20120107 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report Ph I _2013_20140613

SECOND ANNUAL (2013) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
June 2014

SECOND ANNUAL (2013) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
June 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................1
1.1 History............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Location..........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria..................................................................................... 2
2.0 REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................................2
2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season............................................................................ 2
2.2 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................2
2.3 Vegetation......................................................................................................................3
2.4 Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 3
3.0 2013 RESULTS..............................................................................................................3
3.1 Rainfall...........................................................................................................................3
3.2 Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Design Activities............................................................................................................. 5
3.5 Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 5
4.0 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................5
LITERATURECITED.......................................................................................................................6
Cover Photos: Left photo: southern portion of Phase 1, view is north, 15 Sept 2013
Right photo: northern portion of Phase 1, view is north, 15 Sept 2013
Bottom photo: view is south, southern portion in upper right, northern
portion in middle, 14 Nov 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 1 performance criteria, methods summary, and current
status.......................................................................................................................... T-1
Table 2 Hydroperiods of 60 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1
restoration site in 2013............................................................................................... T-2
Table 3 Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 58 0.3 -acre plots at P and U Lands
Phase 1 from baseline (fall 2012) to fall 2013 .................................................T-10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase 1
Figure 2a Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 1
Figure 2b Monitoring Locations of Control Wells -Parker Farm and Rodman
Figure 3a Soils P and U Lands Phase 1
Figure 3b Soils Control Wells -Parker Farm and Rodman
Figure 4a P and U Lands Phase 1 Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built LiDAR
Figure 4b Parker Farm and Rodman Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built LiDAR
Figure 5 2013 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6a P and U Lands Phase 1 Longest 2013 Hydroperiods and Estimated Hydrologic
Zones
Figure 6b Parker Farm and Rodman Longest 2013 Hydroperiods and Estimated
Hydrologic Zones
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Appendix B Selected Second Annual (2013) Restoration Photographs
NOTE: Copy of entire report and hydrology tables from monitoring wells included on
accompanying CD.
P and U Lands Restoration Site - Phase 1 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 History. The approximately 3,667 -acre P and U Lands restoration site is part of
the PCS Phosphate Company Inc.'s (PCS) compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable
impacts to wetlands and waters authorized under United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Action ID: 2001-10096 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Water
Quality Certification (WQC) #2008-0868 version 2.0. As described in the mitigation plan prepared
for the pre -construction notification (PCN) to the USACE (CZR 2012), the site was planned to be
constructed in three phases as shown on Figure 1. This annual report documents the second
annual monitoring of the 970 acres of Phase 1 of the P Lands portion, conducted by CZR
Incorporated (CZR) of Wilmington, NC. (The P and U designation have no special meaning other
than that was the historic label given to PCS and Weyerhaeuser properties with similar ownership
agreements.)
The design team consisted of Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, FL, the
restoration design engineer, PCS, and CZR. Earthwork was performed by Sawyer's Land
Developing, Inc. out of Belhaven, NC and supervised by the design team. Restoration activities
occurred September 2011 -March 2013. Phase 1 construction was authorized with a total of six
NC Division of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control permits and included modifications
to four of those permits as construction progressed. Planting of Phase 1 occurred from 12-23
March 2012. Further details of construction are included in the As Built Report for P and U Lands
Phase 1 (CZR 2013).
The P and U Lands site is a key component linking PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.'s
(PCS) Parker Farm mitigation site, Bay City Farm mitigation site, Gum Run mitigation site, and
the South Creek Corridor into a large and varied collection of restored wetland and preserved
natural areas (South Creek Corridor Complex). The headwaters and upper valley of historic Gum
Swamp Run, a tributary to South Creek, will also be restored as part of the P and U Lands
mitigation site, in Phase 3. Unlike most other PCS mitigation sites, the P and U Lands are not
prior -converted agricultural fields. Other than the existing roads, all of Phase 1 acreage in which
earthwork occurred was in some stage of silvicultural activity, usually various -aged pine stands,
and contained regularly spaced ditches (deeper than the agricultural ditches on other restoration
sites that were filled in as part of restoration work). The removal of all standing timber and
stumps and post-harvest debris presented particular challenges as the organic soils precluded
safe burning of the timber slash on site. To compensate for this, much of the debris was pushed
into mostly uniform piles that provide habitat to many small animals and provide roosting sites for
birds.
1.2 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). 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 subbasin 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).
P and U Lands Restoration Site - Phase 1 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria. The primary goal of Phase 1 activities is to re-
establish a self-sustaining functional wetland complex to allow surface flow to move through
vegetated wetlands before it reaches any stream. Mitigation yields are estimated and
performance criteria are described for the project in detail in the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for
P and U Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance criteria and the current status are
summarized in Table 1. Over time the Phase 1 portion of the site is expected to successfully re-
establish approximately:
302 wetland acres of non-riverine swamp forest,
327 wetland acres of pond pine pocosin forest,
238 wetland acres of hardwood flat forest,
25 acres of open water in plugged ditches, and
30 wetland acres of swales.
The remaining 49 acres are comprised of existing roads, perimeter berms, and other
man -dominated areas. Approximately 25,131 linear feet of jurisdictional waters in roadside
ditches and canals will be plugged in order to increase the hydroperiods within the adjacent
planted areas (these plugged jurisdictional ditches and canals are included in the 25 acres of
reestablished open water). Approximately 8,700 feet of roadside ditch adjacent to Phase 1 along
the south side of Small Road were plugged in 2013.
Included in the planted communities above are 19.5 acres underlain by hydric soils which
may be "potential non -wetland" areas due to predicted drainage effects from perimeter ditches
that must remain open. Perimeter berm design included a feature to interrupt the lateral drainage
effect from the open ditch. Monitoring well data will be used to determine the effectiveness of the
interruption.
2.0 REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season. A continuous electronic rain gauge on the
adjacent Bay City Mitigation Site is downloaded once a month and its data are used in
conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations (e.g., NRCS WETS data from
NOAA's site at Aurora and at other nearby monitored sites) to determine normal rainfall during
the monitoring period. Bay City rainfall data were compared to the WETS range of normal
precipitation to determine if Bay City rainfall was within the normal range. The range of normal
precipitation for this report refers to the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds of the probability of
having onsite rainfall amounts less than or higher than those thresholds. The range of normal
and the 30 -day rolling total data lines begin on the last day of each month and the 2013 WETS -
Aurora monthly precipitation total is plotted on the last day of each month.
Under the 2010 regional guidance from the Corps of Engineers for wetland hydroperiods,
the normal growing season for Beaufort County is 28 February to 6 December or 282 days,
(WETS table for Beaufort County first/last freeze date 28 degrees F 50 percent probability) (US
Army Corps of Engineers 2010). At the suggestion of the Corps' Washington regulatory field
office, data collected between 1 February and 27 February provide important information related
to analyses of site hydrology during the early growing season, but are not part of the hydroperiod
calculation for success.
2.2 Hydrology. Figures 2a,b depict the locations of hydrology monitoring equipment,
Figures 3a,b show the locations on Beaufort County soil polygons, and Figures 4a,b show the
locations on the As Built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all wetland
types on the site, 60 semi -continuous electronic LevelTroll water level monitoring wells
(manufactured by InSitu) are deployed at a density of approximately 1 well/15 acres across all
planted areas of Phase 1. There are also two well arrays to monitor lateral drainage effects from
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

