20120107 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report Ph I_2015_20160620

FOURTH ANNUAL (2015) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ase 1 Phase 2
Phase 1
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
June 2016

FOURTH ANNUAL (2015) 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 2016

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
2015 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
LITERATURE
CITED.......................................................................................................................6
Cover Photos: Top left photo: southern portion of Phase 1, view is north, 5 August 2015.
Top right photo: northern portion of Phase 1, view is north, 5 August 2015.
Bottom photo: view is south, southern portion in upper right, northern
portion in middle, 5 August 2015.
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 and three Rodman control wells during all rainfall conditions in
2015............................................................................................................................
T-2
Table 3
Hydroperiods of 60 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1
restoration site and three Rodman control wells during normal and below normal
rainfallin 2015..........................................................................................................
T-11
Table 4
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 2015 .................................................T-23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman
Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman
Figure 3 Soils P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman
Figure 4 P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built
LiDAR
Figure 5 2015 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6 P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman Longest 2015 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones During all Rainfall Conditions
Figure 7 P and U Lands Phase 1 and Rodman Longest 2015 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones During WETS Normal and Below Normal Rainfall
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Appendix B Selected Second Annual (2015) 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.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

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, but as Phase 3 was constructed/planted in
2014, completion of approximately 138 acres of Phase 3 was delayed until 2015. These 138
acres comprise Phase 4 monitoring and are one year behind Phase 3. This annual report
documents the fourth 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), and the first, second, and third annual reports (CZR 2013a, CZR 2013b,
and CZR 2015).
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
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

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 (Figure 1).
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 were 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 "keyway" 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 2015 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. Figure 2 depicts the locations of hydrology monitoring equipment,
Figure 3 shows the locations on Beaufort County soil polygons, and Figure 4 shows the
monitoring locations on the as -built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

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 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 located in the same type of
soil according to the Beaufort County Soil Survey (Kirby 1995) (Figures 1 and 3).
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 and third annual surveys occurred
September -October 2013 and 2014. The fourth annual survey occurred December 2015 -January
2016. The plots represent 2 percent of the restoration area (Figure 2). Nuisance monitoring plots
(1 meter square) were established in 2013 at the upper corner opposite the well (along the long
axis of the plot) in all tree plots and all woody stems taller than 1 foot were counted and identified
in 2014 and 2015.
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 (approximately).
Annual photos were taken October 2012, 2013, 2014, and December 2015.
3.0 2015 RESULTS
3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall in 2015 at Bay City was 56.4 inches, 2.4 inches more than
2014. The 30 -day rolling total of 2015 Bay City rainfall was considered above normal WETS
rainfall June 3 -July 5, October 2—November 1, and November 18—December 19 (Figure 5).
Wetland hydroperiods were calculated for the entire year regardless of rainfall and also calculated
with above normal rainfall periods excluded.
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). In 2015, all 41 weeks of the growing season were
considered normal with no drought status in the vicinity of the P and U Lands project area.
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 due to
construction activities. However, they were all in the ground by early March 2012 and did not
miss much of the growing season. Tables depicting 2015 daily well readings and rainfall are
included on a companion CD with this report.
Only one well did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod for more than 6 percent of the
growing season (Tables 2 and 3, Figures 6 and 7). During all rainfall conditions, 60 percent of
wells (36 of 60) recorded a wetland hydroperiod >25 to 75 percent of the growing season, and 25
percent of wells (15 of 60) recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire length of the
growing season. After excluding the three periods of above normal rainfall, 85 percent of wells
(51 of 60) recorded wetland hydroperiods >25 to 75 percent of the growing season.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

According to the Beaufort County soil survey, the well (PUM35) that did not exhibit a
wetland hydroperiod is in a non -hydric soil type (Tarboro) that drains very quickly (Figure 3) and
therefore might not ever record a wetland hydroperiod. Also, this well (PUM 35) is located in an
area with a slightly higher elevation than most of the other wells (Figure 4). If the non -wetland
areas persist, the amount of the site represented by the wells is small and would add diversity to
the site.
Both well pairs in place to monitor potential drainage effects from perimeter canals
(PUM4 and 5, and 25 and 26) recorded hydroperiods greater than 25 percent in 2015 even after
excluding above normal rainfall periods. One of each pair is located 50 feet away from the toe of
the perimeter berm and the second is 100 feet away. The water level data at these four wells for
the past three years appear to demonstrate that the clay keyway incorporated into the berm
retards lateral water movement as designed.
The reference wells in the Rodman Control Site recorded water levels similar to Phase 1
wells and the hydroperiods were not affected by the above normal rainfall (Tables 2 and 3,
Figures 6 and 7).
3.3 Vegetation. The Corps determined that three tree species have the possibility to
outcompete young planted trees at a mitigation site due to their quick growth and need to be
monitored as nuisance species to ensure they do not take over a mitigation site. The three
species are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Two years of nuisance plot monitoring data indicate that no single nuisance species,
or the three nuisance species in aggregate, exceeded 20 percent of the stems in the nuisance
plots in either year. There were three nuisance stems out of 135 stems in 2014 (2.2 percent) and
five nuisance stems out of 122 stems in 2015 (4.1 percent). No further nuisance monitoring will
be conducted for this site.
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 annual sample events before it can be confidently counted as dead. Appendix A
contains the number of stems that were alive in each plot for the 2015 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, which is typical. The lower survival of the swale zone is likely a result of
large expanses of prolonged standing water despite being planted with species considered
tolerant of such conditions.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting to the fourth annual fall survey was 66 percent, with a corresponding density of 334 trees
per acre (Table 4). 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 72 percent and
a density of 367 trees per acre. Excluding unknown/uncertain species, of the 26 tree species,
water hickory (Carya aquatica) and deciduous holly (Ilex decidua) had the lowest survival of 4
and 5 percent respectively. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) had 100 percent survival (same as
2014), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) had 98 and 97
percent respectively (Table 4). Five of the remaining known species had 80 percent and higher
survival.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
fourth annual fall survey was 54 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per acre
(Table 4). 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 62 percent and a density of eight
shrubs per acre. Both estimates of survival are lower than last year. When excluding stems with
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

