20081317 Ver 1_As Built Report_20110302

PotashCorp
Helping Nature Provide
Certified Mail
February 28, 2011
Mr. David Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Lekson:
`g???wf
k!AR 2 2011
DENR - tN/tTE?? QU
Enclosed is the "As-Built Report for the Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed Mitigation Site
Pantego Township Beaufort County, North Carolina". Earthwork was initiated on the mitigation
site in July 2009 and planting was complete in May 2010. Minor additional earthwork was done
in September 2010. We are providing your copy unbound, as you requested. If you have any
questions, please call me at [phone], or Julia Berger of CZR Incorporated at
[phone].
incerely, If I- lit C- V~
Jeffrey . Furness
Senior Scientist
PC: John Dorney, DWQ-Raleigh w/encl.
Al Hodge, DWQ - Wash. w/ encl.
R.M. Smith w/o encl.
M. Brom w/o encl.
J. Hudgens, CZR w/encl.
J. Ricketts, JTR w/encl.
K. Tweedy, Baker w/encl.
S. Cooper, CZR w/o encl.
J. Berger, CZR w/o encl.
23-11-019 w/encl.
05-?3?-1
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T(252)322-4111
PCS Phosphate www.potashcorp.com
AS-BUILT REPORT FOR THE
HELL SWAMP/SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED MITIGATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
Wilmington, North Carolina
February 2011
08- 13 ?7
AS-BUILT REPORT FOR THE
HELL SWAMP/SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED MITIGATION SITE
PANTEGO TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Q@
MAR 2 2011
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
•
CZR INCORPORATED
Wilmington, North Carolina
February 2011
11
•
E
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Location .................................................................................................... ..............1
1.2 Goal .......................................................................................................... ..............1
2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND AS-BUILT TOPOGRAPHY .............................................. ............... 2
2.1 Access Roads ........................................................................................... ..............2
2.2 Restoration of Wetland Flats .................................................................... ..............3
2.3 Restoration of Streams and Riparian Headwater Systems ...................... ..............4
2.3.1 Construction ...................................................................................... ..............4
2.3.2 Design Project Reaches and As-built Slopes .................................... ..............5
2.4 As-built Topography ................................................................................. ..............6
3.0 ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION ADJUSTMENTS ......................................................... ............... 6
4.0 VEGETATION ......................................................................................................... ...............7
4.1 Restoration Planting ................................................................................. ..............7
4.2 Existing Vegetation ................................................................................... ..............8
4.3 Adjustments to Planting Plan .................................................................... ..............8
5.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ............................................................... ............... 9
5.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................. ..............9
5.1.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems) ............10
5.1.2 Hardwood Flat .................................................................................... ............10
5.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................ ............10
5.2.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems) ............10
5.2.2 Hardwood Flat .................................................................................... ............10
5.3 Hydrogeomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys .............................. ............10
5.4 Control Forest Wetlands ........................................................................... ............11
5.5 Fixed Point Photo-Stations ....................................................................... ............11
REFERENCES .............................................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Erosion and sediment control permit application details .............................. 3
Table 2 Summary of reach/segment characteristics, lengths, and design channel
forms for project stream reaches compared to as-built conditions ............... 5
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed ii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hell Swamp Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Hell Swamp Construction Phases
Figure 3 Pre- restoration LiDAR
Figure 4 As-built LiDAR Contours
Figure 5 Stream Mitigation Map Hell Swamp Site
Figure 6 Planting Plan
Figure 7 Monitoring Locations-Hydrology, Vegetation, Photographs
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Appendix A CAMA Permit Modification for Stream Crossings
Appendix B Nursery Certifications
Appendix C Baker As-built Plans and Stream Cross Sections and Profiles
Appendix D Selected Photographs
•
•
•
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1,297-acre Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed mitigation site is a significant
component of the compensatory mitigation for future unavoidable impacts to wetlands
and waters as authorized by Section 404 Permit Action ID 200110096 and the Section
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ #2008-0868, version 2.0 (Figure 1). Both of these
approvals were issued after evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation (US Army Corps of Engineers 2008) and as
described in the Compensatory Section 404/401 Mitigation Plan Comprehensive
Approach In Support of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. L Alternative Mine
Continuation (First 15 Years NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts) (found in Volume III,
Appendix I, US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008). The project is described in further
detail in Attachment D of the NC Division of Coastal Management's major permit
application dated July 2009. Restoration activities were authorized by the NC Division of
Coastal Management and CAMA major development permit 83-09 and the NC Division
of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control Permits, which were issued for 11
separate phases (Table 1 and Figure 2). The site encompasses almost the complete
Scott Creek watershed and a portion of the watersheds of Smith Creek and Broad
Creek. Consequently, the Hell Swamp restoration project should be resilient to external
and upstream perturbations that can sometimes jeopardize mitigation projects.
PCS Phosphate selected CZR Incorporated (CZR) to lead the design, construction, and
monitoring programs assisted by Michael Baker Engineering Inc, of Cary, North Carolina
and Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. River Works, Inc was
• selected as the contractor providing both grading and planting of the re-established
wetlands.
1.1 Location. The Hell Swamp site is located on the southwest side of Seed Tick
Neck Road (SR 1714) south of NC Highway 264 in Beaufort County. The site is located
approximately 2 miles east-southeast (straight-line distance) of the town of Yeatesville,
Pantego Township, North Carolina and can be found on the USGS Pantego quadrangle
(Figure 1). The approximate center of the site is located at +35.522856 latitude and -
76.680750 longitude (35°31'22.28"N and 76°40'50.70"W). The site is located within the
Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico river basin within the Pungo
Creek subbasin and is drained by Scott Creek and Smith Creek. Figure 3 shows the
pre-restoration LiDAR for the Hell Swamp site.
1.2 Goal. The primary goal of the project was to restore a self-sustaining
functional watershed and wetland/stream complex where surface flow moves through
vegetated wetlands before reaching any stream with the minimum amount of earthwork.
Over time, with the removal of the field crowns and drainage ditches and implementation
of other restoration activities, the Hell Swamp site is expected to successfully:
re-establish approximately:
• 19,783 linear feet (LF) of zero and first-order stream, including the
restoration of six riparian headwater systems and three low
energy streams;
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
21 acres of Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer, with additional potential •
buffer opportunity if suitable stream segments form in the riparian
headwater systems,
58 acres of riparian forested hardwood wetland (headwater forest,
bottomland hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest), with
some additional enhancement potential; and
808 acres non-riverine hardwood flat; and
preserve or rehabilitate:
• 40 acres of non-riverine hardwood flat including a 34-acre "state
or regionally significant" mature hardwood flat;
• 28 acres of riverine swamp forest/bottomland hardwood forest;
• 18 acres of non-riverine hardwood flat; and
• 200 acres of areas mapped as uplands on the county soil survey.
An additional 103 acres underlain by hydric soils are included as "potential non-
wetland" areas due to drainage effects from perimeter ditches that must remain open.
Approximately 34 acres at the head of the watershed is mature non-riverine wet
hardwood forest (the Windley tract), and will be preserved to help mitigate for impacts to
the Bonnerton non-riverine wet hardwood area. The Windley tract, the Plum's Pit tract,
and the Winfield tract are nearby hardwood forested wetlands at similar elevations to
portions of Hell Swamp underlain by several of the soil series found on Hell Swamp.
These tracts will be monitored as hydrologic controls for the restored hydrology of the
Hell Swamp site (Figure 3). •
2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND AS-BUILT TOPOGRAPHY
Restoration work involved two areas-wetland flats and headwater streams-and focused
on removal of the manmade drainage features and reestablishment of variable
hydrological conditions of a duration and frequency typical of interstream wet flats and
riparian wetlands (including riparian headwater systems) of coastal North Carolina.
Work occurred in 11 phases from 1 July 2009 until 22 June 2010 and began in areas not
subject to CAMA jurisdiction. Minor additional work for three stream crossings occurred
during the week of 13 September 2010. What was originally thought to be a single
grave, but later determined to consist of several graves were located on the site was
relocated in coordination with the NC State Historic Preservation Office and in
compliance with all applicable state statutes.
2.1 Access Roads. Prior to restoration earthwork, there were three road
entrances into the site from Seed Tick Neck Road. As part of restoration work activities,
the eastern most main entrance road (the "farm road") from Seed Tick Neck Road was
moved 1,700 feet east to the parcel boundary (Driveway No. 1 on Figure 4), the minor
middle entrance road was removed, and the other entrance remained at its present
location (about 5,500 feet west from the intersection of Seed Tick Neck Road with
NC99); two additional entrances were added, one just south of Scott Creek along NC99
(-- 3,000 feet from Seed Tick Neck Road intersection with NC99; Driveway No. 2 on
Figure 4) and the second along the southern site boundary off of Pungo Creek Road
(SR1715) just west of Smith Creek (Driveway No. 3 on Figure 4). These additional •
entrances and several access roads are located on the perimeter of the site, often within
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
• the area expected to be effectively drained by perimeter ditches that must remain open.
The access roads will be used during monitoring and post-monitoring by the
conservation easement holder and others authorized by the holder.
•

2.2 Restoration of Wetland Flats. The crowned fields were leveled by pushing
the soil with bulldozers, from the center of the fields to the interior ditches, until the
ditches were filled and an even slope was established between the center of one field
and the centers of the adjacent fields on either side. The alignment of contours was
irregular, as would be typical of an undisturbed site. Design contours and grades were
staked in the field and then verified by construction personnel and the engineer during
construction with the use of laser level equipment. As expected, minor changes in the
locations of the contours occurred.
The culverts that joined the ditches to the interior and perimeter canals were
removed. Excavators were used to remove stumps, debris, and culverts/pipes along the
drainage ditches and canals that were filled. After achieving design grades for an area,
the surface was disked uniformly with a chisel plow to loosen the soil and increase
surface roughness. After earthwork for each phase was completed, the area was
seeded with one of two types of seed mix. During the months of September through
March, rye grain was used. From April through August a permanent seed mix was used
that consisted of big blue stem, fox sedge, Virginia wild rye, soft rush, switchgrass,
beggars tick, little blue stem, and lurid sedge. The presence of an existing seed source
provided for the quick re-establishment of the existing ground cover. Supplemental
plantings were occasionally used when the site or weather conditions did not allow for
the quick establishment of grasses. On 7 January 2010, a mid-project as-built survey
was made using LiDAR. The contour data from the LiDAR was compared with the
design contours to validate the work completed. (The mid-project as-built showed a
good match with the design [Figure 4 shows the final as-built LiDAR and Figure 6 shows
the mid-project as-built LiDAR]).
The Hell Swamp Compensatory Mitigation Plan contains specifics regarding
design/work plan sheets and a summary of the hydrologic model analysis used to verify
that the historic contours, proposed surface roughness, and soil characteristics would
yield wetland conditions at the site. Work for the wetland flats was constructed in 11
phases summarized in Table 1 and shown on Figure 2.
Table 1. Erosion and sediment control permit application details.
Phase
1 Acres
197 •
1 & 2
6/30/2009 Description : •
crown removal
2 317 9, 10, 11 & 13 8/14/2009 crown removal
3 233 3, 4, 5, & 6 9/16/2009 crown removal

