract contains the 787 acre U Lands On 3 June 2009 the Corps issued PCS the mine continuation
permit (Action ID 200110096) to which the U Lands JD became attached Appendix A of Supporting Document 1 (the
mitigation plan) contains copies of all jurisdictional determinations
5 Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions
6 Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b If yes explain
Project will occur in three phases over a three year period See Figure 1 of Supporting Document 1
C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summa lease refer to Exhibit A of this PCN for graphics which depict each area of impact by hase
1 a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
® Wetlands ❑ Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers
®O en Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland im acts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404 other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑ Yes
® No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
21
W2 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑ Yes
® Corps
22
® No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑ Yes
® Corps
22
® No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑ Yes
®
Corps
22
® No
❑
DWQ
W5 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
20
®
No
❑
DWQ
W6 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
20
®
No
❑
DWQ
W7 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
19
®
No
❑
DWQ
W8 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
11
®
No
❑
DWQ
W9 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
5
®
No
❑
DWQ
W10 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
14
®
No
❑
DWQ
W11 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
15
®
No
❑
DWQ
W12 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
15
®
No
❑
DWQ
W13 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
17
®
No
❑
DWQ
W14 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
16
®
No
❑
DWQ
W15 []PET
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
19
®
No
❑
DWQ
W16 ❑ P ®T
Soil disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
18
®
No
❑
DWQ
W17 ❑ P ®T
Soil disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
18
®
No
❑
DWQ
W18 ❑ PET
Soil disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
23
®
No
❑
DWQ
W19 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
35
®
No
❑
DWQ
W20 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
11
®
No
❑
DWQ
W21 ❑ P ® T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
9
®
No
❑
DWQ
W22 ❑ P ®T
Sod disturbance
❑
Yes
®
Corps
9
®
No
❑
DWQ
2g Total wetland impacts
381
2h Comments Impact locations for W1 W22 are shown on Exhibit A and the project will entail temporary construction
impacts to these wetlands as the project purpose is wetland restoration /reestablishment and enhancement/rehabilitation
3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
(PER) or
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404
width
(linear
Temporary T
(INT)?
other
feet
feet
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑
Corps
❑ INT
❑
DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
31 Comments
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
a
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Waterbody type
4e
Area of impact (acres)
01 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
Oil
02 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
086
03 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
071
04 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
071
05 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
054
06 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
003
07 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
056
08 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
052
09 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
056
010 ®P ❑ T
Incidental fill
roadside ditch
147
011 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
1 39
012 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
223
013 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
1 42
014 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
065
015 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
086
016 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
0 18
017 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
096
018 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
096
019 ®P Q T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
040
020 ® P ❑ T
Fill /plug
roadside ditch
063
4f Total open water impacts
1519
4g Comments these impacts are shown on Exhibit A and will involve the addition of plugs and /or fill into these ditches such
that the hydrology of the surrounding wetlands can be recharged Water impacts shown for 010 is included to cover minor
incidental fill which may occur during perimeter berm excavation and construction and connection of Gum Swamp Run into
the SR1002 ditch This SR1002 ditch will not be filled and /or plugged
5 Pond or lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below
5a
Pond ID
number
5b
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
acres
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
Yes ® No If yes permit ID no
i Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5k Method of construction
6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ® Tar Pamlico ❑ Other
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
Buffer impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c
Reason
for
im act
6d
Stream name
6e
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f
Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g
Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
N/A Proposed project is mitigation
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Avoidance and minimization is not applicable here Notwithstanding tracked equipment will be used to minimize compaction
of soils
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
❑ Yes ® No
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
6 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan Mitigation plan is
attached as Supporting Document 1
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

6
Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a
Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b
If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
6c
6d
6e
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required
6g
If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund)
6h
Comments
E
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b
If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why
❑ Yes No
❑
Comments
2
Stormwater Management Plan
No significant changes in
impervious surface are anticipated
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
Impervious surfaces as existing
and proposed roads comprise a
site total less than 1 percent
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why
See exemption letter dated 26 October
2010 copy provided within Appendix A of Supporting Document 1 Project No SW7100910
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plans
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government s jurisdiction is this project'?
Beaufort County
❑ Phase II
3b
Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
c
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 246
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes
❑ No
F
Supplementary Information
1
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb
If you answered yes to the above does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c
If you answered yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments
2
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after the fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c
If you answered yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description
4
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project or available capacity of the subject facility
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes ®No
❑
habitat
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) letter dated 11 March 2009 and NCNHP letter dated 13 March 2009
copy provided within Appendix A of Supporting Document 1
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a WIII this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Site contains no jurisdictional streams or freshwater marsh or coastal marsh or bottomiand hardwoods
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
El Yes No
status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Letter dated 20 March 2009 from North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) copy provided within
Appendix A of Supporting Document 1
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements There is no proposed change in storage within the basin
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Design calculations referenced to FEMA database
J�FF9, C Fu `R.
EY F- SS
C
oato� is
gents ignature
Applicant/Agent s Printed Name
Date
(Agents signatur va only an authorization letter from the applicant
is wiled
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 13 December 10 2008 Version

EXHIBIT A
PCN for Restoration of P and U Lands PCS Phosphate Company Inc
Exhibit A January 2012

ti ..rrs
v) L U
1 O O
a0
`- Pt M
M
All
I" u
1
f �
J U
M O
r O
' � O
O
Q
O
a: #
a'
N
AY CITY R D/
S.R. 1002
Ce
P
r.�
wow
N �
Cl2
I
O
rn
a
L
c0 00
4
�M O
r J
W
c0 ILA M to
O
W
`
O ap R �
a�
=
�O
t
0,
w
U
J
J
.
d O
C)
Qp,
li.
O
v) L U
1 O O
a0
`- Pt M
M
All
I" u
1
f �
J U
M O
r O
' � O
O
Q
O
a: #
a'
N
AY CITY R D/
S.R. 1002
Ce
P
r.�
wow
N �
Cl2
I
J w 1, Z V!N <mw
*' O Q m J J V m i 0 00
Z F- C' Q LLI
rre m O 0 Q
z
Z
_j of a
UJI
N y
D M ao 3
.0 n3 z n w z
j OZ O N O W
L N
C'
W
Z v
ice' =a w
k f
s, <
t?'
~
J U
Q
r J
W
c0 ILA M to
O
W
`
O ap R �
°O
=
�O
J U �
N
w
U
r\ U) �• - .
of
d O
C)
o w
O
O
N
V
1­1
<a
v O
-I�
OON
N
0
m
�� x
A�A
Z n
00
�� .J�
or `
' ��M
�
��
Z02070
w z
XW
"
LLI
�
rn
3
as
�
?zo
LLI
W2
`
M
a
q
d
U
N
Ch
O
Z
a
E
WO W
Q O) v
w
�—
Q
C
N7MP
�oae
� NII
Y 4 Q
y _
(n
W Q
L
CC
J w 1, Z V!N <mw
*' O Q m J J V m i 0 00
Z F- C' Q LLI
rre m O 0 Q
z
Z
_j of a
UJI
N y
D M ao 3
.0 n3 z n w z
j OZ O N O W
L N
C'
W
Z v
ice' =a w
k f
s, <
t?'
~
J U
Q
r J
W
c0 ILA M to
O
W
`
O ap R �
°O
=
�O
J U �
N
w
U
r\ U) �• - .
r N
d O
C)
o w
Of O
O
I� N t0
Z
t?'
Q
r J
�iit Q
00 O
d
t0 O
O p
J U �
N
w
NIA
r N
d O
0 0
o w
Q to
I� N t0
in
1­1
o a
v O
-I�
OON
N
0
�� x
oU�MO o
Z n
00
M.
' ��M
`�'
O O
N
V \.'-
mr
Z02070
w z
Ouj;�
�
rn
Ew a
N:
�
?zo
V .
`
i
�W <W
O�
WP<V
WO W
Q O) v
=Sa
C
I�glna
<�m rn
CD
0
{
00200p
Mao
W.D
SwZz
[ll
omlo
a0'o�
oTl.iw
NIw
aN
�Z6m
?n o
i
Z
Oo
U
JO or
? -0j
05
�a
w-- W
rn U
°s
m
°' �
7t
~
FZ
=�OR•
_
KZ<N
ZOmM�Q
Lo
J
.:
CD
Nw\ a0
�U Om OU-
JO
: (Cnx O
Q
i
o o z z
w zoo
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Exhibit A -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

y�
PO
4
J
I
U
N O
o
of
LO N
�O CO
� v
J
¢
o
VY
¢
O
ti J
}O
_
U
/I .
La
to
z
a
z
O O
.-
r4 n M
0 00
M" I
U
\ 0 0 R M
o N M
M
\ \' QO
D J 'N L H
N V } N
aQ m
Z m 2 t—
N t' 7iu XW
W W z as W=
U
p' M.f m a J U N
r W Q O D li
Q rh I-
?+
V) Q N 5� >NOhn
Q Ui (O W
D ` CW ♦N�
Q O Q �� m• Q Z G V1N NN
W <PP
Z J U 0 iye. J J V m i 0000_
O Q Z W 5 Q W �PP
M O Q Ln LO
Z Z = F W U
r fz of — O U
0 0 �-1 3 F-
Z
M D C`' O
zo CO a = Z
a_ Z O— O 3 O L 3 N
k O °
o � i; -� �• _ � Nom_ N6
Z d N
W a
W (/) Q O v W
W J
J = Q ~
�_ f1
N O
_j O
J.. o
v O
=1 N
M
o
Q) O r 0 N
C N
13 �o o �
Pie O
4 }' M D !
N N DS •0 k 3
Ooh
CIO r Q
D Q
,� Z
DD Z Z a_
e
tit `y d DD L Z o
f m
� r
<ri
OD L.
BAY CITY R 4l
s. R. 1 002
k�
Gj� M O
J� N m
O
CO v
j. N
Mp
M v �
<
a: +
}
H
}
¢
m
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
Exhibit A -2
t'
W
O 4
O
N I i
0
w
n N Q V Z O
�\ W -Z�
O WV OWOQ
(=j\VI< Z Z
�mw<
� 3o foo3
�mwaw a��3
maoir OO'
00 < �M-
'Na « m
m °gZz & °w
°ozo
O N O U U' °„ m N
omFO = - =w
WO,w
a'o0 zl�,i�
}QOM ozm
Qznm mpg
ao
z °m€n o wo
B 000ril a0?'i
w Z N W W
V \ W �<OW
Z O m M � O< F
U O MO U Q N=
0 O3m ¢9
wz3 °¢ 0 aZ <3z «zU
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
January 2012

+,
ot
�� pHnsen Y CITY No.
now
J
1' BAY CITY FARM
SOUTH CR'EE'K CANAL � 018
5,951.07F° .
EXECUTIVE` ROAD (0.96 ac)
JAIME ROAD
V1 2 W10
- w1s ,
w1s will
a a o
U SANDS a a NA
M 9
D r
Do
p 020 BAY CITY
b 3;902.14, LF
(0.63 ac) \, W18 5,963.1`1...L�
A m. 019 (0.96 ac). , µ
0
2,485.60 LF
W22 9 o a (0.40 ac)
Z_
b I
1 7a
-LEGEND
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY
UNDISTURBED SOUTH CREEK
(4,067.26 LF PERENNIAL)
NON— JURISDICTIONAL
UNDISTURBED WETLANDS
DISTURBED JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
< (18,301.92 LF, 2.95 ACRES)D
T DISTURBED WETLANDS (219.56 ACRES)
W1' l WETLAND ID NUMBER
01 I OPEN WATER ID NUMBER
COUNTY
LINE No. 2.'
P LANDS.
c UN
TY LINE ROAD
2,000
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
Exhibit A -3
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
January 2012
PHASE III — JURISDICTIONAL AREA
TO BE DISTURBED
P & U LANDS
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2OO9096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY CIS DATA WEBSITE
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPRO BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ /BFG
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
DATE: 01/31/12
P ANDS_
FILE: p_ JU LANDS_JURISD_
AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, 1998 COLOR - INFARED DIGITAL ORTHO MOSAICS,
,1 G
CP #1745.59.32
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD83, FEET, BEAUFORT COUNTY,
COLORIRTILE113.SID, COLORIRTILE14O.SID, WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
�J ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
L K SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
CNVKWMENfAI CONSULTAirts FAx 91 O/392 -9139
EXHIBIT A
SHEET 3 OF 3
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
Exhibit A -3
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
January 2012

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
P LANDS AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE,
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP,
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
20 INTRODUCTION
2
30 LOCATION HISTORY AND PRE RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2
31 Location
2
32 History
2
33 Pre Restoration Description
2
33 1 Soils
3
3 3 2 Section 404 Jurisdictional Status and Pre restoration Drainage
3
3 3 3 Forested Areas
4
3 3 4 Timbered Areas
5
40 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
5
41 Logistics
5
42 Cost and Technology
5
43 Justification
5
50 SPECIFIC GOALS TARGET FUNCTIONS AND METHODS
6
51 Goals
6
52 Functions
6
53 Methods
9
53 1 Phase 1 Work
11
5 3 2 Phase 2 Work
13
5 3 3 Phase 3 Work
15
60 HYDROLOGY
17
61 Hydrologic Models
17
62 Water Budget
17
62 1 Water Budget Inputs Meteorology Evapotranspiration and Soil Data
17
622 Water Budget Output
17
70 PLANTING DESIGN
18
8 0 MONITORING DATA COLLECTION
19
81 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
19
8 1 1 Volunteer Woody Vegetation Sampling
20
8 12 Nuisance Vegetation Monitoring
20
82 Hydrology and Rainfall Monitoring
21
83 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems)
21
84 Hydrogeomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys
22
85 Control Forest Wetlands
22
90 ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
23
91 Annual Reports
23
92 Vegetation Ecological Performance Standards
23
93 Nuisance Species
23
94 Wetland Hydrology Ecological Performance Standard and Growing Season
23
95 Stream Restoration Ecological Performance Standards
24
96 Control Forest Wetland
24
97 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System
24
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan n PCS Phosphate Company
Inc
P and U Lands January 2012

98 Areas Mapped as Upland on the Beaufort County Soil Survey
99 Summary of Performance Criteria
10 0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
101 Adaptive Management
102 Long Term Management
11 0 FINAL DISPOSITION OF SITE
REFERENCES
Cover photos View to south from Bay City Road No 2 typical pine plantation 8 12 2008
View to south from Small Road post hardwood timber removal 3 19 2009
24
24
26
26
27
27
28
Compensatory Mitigation Plan ni PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

LIST OF TABLES
Table I
Additional functions and benefits specific to coastal plain headwater systems
9
Table 2
Summary of reach/segment characteristics lengths and channel form
15
Table 3
List of appropriate woody species with the potential to colonize the site
20
Table 4
Restored wetland or stream functions and measurement methods
21
Table 5
Performance criteria and methods summary
25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
P and U Lands Vicinity Map (USGS topographic map)
F I
Figure 2
Site Map on 2007 aerial
F 2
Figure 3
Soils Map (MRCS Soil Survey Beaufort County)
F 3
Figure 4
Jurisdictional Areas
F 4
Figure 5A
P and U Lands West & East Basin Surface (LiDAR)
F 5A
Figure 5B
Regional LiDAR of P and U Lands Mitigation Site and Surrounding Area
F 5B
Figure 6
Drainage Facilities
F 6
Figure 7
Biotic Communities
F 7
Figure 8
Conceptual Mitigation Plan East and West Basins
F 8
Figure 9
Planting Plan
F 9
Figure 10
Monitoring Locations
F 10
Figure I I
Potential Control Forested Wetlands
F 11
Figure 12A Potential Mitigation Yield East of Bay City Road (SRI 002)
F 12A
Figure 12B
Potential Mitigation Yield West of Bay City Road (SRI 002)
F 12B
APPENDICES
A Permits and Agency Correspondence
B P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis and Master Plan
Recommendations
C Selected Historic and Recent Aerial Photographs
D Master Plan Pages and Selected Typical Cross Sections
E Plant List by Species and Planting Zone
Compensatory Mitigation Plan iv PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and LI Lands Restoration January 2012

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lands that total approximately 3 667 acres south of the Pamlico River and southeast of Aurora
North Carolina collectively known as the P Lands and the U Lands will be restored to a wetland
complex in three phases beginning in 2010 and ending in 2014 Located in Beaufort County on
the east and west sides of SR1002 (Bay City Road) dust north of the Pamlico County line
mitigation activities on the site will provide a broad expanse of land for wetland restoration
enhancement and preservation Wetlands to be restored include hardwood flat non rnvenne
swamp forest rivenne swamp forest headwater forest pond pine pocosin bay forest and swales
Wetlands to be enhanced and preserved include nvenne swamp forest headwater forest and
non nvenne swamp forest The headwaters and upper valley of historic Gum Swamp Run a
tributary to South Creek will also be restored This 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 complex of
restored and preserved natural areas (South Creek Corridor Complex)
Most of the P and U Lands consist of ditched and drained hydnc organic soils planted in loblolly
pine (Pmus taeda) if the trees had value they were timbered after which PCS began stump and
slash removal in the most southern sections of the P Lands east of SR1002 in 2010 These
preliminary restoration activities were authorized under erosion and sediment control permits from
the NC Division of Land Resources The remainder of the impacts to wetlands and waters for the
entire P and U Lands has been applied for under a separate US Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Pre construction Notification (PCN) for which this mitigation plan is a supporting
document
The overall plan for the site is to remove the existing vegetation in the managed areas plug the
interior drainage network of ditches to restore the natural hydrology and replant with appropriate
wetland trees and shrubs Canals along the perimeter of the site (SR1002 County Line Road or
Peele Road e g ) will remain open for the most part however the interior roadside ditches will be
plugged A new bypass canal and access road will be constructed along the northeast P Lands
property boundary to accommodate offsite flows east of Peele Road via Dollar Road and the
drainage for Peele Road Perimeter canals and access paths will be constructed along the east
boundary with the Casey Tract and along County Line Road Gum Road Executive /Jaime Road
and Rodman /Bonner Road
Restoration work will proceed in three phases as shown on Figure 1 The first phase includes the
southern portion of the property east of SR1002 south of Bay City No 4 and the area south of
the eastern half of Small Road The second phase will include all of the remaining property east
of SR1002 north and south of Small Road The third and final phase will include all of the P
Lands section on the west side of SR1002 and all of the U Lands Earthwork in non jurisdictional
areas of Phase 1 began in 2010 and construction of all three phases is expected to be complete
by the end of 2013 although planting of Phase 3 will occur in early 2014
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) as the intended holder of the
eventual conservation easement provided preferred locations for their standard gameland
parking lots for public access into the P/U Lands restoration site from adjacent state gamelands
or adjacent areas scheduled to become state gamelands These NCWRC parking lots have been
included in the design and will be constructed in concert with the mitigation activities within each
phase or as appropriate Public access to the site will not occur until regulatory agencies concur
that all required monitoring can cease and transfer of the conservation easement has been
completed
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

2 0 INTRODUCTION
The +/ 3 667 acre P and U Lands restoration site is part of the 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 The wetland communities to be
restored through rehabilitation and reestablishment include approximately 470 acres of
hardwood flat 1 619 acres of non rivernne swamp forest 165 acres of headwater forest 24 acres
of nverine swamp forest and 813 acres of pond pine pocosin Approximately 26 acres of non
nverine swamp forest will be enhanced and 245 acres of existing mixed forested wetland will be
preserved In addition up to 7 989 linear feet of zero order and 900 feet of first order coastal
plain riparian headwater stream system in Gum Swamp Run (including a small unnamed tributary
to the south) and up to 20 acres of Tar Pamlico riparian buffer will be re established /restored with
the mitigation work proposed in this plan for the P and U Lands
30 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
31 Location The P and U Lands site is located east and west of Bay City Road
(SR1002) 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 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 subbasm at latitude 35 233831
and longitude 76 775742 Portions of the site can be found on the USGS Aurora Bayboro South
Creek and Vandemere quadrangles (Figures 1 and 2)
32 History The mineral rights of the P Lands were owned by PCS and surface
rights were owned by Weyerhaeuser Company Weyerhaeuser and PCS had a contractual
agreement which allowed PCS to purchase the surface of the P Lands at a price determined by a
pre set formula By the end of 2011 PCS owned all the P Lands surface rights contained within
the project area For the U Lands PCS Phosphate owns the surface and mineral rights while
Weyerhaeuser Company has one time timber rights through 2012 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 majority of the P and U Lands project site has
been managed for timber production for several decades Historic aerial photos reviewed at the
Beaufort County Soil and Water Conservation District Office in Washington NC show no
evidence of agricultural practices since 1938
33 Pre Restoration Description The P Lands were set up as a series of stands of
predominantly loblolly pine (Pmus taeda) which were managed in a rotation of planting thinning
and clearcutting Gated gravel access roads cross the P Lands generally with an east west
orientation Large ditches /canals adjacent to public roads and some access roads within the site
drain interior ditches that are placed with a north south orientation approximately 660 feet apart in
the P Lands within the U Lands the interior ditches are oriented east west and the access roads
are oriented predominantly north south
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

The southern portion of the 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 remainder slated to be timbered before Weyerhaeuser s timber rights expire in 2012
There are two areas of non jurisdictional mixed pine /hardwood forest on each side of Gum Road
which will most likely be timbered before the end of 2012 but this action is dependent on the
timber market The lower southeastern portion east of Gum Road contains a larger section of
non jurisdictional mixed pine /hardwood forest which may also be timbered by Weyerhaeuser
The rest of the U Lands is a mix of non jurisdictional communities in successional stages post
harvests which occurred from 2000 through 2007 A gated gravel road crosses the eastern U
Lands on the southern boundary (County Line Road) in an east west orientation and two gravel
roads (Gum and Bonner Roads) cut across it in a north south orientation
Pre settlement vegetation maps depict the P and U Lands area either as Peatland Long
Fire Interval Pyromosaic or Pond Pine Pocosin and Canebrake depending on the source map
• http //portal ncdenr org /c /document library/-get file'?uuid= 7a76c23a c6e3 483f
9dba 681598aecc43 &groupld =61563 or
• http / /www, ces ncsu edu/ nreos/ forest /feop /AWC2009 /proceedings /pdf
awc /frost 6 9 2009 Pdf
331 Soils The Soil Survey of Beaufort County shows most of the site as
underlain by hydnc organic soils (Kirby 1995) The major sods at this site include Ponzer muck
(58 percent) Dare muck (23 percent) Wasda muck (13 percent) and Dorovan muck (< 1
percent) The mineral based hydnc sods include Portsmouth loam (5 percent) Tomotley fine
sandy loam (< 1 percent) and Arapahoe fine sandy loam (< 1 percent) Tarboro sand is the only
non hydnc sod series shown within the site and at 4 acres it represents less than 1 percent of
the site (Figure 3) The sod survey also depicts a perennial and an intermittent stream channel in
the P Lands representing the headwaters of Gum Swamp Run a tributary to South Creek
332 Section 404 Jurisdictional Status and Pre restoration Drainage A
preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the P Lands by the US Army Corps of
Engineers on 16 August 2010 The North Carolina Division of Water Quality made their 401
determination in the field on 4 March 2011 and concurred with the Corps 404 determination and
also confirmed that the historical stream channel depicted on the soil survey no longer existed
Results of 401/404 jurisdictional determinations are shown on Figure 4 and pre restoration
LiDAR flown in May 2010 and obtained in July 2010 is shown on Figure 5A Figure 5B is a
depiction of regional LOAR flown by the state of North Carolina and obtained from the Beaufort
and Pamlico County websites Appendix A contains copies of the mine continuation
permit/certification jurisdictional determinations and other pertinent regulatory agency
correspondence
The U Lands were included in the multiple year South of Highway 33 wetland
delineation performed as part of the environmental evaluation for the PCS mine continuation
Routine wetland determination data forms for this portion of the delineation were completed by
CZR Incorporated in February 2001 (Appendix A) For the delineation the southern portion of the
U Lands was denoted as Parcel 42 and the northern portion was denoted 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 For the 2009 mine continuation 404 permit all
PCS jurisdictional areas delineated during the environmental evaluation associated with the
permit application were reissued such that they all will expire with the same date (Appendix A)
North south ditches exist at 660 foot intervals within each stand of timber
throughout the P Lands These ditches empty into larger ditches which are adjacent to public
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

roads and access roads within and adjacent to the site The lands west of State Road 1002 drain
to the west and north to South Creek The properties east of State Road 1002 drain to the north
to Gum Swamp Run which empties into South Creek a tributary to the Pamlico River The
southern two thirds of the site are drained by the canal on the east side of SR1002 The northern
one third of the site drains east to Peele Road then south to Small Road then west to the canal
on the east side of SR1002 and then south to Gum Swamp Run
Within the U Lands several east west ditches approximately 3 feet wide and 2
feet deep occur along the entire southern area Most of those ditches drain into two roadside
ditches of Gum Road whose approximate dimensions are 15 feet wide and 6 8 feet deep The
large roadside ditches flow to the north with the flow from the western ditch transferred to the
eastern ditch near the northern end of Gum Road The ditch on the eastern side of Gum Road
flows through a culvert with a flash board riser into South Creek at the eastern end of
Executive /Jaime Road Some of the interior ditches on the east half of the U Lands are
interconnected with the ditches on the western portions of the P Lands Hydrological monitoring
of similar sod types and site conditions at PCS mitigation sites nearby were consulted as a
preliminary evaluation of the site s potential for restoration as a wetland Additionally to facilitate
the offsite drainage that must be maintained after the restoration of the site Jonathan T Ricketts
Inc prepared a report entitled P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis & Master Plan
Recommendations This report shows there are four primary drainage subbasins within the P
and U Lands these basins and existing drainage facilities are shown on Figure 6 The report
also shows the modifications needed to maintain the offsite flows to prevent any adverse impacts
to the drainage of adjacent properties The combined report (master plan and analysis) is
included in Appendix B
333 Forested Areas The canopy of the P Lands is dominated by various
ages of loblolly pine with sweetgum (L►qu►dambar styrac►flua) red maple (Acer rubrum) and tulip
poplar (L►riodendron tulip►fera) also present Common shrubs herbs and vines include wax
myrtle (Morelia cenfera) mkberry (Ilex glabra) gallberry (Ilex conaceae) swamp red bay (Persea
palustns) greenbnar (Smilax spp) yellow jasmine (Gelsem►um sempervirens) blackberry
(Rhubus spp) and chain fern species (Woodward►a spp) There are approximately 9 acres of
mixed forest on the P Lands eastern boundary across from Bay City No 4 access road which will
not be cleared because of its species composition and maturity While it does contain scattered
sweet gum and red maple along its western and northern edges this forest also contains large
specimens of red bays swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and water oak (Quercus n►gra) One
living Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecypans thyo►des) and numerous felled tree trunks and
remnant stumps which also appear to be Atlantic white cedar are also found in this forest
Based on 2001 data forms and a site visit in the late fall of 2007 U Lands canopy
vegetation in the forested area on the land to be restored consists of large red maple sweet gum
red bay (Persea palustris and P borbon►a) tits (Cyrdla racem►flora) highbush blueberry
(Vacc►n►um corymbosum) and scattered loblolly pine (P►nus taeda) The understory includes
smaller versions of red bay and tits as well as wax myrtle and inkberry (Ilex glabra) interspersed
with vines such as muscadine (Vit►s rotundifoha) wild climbing hydrangea vine (Decumana
barbara) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lon►cera japonica) Additional reconnaissance in other
areas documented sweetbay (Magnolia wrg►n►ana) as a common understory tree The
herbaceous layer includes switchcane (Arund►nana g►gantea) and Virginia chain fern
(Woodwardia virg►n►ca) The western half of the northern area was characterized on wetland data
forms in 2001 and re 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 amencana) spleenwort (Asplen►um platyneuron) scattered rushes
(Juncus spp ) Nepalese brown top (Microsteg►um vim►neum) poison ivy (Tox►codendron
radicans) green brier (Smilax rotundifolia) Japanese honeysuckle muscadine yellow jessamine
(Gelsem►um sempervirens) wild climbing hydrangea vine false nettle (Boehmena cylmdnca) and
Virginia creeper (Parthenoc►ssus qu►nquefoha) The southeastern half of the property contains
portions of non jurisdictional communities categorized as hardwood forest pine forest mixed
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

