20120107 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report Ph I_2012_20130604

b • i • •
FIRST ANNUAL (2012) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUN - 4 M3
d� sp--- uALirY
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
June 2013

PotashCorp®
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
June 3, 2013
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West P Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
PotashCorp - Aurora
Enclosed is the "First Annual (2012) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase I
Richland Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina ". Also enclosed is a CD containing the
report text, tables, figures, appendices and all of the 2012 hydrology graphs from the monitoring
wells. The photos in the hard copy are slightly dark, however they are lighter on the CD.
Earthwork was initiated on the mitigation site in October 2010 and planting in Phase I was
complete in March 2012. If you have any questions, please call me at (252) 322 -8249, or Julia
Berger of CZR Incorporated at (910) 392 -9253.
Sincerely, n
Je ey C. Furness
Senior Scientist
PC: Karen Higgins, DWQ- Raleigh w /encl.
Amy Adams, DWQ
— Wash. w/ encl.
R.M. Smith
w /Summary
M. Brom
w /Summary
J. Hudgens, CZR
w /encl.
J. Ricketts, JTR
w /encl.
S. Cooper, CZR
w /encl.
23 -11 -020
w /encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T(252)322-4111
PotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com

FIRST ANNUAL (2012) 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 2013
i

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
2012 RESULTS ................................................................................ ..............................3
3.1
Rainfall ............................................................................................. ..............................3
3.2
Hydrology ........................................................................................ ............................... 3
3.3
Vegetation ....................................................................................... ............................... 4
3.4
Photographic Documentation .......................................................... ............................... 5
4.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................... ..............................5
LITERATURECITED ......................................................................................... ..............................6
Cover Photos: Left aerial photo: View to west across lower Phase 1 field. Bay City Roads 1, 3,
and 4 visible (September 2012).
Right aerial photo: View to west across upper Phase 1 field. Peale Road and
eastern half of Small Road visible (January 2012).
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 1 performance criteria, methods summary, and current
status........................................................................................... ............................... T -1
Table 2 Longest 2012 hydroperiods of 60 non - riparian monitoring wells at P and U
Lands Phase 1 restoration site .................................................... ............................... T -2
Table 3 First annual (fall 2012) survival of trees and shrubs planted in 58 0.3 -acre plots
at P and U Lands Phase 1 ................................................... ........................ ..T -11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase I
Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase I
Figure 3 Soils P and U Lands Phase I
Figure 4 P and U Lands Phase I Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built LiDAR
Figure 5 2012 Bay City and WETS- Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6 P and U Lands Phase 12012 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 First Annual Restoration Photographs
NOTE: Copy of entire report and hydrology graphs from monitoring wells included on
accompanying CD.
P and U Lands Restoration Site - Phase 1 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
First Annual Report June 2013

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 is to be constructed
in three phases as shown on Figure 1. This annual report concerns first annual monitoring of the
970 acres of Phase 1 of the P Lands portion, conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) of
Wilmington, NC.
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 complex of restored wetland and preserved
natural areas (South Creek Corridor Complex). The headwaters and upper valley of historic Gum
Swamp Run, a tributary to South Creek, will also be restored as part of the P and U Lands
mitigation site, Phase 3. Unlike most other PCS mitigation sites, the P and U Lands are not prior -
converted agricultural fields. Other than the existing roads, all of Phase 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. (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.)
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 site). South Creek and
the South Creek Canal form the northern and northwestern boundaries, Bonner Road forms the
western boundary, and the Pamlico /Beaufort County line forms the southern boundary of the U
Lands (County Line Road itself is the southern boundary of only the eastern half of the U Lands
as the western limit of County Line Road terminates at the midpoint of the south property line).
The entire site is accessed via multiple gated roads along Bay City Road, Peele Road, County
Line Road, and /or Jaime /Executive Road. The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit
03020104 of the Tar - Pamlico river basin within the South Creek 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.
First Annual Report June 2013

1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria. The primary goal of this Phase 1s to re-
establish a self - sustaining functional wetland complex to allow surface flow to move through
vegetated wetlands before reaching any stream. Mitigation yields are estimated and performance
criteria are described for the project in detail in the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U
Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance criteria 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). At the time of this report, approximately 8,700 feet of roadside ditch
adjacent to Phase 1 along the south side of Small Road remain unplugged; however, plugs will
be installed in this ditch section as construction of Phase 2 and Phase 3 is completed.
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. Monitoring well data will be used to calculate this effect.
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 creeks that PCS monitors) to determine normal rainfall during
the monitoring period. Bay City data were compared to the WETS range of normal precipitation
to determine if its 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 2012 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 (283
days in 2012 due to leap year, 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 28 February provide
important information related to analyses of site hydrology during the early growing season, but
are not part of the hydroperiod calculation for success.
2.2 Hydrology. Figure 2 depicts the locations of hydrology monitoring equipment,
Figure 3 shows the locations on Beaufort County soil polygons, and Figure 4 shows 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 the open
perimeter ditches. Bear exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence
posts were built around all wells.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
First Annual Report June 2013