questionable survival, of the 16 species, swamp rose (Rosa palustris), swamp dogwood (Cornus
foemina), and dusty zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) had the
lowest survival of 0 percent. Three species had 100 percent survival: American beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), and swamp doghobble
(Leucothoe/Eubotrys racemosa).
The current tree density is higher than the 260 stems required for success and with many
trees surviving well in the fourth year, and 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 [Persea borbonia], 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 original 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 was used to plug the roadside ditches and those areas were planted in
February 2014 in conjunction with Phase 3 planting. Approximately 14 acres were planted in
2014 with 7,750 stems of swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), swamp black gum, willow oak (Q.
phellos), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) in various combinations dependent on planting
zone; these areas included the plugs, a segment inside the berm along Peele Road, and areas
adjacent to the NCWRC-requested parking lots at the west end of Bay City Roads 1 and 3 and on
the south side of Bay City 4. There are no monitoring plots within these planted areas.
3.5 Photographic Documentation. A few photos representative of 2015 conditions
are included with this report (Appendix B). More are available upon request.
4.0 SUMMARY
According to WETS rainfall calculations, Bay City rainfall was normal or below normal
WETS rainfall except for June 3 -July 5, October 2- November 1, November 18 -December 19.
Post -restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially began March 2012. In 2015,
only one well did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod. During all rainfall conditions 60 percent of
wells (36 of 60) recorded a wetland hydroperiod of >25 to 75 percent, and 25 percent of wells (15
of 60) recorded a continuous wetland hydroperiod for the entire growing season. After excluding
the three periods of above normal rainfall, most wells (51 of 60) recorded wetland hydroperiods
>25 to 75 percent of the growing season.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting (2012) to the fourth annual fall survey was 66 percent, with a corresponding density of
334 trees per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of
planting to the fourth annual fall survey was 54 percent with a corresponding density of seven
shrubs per acre. The density of unquestionably alive trees and shrubs combined is 342 stems
per acre. The current tree density is much higher than the 260 stems required for success and
with many trees surviving well in the fourth 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 [Persea borbonia], sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana], titi [Cyrilla
racemiflora]) will enhance the diversity and density of the site.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated.
2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site.
CZR Incorporated.
2013a. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
CZR Incorporated.
2013b. First Annual (2012) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
CZR Incorporated.
2014. Second Annual (2013) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
CZR Incorporated. 2015. Third Annual (2014) 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.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 a1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Repo, 2m 2016
k
2
_ 0 £
70
J "
%
a £_
-0 4— §
n 0 ° ° °
2
/ /
% b 2 -r
C a ¥
§ —
CD
o E )
% % / f §
M %
) "
�.>
�.�
/ {
§ >
6
\
C
E
k /
/ 2
k ƒ %
U)
¥ 0 d °
-0L- o
% ^ £ q %
R U) A@ 2
% 2
0)-0 R 2 0
\
£®°
70 7
0 7
2
E : _
-0 2 -0 ^ §'°'�
0 7 0 2 )
ƒ
M U)
C CO § ®
0
_ / - ©
(
° _0 2 § ±
-0 \ % 2 0 °
0 o a) -E @
E
E E
2 2 ) %
/ \ @
LO e a)%)
0 0- y c 0&
E
E 0-
�o
\ƒ
2 3
U) m
0 2 m m
2= Q
o _3 m
Q
U�/
y@%-0
Q m 2 2
f x f o@
m
m e
m#
E
o m e E%£
c E
"
®2 a
® 2 ° y
L E
@
0
/
© ° °
2 °
2
a
A
E®
:
\ M
o
.
2
£
F
�
5
/
7
L $ /
7
%
0
\ CO
ƒ
0
=
u
—
\ k CO
2
ƒ
§
0
§ @
§
\
0)
/
E
k
U)
0 J
/
O 2
§
c
J
/
%
f
f
' ®
5
0 /
0/
�0
@
[
\ \ \
C /
0
- 04
2
M \
° q
-
M J
cn
E
_f7
L
@
UX
o
:
>
E
p
$ƒ
0
k
U)
=
./-
%
§
E ƒ U)
2
° /
§ F5 M
°
—
0 40 Alk
7 % 5
§
°
§
% 2 & E
$ / §
c
K 4 /
ƒ
2
f
E
0
0))k
o
ƒ
ƒ
'% \
�
mn/
COCo
CL
@.
.
.
.
U))
�Q
a) a
/
k
R
/ /
@
'
0- \
ƒ
�'E
2
4
Rf^E
�� - Co
k§
@
+
g 5 ƒ f
E
2
\ f 7 m 0.7
°
§
°
4
Q
�
m U) o
f 0
2 . \
/
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 a1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Repo, 2m 2016

U
C
O
N
U
O
O
O
6
0
LO
X
X
X
X
X
ti
n
0
Ln
x
X
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
Ln
N_
A
O
Lq
N
i
(I
CO
V
O O C > 0
O O
O
O
O~
O
O
O O O CL
O�N O�
O
O
O
O
LO
LO
O CO
a O L
w
w
(0
O O
N
(D
O O
N
O CO
N
O
N
N
r
N
r
N
r
-
CO N
N
r
-
N
ti N
O
0000
00
00
00
00 -
r
00 r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N O
N
N
N
N O�
N
N O
O
(3) Oo
N O U
N - > O
> O
CU
N
N
N
d 0)
N
M
M M
7 O CU C4
00
N
CO
N
CO
N
Il-
r O
CO
N
I' M
r O
d
r O
U L -'
N O N
U) � - LL
O O
U 3 '
-
a�
m
cB o ami
LS
>O
N
N
N
LO
N
O
C0
- O O Q
00
00
00
I-
M
LO
LO
m ?� - O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O O N LL
E L ; 00
U, N
U
3
L
L -Q
O O
N
ti
N
ti
ti
r`
O r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O O
U O
M �O
CU O
�
d'
Lfl
Cfl
ti
N
CO
N
2
2
2
2i
2
2
0-
0- 0-
0-
0-
a-
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-2
Fourth Annual Report
N
O
N
N
0 N
C6i r
N �
N O)
O r-
r- O
r
00
N
O
M
O
"
N
a0 N
� r.
00
N r
N O
00 rl-
rl- O
r
CO
D a a a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
June 2016

0
LO
ti
n
0
LC)
Lfj
N
A
0
LO
N
i
Ln
N
r
A
0
Lf')
_ V
T O L
n a 0-
N O OL
n co
O
n3
_n
ll 00
N
6 >
v
00
((6
O N
ll = LL
ll
04
ll
0 Q
D � O
O
D N_ LL
D N
U) _
L
O O
= LL
N
T N
x x x
x x x X I r
'IT
N
CO
N
N N
CO
CO '
N
N O
CO
r O
N
M
O
N N
c0
C6 '
N
N O
00
r-
0) O
ti
N
0
O
O
r
N
r
00
N
N
N
00
N
C14 (0
00 N
GD
i 7
N �
N 0)
O P-
LO 0')
O
0
O
O
r
N
r
00
N
N
N
00
N
Co Co
N I CO I N I N
T-3
0
O
O
N
00
N
N
x
x
3 O 0)
x
O
T 0
a
C
Q
M
O
O
O
N
O
1'
t7
N
O
CSO
N
N O
N N
M
N
CSO
N
U
c0
O
N
00
N
c0
O
LO
00
67
F-
O f`
67
(.0
f,.)
r
N
P and U Lands Restoration
Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual Report
N
M
O
N N
c0
C6 '
N
N O
00
r-
0) O
ti
N
0
O
O
r
N
r
00
N
N
N
00
N
C14 (0
00 N
GD
i 7
N �
N 0)
O P-
LO 0')
O
0
O
O
r
N
r
00
N
N
N
00
N
Co Co
N I CO I N I N
T-3
0
O
O
N
00
N
N
x
x
x
x
a
�
M
O
O
O
N
O
1'
t7
N
O
N
CSO
N
N O
N N
M
N
CSO
N
O
c0
O
00
00
c0
00
LO
00
67
N
CO
O f`
67
(.0
f,.)
r
N
r
r
Q
O
N
00
CO
fl-
CO
O
N
N
N
N
(N
N
I-
N
I�
N
0')
O
N
r
N
N
N
2
2
2
a
a
a
PCS Phosphate
Company,
Inc.
June
2016

J
x I x
\
\
%
®
\
\
a
0-
\
2m 2016
n
\
2
=
_
\=
6
\
x
&
LO
_
/
CN
A
\
\
\
\
(
y
q
.\
\
2
\
/
/
\
f
?
\
I
y
@
2
�
CD
00
c=>
£.gq/\%
f
R
a)
/ $ t / °
2
\
U)05-0
ƒ
_
2 $
$
$
« ^
~
/
\ \
\
R a
«
%\_
/5)o
.2 a)/ ®
R n
N
5 # M
7 w
\
k f /
LL
\ƒ/
m
M 0
_ » _
\\/\
\
\
§ / %
= % =mm
O a •-
%
# o =
{\\
/2C�
\
\
® = I
\
\so
/
�3\
\
w
%
k
\
2
4
_
CL
E
F -
Pak u Lands
Restoration Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual
Repo,
x I x
\ I CO
\
\
\
�
\
\
a
0-
\
2m 2016
2
=
_
\=
6
$
&
LO
_
\
\
\
\
\
\
q
e
/
/
\
f
?
\
\ I CO
S4
x
B
x
x
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
�
\
\
a
0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
2m 2016
S4
x
B
x
x
\
\
\
\
\
04
�
D
_
a
0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
2m 2016

P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
0
LO
X
X
X
ti
n
0
Lr)
11�
x
x
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
Ln
X
N_
A
O
LI7
N
X
X
A I
C°
v
X
O
C T '0
d
00
3 UO C 0-
O a) N O 0
M(0
O
O
p
v
O
N
(D
U) 00 -0
a
v O
ONO
O
O
[1-
Cl)
a\O
N
(O
Lf)
N
O
N
U
LO
Ln
-
N
—
N
—
N
—
— N
00
N
7
Q
—
C?
V
i
u7
i
�
6
-
O
.-
,
Q
00
Q0
'
M
r�
CO
CO
—
00
00
Z
00
N
N
N N
O
T
M
—.
00
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
N O
N
NN
Lf)
(O
26
U
O N
N > 0)
> L O Q
N
oo
C14
CO P-
04
00
V
-M
LO
CD
-N
00
CD
7i
M
N
r O
N
ti
',N
U@
O O
N - LL
O
U � '
m
�
M o
M ca ' aUi
--0
L - Q
> M (O
00
N
N
O
N
M
M 0-6
C6 ?: c 0)
ti
—
00
N
00
N
r-
N
00
N
M
�
ti
O N LL
E L , Co
U, N
U
�
L
L
(6 OLL
CV
r-
�
r-
ti
r-
LO
r
Ln
ti
U
N
N
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
3 N >
�
Q
O
N
M
It
LO
w
r-
00
—
M
M
CO
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
Z)
D
D
D
D
Z
D
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