4
74
8, Al-A8
10/6/2009 crown removal (Block 8);
timber harvest (Blocks
Al-A8
5 155 7, 12, & G2 10/15/2009 crown removal
6 51 B1 & B2 10/22/2009 crown removal
7 49 Phase VII 11/16/2009 crown removal; stream
restoration
8 50 Phase VIII 12/2/2009 crown removal; stream
restoration
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
Phase Acres • Description • •
9 20 Phase IX 12/8/2009 crown removal
10 50 Phase X 12/10/2009 crown removal; stream
restoration
crown removal; stream
11 26 Phase XI 1/11/2010 restoration
Phases 1 through 3 were limited to crown removal from existing farm fields. Phase 4
included all of the major timber removal from eight separate areas distributed around the
site and one small section of crown removal from farm fields. Phases 5 and 6 were
exclusively crown removal from existing farm fields. Phases 7 through 11 combined a
small portion of crown removal with headwater valley and stream restoration. In Phases
7 through 11, the work proceeded from the northwest part (the higher elevations) of the
site to the southeast (lower elevations).
2.3 Restoration of Streams and Riparian Headwater Systems.
•
2.3.1 Construction. In general, restoration of the headwater valleys
began after grading had been completed on adjacent wetland flats, to promote drainage
of the site for as long as possible during construction. For the same reason, restoration
of the headwater valleys began at the most upstream point and progressed downstream.
Design contours and grades were staked in the field, and verified by construction
personnel and the engineer during construction with the use of laser level equipment.
Bulldozers were used to remove field crowns and perform shallow grading operations.
Excavators were used to remove stumps, debris, and culverts/pipes along the drainage
ditches and canals to be filled. After achieving design grades for an area, the surface •
was disked uniformly to loosen the soil for later tree planting.
For a portion of Scott Creek (from station 43+66 to 56+00 on Sheets 6
and 7 of Baker as built plans), a single thread channel was constructed west of the old
farm road in accordance with the approved Site Mitigation Plan. The new stream
channel was constructed "in the dry" and all stabilization practices were in place prior to
routing stream water into the new sections of channel. After the water had been routed
from the former channel, the process of filling the old channel with soil began. Wood
structures and woody debris were incorporated into the channel design to provide
stability, promote scour in pool areas, and improve habitat diversity. Fill for the
channelized section of Scott Creek was taken from the existing remnant spoil materials
deposited on the north bank of Scott Creek, small remnant spoil piles as available on the
south side, and other suitable fill material from onsite.
In accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plans,
prior to the start of any grading operations, erosion control structures were installed
along the headwater valleys. Erosion control practices employed during the restoration
of the headwater valleys included modified rock check dams, sediment fences, double
and single floating silt curtains, diversions, erosion control matting, and pump systems.
Detailed construction sequences for each of the project phases (Phases I through XI)
were provided in the approved erosion and sediment control plans for the site. Figure 5
depicts the stream restoration segments and riparian headwater valleys and locations of
post-restoration cross sections.
•
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
At the downstream end of the Scott Creek single thread channel where
• the valley slope flattens and erosive forces are reduced, the channel transitions back to
a moderately defined channel form with braided flow patterns. Flow is expected to be
diverted into the floodplain of Scott Creek at that point. This transition occurs at the pre-
construction upper limit of CAMA jurisdiction.
•
•
With the exception of the previously mentioned single thread construction,
the remaining headwater stream valleys were formed by grading the valleys to the
general design grades, but no channel or flow features were constructed. Natural
processes over time will determine any stream features that form in these headwater
valleys.
2.3.2 Design Project Reaches and As-built Slopes. The main channel
that flows through the site is labeled as Scott Creek from its headwaters to the
downstream extent of the property at NC Route 99, where the creek flows through a
road culvert and eventually discharges to Pungo Creek, a tributary to the Pungo River.
Several headwater tributaries were identified that would have historically drained to Scott
Creek and each is described in the Hell Swamp Compensatory Mitigation Report and
shown in Figure 5. Cross sections and profiles were taken in these systems and the as-
built slopes are shown in Table 2 below for comparison to design slopes. Appendix B
contains the as-built contours of the stream valley construction performed by Baker and
graphic depictions of the stream cross sections shown in Figure 5 with longitudinal
profiles of each reach or UT. Differences are very minor with the exception of UT3 (see
Section 3.0).
Table 2. Summary of reach/segment characteristics, lengths, and design channel forms
for project stream reaches compared to as built conditions.
Drainage Design
Reach Name Area (ac) Slope Channel
Form Slope (ft)
Scott Creek (a) 1 90 0.0009 590 Poor 0.0009 525
Scott Creek b 130 0.004 850 Moderate 0.0035 875
Scott Creek c 290 0.0006 1,860 Poor 0.0005 1,966
Scott Creek d 350 0.0027 1,300 Well 0.0014 1,234
Scott Creek (e) 800 0.0003- 3,717 Moderate -0.0003 722
3
0.0008 ,
UT1 251 0.0012 1,283 Moderate 0.0011 1,392
UT2 35 0.0036 609 Poor 0.0033 647
UT3 29 0.0014-
0.0030 1,079 Poor 0.0011 4,714
UT4 25 0.0014-
0.0043 1,063 Poor 0.0039 1,109
UT5 21 0.0032 845 Poor 0.0021 942
UT6 a 96 0.0018 1,211 Poor 0.0023 1,290
UT6 b 206 0.0008 1,555 Poor 0.0005 1,550
UT7 39 0.0012-
0.0027 1,120 Poor 0.0022 1,207
UT8 a 118 0.0005 1,164 Poor 0.0008 1,250
UT8 b 240 0.003 1,537 Moderate 0.0015 1,571
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
2.4 As-built TopoQraphy. The as-built topographic survey was produced as a
joint effort by Matrix East Surveyors, LLC from Kinston, North Carolina and Tuck
Mapping Solutions, Inc from Big Stone Gap, Virginia. Matrix East provided the ten
ground control points that established the horizontal and vertical control for the survey.
On 22 June 2010, Tuck Mapping Solutions performed aerial mapping using a Bell 407
Helicopter flying 1,000' above the site. LiDAR survey methods were employed with
over 92,000,000 points measured along with collecting aerial data imagery. The resulting
combined imagery and LiDAR 0.5' contour data represents ground conditions as of the
date of the aerial photography.
The aerial photography was taken using an Applanix DSS 322 22 mega pixel
digital camera with a current Trimble camera calibration. The photography and LiDAR
were controlled/georeferenced to the ten ground control points established by Matrix
East. The photo geo-referencing was completed and checked using Applanix POSPac
v5.3 CAL QC and Inpho v5.2 software. The airborne GPS baselines were also
processed using POSPac v5.3 software. The project datums are North Carolina grid
system horizontal (2007) and N.A.V.D. 1988 vertical. The topographic mapping was
compiled from LiDAR using TerraScan and TerraModel v10, applications utilized in
Microstation v8. The compiled map included a digital terrain model (DTM) from which
the 0.5' contour topography was generated. The mapping was checked/edited on
MicroStation v8 and AutoCADD Civil 2008 and delivered in AutoCADD digital format.
The mapping meets US National Map Accuracy Standards in relation to the surveyed
control, i.e., at least 90 percent of map measured ground features in non-obscured areas
are accurate to within 1.67' (1/30 map scale) horizontally and 0.25' (one half contour
interval) vertically. The accuracy standards are not guaranteed for areas where the
ground is predominantly obscured by vegetation and the map for such areas is only a •
best approximation. The as-built contours are shown on Figure 4.
3.0 ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION ADJUSTMENTS
A 0.25-acre staging area was constructed several hundred feet into the site along the
existing driveway entrance from Seed Tick Neck Road. This area was built in order to
accommodate earthwork equipment, the refrigerator trucks of seedlings, and two storage
containers for ATVs and other sundry monitoring equipment. It will also serve any future
long term needs of the conservation easement holder.
The construction plans for the site called for two types of headwater stream valleys to be
constructed: poorly defined (Type 1), and moderately defined (Type 2). Type 1 valleys
were specified for valleys with relatively small drainage areas and low topographic
gradients, while Type 2 valleys were specified for valleys with large drainage areas and
higher topographic gradients. This distinction was based on reference site data that
demonstrate that as drainage areas and slope increases, the tendency for channel
features to form also increases. Type 1 valleys at Hell Swamp were to be formed by
grading the valleys to the general design grades, but no channel or flow features would
be constructed. Type 2 valleys included the construction of random channel forms that
would lead to more concentrated flow, as predicted from the reference site studies.
However, once construction was underway, it was determined that the channel forms for
Type 2 valleys were difficult to construct in a way that insured their function as natural
systems and that excessive scour and erosion were unlikely for the Type 2 valleys.
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
Therefore, Type 2 valleys were constructed using the same as Type 1 valleys, and
• channel features will be allowed to form through natural processes over time.
Pre-restoration topographic data show several v-shaped contours south of the Windley
tract and indicate the possible historic upper valley signature of the unnamed tributary to
Pungo Creek located between Scott Creek and Smith Creek shown on the Beaufort
County soil survey. The unnamed tributary is channelized and contained in an offsite
outparcel separate from the Hell Swamp restoration site. Drainage from this upper
valley area had been interrupted and altered by agricultural practices and diverted
through multiple agricultural field ditches into both the Scott Creek and Smith Creek
basins. The Hell Swamp restoration design allowed for drainage from this upper valley
area to be distributed over the flatter areas of the site below the v-shaped contours and
then to find its natural way into the UT3, UT4, and UT8 valleys. However, during an
extreme rain event in November 2009, a significant amount of water from this upper
valley/headwater area flowed south and discharged through the UT8 valley to Smith
Creek via the culvert beneath Pungo Creek Road. This flow exceeded the culvert's
capacity and overtopped Pungo Creek Road. The long duration of the rain event of
November 2009 allowed documentation that a connection was also quite appropriate
between the upper historic valley and UT3. Analysis of the event indicated that if runoff
from this upper headwater area continued to make its way into the UT8 valley in future
events, a second, several thousand-foot long valley/prong of UT8 could likely form and
join the original UT8 valley. Instead, to reduce the need to potentially rebalance the
NCDOT's culvert size for this outlet into Smith Creek at the bottom of UT8, and to
reduce the possibility of future road flooding or other hydrologic trespass in this area, the
flow coming from this historic upper valley/headwater area near the Windley tract was
• directed into the UT3 valley. This resulted in added length to the UT3 valley instead of
UT8. With the completion of earthwork, flow into the UT8 valley may now more closely
resemble the historic conditions. (Figure 4 shows as built conditions).
To help reduce ATV ruts across the stream segments which would affect development of
the flow path and to facilitate monitoring, three valley crossings were added. The
crossings were installed at approximate station 31+35 on upper UT3, station 37+80 on
Scott Creek, and station 61+10 on Scott Creek. The crossings consist of a rock pad,
approximately 2 feet thick, 10 feet wide, and 100 feet long. The rock crossings were
installed in an excavated trench, such that the finished elevation of the crossings
matches the elevation of the adjacent ground. Because they match the profile of the
adjacent ground, the crossings do not alter the flow of water through the headwater
valleys. Installation of the crossings was approved by DEM in a CAMA permit
modification dated 22 July 2010, prior to the installation of the crossings (Figure 4).
Appendix A contains a copy of the CAMA permit modification to construct the stream
crossings through UT3, upper Scott Creek, and at the transition between upper and
lower Scott Creek.
4.0 VEGETATION
4.1 Restoration Planting. Eleven (11) native hardwood tree species were planted
based largely on mapped soil series from the county soil survey, expected hydrology,
and species availability from the nurseries. In addition to trees, 12 shrub species were
• incorporated into the plan and interplanted among the trees to provide a more diverse
assemblage. Four nurseries supplied the species and their certifications are included in
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
Appendix B. River Works, Inc. contracted three planting crews (H&J Forest Services,
Winstead Reforestation, and New Forest Services) to plant the site from 17 February
•
through 20 May 2010, timed to begin after each phase of restoration earthwork was
completed. Approximately 1,263 acres were planted with 533,270 seedlings on mostly
10- foot by 10-foot spacing, which equates to ranges of approximately 422 to 436 stems
per acre, depending on the zone. The complete list of species planted and the planting
mix of species by planting zone are identified in Figure 6.
4.2 Existing Vegetation. Any areas of mature or regenerating wetland forest on
the Hell Swamp site were preserved or enhanced. Discontinuous areas of disturbed
forest near the northern side of the main prong of Scott Creek were augmented with
planting of additional riparian tree species. In sparsely forested wetland areas within
100 feet of the creek on both sides, additional trees were planted to ensure an adequate
riparian buffer will be established by the end of the five-year monitoring effort.
Disturbance to any existing large trees along the north side of Scott Creek was avoided
and minimal work occurred within the majority of the existing forested floodplain on the
south side of Scott Creek. Thin rows of trees (mostly nuisance species) along the
boundaries between the various parcels were removed and suitable logs were utilized
where appropriate as large woody debris within restored stream/valley reaches. Other
areas with nuisance species were also cleared and replanted with more desirable
species of hardwood trees and shrubs. Disturbed riparian areas (primarily inhabited by
common reed [Phragmites australis]) associated with the north prong of Scott Creek
(UT6) were cleared and replanted with native vegetation. In September 2009, before
planting began, an approximate 8-acre area in the swamp surrounding lower Scott
Creek, a few other scattered areas along the lower creek, and the valley of UT6 were
treated with glyphosate and imazapyr (generic) sprayed from a Marsh Master to begin •
the adaptive management process necessary to reduce the common reed. Post-
construction and planting, a second common reed treatment occurred on 21 and 22
October 2010 within UT6 and UT7 valleys and on 29 October 2010 in portions of the
forested areas of lower Scott Creek missed during first treatment. HabitatTM (active
ingredient is imazapyr) was chosen for the second treatment to avoid any damage to
planted seedlings and was applied with a tractor and hose.
4.3 Adjustments to Planting Plan. Portions of the hatched areas on Figure 6
identified as "unplanted existing forest" which contained loblolly pine were originally
planned to be cleared and planted (particularly Valley 2 and Zone 1 areas in the eastern
end of the lower Scott Creek area). However, with the extension of the headwater valley
of UT3, wetter species than originally planned were needed. Also, to help insure
adequate stem counts in "potential riparian buffer" areas, the density of stems in some
Valley 1 areas was increased. Consequently, some portions of the forested sections
along the downstream end of lower Scott Creek on both sides were not cleared or
planted which freed up the stems originally planned for those areas to be used
elsewhere on the site (e.g., UT3 extension and/or areas of increased stem density).
While the forested bottomland hardwood wetland along the south side of Scott
Creek was never to be cleared of trees and shrubs, it was intended to be interplanted at
a density lower than the remainder of the site. By the time the project had progressed
into those lower portions of Zone 1 along Scott Creek, it was decided that portions of the
forested wetland that was more densely vegetated with existing trees and shrubs would
not be planted. •
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
Planting largely followed the original planting plans with the following
adjustments:
1) In the Zone 2 areas along the north boundary and in the area surrounded by
Zone 3-2, the density of wetter species was increased to accommodate for wetter
than expected conditions. Species planted included Taxodium distichum,
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, and Nyssa aquatica.
2) Along Seed Tick Neck Road, an area within Zone 3-1 and Zone-2 up to 50 feet
from the berm was planted with a higher percentage of shrub species to provide
a visually dense buffer along Seed Tick Neck Road.
3) In portions of Zones 4-2, 3-1, 3-2, 2, and the upland zone on the western portion
of the project that comprises the UT3 extension, more Valley 2 species were
added to more closely assimilate a combination between those zone's species
list and the Valley 2 species list compilation. Additions included Ilex opaca,
Taxodium distichum, Quercus lyrata, Nyssa aquatica, and Magnolia virginiana.
4) Due to water depths and dense Phragmites vegetation, Valley 1 was initially
planted in open areas that had water depths of less than 6". Subsequently, water
depths had receded and additional planting occurred in more open accessible
areas within the interior of the Valley 1 area. No planting occurred in areas
already adequately populated with trees.
5) All of Zone 1 was overplanted at 20' X 20' spacing, except for within vegetation
plots, adding essentially 100 additional stems per acre to the overall density.
Species used in the overplanting include Taxodium distichum, Nyssa aquatica,
Quercus lyrata, and Quercus phellos.
6) All of the original Valley 2 areas were overplanted on approximately 16'X16'
spacing with similar species per the original planting plan adding approximately
170 additional stems per acre.
7) The wetland tongue at the headwaters to upper Scott Creek between Zones 4-1
and 4-2 was planted with wet tolerant species to accommodate for wetter than
anticipated conditions. Taxodium distichum, Quercus lyrata, Q. phellos, and
Nyssa aquatics were added to the species composition.
5.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
The site will be monitored as required by the permit conditions, as per the mitigation
plan. Monitoring equipment or plots were installed as described in the sections below.
5.1 Hydrology. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of interstream wet
flats, semi-continuous Ecotone water level monitoring wells (manufactured by Remote
Data Systems) were installed (Figure 7). A continuous electronic rain gauge was
installed in an open area, a minimum of 100 feet from any tall tree or building. Data will
be used in conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations to determine
normal rainfall during the monitoring period. A total of 124 groundwater monitoring wells
were installed across the site (approximately 1 well/10 acres) to monitor the wetland flat
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
areas. An additional 80 wells were installed in 42 arrays in the vicinity of stream valleys
to measure the hydrology of the stream system. The array design consists of a well on •
either side of the perceived valley and a potential flow gage in the valley, where flow has
been evident, or seems likely, based on the topography of the valley and surrounding
area.
5.1.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems).
In the riparian headwater system valleys, 40 perpendicular monitoring arrays were
established across the valleys to assist in identification of the three types of riparian
wetlands (headwater forest, bottomland hardwood, and riverine swamp forest) and to
increase density of data points for analysis of hydrographs up and across the valley.
Arrays are approximately 500 feet apart (along the long axis) for each valley (at least 3
arrays per 1,000-foot reach; upstream, center, downstream). The density and number of
arrays was determined by the perceived length and footprint of each valley. An array
consists of a well on either side of the perceived valley with a flow gage in the valley
where flow is evident or anticipated based on surrounding topography. The most
downstream portion of the valley of UT6 has not yet had the first two arrays installed as
conditions were too wet during construction for equipment to safely operate. As the
system develops over a full season, this area will be assessed and a determination will
be made about flow gages in this segment of UT6. Forty (40) flow gages were installed
in early 2011 in the remainder of the valleys.
5.1.2 Hardwood Flat. Monitoring wells (RDS Ecotone 20s and a few 40s)
were installed across the project site (-1well/10 acres for the hardwood flats) to
document post-restoration water table (Figure 7). These 124 wells collect data every
1.5 hours and are downloaded monthly.
5.2 Vegetation.
5.2.1 Riparian Headwater Systems (Zero to First Order Stream Systems)_
Small plots were established immediately after planting within the stream valleys to
specifically monitor the planted vegetation in those areas. The nineteen plots are 50 feet
on the sides perpendicular to the valley and 15 feet on the sides parallel with the valley
(0.017 acre per plot). Using the anticipated flow gage location as an anchor for the long
side, the plot should include the lowest positioned stems and be located on the side of
the meter which allows most of the valley to be included in the 50-foot distance. A few
months after planting, planted stems within vegetation plots were tagged and identified
to species when possible.
5.2.2 Hardwood Flat. Tree and shrub monitoring plots were established
immediately after planting at 124 monitoring well sites (-2 percent of the restoration
area) (Figure 7) to monitor the survivability of planted trees and shrubs. Individual plots
are 43 feet x 203 feet (-0.2 acre) and all planted trees and shrubs within the plot were
marked with a stake. A few months after planting, planted stems within vegetation plots
were tagged and identified to species when possible.
5.3 Hydro-geomorphic Monitoring of Streams and Valleys. Longitudinal profiles
were established for each of the riparian headwater system valleys and for the restored
Scott Creek segments. Three cross sections were established per 1,000-foot reach of
stream/valley restoration. For the riparian headwater systems, these cross sections will •
be measured for this report and at years 3 and 5 if channel features form. For the Scott
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
• Creek single thread channel stream restoration segments, the cross sections will be
measured for this report and annually during the monitoring period. Appendix B contains
the as-built topography of the riparian areas and the stream cross-sections and profiles
in more detail as provided by Baker Engineering.
5.4 Control Forest Wetlands. A mature -34-acre forested portion of the Hell
Swamp site underlain by Cape Fear soils (Windley Tract), located almost at the top of
the interstream divide, provides a control for the upper portions of Hell Swamp
hydrology. Hydrology has been monitored in the forest since 2007 when three semi-
continuous monitoring wells were installed and this area will continue to be monitored.
Hydrology in two other control wetland tracts will be monitored, the small Plum's Pit site
on north side of Seed Tick Neck Road on Arapahoe soils and the Winfield tract to the
west on Augusta, Tomotley, and Roanoke soils (depicted on Figure 3).
Data collected from the control forests will be used as a guide to infer and
compare behavior of applicable portions of the mitigation site (similar soils and
landscape position). Because of differences in maturity and disturbance characteristics
of the mitigation site, these data will not be used for strict success or performance
parameters, only to confirm local/regional hydrological response to precipitation.
5.5 Fixed Point Photo-Stations. A total of 24 stations were marked, 19 at wells,
four at various locations along the site perimeter, and one near the lower end of Scott
Creek (Figure 7). Some selected photos pre- and post-construction are included in
Appendix D.