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 Figure
7 depicts biotic communities in P and U Lands as of 2009 (the number to the left of the slash) and
the projected climax community after restoration activities by the number to the right of the slash
The biotic communities are the same as what was used in the PCS 2008 Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) (US Army Corps of Engineers 2008)
334 Timbered Area Prior to onset of restoration activities by PCS in 2010
several areas had been recently timbered by Weyerhaeuser on the site and as part of transfer of
ownership Weyerhaeuser will complete timber activities on additional areas and the site will be
prepared for restoration Timbered areas are inhabited by various early successional herbaceous
and woody species Dog fennel (Eupatonum capolifohum) broomsedge (Andropogon spp )
blackberry red maple loblolly pine and sweetgum comprise most of the vegetation with
scattered gallberry and green briar (Smilax spp ) and with numerous devil s walking stick (Araha
spmosa) and panic grass (Panicum spp Dicanthehum spp) Regrowth from stumps of timbered
sweetbay sweet gum and red maple is evident in different combinations and various
abundances
40 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
41 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 similar landscape position whose presence indicates appropriate hydrological
conditions for hydnc 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
control sites that may be used to assess regional conditions in similar environments to the
restoration site This large project serves as a key link to the 2 800 acres restored enhanced
and preserved from 1994 1998 at the Parker Farm mitigation site the 709 acre Bay City Farm
mitigation site and the approximately 1 500 acres of preservation in the South Creek Corridor
mitigation site When complete it will become part of an interconnected 8 706 acre Holistic
South Creek Corridor complex conserved in perpetuity (Figure 1)
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) and the state Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were contacted during the
environmental evaluation for the mine continuation regarding the presence of listed species
cultural resources or natural areas The P and U Lands did not contain species features or
man made buildings or sites of interest to these agencies and this correspondence is included in
Appendix A
42 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
restore the site All surface work will be based on LiDAR and /or normal topographical survey
data and guided by the Master Plan recommendations which were based on the site s hydrology
and hydraulics analysis There is no identified source of pollutants other than what might be
present from previous agricultural use of adjacent lands currently in silviculture so pollutant
remediation is not required to restore the site
43 Justification Based on jurisdictional determinations the majority of the site
does not meet the three required wetland parameters and is therefore suitable for mitigation by
restoration (reestablishment or rehabilitation) and /or enhancement The Beaufort County soil
survey UDAR and aerial photography post timber removal have been utilized to identify the
remnant perennial /intermittent stream and headwater valley system of Gum Swamp Run within
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

the P Lands restoration of this system increases the functional uplift from restoration of this site
The sod survey shows Gum Swamp Run as a perennial stream from the east side of SR1002 to
the eastern limits of the Wasda soil a distance of approximately 2 000 feet it is shown as an
intermittent feature for another 3 000 feet into the eastern limits of Dare soil polygon in the
vicinity The LIDAR signature of this Gum Swamp Run valley is evident in the same location as
indicated on the soil survey and recent aerial photographs also show the presence of standing
water in an alignment similar to both the soil survey and LIDAR features historic aerial photos
also support the existence of the Gum Swamp Run headwater valley system Appendix C
contains selected historic and recent aerial photographs
5 0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
51 Goals The purpose of restoration activities of the site is to successfully restore
enhance (uplift of one or more aquatic function) or preserve up to 3 405 acres of wetland
communities including the riparian headwater system of Gum Swamp Run (Figure 8) Of the
652 05 acres of existing wetlands shown on Figure 4 381 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be
temporarily impacted during site restoration activities The impacts will result in the
restoration /rehabilitation of wetland functions to these 381 acres due to a return to near historic
hydroperiods and replanting of wetland vegetation (plus other aquatic functions listed in Section
5 2) An additional 15 19 acres of impacts to jurisdictional waters in roadside ditches will occur as
the ditches are filled or plugged to restore the hydrology of lands adjacent to the ditches Acres
of ditches which are filled will be restored to wetland status and those ditches which are plugged
will be open water habitat
Approximately 3 121 acres of wetland will be restored (re established or rehabilitated) 26
acres will be enhanced 245 acres will be preserved up to 168 miles (8 889 linear feet) of zero to
first order coastal plain stream will be restored and up to 20 acres of Tar Pamlico riparian buffer
may be restored The goals will be achieved on a multi spatial scale with these specific
objectives
To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in sod
character topography and hydropenods (site)
To allow a wetland vegetation community to continue to naturally regenerate
from the seed bank (site)
To capture and store rainfall which for the past three to four decades has been
carried off the site by a system of ditches and canals (site and watershed)
To serve as a wildlife corridor within the Holistic South Creek Corridor Complex
(site watershed and ecoregion)
To improve water quality and provide watershed protection (site watershed and
ecoregion) and
To provide wildlife habitat (site watershed and ecoregion)
52 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 U S 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 limit a specific component of the hydrologic cycle
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Successful replacement or uplift of any wetland function is driven by proper mitigation site
selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions of the site will support The
specific aquatic functions which are targeted for the P and U Lands site are
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 sods 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
forbs and trees volunteer herbs and forbs and the slope of the site which
averages less than 0 2 percent 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
nutrients downstream requires a hydrologic link to other wetlands areas and the
proper balance between vegetation and open non stagnant water with a near
neutral pH Located on primarily interstream flats the export of any organic
matter from the P and U Lands will be slow and occur most frequently during
wetter seasons when organic matter is prevalent and water levels are higher
The headwater wetland and rivenne swamp forest portions of this site will be able
to transport organic matter on a more frequent and sustained basis due to their
connectivity to Gum Swamp Run and South Creek Productivity of the site will
increase and change through time as the vegetation matures and goes through
various stages of succession Most export of organic matter will be via drainage
into receiving waters of Gum Swamp Run an unnamed tributary to South Creek
north of Gum Swamp Run South Creek itself and via South Creek to the Pamlico
River and Pamlico Sound estuary
FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE The ability
of a wetland to alter floodflow and store stormwater depends on site position
within the watershed degree and type of vegetation cover microtopography of
the site and configuration of outlets of the wetland The reduction and delay of
peak flows from runoff and precipitation by a wetland can decrease flood stages
and flood damage Wetland characteristics that increase storage time and allow
attenuated discharge are best at performing this function The P and U Lands
occur on interstream flats associated with the headwaters of South Creek and
headwaters of Gum Swamp Run a tributary to South Creek as well as
headwaters for an unnamed tributary to South Creek north of the P Lands project
area between Peele Road and SR1002 Restoration of the P and U Lands will
decelerate the current rapid downstream delivery of rainfall via plugging of
internal ditches which will increase and prolong on site storage capacity Aquatic
resources downstream of this mitigation site via Gum Swamp Run the unnamed
tributary to South Creek to the north South Creek itself the Pamlico River and
the Pamlico Sound estuary will benefit from restoration of these lands
CAPTURE AND RETENTION OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS
Restoration of the P and U Lands will decrease the erosive velocity within main
canals and ditches reducing downstream transport of sediment A restored
wetland will increase storage capacity and deliver cleaner water downstream with
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

a decreased sediment load While sediment transport from a site dedicated to
silviculture is less than that which would occur from a site dedicated to
agriculture after restoration of streams and headwaters less sediment will be
transported downstream due to longer residency time of the runoff which will
cause any sediment load to be deposited before it reaches the more sensitive
estuarine and nursery waters downstream Pollutants normal to sdvicultural
practices such as herbicides and occasional fertilizers will no longer be utilized
on the site which will also improve downstream waters
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE /DISCHARGE Wetlands which retain
precipitation and /or surface water long enough for percolation into the underlying
sediments or aquifers increase the hydraulic head and either recharge
groundwater and /or discharge it when fully saturated Elevation of the wetland
relative to the underlying groundwater perimeter to volume ratio sod porosity of
the wetland sediments and the recent rainfall are all antecedent conditions that
determine the recharge /discharge potential in any given precipitation event or
season Pre restoration ditch systems discharge rainfall at a rate that delivers a
slug of water quickly downstream and off site preventing local groundwater
recharge and the concomitant slower discharge Plugging or filling P and U
Lands ditch systems will capture local precipitation and freshwater runoff and
recharge local groundwater tables and restore more normally scaled and timed
discharge events that existed prior to drainage alterations for silviculture
Shallower and longer hydropenods in areas adjacent to streams and riparian
headwater systems will increase base flow of Gum Swamp Run and its riparian
headwater system
WILDLIFE HABITAT Wetlands and their associated uplands form complex and
diverse habitats for food shelter and breeding that are essential and attractive to
various types of resident and migratory wildlife species for all or part of their life
cycle The wetlands at the P and U Lands will expand the Holistic South Creek
Corridor Complex and provide more food and cover for a variety of birds
mammals reptiles and amphibians The addition of the P and U Lands into the
Corridor will link together a nearly contiguous area of restored wildlife habitat
encompassing more than 8 706 acres which may be particularly valuable for
area sensitive species such as black bear (Ursus amencanus) red wolf (Canis
rufus) and neotropical migrant birds such as black throated green warbler
(Dendroica wens waynei)
AQUATIC DIVERSITY Mitigation design at P and U Lands will include the
restoration of the upper limits of Gum Swamp Run and its riparian headwater
valley system to provide biotic pathways which support a higher diversity of
organisms than what is currently present Habitats will include both shallow and
very shallow areas single or braided channels and a connection to the perennial
waters of Gum Swamp Run a tributary to South Creek The restoration of these
topographically varied habitats will increase stormwater residency time and
increase the hydropenods of the site Removal of sdvicultural practices and
attenuation of storm water will contribute to improved water quality in
downstream habitats in South Creek a Special Secondary Nursery Area
Additional functions and benefits specific to coastal plain headwater systems are shown
in Table 1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Table 1 Additional functions and benefits specific to coastal plain headwater systems
53 Methods The historic contours of the site do not appear to have been
significantly altered during the timber operation Patterns of high and low areas that span multiple
fields are only interrupted by the field ditches used for the timber operation and remain evident on
UDAR Restoration work will focus on removal or interruption of the function of the interior
manmade drainage features removal of existing vegetation where appropriate including stumps
construction of new manmade drainage features around the perimeter to allow for bypass of
upstream offsite drainage and planting the site with suitable species of trees as dictated by sods
hydrology and landscape position
Interior ditches will be plugged approximately every 800 feet with a 50 foot long clay plug
from sods excavated on site and the roadside ditches will be plugged every 650 feet with a 100
foot long clay plug The completion of these tasks will attenuate the stormwater runoff and will
help restore or enhance a hydropenod similar to historic conditions To reduce potential seed
sources vegetation will be removed where it is comprised almost entirely of Corps designated
nuisance species of sweet gum red maple and loblolly pine such as along the east side of
SR1002 the eastern boundary of the P Lands adjacent to the Casey Tract and along some
interior roadside ditches Spraying of fallow areas by helicopter with an appropriate chemical
mixture is the preferred methodology to control these three species and retard competitive
grasses
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
QIMAD C9 :� ukx
Hydrology
. Runoff reduction
Microtopography
• Flow velocity reduction
Floodplain vegetation
• Energy dissipation
Wrack and debris lines
• Reduced erosion and sedimentation
Overbank flooding
• Maintenance of baseflow
Sod moisture
• Prolonged sod saturation
• Groundwater recharge and discharge
Water quality
• Sediment retention and reduction
Vegetative cover
• Nutrient reduction
Distance from potential
• Carbon export
sources
• Toxicant reduction
Increased retention time
Temperature moderation
Sediment deposition
Saturated soil conditions
Habitat
. Increased area of terrestrial and aquatic
System size /area /extent
habitats
Connectivity with other
. Increased fringe habitat between upland
natural areas
and lowland habitats
Vegetative cover
• Connectivity corridors between different
Woody debris
wetland and upland habitats
Microtopography
• Increased diversity
Specialized native species
• Uniqueness
• Water source for fauna
Geomorphic
• Provide topographic diversity and valley
Valley topography
corridors
Valley slope
• Maintains stream evolution processes
• Maintains valley formation processes
• Variable temperature and moisture
regimes
53 Methods The historic contours of the site do not appear to have been
significantly altered during the timber operation Patterns of high and low areas that span multiple
fields are only interrupted by the field ditches used for the timber operation and remain evident on
UDAR Restoration work will focus on removal or interruption of the function of the interior
manmade drainage features removal of existing vegetation where appropriate including stumps
construction of new manmade drainage features around the perimeter to allow for bypass of
upstream offsite drainage and planting the site with suitable species of trees as dictated by sods
hydrology and landscape position
Interior ditches will be plugged approximately every 800 feet with a 50 foot long clay plug
from sods excavated on site and the roadside ditches will be plugged every 650 feet with a 100
foot long clay plug The completion of these tasks will attenuate the stormwater runoff and will
help restore or enhance a hydropenod similar to historic conditions To reduce potential seed
sources vegetation will be removed where it is comprised almost entirely of Corps designated
nuisance species of sweet gum red maple and loblolly pine such as along the east side of
SR1002 the eastern boundary of the P Lands adjacent to the Casey Tract and along some
interior roadside ditches Spraying of fallow areas by helicopter with an appropriate chemical
mixture is the preferred methodology to control these three species and retard competitive
grasses
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Perimeter berms and by pass ditches (the berm complex) will be constructed along all
boundaries with the exception of the boundaries shared with the Parker Farm portions of the east
side of SR1002 Bay City Farm and South Creek The primary function of the perimeter bypass
ditches is to transfer the offsite flows that are currently routed through the site These flows
include the offsite flow coming from east of Peele Road via Dollar Road ditches the offsite flow
which currently flows through both Small Road ditches the offsite flow which currently comes
from the Casey tract and the offsite flow from east and south of the Phase 3 boundary
The by pass ditch along the north side of the project east of SR 1002 will also receive the
internal surface water runoff from the restored wetland areas north of the Parker Farm and all of
the surface water runoff north of Small Road After restoration these surface water flows will
follow their historic route to the north property line Upon reaching the north property line these
internal flows will pass through spillways located along the north property line and join the other
offsite flows in the by pass ditch
The secondary function of the perimeter by pass ditch is to provide the mineral soil
necessary to construct the perimeter berm This low berm will separate the restored wetlands on
the interior of the site and the perimeter ditches and is approximately 2 feet higher than the
interior of the project In most locations this low berm will prevent the surface water inside the
project boundary from draining into the perimeter ditches and will also serve as an access path
during the monitoring period The majority of the sods around the perimeter of the site are
organic in the upper 1 to 3 feet and the lower portions are mineral Because the organic sod
column will easily decompose and consolidate when exposed to air its use in the perimeter berm
to prevent surface runoff to the adjacent ditch is problematic and undesirable To minimize the
height of construction for the berm the lower 3 to 5 feet of the more stable mineral sods will be
used to construct the perimeter berm The berm will be constructed on top of the organic soils
and will have a small keyway of mineral soil that extends from the bottom of the berm through the
organic topsoil into the underlying mineral sod This keyway will help anchor the berm and will
reduce the lateral drainage effect caused by the perimeter ditch Spillways will be placed in the
perimeter berms adjacent to the lower portions of the project These spillways will limit the
depths and duration of standing water that would threaten the survival of the newly planted
stems
The restoration of Gum Swamp Run and its headwater valley will require the ditches
between Small Road and Bay City 4 to be filled The small amounts of existing spoil material
adjacent to each of the interior field ditches constructed for silviculture will also be used to fill a
portion of the depth of these ditches The organic topsoil which is generated first during the
excavation of the perimeter by pass ditches will be used to fill the remaining depth of these
ditches For the majority of the other existing ditches outside of the Gum Swamp Run system
plugs will be used to stop the interior drainage For the ditches to be plugged any spoil material
that is left adjacent to the ditches may be left in place if the volume of the spoil is relatively small
compared to the volume of the ditch Excess organic sod generated in the construction of the
perimeter ditches not needed to fill the silviculture ditches in Gum Swamp Run valley (between
Bay City 3 and Bay City 4) will be placed in the field ditch closest to where the organic sod was
generated A mixture of wood chips and organic topsoil will also be placed in the field ditches
where the field ditches are close to wood chip piles The sod and clay needed to construct the
plugs will be generated from small borrow areas located at least 100 feet away from the plug to
prevent ground disturbance in the area of the plugs
Most existing gravel roads will be left in place in the P and U Lands and be used for
monitoring access along with the constructed perimeter berms One additional road will be
constructed to divert public travel across the bottom southwestern half of the U Lands instead of
through the site Currently any vehicles that try to access Rodman (Bonner) Road from the east
must travel west on County Line Road turn north at Gum Road proceed to its northern end turn
west onto Executive (Jaime) Road and then south onto Rodman (Bonner) Road This plan
proposes to construct a western extension of drainage across the southern boundary of the U
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 10 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Lands from the end of County Line Road such that it intersects directly into Rodman (Bonner)
Road This will allow for the continuation of offsite drainage currently routed along both sides of
Gum Road The adjacent roadside ditches of Gum Road will be plugged New gates will be
installed at the north and south ends of Gum Road to restrict access for the monitoring period
Additionally one existing road Benfewell Road located along the north property line adjacent to
Peele Road will be improved to allow access to Weyerhaeuser the adjacent property owner
Restoration activities in non jurisdictional areas of Phase 1 began in 2010 and this
section will be planted in early 2012 Phase 2 timbering activities began in 2011 and this section
will be planted in early 2013 Timber activities for the final phase west of SR1002 also began in
2011 and it will be planted in early 2014 The area in each phase will be seeded with an
appropriate mix of forbs as dictated by sediment and erosion control permits until it is planted
with an appropriate mix of wetland trees and shrubs commonly found in similar soils and
topography or known to historically exist on similar sites
In the clearing and grubbing of the Phase 1 area the removal of the tree stumps from just
below the ground surface left small depressional areas which mimic wetland surface roughness
Since there is no evidence in the UDAR data that shows any grading of the fields was performed
to facilitate drainage at the time of the timber planting no mass grading or reworking of the
ground surface is necessary within the wetland flat areas other than that required to plug the
ditches or to remove stumps and rake land clearing debris Within the headwater valley of Gum
Swamp Run minor grading will be utilized to restore the headwater valley In the lower 1 000 +/
of the valley a small channel will be constructed where the contributory watershed area exceeds
200 acres and the longitudinal slope exceeds or equals 0 002 feet per linear foot In some areas
that may have sod compaction as the result of construction traffic the use of a tiller to break up
compaction in the upper 12 +/ may be used immediately prior to planting to facilitate the
establishment of the bare root seedlings
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as the anticipated holder
of the conservation easement upon completion of monitoring has requested the construction of
small parking areas in strategic locations in each phase to allow hunters to park a total of 10
parking areas Post monitoring these parking lots and associated gates will restrict vehicle
access to the interior roads However the easement holder will maintain many of the existing
interior roads as walking trails for the public hunters
Land clearing work will continue to progress incrementally under a sequence of Erosion
and Sediment Control permits issued from the Washington Regional Office of the state Division of
Land Resources Appendix D contains the typical cross sections planned for specific areas
531 Phase 1 Work The land use in this portion of the project was timber
plantations with interior roads traversing east west (Bay City Nos 1 3 and 4) and perimeter roads
(SRI 002 and Peele Road) traversing north south Small Road and County Line Road which also
traverse east west are the northern and southern boundary roads of this phase Currently
interior ditches drain to the north and then are intercepted by roadside ditches adjacent to Bay
City Nos 1 3 and 4 or by Small Road which drains to the west towards the SRI 002 canal This
water is then delivered via the SRI 002 east side canal to Gum Swamp Run and South Creek
Along the eastern property line adjacent to the Casey Tract the north south
canal shown as County Line No 1 on Figure 6 whose alignment varies from straddling the east
property line on the south end and traversing up to 800 feet west of the east property line will be
relocated to immediately inside the east property line for its entire length along the Casey Tract
Perimeter ditches will be either enlarged or constructed on the south boundary along County Line
Road and the eastern boundary along the Casey Tract in Phase 1 These ditches will provide a
route to bypass offsite drainage around the perimeter of the site instead of through it fill for a
portion of the field ditches adjacent to the east property boundary and also provide the soil
necessary to construct the adjacent perimeter berm
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 11 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Private roads Bay City Nos 1 3 and 4 will be left in place for monitoring access
and to benefit the long term easement holder However the roadside ditches adjacent to these
three roads will be plugged The roadside ditch south of Small Road will remain open during
Phase 1 and then will be plugged toward the end of Phase 2 Pre restoration UDAR indicates
that the southwest corner of the project (south of Bay City No 1 and Bay City No 3) will be lower
in elevation than some of the surrounding areas Four spillways at elevation 10 5 feet will be
incorporated into the perimeter drainage at the western ends of the roads and the western end of
the south perimeter berm such that standing water will not compromise the survival of planted
vegetation Following an analysis on projected 100 year flood stages the existing perimeter
berm along the east side of the canal east of SR1002 will be modified by raising the berm
approximately 12 inches This work will be limited to the areas south of Bay City No 3 The
NCWRC parking lots constructed in Phase 1 will be located at the west ends of Bay City Nos 1
3 and 4
A portion of the Parker Farm will also discharge into the most eastern section of
the Phase 1 area adjacent to and dust west of Peele Road The present discharge of this portion
of the Parker Farm occurs where the western ditch of Peele Road touches the north edge of the
Parker Farm During construction of Phase 1 in this area a portion of the Parker Farm discharge
will be restricted from entering the Peele Road ditch As a result the water will then be
discharged on the adjacent portions of Phase 1 where this phase is contiguous with the Parker
Farm The historic flow pattern from this portion of the Parker Farm will be reconnected allowing
hydropenod of this portion of Phase 1 to be restored similar to historic conditions
In most of Phase 1 after timber removal by Weyerhaeuser contractors removed
stumps and slash and placed the material in piles to be chipped as mulch Chips were to be
distributed across the site as mulch at depths no greater than 2 4 inches When it became
evident that the lower fields in Phase 1 had chip depths in excess of 4 inches and that the amount
and depth of chips would complicate planting and potentially jeopardize survival of planted trees
it was decided to cease the chipping of stumps and leave the piles of stumps to decay in place
Subsequently it was decided that chips already distributed at acceptable depths would remain as
placed and areas where chip depths exceeded 4 inches would be raked to consolidate the chips
into piles for decomposition To compensate for the potential increased mortality as a result of
chip depth and sod acidity higher planting densities are planned for areas with chips than areas
without chips
Approximately 219 acres of areas with deep chips were raked and the chips were
piled into cones of varied height and widths which average 12 feet high and 40 feet in diameter
In late August 2011 Hurricane Irene brought high winds and abundant rain ( -10 inches) which
flooded the site and redistributed 125 acres of deep mostly unpded wood chips from fields south
of Small Road and deposited those chips and additional debris from the stump piles in large
drifts in the southeast corner of the P Lands at the intersection of Peele Road and the Parker
Farm and left other smaller chip rafts throughout the tracts (see Appendix C photos) These drifts
were re raked after the storm Seven borrow pits were excavated for plug and berm base
materials Chips raked from adjacent fields were then used to fill the bottom of these borrow pits
with the original topsoil replaced on top of the chips
For the remainder of the restoration beyond Phase 1 the stumps will be removed
from the ground excess dirt shaken off piled and allowed to decay in place In areas where the
timber contractor left small hardwood trees these were chipped in place since the density of the
hardwoods and their volume is minimal when compared to the volumes of the stumps from the
pines
Three NCWRC parking lots will be constructed during Phase 1 at the west ends
of the following roads Bay City No 4 Bay City No 3 and Bay City No 1 All culverts around the
perimeter of the Phase 1 project boundary found in disrepair or dysfunction will be replaced
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 12 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

532 Phase 2 Work The present land use within this phase is loblolly pine
plantation with Bay City No 4 Royal Benfewell and Small Roads traversing east west and two
perimeter roads (Peele and SR1002) traversing more or less north south For this phase Bay
City No 4 in the western half and Small Road in the eastern half form the southern boundary and
Benfewell along with the western portion of Royal Road form the northern boundary The eastern
portion of Royal Road is an interior road Interior drainage ditches run north south on 660 foot
spacing and generally connect on one end at either the south or north end of the ditch The ends
of the north south field ditches connect to roadside ditches along either Royal Road or Small
Road
As in Phase 1 the proposed restoration work will consist of the construction of
the perimeter berm complex with ditches to direct the offsite water that currently drains through
the site around the perimeter of the proposed wetland restoration The material generated from
the perimeter ditch construction will be used to construct the perimeter berm portion of the
complex to retain the onsite surface water and to fill the field ditches south of Small Road and
North of Bay City No 4 Presently the three interior roads Benfewell Royal and Small have
adjacent roadside ditches The ditches receive drainage from the interior field ditches and also
pass offsite drainage from the properties to the east and south to the canal along the east side of
SR1002 which then passes the water to the west towards South Creek via Gum Swamp Run
All three of these interior roads will remain after the restoration work is complete but their
adjacent roadside ditches will be plugged These plugged ditches will decelerate the rapid
drainage of stormwater from the site and increase the hydropenod Offsite stormwater runoff that
currently flows through the interior ditches will be intercepted by the proposed perimeter ditches
and routed as described above A similar evaluation and analysis as done for Phase 1 will be
performed to determine the spillway elevations for Phase 2 so that standing water will not
compromise the survival of planted vegetation stems
The interior field ditches of Phase 2 will receive two different forms of
modification that stops the drainage of the interior fields All of the field ditches north of Small
Road will be plugged with 50 long earthen plugs which are spaced approximately every 800 feet
However the entire length of the interior field ditches between Small Road and Bay City No 4 will
be filled to the elevations of the adjacent side of the ditch (not the elevation of any spoil material)
The complete fill in these ditches will restore the overland flow necessary to restore /re establish
the flow within the historic Gum Swamp Run headwater valley and stream The roadside ditches
will be plugged every 650 feet and will coincide with the intersection of each field ditch with the
roadside ditch The sod needed to create the interior and roadside ditch plugs will be generated
from borrow areas adjacent to plug location but at least 100 feet away to minimize ground
disturbances in the area of the plug The sod needed for the plug will be removed from the
borrow area and the void will be filled with the organic top sod from the perimeter ditch work or
other areas within the tobsite The sod needed to fill the field ditches between Bay City No 3 and
Bay City No 4 will be generated from any spoil adjacent to the ditch that is still present and then
with the sod excavated from the bypass canal located along the north property line The sod will
be placed in the field ditches until the grade reaches the elevation adjacent to the ditch with
allowances made for compaction and settling The borrow area along the north perimeter of this
phase which is also the projects north property line will serve as a by pass ditch for the
incoming waters from areas east of Phase 2 to the SR1002 canal located on the west boundary
of Phase 2
A remnant headwater valley running north south exists near the middle of the
Phase 2 portion of the site in the upper northwest corner along Benfewell Road After restoration
this headwater valley will receive excess runoff and begin flowing to the north end of the site To
restore the natural surface flow that is currently blocked by the existing roads at grade crossings
will be added to the two interior roads Royal and Small These at grade road crossings will lower
the existing roadbed and surface down to the grades of the adjacent restored site which will
allow the stormwater runoff to follow the historic flow pattern as shown on the LiDAR image
When the stormwater runoff reaches the north end of the site it will pond up until it reaches the
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 13 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

height of the overflow spillway which discharges the water into the by pass ditch located along
the north property line The perimeter ditch along the eastern boundary of the project adjacent to
Peele Road will receive a portion of the water discharged from the Parker Farm and also can
receive water from the areas east of Phase 2 Water within this proposed eastern perimeter ditch
will flow to the north and will be connected to the by pass ditch that flows to the west along the
northern border of Phase 2 and the project
The northwest portion of the Parker Farm was historically part of the drainage
basin of Gum Swamp Run To capture as much of the historic basin area of Gum Swamp Run as
possible the current short discharge canal to Small Road from the northwest corner of the Parker
Farm will be filled When this canal is filled the historic discharge point will then be re
established along 700 feet of land where the western boundary of the Parker Farm is contiguous
with the P Lands This diffused flow will enter the P Lands at the upper headwaters of Gum
Swamp Run beyond the northern tip of the Casey Tract The upper end of the headwater valley
of Gum Swamp Run will be reconstructed mostly by the re delivery of water to the existing valley
Minimal earthwork will be necessary to remove flow obstructions from silviculture operations and
to restore the signature of the stream and valley as shown on LiDAR
Review of the Parker Farm design hydrologic data and recent confirmation of
existing elevations were utilized to establish the intended discharge elevation and to factor the
historic discharge from this portion of the Parker Farm This historic discharge from the Parker
Farm will become part of the contributory area included in the restoration of the headwater
system of Gum Swamp Run and will complement the restoration of the zero and first order
stream components of this system While the Parker Farm spillways and existing roadside
ditches divert some of the historic drainage of Gum Swamp Run the restoration of the P Lands
provides opportunity to reconnect several hundred acres of the basin currently lost to the system
through culverts and roadside ditches
The Gum Swamp Run valley within the P Lands is approximately 5 700 feet long
and collects approximately 300 acres of runoff within the P Lands and potentially 100 acres from
the Parker Farm essentially containing almost the entire historic headwater drainage area
Restoration work will include closure of the manmade discharge route (spillway) for the Parker
Farm to allow overland flow to reconnect discharge into the Gum Swamp Run valley Detailed
UDAR coupled with ponded water evident in the valley on a sequence of recent aerial
photographs provide the plan form of the existing channel and valley restoration (refer to
Appendix C for photographs) Work for the Gum Swamp Run valley within the P Lands will re
establish connectivity with the historic valley in three distinct areas the upper valley the mid
valley and the lower valley In the upper valley immediately adjacent to the Parker Farm the
work will consist of removal of the stumps from the timber operation fill of the interior field ditches
to restore surface flow westward to the mid valley and removal of any spoil material between the
P Lands and the Parker Farm Work within the mid valley will include removal of the stumps from
the timber operation fill of the manmade ditches and minor grading of the valley to remove any
manmade planting beds and furrows which would hinder surface flow Work within the lower
valley will include removal of stumps fill of the manmade ditches and the restoration of a low to
moderate energy coastal plain stream system within the last 900 feet of the lower valley
The presence of a smaller zero order riparian headwater system dust south of the
main stem of Gum Swamp Run is also evident on UDAR (Figure 5A) Restoration of this system
would include filling the ditches in the valley plugging of those ditches outside the valley and
avoidance of unnecessary equipment passes or constructed haul roads which would interfere
with the existing valley topography
All work in either valley will strive to preserve or mimic the existing system which
is frequently evident in recent aerial photographs (Appendix C) Valley widths in the Gum Swamp
Run and the zero order valley to the south vary from approximately 1 100 feet wide in the lower
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 14 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