the open perimeter ditches in the two soil types which underlay most of Phase 1. Bear
exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence posts were built around all
wells.
Three wells were installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman
Road in the Ponzer soil series as controls for the P and U Lands wells in the same type of soil
(Figures 1 and 3b). In late September 2013, an additional five wells were installed in Section I
and J of the Parker Farm as controls for wells in the Dare series (Figures 1 and 3b).
Electronic wells record water levels every 1.5 hours, are downloaded once a month, and
the data evaluated on an annual basis to document wetland hydroperiods. Wetland hydroperiods
are calculated by counting consecutive days with water level no deeper than 12 inches below the
soil surface during the growing season under normal or below normal rainfall conditions as well
as for all rainfall conditions, if applicable.
2.3 Vegetation. The first annual survey of the 58 0.3 -acre planted tree and shrub
monitoring plots occurred July -August 2012. The second annual survey occurred September -
October 2013. The plots represent a two percent sample of the restoration area (Figure 2a).
2.4 Photographic Documentation. Four permanent photo point locations were
established along the perimeter of the restoration area and three were established at the end of
interior roads (Figure 2a). Photographs were taken in the four cardinal directions (approximately).
Annual photos were taken October 2012 and 2013.
3.0 2013 RESULTS
3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall in 2013 at Bay City was 43 inches, almost 6 inches less
than last year. The 30 -day rolling total of 2013 Bay City rainfall was considered within WETS
normal or below normal range for the entire year (Figure 5). There were a few brief periods of
rainfall amounts greater than the 70th percentile but not long enough or high enough to be
considered abnormal rainfall. The period of below normal rainfall from the end of March through
April did not appear to affect very many wetland hydroperiod lengths, but the period from the end
of May through part of June, might have caused water levels to drop below the -12 threshold,
ending the continuous wetland hydroperiod of many wells.
The US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu) provides a synthesis of multiple
indices and reflects the consensus of federal and academic scientists on regional conditions on a
weekly basis (updated each Thursday). For North Carolina's Beaufort County in 2013, during the
41 -week long growing season, the monitor reported 13 weeks with drought status of abnormally
dry (DO) for the vicinity of P Lands project area; the remainder of the growing season was normal.
Eleven of those weeks included the last week of March through the first week of June and the last
two weeks occurred during the first half of October.
3.2 Hydrology. The first full year of post -restoration hydrology data for the entire site
was 2013 because not all wells were installed at the start of the 2012 growing season because of
construction activities. However, they were all in the ground by early March 2012 and did not
miss much of the growing season. Tables depicting 2013 daily well readings and rainfall are
included on a companion CD with this report.
The entire year was considered within WETS normal rainfall. Although short periods
occurred either above or below the 301h or 70th percentiles, none were considered abnormal
(Figure 5). All but three wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods (Table 2, Figure 6a). Most wells
recorded wetland hydroperiods greater than 25 percent to 75 percent of the growing season and
most also recorded wetland hydroperiods longer than 17 days at least twice during the year. Two
wells recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season (Table 2). As
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

evidenced by the cumulative days, many wells had water levels less than 12 inches below the
surface in addition to the continuous hydroperiod(s) (Table 2).
According to the Beaufort County soil survey, one of the wells that did not exhibit a
wetland hydroperiod is in a non -hydric soil type (Tarboro) that drains very quickly (Figure 3a) and
therefore might not ever record a wetland hydroperiod. That well and another well are also on
higher elevation areas than most of the other wells (Figure 4a). If the non -wetland areas persist,
the amount of the site represented by the wells is small (approximately 33 acres), and would add
diversity to the site.
Both well pairs in place to monitor potential drainage effects from perimeter canals
recorded hydroperiods greater than 25 percent in 2013 (PUMs 4,and 5, 25 and 26). One of each
pair is located 50 feet away from the toe of the perimeter berm and the second is 100 feet away.
It was determined that PUMs 25 and 26 were in a low elevation area that was not typical for that
area and tended to collect more water than the surrounding area. In 2013, the pair was moved
about 300 feet north in 2013 to a more representative elevation in the same soil type. The 2013
water level data at these four wells appear to demonstrate that the clay key incorporated into the
berm is retarding lateral water movement as designed.
Three wells were installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman
Road in the Ponzer soil series as controls for the P and U Lands wells in the same type of soil.
The wells recorded water levels similar to Phase 1 wells (Table 2, Figure 6b). In late September
2013, an additional five wells were installed in Section I and J of the Parker Farm as controls for
wells in the Dare series (Figure 3b). Three of the wells were frequently destroyed by bears and
so did not collect much data. The bear exclosures have been modified and reinforced to
hopefully prevent further damage.
3.3 Vegetation. To control nuisance and or competing hardwood vegetation,
herbicide applications (aquatic and non -aquatic formulations) were applied by helicopter in
October 2011 prior to the 2012 early spring planting. American Forest Management, Inc. out of
Charlotte, NC specified the treatments and supervised their application. AgAir LLC out of
Thomasville, PA was the applicator. The As -Built report contains more details on the application
(CZR 2012).
Using only the number of planted stems that were unquestionably alive in the monitoring
plots, the most conservative estimate of survival is presented. Many stems appeared dead or
questionable, but based on prior monitoring experience, a stem needs to appear dead (or not be
found) for two sampling events before it can be confidently counted as dead. Appendix C
contains the number of stems that were alive in each plot for the fall 2013 survey compared to
baseline. Phase 1 is divided into four community types-swale, hardwood flat, pond pine-pocosin,
and non-riverine swamp forest. The hardwood flat areas had the highest survival and the swale
had the lowest survival, the same as last year. The lower survival of the swale zone is likely a
result of large expanses of prolonged standing water.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting to the second annual fall survey was 78 percent, with a corresponding density of 392
trees per acre (Table 3). If trees with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead but could not
be confirmed) are included with trees that were definitely alive, survival increases to 92 percent
and a density of 463 trees per acre. Excluding unknown/uncertain species, of the 27 species,
pond pine (Pinus serotina) had the lowest survival (24 percent) while mulberry (Morus rubra),
white oak (Quercus alba), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) had 100 percent survival (Table
3). For 13 of the remaining known species survival was 80 percent and higher. approximately
30,000 stems of pond pine are anticipated to be planted in these zones in early 2014. When the
relatively poor survival of pond pine in Zones 4 and 4A was noted in the first annual data
evaluation, supplemental planting of approximately 30,000 stems of pond pine was planned for
2013. However, no nursery had enough pines available to plant in 2013, which is why
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

supplemental planting was pushed into early 2014. Pine survival appeared to be primarily
compromised by improper planting across the site and secondarily by excessive wetness in some
areas.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
second annual fall survey was 74 percent with a corresponding density of 10 shrubs per acre
(Table 3). If shrubs with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead for the current sampling
event but will not be confirmed until next fall) are included with shrubs that were definitely alive
(less conservative estimate of survival), survival increases to 97 percent and a density of 13
shrubs per acre. When excluding stems with questionable survival, of the 15 species swamp
rose (Rosa palustris), followed by fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum) had the lowest survivals (0 percent, 50 percent, 53 percent respectively). Eight
species had 100 percent survival.
The current tree density is much higher than the 260 stems required for success and with
most trees surviving well in the second year, there is a diverse assemblage of trees interspersed
with a healthy shrub component. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g.
red bay, sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana], titi [Cyrilla racemiflora]) are prolific and will enhance the
diversity and density of the site. The volunteers will be counted in year five.
3.4 Design Activities. Approximately 8,700 feet of roadside ditch adjacent to Phase 1
along the south side of Small Road were plugged in 2013. When planting occurred, fill was
stored along open ditches to be used as future plugs, so those storage areas were not planted in
2012. The fill has been used to plug the ditches and planting of those areas is anticipated to
occur in early 2014 in conjunction with Phase 3 planting. The total acreage to be planted is
approximately 14 acres and the areas will be planted with 7,750 stems of swamp chestnut oak
(Q. michauxii), swamp black gum, willow oak (Q. phellos), and bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum).
3.5 Photographic Documentation. Although the planted stems seldom stand out
from the vegetation yet, a few photos representative of 2013 conditions are included with this
report (Appendix B). More are available upon request.
4.0 SUMMARY
According to WETS rainfall calculations, even though there were periods of drought and
a few large rainfall events, 2013 rainfall was considered within normal range.
Post -restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially began March 2012.
In 2013, all but three wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods. Most wells recorded wetland
hydroperiods longer than 17 consecutive days at least twice during the year and two wells
recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting (2012) to the second annual fall survey was 78 percent, with a corresponding density of
392 trees per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of
planting to the second annual fall survey was 74 percent with a corresponding density of 10
shrubs per acre. The density of unquestionably alive trees and shrubs combined is 404 stems
per acre. The current tree density is much higher than the 260 stems required for success and
with most trees surviving well in the second year, there is a diverse assemblage of trees
interspersed with a healthy shrub component. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody
wetland stems (e.g. red bay, sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana], titi [Cyrilla racemiflora]) are prolific
and will enhance the diversity and density of the site.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site.
CZR Incorporated. 2013. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
CZR Incorporated. 2013. First Annual (2013) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
Kirby, Robert M. 1995. The soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory guidance letter (RGL) 02-02. Guidance on
Compensatory mitigation projects for aquatic resource impacts under the Corps regulatory
program pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2.) U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03. Minimum
monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects involving the restoration,
establishment, and/or enhancement of aquatic resources.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain region. Version 2.0. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.
Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. ERCD/EL TR -08-30, Vicksburg, MS.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