E
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
REFERENCES
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation, Aurora, North Carolina. Volumes I - IV. May.
•
? J
C?
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed 12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-Built Report February 2011
•
•
0
IS -IN '3dON
S ••?•N..V??H1VNOf ?py?py p a
ELl WMWai???lj w.n ?emin•?flw? /'
ZOIL ?
`+? o z szs aes) j -' vaI a -P-0
LLL U18)'.aj'Ipl p ?
OOL EB (l9S) ?4d ? y I
caeEEroWi' 4xa8 weed u n ?
-? ?renwaNOS?c
V3S
NOISIAIO VUONnV $ ?&oq
6f 16-Zef/0l6 xrll ,mv.cv. {ice ? Q
fGZ6-Z6f?O l6 l3j O`31,Vtl OdtlO?Nl
MM 'O'N 'NOIDNWU Y Z
Z 31S `A 303TIW QOU -
N
N
U
Q
M
M
N
II
to
Q1 ?
U) N to U N
Q N N N M rn N to U
U U LO U
a QQ+aaaaaaaa
- co v 0 0000(0
m N r N 0 N
U) 11 11 11 It II 11 11 ll II II It
Y - _- > j== X X X
> -
CL) a) CD O M N N N
m N
m a a a a a a a a a
S3S`dHd 11V - NHId IMUN001N3WIa3S aNV NOISOb3
VNI1061VO H160 A1Nnoo 121Odf1H38 N3AAVM1. j01S3wum
M.LS.04.9L 3Of111SNO1 d "VMS -113H
N .ZZ .t£ .S£ 3Of11LLVl -31VHdSOHd SOd NOA 9118 NOLLVHOIS3N ONV11W 03SOdOild 1