valley to less than 100 feet wide in portions of the upper valleys All ditches outside the valleys
will be plugged
The Gum Swamp Run riparian headwater system lies entirely within the P Lands
and is suitable for restoration as suggested by recent coastal plain research (Furness and
Tweedy 2010 Corps 2007 and Sweet and Geratz 2003) and also contains the four stream
dimensions per Ward (1989) and Corps (2011)
• Adequate upstream and downstream length (5 700 feet)
• Adequate valley width (varies from 1 100 to 100 feet)
• Adequate vertical pathways for biotic and hyporheic exchange (variability
in surface water and groundwater interface from low to upper valley)
• Adequate temporal control (entire headwaters contained within project
prescribed vegetation community changes from lower to upper valley
adaptive management will address structural stability as necessary)
According to Furness and Tweedy (2010) the slope and drainage area indicate
that the lower valley portion of the larger Gum Swamp Run itself could support moderate channel
formation Their data also suggest that the smaller system is not likely to form an incised
moderate energy channel but that flow events may occur with enough frequency to warrant
inclusion in the monitoring and projected mitigation yields The geometry of the Gum Swamp
Run headwater system and the zero order valley to the south are shown in Table 2
Table 2 Summary of reach /segment characteristics lengths and channel form of Gum Swamp
Run and zero order feature to the south
Reach
Cu- mul'ative
� ti
c4ntriMutory area
Slope
Distance
C- hhnnel
Lower valley
(acre)
(rise /run)
(feet)
firm
Gum Swam Run
Lower valley
270
0 002
985
Moderate
Mid valley
186
000096
2087
Poor
Upper valley
68
00008
2 500
Poor
Zero order UT
80
0 001
1 000
Poor
The existing perimeter pipe adjacent to Peele Road at the intersection of Royal
Road will be relocated to be in line with the perimeter ditch constructed along the east property
line At the west end of the north property line of Phase 2 several large pipes will be added
These pipes will connect the large flows from areas east and south of the project as well as the
overflow runoff from Phase 2 and transfer these flows from the north property line by pass canal
into the SR1002 canal
Four NCWRC requested parking lots will be constructed as part of Phase 2 work
one at the east end of Small Road at Peele Road one at the west end of Small Road at SR1002
one at northwest corner of Benfewell Road and one at Royal Road between Benfewell Road and
Peele Road
533 Phase 3 Work Phase 3 consists of the lands within the P Lands that are
west of SR1002 and all of the U Lands The present land use within Phase 3 is timber plantation
with the interior road Bay City No 2 oriented east west and other interior roads County Line No
2 and Gum Road oriented north south Perimeter roads include Rodman /Bonner Road to the
west and Bay City Road (SR1002) to the east both of which traverse north south County Line
Road is the southern boundary and Jaime /Executive Road is the northern boundary for this
phase and both traverse east west Interior field ditches drain the water south to County Line
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 15 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Road in the P Lands portion where it then flows west into the U Lands The U Lands interior
ditches flow east west to the center of the property into the roadside ditches adjacent to Gum
Road The Gum Road roadside ditches flow to the north where the water is discharged into
South Creek
Similar to earlier phases the existing interior ditches will be plugged every 800 —
1 000 feet with a clay material excavated from a borrow pit at least 100 feet from the plug
essentially stopping the drainage of the interior portions of the site approximately every 800 feet
Material for roadside plugs along County Line No 2 and Gum Road will be excavated from
nearby areas no less than 100 feet from the proposed plug Excess topsoil from the construction
of the perimeter berm complex will be used to backfdl the borrow areas close to their existing
grades
Existing offsite drainage within the Phase 3 portion must be maintained from two
sources From the east the runoff from SR1002 currently flows through the interior of the site
entering at the east end of Bay City 2 From there it flows west to County Line No 2 and then to
the south to the ditch on the north side of County Line Road This north roadside ditch of County
Line Road then flows to the west picking up inflows from the second source a small area dust
south of Gum Road At Gum Road all of the existing offsite flow turns to the north in the east
roadside ditch of Gum Road and then outfalls via an existing culvert into South Creek These
existing offsite flows will be maintained by the proposed perimeter ditch and berm system along
SR1002 and along the north side of County Line Road A proposed ditch and berm will be
constructed on the east boundary adjacent to SR1002 The offsite drainage from this area will be
collected by the proposed ditch along the east boundary and then flow south to County Line
Road The proposed ditch along the north side of County Line Road will transport the water to
the west to the intersection of Gum Road At Gum Road the existing offsite inflow from the small
area to the south of Gum Road will loin the flows from the east The new proposed perimeter
berm complex will be constructed heading west from the intersection of Gum Road and County
Line Road along the south property line of the U Lands Where the proposed perimeter ditch
meets the west property line of the U Lands the ditch will be connected to the ditch on the west
side of Rodman Road Here the existing flows from the east will loin into the existing flows
coming from south of County Line Road and west of Bonner Road and will flow to the north to
Jaime Road where they will pass under an existing culvert into the existing canal along the north
side of Jaime Road This existing canal along the north side of Jaime Road flows a short
distance to the east until it connects with South Creek The inflow into South Creek is also at the
intersection of Gum Road and Jaime Road All three of the interior roads Bay City No 2 County
Line No 2 and Gum Road will remain after the restoration work is complete but the roadside
ditches adjacent to each of these roads will be plugged
A perimeter berm will also be constructed as part of the perimeter ditch system
The proposed perimeter berm will prevent the surface water within the restoration site from
discharging into the perimeter ditch system The perimeter berm will be built with the material
that is generated from the construction of the proposed perimeter ditch system along SR1002 and
the extension of County Line Road west of Gum Road or from the expansion of the existing
ditches along the north side of County Line Road The proposed perimeter ditch and berm
heading west from Gum Road and County Line Road will also have a public road built on top of
the berm This proposed road will maintain access to Bonner Road from SR1002 in lieu of having
public access through the U Lands On the west boundary of the U Lands the perimeter berm
complex will also have a road that will be utilized by the proposed easement holder NCWRC for
access to the proposed parking area located along the north boundary of the U Lands
The Phase 3 spillway elevations are set using the same analyses as in earlier
phases of the project so that standing water will not compromise the survival of planted
vegetation stems An at grade crossing will be built at the north end of Gum Road to allow the
water from the west side of Gum Road to flow to the east side where the water will outfall to
South Creek The existing culvert located in the east ditch of Gum Road will be replaced with a
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 16 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

new culvert downstream of the proposed spillway The existing culvert and riser located in the
north side of County Line Road at the western boundary of the P Lands will be removed The
culvert that transfers the offsite discharge from the south of the U Lands at Gum Road will
remain
Three NCWRC requested parking lots will be constructed within the project site
in Phase 3 at the east end of Bay City No 2 near the intersection of County Line No 2 and
County Line Road and near the intersection of Executive /Jaime Road with Gum Road at the
north end of the U Lands
6 0 HYDROLOGY
61 Hydrologic Models The DRAINMOD computer program was used to predict
the long term water table elevations and the sites ability to meet the hydropenod criteria This
program was created by Dr R Wayne Skaggs in 1978 at North Carolina State University
DRAINMOD is a computer simulation model developed for soils with shallow water tables The
model is based on a water balance in the sod profile and uses approximate methods to quantify
the various hydrologic components such as infiltration surface roughness surface runoff deep
and lateral seepage crop type and evapotranspiration It has been tested and found to be
reliable for a wide range of sod and climatological conditions (Skaggs et al 1981 Gayle et al
1985 Fouss et al 1987 Rogers 1985 McMahon et al 1987 and Susanto et al 1987)
62 Water Budget The objective of a water budget is to document the water table
elevations relative to the ground surface The location of the ground water relative to the ground
surface is an indicator of several key functions for both wetland restoration and agriculture For
restoration the location of the water table relative to the ground surface will determine the
hydropenod For agriculture these key functions include crop stress and access into a farm field
A water budget was created using DRAINMOD to calculate the amount of water present on the
site Wetland hydrology has two parameters that must be present to determine wetland status a
volume of water must be present so that the depth of the water table is within 12 inches of the
ground surface and the time in number of days for which this condition is met The program
using an hourly time step calculates the amount of water the site receives and then calculates
the amount of water lost When there is more water received than lost the elevation of the water
table rises by the calculated amount when more water is lost than received the water table
recedes by the calculated amount The program can be set to count the number of days that the
water table is within 12 inches of the ground surface When calculated over a long period of time
such as 20 years the water budget can be used to see how seasonal patterns of water level
fluctuations (inflow outflow and storage) may affect the hydropenod at a given site
621 Water Budget Inputs Meteorology. Evapotranspirat7on. and Soil Data
Detailed long term meteorology and evapotranspiration records are required for use in
DRAINMOD Weather data from nearest NOAA weather station located at the PCS Phosphate
facility at Aurora NC approximately 10 miles to the north of the project area (NOAA Station
Aurora 6N) were used as inputs for the model In situ measurements were performed using an
Amoozemeter on the major sod types to determine the lateral permeabdities Laboratory testing
was completed to determine sod water characteristics
622 Water Budget Output Long term water budgets were calculated using
the yearly summary from DRAINMOD The water budget shows the total rainfall for a given year
(input) and then shows the quantity infiltrated the quantity lost to evapotranspiration the quantity
lost to drainage(subsurface flow) and the quantity lost to runoff (surface flow) The basic
relationships between the categories are as follows
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 17 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Input to system = Rainfall (R)
Rainfall volume captured by the surface roughness and local storage =
infiltration (F)
Volume in excess of the volume infiltrated = runoff (surface runoff) (RO)
Two losses can occur to the volume infiltrated they are either lost
through subsurface drainage or evapotranspiration
The volume infiltrated is the volume used to lengthen the hydropenod of
the site The site has been designed to increase the surface roughness
that will detain the rainfall long enough for infiltration to occur In years
with minimal rainfall the volume infiltrated as a percentage of rainfall is
high Conversely in years of significant rainfall the volume infiltrated as
a percentage of rainfall is low
Results from DRAINMOD are not a detailed design tool but are typically used for
general confirmation of the ability of a site to be restored to a wetland During the design phase
simulations were run for the nearby PCS Bay City Farm mitigation site which like the P and U
Lands is also underlain by mostly Ponzer soils (60 and 80 percent respectively) These
simulations were consulted along with site specific monitoring well data collected in the P Lands
perimeter ditches and the interior
70 PLANTING DESIGN
The planting plan for the P and U Lands has been designed to reflect soil characteristics field
observations expected hydrology and to a lesser degree seedling availability To accommodate
varying hydrologic regimes as a result of avoidance of hydrologic trespass pine timber and stump
removal and variable sod pH the planting zones and species mix were further refined Wetland
community types found in North Carolina Wetland Assessment (NCWAM) Method Version 4 1
(NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team October 2010) and the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina Third Approximation (Shafale and Weakley 1990) were also used
to develop specific community types In addition the United States Department of Agriculture s
(USDA) website and plants database was consulted (http //plants usda gov /lava /) as a source of
plant tolerances characteristics and occurrence Survival results from several monitoring reports
of other PCS mitigation sites constructed on similar sods were also utilized A total of eight
planting zone /community types are shown in Figure 9 and include
• Rivenne swamp forest (Zone 1 historic upper reach of South Creek west of Gum
Road in the U Lands historic upper reach of Gum Swamp Run on east side of
SR1002 in P Lands)
• Headwater forest (Zone 2 lower valley areas upstream of South Creek in U
Lands Gum Swamp Run and a small zero order valley to the south of Gum
Swamp Run and the UT to South Creek in P Lands)
• Non rnvenne swamp forest (Zone 3 large interstream flats in U and P Lands)
• Pond pine pocosin bay forest (Zones 4 and 4A historic areas of pond
pine /pocosin vegetation in U and P Lands)
• Hardwood flat (Zones 5 and 6 based on elevation differences and soil types in U
and P Lands)
• Swales (filled or plugged interior ditches likely to display wetter hydropenods than
surrounding areas or lower areas near the 10 5 foot outfalls Zone 7 in U and P
Lands) and
• Riparian headwater valley (Zone 8 Gum Swamp Run in P Lands)
The planting plan for Phase 1 needed to be completed by mid summer 2011 in order to reserve
stems at the nurseries for 2012 planting and was completed prior to the discovery of excessive
wood chip depths and the decision to pile chips in certain areas The field south of Bay City No 1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 18 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

experienced very poor sprouting of the seed mix required by the sediment and erosion control
permit Although sprouting was likely compromised by prior dry conditions and little subsequent
rainfall this field was also found to have very low sod pH values and large areas of chip materials
greater than 4 inches in depth To compensate for potential low survival due to the low sod pH
and chip depths Zone 4A was designed to be planted at a density of 680 stems per acre ( -8 x 8
feet) Areas of Phase 1 which had chips distributed prior to the decision to either remove all chips
from the site or leave stump piles and in which chip depths were more tolerable will be planted
at a density of 538 stems per acre ( -9 x9 feet) All other portions of the site regardless of phase
or planting zone will be planted at a density of 436 stems per acre ( -10x 10 feet) with the
exception of Zones 3 and 4 (which contain Atlantic white cedar) which will be planted at 538
stems per acre The phasing of restoration over three years will allow for further adjustments in
planting density and species composition if early results of monitoring so indicate or additional
impediments are encountered
A variety of wetland hardwood tree species were considered for planting In addition to trees
some shrubs (no more than 10 percent of stems) will be incorporated into the plan to promote
and offer a diverse landscape Restored areas will be planted with bare root seedlings and some
tublings of native tree and shrub species that are known to have occurred historically in either
Beaufort County the project area specifically or on sites in similar landscape position with similar
sods Appendix E lists the species intended for each zone
Weyerhaeuser s timber rights in the U Lands expire in 2012 and this mitigation plan and the
Corps PCN application of which it is a part will be submitted prior to that expiration However
depending on the timber market and other aspects of the Weyerhaeuser operation it is possible
that existing forested areas slated for harvest will not be cut prior to the expiration of their rights
If this is the case these forests will not be cut and replanted by PCS as they contain mature
specimens of desired species along with other less desirable species including nuisance
species Figure 9 assumes these areas will be cut by Weyerhaeuser by 2012 and replanted by
PCS Also a decision may be made in the future to grind the vegetation in the early successional
forest within the preservation areas of the northern P and U Lands west of the Bay City Farm and
to replant with more desirable tree species for enhancement (rehabilitation) credit
8 0 MONITORING DATA COLLECTION
Periodic monitoring is necessary to document the status of restored wetlands and to document
success criteria These efforts include installation of and data collection from rain gauges and
groundwater wells periodic photographic documentation vegetation monitoring and headwater
stream profile evaluations and monitoring of flow where appropriate Monitoring 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 the restoration site
Permanent photo point locations will be established and marked to facilitate photographs being
taken at the same locations each monitoring year Figure 10 depicts the various monitoring
locations /types as described below
81 Vegetation Monitoring Plots Monitoring plots will be established on
approximately 2 percent of the restoration area to monitor planted stems Individual plots will be
60 feet x 225 feet in size (approximately 0 3 acre) Plots will be located to represent a range of
conditions across the restoration site The plots will be oriented from the well corner using a table
of random azimuths however azimuths may be slightly adjusted if necessary to avoid
obstructions avoid crossing of Gum Swamp Run and /or remain within the parcel boundaries or
within a specific zone
Immediately after planting has occurred planted stems within vegetation plots will be
marked with poles and when leaf out has occurred each tree /shrub will be tagged identified and
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 19 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

counted Each year after restoration and prior to leaf fall in autumn vegetation plots will be
sampled for survival No more than 10 percent of the site will also be planted with suitable woody
shrub species which will also be tagged and tracked separately from planted trees Near the end
of vegetation monitoring 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 )
811 Volunteer Woody Vegetation Sampling To further describe
composition of the vegetative community on the site and to assist in the assessment of
colonization by other species (including nuisance species) at the fifth year all living stems of
woody vegetation within each tree and shrub plot will be identified and counted including planted
stems and volunteer colonizing species Non planted individuals of characteristic wetland
species are an important component to the reestablished wetland as they serve as additional
indicators of appropriate hydrologic regimes and vegetative success and provide increased
diversity density and cover type Such data may also indicate the vigor of the existing seed
bank and alter the species mix selected for subsequent phases Colonizing volunteers will be
tracked separately from the planted trees and shrubs and not counted toward the success
criterion Table 3 contains a list of acceptable volunteer species in the re established wetlands P
and U Lands site by habitat type
Table 3 List of appropriate woody species with the potential to colonize the site ( planted
species which may colonize)
Habitat types NRSF= non nvenne swamp forest RSF = nvenne swamp forest BLH= bottomland hardwood
forest HF= hardwood flat HWF= headwater forest PO= pocosin
812 Nuisance Vegetation Monitoring In accordance with other PCS
mitigation site plans or permit conditions and methodology at Years 2 and 3 nuisance monitoring
plots will be established to quantify the presence and estimated percentage of sweet gum red
maple and loblolly pine These nuisance species monitoring plots will be smaller than the
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 20 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
American elm
Ulmus amencana
BLH HF RSF (piedmont)
American holly
Ilex opaca
HF
Box elder
Acer negundo
BLH
Fetterbush
Lyon►a luc►da
NRSF PO
Gallberry
Ilex coriacea
RSF PO
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
RSF NRSF
High bush blueberry
Vacc►n►um corymbosum
NRSF RSF
Coastal (swamp) doghobble
Eubotrys racemosa
RSF PO
Pond pine
Pinus serohna
HWF NRSF PO
Red bay swamp red bay
Persea borbon►a P palustns
NRSF PO
Southern bayberry
Morella carohn►ens►s
NRSF
Sweetbay
Magnoha virg►n►ana
NRSF PO
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra aln►foha
NRSF
Tulip poplar
L►r►odendron tulip►fera
NRSF RSF HWF HF
Wax myrtle
Morella cenfera
NRSF RSF HWF
Habitat types NRSF= non nvenne swamp forest RSF = nvenne swamp forest BLH= bottomland hardwood
forest HF= hardwood flat HWF= headwater forest PO= pocosin
812 Nuisance Vegetation Monitoring In accordance with other PCS
mitigation site plans or permit conditions and methodology at Years 2 and 3 nuisance monitoring
plots will be established to quantify the presence and estimated percentage of sweet gum red
maple and loblolly pine These nuisance species monitoring plots will be smaller than the
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 20 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

vegetation monitoring plots and occupy a 1 meter square area anchored by one corner of each
tree plot at the plot end away from the monitoring well All volunteer woody stems will be counted
within the nuisance monitoring plots If necessary based on results of the two years of nuisance
monitoring a remedial action plan for control of the nuisance species will be developed for
approval (See Section 9 3) In Years 4 and 5 nuisance monitoring will continue and dependent
on results the remediation plan may be implemented
82 Hydrology and Rainfall Monitoring More than a year of pre restoration
hydrology data have been collected for portions of the P Lands and extensive post monitoring of
hydrology will occur in order to determine the success of restoration of wetland hydrology
Electronic and manual groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the project site to
document the post restoration water table (at an approximate density of one well /15 acres) 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 wetland functions
Data from an automated rain gauge are currently available from the Bay City Farm
mitigation site The automated rain gauge may be moved from the Bay City Farm to a suitable
location on the P or U Lands once restoration of Bay City Farm mitigation site is complete The
gauge is currently installed in an open area a minimum of 100 feet from any tall tree or buildings
Two other rain gauges will be installed one near the eastern end of the project and one near the
western end in order to keep a rain gauge within one mile of the area it represents Rain gauge
data will be used in conjunction with data from the nearby Aurora NOAA weather station at PCS
to determine rainfall during the monitoring period Long term WETS tables and precipitation data
from the Aurora NOAA weather station will be used annually to determine periods of normal
rainfall (htto / /www wcc nres usda Qov /climate /wets doc html #Section1)
83 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems) Greater
than 70 percent of the total stream miles in most watersheds consist of headwater streams which
underscore their importance to overall watershed health Collectively small headwater streams
and their associated wetlands contribute largely to the attenuation of runoff and sediment
assimilation of pollutants and carbon production and delivery for downstream areas (Rhemhardt
et al 1999) However determining specific measurable attainable reasonable and trackable
success criteria to the restored functions can be difficult especially when working with headwater
systems in the Coastal Plain Because of their small size and location in the watershed they are
very susceptible to seasonal changes and the effects of drought Furthermore while headwater
systems are important for overall watershed health their functions in the landscape are variable
and baseline data on unaltered headwater streams in the southeastern Coastal Plain are not
currently available
This project proposes to restore lost headwater stream aquatic functions as well as
riparian and non riparian wetland functions (refer to Section 5 2 and Table 1) Zero order
headwater streams are often part of a wetland system and share some similar measurable
functions Table 4 lists the restored functions that are proposed to be tied to success at the P
and U Lands and how those functions will be monitored and measured These functions were
based on information provided in Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration (Fishenich 2006)
Table 4 Restored wetland or stream functions and measurement methods
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 21 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
Headwater stream processes
Upstream /downstream
. Valley cross sections
• Visual documentation
Riparian succession
Temporal
. Vegetation plots
Surface water storage
Vertical and horizontal
. Hydrologic monitoring wells
semi continuous
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 21 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Subsurface water storage Vertical . Hydrologic monitoring wells
semi continuous
Landscape pathway for plant and Temporal . Vegetation plots
animal migration
Flow pathway Horizontal . Photo documentation
physical evidence of flow
event low flow aauoe
In the riparian headwater system valley of Gum Swamp Run semi continuous monitoring
wells will also be installed in perpendicular arrays across the valley to assist in identification of the
two types of riparian wetlands (headwater forest and riverine swamp forest) and to increase
density of data points for analysis of hydrographs up and across the valley Arrays will be
approximately 500 feet apart (along the long axis) of the valley (at least 3 arrays per 1 000 foot
reach upstream center downstream) The center well in each array will be in the perceived
lowest part of the valley and the number of wells in the array will be dependent upon width and
slope of the valley
Documentation of flow in the Gum Swamp Run riparian headwater system for the
success criterion is not limited to the growing season Qualitative data will be collected during
the on site investigations to document surface water flow This shall be accomplished using
photographic evidence of observed flow coupled with a preponderance of field indicators of
recent flow events in the form of a natural line impressed on the bank shelving changes in sod
characteristics destruction of terrestrial vegetation presence of litter and debris wracking
vegetation matted down bent or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away
scour deposition bed and bank formation water staining or change in plant community All field
indicators present will be documented in each monitoring report Quantitative flow data may also
be collected by portable or stationary flow equipment All quantitative and qualitative data will be
used to document the upstream limit of flow which will provide the basis for length of successful
zero order stream restoration (i a valley length) Observed events or effects from events will be
used to calibrate correlate and infer flow of unobserved events whose presence is noted in
monitoring well hydrographs
84 Hydrogeomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys Longitudinal profiles
will be established for the riparian headwater system valley and the restored Gum Swamp Run
low to moderate energy reach during the as built survey There will also be three cross sections
established per 1 000 foot reach of stream /valley restoration For the riparian headwater valley
these cross sections will be measured for the as built report and at years 3 and 5 if channel
features form For Gum Swamp Run low to moderate energy segments the cross sections will
be measured for the as built report and annually during the monitoring period The Gum Swamp
Run valley has been designed to remain stable with minimum changes through the monitoring
period however these cross sections may show minor changes in flow patterns as the
headwater riparian valley systems develop Contingencies as required will be addressed
pursuant to Section 10 0 of this plan
85 Control Forest Wetlands Several forested wetlands are available in the
immediate area that may serve as hydrology controls so that regional hydrological conditions and
responses can be separated from those unique to the site They also may be used to identify
plant species and hydrologic regimes that could be used in restoration of the site Available
Weyerhaeuser data from their hardwood timber operations prior to conversion to silviculture was
used to identify historic tree species which occurred on the site and potential proportions An
early candidate for control forest was the Casey Tract which lies between the Parker Farm to the
east and the P Lands and is underlain by similar sods and located in similar landscape position to
the middle and southern portions of the eastern P Lands However after months of
consideration the owner of the Casey Tract recently declined to allow PCS to lease any portion
of the property for control monitoring wells The bottom portion of Section I and the top portion of
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 22 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Section J of the Parker Farm are shown as underlain by Wasda sods (as shown in the county sod
survey) and are potential control forests Also an area of mature successional hardwood forest
underlain by Ponzer sod (as shown on the county sod survey) is located on the west side of
Rodman Road and may serve as potential control forest especially for the Ponzer portions of the
project at a slightly higher elevation In addition to these two potential wetland forests current
wetland areas of the P and U Lands may also serve as regional hydrology controls Potential
control wetland forest areas are shown on Figure 11 and Figure 5B (regional LiDAR)
90 ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
While any given mitigation site may actually restore many aquatic functions some of these
functions are more difficult to quantify within the timeframe of the monitoring period and therefore
are not suggested for use in determination of success criteria However periodic monitoring is
necessary to ensure that the restored streams and wetlands are functioning as intended and to
document success criteria for chosen functions These monitoring efforts are described above
and will last a minimum of five years and beyond if necessary until success criteria have been
successfully documented Figure 12A and 12B depict the potential mitigation yield expected from
the site as listed in Section 2 0 and as described in the performance standards below for various
aspects of the project
91 Annual Reports The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly
monitoring reports submitted by 1 June following each monitoring year Reports will include a
summary of the data collected during the monitoring year (text tables and graphs) comparison
to data from past years and reference locations and assessments of whether the site is on
trajectory for meeting defined success criteria Monitoring reports will be in general compliance
with Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08 03 (US Army Corps of Engineers 2003)
92 Vegetation Ecological Performance Standards Restoration of the wetland
vegetation will be deemed successful when at least 260 planted trees per acre (using the total
acreage planted in trees) are alive after five years or after performance criteria have been met
whichever is longest Riparian buffer restoration in Gum Swamp Run will be deemed successful
if at least 320 trees per acre are alive after five years
93 Nuisance Species Sweet gum red maple and loblolly pine will be monitored in
Years 2 and 3 in the nuisance plots described in Section 8 1 2 If such monitoring indicates that
one of these species alone or in aggregate represent 20 percent of the site an approved
remedial plan will be developed and monitoring must occur again in Years 4 and 5 If monitoring
in Years 4 or 5 determines that one of these three species alone or in aggregation comprise over
20 percent of the total plant composition on the site and is more than twice the height of the
planted trees control actions pursuant to the approved remediation plan will be implemented
94 Wetland Hydrology Ecological Performance Standard and Growing Season
Hardwood flats at the P and U Lands will be considered successful with a minimum of six (6)
percent hydropenods (calculated from consecutive days with water level no deeper than 12
inches from the sod surface) during the growing season under normal rainfall conditions Rivernne
swamp forest non nvernne swamp forest pond pine pocosin bay forest and swales will be
considered successful with a minimum of 10 percent hydropenods calculated as above Riparian
wetlands adjacent to streams or within riparian headwater systems (headwater forest) will be
considered successful with hydropenods of 12 5 to 25 percent calculated as above and will be
contained within the valley as determined by DDAR as built survey data and agency
concurrence All hydropenods will be evaluated using three month rolling totals and normal
rainfall conditions will be determined from the WETS tables for Aurora Rainfall will be collected
monthly at electronic rain gauges which record every 0 01 inch of precipitation
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 23 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Under the 2010 regional guidance from the Corps of Engineers for wetland hydroperiods
the 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 Corps Washington regulatory field office monitoring wells
will be installed no later than 1 February but the data collected between 1 February and 28
February will not be part of the hydropenod calculation for success however February data will
provide important information related to analyses of site hydrology during the early growing
season
9S Stream Restoration Ecological Performance Standards Success in either the
riparian headwater valley or the low to moderate energy stream segment of Gum Swamp Run will
be achieved if two flow events occur per year in three years out of five during normal rainfall
conditions Linear feet of credit will be based on most upstream location of flow documented at
least twice per year in 3 years out of 5 during normal rainfall throughout the calendar year
96 Control Forest Wetland Data collected from on site or off site control forests
(vegetation and hydrology) will be used as a guide to infer and compare behavior of applicable
portions of the mitigation site (similar sods and landscape position) and to track evidence of
regional conditions Because of differences in maturity and disturbance characteristics of the
mitigation site these data will not be used for strict success or performance parameters
97 Reference Stream Reach and Reference Riparian Headwater System The
reference reach analysis performed on coastal headwater systems in NC (Furness and Tweedy
2010) and additional survey data collected on Porter Creek in Beaufort County were used to
develop an appropriate design approach for the low to moderate energy reach and riparian
headwater valley of Gum Swamp Run in the P Lands These reference reaches vary in slope
watershed size landscape location riparian maturity and soils and therefore may not be directly
comparable to the conditions on the newly constructed Gum Swamp Run Well and flow gauge
data collected on the poorly and moderately defined valley segments on the UT to Bailey Creek
UT to South Creek and upper Porter Creek will be used to document surface water and flow
events during the monitoring period These three creeks are in closer proximity than the
reference reaches in the Croatan Forest and in similar landscape position to Gum Swamp Run
Additionally knowledge gained from the Hell Swamp mitigation site stream /valley design and
construction has also been utilized
Data collected from stream reference sites will be used as a guide to infer and compare
flow events of the mitigation site Because of differences in maturity and disturbance
characteristics of the mitigation site these data will not be used for strict success or performance
parameters
98 Areas Mapped as Upland on the Beaufort County Soil Survey There are
approximately 4 acres of non hydric Tarboro soils shown on the Beaufort County soil survey
within the project (Figure 3) These areas are located within the P Lands along the eastern edge
of SR1002 As part of the watershed approach to compensatory mitigation as described in CFR
332 3(c)(2) these uplands will contribute to or improve the overall ecological functioning of
aquatic resources in the watershed These areas will provide some similar functions to the
restored wetlands e g groundwater recharge nutrient filtration and uptake and surface runoff
attenuation As these acres will be planted with a mix of upland and mesic wetland flat hardwood
species they will also increase habitat variety
99 Summary of Performance Criteria Based on specific measurable attainable
reasonable and trackable parameters the ecological performance standards or success criteria
required for the types of mitigation provided at the P and U Lands are shown in Table 5
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 24 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Table 5 Performance criteria and methods summary
TyNe �f mit �ati�n
�erf�rmance crMet V
Dicumen'tation
C•ntr�ls
meth��ls
Riparian wetland
restoration /re
establishment
(headwater forest
nvenne swamp
forest)
Riparian wetland
enhancement
(rivenne swamp
forest headwater
forest)
Non riparian wetland
restoration /re
establishment or
rehabilitation (non
nvenne swamp
forest hardwood
flats pond pine
pocosin bay forest
swales)
Non riparian wetland
enhancement (non
rivenne swamp
forest)
Zero order stream
restoration /re
establishment within
riparian headwater
system
>_12 5 to 25 percent
hydropenod within the
topographic valley
Survival of 260
planted trees per acre
(using acreage
planted in trees) of 5
year old planted
woodv stems
Uplift of hydrology
function
>_6 percent
hydropenod for
hardwood flats ?10
percent hydropenod
for other three types'
Survival of 260
planted trees per acre
(using acreage
planted in trees) of 5
year old planted
woodv stems
Uplift of hydrology
function
Linear feet of credit
based on most
upstream location of
flow documented at
least twice per year in
3 vears out of 5
Semi continuous
monitoring wells
(arrays) onsite rain
gauge
Vegetation plots on 2
percent of the site
Fill or plug of interior
and roadside ditches
Semi continuous
monitoring wells (1
well /15 acres) onsite
rain gauge
Vegetation plots on 2
percent of the site
Fill or plug of interior
and roadside ditches
Photographs of flow
conditions 2 (e g
sediment deposits
debris flows wrack
lines sinuosity
braided features
28 February — 6
December Aurora
NOAA WETS data for
normal rainfall valley
dimensions as
indicated by LiDAR
and agency
concurrence
Annual monitoring
USDA NRCS Scope
and Effect Guide
1998 USACE
Wilmington District
webpage definitions
28 February — 6
December Aurora
NOAA WETS data for
normal rainfall
Annual monitoring
USDA NRCS Scope
and Effect Guide
1998 USACE
Wilmington District
webpage definitions
Corps and DWQ April
2007 Information
Calendar year Aurora
NOAA WETS data for
normal rainfall flow
confined to times of
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 25 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