U)
CD
0
0
M
Q_
D
c
v
CD
0
M
n
U)
0
U)
v
m
0
0
C
c �
� v
m
N
O
� n
Table 1. P and U Lands Phase 1 performance criteria, methods summary, and current status (second annual, 2013).
Type of mitigation
Performance criteria
Documentation methods Dimension & controls
Current status
In 2013, three of the 60
>6 % hydroperiod on
Growing season 28 Feb -6
wells did not record a
hydric soils for
Semi -continuous monitoring
Dec; Aurora NOAA
hydroperiod; two wells
hardwood flats; >10%
wells (1/15ac); nearby rain
WETS data for normal
recorded wetland
for other communities
gauge
rainfall
hydroperiods of 8%; the
remainder were greater
than 12.5%
Non -riparian wetland re-
establishment
(restoration) of non-
riverine swamp forest,
2013 survival of planted
hardwood flat, pond pine
tree stems that were
unquestionably alive was
communities
392 stems/acre; with
Survival of 260 stems
addition of unquestionably
per acre of 5 -year old
Vegetation plots on
Annual monitoring
alive shrub and unknown
planted woody wetland
approximately 2% of the site
species stems, density
stems
becomes 404 stems/acre.
When unsure stems of
both categories are
included, survival
becomes 493 stems/acre.

U)_0
CD
o
=) Q
aC
> r
v
CL
v 0
CC
CD CD
-0 0
0 0
o'
CD
v
v
0
CD
7'
N
Table 2. Hydroperiods in 2013 of 60 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1 restoration site.
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is -12" or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
>6-12.5%
>12.5-25%
>25-75%
>75%
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
—
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(282 days)
88
2/28-5/26
P U M 1
27
268
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
80
2/28-5/18
PUM2
27
64
58.9
166
6/24-12/6
X
74
2/28-5/12
PUM3
27
251
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
27
2/28-3/26
PUM4
27
218
35
6/24-7/28
40.8
X
115
8/13/12/6
83
2/28-5/21
PUM5
27
267
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
49
2/28-4/17
17
4/19-5/9
PUM6
27
189
20.9
X
26
6/24-7/19
59
10/9-12/6
49
2/28-4/17
17
4/19-5/9
PUM7
27
193
20.9
X
25
6/24-7/18
59
10/9-12/6
45
2/28-4/13
30
6/24-7/24
PUM8
27
199
21.3
X
37
8/13-9/18
60
10/8-12/6

� r
0 C
CL
v in
CC
CD m
0 0
o'
v
0
0
a
3
m
co
n
0
C-
CD
m
N -
O
W n
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
75
2/28-5/13
PUM9
27
245
33
6/24-7/27
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
75
2/28-5/13
PUM10
27
236
31
6/26-7/26
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
88
2/28-5/26
P U M 11
27
264
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
75
2/28-5/13
PUM12
27
247
37
6/24-7/30
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
28
2/28-3/27
PUM13
27
242
43
3/31-5/12
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
78
2/28-5/16
PUM14
27
251
34
6/24-7/27
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
23
2/28-3/22
20
4/19-5/9
PUM15
27
222
42.2
X
30
6/24-7/23
119
8/11-12/6

� r
0 C
CL
v in
CC
CD m
0 0
o'
v
0
0
a
3
m
co
n
0
C—
CD
m
N -
O
W n
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
23
2/28-3/22
18
4/19-5/7
PUM16
27
219
41.8
X
30
6/24-7/23
118
8/12-12/6
22
2/28-3/21
PUM17
25
204
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
73
2/28-5/11
PUM18
27
244
35
6/24-7/28
44.7
X
126
8/3-12/6
74
2/28-5/12
PUM19
27
248
34
6/24-7/27
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
79
2/28-5/17
PUM20
27
260
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
81
2/28-5/19
PUM21
27
229
32
6/24-7/25
44.7
X
126
8/3-12/6
72
2/28-5/10
18
6/30-7/17
PUM22
27
200
18
8/13-8/30
25.5
X
17
9/2-9/18
60
10/8-12/6
73
2/28-5/11
PUM23
27
230
26
6/26-7/21
41.8
X
118
8/12-12/6

� r
0 C
CL
v in
CC
CD m
0 0
o'
v
0
0
a
3
m
co
n
0
C—
CD
m
N -
O
W n
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
PUM24
27
282
282
2/28-12/6
100.0
X
93
2/28-5/31
17
6/3-6/19
PUM25
27
246
33.0
X
86
6/24-9/17
23
11/2-11/24
202
2/28-9/17
PUM26
27
272
71.6
X
60
10/8-12/6
72
2/28-5/10
28
6/24-7/23
PUM27
27
231
27.0
X
48
8/3-9/19
76
9/22-12/6
29
2/28-4/17
PUM28
27
158
21
10/9-10/29
12.8
X
36
11/1-12/6
29
2/28-4/17
PUM29
27
157
19
4/19-5/8
20.9
X
59
10/9-12/6
72
2/28-5/10
72.0
PUM30
27
176
X
60
10/8-12/6
60.0
PUM31
27
282
282
2/28-12/6
100.0
X
88
2/28-5/26
PUM32
27
272
18
6/3-6/20
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6

>�
C
CL
m in
CD coo
-0 o
0
�v
0
n
U)
v
s
0
ch
v
CD
n
0
C-3
c -a
:3 v
CD
N -
O
W n
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
79
2/28-5/17
17
6/4-6/20
PUM33
27
258
44.7
X
36
6/24-7/28
126
8/3-12/6
91
2/28-5/29
PUM34
27
278
58.9
X
166
6/24-12/6
PUM35
13
19
<17
na
<6
X
PUM36
18
55
<17
na
<6
X
PUM37
17
56
<17
na
<6
X
72
2/28-5/10
24
6/26-7/17
PUM38
27
195
25.5
X
17
8/13-8/29
59
10/9-12/6
49
2/28-4/17
PUM39
27
136
17.4
X
35
11/2-12/6
72
2/28-5/10
PUM40
27
152
22
10/9-10/30
25.5
X
35
11/2-12/6
46
2/28-4/14
P U M41
27
152
20.9
X
59
10/9-12/6
76
2/28-5/13
PUM42
27
235
28
6/28-7/25
44.7
X
126
8/3-12/6