O
H
Z
O
O
W
O

0

W U)
>
>
>
>
>
??
x
X

W O
a
o w

Q w
U)
a w
to
Q w
fn
a w
U)
Q w
U)
Q w
U)
a w
U)
a w
U)
a w
fn
s w
(f)
a
= = _ = _ = = = = _ =
a a a a (L a a a a a 0 a

>)
R
K >

0
0
CID
LU/
O
O
N
CV
O m
t0 m
c
m
0
V
o
LL.
• •
0
J
NOf ISLZ'? :UOQW!b41NV Ja 03-9We'J ON
' genwyylV )o alea4!Ua? lj +n?..?.?....oo
OLLZSZ9(l95):zed .,?I, ?.Z ll¢l?}2II0
E9 U18) a1 j - Ilol ON '/.1Nn001a03nt/38
Lgirm (LAS):?4d
ti0?cs epugj WeJ 4Me9 wled M l5 AV o9L NOl
nog eyeryWuN 091C
N,.U.L£.S£ltll
WW ? Y
O
O
o so?g?
?
w w md PW Z
4 e
J
a e a m a a e a n o a a N o o m ro 0
Z -
II ~ m m m m e? m m m o m m m m? o m m
°
N N N?? O Ul O N O h 0 N O N O
w i I m I i m? w
J I I N I I I I( I I I I L.
0
z
6
z
Y
w
0
LE

3
w
0
FRI.

c
IQ?
S 4??
? 9 S
!`S 1
L

S'
0
sa
?V
LL
U o
Y
U)
Z
O
Q
U
O
J
0
0
w
0
0
0
o
o ?
C
O
U
O ?
m
O
z
a
0
r
N
?o
N
d
_J
m
2
ems Iloutra 3iw
1N18d 31VOS JlV V NO HONI 3lVH 3N0 38nSV3W OInOHS 3NIl SIHl 1 16d 3lV S llni V NO HONI 3NO 3Nnsv3W OInOHS 3NIl SIHI ']L++bMpJ ?NaaV?swn?gN
fa
e?
¢
o s2jnO1NOO llin8 SV "
O N
N3AVHl38 JO 1S3MH1nOS o m 04 r
w
dINVMS 113H ? "
311S NOUVIdO1S38 4NVU3M 43SOdoad d a o o
q ?.
5 i z a
I
•A
SCO7
NOTE:
POST-CONSTRUCTION CONTOURS WERE
DEVELOPED FROM LIDAR DATA COLLECTED
BY TUCK MAPPING SOLUTIONS, INC. AND
PROCESSED BY MATRIX EAST,LLC.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Figure rJ
- 6000 Regency Parkway 0 725 1,450 21900
Ala S Cary N.rhCar -27516 Stream Mitigation Plan Map
Phone: [phone]
Fax: Feet
919663.5490 Hell Swamp Site
• •
•
z
O
? U O
a Z ?a
O Z ir IZ LrWr F=?
N a a t W fr :3
N OJ O O C W W W W W W lWi C? N Z t li
O H Z (n N N Lr W 5a Z O Z
3 a O ?z N W W W W W U U U U
o o m MO m ir w m Of Q a a Q NN ON??
LLI a 3 i J o 0 0m .. a a a a a r, 0) n ? a~ 3?0
z ~ ..i d l J i L i J ir z W N O N !O r? i tO Lo to m
W
° z o w
Qo w 3 M ?N O L N ? 0 00 o .. 0 a Z ,ri?
m O a 0 W O W W W Q Q v rn re) Cy) 0
v M N N m ?OJg
U N O O Z Z 2 3 3 W N N N 1 1 1 1 W E~>a?
W N Z 3 W N } }} q in r } N M M d d z Z W H>
L a0 J ?' W W W= N (D rl) Z J W W W W W W W N? ???aW
? U xx a a W W w a~ d Q a O O O O O O W tL
d Q W (.9 2 3 W- L- >Q > 3 d2 ... O > > N N N N N N Z O -0 j
V) P: ZN JJNr?0
Ja W V)
W
az 3NU°?o
>- LLJ
O aF b?
K?
• 0 1 1 Z J , m
0 LLI
g o V.
n-N z ? ?i
0
g
N
W

O Z
r ?
U
N

O
Oil bh?
0 0 0
•
APPENDIX A
MINOR MODIFICATION TO CAMA PERMIT
•
•
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
As-Built Report
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
kAll
?aMYr?s
NC EN
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue James H. Gregson
Governor Director
July 23, 2010
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
NC Hwy 306 South
Aurora NC 27806
Dear Sir or Madam:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The enclosed permit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act, and where applicable, the
State Dredge and Fill Law, for you to proceed with your project proposal. Please sign both the original (buff-colored
form) and the Xerox stamped "Copy". Return the copy to this office in the enclosed envelope. Signing the permit and
proceeding means you have waived your right of appeal described below. Please retain the original (buff-colored
form), as it must be available on site when the project is inspected for compliance.
If you object to the permit or any of the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant to NCGS 113A-121.1 or
113-229. Your petition for a hearing must be filed in accordance with NCGS Chapter 150B with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27611-6714, [phone] within twenty (20) days
f this decision on your permit. You should also be aware that if another qualified party submits a valid objection to the
ance of this permit within twenty (20) days, the matter must be resolved prior to work initiation. The Coastal
sources Commission makes the final decision on any appeal.
The project plan is subject to those conditions appearing on the permit form. Otherwise, all work must be carried
out in accordance with your application. Modifications, time extensions, and future maintenance require additional
approval. Please read your permit carefully prior to starting work and review all project plans, as approved. If you are
having the work done by a contractor, it is to your benefit to be sure that he fully understands all permit requirements.
From time to time, Department personnel will visit the project site. However, if questions arise concerning permit
conditions, environmental safeguards, or problem areas, you may contact Department personnel at any time for assistance.
By working in accordance with the permit, you will be helping to protect our vitally important coastal resources.
Sincerely,
Douglas V. Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Manager
Enclosure
• 400 Cominerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity ; Affirmative Action Employer
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix A -1
As Built Report
One
No
hCaroffiia
Natltt1ally
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
Permit Class
ODIFICATIONIMI.N OR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
11 F__1
I'll 1-0 r r M tt
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Permit Number
83-09
Issued to PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., NC Hwy. 306 South, Aurora, NC 27806
Authorizing development in Beaufort
County at West side of Seed Tick Neck Road
(SR1714), South of NC 264 and North of SR 99, its requested in the permittee's letter-date d 5J4/10 including
the attached workplan drawings (4), all dated 4/19/1.0
This permit, issued on July 22 2010 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) Unless specifically altered herein, this minor modification authorizes the construction of (3) 10 foot
wide at-grade stream/valley crossings, all as expressly and specifically set forth in the attached work
plan drawing.
2) This modification shall be attached to the original of Permit No. 83-09, which was issued on 10/5/09,
and copies of both documents shall be readily available on site when Division personnel inspect the
project for compliance.
3) All conditions and stipulations of the active permit remain in force under this minor modification unless
specifically altered herein.
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
March 28, 2014
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Hell Swamo Scott Creek Watershed Apl
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
All b", Z;TT
?.?,,. James H. Gregson, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
OC3
! 1 Signature of Permittee
9 V PCS Phnsnhate Cmmnanv_ Inr._
PCS Phosphate Company Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Army Corps of Engineers Requirements
Permit #83-09
Page 2 of 2
4) Within each yearly monitoring report, the Permittee shall provide written narrative describing conditions at
each permitted crossing, including multiple photographs of the entire crossing, especially within areas that
experience moving water.
5) Pursuant to the final mitigation plan, Section 8.0, Adaptive Management Strategies, should problems be
documented including, but not limited to, damming effects, scour or impendence of water movement, the
Permittee shall develop a contingency plan to be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers for review
and approval prior to implementation.
6) All work authorized by this modification of LAMA Major Permit No. 83-09 to allow for the construction
of three light vehicle crossings associated with PCS Phosphate Company's Hell Swamp compensatory
mitigation project located off Seed Tick Neck Road, adjacent to Scott Creek, near Belhaven, in Beaufort
County, North Carolina. This correspondence also confirms my meeting with Mr. Jeff Furness, PCS
Phosphate, on June 16, 2010.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized the proposed project under COE Action Id. No.
SAW-2008-02014 which was issued on 6/22/10.
General
This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed ADDendix A
n ?
E
z ? \\Innrrvgr• \
P k
?4
^ ^ dom. r?
? O • ?
I
h ?Z'y v4 N Z?. ""
yi?:.0a, ° t.e 2?
,,,,OH
``,
tl
3 ? ••11111644\? ,' ?
M
&v
z?
?P-4