Electronic wells are downloaded once a month and the data (readings every 1.5 hours for
wells) 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
and then for all rainfall conditions.
2.3 Vegetation. The first annual survey of the 58 0.3 -acre planted tree and shrub
monitoring plots occurred July- August 2012. The plots represent a two percent sample of the
restoration area (Figure 2).
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 2). Photographs were taken in the four cardinal directions as well as an
additional direction to capture as much of the plot as possible unless it was already captured in
the other four photos. The first annual photos were taken October 2012.
3.0 2012 RESULTS
3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall recorded at the Bay City rain gauge for 2012 was 48.92
inches and total rainfall recorded at the PCS Aurora NOAA Station 6 was 49.98 inches. The
WETS 30 -year range of normal data shown on Figure 5 is derived from the latest available data
set and comprises the years 1971 -2000. The 30-day rolling total of Bay City 2012 rainfall was
considered within WETS normal range. Hydroperiods were calculated for the entire growing
season and were also calculated for the longest consecutive hydroperiod within the growing
season during normal (and below normal) rainfall only.
The US Drought Monitor (http: / /droughtmonitor.unl.edu) provides a synthesis of multiple
indices and impacts 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
2012, during the 40 -week long growing season, the monitor reported 24 weeks with drought
status of abnormally dry (DO) or moderately dry (D1) for the vicinity of P Lands project area; the
remainder of the growing season was normal. Specifically, the first 22 weeks of the year (3 Jan
through 29 May) were abnormally or moderately dry and the weeks of 16 October and 23 October
were classified as DO. The area had 20 weeks that were D1 (3 Jan through 15 May) and 4 weeks
that were DO.
3.2 Hydrology. The first full year of post- restoration hydrology data for the entire site
will be 2013 because construction activities prevented all wells from being installed until late
February and very early March 2012. Tables and graphs depicting 2012 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 30th or 70"' percentiles; none were considered abnormal
(Figure 5). All but four wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods regardless of rainfall conditions
(Table 2); 2012 hydroperiods for all locations with estimated hydrologic zones are shown in
Figure 6. Approximately half of all wells recorded wetland hydroperiods frequently during the
year and one well recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season
(Table 2). Most of the rest of the wells recorded wetland hydroperiods during the middle and end
of the growing season. As evidenced by the cumulative days shown in the tables, many wells
had hydroperiods and /or water levels less than 12 inches below the surface in addition to the
longest hydroperiod (Table 2).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
First Annual Report June 2013

Some of the wells (PUM35 -37) that did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod early in the
growing season might have been affected by narrow diversion channels dug around the roadside
ditch plugs along the south side of Bay City Road No. 4. These diversion channels were dug to
help dewater an area to the east in order to allow for continued construction of the Phase 2
portion of the east side perimeter berm; these diversion channels were plugged /filled shortly after
the beginning of the 2013 growing season. According to the county soil survey, one of these
wells is also in a non -hydric soil type (Tarboro) that drains very quickly and therefore might not
ever record a wetland hydroperiod. Other wells that did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod might
be affected by proximity to the perimeter canal (PUM45) or it might just be on an atypical high
spot. If the dry areas persist after fill of the diversion channels, the amount of the site
represented by the wells is small, and if slightly elevated 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 2012 (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.
Since it is suspected that PUMs 25 and 26 may be located in a low elevation area, this pair will be
moved in 2013 to a more representative elevation in the same soil type. Depending on 2013
data, both pair may be moved closer to the perimeter berm in 2014. The 2012 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.
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.
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 2012 survey. 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, 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 first annual fall survey was 92 percent, with a corresponding density of 458 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 100 percent and
a density of 498 trees per acre. Excluding unknown /uncertain species, pond pine (Pious
serotina) had the lowest survival (41 percent, Table 3). The 25 remaining known species had
survivals of 92 percent and higher.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
first annual fall survey was 97 percent with a corresponding density of 12 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 100 percent and a density of 13 shrubs
per acre. When excluding stems with questionable survival, swamp rose (Rosa palustris),
followed by highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) had the lowest survivals (33 percent
and 88 percent, respectively). A third species had a 99 percent survival and the other 13 species
had a 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 first year, there is a diverse assemblage of trees interspersed with
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
First Annual Report June 2013

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 Photographic Documentation. Although the planted stems seldom stand out
from the vegetation yet, a few photos representative of 2012 conditions are included with this
report (Appendix B). More are available upon request.
4.0 SUMMARY
According to WETS rainfall estimates, even though there were periods of drought and a
few large rainfall events, 2012 rainfall was within normal range.
Post - restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially began March 2012.
All but four wells exhibited wetland hydroperiods regardless of rainfall conditions. Approximately
half of all wells recorded wetland hydroperiods frequently during the year and one well recorded a
continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season. Most of the rest of the wells
recorded wetland hydroperiods during the middle and end of the growing season.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting to the first annual fall survey was 92 percent, with a corresponding density of 458 trees
per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to
the first annual fall survey was 97 percent with a corresponding density of 12 shrubs per acre.
The current tree density is much higher than the 260 stems required for success and with most
trees surviving well in the first 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.
First Annual Report June 2013