� r
0 C
CL
v in
CC
CD m
0 0
o'
co
n
0
C—
CD
m
N -
O
W n
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0 0
>25-75 /o >75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
80
2/28-5/17
31
6/23-7/23
PUM43
27
244
28.4
X
29
8/3-8/31
60
10/8-12/6
49
2/28-4/17
20
4/19-5/9
PUM44
27
213
24
6/26-7/19
21.3
X
45
8/3-9/16
60
10/8-12/6
77
2/28-5/14
PUM45
27
168
26
6/24-7/18
27.3
X
58
10/10-12/6
23
2/28-3/22
PUM46
27
150
18
10/9-10/26
8.2
X
23
11/2-11/24
23
2/28-3/22
X
PUM47
26
143
8.2
19
11/2-11/20
83
2/28-5/21
27
6/24-7/20
PUM48
27
243
29.4
X
48
8/3-9/19
60
10/8-12/6
90
2/28-5/28
18
6/4-6/21
PUM49
27
270
45.4
X
34
6/24-7/27
128
8/1-12/6

n
U)
3
O
a
3
Ol
co
n
O
C—
:3
:3
CD
N
O_
W �
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
29
2/28-3/28
42
3/31-5/11
PUM50*
27
192
17
8/11-8/27
14.9
X
19
10/9-10/27
36
11/1-12/6
75
2/28-5/13
24
6/24-7/17
P U M51
27
220
26.6
X
28
8/3-8/30
60
10/8-12/6
83
2/28-5/21
PUM52
27
266
52
6/4-7/25
45.4
X
128
8/1-12/6
74
2/28-5/12
17
6/3-6/18
PUM53
27
227
28
6/24-7/19
26.2
X
42
8/3-9/13
60
10/8-12/6
91
2/28-5/29
PUM54
27
278
66.3
X
187
6/3-12/6
150
2/28-7/27
PUM55
27
278
53.2
X
128
8/1-12/6
78
2/28-5/16
32
6/24-7/24
PUM56
27
255
27.7
X
62
8/3-10/3
61
10/7-12/6

U)_0
CD
o
=) Q
aC
> r
CL
v 0
CC
CD m
0 0
o'
CD
v
v
0
CD
7'
(0
n
W
v
0
0
a
3
Ol
co
n
0
C-
CD
m
N -
O �
w�
Table 2. (concluded)
Hydrologic zone
*Well malfunction resulted in loss of data or inaccurate data, therefore a conservative estimate might have been made for consecutive and
cumulative days.
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
Well
table is or
where water table
where water table
Dates
growing
<6
o
>6-12.5 /o
0
>12.5-25 /o
0
>25-75 /o
0
>75 /o
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
season
27
above 1-27 Feb
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb -6 Dec
(283 days)
77
2/28-5/15
24
6/24-7/17
PUM57
27
222
27.3
X
27
8/3-8/29
60
10/8-12/6
82
2/28-5/20
50
6/3-7/22
PUM58
27
257
29.1
X
46
8/3-9/17
60
10/8-12/6
91
2/28-5/29
PUM59
27
278
66.3
X
187
6/3-12/6
79
2/28-5/17
49
6/3-7/21
PUM60
27
256
28.0
X
47
8/3-9/18
61
1 10/7-12/6
Rodman Control Site (Wells were installed 13 March 2013 and so growing season began on that date and includes 269 days instead of 282.)
137
3/13-7/27
RC1
258
48
8/1-9/17
50.9
X
60
10/8-12/6
80
3/13-5/31
RC2
Wells not installed
206
52
6/3-7/24
29.7
X
during February.
17
8/12-8/29
20
10/8-10/27
80
3/13-5/31
17
6/3-6/20
RC3
200
31
6/22-7/23
29.7
X
18
8/12-8/29
17
1 10/8-10/25
*Well malfunction resulted in loss of data or inaccurate data, therefore a conservative estimate might have been made for consecutive and
cumulative days.

U) -U
CD m
0 1
0 a
�c
M r
0
a0i N-
m CAD
a N
0 0
�v
0
CD
S
N
CDU)
Ti
0
C)
U)
0
0
Cns
v
CD
C)
0
C-
CD
m :3
N `_<
O _
WO
Table 3. Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 58 0.3 -acre plots at P and U Lands Phase 1 from baseline (2012) to fall 2013
Scientific name
Common name
Tagged at
baseline
Baseline stems
Alive Unsure' Total2
Fall 2013 stems
Alive Unsure' Total2
Percent surviva13
Alive Total2
Percent of
total stems
alive in 2013
Large tree species
Amelanchier canadensis
Serviceberry
4
4
0
4
3
1
4
75
100
0
Betula nigra
River birch
166
161
5
166
139
24
163
84
98
2
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
237
219
12
231
87
137
224
37
95
1
Carya aquatica
Water hickory
102
100
4
104
42
58
100
41
98
1
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
781
779
2
781
763
17
780
98
100
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
145
143
2
145
91
53
144
63
99
1
Morus rubra
Mulberry
4
3
0
3
4
0
4
100
100
0
Nyssa sp.
tupelo or black gum
40
4
2
6
37
1
38
93
95
1
N. aquatica
Water tupelo
789
765
10
775
733
50
783
93
99
11
Nyssa biflora
Swamp tupelo
865
908
1
909
852
13
865
98
100
12
Pinus serotina
Pond pine
849
347
498
845
205
160
365
24
43
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
26
25
0
25
23
3
26
88
100
0
Quercus spp.
unknown oak species
117
85
55
140
20
53
73
17
62
0
Q. alba
White oak
8
8
0
8
8
0
8
100
100
0
Q. laurifolia
Laurel oak
516
500
33
533
333
151
484
65
94
5
Q. lyrata
Overcup oak
672
628
10
638
601
61
662
89
99
9
Q. michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
620
579
32
611
493
101
594
80
96
7
Q. nigra
Water oak
35
35
0
35
30
5
35
86
100
0
Q. phellos
Willow oak
830
801
14
815
627
189
816
76
98
9
Quercus pagodaefolia
Cherrybark oak
22
26
0
26
17
5
22
77
100
0
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
1286
1276
3
1279
1263
21
1284
98
100
19
Ulmus americana
American elm
6
6
0
6
4
2
6
67
100
0
Small tree species
Clethra alnifolia
Sweet pepperbush
16
19
0
19
13
3
16
81
100
0
Cynlla racemiflora
Titi
28
26
0
26
23
5
28
82
100
0
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
100
100
0
Ilex decidua
Deciduous holly; possumhaw
113
107
2
109
38
72
110
34
97
1
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay
276
274
1
275
255
20
275
92
100
4
Persea borbonia
Red bay
147
134
12
146
112
25
137
76
93
2
Total tree stems
8,703
7,965
698
8,663
6,819
1,230
8,049
78
92
100
Trees per acre (stems+ 1 7.4ac)500
458
40
498
392
71
463
-
I -

m CAD
a N
0 0
�v
0
0
0
Cns
M
CD
n
0
C-
CD
m :3
N `_<
E _
W Q
Table 3. (concluded)
'Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event
2Total includes alive + unsure.
3Percent survival was calculated as: (Baseline/tagged at baseline) X 100.
Percent of
Tagged at
Baseline stems
Fall 2013 stems
Percent surviva13
total stems
Scientific name
Common name
baseline
Alive Unsure' Total2
Alive Unsure' Total2
Alive Total2
alive in 2013
Shrubs
Aronia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
16
11 0
11
16
0 16
100
100
9
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
2
2 0
2
2
0 2
100
100
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
9
9 0
9
9
0 9
100
100
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
3
1 0
1
2
1 3
67
100
1
Cornus foemina
Swamp dogwood
5
5 0
5
3
2 5
60
100
2
Ilex glabra
Inkberry
34
34 0
34
32
2 34
94
100
19
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
8
8 0
8
5
3 8
63
100
3
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
107
104 1
105
69
37 106
64
99
40
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Swamp doghobble
2
2 0
2
2
0 2
100
100
1
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
3
2 0
2
3
0 3
100
100
2
Lyonia lucida
Fetterbush
2
2 0
2
1
1 2
50
100
1
Rhododendron atlanticum
Dwarf azalea
3
3 0
3
3
0 3
100
100
2
Rosa palustris
Swamp rose
6
2 4
6
0
2 2
0
33
0
Vaccinium corymbosum
High bush blueberry
17
15 2
17
9
6 15
53
88
5
Viburnum nudum
Possumhaw
14
10 0
10
14
0 14
100
100
8
Zenobia pulverulenta
Dusty zenobia
1
2 0
2
1
0 1
100
100
1
Total shrub stems
232
212 7
219
171
54 225
74
97
100
Shrubs per acre stems+17.4ac
13
12 0
13
10
3 13
-
-
Unknown species
Unknown species
711
320 430
750
34
278 312
5
44
4
Total
Total stems
9,646
8,497 1,135
9,632
7,024
1,562 8,586
Total density
554
488 65
554
404
90 493
'Survival was considered unsure if the stem appeared dead (brittle, no green, broken, etc.) at the current sampling event
2Total includes alive + unsure.
3Percent survival was calculated as: (Baseline/tagged at baseline) X 100.