P and U
Fourth Ai
-ands
inual f
x
ti
N
N
00
N � (0Lr) O N
r
O N
N N
N O
> L O Q
0
N
LO
O
ti
j @ M
n
r Cl)
0
�f'
LO
N - LL
O
t`
LO
N
as
A
0
LO
O
N
u7
CO
� 3 0 �
_N
A
CO
0
LO
E L i co
U N
N
AI
Cfl
L
LS�
V
O
O C T .0
O O L6
.3 O a
O
OL N N O
O O O Z�
a
v O
N
3 O O
a
x
ti
N
N
00
N � (0Lr) O N
r
O N
N N
N O
> L O Q
�
N
O -0
O
O
� LO
j @ M
CO
r Cl)
O O
�f'
D
N - LL
O
a
U � '
as
M
-0-
O
> Cfl
CO
� 3 0 �
CO
O N LL
E L i co
U N
L
LS�
L6 O LL
N r -
N
s .(
N
3 O O
M
�
Q
O
-
M
>N
Q
d
Restoration Site Phase 1
teport
x
M
00 O O
LO N N
LO
N O N
N LO 0')
r- r O
O
ti
r
x
O
It
N
O NO
N
00 6
N 6 N
N LO M
OI� O
� r O
O
r
T-6
x
ti
Lf )
LO
O
N
ti
N
N
D
CL
x
LO
LO
00 N
CO 7
N r
N M
ti r -
LO O
r
N
(D
N
x
M
LO
LO
N N
0
c0 '
N M
N
N �
Cfl LO
LO
r
N
fl-
�
N
N
O
r
M
d
V
�f'
D
a
a
T-6
x
ti
Lf )
LO
O
N
ti
N
N
D
CL
x
LO
LO
00 N
CO 7
N r
N M
ti r -
LO O
r
N
(D
N
x
M
LO
LO
N N
0
c0 '
N M
N
N �
Cfl LO
LO
r
N
fl-
�
N
N
M
d
V
�f'
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
June 2016

X
x
x
B
x
\
$ / %
\
CO
\
S7
\
\
CA:
a
■
\c
c
\
/
\
&
i
A
\
a
\
A
C6
\
LO
/
\
/
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
9
?
\
ƒ
\
x
A
/
(
y
.\
\
2
$
A
I
y
Lf?
w
Al
f
5c=�70
£
.g o n \ %
g
)
\ § N / 0\
ƒ0)U)05-0
_
f
/
\
$
o
\
2
/
\
\ G
\
&
6 +
a
%\_
/5)o
-
a) %
%
/
%
#
k f / LL
\ƒ/
m
M 0
///e
m
\2/\
k
§ % / %
==mm
O a •-
%
# o =
{\\
/2C�
\
\
® = I
\so
/
�3\
\
$
\
R
\
I
F-
Pak u Lands
P and
Restoration Site Phase
1
Fourth Annual
Repo,
X
x
x
B
x
\
$ / %
\
CO
\
S7
\
\
CA:
a
■
\c
c
\
/
\
&
i
A
\
a
\
A
C6
\
/
\
/
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
9
?
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
2m 2016

0
Lf)
ti
n
0
LO
Lf)
N
A
0
Lf)
N
Ln
_N
A
0
Lf)
N
AI
(0
V
C T .0
U) a C 0-
M
N O OL
U) c -0
O
L
O CD
s N
>
a�
00
@ � O
O s
N
N = LL
N
0 O
O � O
2 L
O 6
O N LL
L i 0o
� U N
L
L
L6 OLL
N N r -
L ; N
O
C .�
>
M
>N
x
O
CO
LO
0I
N
N
N
—
Q0
M
O
-
ti
N
OP
N
LO
N
O
N
CA
N
O
C4
T
T
T
CO
O
N
M
ON
-
C4
M
00
M
LO
LLO
N
OD
N
N
ti
N
m
Lf)
7-
D
a_
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-8
Fourth Annual Report
x
O
O
O
N
CO
N
N
N
CO
N
N
CD
N
12
CO
M
M
Lf)
N
x
d'
N
O
N
N N
0
CD '
N
N O
O
CA
r`
N
X
O
O
O O Q0
N N
Cp O r
CO ' M
N � N
N Cn M
N
O �
r-
(0
N
Cl)
O
0
N
N
N
T
T
O
N
CO
O
N
M
N
N
N
C4
M
-&5
LO
LO
M
r-
N
N
0 -
Lf)
N
x
d'
N
O
N
N N
0
CD '
N
N O
O
CA
r`
N
X
O
O
O O Q0
N N
Cp O r
CO ' M
N � N
N Cn M
N
O �
r-
(0
N
O
r
N
r-
N
r
O
N
O
O
C
d -LO
N
LO
LO
0 -
PCS
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
June 2016

0
Lf)
ti
n
0
L()
L`
Lf)
N
A
0
Lf)
N
Ln
_N
A
0
Lf)
N
AI
V
C T .0
U) a C 0-
M
N O OL
U) N -0
L
N
N 00
N
>
a�
00
O s
N
N = LL
N
0 O
O � �
2 L
O 6
O N LL
L i 0o
� U N
L
L
L6 OLL
N N r -
L ; N
O
C .� T
M
>N
x
Cl) M
N - N
T
00 N LO
N N
N M '&5
T N COr-
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual Report
M
N
N
N
LO
2i
a_
x
Ln
N
00
Ln N
T
M '
N LO
N
N �
O �
x
M
N
M
C T N
Lf) T
i
M M tf)
C14 C14
N M
T Ln CO
T
T-9
r -
N
00
Lf)
!L
x
T
R�!
� N
i
0� M
N N
d1
00 LO
Ln r -
T
Ln
LO
N
x
M M �
N T N
L? Lfl
i
M
0\O
LO
N� M
T (O M
T
O
N
N
P' -
N
�
35
6
C
O
!L
Q
PCS
Phosphate Company, Inc.
June 2016

0.0
£ .g o n \ §
) jr, ( t / /
ƒ U)005-0
_
$
.§\0r.)
5 U
k f / LL
\ƒ/
m
220
/k / (0
\2/\
§ % / %
/$�^
a)
# o =
{\\
/2C�
®2 2
7I
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual Repo,
x
�
(N - N
LO i —
\C;\
C14» a
$ 2 E
\
\
\
Of
x
x
�
■
7 2 E
\
\
/
e
GS
\
\
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
2m 2016

C
O
C �
_0 N
� O
O Q
a) cD
.r N
C E
N a)
4) >
+= O
<n Z
C: Co
0
7�
o �
(n L
ai
N >
O
Z
- ;
C-0
Co O
J
D U
-00
N
c4 T
N N
N C
� O
0
C CO
O
O
E x
C S
(6 -
L
O N
C E
0
CO O
O
LO _O
N s
C �
N N
O E
L
Q O
O C
L ,^
LV'
2
M
-Q•L
CU
1-
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
0
LO
r—
n
0
LO
x
x
x
x
x
Cn
a)
n
C
O
N
o
o
U
LO
Ln
_O
O
N
-
T
n
2
LO8
N
r
�I
v
O
0) C T
O M O
I�
ti
ti
ti
L
O CO 70 C O-
O N O
M
M
M
M
MM
Cl)
M
M
Cl)
00 -- -O
ll
C14 O
P
ti
r-
r
ti
N
\
N
- \
N
•-
\
N
O
\
N
\
N
CO
O
CD
O
Cfl
O
C\O
N O
CO
C)
CU
a0
i
i
0O
i i
C�
QO
00 i
i
CO
i
Q
N
CO
N
N
CO N
N
CO
N
N
CD \
N
N
Cfl N
_U
O 00
(C4 N
O CO O U
N > a)
> L O Q
-O
U)
CO
Cfl
LO
CO Cfl
Cn
CO
CO
LO
Cfl
CO
LO
CO Cfl
:5 �p (6 CO
M
CO
M
CO
M
CO
M
M
M
00
3 O
C � - LL
O N N
Q -CZ
a)
0
Q
O N
O)
N
O)
p
O)
O)
O)
O N LL
E 00
N
L
L
f6 O L
L
N r -
CV
N
ti
ti
O
N
N
N
N
N
O >
U O
Q
C14
M
a>
2
M
a
a
a
a
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