D'ocumentati�n
Tyre �f mifi�ati9n Rerf�rman criteria meta rio- C�ntr s
metho�ls
First order stream
restoration /re
establishment within
headwater system
(low to moderate
energy reach)
Riparian buffer
restoration /re
establishment (Gum
Swamp Run
headwaters and
valley)
Linear feet of credit
based on most
upstream location of
flow documented at
least twice per year in
3 years out of 5
50 feet one or both
sides of stream
feature shown on
USGS or county soil
survey or zero order
stream segment with
320 trees per acre at
maturity (5 years)
channel features)
semi continuous
monitoring well
arrays GPS open
channel flow
monitorinq equipm
See zero order above
plus two permanent
cross sections
established at
baseline and
monitored in years 1
2 and 4
Monitoring for planted
tree survival within
established plots at
years 1 3 and 5
normal rainfall
See zero order above
15A NCAC 02B 0260
Tar Pamlico River
Basin Mitigation
Program for Riparian
Buffers DWQ 25
January 2008
Clarification #2008
017 for zero order
streams flexible
buffer mitigation if
approved by EMC as
stated in 401
certification dated 15
January 2009 (WQC
#2008 0868)
1 With elevations ranging from7 5 to 14 5 feet above MSL the non riparian flats at the P and U Lands will have a range of
2ydropenods increasing downslope into the riparian wetlands
Documentation may be for active or past flow conditions may include other agency approved structural elements or use
of technical equipment not on list
10 0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
101 Adaptive Management Principles of adaptive management are 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 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
Lack of control /ownership of properties upstream of a project is often a factor which can
lead to problems with stream restoration In the case of the zero to first order stream restoration
of Gum Swamp Run in the P Lands the entire headwaters upstream are contained However
there are certain expected natural hazards which might affect successful restoration which
include fire flood erosion invasive species and herbivory Strategies to minimize effects from
natural hazards and human mistakes include
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 26 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

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 a excessive standing
water) indicates a potential design problem remediation options will be explored
with governing agencies
Construction errors will be identified early in the mitigation process with an as
built report which contains elevations of key locations such as spillways tops of
berms valley inverts and other spot elevations throughout the site Any
correction effort will be coordinated with governing agencies such that the
intended hydrological regime is met
Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits rice and cotton rats and field mice will be
reduced by the resident foxes feral dogs and cats hawks and owls in nearby
natural areas Reductions in rodent herbivory will be aided by the perches
provided by tops of stump piles which will encourage raptor use If monitoring
indicates deer numbers are jeopardizing tree survival decisions will be made in
coordination with appropriate agencies on what if anything can be done
Monitoring wells are often subject to frequent disturbance and occasional
destruction by black bears Barbed wire fences may be constructed around the
more expensive continuous monitoring equipment as bear deterrents
Any flooding from beaver activity will be noted during the monitoring period and
beavers and dams will be removed by trapper(s)
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
102 Long Term Management Long term management will be aided by controlled
access gates on all the entrance roads of the property It is anticipated that once the area
naturalizes no long term management will be needed beyond seasonal mowing of some access
trails
110 FINAL DISPOSITION OF SITE
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) has agreed to consider transfer of
management in perpetuity of the P and U Lands into their Gamelands program and has provided
their preferred gate and parking lot locations for public access Although expected formal
agreement by the Commission to accept transfer has not yet occurred If for some reason the
NCWRC declines to accept arrangements with another 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
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 27 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

REFERENCES
Fouss J L R L Bengston and C E Carter 1987 Simulating subsurface drainage in the lower
Mississippi valley with DRAINMOD Transactions of the ASAE 30 1679 1688
Furness Jeff and Kevin Tweedy 2010 Restoration of coastal plain headwater systems lessons
learned and performance monitoring Coastal Stream Restoration Concurrent Session 3
17 November 2010 Stream Restoration in the Southeast Connecting Communities with
Ecosystems NC State University Raleigh
Gayle G R W Skaggs and C E Carter 1985 Evaluation of a water management model for a
Louisiana sugar cane field Journal of the American Society of Sugar Caner Technologists
41828
NC Functional Assessment Team 2010 NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) User
Manual Version 4 1 October
McMahon P C S Mostaghimi and F S Wright 1988 Simulation of corn yield by a water
management model for a coastal plains sod Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 31 734 742
Rheinhardt R R Rheinhardt M C Brinson M M and Faser K E 1999 Application of
reference data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems Ecological Restoration
7 241 251
Rogers J S 1985 Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils Transactions
of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28 785 790
Shafale Michael P and Alan S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Division of
Parks and Recreation North Carolina Depart of Environment Health and Natural
Resources
Skaggs R W N R Fausey and B H Nolte 1981 Water management evaluation for north
central Ohio Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 24 922 928
Susanto R H J Feyen W Diercloc and G Wyseuse 1987 The use of simulation models to
evaluated the performance of subsurface drainage systems Proceedings of the Third
International Drainage Workshop Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA Pp A67
A76
Sweet W V and Jens W Geratz 2003 Bankfull hydraulic geometery relationships and
recurrence intervals for North Carolinas Coastal Plain Journal of American Water
Resources Association Volume 3 No 4 pp 861 871 American Water Resources
Association
US 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 24 December 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers 2003 Regulatory guidance letter (RGL) 08 03 Minimum
monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects involving restoration
establishment and /or enhancement of aquatic resources 10 October 2008
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 28 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality 2007 Draft information on
stream restoration with emphasis on the coastal plain 4 April 2007
US Army Corps of Engineers 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation Aurora North Carolina Volumes I — IV
US Army Corps of Engineers 2010 Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain region Version 2 0 ERDC /EL TR 10 20
Eds J S Wakeley R W Lichvar and C V Noble Vicksburg MS US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center
US Army Corps of Engineers 2011 Draft stream mitigation considerations for the coastal plain
of North Carolina Version 3 15 December Public Notice 19 December 2011
Ward J V 1989 The four dimensional nature of lotic systems Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 8 2 8
Compensatory Mitigation Plan 29 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

FIGURES
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands January 2012

A
C,
SOUTH CRE
CORRIDOR
T. CREEK �,I'/
)RR$DOR
HOLLO.ELL TRACT
BAY C"ORM PHASE It
PHASE I
P LANDS
35*14 15.04"
1 LONG: 7646'19.20
P LLANDS
PHASE IASI 11
PARKER FARM
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-1 PCS Phoshate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
U LANDS
CASEY TRACT --------
P LANDS
,PARKER FA
SECTION I
(P U)
A
.%%
+
pARKERM FA
SECTION J
LEGEN
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND
0 5,000 10,000
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH CAROLINA
VICINITY MAP
P AND U LANDS
SITE LOCATION
P AND U LANDS
PICS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE:
SCALE: AS SHOWN
!I
APP F19-vp BY:
DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA. JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
DATE: 01/27/12
FILE: ANDS-VIC-
IL
P�N'-JLAN201
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
2
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
C P# 1745.59.32
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGES, INC STATEPLANE,
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
ST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- INCORPORATED
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 2840U0 3
TEL [phone]
FIGURE 1
NAD53 , FEET, 1:24000-SCALE, WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
----
ENVIRONYEMTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-1 PCS Phoshate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

A
,W
Vie. Y
ir I - f f 1i ;;
�. t f... .r' .,
Or
- -1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
�
N
z
Z
O W
w\ 2 Ira
MM
0
0
w
J
�N
LQ
N
y
}
<
't
M
Z
M
11
J
rn ZS
�O Z JI-W
� ¢U ~
Q
Z
a
O o Z Z O
O
�
Q
W
i
'
W
Z
Q
a� i mz
Q�
o
a
�I "man
o Q
O
p p
ZM<pN wn�
U p OW
_
O J
V
�N2IplM
i 0 00
N D
W
O
J
o gaa
F
0
Q
Q
U O
Q
Z M
ZW�m�
Om OOU�
S
�
Qz
N
�'
Oaz< z <Iz
:2 CL
O
W
d
3
~
N
O
N
L
N°
s
N
Q
�
O
r;j
°o
U
fn
Q
°
O
O
O
n
}
0
Z
0
m
(n O
O
9
W
4
z
-
g M
�
D
v
N
O
Z
Q
a
O
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
J
z
Z
O W
w\ 2 Ira
J olWVI OW
0
w
Q
°
�'3<o
M
a:Z:
J
m<po� wm
O
Z
rn ZS
�O Z JI-W
� ¢U ~
O o Z Z O
O
Z
J
d
0"0 W
> O1. =03
i
'
o
a� i mz
O
m
oo aJ mU
p p
ZM<pN wn�
U p OW
_
m Q Z p
O N O
O
J
W O~
�000� dim
W
Fp
oz \mow w
p� < K W
u�
Y,
Z M
ZW�m�
Om OOU�
Q(n N1
�'
Oaz< z <Iz
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

w ° M
a a in
Q U01
t0 N Q W Q Q a
co ri a < �a8 Z 3 P'a a 4
Ng Or J U
Q J pp In m° W Z ❑ �.
N Y ��� Of
p: U N N U
Z 0 Z &a Cep Q N d
<c J J Q -1 � �o�, Z � WE "!
Z J ° M a -° a O nQa
M W Q u ° U) Cj
p U v
�+ °se W8m� O Q U O W Y � 3 I-
La, 4 ZM I w
g <O U =
a S
N Z o 00 -Cid (n
Z W 5 -oW a- y +
��
a r vii z 3 3
I
�as99° -� 11 Z N
O �i'e3 i O LLi
L
N
IF
Q O
J yj
V <
N D
\ \ o
�o G
-"
Q
° ° i _..
v i N ' tj
o
m 0 YO NYt NO U
. � IO O
�y YO ISO
ii, Y O
ci IY_ :P
10^ _ �
W —
mm Z "
� z u
�.. Z
a m' Ou 9 m m
l N �
., I. L .•. M C a3 O of
N`O' p
R�
Y CITY 4^ '
{` ,
I S.R.
�g O
s
' y Y
71' 4'
N b
N y
^ •p
` CO GUM ROeD
Q J
', Q RODMPH
it
�$ r
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

AW
AW ANN%
(3)
M
Q ( )
U)
o U
12
0
0
z
LLI CD
CD
z
< , .
i�:
LL <
< X uj -i
LL
u)
:z) {0
L)
z
0 0
LL
CO UJ X
t: <
(0 ( ) LU
z >
0 T- 0
W }Cn /(
06 U)
LUC
05
x cc
F—
Z —j z z
0
Cf) < - ::) 3�.
W �'- t) 0 0
Lu C) M
U)
U) C: 0
0 M LL
0
X
0- L)
12- <
<
ZOOL H s
LO
w
10
clf
_
.
\/
LL
»
V
ON Alun0o
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
-5A
RCS Phosphate Company,
Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration
ul
January
2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -51B PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P anti U I antis RPStoration January 2012

m J
d
3 4 * +F BAY CI!Y ROADS. R. `D2
k ' tE) o Q \ N
Al, K J� Z
a.
I
m
(CIA RDAP >
V7
a C?
;4
,RJAtl /RDp1RAN AD T'. ,'•v:
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
° �'
°oogoo ° "' °$0000a00000 °�
J
m
Ir
O p
o
0o ry
r
I<
m
N
o v
°z
=��
In
W
Ex
aaz
o3nmS°
0000 ° o
N
VN0
<
Z
a.
UO
f- ��Nro0000 +
_ m
zz-
m
p i
+
N
W
to
/
Z
Q
o
J
Q
g
5 w
Hp
ZZ7
d
jO m 5
5w 8m
c
ww
oa
o W p zr m $
y �� �w w w
i�oo Uszo �
.11 e
��m
aka
° °°
ii
�Q
=
o
i
t
v
��a
I �° o f
tni.MW U,
src�w sW J oaoz� a�N °gawo�o5"
�9
]wzc
z�
s�
of
Z
UQ
W
o_
<
K3
YpU<m 3p <V 04�w
wU23�m=2a XZYjp '~L mmw30 pww °K2
a2 �zjxz �
w�i`°"
�Ow
221= -
m�m
,np0
m5
G
;
O]
F-
00'
O
oLL
zov�mUC.tiGG�tiGGG
°o
�mWw�gm gg'3j �gN gaga N jSNLL �aYlaz
°C�S�35�3�3�5
w�Om
s6pp
am
��iY
O$
m
w=
`
V
; N
N
Q Bj
_
� o aaaaaaaaa
iNWa
�r
�
_
9
VIA
< r
m J
d
3 4 * +F BAY CI!Y ROADS. R. `D2
k ' tE) o Q \ N
Al, K J� Z
a.
I
m
(CIA RDAP >
V7
a C?
;4
,RJAtl /RDp1RAN AD T'. ,'•v:
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

N
F-+ M
nz
CD
m i w
LU
3
Z a o LL
o Q O
v ° J
d a
m v Q
w a Z
a
�u OL ~ ° o
a4 ' c
LLI
Z U >
W O S K
~ a
o
'V S 1; It it tri t't; t lti r +Y U) Q Q
i , 1 i,l I l i rt 4Y O
u � � 1 1 1 i, fill til it; 1'1111;11[ 1 ;I't4i'; Y1{ t-y -0 Z
y $ 5 ,I 1 t ; A t 1 Yii Cf 11 t LU
1 1"X1;1 ii 1; 114 1;1 111 i;l 1 ± 1 1 lil 1 ; 1 ; l
w
� ^'�� i'i 1111 111111 ilili'ili ili'�il; l;l; liilih � � � E"
!WON E� '1ii 1 t'i't' Itt IS 1tff11', ti''it''fi''Iti q Z Z
f 6 Itif ft{ litf'rt I,It tli rift!' ti'''ff Y,i'I,+[ ib[ Q -
t� � � 111'1 1'f f;l 1'1'IY1'Ifl'1 11'111 l t'I t 111'1
1lISf'1 i 11'111 tfititll
o O
ItlYiittiti1l11 illiftit N
1iY 11111111 ItIA Ii11ti1 • f-
� � 1111'\Il l,il 1, it 111 ltl l;f; l; i;il I,f 1f ;i;i;i li 11;11 w � / ♦ = N
fi'l`l, 1,l; it "1111 1 1 1 1 1 f l i t tit'{ f i U �
�t i 1 1 Y f l l 1 1 111 t l l f I,I,I,Y 1,1 1,1
I i l 1 ,111,1,1 I l t l riff lf't ll I I /l 111 i � �-
tI111ilfi�l Yiliflilflfl!
'Xi 711i1ti I'll! lit1111111t111 0 fY
tai; Ylt; ii l'Ifl'Y11 it 1111 1111 ill lii, 1,1,1,1, i,t,l i w � ii :i M
111111 fillitllltltlii
111 t'I; t 11;';1;1 ll;f 111;1 lt;f; 4; 11111'fii 111 t'ti l'f; K C
t+� til; ii, li t,l li,l ii,f 111,1 it, 1,1,11'11;{; 11{11;1;1 ,; Q
:D T
� � t i lif fill fill i lli '11''11 1'111'1 /f 11111 1111 111 a � � W
.� il{tillltt Yi4ltltiilltll
=� :�' li ifi 1'11111;1; 1;1;1 if;l lll,l,I11fi11111i 1;11 11Y ill+ O � Q F
1 IIIIIIIY Q
�F' U i111�411't 144'1 1111 rll'f'I h't'lh'lll4 +14'1'1 a � W U Q
P° ! 1 1 I,iil ii, 1, i, l,l, 1,111,11 l,t,l it,l,Ml v'1 �Y1
QJ II fi ii 111'1'1'144 Ill l /ii ilii141141i1il t; li Y ii if Q � m (� ❑
(it 1 1 Y Ii Yt 1, 1, 1 ti, it lilt l,Il 1111 111 111 it ell +,
1111111 t1 i t i l l 1 Y 4 i i ill l i t III ill 1 "I r 1;+it
1111; i;l; t;i; 111; 111'1 111111 1l ii ilY 1144111'4 f f f
� Y 114 ll 1111 ill t'!I4'!il'1'I'l'I'l4'f
� ' 114 1 f4 ' 111, i lit 111111'1 '11144 1'141
8 � I1 Y 114 i1�t411; t; Ilti it Illil 1111 i�l1 4 11 4 11111r4414i
, 11111 Yt 1[1{IY111li11i1 M
�� it 11'11'1 illiltillilllftll
Ir111I1i111 ii111111f111111
i illlfltf'f 1'111 itfllit111si
ii i i i f 1 Y l Y f 1 I f III 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
iI IIIIIIYYiI 'Ifi 1 tiiillfit
rititillii ll Iitllllililtll lfl
IIIifYititil iifliiRY1111i1t Ii
iii 111 IYI 1 1 1 IIIIIiIII
14 a 4;1 t1i1111141114144 114 '14141414111411111414111 At'f 111'4
Ii i it'iT '1 f 1;111;1 ;141
1'1 1 1 1 1 il, l,f,l 11,1,1' ll;,,;f;111;111;I114li 111111'11 lf;l;1;14114111 it d
1 it i,l, 1,1,9 i[; 111;1 Ill, l,t 111 1'X'1'1 i !" f 1 f 1 f 1 1 i 14 1 t t ! i'1 f 1414 fl, 4fl
I�lil,t,l,lil,l, l;f, l; Fit, l,i; l,l i f, li l,l 111111 11'11 il,l' l,l,l,f,i,l,lif,i, 1,1,1,1, ill;
Y i iii, lll; l,l, l,l
11 1� II 1 i 11,11,11,1 i l i C
lA1,', ;, i,; I',1, 11111 1111 1111,11 11VI Ii ,. 1411[ i Ili I 1 1 1 1 i
i i f [ 1 F 1 14 141 '1 '1 ii i 1'111' 1i 111 �
111; 1;11111;1'1II;14111 1;11111 1,1 1 1 411 41411 '.� ' ,fi 11111 i 1'f; I1Li1;i 111f;14;1;i;l ii ll i ll t lfi 141;11111 iii 111!1
1 Y i 1 1'111 If 1111 14 1111 ; 4'i 1' iii ,. �•. ,� 1114,1 il, i,i if ��1I t t lil i li I,I i lii i 1, ,i Y,ill'i
l tili'lli 1 1 Y 111 114 111 111111111'111'11ll it it x'1'111' !1'�il'14�',111 4t'1i1111;1111'�'� "111 ii 1111'41114111114111[ i'j W
1 1,1,1;111; ,1141 1;F ;f l,li l lli l,l ll, 1111,1,1 1111;1, l ill l,l11411�'t Il ilif,y t,li 1, If ;;;;,l;f,i;l,l; N
111! 1 1 ! �, 4111 It
1 111 1 Ii 1111 1{1{111 fit Yl11llilll,llfllllilitit
14 ill 1111 1111111 11144 1 1, III, I,t, l lt,t 1,1 lit 11 1 1 tll ill '111;1111t,1ll; ifi 411141'1 Y41't ifi 4l
y ;f ;t;l 111 t li X, li l,l 1 1 ! 1, ii i i I,i I i 1 elf 111 fil 1111 1'111 f f;If it li ; li; ; If
i ■ €$ ' 1 Y 1! t 1 1 Yll 1 11 1 i lil 1
A,1 1,1 1l1111'fll 1 1 Ill'lliil4'14 it 41411 i 1111 iii l ll ii ifi 111 i 111 i 14I'YI14 Y11 "111111141111;1 �
4 Il! I i 111 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 i l t f 1 f t, 1,t II 1 i fil lif 1,1, I I4, l�f 1Y4 Y1 fill 1
ll li! li 41 1 ' i 1! "4441,84 II i t i i 11 t
!' 1 111,141 lii 1111 11'14, !41 A t
1 11 1 ! 1, 1 I F 1 1 1'i 1'i 111
' 111' I4 IF 1 ' l i l f l 1 f Ili, ill, IIf 111
Z Q I,if,l,i l t t;t 1,1 1 1, 1,11111;111; 111;1;1; I;I; 111;1 i 1;1'1,11 l,l, l,ll ll
7 1 111 l ;, 11 ;, it f ; Y;1 i 1111 1, II,I Il it Ift, 1,111,1 Ifi,i,i 1111 411 I1 1 1 Y
a � � � O if f! ill 1 IS II i "1'1'Ytlfl ll kt i t(f l't,l; 111'1,1 lilf,i,f,111 ,1,111#111,!, IY!
i1� �' Q 1114111 i1 i l l e t f f I t l l i 111 1 1'111 Ili!! iii l iif 141 111441'
S ty ly by 1!!11!11'[1 i[i 1111 111iifitit! tllltiFt
Q Q (,� i I l i l i t i 1111111 1, 1111 if 111,1, l �t,lilii ill l,l, I,i,f,f,l i 1,1,1,1, 4,i l
`t p 1I[41t;14114ji;lilil;' +11;1; 11#11; 1; 111;1111 f; #1111; I;R t1 1'141 "#11'111" f OD
K p Q � ,f lil 1'11[;1,1;411 t'1t
W .pi � � ,� ,Q � f,li#,1lfllit,lit,li{,t11,tt1, llt, l it, l 1111 it 11'1,1 1',1,',1,1 Ilttl ii, l,l,l it, li
m � O� Ilifiliiflli\Ififi<Itltil111tYt IRlilllf li
U a 11; 11!111}1111 11;ti1;1;Y11; 11f;1;fil if4;11[111111111,11I, 11111 48114,114111
❑ p y N p 6 1 1 X Ili 1 r 4 1 f 1 t 1 1 ill It it lif 1if ,f li ,'1''111 I,f 1 f r
Z� -
W - W' N i,f, 1,4 i Fil 111111 liX 1i 1,1, Xi 1, ifi iti 1,1'11 1,1, 1,1 1 1 I i
J
W W yj '� pp 1111111 tillifllf
U4 1p i F f C U TL 8 111,1 1111 if,l, t 1 1 i
w W g o.wt Wp0"
a
I X LL
1f 14 I
/4 it
11
i l[i I
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
N
m M
O
3 N W
rc¢ rc
N F
O
Uz
Z
to D
m l f` L3
V) <
N
p
m o mn
LJ
N
V)
Q
z
Z
U
SOP
N
ww
<�iW
2
a
d
o
��6
rc
�•
w
N v1 <
too,,
4Z
J J
2
�[+
OT
aD
e
O O O
N n
IO J Z
O
d Q
O
ti
^
■Y
Z
Z V)
m
3
P: g
Z
a�
m
U� _
. <-
a a
0O pO
O < p p
O_
d
<
O
o
< ¢
m a
~
v
Z O O
i p
; ;
°¢` O
w J I W
< Q a ti Z
Q
Z
U)
C
R
m
g
I
z a a
2
a w a-
a
d
Z N
n♦
m m
n
a
cc
3
vii
d
w
C m
0
O
d
z z z
0 0 0
N N N
z z
0 0
N N
z
0
N
:i
d
m Nei
4
Z
I
< O
O
Q
�
-
y
y5
O
�f�N
0
%
afi8
5€;y
0.
0
o
_
to
W
0
C
Z
m
z
d
w
m
v
BAY CITY
ROAD /S•R.
P
Z
w
v
m
U
0
n
m
.mom..
S.
.
o YmY
vS
o
0
n
a
m
v
a o
-
z
z
0 w
<
m o.
o
rn
w
a
M
s ti
3$
o
o
m
KK
z
7
m
m D
= C
I rc
x
z
0
p<Om 3
Ll Z
W
W
d
¢ m
O
a N
N
N N
N
iV1
� �
Y
�
a
w
Y Y
m N
H33bJ
9
rc
w m
wi N
o
`�
H1008
o
S
w w
O N
W
J
4
¢U o
a
Wm
o
w yj
o. foJ
N
O
8
N
�S
a
(�
ow 0
<U
O
4
w
Z w
3ti
W
z
O
m
y
O
�13
q<
w
Z
a
0O pgO
V
m
e a
�Ww
�
�O
� z
a
3 3
gog g0g
x0
O
G Y
Wwc�i
,.�
x
z
3 3
00w
ROAD /RODMAN ROAD
i1
In m
99
¢
x
w.5
z z
z i
z z
>�
BONNE
d
a w
K m
o^
wv
o.zo
0Gm
3
a
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
N N
WW
7
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

PCs Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and uLands Restoration January 22
C'4
`
e
§(
d
\ _ m
�
B
§
E! °
!
®§
§ z�b
}\
��
ƒ
\
(
\ k
§
§
e
gy©
|/
k §ƒ!
§(2k
§
,
E §)0§§
} }k \
\�
(
/�,���,
)
;
ƒIj§
\({
§2\
`
=Xt
k=©
|
2
,J
N
2
\|
\ N/
2
LD7}
q
|
§ § \))
\ §§§
i«
.
\
\ ,
0
IfP
,/
\©
.r,-vy R,',�
}
-
D �,)
2§
� /tG
\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \}
0
j
ER _D __ _,
PCs Compensatory Mitigation Plan F-10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and uLands Restoration January 22

RESERVCO PARCEL UNDERLAIN BY PONZER SOIL
AREA UNDERLAIN BY WASDA SOILS
EAST OF PEELS ROAD
KEY MAP
SOURCE
POU M OF THE BOUND- PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES.
NEW BERN. NORM CAROLINA JOB /2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNT- GIS DATA WEBSITE
WNW. CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US. BEAUFORT COUNT' PARCEL DATA SHAPEFNES.
NAD 19v =1
SOIL SUR OF PAMUCO COUI -. NORM CAROLINA US DEPNiTMEW
OF AGRICULTURE NATUIUL RESOURCES CONVERSA -CE.
ISSUED: AUGUST 1987
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY. NORM CN OUL US DEPARTMENT
Of AGRICULTURE I-- RESOURCES CONVERS - SERNCE.
ISSUED: SE- TEMBER 1995
L G N
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
Ap
ARAPAHOE
BH
BELHAVEN
Po
PONZER
To
TOMOTLEY
Wd
WASDA
RESERVCO AND PARKER FARM
FORESTED WETLANDS AS POTENTIAL CONTROLS
P AND U LANDS ALL PHASES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: 01/27/12
Z R 4M W�N
V11M010R. NORTH"
BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ /BFG
FILE: -D-LAN -
FRTDWET PCN JAN2i
CP#1745.59.32
��ARO F 2
i%5sz -9isa
FIGURE 1 1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P adn U Lands Restoration January 2012

Gi
BENFEWE
1 ROYAL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD N,
` —
SMALL ROAD _
BAr NO. 4
}I
P LANDS
i,
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY (3,666.92 ACRES)
(TOTAL ACREAGE INCLUDES 12.52 ACREAGE OF
RIGHT —OF —WAY ALONG STATE ROADS
RESTORATION (3,120.85 ACRES)
WETLAND RE— ESTABLISHMENT (2,656.85 ACRES)
WETLAND REHABILITATION (380.59 ACRES)
EXISTING FOREST (11.59 ACRES)
DITCH /CANAL PLUGS (9.81 ACRES)
OPEN WATER (60.04 ACRES, DOES
NOT INCLUDE 1.97 ACRES OF
SOUTH CREEK) -
GUM SWAMP RUN AND
RIPARIAN HEADWATERS (8,889.45 LF WITH
UP TO 20.4 ACRES OF TAR— PAMUCO
RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION)
ZERO ORDER STREAM/VALLEY
RESTORATION (7,989.45 LF)
LOW TO MODERATE ENERGY STREAM
RESTORATION (900 LF)
WETAND ENHANCEMENT (26.10 ACRES)
WETLAND PRESERVATION (245.36 ACRES)
POTENTIAL LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT BEYOND THE BERM
COMPLEX FOOTPRINT (102.53 ACRES)
(DISTANCES VARY WITH SOIL TYPE AND DITCH /CANAL
DIMENSIONS)
ROADS AND ROYAL ROAD PARKING AREA (47.34 ACRES)
BERM COMPLEX AND OTHER PARKING AREAS (112.22 ACRES)
SMALL ROAD
LA,
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -12A
P and U Lands Restoration
P LANDS \`.P,
\1 v6
• THIS ACREAGE REPRESENTS MAXIMUM OPEN WATER.
SOME OF THESE DITCHES MAY BE FILLED OR
PARTIALLY FILLED IF MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE.
® 1.500 0
1.500 Feet
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
YIELD
PCS PHOSPHATE, OMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02 O1 12
FILE: — — —
ztsl ALTENHATE SOUTH
CP #1745.59.32
SUrtE 2000
JUPRER. F R1 36477 -3M
IRCORPOR6T E0 TEt 561/747 -7.s5
E 561n47 -7576
FIGURE 12A
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
January 2012

r
ROAD /S.R. 1002
J?
�Q
P
i L
U
r
a �
M �
Ut
r �
O �o
O w<
N >0
H- �
Z) 1
U:2
w_
x<
w�
a
m
BO
N
N1 m
C m N
V V1 w
T. m n
v W z U
ik
n r Z o 4 U
h O O H"NE
w ® W
o � !Z = e
J =�
_Q M c _
G
a H = Z
3 N
oo W d p
n H x
p V 0 o �WB
4 d n N
<o N°
U < _
0 O
i
N C
Z
L
.r Q
U J
6
Compensatory Mitigation Plan F -12B PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