U

tZ u,
}
Lij 'I
,j
L
,( F
a
1 SddKKNi4 M f{ (?

1
4 / 1y y ?

?i, }f
v Al (? 4, ^ `
J

M ?
F z
ql S ° ?? t C.,

n ? ` 4 r r
G
t?

T t t
?fU c.
1y =S

I V(l
f `

ti
y.r.'7 r14 t lk,
?S' r
Z, "4
e v X
' ?',?:
kJ C
•` ?--e- rri
'; jl U
A
U
14, a r+
,f..;r v S r
.
t
t..
•M"` E» Y +t!
® N'
3,.
?Ji//ir /iJ a
?h?tia flif}.,,,e
??

Qo) ? ' ? \1 -tom` .:.;:fir

a re? s
-L ZZ
J ?

CZ!
t; 1 0
• ti' 4x
Q

r?wp
Ml

0 4° w
w
a h- cp
W C7

w

PE??

to =z
U) U)
W N _
C) 0
O O

O

G J 0
w ~ U ?
?
¢F
a
Z
L
LO N

o

? N
z
g o

?

O ?T1
O J
O 4y
CL
Z
?
N

V N
to 0
? d
O- O
? l(] O
r
F-
I (9n f z
;Ff.
U
C
c
C
f0
a
E
O
U
d
L C
aC
N N
O
L L-
N
a`
d U-
N
U1
N
f0
N
to O
'J.0
E °'
m ?
U) m
N 40
=Q
8r
9 1 0 1 0
Y '
W ? Ul - E?E _
es ??xy
U
o-l® c
c
f0

? w
J N
L}
o O N
O
a

W
W Zcr-
0o _t W
W
Go
_
Q
(
-
0 z =W
i U F- U)
Q
W
W W
OQ zm
X = co _
W O rn ? - U) o
LY W
z (D 7- m
Q F/5 F <L O j
tn7-
j
Z
-
?
< OF- QQ?)Q

O
z00<d[y
0
_
W co -j C:?
OP LL -j 65
OW
<L()= ODU- 0
t,
W Uf-
0=pm0 C?

W-oc
D? LL T-
QZNWO
F-
?JQW??='cA0
LL
F- J
-
i
<
F- -
< 7
0
O_
0
zr?mi<t?U)

Z r N C6 c1
Q
t

W
J j I
` m
m
Q
(Do
U)
-- Q
LL
Z
5 W w
( r J

X
W
10(
(-J
G
; C(o ?
0
I
n
C )0
Jo
. d
o
ooc) a
~
ti
J, ?? U U
W
l
U)
?y o' C (?,
J
J
o
?nO ?)
o00 },J?o

(` c
z
:-5 00
Of
0 !

z Of
m
z
O Q (n
v)
LL
t O ? Q
I WQ rU
d
r cn
J Q
_ J
co U
u9p•Zo-ysd-fsgLZ 11\s5c,sso,o\suold\ 5tsao\pg/ 1
7uls
u;
Q
x
cc
c
c
Q
N
Z
m
i
LL
U V-
(n O
aC
E?
- CD
a> y
= Q
so 1 0 1 0
m 0
w° \ ul
W
o - - - lr',,J, - -

w
U)
Z
O
? (3 ? w
? O v
r , O In
V LV
0
w z?
w J>
Y
0
T
F- U O
0
S
S
W
-j U E- U)
W Q W W
? S
m
O< -j z
- Q
W O W d Ld w
o
_
=a 0WZWW W
?a O(7Zm
Z¢ U)=?Zo-i
(A Q O ~ Q Q
omcn
0O U<
U
c
n
?WQ??O
U) LL 0 <
o 0 F- LL
LJJ L
LL

L (n
< cr- L) CO
tL
w
=
0
0
?p0
m
?
<CC)
n`tt--Z
0
w
-
c
I-CYJ?Oa,,LF
UI- (DQZNWO?
W
-
JJU
J QI.IU
j0 LL <
U) zpw?lym_?
FO az?Mal< U))
Z N C6 V Ui
w
J Q?
'n

U
V I

z U) I
_
Cn W I
U) Q I® N--.d
O W I U
cc.
m
w BOG ' ??
_ O '
?
o
DO W
JC°O
O'er J
.
LL
CCU
n
C7
0
r1 0
c

O?
?O
o
O
O
?
?J
(O
1;cYr? ?1 O
?? O?
0
?
'
z
n0
n
o ?o°o°Z5 0 0
ao o, ( o
N Q0O O
O
U
w
C
Unl,?r• ??
^
0 ? Mo r
0

J
w

oo° 1 O O
0
?
W O/ ?'^ O
O
o'U U(
w 0
O?
10
r
d
?`\J
JOCG

J C
Cw
__ v0 ( z
<t
2i LL O
O
O
Z
W wm
I
Z ?CO
0 ?
J w
0'0 jog
Q I L\,Q rU
W
Q
?g
co U
Ap'£'a-45d-sq Z11\sbu IF so,o\suo I G\
c _
-
Y° `fix
8g..

U
C
T
C
(0
a
0
U
t
a?
to N
O
L ?
a`
L) CD
CL
,L
co
Q
x
v
c
U
CL
Q
N
L
N
N
f>D
7
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U
(n O
Can
G
m
3
U
_m
m N
2 Q
0 1 0 1 0
m
w_
c O V o pgBaP?i //
?---- -VV--- fsx

0
0
J
w
w
J
w
F--
J 1
O
z

W
z
0
LL
oco
ff Q
w
3m
w
z
o°
ij?
wm
m
Zo a
?C)
u6p••0-49tl-Qo,ZI I\s6u,ssOac\suQId\u5 aeO\

6g+0? ??
??K SNE?j 9 S"(P•
SGON,
s o 0 o e ?G \.
1 Ll.1 / j. LL ?s
o
a

?d
m
N
0
0
W
CO)
? ti i J
"J Q
? b u
o ? ,n
SOU N
0
W z?
w J >
v
1 U
O = Zw
J U h
U)
w Q ww
04 -j z
J
wo U7('LLI- O
w
?a z?oozm
C?¢ CnQ?QOJ
zQ o?QQ?Q
U) cc wo"mZ
0YU)-j wQwco(D 0 "1
2 0 W O F LL(
U LL WOULL 0
W ?E 0 OF- QmOU
U)W?- OLL Q'L¢L-W
F- -F 000? LLZ
UE-OQzNWOE-
(YJQw?z 0O
Z
UJF-JQQmco
z T- -r W oU' 0wmF_-D?
0 Uz?mw< U)
Z r N ch It 6
w o ?41
f / ryo / Ji_•
l/
W
Z _J 2
{ / w W Q .07
¢
W f
J
Q
z
D
O ??-- N
W
v¢ 1
w JO?0
VDOC 0
C
H
00

m
¢
LL
cr
w
J
LL
O? O
h
C' W
-/D° Ln
)01 -?`
J
n ?
00?
U
c
C
C
CL
0
1_ C
aN
N N
o a Z
L cu
`
U?
a LL
Q
x
c
m
a
Q
r
co
Y
N
d
U
U)?
a
E aCD
m
3=
U
_m
a) y
m Q
•
APPENDIX B
NURSERY CERTIFICATIONS
•
•
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
As-Built Report
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
•
NOT TRANSFERABLE SOUTH CAROLINA CERTIFICATE NUMBER
NURSERY CERTIFICATE
2010
N0002457
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT INDUSTRY STOCK TYPE(S): WT
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
511 WESTINGHOUSE ROAD
PENDLETON, SC 29670
864-646-2140
SPE THIS ESTABLISHMENT HAS BEEN THOROUGLY INSPECTED BY
AN INSPECTOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CROP PEST
ISSUED TO: ARBOR GEN SOUTH CAROLINA SUPER TIRE COMMISSION AND FOUND TO BE APPARENTLY FREE FROM
5594 HIGHWAY 38 SOUTH INJURIOUS INSECT PESTS AND DISEASES.
BLENHEIM, SC 29516
DATE ISSUED: 9/28/2009 2009-2010 Registered Nursery Category: $200.00 /C
•
VALID THROUGH: 9/30/2010 DEPARTMENT HEAD

Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix B -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
• 0

•

o

y? J
L
z -
5
v ?„ mf`o`c
aF
a
V ? N T7 O
w U! a
U.
C
y C
A CO V

o `z cc
v, n N j
LL

U
;
> ci f
W ?a
Cr
LIJ
>4
O

U ?-?aC
W
W

Cr ?
z
/?
4J

w
-

/f
F
U 4„i

Q
t? U ,1

O J W
\
"f
Q
f
?s• ~rg/?
j J ` F 4 \'t?\ u
F
Q
^ tt'
Y
Q r
? W M
Z V)
Q.
t ^

N n
2
4 z
U ° O z
a
X
z O
2 CJ W
z
j i
s
O J

z Q'
o Q N u

L11

k- a

J
z
Z

z

L
Q
E
W f-
Q
_
m
W +$ Q UU 0 W A
0
W
S -
Z
Y
u
N ,
N W
z <
Q
(X
J
L
n
z
w
O Q U 1
yy L
z 0 J LU U s S n
O U
b.
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix B -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
+
w
r q
A
m q r
A m
m r N Z
x
y 0
m
z y
m ()
M

Ln

o
J

D U) 0
¦ ?I
N T
Z
A
p
m
tl m
O? - m
V
m A
l"I m
--j
c m
2 m C?
D

M
M -i
M
C
M

6 O
?
m
'T.
M o
c
R A
O N
o
D c 2
O
D
C { _
n
C
N m
'?
0
fit N d r

Z
O
N tli D
N W R m
C N J1 D

e
R f'
,
r m M
m 3
1W 1
\
.tIt ` 0 ? m
r m A z

M x O
r
i ? M D
Qr 0
m
z A ° n
n Cl)
to
'',l
y
, m z
a
j` m
M
00 zr
us, r 'n m CQ?