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
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.
First Annual Report June 2013

T V
D °-
=C
OL
o�
(U)
m
v ;0
0
0
m
n�
M
0
CD
0
v
v
m
n
0
C�
c v
N'
O j
CA) A
Table 1. P and U Lands Phase 1 performance criteria, methods summary, and current status (first annual, 2012).
Type of mitigation
Performance criteria
Documentation methods
Dimension & controls
Current status
Four ( 4) of the 60 wells
>6 % hydroperiod on
Semi - continuous monitoring
Growing season 28 Feb -6
did not record a
hydroperiod of > 6%; two
hydric soils for
wells (1/15ac); nearby rain
Dec; Aurora NOAA
wells recorded
hardwood flats; >10%
gauge
WETS data for normal
hydroperiods between 6
for other communities
rainfall
and 10 %; the remainder
were greater than 10 %
Non - riparian wetland re-
establishment
(restoration) of non -
riverine swamp forest,
2012 survival of planted
hardwood flat, pond pine
tree stems that were
pocosin forest, swale
unquestionably alive was
communities
458 stems/ acre; with
Survival of 260 stems
addition of unquestionably
per acre of 5 -year old
Vegetation plots on
Annual monitoring
alive shrub stems
planted woody wetland
approximately 2% of the site
becomes 488 stems /acre.
stems
When unsure stems of
both categories are
included, survival
becomes 554 stems /acre.

M
D
c
d
CD
00
N
Z7
CL
c
r
o�
CL
w
X
a
0
d
0
Cn
m
m
m
n
ro
s
0
y
v
d
cD
0
0
c`v
0 �
cD
o�
w.
Table 2. Longest 2012 hydroperiods of 60 non - riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1 restoration site. (Wells were not installed until the
end of February or very early March and so the column for days where the water table was -12" or above 1 -27 Feb does not include this entire period.)
Growing season was 283 days due to leap year.
Hydrologic zone (NG WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12 " or
where water table
where water table
' 2
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
(283 days)
43
2/28 -4/10
15.2
PUM1
6
267
X
X
204
5/16 -12/6
72.1
46
2/28 -4/13
16.3
PUM2
6
278
X
X
231
4119 -12/6
81.6
30
5/17 -6/16
10.6
PUM3
3
210
103
7/11 -10/22
36.4
X
X
X
39
10/27 -12/5
13.8
17
5/30 -6/15
6.0
PUM4
0
210
101
7/11 -10/20
35.7
X
X
29
10/28-11/25
10.2
40
3/4 -4113
14.1
PUMS
0
249
X
X
203
5/17 -12/6
71.7
78
7/11 -9/27
27.6
PUM6
3
191
22
9/30 -10/21
7.8
X
X
35
10/28 -12/1
12.4
65
7/13 -9/16
23.0
PUM7
6
160
X
X
32
10/28-11/28
11.3
106
7/11 -10125
37.5
PUMS
0
196
X
X
40
10/27 -12/5
14.1
PUM9
1
195
147
7/12 -12/6
51.9
X

M
D
c
m
m
v
0
w
M
c.
C
r
CL
X
0
0
Cn
c�
v
d
fA
m
J
C7
0
v
m
n
0
��
c m
0�
N -
O nw.
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12 " or
where water table
where water table
Dates z
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
(283 days)
PUM10
0
185
146
7/13 -12/6
51.6
X
22
5/30 -6/20
7.8
PUM11
1
206
X
147
7/12 -12/6
51.9
PUM12
4
283
283
2/28 -12/6
100.0
X
73
7/12 -9/23
25.8
PUM13
1
171
X
X
28
10/28 -11/24
9.9
28
5/17 -6/14
9.9
PUM14
5
214
X
X
147
7/12 -12/6
51.9
71
7/13 -9/22
25.1
PUM15
0
147
X
X
25
10/28-11/21
8.8
23
5/17 -6/9
8.1
PUM16
0
190
75
7/11 -9/24
26.5
X
X
28
10/28 -11/24
9.9
32
5/17 -6/18
11.3
PUM17
0
164
X
X
72
7/12 -9/22
25.4
28
2/28 -3/26
9.9
29
5/17 -6/15
10.2
PUM18
4
225
X
X
X
117
6/26 -10/21
41.3
39
10/28 -12/5
13.8