1)
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FOR P AND U LANDS INCLUDING
SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
USFWS LETTERS
NCSHPO LETTERS
NCNHP LETTERS
NCDWQ STORMWATER EXEMPTION LETTER
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
Appendix A
January 2012

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD) 10 August 2010
B NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD Mr Jeff
Furness PotashCorp 1530 NC HWY 306 South Aurora, NC 27806
C DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER CESAW RG W P Lands
Mitigation Project Action ID SAW 2008 02889
D PROJECT LOCATIONS) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 883 acres
located off the west side of Bay City Highway south of the community of Royal and dust south
of the Bay City Farm Mitigation Site adjacent to South Creek, in Beaufort County NC P
Lands is part of the proposed compensatory mitigation package for the PCS Phosphate mine
continuation permit SAW 2001 10096
1 State NC County Beaufort City AURORA
2 Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format)
Lat 35 244833 / Long 76 768017
3 Name of nearest waterbody South Creek
4 Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area
a Non wetland waters linear feet 97-845 / width (ft) and/or acres
i) Cowarchn Class (es)
11) Stream Flow Vefei
b Wetlands WS acres
i) Cowardin Class (es)
PF06Cd Palustrine Forested Seasonally Flooded Partially Drained/Ditched
PF07B Palustrme Forested Evergreen Saturated
PF01 /4A Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Needled Leaved Evergreen Temporarily
Flooded
PF0617B Palustrine Forested Deciduous Broad Leaved Deciduous Evergreen Saturated
PF01A Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded
PF06 /7B Palustrine Forested Deciduous Evergreen Saturated
PF01B Palustrine Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous Saturated
PF06 /7Bd Palustrine Forested Deciduous Evergreen Partially Dramed/Dttched
PF04B Palustrme Forested Needle Leaved Evergreen Saturated
PSS6 /713 Palustrine Scrub Shrub Deciduous Evergreen Saturated
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 1
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

7 Name of onsite water bodies identified as Section 10 waters NIA
❑ Tidal
❑ Non Tidal
E REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY)
❑ Office (Desk) Determination / Date _ _ _
® Field Determination / Date(s) b Apr2O 8 �19Aui; 608 --l6Aug26O$
7Aag2608 025 2068; OOct2008
eP ��
1 The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be junsdictional waters of the United States
on the subject site and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this
preliminary JD is hereby advised of lus or her option to request and obtain an approved
jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site Nevertheless the permit applicant or other person
who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD
in this instance and at this time
2 In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring pre construction
notification (PCN) or requests verification for a non reporting NWP or other general permit
and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity the permit applicant is
hereby made aware of the following (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a preliminary JD which does not make an official determination of
Jurisdictional waters (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before
accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization and that basing a permit
authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being
required or different special conditions (3) that the applicant has the right to request an
individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general
permit authorization (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to
comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary (5) that undertaking any activity in
reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the
applicant s acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD but that either form of JD will be
processed as soon as is practicable (6) accepting a permit authorization (e g signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water
bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United
States and precludes any challenge to such. jurisdiction in any administrative or,judicial
compliance or enforcement action or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court, and
(7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD that JD will be
processed as soon as is practicable Further an approved JD a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein) or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C F R Part 331 and that in any administrative appeal ,jurisdictional
issues can be raised (see 33 C F R 331 5(a)(2)) If during that administrative appeal it becomes
necessary to make an official determination whether CWA Junsdiction exists over a site or to
provide an official delineation of,junsdictional waters on the site the Corps will provide an
approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 2
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

This preliminary JD finds that there maybe waters of the United States on the subject project
site and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity
based on the following informationiis wetland determination was undertaken pursuant to tfip
f 987 Corps of tngmeers Wetlanif DehneatiorL Manual and prto`r to the inmplement4t pn ofthe
Interim Reg;bnal Supplement to the Corps of Eneinders Wetland Delineation Manual Atlantic
and Gulf Coast41 -Plain Region All necessary parameters *ere -valuated and documented on tl e
appropriate data forms Watefs of the Umted, States determinations were documented based, n
the presence of an ordinary -high water mark pursuant Jo Re uta�ory Guz at ce V er 0505
+Ordtngry igll Water Mark 0 1 M) IdeMnfVotion
F SUPPORTING DATA Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
checked items should be included in case file and where checked and requested
appropriately reference sources below)
® Maps plans plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant Ms Julia Berger /CZR Incorporated
® Data sheets prepared/subrnmtted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant
® Office concurs with data sheets /delmeation report
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/dehneation report
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps
❑ Corps navigable waters study
❑U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑ U S Geological Survey map(s) Cite scale & quad name
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Citation
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s) Cite name
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s)
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps
❑ 100 year Floodplam Elevation is (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs ® Aerial (Name & Date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date)
® Previous detemunation(s) File no and date of response letter
❑ Other information (please specify)
IMPORTANT NOTE The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corns and should not be relied upon for later mrisdictional determinations
—U4 kk�= L9,41do oiklvd-w U—" 1�1 t, U, /10
Signature and date S and ate
Regulatory Project Manager Person questing preliminary JD
(REQUIRED) (REQUIRED unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 3
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

N
°o m' M
o Of
J � �
L6 W
M .
U
M ye G W
Q d
u�i°i �gR
Q yo
v�4 N o &aaw, E��m o z z PIS
g F
m g °
$� ° fie V a a d g
alU�W N =
v
IL
° FFis d < +
i E V,
�o�pmm
m j Ww<V L _
�
i 3 O
€ R Fes= d o N.
s °� < o R y
gn AWMI
°z,fl? -8 N o
i
N /
O
.J
fn
5„
C
1i
�y
oe p y
k.W Y
�to7
. r
w,
^�
R N
�.. � �
R 0
A,
xN s
bb i` t
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 4
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

700010-614 z0011OZbd
I, 110,5q Zoolloyf36 aA.1E (q
it S CODS OF ENGINEERS -36 1Z 41
11054 Wilmington District `� v 89 Z S Al
11'77 r i6 -7 °117 z7ZYW
Action ID 00110179 County 6 EAU FORT
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner /Authorized Agent PCs N0 106aie
Address P 0 A. x Lf $ / 15 -10 A/C 306 S0k4L,
� WO&A . A16 27806
Telephone Number (SZ) 32Z- SZ71)
Size and Location of Property (waterbody Highway name /number town etc ) 76e ff4 t �reG I S Ski
,Jry wog aeJ -V/4ci -V/4c qs Rve l #'5 33 7 39 31 40, W 4z 43, -,.,.a it+ w.+..
, a
$13oo clue i /er,+ 1006.W o, :!(Je Sow 5 �e 0' NG 11,y 306 11,5 Of -/01.
Indicate which of the following apply bei6ev, AEG 306 'b, V-ie -ohJ N65A 10oZ is -lea e4s+
® There az wetlands n the abov described roperty which we stronE�yousurgsgteasff t sho d be
delineate and sury ed The s eyed wet] lines must verified before the
Corps vvi 1 make a �unsdicti al determi tion on your p perry
® Because of a size of our property and our pres nt workload ur identificatio and delete ion
of your w tlands c of be acco plashed in timely m er You may sh to em oy a
consultant o obtain more tamely elmeation the wetland Once your co ultant has agged
a wetlan line on a property orps staff 11 review i and if it is curate we strongly
recomm d that yo have the Ii surveyed r final appro al by the Co The Co s will not
make a al junsd ctional dete mation on ur property thout an appr ed survey
OThe wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the ]units of Corps jurisdiction have been
explained to you Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations this
determmation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed tree- years from the date of this
notification F+ve
® There are no ketlands pre nt on the above described prope wluch are su ect to the ernut
requirements of Section 40 of the Clean W ter Act (33 US 1344) Unless ere is a c ge in
the law or o published r gulataons this etermination m be relied upo for a pen d not to
exceed thre years from date of this no fication
Alt (9 The protect is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties You should contact the nearest State
Office of Coastal Management to determine their requirements C'ZSZ) c1W- 649
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit
is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311) A permit is not required
for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground If you have any questions regarding the
Corps of Engineers regulatory program please contact
0111 05, leca&-,e ac Z 7 — 61
Property owner /Authorized Agent Signature lti� n 1, r, e 3 U" s
Project Manager Signature W
Date 1214/0-5 Expiration Date Q 14109
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACKED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM
4e +tocfS we cep -JeJ oL, 4 °71tb10Z e0100- ihfwed aer,41 p- A -D"eit, a,d deer J4
CESAW Form 566 0'- *,,,e Awv,,. 4, 'Jw��o {or Alc- QtAOl st fth %/o4e ® R,/Gel 0.S 3313 61.3 -71
1 OCT 92 `3'8 1 L+z % CBr. G 4-3 d!0 L„eft4 -% d 5 Ttie 4e-%Js+C PWCeI o F �v�i g � 1 s+o►�
Compensatory4 at+a elarv`.4 dS Appendix A 5
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

CP# 1745 G2 10
Action Id 200510457
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County Beaufort U S G S Quad Aurora
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent Mr Jeffrey C Furness, Senior Environmental Scientist
Address PCS Phosphate, incorporated
Post Office Box 48
Aurora. North Carolina 27806
Telephone No [phone]
Property description
Size (acres) 10,211 acres Nearest Town Aurora
Nearest Waterway South Creek River Basin Pamlico
USGS HUC 03020104 Pamlico Coordinates N 35 280050 W 76 826028
Location description A 10,211 acre tract known as the Limits of Delineation Boundary ncludina the PCS_E1S
Boundary (8,686 acres) plus an additional 1,525 acres located on the South side of North Carolina Hiehwav 33 and east
of North Carolina Hiehwav 306 immediately west of the Town of Aurora and adjacent to South Creek and other
tributaries flowine to South Creek in Beaufort Countv, North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Following Apply
Based on preliminary information there may be wetlands on the above described property We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to deternune the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction To be considered final a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Re6ulatory Probram Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 33 1)
X There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification
X There are wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations this determination
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner For a more timely
delineation you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final any delineation must be verified by the Corps
The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed Upon completion this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps
Once verified this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years
X The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Cotes
Regulatory Official identified below on 1/25/2005 Unless there is a change in the law or our published re6ulations this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
There are no waters of the U S to include wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington NC at [phone] to determine
their requirements
Page I of 2
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 6
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Action Id 200510457
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and /or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311) If you have any questions iegarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program please contact Mr Scott Jones at [phone] extension 27
Basis For Determination This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to South Creek, a tributary of the Pamlico River Waterbodies
designated throughout the protect area exhibit individual Ordinary High Water Marks and /or High Tide Lines as
indicated by changes in soil character and absence of terrestrial vegetation and are hydrologically connected to South
Creek
Remarks Protect Area defined on attached drawing labeled Wetland Delineation Parcels in the South of Rt 33 Area,
Prepared by C7R Incorporated on 12/07/2004 (CP# 174562 10) Wetland boundary identified on plats entitled
Wetland Delineations South of Hiehwav 33 for PCS Phosphate Aurora Division, prepared by Robert M Chiles P E
oit 12/13/2004 and 01/13/2005 (RMC Job No 99264) Cross Reference Action IDs 200010314 200011034 200011035
200011053,200011054 ,200011177,200011543,200011544 200110260 200110436 200210979 200411248 200411250
200411371, 200411372. and 200411841
Corps Regulatory Official
Date 01/25/2005 Expiration Date 01/25/2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial)
FOR OFFICE USh ONLY
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form
• A copy of the Notification Of Adrrunistrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal form must be
transmitted with the property owner /agent copy of this form
• If the property contains isolated wetlands /waters please indicate in Remarks section and attach the
Isolated Determination Information Sheet to the file copy of this fonn
Page 2 of 2
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 7
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Revised 8/13/04
U S Army Corps of Engineers
DISTRICT OFFICE CESAW RG w
FILE NUMBER 200510457
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION
State NC
County Beaufort
Center coordinates of site (latitudc/lonbitude) 35 780050 / 76 826028
Approximate si /e of area (parcel) reviewed including uplands 10 211 acres
Name of nearest watm%,iy South Creek
Name of \,% atershed Pamlico
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Completed Desktop determination P Date
Site \isit(s) ® Datc(s) Multiple Visits
Jurisdictional Determination (JD)
❑ Preliminary JD Based on available information ❑ there appear to be (or) ❑ there appear to be no waters of the United States
and /or na,. igable waters of the United States on the project site A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331)
® Appro%cd JD— An approved 1D is an appealable action (Reference 33 CPR part 331)
Check all that apply
® At ie arc navigable waters of the United States (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the rc%iewcd
area Approximate si /c of jurisdictional area 17 87 acres
® Theic arc waters of the United States (as defined by 33 CFR part 318 and associated guidance) w ithm the rep iewed area
Approximate si/c of jurisdictional area 1863 87 acres
® That are iwlattd non navigable infra %tale waters or wetlands within the re%sewed area
N Decision supported by SN ANCC /Migratory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
♦ ♦♦ aters defined under 33 CFR part 319 as navigable waters of the United States
® The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and (tow of the tide and/or are presently used or ha,.c been used in
the past or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce
B Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328 3(a) as eaters of the United States
® (1) The presence of waters which arc currently used or were used in the past or may be susceptible to use in
mtcrstate or foreign commerce including all waters which arc subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
❑ ('�) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands'
Q (3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes rivers streams (including intermittent streams) mudflats sandflats
wetlands sloubhs prairie potholes wet meadows playa lakes or natural ponds the use c1gradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply)
❑ (i) which arc or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes
❑ (ii) from which fish or shellfish arc or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce
❑ (m) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce
❑ (4) impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) — (4) above
❑ (6) The presence of territorial seas
® (7) The presence of wetlands adjacent to other waters of the US except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands
Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes checked above) If ncc yurisdictronal water at
ii eland tv nit itself u navigable water of the united States describe connection(s) to the doii nstreant navigable waters If B(1) or B(i)
is used a% the Bavis ofJuriidtedon document navigabdai and/or interstate commerce connection (i a discuev site conditions inchahng
i hi the atcrbod) i na igablc andloi hoit the do struction of the waterbodt could affect interstate or foreign cone nu m) IfB(') 4 S or
6) is uvtd a die Basis of hii i dicito i docrintent the rationale used to make the determination If B(7) is used as the Basis of
Ji iisdiction douaneiu the tationale used to niake adlacenct deteri unatu n This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to South Creek a tributary of the Pamlico
River Waterbodics designated throuf,hout the project area exhibit individual Ordinary High Water Marks as indicated by changes in
soil character and absence of terrestrial vegetation and arc hydrologically connected to South Creek
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 8
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction (Reference 33 CFR parts 328 and 329)
® Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by
JQ High Tide Line indicated by
®
clear natural line impressed on the bank
❑
oil or scum line along shore objects
®
the presence of litter and debris
❑
fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
®
changes in the character of soil
Aar
physical mark ings/characteristics
®
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
n
tidal gages
®
shelvinl,
❑
other
❑
other
❑ Mean Hibh Water Mark indicated by
❑ survey to available datum ❑ physical markings ❑ vegetation lines /chanties in vegetation types
® Wetland boundaries as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by CZR
Incorporated and Robert M Chiles P E
Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction
❑ the rev iewed area consists entirely of uplands
❑ Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(i 2 or 4 7)
❑ Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328 3(a)(3)
�] The Corps has made a case specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United States
❑ Waste treatment systems including treatment ponds or lagoons pursuant to 33 CFR part 328 3
❑ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased
❑ Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and /or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering irrigation settling basins or rice browing
❑ Artificial reflectinti or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of u ater created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons
❑ Water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtatmnb fill sand or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 318 3(a)
❑ Isolated intrastate wetland %%ith no nexus to interstate commerce
❑ Prior converted cropland as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service Explain rationale
❑ Non tidal drainabe or irntiation ditches excavated on dry land Explain rationale
❑ Other (explain)
DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply)
Maps plans plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant
® This office concurs with the delineation report dated 01/24/2005 prepared by (company) C7R Incorporated and Robert M
Chiles P E
❑ This office does not concur with the delineation report dated prepared by (company)
Data sheets prepared by the Corps
Corps na%igablc waters studies
U S Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas
U S Geological Survey 7 5 Minute Topographic maps Aurora
U S Geological Survey 7 5 Minute Historic quadrangles
U S Geological Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Beaufort
National wetlands inventory maps Aurora
State /Local wetland inventory maps NC CREWS
FEMA/FIRM maps (Map Name & Date)
100 year Floodplain Elevation is (NGVD)
Aerial Photot raphs (Name & Date) CESA W
Other photographs (Date)
Advanced Identification Wetland maps
SaL visit /determination conducted on Multiple visits
Applicable /supporting case law
Other information (please specify)
Wetlands an, identih d and delis at-.d using the methods and criteria established in th Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i a occurrent of
hydrophytie ct, tation hydri sods and %%etland hydrology)
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 9
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

i h t rm d1a nt m an bord ring a nugu u r n ighbonn W Hands s parat d from th r alas of tl U S by man made d tie r h rn r iatur I
m r bLrnu b a h dune and th like ar at o adlac nt
NOTMCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQtTEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant PCS Phosphate Inco orated
File Number 200510457
Date 01/25/2005
Attached
is D
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Pennit or Letter of ermission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision Additional information may be found at htta / /www usace army mil /inet/funetions /cw /cecwo /re>~ or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331
A INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT You may acceptor object to the permit
ACCrPT If you 1LcLnLd a Standard Pernut you may si ,,n the permit document and return it to the district engineer foi final
authorization If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP) you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your signature
on the Standard Pei mit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety and A aive all rights to appeal the
permit includinb its terms and conditions and approved jurisdictional determinations associated �%ith the permit
0 OBIECT If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions theiein you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly You must complete Section 11 of this form and return
the form to the district engineer Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future Upon receipt of your
letter the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written After evaluating your objections the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration as indicated in Section B below
B PROFFERED PERMIT You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCFP f If you received a Standard Permit you may si,n the pernut document and return it to the district enl,ineer for final
authorization If you received a Lettei of Pei nussion (LOP) you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety and wage all rights to appeal the
permit including its terms and conditions and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
• APPEAL If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice
C PERMIT DENIAL You may appeal the denial of a pennit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section I1 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 10
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

D APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information
ACCEPT You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD
APPEAL If you disagree with the approved JD you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice
E PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD The Preliminary JD is not appealable If you wish you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed) by contacting the Corps distract for further instruction Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD
SECTION H REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record the Corps
emorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting and any supplemental information that the
-view officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record However you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record
POINT OF CONTACT FOR UESTIONS OR INFORMATION
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and /or the appeal process you may contact
may also contact
Mr Scott Jones, Regulatory Specialist
Mr Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD ET CO R
CESAW RG W
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
U S Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta Georgia 30303 8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel and any
government consultants to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations
Date
Telephone number
Signature of appellant or agent
DIVISION ENGINEER
Commander
U S Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta Georgia 30303 3490
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 11
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

INFORMATION SHEET
DETER'MINAT'IONS OF NO IURISDICfION FOR ISOLACED YON NAS (GABLE INTRA STAIR WATLRS
RESLLTING )ROM V S SUPRLME COLRT DECISION In SOLID WASTE AGh'VCY OF NOR MERN COOK
COUNTY V U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINLERS
DISTRICT OPPICE
kILE NLMBER
CESAW RG-W
200510451
ALGULATORY PROJLCT MANAGER Scot inns Data 01 /25/2005
PROJEC r REVIEW /DETERMINAfION COMPLETLD In the office _ (Y/N) Date
Al the project situ i (YPN) Date 0410 bt1A
PROJLCf LOCATION INFORMATION
Stato Nr rlh Carolina
County Beau o
Ceotq,r coordinates of site by lailtude & longitudinal coordinates 3S U50 / 76,9.16029
Approximate srse of sata/properry (including uplands & In acres) 10.211 acres
Name of waterway or watershed Pam lco
SITE CONDITIONS
Typo of squat a resource
O 1 c
13 ac
14 ac
5-10 ac
10 2S ac
25.50 ae > SO .e
Linea Lnknown
test
Isko
to Cim
tkc Determination
Is or *said iK us d h bitat for birds p t -clad by
War t ry Bird Trestles
RI c
Is or we id h used as habitat by ote r nuar ton birds that
C
crust state lines?
Streaot
Is or w Id be used as habitat for endnn LW a 'lea'
Dr-Y Wash
X
Is used to irrigate crop sold is interstate commerce
X
MudOat
Check appropriate boxes that txw d sedbe potential to uppilcublllty of the M arstury tiled Rule to apply to odeit4 not jurudretsonai isolated
non -navl able Tatra -slate Aquatic rGMurce rW
Sandal"
Nodands
X
blou h
!,at to liathole
Wet mead w
Plays lam
Nor 1 pool
Not ai im d
Odtur water (Identify typ4.)
i
I
Check appropriate boxes tkut bell describe Opp of wlated, non navigable Intro state water pretLnt and best LtUmate for situ of non
ur d WOW aqua eshurte a en.
Migratory RI d Rule Kseturs if Known
If Ltllutowa
I ll e t Profcsslunsl Jud want
Ycs h
Predicted
Not i peeled to Not 4ht 1 Nuke
to Cim
tkc Determination
Is or *said iK us d h bitat for birds p t -clad by
War t ry Bird Trestles
Is or we id h used as habitat by ote r nuar ton birds that
C
crust state lines?
Is or w Id be used as habitat for endnn LW a 'lea'
X
Is used to irrigate crop sold is interstate commerce
X
Check appropriate boxes that txw d sedbe potential to uppilcublllty of the M arstury tiled Rule to apply to odeit4 not jurudretsonai isolated
non -navl able Tatra -slate Aquatic rGMurce rW
Y 1 PE OF DETERM f NATION
Prdlrednary _ Or Approved X
OPITIONAL AUDI I ION tL INFORMATION SUPPORTING NJD (t g dlecussion may Include litformation rivlewed
to assess potential navlyation or interstate commerce connwinos I to 3 paraersphs)
E�vht wedand sireaR (labeled 4OW7. 40W6. SOWS, S2W4. WWII, SON 2. SOW& and SOW91 tocatrd on tke oronerty were
roonnd
Z /Compensato&- Mitigahon Plan �" d °f
and UCands es era wn -- --
co Ic occZ 6f �J AppLeindiki4 12
f
�t
t

Jeff
I have spoken with Ken and Tom and pursuant to RGL 05 02 we are going to honor the
NCPC / Bonnerton plat until the permit expires — I think you said 2017 Regarding S33 — let it ride
Once the next permit is issued that JD will ride thru permit expiration Regarding the stream
plats — per RGL 08 02 we should go preliminary and move forward
From Lekson David M SAW
Sent Friday November 21 2008 4 38 PM
To Jolly Samuel K SAW McLendon Scott C SAW Walker William T SAW Lamson Brooke SAW
Subject PCS Phosphate JD Renewal
All
I have been in conversation with Jeff Furness regarding the 24 411 acre PCS JD as follows
1 Some of the PCS JD is set to expire and they would like to explore lumping all of the
JD s together into one expiration date The total area in question equals 24 411 acres (14 200
acres on NCPC and Bonnerton 10 211 acres on S33)
2 We are all concerned about the Rapanos issue /forms /etc and I am considering going
preliminary pursuant to RGL 08 02
3 That said the expiration date of the 14 200 acre segment is 09Dec08 However RGL
05 02 states that JDs associated with issued permits remain valid until the permit expires Since
NCPC and Bonnerton were JDed for the Alt E permit which expires in 2017 1 am contemplating
allowing that to remain in effect We would then cover the remaining 10 211 acres on S33 —
including all the stream calls as a preliminary JD pursuant to RGL 08 02 and move forward with
the permit action Jeff said he would run that up his chain of command
Thoughts /comments?
Thanks
David
http / /www usace army mil /cw /cecwo /req /rgls /rg105 02 pdf
http / /www usace army mil /cw /cecwo /req /rqls /rg108 02 pdf
ment the U Lands are
contained within Parcel 42 (both sides
of Gum Road) and Parcel 41 (the
existing wetlands of the U Lands
northeast of Gum Road) These
parcels are referred to in handwritten
notes on page 1 of CESAW Form 566
dated 12/4/03
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 13
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 3726
March 11 2009
Catoltne Reddy
CZR Incorpot ated
2151 Alternate A 1 A South Suite 2000
Jupiter Florida 33477 3902
P;, Orwet-ted Spec e, Pe%ie% of La,d, N4 , gatior Sife
Dear Ms Reddy
MAR 16 2009
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U S Fish and Wildlife
Service s (Service) web page at http //www fws gov /raleigh Therefore if you have piojects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office s area of responsibility (see attached county list) you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally protected species
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16
U S C 1531 et seq )(Act) and a list of fedeial species of concern' that ale known to occur in
each county in North Carolina
Section 7 of the Act iequites that all federal agencies (or their designated non federal
representative) in consultation with the Service insure that any action federally authorized
funded or carried out by such agencies is not likely to Jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally listed endangered or threatened species A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in detenriming whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary In addition to the federally protected species list information on the
bpecies life histories and habitats and infoimation on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http / /www fws gov /raleigh Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
' The term federal species of concern refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species However we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 14
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

If yout ptoject contains suitable habitat fo► any of the fede ►ally listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species As such we recommend that surveys be conducted to deter mine
the species presence of absence within the project at ea The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (► e , likely to adversely affect of not likely
to adversely affect) a federally protected species you should notify this office with your
determination the results of your sui veys survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species including consideration of diect rndnect and cumulative effects
befo►e conducting any activities that might affect the species It you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i a no beneficial or adverse diect or rndnect effect) on federally
listed species then you are not required to contact our office for concuuence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared) Ho A ever you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment including steps leading to your deter mination of effect the qualified per sonnel
conducting the assessment habitat conditions site photographs and any other related articles
With regard to the above referenced project we offer the following remarks Out comments are
submitted pursuant to and in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act
Based on the information provided and other information available it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered of threatened species their
formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites We believe that the requiements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your pioject Please iemembet that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
►econsideted if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat detei mined that may be affected by the identified action
However the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation Therefore we
recommend that all practicable nneasuies be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measui es An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section prior to construction
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down gradient surface waters In addition we recommend maintaining
natural vegetated buffets on all streams and c►eeks adjacent to the pioject site
The North Ca►ohna Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on out website at (http / /www fws gov/tale►gh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and ten estrial. wildlife resources and water quality
We i ecommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary)
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 15
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process descttbed
above will seduce the time cequcred and eliminate the need, foc general correspondence for
species lists If you have any questions oc comments please contact Mack Boweis of this office
at [phone] ext 19
Sincerely�j
Pete Benjamin
ield Supervtsoc
3
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 16
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

List of Counties to the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufoi t
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Ciaven
Cumberland
Cut i ituck
Dai e
Duplin
Dui ham
Edgecombe
Fianklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilfoid
Halifax
Hai nett
Hertfoid
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moot e
Nash
New Hanovei
Not thampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pendei
Pet quimans
Petson
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyi i ell
Vance
Wake
Waiien
Washington
Wayne
Wilson
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 17
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 3726
Match 11 2009
Caroline Reddy
CZR Incorporated
2151 Alternate A I A South Suite 2000
Ripitet Florida 33477 3902
Re Protected Snecres Review of U Lands Mitigation Site
Dear Ms Reddy
4 •' t }
7
MAR 16 200
1: . ! .
This lettei is to inform you that a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U S Fish and Wildlife
Service s (Service) web page at http / /www fws gov /ralergh Therefore if you have piojects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office s area of responsibility (see attached county list) you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally protected species
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16
U S C 1531 et seq )(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non federal
representative) in consultation with the Service insure that any action federally authorized
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally listed endangered or threatened species A biological assessment or evaluation may be
ptepafca to'tudid that requneiriciit,ina in ueteinitriatg wht:ihet additional ..ariaultdtrun with sue
Service is necessary In addition to the federally protected species list information on the
species life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http / /www fws gov /ralergh Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
I The term federal species of concern refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species However we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 18
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species As such we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species presence or absence within the pioject area The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys
If you determine that the pioposed action may affect (i e likely to adversely affect of not likely
to adversely affect) a federally protected species you should notify this office with your
determination the results of your surveys survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species including consideration of duect indirect and cumulative effects
befoie conducting any activities that might affect the species If you determme that the proposed
action will have no effect (i a no beneficial of adveise direct of mduect effect) on federally
listed species then you ate not required to contact out office fot concurience (unless an
Envitonmental Impact Statement is prepared) Howevet you should maintain a complete iecoid
of the assessment including steps leading to youi determination of effect the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions site photogiaphs and any other ielated articles
With tegaid to the above referenced project we offei the following iemaiks Our comments are
submitted pursuant to and in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act
Based on the information piovided and othei mfoiimation available it appeais that the pioposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any fedeially listed endangered or threatened species then
formally designated critical habitat or species curiently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites We believe that the requnements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your picject Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat deteimi ned that may be affected by the identified action
However the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action night have
on aquatic species Aquatic resources ate highly susceptible to sedimentation Therefore we
recommend that all pricticable measures be taken to avoid adveise impacts to aquatic species
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be subs pitted to aid arproved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section prior to constriction
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the constiuction
site and any nearby down gradient surface waters In addition we recommend maintaining
natural vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site
The North Catolma Wildlife Resouices Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on out website at (http Hwww fws gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality
We recommend that you considet this document in the development of yout ptojects and in
completing an initiation package foi consultation (if necessary)
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 19
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required and eliminate the need for general correspondence for
species lists If you have any questions or comments please contact Mark Bowers of this office
at [phone] ext 19
Sincerely
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 20
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