J
0
\
J
%
\
!
J
\
6
w
\
\
w
A
%
5c=�0
\\E7 70 /
° 0 CO a 2
/0)®N5
$
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G» PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
x
x
x
x
0
5
w
w
w
»
270
\
\
\
\
�
9
z
9
z~
9
N@
r—~
09
6/
o
R a\
0
9 6/
0
9 6/
$
»
$
w
$
0?
$
0?7
N\
4
N
a
G&
N
g\
4
N
N\&
N
&
» a
&
& a
» a
&
& a
LO
r
s
r
r
e
r=
e<
e
e
e%
c%
e
t%
e#%
%
%
/
\
\
\
\
\
i
}
2
2
D
/
a
a
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G» PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

J
0
\
J
%
\
!
J
\
6
w
\
\
w
A
%
5c=�0
\\E7 70 /
° 0 CO a 2
/0)®N5
$
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf Ge PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
x
x
x
x
0
5
w
w
w
»
270
\
\
\
\
�
%
LO
o%
a#%
N
a%
N#
—
a
9 o
x
a9
o
x
a
9 o
2
a
9 o
x
J
=
$
0?
$
0?
$
0?7
N\
4cli
a
G&
N
g\
4
N
N\&
N
&
» a
&
& a
» a
&
& a
LO
CO
s
r
o
e
r=
e<
o
e
e#%
c
r%
e
'IT
r%
$
\
/
$
\
\
\
\
/
04
M
0-
a.
a.
a.
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf Ge PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

0
LO
r—
A
0
LO
ti
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
Lr7
N
A
0
N
T
AI
v
O L6 a�
U) Q
N N O OL
N 00 -- —0
N O
O
Cz
N
O
— 00
S
O N
O ❑
N —0
S CO
O Q)
O _ LL
� � N
S � �
3
s j U
U
L � ❑
)
O N LL
00
3 ( N
L
L
76 O Li
N r -
L N
N ' 7
L .U) T
O N
X
r`
cl i
CO
ti
N
CO O \
N Cfl N
N rl-
LO CO (.0
0') CO
0')
O)
rl-
N
U �
M NN
D
c6
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual Report
r`
C6
C`')
�
O
ti
N
N
L6
�
❑
M
007
M
O
M
N
0')
O)
rl-
N
U �
M NN
D
c6
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fourth Annual Report
r`
C6
C`')
00
S`
N
LO
CT
G
(L
T-14
x
X
x
�
ti
N
N
r`
M
007
M
N
M
N
N
~
CO
0')
T
CO
LO
CO
CO
O)
N
( )
�
00
S`
N
LO
CT
G
(L
T-14
x
X
x
C)
07
I--
CN
`N
rl-
N
0)
O)
N
N 00
CT CTC
G G
D D
a 0 -
PCS
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
June 2016
�
ti
r`
M
M
M
CY)
CO
CO
�
ti
ti
N
O
N
N
CD
C?
0�
CD
N
CO
N
N
CO
N
N
CO
N
N
f�
T
N
T
N
Lr)
CO
CO
Lr)
CO
tO
M
00
CO
O)
V
M
M
00
=
O')
00
C)
07
I--
CN
`N
rl-
N
0)
O)
N
N 00
CT CTC
G G
D D
a 0 -
PCS
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
June 2016

J
0
\
J
%
\
!
J
\
6
w
\
\
w
A
%
5c=�0
\\E7 70 /
° 0 CO a 2
/0)®N5
$
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf GS PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
x
x
x
x
x
0
5
w
w
w
w
w
/
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
70�
N
$
N
\
$
N
\
«
Q
+
\
\
\
9
\
\
ƒ
N
&
» a
&
r=
»
�
e
a
r
» a
c
o
&
N
I-
LO
r o s
r o
r#
e
e
r%
c=
o«
2
o
c==
\
$
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Q
C14\
q
a.
(L
\
CL
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf GS PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-16 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
O
Ln
I—
A
O
LOX
v
x
XV
X
v
X
LO
04
N
n
C
O
N
o
o
U
Ln
N
O
Lq
X
O
N
_0
A
^
_
_
\°
U)
N
r
�I
Co
v
O O C T '0
.0 O N N
I-
O
ti
ti
V
M
3 COUC Q -
0
O O N O 2
M
M
r
M
M
M
M
CO
M
N
�-
M
M -O
IL C14 O
M
r
ti
N
�
M �
O
N
Cfl O
N
LOO
N LO 7 --
M O
CO O
-
Ln
N
C6
Q
00
N CSO NN
N
co 6 i i
N \ N
QO Cfl i i
N �- N
0D i
N N
00
N N
N f-
N
N O
N ~
N
N
N
O 00
C N
C CO a U
+>
> L O Q
N Q
LO CO Cfl
O Cfl
LO O
Ln r O
Cfl CO
O Cfl
CU 0 0
O M
O
O M M
O N M
CO
O
3 O
a - U-
0 N N
U �
3
a�
M 0
M0
�
M
CO
co
M
o
D O N LL
E N = M
N
U
3 `�
L
L S
(6 O
�L
CV
N
U)
N
N
N
N
N
N
O N
U O
N
�6
Q �
N
N
N
-
N
N
N
>N
Q
Q
D
D
Q
M
a
a
a
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-16 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

0
LO
r -
A
0
LO
i`
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
Lr7
N
A
0
Ln
N
AI
v
O c >
._ O L6
`" 7 c
i O N N O
0) ch 00 O
O
> N 00
CO
- U U
CL)
O ❑
N �
7 N C
N O �
N
U) (1) - LL
O N N
U 3
� � m
>U
O
L -0 ❑
M Q0
Z3 O N LL
00
U3 `n N
L
L
76 O Li
N r -
L N
N ' 7
O N
O
CO -0
❑ L6
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
0
N
O
OL
0)
co
r-
M
M
M
M
C
M
CO
LO
v
T
00ti
C"'
N
\
N
\
N
07
t`
\
N
M
�\
00
N N
CO
W00
N
O
C0
N
CO
N
O
6
N
Cfl
CO
N
� O
C?
6
N
Cfl
00
N
Cfl
N
z
N
00
N
N —
r
N
�
r 7
N
ti
—
r
N
r
r
r
N
N
N
N
C
LO
00
CO
Ln
Co
C
Ln
LO
C
M
CO
C0
�
M
Ln
0'
M
CO
—
M
M
0')
d' M
0')
00
v
=
CO
(0
t0
0')
07
O')
07
r-
M
0')
CO
N
LC')
C
C
rl-
ti
rl-
ti
r-
Ln
=
Ln
N
N
N
N
N
r
N
N
C
r
M
LO
w
r -
M
CO
M
M
M
CO
M
CO
2
2i
2
2
2
2
D
D
D
D
:3
D
:)
D
a.
a_
a
a
a
a.
a
a_
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