T
D
c
fD
°o
n�
CL
C
on
CL
Ul
m
N
O
d
0
m
m
N
m
J
0
Cn
M
0
w
v
d
m
0
O
� 3
c �
m �
N -
O �
w�
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12" or
where water table
where water table
Dates'
es 2
growing
<6
>6- 12.5%
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75%
above 1 -27 Feb
is -12 or above
is -12 or above 28
season
28 Feb-6 Dec
Feb-6 Dec
(283 days)
23
5/17 -6/9
8.1
PUM19
2
188
76
7/12 -9/26
26.9
X
X
35
10/28 -12/1
12.4
31
2/28 -3/29
11.0
PUM20
4
236
31
5/17 -6/17
11.0
X
148
7/11 -12/6
52.3
30
2/28 -3/28
10.6
26
5/17 -6/12
9.2
PUM21
4
226
78
7/12 -9/28
27.6
X
X
X
25
9/30 -10/24
8.8
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
49
2/28 -4/16
17.3
23
4/19 -5/12
8.1
PUM22
0
269
X
X
X
32
5/16 -6/17
11.3
148
7/11 -12/6
52.3
49
2/28 -4/16
17.3
23
4/19 -5/12
8.1
PUM23
5
274
X
X
X
33
5/16 -6/18
11.7
166
6/23 -12/6
58.7
24
3/4 -3/27
8.5
PUM24
4
230
X
X
203
5/17 -12/6
71.7

m
D
c
d
fD
0
14
cn
m
a
C
on
CL
(A
m
0
n�
0
Cn
m
d
m
J
0
M
0
v
s
d
CD
0
0
c 3
0 w
m 0
N �
O Aw
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Days where water
"
where water table
where water table
' 2
growing
Well
table is -12 or
is -12" or above
is -12" or above 28
Dates '
season
<6
>6 -12.5%
—
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75%
above 1 -27 Feb
28 Feb-6 Dec
Feb-6 Dec
(283 days)
23
3/4 -3/26
8.1
PUM25
0
209
31
5/17 -6/17
11.0
X
X
147
7/13 -12/6
51.9
37
3/4 -4/10
13.1
PUM26
0
243
X
X
203
5/17 -12/6
71.7
22
2/28 -3/20
7.8
PUM27
5
203
X
147
7/13 -12/6
51.9
30
2/28 -3/28
10.6
23
5/17 -6/9
8.1
PUM28
5
201
23
7/13 -8/5
8.1
X
X
46
8/8 -9/23
16.3
41
10/27 -12/6
14.5
109
2/28 -6/15
38.5
77
7/11 -9/26
27.2
PUM29
5
264
X
X
X
23
9/30 -10/22
8.1
41
10/27 -12/6
14.5
112
2/28 -6/18
39.6
PUM30
0
275
123
6/23 -10/24
43.5
X
X
41
10/27 -12/6
14.5

m
a
D
c
o�
CD
IV
0
d
CL
C
3
a
Q)
CCD
N
O
of
0
r:
c�
w
N
CD
n
Cn
s
0
N
w
m
n
0
c �
0 �
cD 0
N �
O nw
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12" or
where water table
where water table
Dates'
es ' 2
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
(283 days)
50
2/28 -4/17
17.7
22
4/19 -5/11
7.8
PUM31
0
266
X
X
X
30
5/16 -6/15
10.6
163
6/26 -12/6
57.6
39
2/28 -4/6
13.8
27
5/17 -6/13
9.5
PUM32
0
224
X
X
X
102
7/13 -10/23
36.0
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
31
2/28 -3/29
11.0
27
5/17 -6/13
9.5
PUM33
0
214
X
X
75
7/13 -9/26
26.5
31
10/28-11/27
11.0
74
2/28 -5/11
26.1
PUM34
0
276
X
204
5/16 -12/6
72.1
PUM35
0
22
<17
NA
<6
X
PUM36
0
20
<17
NA
<6
X
PUM37
0
34
<17
NA
<6
X
49
2/28 -4/16
17.3
55
4/19 -6/13
19.4
PUM38
4
255
X
X
75
7/11 -9/24
26.5
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1

M
D
c
d
m
v
0
Ix
V
m
CL
C
r
a)
CL
Q)
m
0
<v
0
m
m
N
m
n
s
0
v
m
m
n
0
c �
m �
N -
O A
w.
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12 or
"
where water table
where water table
2
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
(283 days)
44
2/28 -4/12
15.5
51
4/19 -6/9
18.0
PUM39
0
231
25
7/11 -8/5
8.8
X
X
37
8/11 -9/17
13.1
37
10/28 -12/3
13.1
114
2/28 -6/20
40.3
PUM40
0
279
X
166
6/23 -12/6
58.7
111
2/28 -6/17
39.2
94
6/26 -9/28
33.2
PUM41
0
271
X
X
X
26
9/30 -10/25
9.2
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
47
2/28 -4/14
16.6
PUM42
6
266
32
5/16 -6/17
11.3
X
X
X
149
7/11 -12/6
52.7
21
5/17 -6/7
7.4
22
7/13 -8/4
7.8
PUM43
5
171
X
X
39
8/16 -9/24
13.8
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1

