20120107 Ver 1_Year 6 and 7 Monitoring Report Phase II_20200102

F
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
January 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECTOVERVIEW................................................................
1.1
History .........................................................................................
1.2
Goals and Performance Criteria ...................................................
2.0
REQUIREMENTS........................................................................
2.1
Vegetation....................................................................................
2.2
Hydrology.....................................................................................
2.3
Reporting......................................................................................
3.0
2018 RESULTS...........................................................................
3.1
Density QA/QC.............................................................................
3.2
Vegetation....................................................................................
4.0
2019 RESULTS............................................................................
4.1
Vegetation.....................................................................................
4.2
Photographic Documentation........................................................
5.0
SUMMARY...................................................................................
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................
Cover Photo: Aerial view to west over Phase 2, with Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 3 also
visible. 15 February 2019.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 a Sixth annual (fall 2018) survival of trees planted in 33 0.3-acre plots at P and U
LandsPhase 2............................................................................................................ T-1
Table 1 b Seventh annual (fall 2019) survival of trees planted in 33 0.3-acre plots at P and
ULands Phase 2........................................................................................................ T-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands...................................................................................... F-1
Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 2.......................................................... F-2
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 in 2018
............................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 in 2019
............................................................................................................................... B-1
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 ii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Sixth and Seventh Annual Report January 2020

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 HistoN. After site preparation, approximately 738 acres of the Phase 2 portion
of the PCS Phosphate restoration of the 3,667-acre P and U Lands was planted in February 2013
with wetland trees and shrubs at a density of 436 stems per acre, except for 175 acres planted at
538 stems per acre. Figure 1 is a vicinity map and Figure 2 shows the 2013 planting plan with
locations of wells and vegetation monitoring plots. The 2014 As Built report (CZR 2014a) and
subsequent annual reports documented the results of site preparation, planting and monitoring of
vegetation and hydrology from 2013-2017 (CZR 2014b, CZR 2015, CZR 2016, CZR 2017a, and
CZR 2017b) and were submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of
Water Quality (now NC Division of Water Resources [NCDWR)).
At nursery delivery on 4 February 2013, small stem size (3 inches) of some species was
noted, planting ceased with a 2.5-inch rainfall on 8 February, and planters returned on 17
February to plant Zone 3. From 8 to 17 February, onsite refrigerated trucks with seedlings were
checked (temperature and fuel). Seedlings in tublings outside were also monitored and were
saturated on 8 February and stayed so with rainfall over the following days. At the time the
planted stems were staked in the monitoring plots, water depths in portions of some plots were
such that 25 or more of the expected stems were not located in the plots and those stems were
suspected to be under water. Average overall stem density at planting was -480 per acre but
density in plots after tagging was completed was 366.
Rainfall and wetland hydroperiods for each well and the entire site by hydroperiod ranges
were presented and discussed in each annual report submitted to regulatory agencies. As the
interior and roadside plugs increased water storage in the first two to three years, it became
apparent that hydroperiods within Zone 5 (hardwood flat) were longer than the LiDAR elevations
used to select species for the zone indicated were likely, and that hydroperiods elsewhere on the
site were also thought to challenge the tolerances for flooding of young stems of some species
particularly laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), willow oak (Q. phellos), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), and unidentified oaks. Laurel oak and willow oak together represented up to 25
percent of the two largest planting zones, so their poor survival had a larger effect than did
ironwood which was planted at a lower percentage.
In spring of 2017, 255,000 stems of six species were put on reserve with the Supertree
Nursery (Arborgen). By July, poor germination at the nursery and other factors modified the order
to 238,400 stems evenly distributed (59,600 stems each) among the four available species that
had good survival on the site through Year 5, and are also tolerant of periods of positive water.
These four species include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica var. biflora), water tupelo (N. aquatica), and overcup oak (Q. lyrata). By October, deer
browse at the nursery had rendered 10,400 swamp black gum stems too short to sell and the
shortfall was substituted with 10,400 more bald cypress; the number of stems was no longer
equally distributed among the planted species.
Phase 2 was replanted evenly with the four species in February 2018 except for certain
areas known to experience high water, the edges of which had been flagged by CZR biologists
prior to the replant. Planters were also told to not plant in blackberry thickets and areas of deep
water to optimize stem survival and to be able to flag new stems in vegetation plots. CZR
biologist staked (March - May) and tagged (completed in July) trees soon after the planting in
order to locate as many replanted stems as possible in the thick herbaceous vegetation. By the
end of the 2018 growing season CZR had completed the Year 6 survey to properly identify and
stake/tag any replanted stems not found initially. The Year 7 survey was completed in the fall of
2019.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Sixth and Seventh Annual Report January 2020