C1C?
m
m
M Z

V)
. ? O
M
C CL C
-
o 10
_°C 3

M
P
C O
o U m

0 a Dv

N S q M
N } a

v M
m
A N N
O. C:
f' WDOK
Q m
o n
a
C1

O tN
m
n
Z
m
V D v p
01 O n
7 01 N O r
n

D
D s
, *
0
L Tm O
T cmD

Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix B -3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
•
•
•
u
W CL
G Li lq -
u
N a
as
CD N v `O
H n 7 V
z m o 16
p
W L U.
1 -0
aa
_0 N
O
? ? U Ill
OQQ7 J
U N ` u
> O 7 Y
' : O
LC Q N i
N no- ? U
M ( _
W $ > a a
A C.
:.4u
N R.T °o ?x)u
c._
O W CL
U >
atf
W cc O W
?r
us ¢
(C U ? _ ifvl c
LLJ
U- W
h z
,.
z W
H M
ru ?ti O
h ? o
W S
Q F- x
LU v w
s
Q u
4 m c o`
Z Y N
n
J N N a
O ? a
(? `J U rn
? °y Z o
T Z g
0 " Q
o
a
z 0
LL o
Q z p
U o } j
(? N
r W
Q > O U W
V
0 W 0 ? CY =
E h J W W
r
W J
m 1 p r N
O W LL
W W
m u
WO W h w
O W Q O N
r
o U Q. W LL
z N U W p N_
V ¢ W
? O u
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix B -4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
•
APPENDIX C
AS-BUILT TOPOGRAPHY AND
•
•
STREAM CROSS SECTIONS AND PROFILES OF RIPARIAN AREAS
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
As-Built Report
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
ts.
04
F G4
aY ?
L ?
IZQ

0
U
H
O
w
0
ti
0
w
a
3
N
W
CO)
V ?
? O
O
w
Z
A z
o ?
rU? C?
'V rw
U ?1
H
A
Q
?i
44
O O
O
U
40
?.
cl.
g z
U
z
Q

U
U)
U) aw o
}
Qa
?
In U)
?
°
0
z
m¢
m zm U
=
QZm Q QJ ?"

1=WFn> wp m

5
w U m fn
w
w q
Q
? ma
ZZooz off>o
o
zWQ rmo
w
7
U
u1?0 F.
Uq??j
wz
? '
a
m W13
a
zCLO0
zn
J
~-
w ¢u r¢ag
I
-
w
x
m
LL
o
m
N N
m 0 0
Q
z r r r N M d'
dFVVAI 9 779H
w
V
89L7T7 :
t
W

'
rrrrfflr1 iI 11O
0.1
g
w
iKgtP?
W
W U
?1rW
r U
z?
o
p A
N x
J
rL'
0.
Q
U
No k
`W 7
a ,
A'iI a
` ? O
a
°Jt U
o
?? r nr??z, z
.,? k
0
CA
a
0
0 0
0
v3 ?

z
o
z
? O
a
z
o J
LL
V a r ae
CL
H O
N
0
U
c
T
C
d
E
O
U
N
L
O O
N
o Z,
L
D_ f0
U
a LL
U
x
c
N
o.
a
a
N
L
to
N
>O
U
0
O
U
V) O
CL a
ECD
m
cn
_m
=Q
C
`
> ? :s
R
N AJ;
?
•3
u c
®?
?j

O Z
z0

wp
J }"
Q LU
> W
wn
I-- z
Di
IQU
Y- w?
wF?
H
?
O

' L?zY
OpU
0QOC
O
D
I
?aQ
h
w O Z

uj
?O
m
® w
°
z w
o -- aZ
D-
? 1
o
o

0 pew
m
w
i
~
J c
s
<QO
ix
Q 2LL
w
z -
F--a
r l
f in j
m U W
w
?

O it
CL U)

Q 0
azLL
°U3
o
U ?
?
2F-
O d
ZH
a Sa
IL ?-
0
In
z
C03 n
viwm
o
U Yxo
rf-U
^ N
z
b
rY?rY\
C-'
u
W
Z
c
m
m ? G «? _G N
m

c L'.
P
a°
o a °
a-
a°
a°
a°
a°
a°
a°
a G
N
G
d
Z tri LO [OD It N N
cr) N e}' O N O O 1,
O
N

1

R
O
N
1?
m
R7
Y
1? N
.q
N
I
m
J N
G
>z co O
0 cq
0 r`
0

V1
al
0
O
n
O
O
o
O
r-
0 O
C
N
O

O
R 0
?,
O 0
a,
m
b
co
O
o
O a
o
N
c
p
0
O
Q
p
W
G O O d 00 O O O O O O O Q O F

W O
o O
0 O
0 O
0
G
N
G G
R V
C R 0
O M Oi
Ntl 01
t u7 O
N N
N N
m m
cm to
N
N fD
G] O
N m
( 1 tD O
N

v
Y ?
`l v
Y a
Y v
Y --
N G .
G G W G
2 d N 0 m G

M a O O O O FN RJ ar tfJ CO W c0 [p
U3 (D V) z
s- a a o
w O a Q
z w z O 2 W
d..]
CGS a V 0 > z
z of a o O
w o 0 0 0 1- co J
?a z Z O w = w
?r If a
Z z w a a a a w
z
= m
w LL>- 0 p r z w w z
z
u a 0 z ? _ w w C.) Q
Vl FII' ° OU W f Fa- f= U
r-1
? ® F I E
W z z
?U 0
z ?i U U
9
w
a
w Co U3 O
p w n or z a
z Q a 0 z w a.
F
H ? > U m O Q N
00 0 o 0 0 a w w 0
F- a J
?' 1? Go ? ? ? if ]L
1
u6p•tA'HSd-BSLZll\suoid\:nnq_sow6csan.
66Zltill a
Ery
co
3
CO
_m
m cn
2 Q
• I • I •

rrr?
E=4 /
C)
4
F4 o

re
w
z
a
z
w
5
Q
C
w
0
Ln
co
V)
N
II
W
1?
I t 1-f i
1 - r
((?? I I I I 1 y d I ?) ? A
N 1 r ICI Oh Os 1 l
?lJ lJ 1 III >
I I I I : ` LI
>10
I
ID
• 0 O `n .O C
ti E+I E
a) 0
c j o u Q o o s o m
m m m U `L
o- n m `C ° c ° t CL
of 4 c c rn o m x c
-o o
c s _ Ln m a a o I` a -0
u c m E C "_ Q •E y C 12 ° •° [A U m .O u. = m m m '° Q ° L
4) Q Q
-c -C U O N a CI N O Q .G Q 'p x > ° .L tT Q1 `a O s y C !%1 .,?•
m LL
Q (? l7 U n U !] in ?i Ln In u t1 a m` m Li- U Li N in Z >i
XLC m m m
• s I I I I I I I I I I e O
w e W I I I 1? OW 1 ?n .e ?c = O b W W
I? l i l i ?I i ? i ? ? ll.il±l 1 ;;I???III
°1 p -° L6 m a` -a n
ID -
5 Li ' U y m n y° a° C m o
L. °i m C m 1] A ° m C co 'i CO
m n m p a Q U w ° E
V; Q o
c m 0 vi e U m 0 n. ui U U U ° !7 "ao C4 6 m° •n c c
m m m C m C Lta C - ° Q d
tm -0
. w ?. Q o .c m F- a '_L a O c Q n co a m c CO
v, o E w m L m F- > O m N. O E q E m d m
m Q J Q m p ID y y .m0 N U C C N `ID L- " E m m m D co c
° `y /n -O 'O 3 d 'Q F- 'Q Q 7 -D L1 "a 2 'Q O m r J C C C O O .E7 'a ° O m 'n -°Q
e a n - m Q 0 ? D-0 m-0 m -Q o? 0 -S ? 0c o _g :? c U? z E _c ? m? 0 3 w LU
Q ? °' ° m i7 m a m a 3 m `Q m Q m o ' -a
O m O O c Am o E 'D p 'O C C F- -°a O _t y C ° = Z J C.) U' m Ql m
Q m y o m ? m 0 a) o v d m u c u °u of N o -Q `? a 3 N° n _y a s a u 'E s v a+ E .91 -T q -T tr D Ln a Q of a d a s w a w in U F- V L. L. La` a Li a° 0) y 'm
Co 3° 15 N
? W
Z 4JJ = ` 0 W
I
z 11 ? j •?-° + ?-+ ?El0S ®o00..?0? ®Qo?eMo8O ©©®
W
w : oc
o
V : X?
01
U - a o o m m a c 2 s c- m e o ° o?
(D 0 ° vi 7 m G7 8. C CL a in U = m m '- E J O m Q U +O-
X O a o c= d m u c m m o : -> U .c m ; 3 Ln € a c
w a?i y MO ??-csj ? °m•°>=a c V ?> ctm a°is pFO- o : •° m y0 N Jtj
.. m m p a L 3 a 4) M U 11) j5
a r- 6.
U -a ° a a E- °° c° U p a m m o F`- V) a p o.E
Q a a a m p= 3 L ` Q a E O .N a 0 4)
_ m •E n.
Z m a o o >° =X c o o -°' a m 3 Q. m ? s U; m a m ° E se i o u 3: CD C
Z a U- 0 IL to a w Li w ?01 2 in° w Ln aL F- U 3 Z Li Li f7 a° v°? in E°- N LL I? h
l l l I \
col 4 J ? Q lum W W i l 11 1 1 4 ! I
I I I 1 f I c J `J I I ?sl o
110
CL -0
° O O 1 J C m ,
CL CL C
O p O -+
pp a o a- ° E C r ray
°' -1 5 ?•? c U g C ; C x a E E s Iii
w y m
O + `°
m
c c o s m m ad ; _, c to on N `w D > 3
u0 y L i E 3 ? c ?, c c c c H y o w ??
O > c „ L o s m c s .? 4- a- ` o o c U 0 -o ? cn o E4 C
Q m m m C m m O O O p m O O L H r?
C a a> 'c a) m D1 •«. Y +- O d O E Q CL co °i
O O O O °? 7, C m O7 O7 ° 01 C C umi E E 0 C O '? m C C?
3: U s l7 C7 ?a E c C a U U LL F? H n o •o a Q : 1` m O, c
C o "" Hew.
m n ci d o c Li Li
p o 0 0 0 4 0 o> > o .? o Z a o -: a ti c 0. a CL rn° '0 ai m -°
W (, aL 4 C C n. a. U uxi A. W C en LU LN C aC, a V cx C O .x O - IL °i O `p. 3 °
W C )L `
H? H V) Ln ll p,`. m to
Ll
ubP'9I-HSd-89LZI I\cuol d\? 11^9-co\u6lcarn aw ?,m :I
it
ci
c
C
CL
E
U
U
m
m?
Lo
? N
N
° c
L m
?
(L
Cl)?
Q LL
M
U
x
m
a
a
Q
m
L
Y
Y
m
U
O
U
O
as
E m
m ?
U)
co
-m y
= Q
U
C
T
C
co
CL
E
O
U
0)
m
to
a
N CV
O Z
t ?
U ?
a. LL
v
U
x
c
m
a
CL
Q
a
m
r
N
a?
m
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U V
(n O
0.0-
C- rc
to
3=
Cl) -1
_m
? N
2Q
9 1 0 1 0