List of Counties in the Sei vice's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bei tie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteiet
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Ciaven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Gieene
Guilford
Halifax
Hai nett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Letion
Martin
Montgomery
Mooie
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
P,isquotank
Pendet
4
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyt t ell
Vance
Wake
Waiten
Washington
Wayne
Wilson
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 21
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

North Carohna Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
1 eter It Sandbcck %dmtni trator
Beverly Ca-, es Perdue Goi. emor
Linda A Carlisle Secretary
Jeffrey) Cro v Deputy Secretary
March 20 2009
Caroline Reddy
CZR Imcorporated
2151 Alternate AIA South
Suite 2000
Jupiter FL 33477 3902
Re P Lands Mitigation Site Beaufort County ER 09 0457
Dear Ms Reddy
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 2009 concerning the above project
Offc of \reh es and 11 ton
1) n if I I to cal ltc,( t rct.
1)1 d tiro k 1) recto
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore we have no comment on the project as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Pieseiv�ttion Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CrR
Part 800
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the abo-, a comment
please contact Renee Gledhill Earley environmental review coordinator at 919 807 6579 In all future
communication concerning this project please cite the above teferenced tracking number
Sincerely
eter Sandbeck
Locaaom 109 Ltast Jones Street Raleigh Nl 27601
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
MAR � 0 2009
Mailing Address 4617 Mail ticn ice Lent r ItalMh NC 27699 -4(17 Tcicpl one /Fa ()U)8076570/807(599
Appendix A 22
January 2012

North Carohna Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
1 eter B Sandbeck ldmmi trator
Beverly Eves Perdue, Go%emor
Linda A Carlisle Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow Deputy Secretary
March 20 2009
Caroline Reddy
CZR Imcorporated
2151 Alternate A1A South
Suite 2000
Jupiter, FL 33477 3902
Re U Lands Mitigation Site Beaufort County ER 09 0456
Dear Ms Reddy
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 2009 concerning the abo-, a project
Office of Vch e+ lnd I It. tort
D on of 1 I to cal Res irce
D1\ d Br 6 1) rect
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore we have no comment on the project as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic PieseLN 'ttion Act tnd the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified 1t 36 CFR
Part 800
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the aboti a comment
please contact Renee Gledhill Earley environmental review cooidinator at 919 807 6579 In all future
communication concerning this project please cite the above tefeienced tracking nurnbei
Sincerely
reter Sandbeck
Locattom 109 East Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
P and U Lands Restoration
zz�
IMF
MAR i 0 2009
Mailing Address 4(17 Mad Sen ice Center R-ilcigh N( 27699 4(17 Telephone /Fa ()1))8()76571)/807(5)9
Appendix A 23
January 2012

EXHIBIT C
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall
Governor Director
March 13 2009
Caroline Reddy
CZR, Inc
4709 College Acres Drive Suite 2
Wilmington NC 28403 1725
Subject Protected species review of P Lands Mitigation Site
Dear Ms Reddy
Dee Freeman
Secretary
OD rAC�C��JCVur1l
i
Irf„R 7 u 2009 (� r
CZR hCC po _ _
L✓,i— q�
I have reviewed the Natural Hentage Program records for this site south of Aurora as indicated
on the map you sent We have no records of rare species or significant natural features within
these tracts However two Significant Natural Hentage Areas are nearby Bay City Low
Pocosm lies immediately to the south The adjoining portion is a secondary area, included to
buffer the primary areas farther south and does not contain significant resources itself The
primary area of this regionally significant site contains exemplary natural communities including
Pond Pine Woodland and Low Pocosm The Western Gum Swamp significant area lies a short
distance to the west of the mitigation site This area is of cowity significance and contains good
examples of a Nonrivenne Swamp Forest community Restoration activities on the mitigation
site should not harm either of these significant areas and may be beneficial if more natural
hydrology is restored Conversely the proximity of these natural areas may benefit the
restoration by providing a source of propagules for native species
Sincerely
Michael P Schafale
Natural Hentage Program
1601 Mad Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 276991601
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www oneNCNaturally org
An Equal opponundy 1 ANirmahve Action Employer
NorthQu ohna
A"u,"ally
Normal Pesources Moaning and Conserrauon
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 24
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Natural Resources Planning and Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall
Governor Director
March 13 2009
Caroline Reddy
CZR Inc
4709 College Acres Drive Suite 2
Wilmington NC 28403 1725
Subject Protected species review of U Lands Mitigation Site
Dear Ms Reddy
Dee Freeman
Secretary
9 J
CZ9 J%ur�r)ra —d
if 1-2
n rti�
I have reviewed the Natural Heritage Program records for this site south of Aurora as indicated
on the map you sent Part of the mitigation site overlaps a Significant Natural Heritage Area
The Western Gum Swamp area is of county significance It contains a Nonnvenne Swamp
Forest community that is believed to be a good example despite the presence of ditches
Restoration of hydrology in this area to more natural condition would be expected to improve the
condition of the community At the same time the presence of natural communities in fair
condition should improve prospects for more full restoration Other forested areas on the
mitigation site may also be natural communities in good condition but have not been explored
We have no record of any rare species specific to the mitigation site or the Western Gum Swamp
area
Sincerely
411ZtJZ2► u — 1'
Michael P Sehafale
Natural Hentage Program
1601 Mad Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1641
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www oneNCNaturally org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarohna
NIMUI'qa�ly
Natural Fesaau s Fla hung and Comerratian
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 25
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

�s
mom
own YrrA
mom
mss®
NCENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H Sullins Dee Freeman
Govemor Director Secretary
October 26 2010
Mr Jeffrey Furness Sr Env Scientist
Potash Corp
1530 NC Hwy 306 South
Aurora, Nc 27806
Subject. EXEMPTION from Stormwater Management Permit Regulations
SEC Plan Approval / CAMA Major Dredge & Fill / Bulkhead / Pier
P & U Lands – Appliation 1 ( Wetland Restoration Project)
Stormwater Project No SW7100910
Beaufort County
Dear Mr Furness
The Washington Regional Office received a copy of your SEC Plan FRO form for your proposed clearing and grading for
the wetland restoration project named P & U Lands – Application 1 on September 16 2010 with a request for an
exemption from state stormwater permitting received on October 26 2010 Staff review of the plans and specifications
has determined that the project, as proposed, consists of activities that will not pose surface water quality threats from
stormwater runoff since no new impervious area is proposed
The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by the Division as not posing water quality
threats from stormwater runoff should not be subject to the stormwater management permitting requirements of 15A
NCAC 2H 1000 and SL 2008 211 For this reason, we are informing you byway of this letter that your project will not
require a State Stormwater management permit at this time
The stormwater rules require the Division to permit the common plan of development, therefore any future development
on the property regardless of whether a SEC plan or CAMA Major permit is also required, will require a Stormwater
Management Permit application and permit issuance from the Division of Water Quality prior to any construction Any
1 construction on the subject site prior to receipt of the required permit, will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 2H 1000
and SL 2008 -211 and may result in appropriate enforcement actions by this Office
Please keep in mind that this determination does not affect your legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality the Division of Land Resources Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal State or Local Government
Please reference the Stormwater Project Number above on all correspondence If you have any questions or need additional
information concerning this matter please contact Scott Vinson at (252) 946 -6481
S cerely
AL odge —T
Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
AH/ sv K \. SAV\STORMWATER\EXEMPT\SW7100910
cc Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet www rimaterquanty org
943 Wastungton Square Man Phone [phone] FAX. [phone] N-6 f ttu, Carolma
Washurgton NC 27669 FAX 252 - 946 9215 a'n�u�a //�
An Equal apMholy 1 Afikmative Adon Employe (� �/ds 1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix A 26
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND MASTER PLAN FOR P AND U LANDS
)mpensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B
and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Master Plan recommendations
April 17, 2011
Updated January 31, 2012
Prepared by
Jonathan T Ricketts, Inc
Consulting Engineers and Construction Managers
3450 Northlake Boulevard Suite 102
Palm Beach Gardens Florida 33403
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]
Toll Free [phone]
FL Cert of Auth 6173 NC Cert of Auth C 2761
�onadw T Rickefts, Inc '
C% S n� Filpwn Lon to tlara,,rr
r ;
1(131 011 111 1 RILL It
NCPE l ;
R1Ii \YD417_t7if
t111»II h 01/31/1

P and U Lands
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Master Plan Recommendations
April 17, 2011
Updated January 31, 2012
Prepared by
Jonathan T Ricketts, Inc
Consulting Engineers and Construction Managers
3450 Northlake Boulevard Suite 102
Palm Beach Gardens Florida 33403
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]
Toll Free [phone]
FL Cert of Auth 6173 NC Cert of Auth C 2761
VTR
Tonadn T Fackett's, Inc
cam-
Jonathan T Ricketts
NC P E #26154
RELEASED 4/17/2011
UPDATED 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydrauhc Analyses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose
1
2 Project Location Description and Analyses
1
3 South Creek Drainage District
2
4 Existing Drainage Characteristics
2
41 East Drainage Basin
3
4 2 West Drainage Basin
4
4 3 Survey
4
5 Hydrology
5
51 Soils
5
5 2 Well & Rainfall Monitoring
5
6 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
5
6 1 East Basin Analysis
6
6 2 West Basin Analysis
8
6 3 FEMA Study
9
6 4 Stage Storage Volume Comparison
9
6 5 Perimeter Berm Analysis
10
6 6 Conclusion/Recommendation
10
7 Master Plan Recommendations
11
7 1 Phase 1 Recommendations
11
7 2 Phase 2 Recommendations
12
7 3 Phase 3 Recommendations
14
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page i
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 2 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydrauhc Analyses
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1
Location Map
Exhibit 2
USGS Quad Map w/ Contributory Areas
Exhibit 3
South Creek Drainage District
Exhibit 4
Existing Drainage Basin and Discharge Routes
Exhibit 5
Existing Drainage Facilities Map
Exhibit 6
LIDAR Map — West and East Basin Surface
Exhibit 7
Soils Map
Exhibit 8
Monitoring Well Locations Map
Exhibit 9
Well & Cumulative Rain Data Charts
Exhibit 10
East & West Basin Channel Stationing
Exhibit 11
HEC RAS Peak Flood Stages Report
Exhibit 12
LIDAR Map — East Basin
Exhibit 13
Existing Ditches to be Removed — East Basin
Exhibit 14
Conceptual Plan for East Basin
Exhibit 15
Exhibit Not Included — Option Eliminated
Exhibit 16
LIDAR Map — West Basin
Exhibit 17
Existing Ditches to be Removed — West Basin
Exhibit 18
Conceptual Plan for West Basin
Exhibit 19
Exhibit Not Included — Option Eliminated
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page ii
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 3 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
1 Purpose
This report documents the analyses used to determine the existing hydrologic and hydraulic
conditions at the P & U Lands The existing hydraulic conditions are used in developing a
master plan for restoring the site to its former natural state This involves computing the
expected flows and flood stages for the existing conditions and the future conditions once the
existing drainage facilities are filled and/or removed and the fields reshaped to approximate
historic or pre developed grades Additionally the analyses were performed to ensure that
offsite areas would have no significant increases to flood stages as a result of the proposed work
Restoration work will need to maintain or accommodate the existing flows from offsite drainage
ditches that flow through the property This will ensure that adverse flood impacts will not occur
to adjacent properties
2 Project Location, Description, and Analyses
The P and U Lands encompass 3 700 + / acres of existing timberlands in Beaufort County North
Carolina located south of the Pamlico River southeast of Aurora and immediately north of the
Pamlico — Beaufort County Line at latitude 35 23333 (35° 14 00 N) and longitude 76 77639
(76° 46 35 W) (See Exhibit 1 — Location Map & Exhibit 2 — USGS Quad Map w/
Contributory Areas ) The sites are adjacent to State Road 1002 (SR 1002) (a k a Bay City Road)
approximately 4 5 miles southeast of Aurora and are located in Richland Township The P
Lands containing approximately 2 900 acres is bisected by the north south SR 1002 The U
Lands containing approximately 800 acres is located immediately west of the P Lands The
project site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit Code 03020104 There are multiple
access points to the site from SR 1002 via private roads built as part of the existing timber
production
The restoration work includes removing the stumps in the former timber fields that have recently
been clear cut filling or plugging the existing facilities and planting the site with a mix of
wetland trees and shrubs This will increase the hydroperiod of the P and U Lands most of
which have evidence of being former wetlands thus restoring the natural historic conditions
This work is being conducted by PotashCorp to mitigate wetland impacts associated with their
phosphate mining in Aurora North Carolina A pre versus post improvements flood analyses
including stage storage and water surface profiles within the primary drainage ditches was
performed to ensure the restoration work will not adversely impact adjacent properties These
analyses quantify the existing conditions of the site and are used as a reference in developing the
improvement plans
The stage storage analysis conducted confirms that the volumetric storage loss resulting from the
filling of the agricultural field ditches will be insignificant and will not impact the flood stages
throughout the basin Analysis of the primary drainage ditches for the 10 year and 100 year
flood events were conducted to determine the water surface profiles during a smaller regularly
occurring rainfall event and a less frequent larger rainfall event The flood events analyzed are
consistent with those used in the Federal Emergency Managements Agency s (FEMA) flood
insurance study completed for Beaufort County North Carolina in 2007
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 1
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 4 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
3 South Creek Drainage District
A portion of the P and U Lands resides within the South Creek Drainage District (See Exhibit 3
— South Creek Drainage District ) This entity was created in the late 60 s and was the result of a
program by the Army Corps of Engineers to enlarge a portion of South Creek This federal
program provided for payment of eighty percent of the initial improvements (dredging) of South
Creek provided that a local sponsor would pay for the remaining twenty percent Additionally
all improvements outside of the limits of the South Creek Corridor would be paid for by the local
sponsor These improvements would include new ditches or enlargement of existing ditches to
improve the drainage of the lands within the district
To create the local sponsor a majority of the landowners who would benefit from the
improvements had to sign a petition agreeing to become members of the district having their
land assessed for the additional improvements and the costs of future maintenance of the system
In order to provide an equitable assessment of the cost and benefits of the improvements five
categories of lands were created with five different assessment rates Those whose lands
benefitted the most from the drainage improvements provided by the district would pay more
while those whose land received less benefit would pay less
An annual report is made by the South Creek Drainage District to the Clerk of the Court in
Washington North Carolina This annual report lists the names of the owners of property within
the drainage district the acreage and category of the land and the assessed values
4 Existing Drainage Characteristics
The P and U Lands which have been historically used for silviculture are drained through a
network of farm ditches and drainage ditches that outfall north to South Creek South Creek is a
tributary of the tidal Pamlico River which ultimately discharges to the Pamlico Sound The
drainage ditches collect runoff from the fields and convey the water primarily from east to west
SR 1002 serves as a drainage basin divide The lands east of SR 1002 have both controlled and
uncontrolled discharge to South Creek via Gum Swamp Run Lands located west of SR 1002
have a controlled discharge to South Creek via the roadside ditches adjacent to Gum Road (See
Exhibit 4 — Existing Drainage Basin and Discharge Routes )
The current drainage system which consists of a system of swales field ditches roadside
ditches and control structures serves to maintain the water table below grade in order to
facilitate tree farming activities (See Exhibit 5 Existing Drainage Facilities Map ) Control
structures for the east basin include
• CS 14 is a 36 inch riser within the east ditch of SR 1002 at Bay City No 4 controlling
water levels to the south of the structure (Sub basin East South) at elevation 6 04 feet
NAVD 88
• CS 9 is a 60 inch riser in the east SR 1002 roadside ditch of Small Road north of
confluence of Gum Swamp Run with SR 1002 controlling water levels to the east of the
structure at elevation 3 62 feet NAVD 88
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 2
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 5 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydrauhc Analyses
• CS 21 is a 36 inch riser within the east ditch of Peele Road at Dollar Road controlling
offsite water levels to the east of the structure at elevation 6 19 feet NAVD 88
The west basin includes control structure CS 3 an 84 inch riser in the east ditch of Gum Road at
its confluence with South Creek that is in need of maintenance Based on the remaining
structure it is estimated that the water levels were controlled no higher than 4 75 feet NAVD 88
The west basin also includes control structure CS 19 a 72 inch riser at County Line Road that
maintains the water levels for the western P Lands at elevation 6 66 feet NAVD 88
Existing offsite contributory areas are shown in Exhibit 2 Offsite flows for the east basin
include a ditch on the north side of Dollar Road (located near the northeast corner of the P
Lands north and east of Peele Road outlets on the east and west end of the north Parker Farm
property line the Casey Tract bounded by Parker Farm on the east P Lands on the west and
County Line Road on the south and the Perry Griffin Foundation south of County Line Road
Offsite flows for the west basin include a ditch on the west side of Bonner Road and a ditch on
the north side of Executive Road
41 East Drainage Basin
The east basin includes a total drainage area of approximately 4 100 acres of which 2 100 + /
acres are P Lands east of SR 1002 The approximate 2 000 acres of offsite lands are identified
in Exhibit 2 as Area No 6 — the 640 acre Dollar Road drainage area Area No 5a the 190 acre
Parker Farm northwest site Area No 5B — the 450 acre Parker Farm north site Area No 4 the
220 acre Casey Tract (assumes 220 acres outfall south via existing pipes) and Area No 3 — the
500 acre Perry Griffin Foundation timberlands' These lands are collected and conveyed to the
east ditch of SR 1002 where it is discharged to Gum Swamp Run and then conveyed northwest
to South Creek The east basin is further divided into three sub drainage basins east north east
central and east south described as follows
• The east north sub basin includes approximately 800 acres within the project limits and is
bounded on the south by a private road known as Small Road Runoff from this land is
collected and conveyed through a series of field and road ditches west to the SR 1002
ditch The runoff is then conveyed south where it discharges into Gum Swamp Run
through control structure CS 9 at elevation 3 62 feet NAVD 88 This sub basin includes
the offsite flow from Dollar Road (Area No 6)
• The east central sub basin includes approximately 600 acres within the project limits and
is bounded on the north by Small Road and on the south by Bay City No 4 Runoff from
this land is also collected and conveyed west to the SR 1002 ditch The runoff is then
routed north where it discharges uncontrolled at the confluence of SR 1002 and Gum
Swamp Run This sub basin includes offsite flows from the Parker Farm (Area No 5A
and Area No 5B)
'At the time of the modeling the offsite areas were assumed to be Area No 3 — 1 300 acres Area No 4 — 440 acres
Area No 5 — 1 400 acres Area No 6 — 640 acres Since that time it has been determined that the offsite areas are
less than originally assumed as is summarized in Section 4 1 However the calculations and modeling conducted
have not been revised as they were based on the actual flow measurements defined in Sections 5 2 and 6 and not on
the assumed offstte land acreage
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 3
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 6 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
The east south sub basin includes approximately 700 acres within the project limits and
is bounded on the north by Bay City No 4 and on the south by County Line Road
Runoff from this land is collected and conveyed west to the SR 1002 ditch as with the
other sub basins However this runoff is conveyed through a control structure CS 14 at
Bay City No 4 at elevation 6 04 feet NAVD 88 where it is then co mingled with the
runoff from the central sub basin and conveyed to Gum Swamp Run This sub basin
includes the offsite flows from the Casey Tract and a portion of Perry Griffin Foundation
timberlands (Areas No 3 & 4)
42 West Drainage Basin
The west basin includes a total drainage area of approximately 5 550 acres of which 1600+/
acres are P and U Lands west of SR 1002 A small offsite drainage area (less than 50 acres)
south of County Line Road identified as Area No 2 in Exhibit 2 drains north through the U
lands to South Creek The remaining approximately 3 900 acres identified as Area No 1 in
Exhibit 2 drain from the south along the west side of Rodman Road and from the west along the
north side of Executive Road to South Creek Western P and U Lands are in one drainage basin
consisting of two sub basins which are connected in series by control structure CS 19 This
basin includes the portion of the P Lands west of SR 1002 which drains to the west through the
U Lands This portion of the P Lands and the eastern portion of the U Lands flow west and are
collected in the east ditch of Gum Road The western portions of the U Lands flow to the east
and are collected in the west ditch of Gum Road The roadside ditches then convey the runoff
northward through control structure CS 3 to South Creek
43 Survey
A boundary survey to confirm the property boundary and define the project limits and a
topographic survey were conducted in 2010 for purposes of this analyses and the development of
the master improvement plan The topographic survey was generated with LIDAR (LIght
Detection And Ranging) technology using laser pulses to determine the distance to an object or
surface A digital basemap was prepared with the measured land elevations and contour lines
were developed to identify the site s features including the roads ditches and other
watershed/drainage characteristics
A traditional field survey was also conducted to establish control and collect horizontal and
vertical data on culverts control structures and groundwater wells and provide groundtruthing
and LIDAR quality assurance /quality control checks with ditch cross sections and random field
grades Field reconnaissance to observe and verify the existing conditions presented in the
survey and the constraints of the site have occurred regularly
A large quantity of topography was generated with the LIDAR survey As a result maps with
detailed site contours depicting the natural slope of the land have been prepared to determine the
natural flow ways wetland flats headwater valleys and offsite flow areas (See Exhibit 6
LIDAR Map — West and East Basin Surface ) This information is paramount in determining the
historic and existing basin characteristics and the proposed master plan
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 4
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 7 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
5 Hydrology
51 Soils
Soils at the site consist of hydric organic soils with most of these being one of three types of
muck Ponzer 58% Dare 23% and Wasda 13% The remaining soils include a Portsmouth loam
comprising slightly less than 5% with the remaining 2% being Arapahoe fine sandy loam
Dorovan mucky peat Tomotley fine sandy loam and Tarboro sand which is the only non hydric
soil within the site (See Exhibit 7 — Soils Map ) In their natural state the water movement
through these soils is restricted or very restricted (hydrologic soil group D) However the
current drainage system facilitates transmission of the water through the soil allowing runoff to
drain unimpeded (hydrologic soil group B)
52 Well & Rainfall Monitoring
A surface water level monitoring program was implemented as part of this study to evaluate the
response of the existing drainage system to rainfall Ten surface water monitoring wells were
installed within primary ditches throughout the east and west basins (See Exhibit 8 Monitoring
Well Locations Map ) The monitoring wells were equipped with battery powered Ecotone
monitoring instruments to measure and digitally record surface water levels at regular hourly
intervals A digital Ecotone rain gauge was also installed at the adjacent Bay City Farm site in
2007 utilizing a tipping bucket mechanism to determine the total inches of rainfall during each
rain event
A rainfall event occurred primarily from September 28`h through 30`h of 2010 with an observed
cumulative rainfall of approximately 12 inches as measured at the Bay City Farm site This
rainfall volume was cross checked and verified with rainfall data provided by the State Climate
Office of North Carolina for two gauges north (stations AURO and 310375) and two gauges
south of our project site (stations NNWB and NC CN 15) According to the rainfall charts
included in the Soil Conservation Services Technical Release No 55 Figure B 8 this storm was
on the order of a 100 year event
The surface water elevations were also analyzed during the September 2010 rainfall event and
were compared against the cumulative rainfall volume to determine the rainfall versus water
elevation relationship at each well The surface water elevations within the same overall ditch
were then compared for a particular storm event to determine the amount of head loss resulting
in that section of ditch (See Exhibit 9 Well & Cumulative Rain Data Charts )
6 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
A hydraulic analysis was completed using the Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis
System (HEC RAS) computer software to model the hydraulics of water flow through rivers
ditches and other channels This program performs one dimensional calculations based on the
area and roughness of the channel cross sections to compute the water surface profile The
program was developed by the Department of Defense U S Army Corps of Engineers released
to the public in 1995 and has since become widely accepted by government agencies and private
firms to perform channel flow analysis and floodplam determination
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 5
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 8 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydrauhc Analyses
A HEC RAS model was applied to determine the existing flood stages within the primary ditch
system of the east and west drainage basins (See Exhibit 10 — East & West Basin Channel
Stationing ) The selected east basin channel routing follows the Gum Swamp Run from its
confluence with South Creek southeast to SR 1002 From SR 1002 the channel turns north to
Small Road and then east to Peele Road At Peele Road the model includes the west Peele Road
ditch to the northern limit of the P Lands where the ditch terminates The selected channel
routing for the west basin begins at the existing water control structure CS 3 and goes south to
County Line Road then east to the County Line No 2 road and then north to Bay City No 2
where it turns and runs east to SR 1002 No flows from east of SR 1002 enter this ditch Offsite
discharges will be conveyed using future perimeter ditches to maintain existing flood stages
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and North Carolina State conducted a
Flood Insurance Study of Beaufort County published in 2007 utilizing HEC RAS The purpose
of the study was to update the analysis for flood hazards within the county and produce revised
flood insurance rate maps Our analysis was based on some of the data produced by this FEMA
study including cross sections for the downstream reaches outside of the project boundaries
(South Creek and Gum Swamp Run) The offsite cross sections for South Creek and Gum
Swamp Run were developed based on LIDAR data and site specific channel cross sections
completed at the time of the FEMA study The onsite channel cross sections within the P and U
Lands used in this study were also developed using the LIDAR data obtained in 2010 and
supplemented with specific onsite ditch cross section surveys
Using the recorded stage data from the September /October 2010 rainfall event a simulation was
performed to access the accuracy of the model (hindcast simulation) and adjustments were made
to calibrate the model with the recorded conditions Manning s roughness coefficients for South
Creek and Gum Swamp Run were originally obtained from the FEMA study and were then
adjusted to match the measured water levels from the September /October rainfall event Based
on the hindcast simulation a roughness coefficient of 0 130 was applied to the main channel
downstream of SR 1002 and a coefficient of 0 012 to 0 022 for the ditch upstream of SR 1002
The coefficient for the upland areas was established at 0 030 The higher roughness coefficient
for the downstream reach of the main channel was selected based on the hindcast run and is
greater than the 0 048 channel value used in the FEMA Study It should be noted that no
overbank flooding was observed during the 2010 storm event
61 East Basin Analysis
The 100 year flow was estimated using the recorded surface water levels from the
September /October 2010 rainfall event These flows were then adjusted to the 10 year flood
flows using the USGS regression equations for the 10 year to 100 year ratio of the flow
calculated as presented in the report titled Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
in Rural Basins of North Carolina — Revised US Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 01 4207 2001 This approach was deemed to be more accurate than using
the flows calculated with the regression equations which based on the observed levels appeared
to overestimate the peak flows
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 6
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 9 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and LI Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraube Analyses
The hindcast simulation utilized the peak surface water levels recorded at the confluence of Gum
Swamp Run and South Creek (downstream) and at the confluence of Gum Swamp Run and SR
1002 (upstream) to calculate the total flow discharging from the east basin which was estimated
at 160 cfs and appears to be limited by the channel downstream of SR 1002 Discharge flows
from sub basins east north and east south were then calculated using the water surface elevations
upstream and downstream of the corresponding control structure The discharge for sub basin
east central was determined by subtracting the flows from sub basins east north and east south
from the total basin discharge A summary of the flow calculations is included below
Estimated Flows in Gum Swamp Run ditch, October 1, 2010 (East Basin)
Water Levels were recorded at the up and downstream reaches of Gum Swamp Run
on October 31 2010 The levels which are presented below were used to estimate
the ditch flow based on the HEC RAS computer program
Date South Creek (PU 8) SR 1002 (PU 3)
10/31/2010 3 78 feet NAVD 88 5 77 feet NAVD 88
Based on HEC RAS the estimated flow is 160 cfs
Estimated Flow from Control Structure CS 14 at Bay City No 4 (Sub basin East South)
Structure consists of 6 wide weir at elevation 6 04
Ditch peaked at elevation 8 37 on October 1 2010
Stage less than weir crest assume free flow
Q= 313xLxH15
where L = Weir Length
H = Head above weir
68 5 cfs
Estimated Flow from Control Structure CS 9 at Small Road & SR 1002 (Sub basin East
North
Structure consists of 5 wide weir at elevation 3 62
Ditch peaked at elevation 6 03 on October 1 2010
Downstream Stage above Weir Crest Calculate Flow based on Submergence
First Calculate QfrCe Q=3 13 x L x H15
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 7
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 10 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
where L = Weir Length
H = Head above weir
Q = 58 6cfs
Submergence Q submerged = Qfree x (1 (H2 /H, ) 1 5)0 385
where H2 = Head upstream
H, = Head downstream
27 44 cfs
Estimated Flow from Sub basin East Central (Equal to total flow less flows
from South and North)
160 cfs Less 68 5 cfs and 27 44 cfs = 64 cfs
The model of the east basin was found to accurately calculate the flood stages in the area for the
2010 rainfall event This event is considered to be a 100 year rainfall event A summary of the
observed and calculated flood stages at several locations follows
Location
Basin/Sub basin
Observed Water
Calculated Water
Surface Elevation
Surface Elevation
(Ft NAVD 88)
Ft NAVD 88)
SR 1002 PU 3
Sub basin East Central
577
577
Small Rd (N S Jog)
Sub basin East Central
769
707
PU 6
Peele Rd & Dollar Rd
Sub basin East Central
774
773
PU 7
County Line Rd
Offsite south of east
958
946
PU 5
basin
62 West Basin Analysis
Detailed stage data from the well monitoring was not available for the upstream reaches (onsite)
of this basin As a result a hmdcast simulation was not performed to calibrate the model In
addition to the 100 year flood profile referenced above the model was also used to determine the
10 year flood profile The regression equations presented in the USGS Report 01 4207 were
used to develop a ratio to estimate the 10 year return frequency flood flows based on the 100
year flows estimated from observed water levels The equations for rural coastal drainage areas
are as follows
Q10 = 188 x DA""
Qioo = 468 x DA
0 566
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 8
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 11 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
Where Q =Discharge CFS
DA = Drainage Area in square miles
The regression equations were developed using data obtained from gauged sites located in
eastern North Carolina Of the 317 sites analyzed 80 were located in what is considered the
Coastal Plain Hydrologic Area As stated above these equations appear to overestimate the peak
flows when compared to the 2010 storm event however the calculated flows can be used to
develop a ratio in order to determine a 10 year design flow This was accomplished by
comparing the actual flow for the 2010 event (on a per acre basis) to the flow calculated using
the regression equation to develop a ratio The ratio showed that the observed flow was about 10
percent of the flow calculated using the USGS Regression Equation
The 100 Year and 10 Year Peak flows at selected locations is summarized below
The resulting peak flood stages for the P and U lands are shown in Exhibit 11 — HEC RAS Peak
Flood Stages Report In general both the 10 year and 100 year flood profiles remain within the
ditch s top of bank Note that this analysis quantifies the existing water surface profile within
the ditch and does not quantify the flood within the fields Therefore a stage storage volume
comparison (pre improvement versus post improvement) was conducted to verify the site s flood
protection
63 FEMA Study
The results of the FEMA study which are considered conservative show a 100 year flood
elevation of 8 5 feet NAVD 88 within Gum Swamp Run at SR 1002 versus the 100 year flood
elevation of approximately 6 0 feet NAVD 88 in this current analysis The mapped flood
elevations for the west basin vary from about 8 5 feet to 11 feet NAVD 88 which compare to
the elevations of 5 feet to 8 5 feet NAVD 88 in this current study Again it should be noted that
the current study is based on an actual rainfall event with recorded surface water elevations and
should be considered to have a greater accuracy than the FEMA study
64 Sta eg Storage Volume Comparison
As previously stated the mitigation primarily involves the backfilling and/or plugging of the
agricultural ditches in order to restore the site to its historic hydrologic condition
Conservatively all of the internal ditches were assumed to be filled for this analysis Fill
material will utilize the existing spoil piles from the field ditch construction mulch from
chipping of the tree stumps and the future spoil from excavation of proposed perimeter ditches
Theoretically the filling of the existing ditches will result in a loss of storage and thus
potentially result in higher flood stages However since the earthwork will be balanced
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 9
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 12 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
10 Year Peak
100 Year Peak
Location
Flow (CFS)
Flow (CFS)
Gum Swamp Run at SR 1002
73 1
160
SR 1002 Ditch North of Small Rd
16 1
274
SR 1002 Ditch at Bay City No 4
260
685
Gum Road Ditch at South Creek
275
357
The resulting peak flood stages for the P and U lands are shown in Exhibit 11 — HEC RAS Peak
Flood Stages Report In general both the 10 year and 100 year flood profiles remain within the
ditch s top of bank Note that this analysis quantifies the existing water surface profile within
the ditch and does not quantify the flood within the fields Therefore a stage storage volume
comparison (pre improvement versus post improvement) was conducted to verify the site s flood
protection
63 FEMA Study
The results of the FEMA study which are considered conservative show a 100 year flood
elevation of 8 5 feet NAVD 88 within Gum Swamp Run at SR 1002 versus the 100 year flood
elevation of approximately 6 0 feet NAVD 88 in this current analysis The mapped flood
elevations for the west basin vary from about 8 5 feet to 11 feet NAVD 88 which compare to
the elevations of 5 feet to 8 5 feet NAVD 88 in this current study Again it should be noted that
the current study is based on an actual rainfall event with recorded surface water elevations and
should be considered to have a greater accuracy than the FEMA study
64 Sta eg Storage Volume Comparison
As previously stated the mitigation primarily involves the backfilling and/or plugging of the
agricultural ditches in order to restore the site to its historic hydrologic condition
Conservatively all of the internal ditches were assumed to be filled for this analysis Fill
material will utilize the existing spoil piles from the field ditch construction mulch from
chipping of the tree stumps and the future spoil from excavation of proposed perimeter ditches
Theoretically the filling of the existing ditches will result in a loss of storage and thus
potentially result in higher flood stages However since the earthwork will be balanced
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 9
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 12 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
throughout each sub basin and no fill will be imported to the site no significant impacts to the
stage storage volume are anticipated with the exception of minor loss at the bottom end of the
curve that is recovered when the flood stage reaches dust above the top of bank elevation A pre
improvements (existing conditions) versus post improvements (future conditions/historic) stage
storage volume comparison was conducted to verify that the existing level of flood protection for
the site will not be impacted
65 Perimeter Berm Analysis
A berm at the 100 year flood elevation will be constructed around the restoration areas to contain
onsite runoff Offsite runoff received historically from adjacent properties will be collected in a
perimeter ditch as needed to prevent adverse impacts A flood routing analysis was completed
for the east and west drainage basins to determine the minimum elevation of the future perimeter
berm The procedure involved developing stage storage relationships for the sub basins and then
performing a level pool routing for a hypothetical 100 year rainfall event To be conservative
while sizing the perimeter berm elevation the storage within the perimeter ditch is not included
in the stage storage calculations and it was assumed that the sub basins have zero offsite
discharge (sub basins east south and east central are cascading systems) The routing was
conducted with Cascade 2001 Version 10 a hydrologic multi basin routing program developed
by the Hydrologic Systems Modeling Department of South Florida Water Management District
A rainfall depth of 10 inches was obtained from Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Soil
Conservation Service US Department of Agriculture Technical Release No 55 1975 The
resulting 100 year zero discharge onsite flood elevations are as follows
Sub Basin
100 Year Flood Elevation
East North
100
East Central
92
East South
105
West
87
66 Conclusion/Recommendation
The flood profiles presented for the east and west basins represent the expected existing
highwater elevations during a 10 year and 100 year flood event within the P and U Lands In
addition the elevations represent the current limitation for properties draining through the P and
U lands In order to maintain the existing level of flood protection for adjacent /upstream
properties it is necessary that these flood elevations not be increased and a by pass conveyance
system be provided to pass these flows at existing flood stages
Because the west basin only receives inflows from a small area south of County Line Road and a
small portion of the west half of State Road 1002 it is recommended that the existing north
south roadside ditches along Gum Road be maintained from County Line Road to South Creek
If in the future it is decided to fill this ditch and create a slough then a new ditch should be
constructed starting at the east side of Gum Road and extending to the west ditch of Bonner
Road
The east basin has several offsite areas which drain through the P and U lands to Gum Swamp
Run including the Dollar Road basin to the northeast the Parker Farm basin to the southeast
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 10
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 13 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
and the Casey Tract located dust west of the Parker Farm Additionally there is the potential for
some lands to the north to eventually drain south through the P and U Lands to Gum Swamp
Run Due to the inherent conflicts of on going road and ditch maintenance within an
environmentally restored area and the potential of perceived flooding impacts by upstream
property owners it is recommended that a new perimeter conveyance ditch be constructed along
the northern perimeter of the P Lands to convey offsite flows west to Gum Swamp Run This
ditch is sized to maintain the upstream water levels at the current peak flood stages
7 Master Plan Recommendations
The following master plan recommendations should be incorporated into the construction plans
to restore the P and U Lands to their historic condition These recommendations are based on the
existing drainage patterns and will restore as much as practicable the historic onsrte and offsite
flows Additionally these recommendations recognize the offsite flows that cannot be
incorporated into the restoration plan and provide for their continued historic flows and stages
around the perimeter of the site
The current use of the project for silviculture did not disturb the macro grading elements of the
site The silviculture land form changes were limited to the addition of access roads and
drainage ditches The restoration work consists mainly of filling or plugging the interior ditches
and restoring the upper headwaters of Gum Swamp Run The existing contours and field
ditches and proposed recommendations are shown on the following exhibits
• Exhibit 12
— LIDAR Map — East Basin
• Exhibit 13
Existing Ditches to be Removed — East Basin
• Exhibit 14
Conceptual Plan for East Basin
• Exhibit 16
— LIDAR Map — West Basin
• Exhibit 17
Existing Ditches to be Removed — West Basin
• Exhibit 18
Conceptual Plan for West Basin
Due to the size of the project the work has been phased for construction The following
summary of phases and master plan recommendations should be incorporated into the
construction plans to restore the P and U Lands to their historic condition
71 Phase 1 Recommendations
Phase 1 includes sub basin east south and the eastern half of sub basin east central in the east
basin (see Exhibits 4 & 14) Phase 1 consists of non riparian wetland flats with relatively flat
slopes and the majority of the land area has elevations ranging between 10 and 12 feet A
summary of Phase 1 recommendations follows
• The interior field ditches should be filled using a combination of the following fill
sources adjacent spoil from edge of the ditch 3 6 cut material from the interior of the
field cut material from the proposed perimeter ditch mulch from chipping the tree
stumps and fill from borrow areas and/or plugged with impermeable earthen plugs (see
Exhibit 13)
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 11
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 14 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
• The large existing north south ditch (County Line No 1) should be relocated to the east
boundary of the property This relocated ditch and berm will accommodate the existing
drainage discharging from the Casey Tract The berm will prevent onsite surface water
from discharging into the relocated ditch The proposed ditch could be oversized to meet
a portion of the soil volume needed to fill the interior ditches Alternatively the ditches
could be constructed only to accommodate the necessary offsite flows and fill
requirements of the adjacent berm
• Construct a berm and ditch along the south property line The berm will prevent onsite
surface water from discharging from the property into the adjacent ditch located on the
north side of County Line Road The proposed ditch could be oversized to meet a portion
of the soil volume needed to fill the interior ditches Alternatively the ditch could be
sized to only to accommodate the fill requirements of the adjacent berm
• Evaluation of the existing berm along the east side of SR1002 should be conducted to
determine if the minimum onsite perimeter berm elevation requirements are met (see
Perimeter Berm Analysis) If the existing berm is lower than the projected flood stages
then the existing berm should be raised or a second berm should be constructed in those
areas that do not meet the minimum elevation of the 100 year storm event
• The existing private roads Bay City Nos 1 3 and 4 should remain to provide access
during the monitoring period These roads will also provide additional benefits to the
entity charged with the long term care of the property
• Plug ditches adjacent to Bay City Nos 1 3 and south side of 4
• Verify the existing conditions and original design for the Parker Farm to establish the
intended discharge elevation
• Careful consideration should be given to the low field elevations adjacent to State Road
1002 Proposed outfall(s) consisting of a berm with a spillway needs to be incorporated
into the perimeter drainage so that the depth of standing water in this area does not
prevent establishment of the proposed bare root saplings
• Estimate the remaining useful life of all existing pipes within the Phase 1 project
boundary to determine if replacement is needed
72 Phase 2 Recommendations
Phase 2 also in the east basin includes sub basin east north and the western half of the sub basin
east central (See Exhibits 4 & 14 ) Phase 2 is split between non riparian wetland flats and
headwater wetlands with a headwater valley between Small Road and Bay City No 4 A gently
sloping valley exists between Bay City No 4 and Small Road which aligns with the Gum
Swamp Run channel shown on the Soil Survey of Beaufort County North Carolina issued
September 1995 A summary of Phase 2 recommendations follows
• The interior field ditches should be filled using a combination of the following fill
sources adjacent spoil from edge of the ditch 3 6 cut material from the interior of the
field cut material from the proposed perimeter ditch mulch from chipping g the tree
stumps and fill from borrow areas and/or plugged with impermeable earthen plugs (see
Exhibit 13)
• Construct a by pass ditch and berm along the north property line This ditch and berm
will accommodate the existing drainage discharging from to accommodate flows from
east of Peele Road (Dollar Road) and Parker Farm The berm will prevent onsite surface
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 12
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 15 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
water from discharging into the by pass ditch The proposed ditch could be oversized to
meet a portion of the soil volume needed to fill the interior ditches Alternatively the
ditches could be constructed only to accommodate the necessary offsite flows and fill
requirements of the adjacent berm
• The alignment of the proposed by pass ditch and berm should follow inside the north
property line starting at Peele Road and heading west along the north property line of the
project Upon reaching Small Road the alignment of the new bypass ditch will then be
on the north side of Small Road
• The existing interior private roads (the eastern portion of Royal Road and Small Road)
should remain to provide access during the monitoring period These roads will also
provide additional benefits to the entity charged with the long term care of the property
• Plug ditches adjacent to the Benfewell Road Royal Road and Small Road (Plugging of
the southern Small Road ditch should not commence until the by pass ditch is in place
and operational )
• Connect the eastern Parker Farm outfall located at Peele Road to the existing ditch along
the west side of Peele Road to discharge the water from the Parker farm (Area No 513) at
its current control elevation The road ditch on the west side of Peele Road should then
be connected to the proposed bypass ditch Alternatively the control elevation for Parker
Farm Area No 5B can be raised by removing the existing plugs within the perimeter
ditch and allowing the Parker Farm water to equalize with the Phase 2 water via the
existing low points along the perimeter berm/spoil areas that separate the P Lands from
Parker Farm s north boundary
• Access to the Weyerhaeuser property is currently provided via Royal Road dust west and
north of the dog in the road Access to this property must be maintained If acceptable to
Weyerhaeuser an alternate access will be provided to their property via a road to be built
within the proposed berm/ditch section
• The ditches adjacent to Royal Road will be plugged and four sections (100 in length) of
Royal Road will be removed and replaced with at grade rock pathways to allow the
discharge of surface water from the south side of Royal Road to the north
• Careful consideration should be given to the low field elevations in the northwest corner
of Benfewell Road adjacent to the Weyerhaeuser property A proposed outfall
consisting of a berm with a spillway should be incorporated into the perimeter drainage
by pass ditch so that the depth of standing water in this corner does not prevent
establishment of the proposed bare root saplings
• Reconstruct the headwater valley into Gum Swamp Run Investigate the potential to
connect the northwest discharge point of the Parker Farm into the valley If appropriate
consider moving the discharge point of the Parker Farm from the northwest corner to the
western property line (approximately 600 800 south of the present location) in a defuse
pattern The valley will continue to discharge to Gum Swamp Run at the southeast
corner of Small Road and SR 1002
• Estimate the remaining useful life of all existing pipes within the Phase 2 project
boundary to determine if replacement is needed Replace the three existing pipes (see
Exhibit 5 Pipes 6 7 and 8) located at the west end of Gum Swamp Run at the
connection to South Creek
Jonathan T Ricketts Inc Page 13
4/17/2011
Updated 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 16 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