1.2 Goals and Performance Criteria. The vegetation will be deemed successfully
restored if at Y10 a minimum of 210 stems per acre are alive (comprised of at least 190 stems
per acre of planted large and small tree species (Y1 planted stems plus Y6 planted stems in 33
plots) in combination with up to 21 stems per acre of volunteer woody wetland small or large trees
in the 33 plots (volunteers comprise no more than 10 percent of 210 total stems). Some
appropriate successional volunteer non -planted species which can count among the 21 volunteer
stems would include black willow (Salix nigra), pond pine (Pinus serotina), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora),
wax myrtle (Morelia ceri/era), red bay (Persea borbonia), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana).
2.0 REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Vegetation. The first five annual surveys of the 48 0.3-acre planted tree and
shrub monitoring plots occurred from 2013 — 2017 in the late summer or early fall. After Year 5
(2017), 12 plots met vegetation success requirements leaving 36 plots in need of additional
stems; remediation steps were discussed with agencies in 2017 and described in the Phase 2
Adaptive Management Plan (CZR 2018). Three of the 36 plots were in areas not replanted due
to high water levels over the previous five years; the remainder (33 plots) will be monitored in
Years 6 through 10.
2.2 Hydrology. Based on data collected during the first five years and as
reported in annual reports and the final Year 5 summary report submitted to regulatory agencies,
wetland hydrology in Phase 2 was restored at all well locations during normal rainfall periods.
While hydrology success has been met and additional data are not required, a number of wells
remain in order to document site conditions throughout Years 6 — 10 should it be needed to
understand survival of the replanted stems. By December 2018, of the 49 monitoring wells initially
established, 13 wells remain active. For each well, hydroperiods from Years 1-5 under all rain
conditions were averaged to create groups which were narrowed based on field knowledge of the
site to represent a suite of water levels. There are two wells for each group in case of equipment
malfunction as well as one well at a plot with high positive hydrology in previous years.
2.3 Reporting. Reports on planted stem survival will be submitted to agencies
per the Phase 2 Adaptive Management Plan (CZR 2018). Hydrology information will be included
only if needed.
3.0 2018 RESULTS
3.1 Density QA/QC. Unbeknownst to planters, during the 2018 replant a QA/QC
plot (50 x 55 ft) at 12 randomly selected existing vegetation plots was marked off at one corner of
the original plot and all new stems were flagged and counted. This QA/QC effort verified stem
density consistency and that the plots were not planted with any bias.
3.2 Vegetation. When only the number of unquestionably alive planted stems in the
monitoring plots is used, 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 growing seasons before it can be confidently counted as
dead.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 33 plots from the replant to
the sixth annual fall survey in 2018 was 114 percent, with a corresponding density of 294 trees
per acre (Table ia). 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 119 percent
(because a stem was not considered dead until it was not confirmed alive after two growing
seasons) and a density of 307 trees per acre. Survival greater than 100 percent is attributed to
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Sixth and Seventh Annual Report January 2020

25 additional planted stems found in the fall Year 6 survey which were hidden in the dense
vegetation. Appendix A contains the number of stems that were unquestionably alive in each plot
for the fall 2018 survey.
After identified stems and unknown species that were definitely alive are combined,
density increases to 299 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the
density increases to 328 stems per acre. A few plots with lower stem survival are spread
throughout Phase 2 and are not concentrated in any particular area of the site. The plots with
lower survival could be attributed to higher water levels during planting or after, as well as rodent
damage after planting; both nutria and beaver have been trapped/removed from the site.
4.0 2019 RESULTS
4.1 Vegetation. Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 33
plots from the time of planting to the seventh annual fall survey in 2019 was 113 percent, with a
corresponding density of 290 trees per acre (Table 1 b). 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 116 percent (because a stem was not considered dead until it was not
confirmed alive after two growing seasons) and a density of 299 trees per acre. Appendix B
contains the number of stems that were unquestionably alive in each plot for the fall 2019 survey.
After identified stems and unknown species that were definitely alive are combined,
density increases to 291 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the
density increases to 301 stems per acre. The four plots that had lower survival in Year 6 did not
improve; however, the majority of the plots (22) have greater than 90 percent survival at Year 7.
4.2 Photographic Documentation. Photos were taken in the fall of 2019 to document
site conditions and are available upon request.
5.0 SUMMARY
Overall, in 2018, survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 33 plots from the
time of replant to the sixth annual fall survey was 114 percent, with a corresponding density of
294 trees per acre. Density increased to 299 stems per acre when all unknown alive stems were
added and when stems with uncertain survival were added, the density increased to 328 stems
per acre.
For 2019 survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 33 plots from the time of
replant to the seventh annual fall survey was 113 percent, with a corresponding density of 290
trees per acre. After combining the trees and unknown species that were definitely alive, density
increased to 291 stems per acre when known and unknown alive stems were combined and
when stems with uncertain survival were added, the density increased to 301 stems per acre.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Sixth and Seventh Annual Report January 2020