J
0
\
J
%
\
!
J
\
6
w
\
\
w
A
%
5c=�«
\\E7/
° 0 CO a 2
/0)®N5
$
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
X
x
x
x
x
x
0
5
c
w
o
=
w
w
2
\
\
\
\
\
\
�
»
w=
a
e
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
r
/
a
a
/
a
/
a
/
c
\
C)
\
Co
\
\
\ \
»
\
\
\
\
\
&
&
/
&
&
® a
/
/
&
%
/
/
7 /
%
%
$
%
%
%
$
%
/
\
%
/
7
\
7
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
c
«
o04
r
M
U
/
/
§
/
a
i i
a
a
/
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-19 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
O
LO
I—
A
O
LO
X
x
X
LO
04
N
n
C
O
N
o
o
U
LO
O
Ln
x
X
O
N
_0
A
^
_
_
\°
U?
N
r
�I
CO
v
O
C T '0
.0 O N p� N
P-
ti
�
O
ti
ai
3� C O
O O N O 2
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
M
M
N
p� (n 00 --O
IL
O
NN
N
ti
O
ti
M
N
`—
N
Co00
N
LO
00 O
C6
Q
00i
N
N
N
C4 co
00 i
N N
i
N
DO
N
CO N
N
N
I-- M
N
N
N
_N
O 00
C N
C CO U U
+� >
> L O Q
N Q
LO
00 (fl
LO
LO (0 CO
CO (4
N CO
M
I— CO (0
CU O
M
N
O)
N
(O
(fl
M
N N
3 O
a - U-
0 N N
U �
3
a�
M 0
0
M
CO
N
O
O N LL
E N = 00
N
U
3 `�
L
L S
(0 O
�L
N
N
rl-
ti
r—
r—
ti
to
N
N
N
N
N
O N
U O
6
CO -0
Q co
N
Z)
D
D
D
D
d
d
a.
d
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-19 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

00
O
N
O
0)
C
U
E
(6
CU
Q
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-20 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016
O
Ln
rin
O
LO
X
^
x
is
X
Ln
N
n
rZ
N
o
ULn
N
0)
O
Ln
O
N
-j
A
_
8-°
U?
N
r
�I
(o
v
O
O C T '0
.�_ O (0 N
I-
6)
O
r—
CO
ai
3� c O
O O N O 2
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
M
M
N
p) U 00 --O
IL
O
N
O
f�
00
NM
ti
O
M
N
ti
ti
U)
(fl
O
7
00
O
Cfl
O
CO
N
C6
00
i
i
i
N
i
00
i i
OD
Q
N
CO r
N
N
C\O N
N
\
N
— N
N
N
N
fl
N
O
N
r`
O
N
ti
N
M
_n
O 00
CO N
N A > �
> L O Q
N -O
LO
Lf)
(O
O
It (0
N
L!)
00 O
I
O
jCU (0 O
O
-'t CO
—
O
O
N
M
O
CO
O
N
3 O
a - U-
0 N N
U �
3
a)
M 0
>
w
rn
ip M 0
o
Lin
r
M
ami
D O N LL
E00
N
U
3 `�
L
L S
(6 O
�L
N
N
ti
U)
N
N
N
N
N
O >
O
N
�6
Q �
LO
LO
Ul)
LO
D
Z)
D
D
a
a
0-
0-
a
00
O
N
O
0)
C
U
E
(6
CU
Q
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-20 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

J
0
\
J
%
\
!
J
\
6
w
\
\
w
A
%
5c=�0
\\E7 70 /
° 0 CO a 2
/0)®N5
$
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
x
x
x
x
x
x
0
5
»
w
w
a
Cl)
w
/
Cl)
\
\
\
\
\
�
9
09
\
&
CN
a\
9
» a
9
o
\
&
% z
/ /
e
& a
~
\
9
\
m
g
~
\cO
® \
a Q
\
&
®
\
7
/
\
Q
\
\ \
2��=
\ \
&iN
r=
s
r#
o
e
r=
o
0 CO
e
c
c
CO
e#%
c#
a—
e
m
w\«
n
2
\
7
\
\
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
3
§
a
/
\
E
�
\
E
2
\
E
/
\
E
S
§
a
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf G2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

\
@ @ 9
CO CO CO
w w
e
®
_ ®
\
a
2
a 2
!
CO
8-0
LO
\
11
x
C
\
N Q
§
!
\
)
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
w
A
%
0
.0
\\
°/ k
CO
c ) � 2 2
/
�5>'
_
e ®
/ \
$
/
\ \
& Q
%/c
> 0n
% \ O
\ /
% ® \ \
LL
\ { /
g=.
�
7�0
$/§o
#
/ } / \
/$2^
Q)
#o/
(D
7\
\
® _ $
mso
�3\
\
@ @ 9
CO CO CO
w w
e
®
_ ®
& 2
a
2
a 2
CO
/
\
N C\1
C Q
C
Q
N Q
% % \
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf GD PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016
\
\
\
\
/
§
0
)
/
/
/
\
Paw u Lands Restoration sb Raaf GD PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report 2e 2016

a U) LO
2 o
U rn
O
r r O
�2 r
0 0 Co
O
O
O M f-- LO
O co O N O
O O O O
-t N
O
N @
a o >
co
M N
j @
O"t 00 I�
LO � D O 0 M
� 00 (O O I- (D (0 Cb O
't
W LO 0 N
V
N
LO
LO M r
0) Cl)
r O O V"
Cb
r � CO
f-- LO O LO
Cb 00 r r
1--
d1 �
C7N`
>
>
M
N NOOW000M(0O
M
�
M M
0 LO
M�
�
N)
a Q
LC
(0
CO t
b
00
N
CU
O
O O
L)
0) O W aO N- Cl)
V 0 00 N C0 It N I- co
NO
MN Cl)
O 0)
O
W r"
CON
I- 0
LCI)'IT
N r
M
rn
E
U
O
M
h
N O
r
Lf)
r 0^
(D O r r
M r 0 I�
M (fl
co
O
r
r
LO
O �
N
A
N O
O
N
M
M
O
LO
N N
MO
O
co CIQ
cc
Q
LO ��^
0 00
Cl)N
r �NLO
r
N
LO
N
Cp
O
CO Ch LO
M M O CO V
LO O LO O
M C0 r --O N
M CO rLO LO (.0 P-
00 M M M N N (fl
O O O LO CO
N co O I�
CMO OJ
Cp (A
U)
r N r
h r
P.- 0) 00
r
LO Co O
CO r
r
N r
W�
E
(D
O
LO -t
N N
00
O N r 0)
O�
MCY)
O Cl) C) M
O O O
O O O N
r
0Mj
C
N
CO
m
>
_O O
(0 O
d1 M
I - V
LO Cb h
M't (0 O T
Lf)
N
U')
M
O W 0)
00 O N I-
LO (0 r
Cr) O N CV (0
O O �
N M O
Mt V
I-- Cl)
CSO co
CA LO
Q
r N r
h r
I- 0) co
LO CO LO
CO
r
N
a) d'
r
C6 N
NO'000
O N
V
r LO N
1.0 M O
(D M
00 V
M Cb C
O
CO O Cb N
Ln N
cl�
Cl) M
M
Cl)
(D P-
W O
M -
0) @
r N r
r
O (0 (D
W
r
N r
co LO
CO Q
f--
� U
CU �t
CU
m .-
(D
E
° c
E
E
M
°
m m
C
o
0
0
O
y C2
E
U
Y O
CZ
to
O j
U
cB
°
O
@ ° (V
@
..O-
C6 N
cY0
O E
O. L
(U
Q c
N
c
M ° U
m (0 N O
N °
>'
co
o
o
m
�'
o o .Q
°
3
M
0 0= 0-
°° v
0 E�.0
v
3
°
E
m 2 E
m L 0
E a
co
a°i
a`>
>
c a°i
L—°
_0° a5 o
Co
C1
0
_o
oo
m E
o
F=
ani
o `°
2°
L6 0>
c
m> 3
m— s
3 w 3 5
3 5
cn
—
Q CD
m a
Cn
°
O cn
U m Q
U) a o
Cn 0-1
42
co
a .Cz
Ca
o f
W
m
Cam>
0 CU
C
o°
m
m m m
.0 0
c
@ m
ECU
Q) CU
CO)
a
�
Z
M
yEm
°
m
aUO m4
Q
m
Q
C
"
co Cr
a .°O
O
L
a
O cB
mC
0- N0
O
mV
U w
'
O
c)
i O ,Qc
N
Cn
N0
11
.O
N
•E LB
E .�
co N a h h
c
i
-Q - N V
� t i p,
t m �
z
m
t i
0 m
m E
c >@ E
o X
CO
m
(n-iQmUUULL
M E
a� Lo
zZza'aa00a00da�-5co�Uo_Za
.0
0
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