r; l AURORA r
-SOUTH CREEK — ! �f
CORRIDOR.
a
xw s d lY
RovAi aono ... ..........................F ..................... J'
P LANDS
SOUTH CREEK
CORRIDOR L =
'- - PHASE 2 _
A.
---- -- PHASE 1
PHASE 2 p L NDS
.............. .--
I HOLLOWELL TR ILPHASES
PHASE 3
env. clT ��IT%m PHASE 1e
_ UPLANDS PARKER FARM y -
z�,, o.-WINE no�D M1 jjj// SECTIONS A-H
LAT. 35'14'15.04"..
.. LONG: 76'46'19.20"
RODMAN
CONTROLSITE CASEY TRACT
U LANDS - --__
P LANDS _ - PARKER FARM
_= rw+'Y='•�'o-.� _ _ _ _ SECTION I --
PARKER FARM
_ II �_ _ - CONTROL SITE
- - - - _ •i _ _-_-• -
- i9.�.—.•... -..v. . , it •- •~ PARKER FARM - ..
+ SECTION J
I
I
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND 0 5,000 10,000
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH CAROLINA VICINITY M A P
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
SITE LOCATION
PLANDS PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, P LANDS—VIC_
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 06/06/14 FILE-
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH1 2013
WWW.CO. BEAU FORTAC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, »E
NAD 1983 FEET. s CP#1745.59.32.1
ddb ' J 4709 COLLEGE ACRESUITEIV2
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, L
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
NAD83, FEET, 1:24000—SCALE, WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

D
C�
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 70
O
D
D
O
O
N
�'OASE 1
PLPS 5
SMALL ROAD
O+lf9
58
60
PHASE 1
SMALL ROAD
56 52 _ e47
® 54 50;
55 P LANDS
53 ' 49 48
A57 1 0
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
46 45 PLPS 7
F
F�
F
PLPS 6
LEGEND
BA CITY 'Np. 4 PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
37 Y 41 42 OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
35 39 PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
43
40 TREE SAMPLING PLOT
X38 28 O WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
34
O
1,36 27 PLPS 4 (WELLS MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY
NOT HAVE
A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
0 29 25 PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
**32 26 PLPS 1
33 31 � 24
C
Y N p. 3 AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE 1:
gp`Y 22� 23 0 ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST
199 P LAND 0 ZONE 4 POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
20 21 1 1 ® ZONE 4A POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
�
0 ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1
12
0 ZONE 6 HARDWOOD FLAT 2
18
14 10PLPS 3 0 ZONE 7 SWALES
%17
5
LANE ROADI IPLPS 1
COUNTY
PLPS 2
Z-'� MONITORING LOCATIONS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
0 1,200 2,400 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
DATE: 05/06/14 FILE: zo 3 DWG WELL-PH1
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 CP#1745.59.32.1
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE ^� 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
WWW.CO.BEAU FOR T. NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, R SUITE 2
403
NAD 1983 FEET. ��R INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORiEL 910/329253 FIGURE 2a
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

BENFEWELL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD
P LANDS
A�
F�
PHASE 2��9°
m
SMALL ROAD
PHASE 1
j
PHASE 2
SMALL ROAD
g
PHASE 3
N
8
N
PHASE 3
o'
BAY CITY
,Z,
A
J1
�G
BAY CITY FARM
pHAS
PARKER FARM
P LANDS
SECTIONS A—H
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
BAY GITY No. 3
RC -1
/
RC -2 RODMAN
CONTROL
/
RC -3 SITE
mZ
Z'
O
c
N
BAy GITY NO. 2
13 -O
PARKER FARM
SECTION I
No. 1
ABAY
CITY
mm
°
P LANDS
0 U LANDS
w
o
COUNTY
LINE ROAD
PARKER FARM
CONTROL SITE
A
LEGEND
AFc
O
P AND U LANDS
PO
J-3
/
PARKER FARM CONTROL
SITE AND
/ J-2
RODMAN CONTROL SITE
1-2
J-1
ROADS
1-1
O
CONTROL WELLS
PARKER FARM
0 2,600 3,200 SECTION J
SCALE IN FEET
MONITORING LOCATIONS OF CONTROL WELLS
PARKER FARM AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
DATE: 05/08/14 FILE: PARKER—RODMAN—WELL
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
;� CP#1 745.59.32
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
��� 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
� Z R SUITE 2
NAD 1O.B FEEfRT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
LAR INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTEL ROLIN 228403 FIGURE 2b
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

B
ROYAL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD
SII
- P LANDS
< f
011 l }
IIII SMALL ROAD
w 59 56 52 50 47
A ° PO 46
54 49
o
il SMALL ROAD 58
60
IJ .. _ s� 5.5 __ ._ _53. .._ 5.1_:....o.
F
eau
BAY C NO 4 41 44
7 42
35 W 39 43
40 r, r
34 PORTIONS OF THE BOUND PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
/ 36 38 2 Da NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLI JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
27 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEA ORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
P LANDS 30 29 25 26 NAD 1983E FEETRT.NC.US, H UFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
32 31
24 CASEY TRA•
3 BAY CITY No• 322 23 .. - .. • _
19
SOIL SURVEY OF BEA:. OUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
20 21 11 OF AGRICULTURE NATURA SOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
18 16 14 10 P° 12 SOILS
15 13 P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
17 BAY CITY 3 No. 9 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
7
1 6 8 SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
2 4 DATE: 04/29/14 FILE: PLANDS_SOILS_PH1
2013.DWG
5 0 2,200 4,400
20AD - �V Z R
9 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP# 1 745.59.32.1
SUITE 2
m m SCALE IN FEET WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONM NTOAR CONSu ANTS FAX [phone]
392 9139 FIGURE 3 q
PHASE 1 (970.38 ACRES)
•
WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT
MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
Do
DARE (ORGANIC)(60.81 ACRES)
PO
PONZER (ORGANIC)(751.85 ACRES)
ToB
TARBORO SAND (4.18 ACRES)
Wd
WASDA (ORGANIC)(153.54 ACRES)
HYDRIC SOILS
®
NON—HYDRIC SOILS
45
NOTE:
ONLY
HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
eau
BAY C NO 4 41 44
7 42
35 W 39 43
40 r, r
34 PORTIONS OF THE BOUND PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
/ 36 38 2 Da NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLI JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
27 AND 02/02/2010 AND BEA ORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
P LANDS 30 29 25 26 NAD 1983E FEETRT.NC.US, H UFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
32 31
24 CASEY TRA•
3 BAY CITY No• 322 23 .. - .. • _
19
SOIL SURVEY OF BEA:. OUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
20 21 11 OF AGRICULTURE NATURA SOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
18 16 14 10 P° 12 SOILS
15 13 P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
17 BAY CITY 3 No. 9 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
7
1 6 8 SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
2 4 DATE: 04/29/14 FILE: PLANDS_SOILS_PH1
2013.DWG
5 0 2,200 4,400
20AD - �V Z R
9 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP# 1 745.59.32.1
SUITE 2
m m SCALE IN FEET WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONM NTOAR CONSu ANTS FAX [phone]
392 9139 FIGURE 3 q