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated.
2014a.
As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2014b.
First Annual Report for the P U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2015.
Second Annual Report for the P U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2016.
Third Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2017a.
Fourth Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2017b.
Fifth Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated.
2018.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Adaptive Management Plan.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Sixth and Seventh Annual Report January 2020

E o
G d N
O
O
O
O
j
aR
o
a N
N
C
'
'
CO
d
(L a
E
dN
� d
N
N =
ro
0
N
O
r
N
aL N
a
C
N
m
a
N
a
N
N
WNW
M
w
c00
CNI
E
dN
N d
C y
a
0
n
0
0
N M
O
^ a
C
N 7
m
Q
V
0
7
(0D
a0p
N N
N
N M
� fN
N
N
M
�n
d'
t0
OD
N
M
H �
y �
y
�/1 A
N GCl
V N
W
E
p
E
0
d
U
N
E
U
m
o
0
o
d
cx
o
Q
«
y
c
3
`m
w
a
m
d
Iw
s
0
N
33Uno'm
D
�IV�
w
E
J
m
N
c
m
J
o
J
N
o
s
h
NW
.0
k
EnnIZZ
Zdti
n
w m
E o
N C
N N M
0
O
N j
o
a N
Z H
N
C
L ?
O m
O
a
M^ V N W
M
N
CQ
N
N N
E
mN
N N
N �
ro
LL
>
d. 0 N 0 0
N 0
n
Q
Nr Vn w
NNM
NN
N f 0
V V 0N
NN
N
Mm
E
d N
N N
- C
y �
m
Gyp'
(O
N
Q
� O7O
N N
N
Mth
N fN
an
C N N t0 M
N N
W
N N
d
yro
l0 �t 0 CO
N
W
M
n
N
6
F-
y U
y _
y N
y Oi
N N
m
s E
o m
E
c
o
n
m
o y
~ ~
C
«
m
p
U
cu
E
U
E o 0
m a
d a ay
a«
y
y
c
a « aa�o
d d E 2 0
ti
0
m m
33�no(on
�
:5I
12
v E
a
N
E
g yCL
C
N N j a
y
G
F..
H

xouowEa TPAa PRASER P DS
PHA.
s PHASE3
.. enr clTrll?icRN pmse 1 P
? • P.nPNfR ,
'yH LANDS EdNM
'LAN:4'
LONG:: 7846'19.8'19.20' -
uNnSE I S I // _ _...
C SEY 1RACT -
- A P LANOS q — I _ / PACP PAR
SEETIOH
U LANDS
1 Itr I
a: F
i
L rPARKER
i ON�JN
EGEND
P and U LANDS BOUNDARY
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND 0 5,000 10,000
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCARE IN FEET
"°" G" ° "A VICINITY MAP
P LANDS PHASE 2
SITE LOCATION
P and U LANDS PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED HY- ROBERT M. CHILES, P —
LANDSVIC—
NEW BERN. NORTH CAROUNA, JOB #2009098, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 01 06 20 FILE:
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSRE 201 — PT
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPERLES,
HAD 1953 FEET. F--CZR--i CP#1745.59.32.2
{]09 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
USCS TOPOOUNA D MPR IMAGES, NC STATEPATIO ENL--- EW CONSULTANTS SUITE 2
NORTH CEET,1: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILMINCTON, NORTH 910/39 28403
NA083. FEET, 1:24000-SCALE, WEBSRE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG � J TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
FAX [phone]
F-1

!§/
)
§!/
z
§§
�§ffg%
\�|)
!R
!§§rB)r]{|
k\a`
k§
).
�I?p
�
#
�
e
'`
4
/
,
§
�
_
�
!
�
�
�
�
gig
Cl-Vy ROAD/S.R. 1002
SAY
.
,
~
\
!� ,