70
\
/
/
LO
W\\
« m� a
o/ N 2 N o
o r/ o\,
o
%#Q
X22
n
g/ S/ 0 2 2 2/ 2 8 2=
CO 0
2'
j\
±/ 8 2=
2\ 2/ o@
2
o g/ 0
2'
o
Q a= m
o 7 r$
o= 2 0\=
u
\§
\�
o o
o� CO r o o
o m o 0
2
m
§ Cl)
(n/
\ _
$
#
/ a= a
o\ g o
o=- 0\
w
7 g
^
a®
c a =
r / CO §
r = % / a
/
-
/
\ k
U)
E
\�
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0#
a o o
w
o\®
to
®°
0
j
/
C14 a)
r/= 3 N N 04
r
a 2/ a\»/
k§
00
% o
\ \
/ = r
r g =Garan
= / 2 —
'Co
2
%
k 2
2 ,
a
o
LO
e
\co
kCn
w
0 S
W
(
E
>
j
§k
E
ƒ
2 E °
0 EL
Q
2
m
»
-0\
j
§
% m 0
$ 2
m
o s«/
m
E
\ \ \ \
\ k D
,
\
§ § /
)
/
(
_
§ _ /
_ 0- E
_
o
\%/
{ 2 2) k S a
U
>
k= —
%
5
} / d \
ƒ } \ f ƒ }
j
/ } k
j
a
CO
(
%
!
co
(
/
\
k
!
@ y % t
//
! 2 7
#
E
@
g E®
2 /@,§
t 7 f%\
Q/ y
E
\ i/
° s / °
2
2\
/
m
2
2o» a ®
o$
E
°
$cE
2 3 E G
1-- %/§
! B'
8%$�
-C
1< e e e
o G
e �.2�-j-j
I
I> a N
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 a& PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Repo, 2m 2016

AURORA
i
-{{{--t✓� :4. CORRIDOREK
ao.n,Ro� F
1 - '
SOUTH CREEK P LANDS �o
CORRIDOR �p
PHASE2
-.- ---
-- PHASE 11
.. <
—PHASE2
HOLLOWELL TRACT - P LANDS "-
PHASE 3
x.
m PHASE 3
- ear cITr�F'RRM 4 PHASE 1 epY
PHASE 4 P LANDS PARKER FARM
U LANDS SECTIONS A—J
LAT: 35'14'15.04"R OMAN - --
.. LONG: 76"46'19.20'.
CONTROL'•
SITE
- PHASE 4 cnsEr TRACT - -_
U LANDS P LANDS
U LANDS
=k -
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND 0 5,500 11,000
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH CAROLINA VICINITY M A P
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
SITE LOCATION
P LANDS PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, P LANDS_VIC_
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 05/05/16 FILE -
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH1 2015
WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET. '41v CP#1745.59.32.1
�Z ^ 4N, COLLEGE ACRESUI DRIVE
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGES, NC STATEPLANE, lV_ K
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]

4I
h�
J
BAY CITY FARM
PHASE 4
SOUTH CREEK CANAL U LANDS
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
I
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC -2
r n
RC -3
o Z
\
_
J LPHA I'
c
UOK
0:DS Z
Z
�;7)0
O
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.
N I BAY CITY No. 2.
P LANDS
Do
D
0
D
O
UA
O
O
to
PLPS 5
ROYAL ROAD of
P LANDS
\-76
o
SMALL ROAD
PLPS 6
BAY CITY No. ti
.,37 41� 42
35 39• i.
%38 128
�36 27
0 t9
32 25 26
i3 31 24
t4 0. 3
BAY C 21_ 23
,9 P LA ,ND
20 op
�11
11 12
18
14� 10
%17V _—
LINE ROAD�IJPLPS 1
COUNTY -
SMALL ROAD
56 52000 47
9 ® 54 50�
55 I� P LANDS Willb
60 _53 151 49 41448
7 �b
IPLPS 41
PLPS 3
PLPS 2
LEGEND
PLPS 7
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
TREE SAMPLING PLOT
O WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY
NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
PLPS 1
D CONTROL WELL
AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE 1:
D ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST
0 ZONE 4 POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
® ZONE 4A POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
0 ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1
O ZONE 6 HARDWOOD FLAT 2
0 ZONE 7 SWALES
MONITORING LOCATIONS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 1,800 3,600 DATE: 05/05/16 FILE: 2015NDS_WELL_PH1
ku" 4 CP#1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
TEL [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL ANTSS FAX [phone] FIGURE 2

ROYAL ROAD
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.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
P LANDS
SMALL ROAD
°59 PO °56
° 58 54
60 0 57 55("—
52° 50 °47
46
49 °
53 51 Wd ° 48
LEGEND
;45
1
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.)
0 CONTROL WELL
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)
Q HYDRIC SOILS
® NON -HYDRIC SOILS
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
SOILS
W
P AND U
LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 1,800 3,600
-+
SMALL ROAD
DATE: 6
05/2 1
/1
CP#1745.59.32.1
SCALE IN FEET
< PHAS
4709 COLLEGE ACRESuITE DRI 2
NORTH CAROLINA 28403
WILMINGTONORAT
FAX [phone]
FIGURE 3
Zl SE 3
O
D
v
U
A
o
0
Da
N
`J
PHASES
TaB
BAY CITY NO' 4
41
°44
J
PHASE 1
37 042
�U
BAY CITY FARM
35 39
43
Wd
°
PHASE 4
34
°40
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
U LANDS
38 2
Da
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
33
P LANDS"30
®27
°29
25
32 ° 31
26
•24
RODMAN
®33
CITY N° °
°23
Po CONTROL
BAY 22
°19
RC -1 SITE
RC -2
r-0
°20 .21
oil
RC -3
mc
Po 12
18
o
016 °14
°10
ASE 4
N
CITY No. 2
15 13°
To UH LANDS
BAY
°
°17
1
g
ED
O
BAY CITY° No
3
Z o
Z
D
°7
� v
®
1 6
°8
70
P LANDS
°2 4®
° U LANDS
5
v
Po
o
COUNTY LINE
ROAD
D
wm
Z
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.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
P LANDS
SMALL ROAD
°59 PO °56
° 58 54
60 0 57 55("—
52° 50 °47
46
49 °
53 51 Wd ° 48
LEGEND
;45
1
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.)
0 CONTROL WELL
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)
Q HYDRIC SOILS
® NON -HYDRIC SOILS
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
SOILS
P AND U
LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 1,800 3,600
PLANDS—SOILS—PH1—
FILE:
2015
DATE: 6
05/2 1
/1
CP#1745.59.32.1
SCALE IN FEET
7
VUbegr' ` R
INCORED,
ENVIRONMENTAL CCONSULTANTS
4709 COLLEGE ACRESuITE DRI 2
NORTH CAROLINA 28403
WILMINGTONORAT
FAX [phone]
FIGURE 3

NO 1'
f
10
F s iPHASEPHASE 2
00 SMALL ROAD PHASE
056 520 e
n • 59 54 50• 47 F�F
i 1 M • 46 4 i ,P
58
SMALL ROAD • P LAND ® p
PHASE 2 60 • 55 53 51 49 48 90
D' PHASE 3 D _ J7 • e •
N
PHASE3
e -
PHASE 1
& N _ LEGEND
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
CITY NO. 044 OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
4i. PHASE3 •37 BAY 410 42
�' GJ PHASE I 039 • ROADS
BAY CITY FARM ®35
t � :3 ® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
• PHASE 4 _111111111`411w 34 038 ®0 •28 WELL LOCATION
SOUTH CREEK CANAL U LANDS • 36 ®7 CONTROL WELL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/ 4
JAIME ROAD ®30 29 25
-ftV033 CITY 3 •32 e31 • 924 26
Legend
- w _ -
RODMAN BAY 2
CONTROL - e 2 23 P LANDS Elevation in Feet
RC -1 SITE 19 Value
RC -2 t rC� 20 021 Oil 0 - 2
z0 • 2
RC -3 me • 2-4
r Z 18
o 1 16 � e10 4-5
PHASE 4 - • 5-6
U LANDS C ! N BAY CITY NO' Z 017 015 •13 e9
_ 6-7
0 A BAY 03TY NO. 7 0 7-8
O • Q 8-9
70 0 1e e g _ 9-10
73 P LANDS 4 6 10-11
o U LANDS 5 11-12
0UNT LINE ROAD ® 12-13
Y
o CO N N � 13-14
Z w
� � m 14-15
15-16
O
D Q 16-21
v
021-a8
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE DATE: 06/ 08/ 16 FILE: PLANDS—PHI—WELL—
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, LIDAR-2015—FIG4
NAD 1983 FEET. 0 1,800 3,600
Vr
� CP#1745.59.32.1
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND 7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
PAMLICO COUNTIES, LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET, L SUITE 2
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM SCALE IN FEET WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTALC NSu ANTS FAX 9I0 392-9139 FIGURE 4