P and U Lands Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses
7.3. Phase 3 Recommendations
Phase 3 includes the entire west basin. (See Exhibits 4 & 18.) Phase 3 consists of four types of
communities: hardwood flat (elevation 10 -13'), non - riverine swamp forest (elevation 6 -10'),
headwater forest (elevation 5 -6'), and riverine swamp forest (elevation 0 -5'). A summary of
Phase 3 recommendations follows:
• The interior field ditches should be filled using a combination of the following fill
sources: adjacent spoil from edge of the ditch, 3 -6" cut material from the interior of the
field, cut material from the proposed perimeter ditch, mulch from chipping the tree
stumps, and fill from borrow areas, and/or plugged with impermeable earthen plugs (see
Exhibit 17).
• Construct a berm and swale along the east, south, and west property lines to prevent the
loss of surface waters to the ditches in the adjacent roadways. On the south property line,
extend County Line Road to the west and re -route the north -south ditches along Gum
Road to Bonner Road via the proposed County Line Road extension. Connect the new
ditches to the existing ditch at the west side of Rodman Road.
• The existing interior private roads (County Line Road, Bay City No. 2, County Line No.
2 and Gum Road) should remain to provide access during the monitoring period. These
roads will also provide additional benefits to the entity charged with the long -term care of
the property.
• Plug ditches adjacent to the Bay City No. 2, County Line No. 2, and Gum Road.
• Proposed outfall(s) for the west basin will be located within the vicinity of the existing
outfall at the north end of Gum Road. The outfall(s) should consist of a berm with a
spillway for discharging the waters to South Creek (see Exhibit 18).
• A second outfall should be constructed through the existing berm adjacent to the former
Bay City Farm outfall ditch at the northern-most boundary of the project (see Exhibit 18).
• Verify the existing outfalls to South Creek from the existing wetland areas to determine if
addition control is needed (see Exhibit 5).
• Estimate the remaining useful life of all existing pipes within the Phase 3 project
boundary to determine if replacement is needed.
Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. Page 14
4/17/2011
Updated: 01/31/12
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

19
N
.�.
�M
e r
• Y1� G 1
LL ,
,. _
`.4
- •......•- - -- --
o
I,-t*,
nm-*
I
saw
C
U
to
dm
m
N C W
m�
W p y m
m y m m
mrn� m
c > >
moo
Q
W p
Q =o
o U
�
L) 2;E
W 0
r t Z Z
ZO W W
o=
m
o E2
I
m�irno
N
0
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -18 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
W
2
X
w
o
f 1`
TV
saw
C
U
to
dm
m
N C W
m�
W p y m
m y m m
mrn� m
c > >
moo
Q
W p
Q =o
o U
�
L) 2;E
W 0
r t Z Z
ZO W W
o=
m
o E2
I
m�irno
N
0
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -18 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
W
2
X
w

-€ I a
€° g¢a if, $3p
Soso of 4 E
�: O
li �A � ease � • � a 2
s
Gig;-
O to O a
e Y a O
o
v �. y 70 X
a f0 � w
i '� `'� *l% ' •1 ► t' x o c w
OD
3. ` 1..fr• .� yyp
+l 0 a�
to
N
a
m
X
W
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -19 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

�a
v ycmn • x;' 3
•'� a
Ind
c is k trf ♦ _.� _ — j
+` I q
• dt(t Ste' wart. i
■ � . ■ �a..�n pueo9 ��
�' 691 • � - -.>L • '�
n�4"S^iih u■ �m
.tl�C'. :rte- ■ s, <. _ �■
Aff
1 •

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -21 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

C)
0
c
fj�JMU $V3 QAj jAljn� 4X3 j Hjnp$ U
HJ11@f]Hl UJIOP,3 uI—,,t l .. L fd�
C Q% ¢ a
v
m
>~ 0 3
(I
�'1 g
E
f
O. m
�• r I ;; 3�f I�� c6 Z
Cn J
�� Q) 0 o LL
$! :t N_
a
L
��►
Gee
C z >
a a
W -o z
�� •• caa3k $t . !ag � � tp
.• 0 ® ®� WP� x cv
aq as !Y w C O Q
Is i
}ii 4�SS O M ui
a 0- U
LO
rl
:glffl in
_r t W
`- a
CCO
00 0
th
N
G
g� =g •aqg
04 p
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -22 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
names
Cr. 1:4
a VI
LU
X ca
CO Uj
CU
U) cur
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.

Compensatory Mitigation R« Appendix Em PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
0
�(§
r \j
` /li
®
® |7|
0 4.
}�
x
.
77-
^z \
i§
§�
�
.
0
�
I:
,
2 } 71
.
/ ,
U) (n C)w
, '
O 6 = G
.,
m < Of !
§ z !
}k \a
` ^4
4� �.
��
\� -JO
e
'
\ \
\A .
/_ §
06 LL
%
) L / <
3
�
¥
�
I\
»
X
\ { w
,
\
\� / : \k\
£ » ®| f
Jz : =ww ;A
a
<
:
232E /=;)
Compensatory Mitigation R« Appendix Em PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

\ 2 ®(
«' ) k; !
w�i ,
E
! !
$
9 R : £ ..
Cn } § }
k �
\ I
z § § &
U) )
) LU
§ = o
7 \ ® \ a.
�
6 0 C:
w §� -J Zg
\ \ 2
U-
�CD
$
a
)�
0
/ k2
LU
�
C
I
6
a
OD
w_
CO
o �
7 w
Compensatory Mitigation Ban Appendix B-25 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Re t aeon January 2012

EXHIBIT 9 - WELL & CUMULATIVE RAIN DATA CHARTS
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -26 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

(Say:)ul) Slenaajul u!W 06 -1 lelule21
0 0 0 0 0
N O O O O O O
00 lD V N O
oo:oo:ai
0
w
0
0000:0
�: G4GG
OOOOST o 0
C
00:00:90
00:00 ZT a o
'i
N M
00:00:80
N
00:00:81
7 7
D D
U D_
d 0_
00:00:60 0 0
I
I
ODOOST 0 0
00:00:90
OO:OO:ZT o 0
00:00£0
OO:00:81
p o
00:00:60 d �
/�
M
OO:OO:SI o
00:0090
-0
�I�
OO:OO:ZS o a
I
r
00.00.80
00:00:60 ..
00:00:60 O o
O
{ N
O
,a
OO.00.ST OU O
00:00:90
OO:OO:ZT O o
/.*
'�..
00:00:£0
00'00.81
0000:60 O o
O
t
OO OO ST r'
o 0
00:00: 9U
00:0071 o 0
O
i
ii ( '
00:00:80
00:00�6I %
00:00:60 02
U
00'00'ST p o
00:00:90 d
_
OO:OO:ZI
0
OO:OO:f0
00:00:60
00:00:60 p
0000 :ST L
vl
000090 0
� V LL1
W OO.Zl
£° °
...r
J
00:00:80
=
00.00:60 0
"4
DD:DD:ST Z
(�y
/
00:00:90 9
ti"F...
00.00:Zi
00:00:80
00:00:8T
0000:60 p
00:00:60
00:00:90
00:00:a v
00:00:£0 b o
. q
"
r
00:00:80 6.
00:0060
0000: ST
0000:90
h
'.. 00:00:ZI
'.. 00:00:£0
0000: ST
00:00:60
00 M
WARN 188j) uo1;ena13 o3elanS aajeM
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -27 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

(say:)ul) sleMa;ul u!W 06 -1 Ie;ulea
°o o°
V N O O O O O O
a--1 r-I ri 00 l0 N O
AR AF Fv-
00:00:51 � o
00:0£ : LO
00�00.00T
(O
--
.. 00:0£:91
o
00:00:60
00:00:81
00:0£:OT O o
Lf1
ry)
OO:OO:f0 °
7 D D
:D
0 '
U 0- a
a
000OzT o a
00;0£:70 y
I I
I
00:0£ £i p o
00:00:90
00:00:5' o
00:0£ :LO
j
OO:OE:9' 0
0
000060 d
, V
j
00:00:91
O
OO:O0E:0 T o
0000 £0
Q
00:0
OO OO':z O o
00:0£:70
00:0£ :f0 p o
00:00:90
Q
OO:OO:ST p o
OO:OE:LO ,6
GJ N
00:0£:9'
>
00 ?00:60 O o
00:00:81
IR \
00:0£:05 O o
�V
00:00:£0 °
00:0£ 6I -?
3 C
00:00:21 O �
OO :OE:40 y
00:0£:£T p o
O
00:00:90 r.
0000:51
qo
to
O
00:0£:9I o
00:00:60 d
W
00:00:8T z
00:0E:01
A
W
CS ti
OO:Of:61
OO:OO:ZT p o
00:0£170 co
IL
(/) A
oZUI
t o�
00 :00:90
00:OE:LO p o
LLI
'x
OO Of -LO
e
00:0£:90
0000 :60
000081
00 :0£:01 O °
00:00:£0 d
00:0£:6'
OO:OO:ZI p oti
00 0£:40
OO:Of:fI o 0
00:00:90
000"0 0 0
00:0£:[0
I
00::60 M °
M:Of00:iO
00:00:81 °
00 0£101
OO:OO:f0
00 0£ 6I o
OO:OO:ZT c a
00:0£:40
o
OO:OE.ET
00:00:90 ^' °
0
OO:OO:ST
n
00�0£'d0 i
QQ 99
N O 00 TD N O N III
c-I ci
(on9N laaj) u011en813 a:)epnS aaleM
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -28 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

(SaPul) Slenaajul uIIN 06 -1 le}ulea
o O O
0 0 0 o O o O O
N O O O O O O
r-1 r-I -1 00 1.0 CI' N O
0
000051 n
—
00:0£:70 0
w
00:00:81 °
00:0£:10 ^� 0
o
n
m
00:0£:01 ry
3 >
> >
00,9999 °
U a
a a
oo:o£ £T °
I a
00:00:E0 O
00:0E :91 °
`
00:00:90 ^' 0
Oo:OE:6T o
00:00:60 �
O
0
OO:OO:ZT o i
o
M
00:00:51
Q
OO:OE:4o 0
OO:OO:ST °
t'
OO:OE:LO 0
o
4
00:0£:OI „ O
00:0£:ET
N
00:OO:EO 0
00:0£ :91
W
a
00:00:90
�
o
N
Oo:
oE:6T
\
00:00:60 .°.
3 O
f
°
OO:OO�ZI .:
O
C
00:00:ST o
V
00:0£:40 0
++
00:00:81
Ca z
00:0£:10
O
-
°
OO:Of:OT °� :•
yo
OO:OE:ET p o�
W
00:00:Eo
5
00:0£:91 m
o
00:00:90 °
:oE:6T
00:00:60 °
i WJ
00:0041 p °
00:00:51 t o
?"
00:0£:40 LA
00:00:81
o
00:0£:[0
a
r.
�
uU-UU LC
00:0£:OT 0 °
00:E'£T
t
00:00:£0
00:-91
O 00:00:900E
t
OO:OF6T oti
sasx
1 00:00 60 6
'. OO:OOZI N n
�n:nr:ln
o
00:00:51 n �"
a
1 00:0£:40
00:00:81 °
._
00:0£[0
UU-UU- LC o
-�
00:0£:01 'b
01 00 lD Oft M N O ri
(DAE)N 1883) u01jena13 a:)ejanS aajeM
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -29 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

(S843ul) Slenaa3ul uIW 06 -1 leluleH
°o
o° C0 0 0 o O o
N O O O O O O
a--I a--i -1 00 lD N O
OO:OO :S1 OU o�
00:0£ :40 Ab
00:00 :81
w
o 0
00:0E10
W-UV LC
0_
oo:0£:OT O o
O
v
00 0)
1-1
99,99,99 P
D 0 S
00:0£:£1 0 0
v � a
o.
oo:oo:£o y
00:0£:91
I
I
� o
00:00:90
00:0 :6T
00:00:60 O o
OO:OOZ1 O
o
:
OO:OO:ST o
M
00:0£:40 a
00:00:81
Q
I 00:0£:LO o
uu-uu Lc
• O
00:0£:01 O o
nn gn
0
00:0£:£1 p o
A' N
00:00:£0 1O
W
>
00:0£:9T 0 0�
. A
00:00:90 y
000£:61
N
00:00:60
C
00:00:11 O °„
E O
00:003T o�
00:0£:roo
V 4-A
00:00:81 y
4-+
00:0£:LO 0 0
y
O
00:0£:01 O o
—!
Vj�
00:0£:£T p o�
00:00:£0 0+
00{7£:91 •'
O
00:00:90 �
�
jOO:OF61
I
0
00:00:60 Q
X
i
00:00:11 Ou oti
M Uj
,.
J
`'
oo:oosl o 0
00:0£ c0
00:00:8T .%
0 0
_Y
oo:ouO
I.i
S 00:0£:OT o °..
00:0£:£T o
o
00:00:£0
00:0£:91 "
o
00:0090 0 '�
00:0£'6
00:0060 oo n
- 0
OO�Bf�2'1
00:0011 H u
M:OF 10
0
0000:51 N
00:0£:40 ^'
00:00:81
00:0£:LO
0
00:0£:01 N n
*90 go
N O 00 lD N O N
WARN 1883) U01jen813 a:)e:pnS jaleM
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -30 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Ban Appendix B-31 PCS Phosphate Compa of Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
ar§
\
} ( K§|
\
k//
«<
� �
7 .
c !J=
� \
/}k
.
!7
cc
i
..
C
0 cc
k : $
m .1 ` %
(
-=
2
?
c =
m
2 ) 7
CC
C)) j»
w!
�
\
E u ƒ
-
z ° »
Z
\
_ ! = o
m
z
» L
7 )22$
)
/
�)E\
W _
\
- 2 _j zz
Z
$
§ / \ (
a
/= r m =
m
�In–
:
w )CUE`° CU
w \ \
2
�y
-
Z ON DWI 4WOO
.®
o
w
2
X
±
Compensatory Mitigation Ban Appendix B-31 PCS Phosphate Compa of Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

EXHIBIT 11- HEC RAS PEAK FLOOD STAGES REPORT
East Basin —10 Year & 100 Year Analysis
West Basin —10 Year & 100 Year Analysis
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 32 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