Appendix A. Individual tree plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 2 replant (2018) and sixth annual (2018 Y6) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
61
62
63
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown 19
70
2
94
80
4
88
8
74
14
48
8
29
1
69
7
1
4
2
1
3
2
Water or swamp tupelo Nyssa spp.
1
18
12
7
12
1
1
2
6
1
3
3
Water tupelo N. aquatics
43
33
25
28
14
28
3
30
7
7
27
31
68
71
5
5
1
1
Swamp tupelo N. biflora
8
36
6
11
10
11
7
33
32
11
10
6
3
1
1
19
19
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata
15
27
3
27
6
21
8
26
13
37
26
10
9
4
4
34
34
18
17
6
7
48
47
33
33
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
21
20
7
7
26
36
11
12
23
25
47
12
45
30
20
19
20
21
44
45
30
31
36
36
36
37
TOTAL
106
101
104
103
112
110
107
97
110
107
95
97
85
44
95
73
95
94
104
104
112
113
96
94
89
90
79
80
81
82
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Common name
Scientific name
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Unknown
?
1
1
1
2
2
Water or swamp tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
7
1
1
1
1
2
2
Water tupelo
N. aquatics
6
6
40
40
16
16
2
1
14
19
3
3
29
27
23
23
29
27
36
37
6
6
27
27
28
28
Swamp tupelo
N. biflora
26
26
12
10
19
13
5
7
51
46
11
13
25
26
24
21
6
6
22
22
20
19
56
54
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
27
26
41
36
1
15
14
21
23
13
13
26
26
28
30
21
20
6
6
37
38
22
22
5
4
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
46
46
15
15
12
10
30
27
44
44
29
28
33
33
19
19
22
25
47
46
15
14
37
39
10
10
TOTAL
105
104
96
91
42
36
66
55
92
94
97
90
99
99
96
98
96
93
97
98
82
1 80
106
107
101
98
94
95
100
103
104
108
109
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Replant
Y6
Common name Scientific name
Unknown ?
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
Water or swamp tupelo Nyssa spp.
1
1
10
1
8
3
5
Water tupelo N. aquatics
14
14
35
35
17
26
12
12
14
14
28
34
29
36
Swamp tupelo N. biflora
3
3
2
2
5
5
44
43
8
7
5
5
2
1
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata
30
27
30
30
32
34
9
9
8
5
46
45
40
39
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
52
52
36
35
16
15
27
27
4
3
5
5
19
19
TOTAL
101
97
107
105
83
80
93
93
35
29
93
92
95
95
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Sixth Annual Report A-1

Appendix B. Individual tree plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 2 replant (2018) and seventh annual (2019 Y7) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
61
62
63
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
Common name
Scientific name
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
I Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Unknown
v
70
2
94
80
88
74
1
48
29
69
1
4
2
3
Water or swamp tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
6
6
2
1
1
2
4
1
3
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
42
32
40
28
18
38
4
35
7
7
27
31
68
69
5
6
1
1
Swamp tupelo
N. biflora
8
36
7
19
14
2
7
33
32
11
10
6
3
1
2
19
19
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
15
25
3
26
6
21
8
24
13
40
2
10
9
4
8
34
34
18
18
6
7
48
45
33
33
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
21
20
7
7
26
36
11
12
23
25
47
47
45
30
20
18
20
20
44
45
30
30
36
36
36
37
TOTAL
106
98
104
101
112
110
107
89
110
98
95
91
85
44
95
72
95
93
104
105
112
109
96
19
89
90
79
80
81
82
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Common name
Scientific name
Replant
I Y7
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Unknown v
1
1
1
2
Water or swamp tupelo Nyssa spp.
1
7
1
1
2
1
Water tupelo N.aquatica
6
5
F41
39
16
16
2
1
14
19
3
3
29
27
23
23
29
27
36
37
6
6
27
28
28
29
Swamp tupelo N. biflora
26
26
12
10
19
13
5
8
51
41
11
13
25
26
24
22
6
6
22
22
20
17
56
55
Overcup oak Quercus lyrata
27
21
30
1
15
15
21
22
13
12
26
26
28
30
21
20
6
6
37
38
22
22
5
3
Bald cypress Taxodium distichm
46
45
14
12
11
30
26
44
44
29
28
33
33
19
19
22
25
47
47
15
16
37
38
10
10
83
42
37
66
55
92
93
97
84
99
99
96
98
96
94
97
96
82
82
106
105
101
98
94
95
100
103
104
108
109
Replant
I Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
Replant
Y7
ReplantJ.,99,ant
Y7
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
o
1
3
3
1
1
Water or swamp tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
1
10
1
8
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
14
13
35
35
17
25
12
12
14
14
28
34
Swamp tupelo
N. biflora
3
3
2
2
5
5
44
43
8
6
5
1
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
30
29
30
27
32
30
9
10
8
4
46
38
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
52
51
36
36
16
14
27
27
4
4
5
19
TOTAL
101
96
107
100
83
74
93
92
35
28
93
92
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Seventh Annual Report B-1