16
NOTE: Rainfall source from 2-6 June 2015 and 20 June 2015 comes from the PA2 rain gauge due the Bay City rain gauge being clogged.
Rainfall source from 10 Aug 2015 to 8 Oct 2015 from the PA2 rain gauge due to an animal attack on the Bay City rain gauge.
14 "Range of Normal" and "Aurora 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
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.htm.
12 11Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total" refers to monthly totals from the PCS -Aurora 6 N NOAA Station.
Periods of above normal rainfall include 3 June -5 July, 2 October -1 November, and 18 November -6 December 2015.
c
4-
10
4-
2-
>- 8
L
C
O
et
6
c�
T •
4 -
•
2
0
ti� ti� ti� tih tih tih ti� ti� ti� tih tih
eQotia 0
Q) 0ti tiP tis y� �O
0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Bay City Daily Rainfall — Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2015 Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total
30% Less Chance 30% More Chance 2015 Bay City Monthly Rainfall
Figure 5. 2015 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL

J�
1
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
A)/
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
O = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (10.62 ACRES)
O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (22.61 ACRES)
O = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (103.75 ACRES)
O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (557.59 ACRES)
e = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (201.67 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.
co
D
(7
PHASE 2
PHASE3 m
0
D
N
A
O
O
N
BAY CITY FARM
PHASE 4
U LANDS
RODMAN I
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC-2zo
rn
RC -3 r" C:
o �0 _
PHASE 4
U LANDS
m �
0 A
Z 0
Z D
m o
U LANDS
0
0
D
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.
N I BAY CITY No. 2
P LANDS
MALL ROAD
p37 BAY C41
NO. `* 044
42
039 0
035
-� 040
34® 038 028
36� 1 0'
033
1�
ROAD
COUNTY
1030 29 `
0
No• 3
22 23
L�,I N O 'A
D .
p11
®8
1
16 ol0
0
015
017
10
BENFEWELL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD �
ROYAL ROAD
S
059 � o
C5
g4 50 47
p 58 P D S 46 4 0
60I 0 + 87 55 o 53 51 49 48 /
I O O
26
0 13 0 1,800 3,600
09
No, 1
7 SCALE IN FEET
O 0
6 8
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
5 12015 LONGEST HYDROPERIODS AND ESTIMATED HYDROLOGIC ZONES
HYDROLOGIC
LEGEND
ZONES
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA O
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
—
ROADS O
®
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS 0
O
WELL LOCATION
D
CONTROL WELL
O
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
J�
1
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
A)/
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
O = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (10.62 ACRES)
O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (22.61 ACRES)
O = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (103.75 ACRES)
O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (557.59 ACRES)
e = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (201.67 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.
co
D
(7
PHASE 2
PHASE3 m
0
D
N
A
O
O
N
BAY CITY FARM
PHASE 4
U LANDS
RODMAN I
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC-2zo
rn
RC -3 r" C:
o �0 _
PHASE 4
U LANDS
m �
0 A
Z 0
Z D
m o
U LANDS
0
0
D
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.
N I BAY CITY No. 2
P LANDS
MALL ROAD
p37 BAY C41
NO. `* 044
42
039 0
035
-� 040
34® 038 028
36� 1 0'
033
1�
ROAD
COUNTY
1030 29 `
0
No• 3
22 23
L�,I N O 'A
D .
p11
®8
1
16 ol0
0
015
017
10
BENFEWELL ROAD
ROYAL ROAD �
ROYAL ROAD
S
059 � o
C5
g4 50 47
p 58 P D S 46 4 0
60I 0 + 87 55 o 53 51 49 48 /
I O O
26
0 13 0 1,800 3,600
09
No, 1
7 SCALE IN FEET
O 0
6 8
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND RODMAN
5 12015 LONGEST HYDROPERIODS AND ESTIMATED HYDROLOGIC ZONES

J�
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
b PHASE 4
U LANDS G1
w
0 A
z O
Z D
m 0
U LANDS
0
0
3
D
Z
A
O
D
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.
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
0 = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (10.62 ACRES)
O = >6 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (22.61 ACRES)
0 = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (103.75 ACRES)
O = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (759.26 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.
co
D
=H SMALL ROAD
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 m
0
D
N
.TJ
O
O
N
ROYAL ROAD
Y
CITY N°• - 044
PHASE3 037 BA 410 42
BAY CITY FARM PHASE • 5 039
0
p43
PHASE 4
U LANDS 340 038 �O28:)
36 p 7
°30 29
°32 ° 25 26
p33 31 0 24
BAY CITY 2a 3 23
19 P LA N D
0
E:o 20 021 p11
mo ° 02
1
o 16 1
4 010
0
N BAY CITY NO 2 015 013
017 09
BAY C'TY No 1
0
P LANDS 0 4 6 a
COUNTLME Y
ROAD
BENFEWELL ROAD
SMALL ROAD
059 056
p 58
60tl ° 8Z 55'
R
520
500
P �LA (D�,��-�
O �+ _
47
46 40 �p0
448 I 90
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
HYDROLOGIC
LEGEND
ZONES
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
D
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
0
ROADS
D
+
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
D
O
WELL LOCATION
0
CONTROL WELL
O
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
J�
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
b PHASE 4
U LANDS G1
w
0 A
z O
Z D
m 0
U LANDS
0
0
3
D
Z
A
O
D
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.
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
0 = <6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (10.62 ACRES)
O = >6 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (22.61 ACRES)
0 = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (103.75 ACRES)
O = >25 - 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (759.26 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.
co
D
=H SMALL ROAD
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 m
0
D
N
.TJ
O
O
N
ROYAL ROAD
Y
CITY N°• - 044
PHASE3 037 BA 410 42
BAY CITY FARM PHASE • 5 039
0
p43
PHASE 4
U LANDS 340 038 �O28:)
36 p 7
°30 29
°32 ° 25 26
p33 31 0 24
BAY CITY 2a 3 23
19 P LA N D
0
E:o 20 021 p11
mo ° 02
1
o 16 1
4 010
0
N BAY CITY NO 2 015 013
017 09
BAY C'TY No 1
0
P LANDS 0 4 6 a
COUNTLME Y
ROAD
BENFEWELL ROAD
SMALL ROAD
059 056
p 58
60tl ° 8Z 55'
R
520
500
P �LA (D�,��-�
O �+ _
47
46 40 �p0
448 I 90
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET

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 fourth annual (2015) 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 Fourth 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
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Unknown
?
7
3
1
12
9
6
7
1
9
2
15
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
4
3
6
3
5
2
2
1
11
4
21
6
10
7
4
2
12
2
3
5
1
6
1
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
2
4
1
3
2
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush'
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
1
6
5
1
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
1
3
2
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
6
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
2
9
8
8
2
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
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
Maquatica
19
19
1
2
8
10
13
15
9
9
19
20
12
10
22
18
2
2
19
16
8
8
6
7
19
19
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
12
8
7
35
34
3
2
2
2
10
8
4
3
13
13
9
9
17
15
25
25
30
28
11
11
Red bay
Persea borbonia
4
5
6
6
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
5
1
3
12
2
1
3
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
1
23
12
19
11
3
15
9
54
16
22
7
6
4
4
1
2
1
4
4
15
3
5
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
16
14
9
11
19
18
12
6
22
9
22
19
15
19
11
9
12
5
23
8
20
18
13
11
7
2
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
4
8
4
18
17
12
6
9
8
37
27
42
15
32
5
26
16
30
5
22
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
44
39
22
17
29
22
3
1
20
8
21
12
32
11
17
10
9
4
9
1
15
9
17
6
12
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
2
1
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
5
5
10
10
19
19
6
6
10
9
10
11
7
6
43
41
28
27
18
18
42
42
5
6
29
29
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
6
9
2
2
1
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
1
1
TOTAL
123
106
98
68
161
139
83
51
113
52
187
122
137
70
164
132
113
67
145
69
143
122
130
70
148
69
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-1