SOUTH
To
RC—
i
ARAPAHOE LOAMY FINE SAND
Ba
BALLAHACK FINE SAND
BH
i
RODMAN
CONTROL
SITE
c
0
0
U LANDS
L
r0
mO
C
z
zj
0
N
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
2012 AERIALS DOWNLOAD FROM FROM NC ONE MAP
WEBSITE: http://data.nconemap
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY AND PAMLICO COUNTY NORTH
CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES
CONVERSATION SERVICE, ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
ROYAL ROAD
J
r�
ROYAL ROAD
P LANDS .os
FP
O
01-'1f p SMALL ROAD PHASE 2
PHASE 1
ROPHASE 2
N
o SMALL ROAD
N PHASE 3
Wd
Da
PHASE 3
BAY CITY FARM BAY CITY No. Da /
P�-{ASE 1
IPARKER FARM PO
P LANDS SECTION A—H
Po
BAY CITY No. 3
CASEY TRACT
PARKE
BAY CITY No. 2 -0 FARM
_ = 1 SECTII
NO.
BAY CITY
� m
m sH As
w
P LANDS
F
COUNTY LINE ROAD 'AO BH
9�
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS
• I-2
PARKER FARM CONTROL SITE AND
RODMAN CONTROL SITE-1�
ROADS
D PARKER FARM
CONTROL WELLS LOCATIONS- SECTION J
SOILS L
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
Ap
ARAPAHOE LOAMY FINE SAND
Ba
BALLAHACK FINE SAND
BH
BELHAVEN MUCK
Da
DARE (ORGANIC)
LF
LAFITTE MUCK
PO
PONZER (ORGANIC)
To
TOMOTLEY FINE SAND
Wd
WASDA (ORGANIC)
Yo
YONGES LOAMY FINE SAND
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
PARKER FARM
CONTROL SITE
J-3
J-2
—1 AP
Yo Ba
LF
O 2,600 3,200
SCALE IN FEET
SOILS CONTROL WELLS
PARKER FARM AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
JAPPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 05/08/14
FILE: PARKER-RODMAN-SOILS
'14,
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
ZR WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
` INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
EWIRONMENUL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
CP#1745.59.32
FIGURE 3b

r
i ■
LA
• • A
■6.IF III+
,� t ■Y t MF t .. _.
t F
IL
•
IL
42
• ■■y .,
Y . '
•4334
Yoh
•
' 28
• • 27i-� �■
36
. �r
�., .
033 032 031 0 o24 7.
•22 23
• _ • r f
LANDS
Ilk
• •21 •
il
• 12
•
14
:#
16 • • •
• •
015 •13 '
•9017
1 -~ •
71
•• �+ •�
■ • •
• �
• • • 1p
lit III
■ „
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND
PAMLICO COUNTIES,LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM
0 1,500 3,000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
+
PHASE 2
PHASE
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
0 y, "45
f }
ROADS
4&
49 408
0
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
O
�+
O WELL LOCATION
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
9L
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
Y '
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
e = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (33.23 ACRES)
it i
0 = 26 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (32.48 ACRES)
_ >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (129.31 ACRES)
0 = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (678.22 ACRES)
e
•
= >75 - 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (23.0 ACRES)
Legend
Elevation in Feet
' # r'
Value
0-2
2-4
•
- 4-5
_
5-6
_ 6-7
Q 7-8
O 8-9
9-10
- 10-11
•Y
11-12
1
12-13
~
4;'
ITI
13-14
r
14-15
t 4,
15-16
�
16-21
r
JIM
Q 21 -48
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
DATE: 05/07/14
FILE: PLA'NDS-PHI-WELL-
LIDAR-2013
CP#1745.59.32.1
�COLLEGE ACRESUTE 2
P"INCORPORATOED
WILMINGTON, NOR TELCAOLINA 28403
910/3 29253
FIGURE 4a
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

O
1 1 - I 1 ■
IN
1 0 1■ r�J - 1 .= � .■ 1 ; r : �•
1 1L
w NO a IN
IN
■ IN
_ ,� 1 Ir'r'- IN 1 ■ ELL R D � 1 ti-� 1 L
IN LE j I
■ _ _ i 1 ■ ■ IN IN
I.1
1 1 _ Ir 1 . ■ 1 1 1 Inc'1�■ ■
0 ONO ON11 1 .t■ ■ 1■ 1 1 ■ X11 ti - 1 IN
' I • '-1 I ■ ' ' ROYAL ROAD ' NOIrm I r r
■ Jl+ l 1 1 5 1 1_ ti r
_ 1 ■I 1 1 ' = ' YAL
I 1�IN 1 -Ir ■_ k 1 _, L
n - 1■ ■ r - III I5IN
_ 1 • 1
1.
■ -L-- 1 • ' 1 •■ 1 hr 1 7 - ■ '■ • '_ HASE 2 - ,1- 11 EL
AD fi.■ •-i7�� ti�
■ 1. 1 1 1 1 TF LCL r _ 1 1
INN
IN I I "moi ■• L �-� ■, � � Z
'_ HASE
1 ' ' IN L SMALL ROAD ' '
_ _ P_ HASE 3 - ■ ■ I,� • 'ti -
_ o r
1 1 ■ o ■ ■ r. 1 � L �
.1116 1
L IN L ASE 3 ti '_ . _ 1_ . 1
1 . . ti 1 � ■ 1
_ ti 1 ■
I L f � � �� ■ � � BAY CITY �, . � � 1 ■ � � 1 i :NN 1 7
1 r � _ �
■ ' y0 '- ' �� p�ASE ti��■!1_.. FARM' �� -~ j i f ■ i
■J �7G' A -H ■ �-- l 1 i
1 r - . �. '. ANDS ` . _;)i
11 ■�_: " ■ ■■. L * ■ r .- -•
SOUTH [K CANAL ■• �' '
� r %
1 _ ■■ EXECUTIVE ROAD - 1 _ L - 1 L • 1■ 2pmpAL.L
_ y 1 1' JAIME ROAD Y ' • ' 1 -
• r ' � ' ■ BAY CITY No. ■ - ; L , L - ■ • 1 , - •� ;�
RC -1 '. - _ �- 1 rr-�
RdDMAN I f ;
RC RC
- � r 1 ■ ■ 11 ' ■ ■1 ?' ' I
RC -3 L' IN
SITE 0 1 1 r1 ' 1 ■ 1' ■ ti 1
Z rL r
_ NO
BAY '0 _ ■ 1 1 i r
3=c1TY NO. r r
_ 1 1 r rI
>o BPY '■ ■ '- J I
I z o ti� 1■ �- i 1 1• •~
r o V P LANDSI! 1i L w L ■„ f■t�� 1 ' 144r
1 _ -4 . I
o NDS IN
■ COUNTY LINE ROAD _ . '■ - . ■ 1 r • ' -
c E PARKER FAR �■ ■'•
�. ■
- i 1 I TRO �-
Z _
1 �- - ti 1
_ ti 1 .•1 1
'. L r
■ I 1 1 r r
r
J LEGEND f � IN`'_� _� ..e 1 -r // -
�iirr; ' ' J-2
P AND U LANDS 'i 1 ti' 1 1-2 - /
_ 1 } 1 1 _ J-1 _
wL L
' - ' 1 •- Y I-1 _
1 - PARKER FARM CONTROL SITE AND 5 r . _ L- 1 r � ■
I _r' _ - _ RODMAN CONTROL SITE i 1 _
ROADS Legend r r■ r1■� PARKER FARM ,
�1 SECTION J
IN ■■ • IINN��� 1 �' ..� C CONTROL WELLS Elevation in Feet
1■ Value
=0-2
NOTE: 8 2-4
111111111111114-5
DUE TO REPEATED DESTRUCTION OF WELLS AND LOSS
=
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR
OF DATA, HYDROPERIODS WERE NOT ABLE TO BE
ACCURATELY COUNTED FOR PARKER FARM WELLS IN
s-6
PARKER FARM AND RODMAN
2013.
=7-8
=6-9
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC.
=9-10
7
- 10-11
SOURCE:
Q 11-12
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
� 12-13
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
DATE: 05/08/14
FILE: PARKER_RODMAN_WELL_
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
Q 13-14
LIDAR.DWG
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,14-15
NAD 1983 FEET. Q
21600 31200
CP#1745.59.32
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND
_15-16���
_ 16-21
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ZR SUITE 2
PAMLICO COUNTIES, LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM
SCALE IN FEET
_21-46
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
FIGURE 4b
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