21
D
c
d
�D
v
0
T
0.
C
on
3
CL
N
X
y
O
d
0
c�
U)
y
m
0
CD
s
0
y
m
m
0
0
c �
3
m 3 �
CD
J
w.
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12" or
where water table
where water table
, 2
Dates"
growing
<6
>6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75%
above 1 -27 Feb
is -12 or above
is -12 or above 28
season
28 Feb -6 Dec
Feb-6 Dec
(283 days)
23
2/28 -3/21
8.1
24
5/17 -6/10
8.5
PUM44
5
205
76
7/13 -9/27
26.9
X
X
X
24
9/30 -10/23
8.5
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
PUM45
0
63
<17
NA
<6
X
PUM46
4
90
19
2/28 -3/17
6.7
X
PUM47
0
97
35
8/20 -9/22
12.4
X
47
2/28 -4/14
16.6
29
5/16 -6/14
10.2
PUM48
0
228
X
X
65
8/16 -10/20
23.0
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
44
2/28 -4/11
15.5
PUM49
0
229
20
5/30 -6/18
7.1
X
X
X
147
7/13 -12/6
51.9
PUM50
0
86
26
8/20 -9/15
9.2
X
PUM51
0
94
28
10/28 -11/24
9.9
X
94
7/21 -10/23
33.2
PUM52
0
171
X
X
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1

m
D
c
d
fD
0
14
co
d
CL
C
a
U)
M
U)
0
n�
0
m
w
VJ
M
J
0
ch
0
41
d
m
n
0
,-3
> >
m
N -
O
w.
Table 2. (continued)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12 " or
where water table
where water table
Dates 2
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
(283 days)
31
8/16 -9/16
11.0
PUM53
0
131
X
33
10/28-11/29
11.7
43
2/28 -4/10
15.2
PUM54
4
221
19
5/30 -6/17
6.7
X
X
X
147
7/13 -12/6
51.9
31
2/28 -3/29
11.0
PUM55
0
199
X
X
140
7/20 -12/6
49.5
38
8/20 -9/27
13.4
PUM56
0
128
20
10/2 -10/22
7.1
X
X
36
10/27 -12/2
12.7
21
2/28 -3/19
7.4
35
8/20 -9/24
12.4
PUM57
0
143
X
X
19
10/2 -10/21
6.7
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1
34
8/20 -9/23
12.0
PUM58
0
132
X
X
65
10/2 -12/6
23.0
39
8/20 -9/28
13.8
PUM59
0
98
19
10/2 -10/21
6.7
X
X
40
10/27 -12/6
14.1

-n -o
> °-
C
H
fD
0
0
m
m
7'
0
ro
n
Cn
s
0
S
N
�D
n
O
L
7 j
fD �
N-
O nW .
Table 2. (concluded)
Hydrologic zone (NC WETS)
'Two hydroperiods are included if they are separated by a few days or are similar in amount of days.
2Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column and selected hydroperiods show range.
Cumulative days
Consecutive days
Percent of
Well
Days where water
table is -12 „ or
where water table
where water table
2
Dates' '
growing
<6
>6 -12.5%
>12.5 -25%
>25 -75%
>75%
above 1 -27 Feb
is -12” or above
is -12" or above 28
season
—
28 Feb-6 Dec
Feb-6 Dec
(283 days)
39
8/16 -9/24
13.8
PUM60
0
153
X
65
10/2 -12/6
23.0
'Two hydroperiods are included if they are separated by a few days or are similar in amount of days.
2Only 17 days or more (6 %) are included in this column and selected hydroperiods show range.

mu
D °L
:3C
w
�a
(D N
0 CD
.i Ch
0
0
Cn
m
m
N
CD
v
0
s
0
CO
d
m
n
0
c 3
3 �
CD
w.
Table 3. First annual fall 2012 survival of trees and shrubs planted in 58
0.3 -acre
lots at P and U Lands Phase 1.
Percent of
Tagged at
Baseline stems
Percent survival3
total stems
Scientific name
Common name
baseline
Alive Unsure' Total2
Alive Total2
alive in 2012
Lauye tree species
Amelanchier canadensis
Serviceberry
4
4
0
4
100
100
0
Betula nigra
River birch
166
161
5
166
97
100
2
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
231
219
12
231
95
100
3
Carya aquatica
Water hickory
104
100
4
104
96
100
1
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
781
779
2
781
100
100
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
145
143
2
145
99
100
2
Morus rubra
Mulberry
3
3
0
3
100
100
0
Nyssa sp.
tupelo or black gum
6
4
2
6
67
100
0
N. aquatica
Water tupelo
775
765
10
775
99
100
10
Nyssa biflora
Swamp tupelo
909
908
1
909
100
100
11
Pinus serotina
Pond pine
845
347
498
845
41
100
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
25
25
0
25
100
100
0
Quercus spp.
unknown oak species
140
85
55
140
61
100
1
Q. alba
White oak
8
8
0
8
100
100
0
Q. laurifolia
Laurel oak
533
500
33
533
94
100
6
Q. lyrata
Overcup oak
638
628
10
638
98
100
8
Q. michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
611
579
32
611
95
100
7
Q. nigra
Water oak
35
35
0
35
100
100
0
Q. phellos
Willow oak
815
801
14
815
98
100
10
Quercus pagodaefolia
Cherrybark oak
26
26
0
26
100
100
0
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
1279
1276
3
1279
100
100
16
Ulmus americana
American elm
6
6
0
6
100
100
0
Small tree species
Clethra alnifolia
Sweet pepperbush
19
19
0
19
100
100
0
Cyrilla racemiflora
Titi
26
26
0
26
100
100
0
Diospora virginiana
Persimmon
3
3
0
3
100
100
0
Ilex decidua
Deciduous holly; possumhaw
109
107
2
109
98
100
1
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay
275
274
1
275
100
100
3
Persea borbonia
Red bay
146
134
12
146
92
100
2
Total tree stems
8,663
7,965
698 1
8,663
92
100
100
Trees per acre stems +17.4ac
498
458
40
498
-
-
-