I
O)
a
y
f6
C
Q
}
O
O
r
06
M
m
}
O
r
C
N
M
m
N
(0
w
O
CL
N
CUy
d
C
a
°o
LL
Y
f6
N
CO
9
U
W
2
0
XX
w
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 33 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
Q
Q
0
n
n
(D
Q
o
O
O
n
(N D
O
N
M
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
(D
O
M
m
a
LL
d'
01
O
Q
4,
M
W
O
o
N
co
N
n
M
N
O
O
7
N
co
M
aD
u)
N
L
aD
aD
N
M
a)
T
aD
aD
O
n
M
N
O
N
O
M
M
N
10
O
n
Q
T
(D
M
o
(D
(D
(0
o
M
M
r
N
O
N
O
T
(D
co
Q
O
O
O
O
vl
n
M
(D
M
M
N
M
N
N
N
N
c
o
H
co
tD
m
O
O)
--
O)
O
co
Q
n
Q
n
(D
o)
Q
h
N
O
M
aD
O
(a
n
Q
O
n
O
O
n
O)
N
N
O
Q
O
Q
_N
O)
O
(D
o)
o
aD
o
O
n
M
O
(D
tD
n
o
(O
o)
o)
W
n
N
n
N
(D
N
Q
N
W
N
n
co
(D
N
Q
Q
Cl)
Q
n
N
(O
CO
(D
O
Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(D
M
(D
O
2
LL
O
Q
W
M
m
n
N
u')
m
n
N
(D
Q
M
o)
aD
Q
O
CO
O
Q
0
W
0
Q
O
aD
O
O
Q
Q
N
O
M
O
OD
n
n
Co
O
M
(D
Q
n
W
O
O
N
C
O
O
O
O
cc
O
O
N
O
O
O
U
�
m
>
O
(D
a
y
M
W
O
O
O
n
CO
aD
O
O
O
N
N
O
m
D.
_M
_M
M
N
aQ
7
n
Q
n
(p
Q
n
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
o
O
n
N_
M
(D
O
(n
(D
m
�_
T
O
n
O
(D
O
p
O
O
O
O
cc
cc
Q
N
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
(n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
(D
CO
(D
Q
(D
(D
(D
4,
O
M
n
M
n
M
(D
N
(D
Q
W
N
o
T
N
>
Q
n
n
N
aD
(D
Co
w
O
W
n
(D
n
'o
n
(D
n
to
N
N
w
n
O
T
W
n
co
m
o)
n
aD
n
n
(D
n
O
(n
(n
n
(D
n
(D
n
(D
n
(D
n
Co
(D
0
co
Q
(D
Q
(D
W
Uv
W
(n
Q
Q
Q
Q
(D
C
v
c
U
co
Q
W
n
co
n
M
N
(D
aD
(D
O
Q
O
(D
O
O
O
O
a0
M
n
n
u)
M
n
n
(D
M
n
(D
(D
N
n
to
(D
n
O
O
M
(D
o)
O
Q
m
N
ap
n
O
n
n
O
aD
m
rn
n
m
n
n
(o
n
D
a
n
n
(o
n
(o
n
(D
n
0
n
m
(o
(D
(n
Q
D
Q
(n
W
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
of
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o)
m
rn
W
cc
Q
Q
O
Q
O
Q
cc
Q
Q
cc
Q
Q
cc
Q
Q
o
LD
(D
(D
O
(D
O
(D
O
(D
o
(D
(D
(D
o
(D
M
Q
M
Q
o)
N
o)
N
(D
(D
(D
U
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(D
O
47
O
(D
O
2
(D
O
(D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
o)
O
n
o
n
O
(D
o
to
o
+�
N
(OD
N
(OD
N
(n
O
(D
O
N
W
(D
O
N
N
N
N
Cl)
n
N
M
n
Q
(D
O
co
Q
(D
o
M
Q
co
C
CD
w
a
w
a
w
a
d
w
d�
w
¢�
w
d�
It
w¢
a
w
a
w¢
w
a
w
a
w
Lu
w¢
a
w
a
>
w
>
w
>
w
y
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
O>
O>
b>
>>
0
0
0
0
0
0
O>
0
0
0>
0
0
O
0
0
0
o
O>
0
o
O>
o
0
O>
0
0
O>
0
0
O>
0
0
O>
0
0
O
0
Q
Q
`()
°o
°o
(D
0
�O
v
ho�
v
1,
n
u)
(D
(n
ti
P,
n
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00D
W
`
O
O
n
n
f�
n
N
N
N
W
W
(D
(D
M
c')
N
N
O
OD
m
to
to
(D
(D
V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
y
V
V
U
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
o
a
a
v
a�
v
o
a
a
v
v
-E
v
a
E
v
v
v
p
v
v
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Z
D
D
m
m
a
m
m
Ul
m
m
u)
a
m
m
m
m
(n
m
m
m
m
(�
c3
v
(3
U
v
.I
0
.�
B
p
fA
co)
CO
to
U
N
N
V)
in
N
in
in
in
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
T
A
A
T
C
C
C
G
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
m
a
m
s
m
a
m
s
m
o
m
a
m
a
m
a
m
s
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 33 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

O
N
O)
a
0
cc
c
Q
CU
(0
}
O
O
OAS
f0
(D
O
C
y
tC
M
N
M
W
V-
0
CL
N
N
rn
f6
U)
O
O
LL
Y
(0
N
a
U
W
2
0
a
X
X
W
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 34 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
.-
O I+
O
Of
(0
O 00
(n (n
M
(n
N
L
V
o
O O
0 0
•-
0
O
0
(D
0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O
0
O
0
O
0
v
0
LL
O
N O
V
V
N_
O N
O
O
O
In �
n _
O
1�
-p
O
O
M
In
N
0) O
M M
(0
V
V
0) r-
M
M
O
V
(n CO
M N
I- h
N M
(0
M
V
M
7
M
d
v
H
OD
M O
r-
00
co
M
N N
In
co
(D
M
(.-
O O
M
N
M
OD
M O
N
00
00
M
M
1.- N
N
O
N
N
O
M
O O
N O
0
W
Q
N
IN
M Oo
N u
Q
(((
IN
O
N
LL
(n O
n
N (n
T O
M
M
0)
Q)
N O
W
O
n
N 0)
M O
M
(0
N
c
O
O
O
O 00
O
O
00
U
�
m
m
l(!
D7 V
O
N
(NO
N �
D7 V
a)
N
(OD
G
0
O
O
O N
O O
V
N
a)
O
M
O
N (D
O O
N M
O O
O
O
M
O
O
O
0)
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0—
O
00
O
O
00
O
O O
O
00
W
O O
O
aD
M
IO
O O
N 0)
N
1�
r�
O
M
(n
O N
Q) O
O
n
n
m
a
(n It
(n
v
a
v V
M M
M
M
M
W
W
00
(n
O
O
U
(- O
O
a)
W (D
N V
N
00
00
f�
r N
O
N
(n
O N
O O
O
n
n
m
V
(n V
V
V
7
7 V
M M
M
M
M
W
.-.
rn
m (0
_ v
v ao
m
n
m
oo
w
(n
LN V)
O O
W
o
(D
0
oD
0
(v a)
o O
M O
O
O
U
�
c_
0
0 (D
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
(D
O
O
O
O
O
O
H
�
O
Q
w
w
Q
w
a
w
Q
w
Q
w
Q
>-
>
W
}
}
}
d
}
°oo
}
°oo
>
°oo
°oo
>
°oo
>
°0O
}
o
m
m
(0
M
O
V
V
T
O)
M
M
a)
T
TI.
V
t-
V
�
V
0)
M
o
N
o
N
N
0)
N
a)
M
Cl)
M
co
N
(n
In
U)
(n
7
(n
7
O
O
V
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
m
U
m
U
V
(a
U
m
V
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a)
m
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
m
22
m
m
22
m
m
as?
2a)
ry)
CO
0)
En
CO)
U)
W
W
CO
CO
V)
Cn
0
G
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
M
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
(o
f
2
i
2
2.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 34 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

N
O
N
C
Q
(0
N
}
O
O
r
f�0
}
O
r
C
N
f6
CO
N
d
0
O_
0
CA
d
O)
�0
'a 0
O
LL
Y
CO
d
a
U
w
2
CD
_
.n
X
X
w
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 35 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
M
N
W
r
fD
O
O
n
M I N
LO
O
In
CO
r
M
r
fD
N
N
fD
uD
N
m
n
m
O
O
M
M
(D
O O
O
O
O
O
V
M
N
M
�
�
N
N
'C
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
LL
I
co
m
N
OI
m
m
Ln
Ln
N
n
N
V
N
N
c',
N
N
O
m
L
V
O
r
V
O
Ln
V
O
m
N
c0
m
M
fD
V
m
W
O)
V
M
O
V
m
r
M
O
O
n
r
o
lD
O
m
co
m
m
m
v
Ln
m
fD
Ln
o
O
m
N
M
V
V
n
N
m
m
M
m
M
V
_
N
N
N
M
a
Cl)
In
O
N
M
N
O
lmn
o
G)
m
M
O
M
O
Ln
OD
co
M
m
D)
Ln
V
m
O
O
V
N
00
N
n
n
m
m
w
V
.-
v
o
r
OD
M
m
CD
r
O
n
O
w
m
fD
N
OD
m
I aD
(D
m
n
m
o
M
O
OD
n
V
N
V
o
o
N
O
O
M
m
m
m
CD
aD
m
Ln
n
M
O
r
Co
V
OD
N
O
Le)
Ln
r
Ln
Lo
j
OD
o
m
o
fD
n
m
fo
co
M
o
n
Ln
M
�
MIS
m
aD
LL
fD
n
N
M
m
n
M
Ln
O
M
O
o
O
fD
O
—N
ui
Ln
—
N
Ln
M
V
n
O
c0
r
N
O
O
V
M
m
m
m
O
O
N
N
V
M
V
LO
OD
V
m
M
V
n
Ln
r
M
uD
O
M
j
C
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
o
o
o
o
CD
V
N
N
M
V
N
N
CO)
M
N
N
U
I
�
m
o
o
N
m
N
m
m
o
r
o
J
n
m
O
m
O
o
O
m
V
o
M
o
V
r
V
m
c�
O
a
M_
O
o
O
o
m
M
O
co
Lo
N
N
m
m
m
r
m
G
O
O
O
O
n
O
n
O
N
o
0
O
m
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
CD
N
O
N
Ln
N
an
an
V
N
m
w
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
o
O
o
O
0
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
W
V
^—
o
O
V
N�
O
V
O
N
OD
m
o
O
OD
m
ao
07
r
o
V
m
N
r
O
Ln
V
M
N
OD
n
m
LO
N
O
OD
LO
n
Ln
n
Ln
r
V
n
Lo
N
m
O
m
O
n
v
O
n
.-
m
m
aD
n
n
Ln
Ln
to
OD
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
m
V
V
M
V
N
M
'-
N
O
w
c
W
I
v
M
fo)
m
(n
n
n
N
N
C
v
U
V
n
co
M
o
m
OD
m
n
o
m
OD
m
m
V
fD
M
fD
OD
r
N
O
M
N
n
CD
O
Ln
m
r
Ln
r
Ln
r
Le)
n
V
N
L�
to
o
m
r
o
fD
d'
W
r
O)
m
DD
n
n
Ln
N
Ln
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
o
V
V
M
M
N
M
N
O
O
W
co
o
O
O
o
o
r
n
w
o
fD
m
M
M
w
r
n
r
r
M
V
M
V
M
V
Cl)
V
m
�-
M
Ln
In
Ln
Ln
M
In
M
O
M
(D
C',
m
M
m
O
V
O
V
m
m
O
0
O
0
V
o
V
o
U
�
I
c_
I
n
M
n
M
r
M
r
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Lo
m
2
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
n
In
n
Lo
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
fn
OD
m
OD
m
O
m
n
N
Ln
M
r
N
o
(-
o
I-
o
n
o
1-
o
�
fmD
V
F
.�
_
M
O
M
In
M
Ll7
M
O
M
In
m
c0
Q
Qj
2
Q
0Q'
Y
W
w>
W
uYl
>
<
w
LL
w
i
u�
11
ul
i
w
Y
Q2
u!
11
¢2'
W
Y
aR'
W
w
Y
Qa'
W
w
Y
Qa'
W
I�;'
}
aW'
LLl
L
>
>
>
>
>
>
}l
>
>
>
>l
>
>
>
>
>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0o
N
N
N
M
m
�-
�-
r
r
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
0
m
0
0
u)
tD
m
LD
OD
r
0
r
0
Co
M(n
O
O
O
d'
LD
n
OD
n
n
M
n
M
In
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
o
n
b
(+)
V
M
V
fD
Cl)
w
M
to
N
m
N
m
m
LLD
LA
V
V
M
M
N
N
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
U
N
U
m
U
m
U
m
U
a)
U
U
N®
U
U
m
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
V
V
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
ND
m
m
(D
a)
m
m
m
cc
(D
W
N
N
X
m
N
w
m
m
m
N
m
w
m
X
11
N
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
D
o
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a
s
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.'
w
0
it
d'
w
w
n
(n
u)
co)
u)
N
(n
fn
N
y
to
m
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
m
m
(z
t7
(7
C7
i
i
g
i
iW
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 35 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

I
O
N
O
a
U)
21
(0
C
Q
CO
d
}
O
_O
CU
CU
d
O
C
rA
CO
CD
Vi
0
1]
r
V-
0
CL
m
of
rn
d
rn
f0
0
O
LL
Y
(0
N
NQ
LL
U
w
2
0
Q
L
X
w
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 36 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
M
N
O
O
O
M
M
N
N
�
-
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.1.
O 0
O
O
O
O
m
N
In
M
m
O
N
O
O(D
N m
N
0
f`
r`
r`
L
Q
O
m
O
In
m
O)
M
M
O
M
r
m
N
O
OD
M f`
0 tf
m
N
(n
m
O
y
m
M
M
f`
co
�
M
m
O
m
Q)
N
N
M
t
N 1D
O
a1
O
m
m
v
m
0:
y
M
N
M
r
O
M
m
a
m
N N
N .-
'0
l a
a
1D
.-
D)
V'
m
N
O
N
V
M
N
LO
N
(0
f`
m
O I N
17
M
rn
m
W
V
M
V
m
(n
m
O
V
m
O o)
M
O
M
o
N
N
W_
S
D)
M
r
OO
m
m
m
M
V
(D
O
a
N
(D
m
O
N
m
(n (n
r-
M
m
M
M
O
N
M
O
N
m
D)
co
N
O
M
In
O
)n
7
O (D
(D
o
N
M
M
N
3
N
rn
N
(D
N
(D
N
V
C
m
m
M
1D
M
O
M
7
0) —
m
M
o)
M
a N I
O
m
h
m 0
M
a
O
O
m
O D)
V
N
0)
CO
W�
C
In
)n
V
M
N
M
M
N N
O
O
>
r�
r`
—
m
m
M
(n
N
O
M
m
m
M
u)
O
O
M
N
t")
0
c')
10
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(n
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
o
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
00
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
0
O
W
m
CP m
M
m
LO
a
m
M (n
m
r.
—
I
v
M
ao
a
m V
CD
O
(n
M
a
m
O M
r
O
to
D)
In
m
A
Uj
O
m m
m
m
m
N m
r.
O
r (n
m
rn
m
y
I m
7
O
w
rn
0
m
to
N
N
4
L)
co
O
0)
O
V
O
N
m
M
M
O
m
Ln
O
a
M
r
m
O
(D
m
(")
m
N
m
O
m
m
m
r`
,
M
t0
M
N
m
M
m
m
M
N
r
m
O
LO
m
m
M
V
m
m
m
V
m
m
I o)
o)
o)
o),
O
D)
O
o)
m
0
m
0
T O
O O
N N
m
�
m
�
M
N
M
N
O
M
O
M
W
N
N
M
M
V
V t
V V
q
q
tT
V
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O(D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O1
O
�
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
y
m
m�
m
m
(D
m
a
m�
m
m�
rn
m�
rn
m�
rn
m
rn
y
m
m
rn
y
m
rn
m
rn
rn
m
O
...
of
o
w�
QW
ug
�
ry¢¢J
w�
w
S
w
n
<
X
n
w
r
X
w
r
X
�
r
w
d
}
ro
}
0
r
0
r
0
r
r
0
r
O
r
o
r
O
r
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
m
(n
a(n D
rn
O(n o
a
Om )
V
ob )
N
`
N
`
"IN
v
v
w
O m
b
m
to
m
N
N
o)
O
m
m
M
m
M
m
M
M
N
N
N
N
o
_
(n
(n
b
(n
�
Oo
Go
co
op
a0
pppp
m
1010-
r
m
m
m
m
m
m
co
(n
m
C7
O
M
m
N
m
N
m
V
L
U
L
U
L
G
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
D
L
U
L
U
L
o
L
L
V
L
()
L
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
c a
m
MM
W
W
MM
MW
W W
W
MW
W
W
W
c o
w
>
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
K
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
W
W
W
m
W
m
m
W
W
CO
CO
rn
rn
rn
rn
CO
rn
rn
U)
U)
U
C,
Cn
rn
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
W
i
W
i
W
M
W
M
W
i
W
2
W
M
W
1
W
i
W
2
W
i
W
2
W
2
W
2
W
M
W
i
W
i
W
2
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B 36 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-37 PCS Phosphate Compa nA Inc.
P and U Lands Re Lora an January 2012
!e§
� ■ ■ � , >
CD
^
��`�`
■�! „ !,l,,,,
. ,. ,�....
�-
..
■ ■ ■,,,,,,,,,
-
e
� eea:
o
� ;
4,`2kf
- »
)
Uj
ƒ
/
2 ƒ c =
}
3
U) j �
9
C)
'
�j \
; o
m
a.
LUIX
fr
\�z$
e o
)
o m
§� P m e
W m Q
U)EO
<®
§
^
/� &j
§ \ §
(
N
�
CO
M
X
.
w
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-37 PCS Phosphate Compa nA Inc.
P and U Lands Re Lora an January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-38 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
eT-77-5
LK i {
M
Ca t ate!
/ 7
� k)$
|§;
=
§ i
3
y 6
Uj
\
¢ _
> �
o ,
7
2 (
y
\
)
$!
2 ƒ 2 \ +
k)
Z $
�|
k / \
)
|
7 /
/C7?§
w (or < <
#f
!
.
< m g k
Ilse
_
, )
}
`
e
7
®f
m
/ƒ
.,
!|
\
\
3
d
7 �
1
` °
7
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-38 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

aLL
� � I
1
tY
o €U
LL
�
/
CDC)
Wra
N ��
C
m
m
c`
m
s
ID D
o
z
r"
�a
;
�
m
�r
ac
UA
4X
m
` m
mk
M
W
a
0 LL
m
yE
rt m T
°
m
q
Tj
Cl fn
d m
O
` m
CZ
oc�m
C
c-
0
a >
w
a'i
O
m
W
C
Q'
M a. o
qm-
CU
^
lu
t Q
U
W
rr LL Q,
m
LL
C =
Q
fY
a X
d
�E r`
♦
"m
2
CL o .0 z
m
x
m`
o
V
w
t0
LL
qb
�
k
C
I-
S
Q-J�
w�O
O
H H
1 ♦
1 o m
12�s
x
as
2
0 70 X
W C 0
<
mm
f
U M
mw
I
ro ag
cr
< r
ch°-
r"
aaOWp
Lo o
„U
n a`mQO
cmu�
♦
yEO
° of
/"
t7
m
e-
CO
me
m
x
m U
W
1
tY
o €U
LL
�
imW
a
CDC)
Wra
N ��
m
c`
m
s
ID D
o
V) CL
a
C
;
�
m
�r
ac
UA
4X
m
` m
mk
M
$
m
yE
rt m T
°
m
q
Tj
Cl fn
d m
O
` m
CZ
oc�m
C
c-
1
tY
o €U
LL
�
imW
a
CDC)
Wra
N ��
3ro �m � o2s�
H4
a
CD
J
m
m
c`
m
s
ID D
o
V) CL
a
C
;
o
Z
O a
E
..
C
Cl fn
O
` m
D N
a >
w
a'i
O
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B -39 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

\
}
o � )
■ „«!„ !I!,!
/ \\/
� }k)
.&
)!3
$
} !
$ § .
�\ } K )
E [
3
Q) w
k E
n k ) S
§
}
2222! Ui
_0� _j\7
k�§ia
m
000 <e
E�
}_ / \ u
0. % i
e §
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix B-40 PC/ Phosphate Compan,mc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
£
�
OD
_
X
X
W

Compensatory Mitigation Ran Appendix B41 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands R @or !a an January 2012
§
r!$
^
C
^
M
~� !~^
| #
» \�
I
}
E
`
M
\
|
\
ƒ
) &
� §
ƒ
@
§ 2
.. .
CO
> ƒ
k
22
o M
E a /
\\
E
Zak
a°
@ Cr
§ 5
E
%
#E
*£
@ m \ 8
k
0 6 (
_u-
�
/
@} @b\
f
2 ƒ2�
In
//
Cc
\—i
$
z
§
.■$
k)
P } a
j \ »
]a
-0 a:
CO « $
2
'k �
u ..
)
(L CO C
.
T-
.
G
'
1--
�
M
ƒ/
-I--
J\
k
ci
CL
g7
\
w
)E
$z
4)
/f
�0
au,
\�
A$
�
$I
»2
z2
P10._�
Compensatory Mitigation Ran Appendix B41 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P and U Lands R @or !a an January 2012

Compensatory Mitigation man Appendix B-42 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P an U Lands R rorla an January 2012
8
!E$
�a =z!
ƒ ®f !
t
2
�
u=
)
{
!
o
Vic
°v.1|
|�`
�
o
\
,
m
2
z
CO
£
!
U)
'
�
CD
■
b 'L
'L
a
!
\
J
o 7 5
[
\
K
{
w § \ S
6 X )
�
-
222§%
,
U
SWc
»CU B
M
_
§ 2 -1 zz
2
)�00
_
L2
.!
OU
§k9
) L a
\�
}
{
E� %a
22
}�
«� §\§
..-
.
00
--
e
$
.
11
�U-
@
I
\ �kz
4--
,
W
_
•
.
3 a
C
/
k
' |° 7■
�� ®7J
•.
.
!
E
(
a�
J \
.,
Q.
f E
` -
e
.....-
,
° U.
" "
`J
L
L
0- !
CO
�.__
�
Compensatory Mitigation man Appendix B-42 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P an U Lands R rorla an January 2012

APPENDIX C
SELECTED PHOTOS INCLUDING HISTORIC AND RECENT AERIAL PHOTOS
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

January 1964 aerial view of Bay City Road (SR1002) and east halfof Bay City Farm to left and Peele Road
to upper right. Gum Swamp Run system visible just north of slight bend in SR1002. Compare to 1938
photo for changes in apparent fire scarred areas.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C -2
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

December 1963 view of most of Phase 3 including the intersection of Rodman Road (vertical on left)
with Executive /Jaime Road (horizontal feature to south of agricultural fields). Bay City Farm and Bay City
Road (SR1002) visible on right.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C -3
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

March 2011 aerial view to east with Bay City Road(SR1002) in lower foreground and Small Road on left.
The persistent character of the Gum Swamp Run low to moderate energy stream is visible despite
construction of interior ditches and timber removal associated with silviculture; prior to any stream or
valley restoration activity
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C -4
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

September 2011 aerial view to southwest with water visible in the Gum Swamp Run headwater valley
system in middle right. Hurricane Irene passed through the area a few days before this photo with 12
inches of rainfall recorded at the Bay City rain gauge.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C -5
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

November 2011 aerial view to south with Small Road in lower foreground, Bay City No. 4 to south
beyond Small Road, and Bay City Road (SR1002) on right. Gum Swamp Run valley and low to moderate
energy stream segment evident in low to middle right between Bay City No. 4 and Small Road.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix C -6
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

MASTER PLAN PAGES AND SELECTED TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix D
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

8
01
it
6
4
Q.
m
k
W S v C
0
m r
I _ A
W rc N
W �
I x] 9
I %
zi I
rd
00
LLI
m
k
W S v C
0
m r
I _ A
W rc N
W �
I x] 9
I %
zi I
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix D 1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
00
LLI
LL
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix D 1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

a3
�ra
a
I m
O
)- -
U e
U T �W
! j ;-, 1 ilk
I � �
s
a�w N Q
b O
�8
U
4q �
a
2 NII
a�s
Compensatory Mitigation
P and U Lands Restoration
W >�
I
X13
N
U
N
t
O M
o�
#
m
Z
O
�
w
W
g
}U�
i
W >�
I
X13
°
m�
g�
r$UZ
V W
S�
Z`
q�W
O
Z nay
w _€
L io�c3
V �a
CZ m
AV
8
0 a , I
H Ui
3
U
w 0 o LL
cn 2
O a
o 0 m
U w V w
Q O
a
a °-(a,)z
�cr—O�
' zJz
M?U
U NCO a �'
LL
O
a W U
<= moo
M
January 2012
w
o 19
U
N
t
O M
b
W
W
g
°
m�
g�
r$UZ
V W
S�
Z`
q�W
O
Z nay
w _€
L io�c3
V �a
CZ m
AV
8
0 a , I
H Ui
3
U
w 0 o LL
cn 2
O a
o 0 m
U w V w
Q O
a
a °-(a,)z
�cr—O�
' zJz
M?U
U NCO a �'
LL
O
a W U
<= moo
M
January 2012
w
o 19

00C c m
K A W y
!— I OR
z
f Li 4 �
3 � x
O M
W
Q _ z
Q i W O LL
r C a
e
O
�
y
9 I O aU Z It
a Q a
-49 t, Z� s Zo O V �tAO °d
02 a 09 ~8 a °-aZ
w� �m�
w w �aI J z °.J =z, z
5
L) a& U Wco a
LU, W
m
f i l l
$ # R
a
a S _
S
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix D 3 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
N and U Lands Restoration January 2012

g
�I
R
P �
w
w
z
O$
UP
t c
� U e
a
§ �C4
A
11 LL 9
€ LL
09
PIZ
UI
W
J
U
a�
Y
< g V
0
W $ W C O
W N
Z �� F g
LU
dam 021 O
a a�
I - Z
�s 0
J
0. tii o LL
� €
In
° g W
0
its n
C/) u)
oz
o o }
Lu
i H O g J Z V o
d -0UZ <
� � z
} �c
gill
t 1111 c) t;D °iN
d a 6 3 V w 'O � N e�
o w w
a
I
z
0
W
Cf)�
compensatory mitigation Tian Hppenaix u -µ rw rnuspnaie Uurnpany im
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
m
m
o
Q
m
CU
L&
gi4
N
F S6
d
0 E
N
W a
U)
�a
J
a
I - Z
�s 0
J
0. tii o LL
� €
In
° g W
0
its n
C/) u)
oz
o o }
Lu
i H O g J Z V o
d -0UZ <
� � z
} �c
gill
t 1111 c) t;D °iN
d a 6 3 V w 'O � N e�
o w w
a
I
z
0
W
Cf)�
compensatory mitigation Tian Hppenaix u -µ rw rnuspnaie Uurnpany im
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012
m
m
o

I o
o^
I W
m
B
a O:�
Joe
I� a a �g
I e w o =off
316 C Q z °'del �0
Z m U I z t9.
Ow
9
=e w� b � I � � N
$ 3 x
v U)
a I Z >
O ED
} Z g N w 3
- QQQQ33 co
N Z
�S N O i J
Al l LL o
4 U U) °
s Z J
Q
I Z U a ir
Z
o�
Q)
LU m
@ I I g a I a W cc OLL a
g I i+
w
co
f
M
s a 1i�I Z, h
1 :+ O 8
I 7
l
h 0�
i$
m � U� a o y
w
Q —— --
x
0.
If
, A
1
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix D 5 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

15.11 nj low wk FBI Of-0
PLANT LIST BY SPECIES AND PLANTING ZONE
Compensatory Mitigation Plan Appendix E
P and U Lands Restoration January 2012

'O
d
C
L
E
O
V
N
d
N
R
L
CL
M
I
C
O
N
m
C
C
A
CL
L
v
a7
O
C
C
V
d
a
a
13
a>
C
c
l0
CL
C
0
N
O
a
E
O
0
N
d
V
m
CL
N
C
O
Y
m
W
E
U)
V
C
to
J
c
A
IL
lA
N
O
O
�'
LO
r
O
LO
r
O
LO
Cl)
O
N
�2
In
U7
N
LO
LO
c)
In
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N 0
o
n
o
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
tf)
O
O
ao
rn
0
M
LO
O
O
V
d
O
CO
t
v�
'�O
N
c0
N
to
c0
W
W
.�..
y
+�..
f0
t
U
CO
Q h
z
a�
C
U
y=
C
,Q
Cb
C
Of
CO
U
'y'o
h
m
m
e
CO
C
ro
N
.c
"
Cr
M
X
m �°,
CO
CO
W h
h
"
�'
w
�0
U
y
°
`°
C
a
`°
CO
C
ma°'
°
e
c
Cyr
o
g
d
o
N
:`
y
Z
O
Z
O
Ci
k
o
a
Q
Q
o
°°
ci
p
U
X
3
@
Q
CU
_
O
a
a)
U
N
N
(
x f0
y
o
°
Z
°
C
c
a
a
a
6
m
o
o
Q
E
a)
°
Y
o
E
n
y
3
m
a
o
E�
�
>
2
°
a
E
L
m
E
E
o
m
o
d
t
c9
o
—
a
2
oy
W
ao
U
6
3
3
Q
U)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan E 1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands January 2012

'o
m
c
E
O
v
H
m
qJ
l0
t
O.
t0
m
C
O
N
CD
C
w
C
l4
c
s
ea
m
c
V
m
CL
M
V
m
c
c
ea
a
c
O
r.
H
O
Q.
E
O
V
N
m
V
m
CL
in
m
N
C
O
w
co
CD
..
E
N
'O
C
co
J
v
c
R
a
m
t0
E
co
N
L
L
U)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan E 2 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands January 2012
L
O
c+�
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
.-
O
O
O
LO
r
r
N
Cl)
cn
cn
O
O
O
cn
LO
O
O
In
cn
In
O
.
O
O
CO
M
m
E
E
c
m
Z
m
o c
c y
c'ur
m
co
E E
_
a
Z
o
N
o
o ur
M
m
=° aci
c
c
c
E
o
m°
m
m
`� E
m's
o
`0'0
c6
cU,E
CO
m
h
mm
m
c`o
=
W m
m
U o
°
J
0 o
U�
e
v
Ezo
Tv
m
U
"�
U
j
0)
U
N
O
L
y
m
N
0
O
'0
O
3
m
O
L
j
y
y
L
Z'
tLn
7
L
L
L
7
cm
L
O
O)
L
L
Y
N
�
c
N
m
L
U)
N
O
10
N
V
d
'O
a
cc
c
3
5
M
y
m
v,
a
>,
a
E
C
cn
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan E 2 PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and U Lands January 2012

Z�
§
§
�
k
¥
_
2
\
k Z
k
E
@S 2
�k k
a)
-C
eCL c _
CO
tf�}
% $_
=r
�$
» c c
on
0) 0 C14
ƒ C
� _—
7$
11
Eff_f
(D4)a)
00 Cn
kkk
a a
\k CO
��`
§§§
§>'L
af22
§ %k
��(�
kkk
\\(D
Cc Cc
2
2322
=cL c'
=oo—
»»�
U)
��<
PCscmeso l9!_Plan Ea PCS Phosphate Company Inc
P and uLands Jana 2012