Figure 5. 2013 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL
10.00
NOTE: "Range of Normal" and "WETS Monthly Rainfall Total" plotted on last day of each month.
•
"Range of Normal" refers to the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds of the probability of onsite rainfall amounts outside of
the normal range (based on historical averages from 1971-2000). WETS Data subject to periodic revision. Data shown are
latest available from Portland, OR office of Water &Climate Services National Water &Climate Center.
8.00
v
t
V
C
,�
6.00
C:
.
t
•
c
0
4.00
•
c
c�
.
sun
2.00
0.00
bac
�Q`p at' fit' aJ J� �J� Sao QQ G� e�
0
� �ti tis O
oy
Oti oyOSP oy`S otic 6� O o�Q o o
2013 Bay City Daily Rainfall - Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2013 WETS -Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total
30% Less Chance 30% More Chance 2013 Bay City Monthly Rainfall
Figure 5. 2013 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL
•
Figure 5. 2013 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL

0
PHASE 2
PHASE
O
O
N
SMALL ROAD
IV N O • 044
3 *3 BAY 41 • 42
1
935 939 0
43
040
.340 038 028
36 0 7
030 29
032 0 25' 26
033
BAY CITY No.
22
3 3
19
L N
O
20 021 Oil
O
0 12
18
14 010
16 0
O
015 013 + ®17 09 +
BAY cbTY NO. 1
3 0
10 ® 8
2 4 6
O
5
SMALL ROAD PHASE2
PHASE 1
056 520 0 �`
O 59 0 4 50 47746
0 508 0 P LA ®S 0 40 'Ao
60 57 55 53 51 49 48I 9Q
O O O O
'HASE3 LEGEND
PHASE 1
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
0 IL—. 2,400
E
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
COMPANY, INC.
ROADS
+
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
O
WELL LOCATION
SOURCE:
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
---
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
FILE: PLANDS-PHI-MON-
HYDRO -2013
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
COLLEGE ACRESUTE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTHTELC91OLINA 28403
0/3 29253
FAX [phone]
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE�4709
WWW.CO.BEAU FORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,NAD 1983 FEET.
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
HYDROLOGIC
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
D 0 = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (33.23 ACRES)
0 O = >6 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (32.48 ACRES)
0 O = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (129.31 ACRES)
0 = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (678.22 ACRES)
® e = >75 - 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (23.0 ACRES)
NOTE:
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE
WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD
BOUNDARIES.
2013 LONGEST HYDROPERIODS AND ESTIMATED HYDROLOGIC ZONES
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
0 IL—. 2,400
E
PCS PHOSPHATE
COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
SOURCE:
DATE: 05/08/14
FILE: PLANDS-PHI-MON-
HYDRO -2013
,
NINCORPORATED
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
COLLEGE ACRESUTE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTHTELC91OLINA 28403
0/3 29253
FAX [phone]
CP#1745.59.32.1
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE�4709
WWW.CO.BEAU FORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,NAD 1983 FEET.
FIGURE 6a

RC
RC -
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
0 = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE SCALE IN FEET
GROWING SEASON (678.22 ACRES)
NOTE:
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON
KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR CONTOURS. THE ZONES
DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD BOUNDARIES.
DUE TO REPEATED DESTRUCTION OF WELLS AND LOSS OF
DATA, HYDROPERIODS WERE NOT ABLE TO BE ACCURATELY
COUNTED FOR PARKER FARM WELLS IN 2013.

APPENDIX A
Stem Counts at Individual Plots at
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1

Appendix A. Individual tree/shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 1 first (2012) and second annual (2013) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-1
Zone 3
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
51
52
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
Unknown
?
7
1
3
1
12
9
1
6
1
7
1
1
9
2
2
15
6
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
4
4
6
4
5
3
2
1
11
9
21
17
10
10
4
4
12
10
3
3
5
6
6
5
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
1
4
1
3
3
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
1
6
6
1
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3
1
19
18
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
2
9
9
8
6
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
5
7
4
2
2
3
3
2
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
19
19
1
2
8
9
13
13
9
10
19
20
12
13
22
23
2
2
19
21
8
8
6
6
19
19
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
12
8
8
35
35
3
2
2
2
10
9
4
4
13
13
9
7
17
14
25
25
30
30
11
11
Red bay
Persea borbonia
4
4
6
6
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
5
1
1
3
12
4
2
5
1
1
3
1
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
2
23
15
19
14
3
15
13
54
32
22
16
6
7
4
2
2
1
4
3
15
8
5
3
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
16
14
9
10
19
20
12
10
22
17
22
21
15
20
11
11
12
11
23
21
20
20
13
17
7
6
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
4
8
5
18
19
12
7
9
9
37
37
42
34
32
15
26
26
30
23
22
20
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
44
42
22
18
29
26
3
1
20
12
21
18
32
29
17
14
9
7
9
6
15
13
17
15
12
13
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
1
2
2
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
5
5
10
10
19
19
6
6
10
9
10
10
7
6
43
41
28
28
18
18
42
42
5
6
29
28
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
6
8
2
2
1
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
1
1
1
TOTAL
123
111
98
73
1 161
151
83
54
113
76
1 187
156
137
118
164
160
113
103
145
112
143
140
130
115
148
130
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-1

Appendix A (continued)
Zone 4
10
Zone 3
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Total
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
5
8
2
1
2
54
75
75
2
4
1
93
15
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
17
14
7
6
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
3
3
4
5
11
16
Paw paw
Asima triloba
4
4
5
5
15
15
5
4
7
7
17
16
River birch
Betula nigra
15
10
20
16
15
13
13
13
8
7
15
16
1
1
161
139
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
1
14
5
19
14
22
18
21
5
5
2
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
10
5
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
135
87
146
126
146
118
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
14
13
71
71
32
31
37
34
163
156
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
3
1
1
1
15
9
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
4
2
1
1
5
3
Titi
Cynlla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
22
19
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
1
1
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
29
27
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
8
7
5
6
29
26
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
2
2
2
2
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
2
2
2
2
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
18
19
18
18
17
17
16
16
10
10
12
12
248
257
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
18
16
26
26
6
6
4
4
20
20
8
8
7
6
268
258
Red bay
Persea borbonia
12
11
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
1
1
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
3
1
1
1
33
16
White oak
Q. alba
1
1
1
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
2
5
4
4
3
7
7
13
11
17
14
16
7
239
164
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
24
24
22
21
12
12
5
5
24
24
10
9
9
9
307
302
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
28
28
18
16
16
15
43
41
8
8
14
14
2
2
369
323
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
23
22
8
6
9
9
5
5
24
23
29
25
23
19
371
323
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
3
3
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
28
28
15
16
39
38
38
37
31
31
10
10
2
2
395
390
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
1
10
14
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
2
1
TOTAL
166
154
159
144
174
171
152
143
144
140
157
146
108
88
2805
2485
Zone 4
10
11
12
14
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
6
6
7
1
12
1
1
6
2
8
5
2
1
55
54
75
75
2
17
14
7
6
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
4
5
20
19
24
24
4
4
5
5
15
15
5
4
7
7
17
16
3
2
7
4
5
3
15
13
13
7
5
18
17
4
1
1
14
5
19
14
22
18
21
5
5
2
14
13
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
2
2
185
168
135
87
146
126
146
118
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-2