M v
i �
Da
�c
�a
m 0
0
0
N
W-
m
m
N
m
n
s
0
y
v
s
m
m
n
0
c �
> j
Q
N-
O A
W .
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
Percent surviva13
total stems
Scientific name
Common name
baseline
Alive Unsure' Tota12
Alive Tota12
alive in 2012
Shrubs
Amnia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
11
11
0
11
100
100
5
Callicarpa americans
American beautybery
2
2
0
2
100
100
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
9
9
0
9
100
100
4
Comus amomum
Silky dogwood
1
1
0
1
100
100
0
Comus foemina
Swamp dogwood
5
5
0
5
100
100
2
Ilex glabra
Inkberry
34
34
0
34
100
100
16
Ilex verticillata
Winterbeny
8
8
0
8
100
100
4
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
105
104
1
105
99
100
49
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Swamp doghobble
2
2
0
2
100
100
1
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
2
2
0
2
100
100
1
Lyonia lucida
Fetterbush
2
2
0
2
100
100
1
Rhododendron atlanticum
Dwarf azalea
3
3
0
3
100
100
1
Rosa palushis
Swamp rose
6
2
4
6
33
100
1
Vaccinium corymbosum
High bush blueberry
17
15
2
17
88
100
7
Viburnum nudum
Possumhaw
10
10
0
10
100
100
5
Zenobia pulverulenta
Dusty zenobia
2
2
0
1 2
100
1 100
1
Total shrub stems
219
212
7
219
97
100
100
(stems +17.4ac)
13
12
0
13
-
-
-
Unknown species
Unknown species
750
320
430
750
1 43
1001
4
Total
Total stems
9,632
8,497
1
1,135
9,632
Total dens1tvi
554
488
65
554
'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.

m
D
1
0
M
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
Da
DARE (ORGANIC)(60.81 ACRES)
Po
PONZER (ORGANIC) (751.85 ACRES)
TaB
TARBORO SAND (4.18 ACRES)
Wd
WASDA (ORGANIC) (153.54 ACRES)
HYDRIC SOILS
® NON — HYDRIC SOILS
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
PARKER FARM
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.
AERIAL IMAGE PROVIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, 1998 COLOR - INFARED DIGITAL ORTHO MOSAICS,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD83, FEET, BEAUFORT COUNTY,
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
P AND U LANDS PHASE I
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ /BFG
IM d DATE: 05/30/13 FILE: PLAN DS_SOI LS-PH 1
2012.DWG
02,200 4,400 CP #1745.59.32.1
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET 14, RPORATED WILMINGTON, N TEL 910 SUITE
53 FIGURE 3
DWONNENT,u CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

EYfCADiFt"AS"T UI W HP'PSOMETK nNT EN1,14% Fn$dy Mn 31.. 2013 317 28 PN -- THIS LINE SiOIK.D MEASJRE ONE HALF INCH ON A NPLF SC 'ALE PRINT.
D
Z
p
r-r
.}
�w
a ,
1
ti
1
�
•
Via:: ..
n- _ •E I ". -:'°`";T
r
p
i
�" sF
r►
.
Y
r
is
r�
;1•. i

20.00
-- -- - --
18.00
16.00
14.00
U
C
12.00
C
?' 10.00
L
C
O
8.00
C
(0
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
ti titi titi titi titi ��
�� titi titi titi titi ti
�titi
>J�
ti oti
Q) oti oti`S oti °y� oti oti
2012 Bay City Daily Rainfall — Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2012 WETS- Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total
30% Less Chance —30% More Chance • 2012 Bay City Monthly Rainfall
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.
-- -- - --
Figure 5. 2012 BAY CITY and WETS- AURORA RAINFALL