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 4
10
Zone 3
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Total
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
5
8
1
2
52
75
76
2
4
93
2
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
17
2
7
6
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
3
1
4
5
11
12
Paw paw
Asima triloba
4
4
5
5
15
15
5
4
7
7
17
17
River birch
Betula nigra
15
4
20
1
15
28
13
9
8
5
15
4
1
1
161
56
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
14
2
19
10
22
12
21
5
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
10
5
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
135
82
146
126
146
114
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush"
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
14
13
71
70
32
30
37
25
163
144
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
3
1
1
15
8
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
4
4
1
5
4
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
22
7
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
1
1
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
29
17
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
8
7
3
5
5
29
28
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
2
2
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
2
2
2
2
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
18
20
18
18
17
17
16
14
10
10
12
11
248
245
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
18
14
26
25
6
6
4
5
20
20
8
8
7
6
268
253
Red bay
Persea borbonia
12
12
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
1
1
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
1
1
33
White oak
Q. alba
1
1
1
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
2
5
1
4
2
7
4
13
4
17
15
16
2
239
99
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
24
8
22
2
12
7
5
5
24
21
10
6
9
4
307
202
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
28
12
18
16
6
43
31
8
2
14
2
2
369
161
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
23
17
8
9
5
4
24
14
29
6
23
5
371
186
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
3
1
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
28
28
15
15
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
15
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
2
TOTAL
166
110
159
77
174
146
152
125
144
110
157
94
108
52
2,805
1,851
Zone 4
10
11
12
14
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
6
6
7
12
6
1
8
1
2
1
55
52
75
76
2
17
2
7
6
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
4
5
20
19
24
22
4
4
5
5
15
15
5
4
7
7
17
17
3
2
7
4
5
3
15
28
13
5
7
10
18
26
4
1
14
2
19
10
22
12
21
5
1
14
7
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
2
2
185
163
135
82
146
126
146
114
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-2

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 4A
2
Zone 4
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
16
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1st
4th
Unknown
?
20
4
3
1
4
10
6
18
1
15
7
17
66
1
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
19
8
19
9
1
1
19
14
3
1
48
48
14
14
4
2
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
188
123
209
118
192
110
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
6
1
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
10
1
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
64
63
42
42
13
9
249
243
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
2
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
1
23
19
1
1
26
21
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
2
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
2
10
6
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
/tea virginica
1
5
4
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
5
5
4
4
9
9
1
2
5
4
2
2
11
12
5
4
80
80
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
1
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
7
1
2
2
10
9
3
2
18
13
1
1
5
5
1
1
95
80
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
18
25
23
20
20
50
48
46
46
39
38
9
8
26
26
256
255
Red bay
Persea borbonia
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
1
29
16
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
17
19
7
1
11
36
13
19
1
16
27
26
18
17
5
3
152
206
Sycamore
P/atanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
5
3
3
2
1
3
1
19
3
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
14
6
6
7
24
8
10
1
5
2
9
2
7
2
12
3
143
55
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
2
4
2
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
27
17
28
28
12
18
5
27
22
21
11
5
2
32
1
226
78
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
1
1
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
U/mus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
2
4
3
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
101
80
84
45
128
116
111
83
153
142
191
158
137
121
116
56
1,633
1,286
Zone 4A
2
3
4
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
9
16
1
18
18
25
29
34
9
1
4
37
37
58
56
27
20
17
10
6
20
18
24
15
20
17
21
12
16
14
19
8
19
9
49
12
19
14
28
29
48
48
14
14
1
188
123
209
118
192
110
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-3

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 5
25
Zone 4A
6
7
8
9
13
15
Total
1 st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
Unknown
?
7
2
8
3
21
3
6
6
5
3
76
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
2
2
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
2
1
1
Paw paw
Asima triloba
1
1
4
4
River birch
Betula nigra
1
1
10
7
7
7
3
5
3
3
3
4
14
14
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
48
46
41
39
18
17
3
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
4
1
1
11
22
13
128
47
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
3
4
21
28
3
11
12
9
7
90
3
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
22
11
56
54
21
18
9
9
7
2
22
20
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
11
7
9
2
31
10
23
15
7
6
3
3
20
18
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
63
64
54
55
27
26
65
50
81
82
358
344
Sweet pepperbush
C/ethra alnifolia
78
53
160
98
194
172
145
115
96
74
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
4
2
1
26
4
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
6
1
12
7
6
96
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
/tea virginica
4
1
10
8
3
19
6
8
6
10
7
70
28
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
2
1
2
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
9
8
24
24
25
22
12
5
16
15
36
35
186
159
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
15
11
19
11
39
29
14
9
10
8
24
16
177
118
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
32
13
20
29
14
5
6
22
25
22
30
186
162
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
1
1
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
U/mus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
155
134
162
144
180
94
177
93
211
164
163
127
1,637
1,107
Zone 5
25
27
28
29
30
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
8
3
8
3
8
6
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
10
7
7
7
3
5
3
3
3
4
14
14
34
34
48
46
41
39
18
17
3
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
2
2
1
5
2
20
4
18
12
10
7
3
1
1
22
11
56
54
21
18
9
9
7
2
22
20
32
22
11
7
9
2
31
10
23
15
7
6
3
3
20
18
28
27
13
14
15
15
27
26
2
78
53
160
98
194
172
145
115
96
74
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-4

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 6
Zone 5
31
32
33
34
36
38
46
47
60
Total
2
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Common name Scientific name
Unknown
?
1
1
2
57
12
57
4
25
7
25
20
1
1
1
7
10
7
47
3
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
1
1
1
35
21
35
21
14
13
14
13
25
15
25
15
6
2
6
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
165
232
165
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
5
2
1
4
4
6
2
15
1
61
12
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
1
9
6
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
1
4
4
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
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
4
3
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
6
1
6
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
1
6
6
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
3
3
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
21
19
19
18
5
5
21
18
1
1
24
22
33
28
34
29
7
9
191
175
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
11
11
24
27
37
36
32
32
9
7
12
12
37
37
47
46
19
18
383
376
Red bay
Persea borbonia
13
11
4
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
36
28
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
4
6
5
1
1
4
1
32
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
4
5
1
4
1
11
21
7
4
3
1
4
3
8
4
115
43
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
28
5
34
12
44
23
17
2
15
15
18
15
28
31
15
10
12
3
320
208
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
2
18
2
9
4
14
3
23
14
15
14
34
34
19
16
206
138
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
19
2
10
1
55
27
18
3
9
5
4
4
2
190
78
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
16
16
19
18
23
23
7
7
34
34
15
15
24
25
24
24
53
56
318
318
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
2
2
4
2
10
2
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
111
53
160
92
201
124
132
66
131
86
107
93
162
155
146
128
128
91
1,951
1,400
Zone 6
35
Total
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
8
8
2
2
2
2
14
8
14
8
3
3
3
3
26
24
26
24
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
57
47
57
47
25
20
25
20
1
1
7
6
7
6
3
1
3
1
1
1
35
21
35
21
14
13
14
13
25
15
25
15
6
2
6
2
232
165
232
165
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-5

Appendix A. (concluded)
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-6
Zone 7
1
17
Total
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Common name Scientific name
Unknown
?
11
19
30
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
4
1
1
9
5
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
4
29
1
52
5
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
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
32
32
22
14
54
46
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
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
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
58
56
34
32
92
88
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
132
96
107
48
239
144
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fourth Annual Report A-6

/_1„a1►1QPAN :3
Selected Fourth Annual (2015) 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 2), direction of view, and date taken.
PLPS-1: northeast, top photo 10 December 2015, bottom photo 30 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

I
/f�f /ifs � {j �� �` • �. i�G � A{ � ! I � d 'M '"`k� Er.
'✓Y .��`� .C� -�;`� moi` f,• .�'.i,�l„ ��„�1.,y �:.i� }�, i�l= �� ,..��'~�M�� � .s .�`��
itk �� t � �� f ��/� � _ j` •4

-q-, -, AT, � -N.1qr-Nwr;
Of
.0 1
IVA

PLPS 4: southeast, top photo 10 December 2015, bottom photo 30 October; white poles
mark trees in plots.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

PLPS-5: southeast, top photo 10 December 2015, bottom photo 23 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

PLPS-6: east southeast, top photo 10 December 2015, bottom photo 23 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016

PLPS-7: northwest, top photo 10 December 2015, bottom photo 23 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report June 2016