1 6

CL N A
4 Wi ??
?' x
m FS
g
? ;
?
eg
W g

a ' O F0 ``'^?. JWOWY?
?vSM .h X' ? ?
- la
pr a ,,2rr?n

o e
W o
2+
(DW
!q ?
wo
Z C3
UX
W
WK
z0
w
A
5N .
OA
zw
Az
wam
z O L7
O z
0 ¢d
F?
Wa
2y WLL
mQ AC
of uo
ZO d
z p: m
N Oz
6A mm
wO 3z
z
cw °Ol
U¢ ?O
r ?
w
Np
w
NANO WO?
?OAN UVZ .
u < IoW
oorr--zw 5 zz
BEN WUW
WO O> >
>mw Fr=,
zO?A ow,
rv
Y
m
0
0
CO
F

u
Q
a

Y

Q F- O
H
F

f." O W 2 w1a
p
o to
w
m12s
21
,
m
o m1
.
h H. :.
U) W
U o o
o
z
¢ mz:3
n
R
_. U
•
Oa
r?
•
N
U
W
a
N
w
w
N
3
N
H
S 6
J
0
do /
fd\l
O
z
ul °
w A
¢=w= rrz-- a
WFW 6
R?w?yLL
O?wm-
A p
?Nw9?
Op
N??NO
?W Q
R OOE
rN??0
??aro
u?<<w
a ?
OJW?°R
w?mp
o
DDpO~?5
FZ'1 W0"'S
IE UI I=-LLr?
?w N)?G
O,gOW
umr w1°?'0
z av?ti?3o?
•
o y _
z
S >' Q W? < m¢ ¢h
0. \ 0i{ ?x,9X W FyQ 0 :E
Z °ng F?Y? ?¢ Way y (°IWN
O W - ?r-- ?9 ua?9 ?? D a:1 Qmw \ 11
J 1
kH 1
u p ,,,p1pRry4q ry, m ?r2y0 00 \ \
'`??, •'.?"'•* or4, rl"i W z Q w w J l.`, io W 1 \
? fcf??? ^ t'•?+" ???aD?awwGtaiz?o 1
OzWU.W?tFrrrFugJ
i^ .? t r t H O qqqW W U U
yGi. 'x'i0 N y2/0 zpZWOWa>
?,.%t; mowypJ wW
YME %? t ¢u m w
wmua r-p- ?
?rr'•rr.mw?a•••• ???? a m Y m g
•? 3wag¢a?a? ?
z?>
a_ ypYwFV Y \ J w ¢
d6d ? w
¢??il¢a?¢o F~?QyZO 1 U- v
Q?
Vi U C7UU-UaQQ?>g O
'uSamu?u??i u"f3a>li¢0.15- r ? \ \ !a. w n
z cl ri v.n m 1 1 ¢ w
0
°Dp o
q__ o tom
Q m S / ®/ w SOS
U' I I qmN¢
F- Q C O I w CO>
? I ?¢o
t¢- ° o 01, ¢
LU ? ? I 1 ? w00. `'a
w a
I O g?LL
Q : W x I I J Y ¢a'2a
w z m U` , \ m W 'o
o - a ur F a w
a
0 3 o I I 'm W
N OGjJ zozo
Z' O ' 1711 I O d cfQ`
?'1 V 1 70."OSy
5 C711,
i 1. z z \\ // ?m H <Swx
3a o ?J ® moai
a I y / ? ? z=ax
Vol
7D \1 n¢ > 004°¢
i - U //
I f ! ® I m Imo/ / z p Jyl-w
I I / ?/ Mold g .? N n
/ I I f
tz I ® I a?
I 1II
\
°
W ° ?+
2m 7
y, m
of 0
?oz z ° a w l7
f C x W '? '? ° a D Q¢z p$ ? z yw
k Y ? i0 'J Q ? U' t-ty?y O IC a W M-
U?1 `,Gm(??+l i•, Z y QY' ¢ ~ _? LLOZVi
D°Li f] Z z :.'.m••'.''.U.'. W aFO ?q
¢ ?w° Q HQW6 ate. > soN dJ?
zoba Y 5 o??2Fmp[ ?u. F ?a wd
a.?m? ¢ Ufz¢¢NEtI Y \\` ?+. y.' g ?apOa O
02 6 ww. 3 ?7 JFo??"
/ m0.z ¢
I( (/y/, gqHOU 1° m m..': ;.mow. r[ w2Oa Q?oY4m11D
:•-: •:. :?.•:., O O H-22009 ¢ ,? f W QJa -• ;<Q w z0,.
mWggm>O
N 5? um ? a ?y $ W y I o =oaa= apy
w u? t9? yi-sr°X°¢ 0. ? y?waz 0.=O
:. :1 :•:.::.:.'.:•:.':' W p a z ?n OEM. p
:;.m _Lrwo 95}??wo°p?o
..,• ...:i-';'': z `° ?` °w??~e•' zggw°> as
Q m ? z';`z_o ?3am?oszaz?
••I......'...:''... J j p?ZW WWw f?'?J ??2R'?
H a m cwi?woooa1`?`!'
w og T.,
16 0
Yr-z??Yd?`
z tOa Ny N?0 C, A 0. pQ?
L ?% fY t? v Yl pi t? W D ? N ? ?• ? w c
¢D D w
U
f-rr ?? x y Q wD y m u1 a rw
-' " D U a 2 ?LL?QUm?a
qW P
10 m
R
¢ D r eJ n O Ui L
Lij
w F
pH
J s O
J
?t¢?1
D 9
,77 0 S
w
U a
19
LL •' a I
O
O Z \\
09
a ? 2
O W z J j a+ rl ` ' G? g O
a -Moll
z c2 H a + I I? z
- O a ^, j j 4 m
U U
2 ?
rlea
?eisziz
u6P'9Z"HSd"B9L231\cuold\lItng.colu6map\B1gLZ?l Z/I
U
C
T
C
m
CL
E
O
N
m?
L O
aN
N
O Z,
L ?
d `
? L
a LL
U
x
0
(D
a
Q
N
L
N
m
Y
d
U
U
0
0
U
U) O
a a
E m
m
3=
U)
_m
m N
_¢
• I • I •
o 0
w r. o
O ?'V?J d m LLl n r"? U
Z Gil C
n ° Yi4 'u-U
J
?
m$cse?, yQ [w?tiy OZO
paw ?
fo?N J n ryt4 = Z
?.^ vaOX Lid o a
e?i.+p N o t?;2 O z-?U? O N
C%l
0 ca
#1 1- afv~iaoa<? m 0 U
a LL
w
ZLU
O L)OuW
C F vim~o
OlOwy.CC
Z aomn
nI ti
"I AL
?20I-,?'? ?,t ?Ia ?? ?.xax?ar?:rs? t+4ux?8 -z .
?1p1rf„ 7.ar +'•4 refs ??? ?Yr
Yo- ? 5u'}, ? [ L W ? ?- • ? p f? ? ,v'??w ? n a ;¢' ? - ?
-04' .. • r? ?? '?"4r ??2 a' ?y; ? v"?'?' `G ..mfr Y i '4"a ?M1?67t ?4 ? t
e 17,
40 J* ? a'4 ?l ?,..•.r ,' T?'r?re?'?! TT. vt
a
1 ?
4 ,. f
7f 4j"`J 4 ya f 'fir ""r i w
u 41
IT L?' ?./,Le d d?+.i•+f f' 1 9"`,•ti , y y?
f rd, ??J). ?1 d ,?,? i??ay - ? ? ??? `1? }•? ?,a ? ? ?, ??c`??y ?{,f? N"i?+?JJ?`? ?bf? `,jam ?S ? - ??i ?. f y t!I i .y?.
4?. ?. ? ?y ?yq 4 ? 'l. ? ?C?- ??'+ r t '7. A ?? r?Y,+`• ?b P
? 4`l?, ? ?' "t?4 ty?• ?,r? •c'? ?. ? ti .3 t ?t? ? ? `§f,?M1 ? ?? • 7r??{ ??T? ^? f ?? l ? ?a?,? 1 ? Ift
o- D. S r?''. C, ?`?`?'? y? '. at Fr?? ?+ / f 'L? j q ,}4rL+}'".
'v
J.. C ? ,+,4,,,,,?ti?d? lk,
t'`k
C5'1I) Z A
??`,? ? .? f3 ?,, c!. i/?? ?L "? S Q `\ ?r? 4 rs3 ?7? Q
I, C, 6
It wr
r >
G,a? tiw ?? ?f-? ?' r 1 rZwls ?? r`
4q
rev
rf
LJLJ
a ?
z
D o
?. o
W
U a
LLJ
a
z Q-
0
a
a
EO/92/Z
u6p•£-HSd-84LZ11\°u0 fa\7jrnq-so\u6ise
S _-
e°6, Q
SO rz
o o gag?a wLL
nl ?"?dx:=8 ?-
W V m U
o .a+Hnurpgy OQO¢
?•_f .-...,.boy W
^o jalt •.''..%. O ,g
e?iM J+^l ??..t?j=. UQ1
X
15, "r
t .Q?,. O .?'ZrrS / O Q
00-00 z
` bls $ `Lam
1 5` Z ?yS ?a z°w Ow
r `^ ` f? i 1 l T y? ?0?s a o ?
Ili 1-m w
W> 0
1?
w O
Z n.Om4.
p9 ° \
c °? / ) ? s
(l z t r lam' f ?? ?7' 4? \ s
C Z c i Y` S I ?- r?
00 -
P'
I
rv Um
LYF UW Q
Z oar Ow z Sri
c If
Co L) m
/ ` z o ?e z
o o
a=
m? o0
r l1 i $ C "? r`''ro `j
o
r wV j ?m zw
0 IL 4r
s CL0 5` I o ?, r ?W
c
x F
ItI w z ¢ w?
CO L) ~
?1 / ?? 7 r?^ eel J O
r t -t c
-r21 1 I /\/ / r L{1 •\ m U
o G
' U
+ ? O
OWO
E U 1
z coo
ILI
o
%
0 IN
o ! \
.All v r ,?
tmQ
t
P 1
^.., f liar J ? e n r •? rL- •L ,. ?
•
b
O
o
un
W
Q
O N
in
b
4]
6
c
a
C
CL
E
O
U
d
L 0
a°
+/j N
O ?.
L Co
a
U) 2
a
LL LL
co
U
x
v
a
a
Q
N
r
m
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U
(n O
a a
E?
m
3=
U
-m
2