D
n
70
O
D
cn
O
O
N
SMALL ROAD PHASE II
PHASE
' 520 \� A
059
056 54 500 �___� 47 ���
SMALL ROAD o 58 /-� O �� �J ®� 46 4 0 ��
O
60 0 �7 55 503 051 49 408 90
037 BAY C41 No• 044
42
O
o35 039
04
00
340 038 028
3 27
6
0
030 29 25
032 031 0 26
033 0 24
BAY CITY N o 3 23
19 P 2LANDS
O
20 021 Oil
0
18 14
16 0 o10
0
015 0-1-3
017 .---- ""'"y� p9
CbTY N °• 1
3 0
10 O o
4 6 �8
-
COUNTY LINE ROAD
PHASE
PHASEI
LEGEND
PHASE I PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED /FILLED DITCH
— ROADS
0 PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
O WELL LOCATION
HYDROLOGIC
ZONES
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
® •
= <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (38.34 ACRES)
0 Q
= >-6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (75.69 ACRES)
= >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (200.53 ACRES)
= >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (550.26 ACRES)
— •
= >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (31.42 ACRES)
NOTE:
LIDAR CONTOURS WERE USED TO DRAW HYDROLOGIC
ZONE. CONTOURS ARE NOT SHOWN.
P AND U LANDS PHASE I
2012 HYDROPERIODS AND ESTIMATED HYDROLOGIC ZONES
0 1,200 2,400
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET SCALE: AS SHOWN JAPPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ /BFG
SOURCE: DATE: 05/30/13 FILE: HYDRO 2012 —
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 �J ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES. V—cmmco--PORAT L R SUITE 2
NAD 1983 FEET. E D vnL►11NGTON• NORTH LC910/392? 253 FIGURE 6
owwowortw CONWA0a FAX [phone]

APPENDIX A
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
STEM COUNTS AT INDIVIDUAL PLOTS

V
Appendix A. Individual tree /shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 1 first annual (2012) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
A -1
Zone 3
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Total
Common name
Scientific name
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
Unknown
?
7
3
1
12
9
6
7
1
9
2
15
5
8
2
2
4
93
Servicebeny
Amelanchier canadensis
0
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolis
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
11
Paw paw
Asima tNoba
0
River birch
Betula nigra
4
6
5
2
11
21
10
4
12
3
5
6
15
20
13
8
15
1
161
American beautybery
Callicarpa americana
0
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
4
3
10
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
0
Sugarberry
Celds laevigata
0
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
0
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
6
1
14
71
32
37
163
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra a/nifolis
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
15
Silky dogwood
Comus amomum
0
Swamp dogwood
Comus foemina
4
1
5
Tib
Cyrilla racern flora
0
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
0
Strawberry bush
Euonymousamericana
0
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanrca
3
19
22
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
1
1
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
2
9
8
1
1
2
2
3
29
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
5
4
2
3
2
8
5
29
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
2
2
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
0
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
2
2
Mulberry
Morus rubra
0
Nyssa spp.
0
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
19
1
8
13
9
19
12
22
2
19
8
6
19
18
18
17
16
10
12
248
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
8
35
3
2
10
4
13
9
17
25
30
11
18
26
6
4
20
8
7
268
Red bay
Parses borbonia
4
6
1
1
12
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
0
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
5
1
3
12
2
1
3
2
1
1
33
White oak
Q. albs
1
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
23
19
3
15
54
22
6
4
2
4
15
5
2
5
4
7
13
17
16
239
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
16
9
19
12
22
22
15
11
12
23
20
13
7
24
22
12
5
24
10
9
307
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
8
18
12
9
37
42
32
26
30
22
28
18
16
43
8
14
2
369
Water oak
Q. nigra
0
Willow oak
Q. phellos
44
22
29
3
20
21
32
17
9
9
15
17
12
23
8
9
5
24
29
23
371
Cherrybarik oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
0
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
2
3
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
0
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
0
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
5
10
19
6
10
10
7
43
28
18
42
5
29
28
15
39
38
31
10
2
395
American elm
Ulmus americans
0
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
6
2
1
1
10
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
TOTALI
123
1 98
1 161
1 83
1 113
1 187
1 137
1 164
113
145
1 143
1 130
1 148
1 166
1 159
1 174
1 152
1 144
1 157
1 108
1 2805
A -1