Appendix A (continued)
Zone 4A
2
Zone 4
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
16
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
20
3
4
3
3
4
1
10
5
6
19
1
17
7
19
66
5
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
19
15
19
6
1
1
19
13
3
2
48
48
14
14
188
107
4
3
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
6
3
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
10
5
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
64
63
42
42
13
9
249
244
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cynlla racemiflora
1
1
1
2
23
19
1
1
26
23
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
14
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
2
10
6
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
5
5
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
5
5
4
4
9
9
1
2
5
4
2
2
11
11
5
4
80
79
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
1
1
0
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
7
2
2
2
10
11
3
3
18
16
1
1
5
5
1
1
95
89
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
17
25
25
20
19
50
47
46
45
39
38
9
8
26
26
256
252
Red bay
Persea borbonia
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
1
29
16
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
17
12
7
5
11
7
13
11
1
1
27
15
18
11
5
1
152
98
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
5
3
2
2
1
3
1
19
2
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
14
10
6
3
24
20
10
5
5
2
9
5
7
3
12
5
143
91
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
1
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
3
4
3
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
27
27
28
16
28
25
18
11
27
27
21
18
5
3
32
9
226
156
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
1
1
0
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
14
14
5
5
16
16
6
6
34
35
13
12
14
14
7
7
230
225
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
2
4
3
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
101
88
84
65
128
114
111
86
153
135
191
159
137
116
116
64
1633
1322
Zone 4A
2
3
4
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
9
16
1
18
2
25
3
34
12
9
1
4
37
37
58
58
27
2
20
3
17
10
10
1
6
5
20
19
24
17
20
19
21
12
16
14
19
15
19
6
49
17
19
13
28
29
48
48
14
14
188
107
209
103
192
146
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-3

Appendix A (continued)
Zone 5
25
Zone 4A
6
7
8
9
13
15
Total
1 st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
7
3
8
2
21
1
6
8
5
3
76
6
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
2
2
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
2
2
Paw paw
Asima triloba
1
1
4
4
River birch
Betula nigra
1
1
10
10
7
7
3
5
3
3
3
3
14
13
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
48
46
41
42
18
18
3
2
1
1
5
4
1
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
4
3
1
11
1
22
11
13
3
128
32
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
3
4
1
21
13
28
14
11
4
9
5
90
37
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
22
18
56
55
21
20
9
11
7
2
22
20
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
11
10
9
2
31
17
23
22
7
6
3
3
20
18
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
63
64
54
54
27
26
65
61
81
81
358
355
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
78
62
160
118
194
184
145
125
96
81
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
17
2
1
1
1
26
19
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
6
7
1
1
12
3
7
3
6
3
96
32
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
4
10
8
3
19
11
8
7
10
6
70
38
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
2
1
2
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
9
9
24
24
25
23
12
5
16
16
36
35
186
167
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
15
13
19
18
39
33
14
10
10
8
24
19
177
142
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
9
13
9
29
13
5
22
16
22
20
186
103
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
13
13
27
26
30
29
15
14
28
28
38
37
241
238
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
155
135
162
143
180
114
177
119
211
174
163
129
1637
1170
Zone 5
25
27
28
29
30
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
2
1
4
1
3
3
1
3
3
8
4
8
5
8
8
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
10
10
7
7
3
5
3
3
3
3
14
13
34
34
48
46
41
42
18
18
3
2
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
7
3
1
2
2
1
5
2
2
20
7
18
15
10
8
3
1
1
22
18
56
55
21
20
9
11
7
2
22
20
32
26
11
10
9
2
31
17
23
22
7
6
3
3
20
18
28
28
13
14
15
14
27
26
2
78
62
160
118
194
184
145
125
96
81
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-4

Appendix A (continued)
Zone 6
35
Zone 5
31
32
33
34
36
38
46
47
60
Total
2
2
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
1
52
2
52
12
23
4
1
7
1
1
7
7
7
10
4
47
2
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
1
35
30
35
30
14
13
14
13
25
17
25
17
6
4
6
4
232
201
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
5
1
2
2
4
1
4
4
6
3
15
9
61
33
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
1
9
8
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
1
4
4
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
0
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cynlla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
1
1
4
4
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
6
4
6
4
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
1
1
6
7
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
3
37
3
37
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
21
21
19
19
5
3
21
19
1
1
24
23
33
32
34
47
7
5
191
198
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
11
11
24
25
37
37
32
33
9
9
12
13
37
37
47
19
21
383
339
Red bay
Persea borbonia
13
13
4
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
36
33
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
3
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
4
6
5
2
1
1
4
1
32
2
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
4
3
5
2
4
2
11
5
21
15
4
3
1
1
4
4
8
6
115
74
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
28
20
34
28
44
41
17
14
15
19
18
18
28
33
15
14
12
7
320
298
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
2
18
8
9
6
14
9
23
18
15
16
34
34
19
18
206
167
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
19
5
10
8
55
49
18
12
9
7
4
4
2
190
135
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
16
16
19
19
23
23
7
7
34
34
15
15
24
25
24
24
53
56
318
319
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
2
1
2
1
4
4
10
6
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
111
160
201
132
131
107
162
146
128
1951
1674
Zone 6
35
Total
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
8
1
8
1
2
2
2
2
14
14
14
14
3
3
3
3
26
25
26
25
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
57
52
57
52
25
23
25
23
1
1
7
7
7
7
3
4
3
4
1
1
35
30
35
30
14
13
14
13
25
17
25
17
6
4
6
4
232
201
232
201
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-5

Appendix A (concluded)
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-6
Zone 7
1
17
Total
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
11
4
19
1
30
5
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
8
8
1
1
9
9
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cynlla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
12
29
2
52
14
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
32
32
22
15
54
47
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
2
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
2
2
0
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
58
58
34
33
92
91
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
132
114
107
54
239
166
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Second Annual Report A-6

/_1„:110I9]PIN :1
Selected Second Annual (2013) Restoration Photographs

NOTE: A 10 -foot pole marked in one -foot increments held by a biologist about 25 feet from
the camera is visible in all photos. The photos are identified with the station number (see
figure included with this appendix), direction of view, and date taken.
PLPS-1: northeast, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 30 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS-2: northwest, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 30 October 2012 -white
poles of staked tree plot is in distant background in bottom photo.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS-3: east southeast, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 30 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS 4: southeast, top photo 23 October, bottom photo 30 October; white poles
mark trees in plots.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS-5: southeast, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 23 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS-6: east southeast, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 23 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

PLPS-7: north northwest, top photo 23 October 2013, bottom photo 23 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Second Annual Report June 2014

-FV-AkSE I
PLPS 5
SMALL ROAD
PHASE
SMALL ROAD
56 52 _ e47
® 54 50;
55 41' P LANDS
53 ' 49 48
A57 1 0
PHASE II
PHASE
46 45 PLPS 7
F
F�
F
PLPS 6
LEGEND
BA CITY 'Np. PHASE PLANTING AREA
37 Y 41 42 OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
35 39 PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
43
40 TREE SAMPLING PLOT
X38 28 O WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
34
O 136 27 PLPS 4 (WELLS MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY
NOT HAVE
A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
0 29 25 PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
**32 . 26 PLPS 1
33 31 � 24
Y C
Y N p . 3 AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE I:
gp` 22%* 23 0 ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST X1 9 - �� 0 ZONE 4 POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
N DS
20 �21 1 1 ® ZONE 4A POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
0 ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1
12
0 ZONE 6 HARDWOOD FLAT 2
18
14 10PLPS 3 0 ZONE 7 SWALES
Go
%17
5
LANE ROADI IPLPS 1
COUNTY
PLPS 2
Z-'� MONITORING LOCATIONS
P AND U LANDS PHASE I
0 1,200 2,400 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ/BFG
DATE: 05/30/13 FILE: zo 2 DWG WELL-PH1
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 CP#1 745.59.32.1
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE ^� 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
WWW.CO.BEAU FOR T. NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, R SUITE 2
403
NAD 1983 FEET. ��R INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTHCAROLINA
910/329253 FIGURE 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]