AoDendix A (continued)
Zone 4A
2
Zone 4
4
6
10
11
12
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1 st
1 st
1st
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
6
6
7
12
13
4
3
4
10
6
1
7
66
Serviceber y
Ame/anchier canadensis
90
37
58
63
54
1
65
3
358
4
Red chokeber y
Aronia arbutifolia
2
1
26
27
20
17
6
1
12
Paw paw
Asima thloba
96
1
1
10
River birch
Betu/a nigra
10
3
19
8
10
70
American beautyberry
Callicaipa americana
2
20
24
20
9
24
25
12
16
36
186
21
16
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
19
39
14
6
24
177
19
49
19
8
13
29
6
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
8
28
48
2
13
27
30
15
28
38
241
188
10
Sugarberry
Celds /aevigata
162
180
177
211
163
1637
Buttonbush
Cepha/anthus occidentalls
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
55
75
64
42
13
249
Sweet pepperbush
C/ethra a/nifolia
Silky dogwood
Comus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Comus foemina
Tits
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
23
1
26
Persimmon
Diospors virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
17
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
7
1
2
10
Inkbery
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
/tea virginice
1
2
1
1
5
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia /ucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
14
4
20
5
4
9
1
5
2
11
5
80
Mulberry
Mortis rubra
Nyssa spp.
1
1
Water tupelo
N. aquadca
24
4
5
15
7
2
10
3
18
1
5
1
95
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
5
7
17
12
25
20
50
46
39
9
26
256
Red bay
Persea borbonia
3
7
5
2
2
2
1
7
29
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
15
13
7
18
17
7
11
13
1
27
18
5
152
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
4
5
3
2
1
3
1
19
White oak
Q. a/ba
Laurel oak
Q. laudiblia
1
14
19
22
14
6
24
10
5
9
7
12
143
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
4
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
21
5
14
27
28
28
18
27
21
5
32
226
Cherrybark oak
Querous pagodaefolia
1
1
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron at/andcum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa pa/ustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium dishchum
93
9
8
11
14
5
16
6
34
13
14
7
230
American elm
U/mus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccin /um corymbosum
2
2
4
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
185
135
146
146
101
84
128
111
153
191
137
116
1633
Zone 4A
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
13
15
Total
1 st
1st
1 st
1 st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1 st
9
16
1
7
8
21
6
5
3
76
18
25
34
4
1
11
22
13
128
9
1
4
3
4
21
28
11
9
90
37
58
63
54
65
81
358
23
2
1
26
27
20
17
6
1
12
7
6
96
1
1
10
6
4
10
3
19
8
10
70
2
2
20
24
20
9
24
25
12
16
36
186
21
16
19
15
19
39
14
10
24
177
19
49
19
8
13
29
5
22
22
186
28
48
14
13
27
30
15
28
38
241
188
209
192
155
162
180
177
211
163
1637
A -2

Appendix A (concluded)
Zone 6
35 Total
1st 1 st
8 8
2 2
14 14
3 3
26 26
1 1
3 3
1 1
57 57
25 25
1 1
7 7
3 3
1 1
35 35
14 14
25 25
6 6
232 232
Zone 7
1
Zone 5
Total
1st
25 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 36 38 46 47 60
Total
Common name
Scientific name
1st
1st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
1 st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
Unknown
?
239
2
1
4
3
1
2
12
4
7
1
10
47
Servicebery
Amelanchiercanadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima thloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautybery
Callica►pa amedcana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
3
8
8
3
5
2
4
4
6
15
61
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarbeny
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
8
1
9
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra ainifolia
2
1
1
4
Silky dogwood
Comus amomum
1
1
Swamp dogwood
Comus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
2
1
1
4
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
6
6
Virginia sweetsprre
Itea virginice
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
4
1
1
6
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Nyssa spp.
3
3
Water tupelo
N. aquatics
10
7
3
3
3
21
19
5
21
1
24
33
34
7
191
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
14
34
48
41
18
11
24
37
32
9
12
37
47
19
383
Red bay
Persea borbonia
3
1
5
1
1
13
4
3
2
3
36
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
7
1
8
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
2
1
5
4
6
5
1
1
4
1
32
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
20
18
10
3
4
5
4
11
21
4
1
4
8
115
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
1
22
56
21
9
28
34
44
17
15
18
28
15
12
320
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
7
22
32
11
2
18
9
14
23
15
34
19
206
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
9
31
23
7
3
19
10
55
18
9
4
2
190
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron allanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
20
28
13
15
27
16
19
23
7
34
15
24
24
53
318
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
2
2
2
4
10
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulveru/enta
TOTALI
78 1
160 1
194 1
145 1
96 1
111 1
160 1
201 1
132 1
131 1
107
162 1
146 1
128
1951
Zone 6
35 Total
1st 1 st
8 8
2 2
14 14
3 3
26 26
1 1
3 3
1 1
57 57
25 25
1 1
7 7
3 3
1 1
35 35
14 14
25 25
6 6
232 232
Zone 7
1
17
Total
1st
1 st
1st
11
19
30
8
1
9
23
29
52
32
22
54
2
2
58
34
92
132
107
239
A -3

APPENDIX B
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
SELECTED FIRST ANNUAL RESTORATION
PHOTOGRAPHS
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Appendix B
First Annual Report June 2013

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: west northwest 30 Oct 2012
PLPS -2: northwest north 30 Oct 2012. White poles of staked tree plot is in
distant background.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Appendix B
First Annual Report June 2013

PLPS -3: east southeast 30 Oct 2012.
PLPS -3: northwest north 30 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Appendix B
First Annual Report June 2013

PLPS -4: north northeast 23 Oct 2012.
PLPS -5: east southeast 23 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Appendix B
First Annual Report June 2013

PLPS -6: east southeast 23 Oct 2012.
PLPS -7: north 23 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Appendix B
First Annual Report June 2013