FgS
_

h Q n?
S
p
?

W
¢ 1 ?3¢3
Y
6
m ?
= i-q
c A;V
- - -
n

N
p!' ? +i

j
,,
- ?•S
=
?
1

•

G
,
t
f?:
:
00
b
?s9
n?

O
Wo
oZ
LLI
z-
'UUU
z?
aIf
noo?q'
J
?
U00
z-?yh
p
?LLam
zw j
ombcco
9 -0, US W
0 >1-O
O?O FvJW>•w
zac,ma
O
U
U C
?I
T
? ? f0
a
(4) ui Q
? V o
U U
F1?? o H t o
N NO
a?
U) a
in 0
CL LL
ISL
L/J
0 as
03
oa
I }
cc r
CO 2
tt Q / s- a .-
IC Of
cr. co
C
xsec s
=Q "~ 'i LO
F-
,?1 ' l S{ ti CO
S e? C?
>- LO C- LU
0< ?w rJ ? ? o
el Od z~
C? ao m ¢W K v
P: Lu ca
W) LLJ
0W
1N 'O 1 J /
co W co
co L) ci
z U) c Ca w 1 1 G o? L? I
o°z z C _ t. J 1 aaz ( r?ti `r2
Nm ? 1 0 l z?
?llWZ U
?I- o zl . v
00
13 b r `. .?
?3NS x33a? ? ? ?^II
LCp?S 3Nl7HO?b ?l. `v 1 W
w S ?
z
u6p•gp-gso-89CZ1
T
U
x
c
a
a
Q
r
3
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U
CO O
an
E m
co of
3
U) 5
-m
? N
= Q
0 1 0 0

> F
C N
? =dg's
y
3 cQa:e?

b_-...

L
S
a

W v"
w a?
U
? C
O /
U S
U L 3
z
w 6
o
?. WOW Q z
W
r
1 ?
d J
W?Q
?
w
?
a
1, 6?
L to z j
¢
6

? o
in
s 2
z?
O'< tq V w
OigOW
J N[Hr U
s a
Uo-O N O o an
0
i3y
f4 in

? z
LLQm
0
Js
.@ so

ti Z
011-v?
UODU
Wtiw'---Q
hw O

6?Y r
zlaama ?v
4
f m1, oro ?
o °? G
0

LLI

s ?
! ?vl
vd
1 ?
l?
?l
s
I
jr
N 1
$ rr 1 U) --> I t J
LLI
10
('?) 17
.17
s
1
?w
1
Ctt
} `" T s
0
z
O
? O
?- m
00
zW
W
Y?
U_y
H W
Zp
z?
O O
mw
U
LU
W U'
U
? a'
0
a: z
IL o
U
.
z
¢
lll} W 0. W.
F- Z
UJO
Z co
u
IrL
J
L
w t ?l ?? u Lis
' r
t ?1
n
0
e?
1 ?
r

6 5-?P
5G0
0
1;1b.
>: 1
f?
L ?`
64?? ay
z4' Q
O
p
O
1 ? /pQYl F..
00
L?
C3 to

W
?. W
Y ?
y
n
rv =W
oQ
W
U_
W~
°
UU
0
oa
0.O
z U
zZ
I W ay
z
U) U

U
c
a
c
m
a
E
0
U
a)
r?
a?
y N
o
L
a- m Cf) 2
m
d Li
U
x
a
Q
N
L
y
>N
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U
U) O
aQ
E?
m
3
( c
_m
N y
=Q
i
g

o ?•, p WE
o•

W 4 ?
? g
gdax?¢
aF?as:
•CP'.a-
b

o ,,„p,nnpp?,.,
.
^ wi
Ps 9n pi R
vl N

O
0
U
[ryry[ C
S+ fr C
''GG I co
Q E
o
vj W ( )
O Ln L 0
O ao
05 n C
( V d co
S? \ in U 0- LL
G7L ? ?
?-
Ofl
L, LU
LLV
cr-
? ?? r L ? ?' irk, ? ? o ? ? ?5{?i ` .?
Llil
r-J
_ Y
? r
m
cj CO
zLu
to)
LLI
z
-j
wCol,
It
/
?s
1? j( ?CO
y
v
1 1 o r
N
W
N r
N
W
Cn o
Y12-
r.
CS,
ucp•L0-gco-B9LZiI\cuoid???

zo
.i
Z]
'o
mw
U
W o
o?
4a
NU
W
n' V~1
l x
o w0
[q U
}
Rl
U
x
U
C
CD
a
'D
N
L
N
N
f0
Y
N
N
U
0
O
U
U) O
0-
E m ?
3
U
_m
O N
= Q
W ± {4{t C w? O
O O wSgx c
z t •g -?
m
W _ g AN o a
g+04 ? ? °' ? E
_?'`• `? x t r? O% ?4•?? i +Gr\ a$k,?i7 J t' ?+, O O v7 a O
,off O
Q \, Yy ,j , `p?L` C 1 1 L 35 1 J? Y iT.ltN'I ?y?{ J / •''? y Ln t
Y ? i?.•' _Nv, "? fff F 1' f ` j k?:'.[' 1 N
I _ / C f0
H,AAA41111L\\J\\ C 0 V __} '1' (y?t4? rw T / L,S ,? !I J d 2
?? / r L"r'S. }!,?1'{wiG?•r7 (? \ ?\\"itT ??`? A?={i??• Z. + LL
uEi r 5+3. ri !? x?I -Y s?+
\ t{t "1? t ' ? c ? a w ?,'}"tr7 r i` ?r,51? a?i4t}
{ ), 7 4}
V t fty y? 3 y \H•. Q"4 rny(i+ el,
J ` dt r Ff ^.ss?.nrf t Jr ro1-::
,??5 r-' ' C!" /? ?+r'rk (r?. ? k..+' d ? ?:y ? `?.f+.?jJ?? ? ?t?+?'•+:i7 ?f 4p 1
1 \ ? !?I?? l I S fi 41 i .? }? h ./.11?`y.,'( y Y, /?? ?`•1 /
1 R'r ; rj, K ?'f M 1'F•YY?4•cY W ?t /
Li -
ti7yfJ?? • \,p x;ki? rirFtil?•ry? ? t+!!+t } ?u ? ?-?`?? ? r '??4?? \\
pp
1E?71M•e r?? CF? ? p•
`l L tom, !r ! t! r, X}?r+•? A n_J ??}y
l l i
.f•}f?A ???y 1•S ?T ? ? A? itjY?f'
Vir
V l Uttr , ?"`^},1?}' ' +??t_??s•i r+?r + ?:e;"4"?,??it'?,,??? ?Se,4 ,.-t r?
,E.,y•y OR
IM
?^ w
R"F? r tir !/J
(/ t t? L I_ ? '4,? +fr ? fyp ?dgg,,???, + Z n?,C„?1Jt ? +"•e{?tL+?i M??`"r r.J
. 41
t (J S f L-- ? 1S rd. ?"'
r
t1 \ l J3irr;
4 1 ? ? ? \ ?'X :S 73A't
CY)
eAm
1 ?
J y ? a
- J l ` ?J J
ti
' ?
N
1L1 1 1 `1
4
7 E69 r l f 1 1
a
r }Wc
P1 59
Sc,
M

PUDI

U
x
n.
0-
C)
r
WWD
W?
?
U3 zU
UU
o 0 oQ oZr
U)
M X
U3 P5
}'• z
:3ux
zw
am -
U
ihw W
?-L)
OIOw>.?
Z aaooa
W
cn
z
tv
L
N
tU
f6
Y
N
N
U
0
O
U
U) O
Q. 0-
E d
c?
3=
U)
-m
2 Q
0
e8.
?- goy
> ? ? ate=
° Q W?O'a
`c N ° yer?gg?
MATCHUNE SCOTT CREEK SHEET 10 STA.8`2*?•00
50
U) RRA
V w?;Ci??i1'?
K
, ,.
ll %4
ec
11, awl I
IF,
-7 ej ?• r f
),Alt. F1 )i7
All W
--v tj
Z -a Z
s l ??-- t 1
N-1 umw
fr ra- , I,u{i/'y
w
Ih.
n
r.? ; ,'lv eta js'? t
s'?i1
/ I J ?fTY,'uMa ,fxg?f?
8 U r ijtr •i 1 '11?J ?u?St?,?i {1r f??* ,1 it s
A "R
TV UNN "y -e
t ?' lam' ? ,(• -{. ,r , ???'b `/ r 1' t ? + rX?,??. ?f ??,ttyy; ,{?? 1?` ??
, .? Vc i t" {ya / ¢ X . I !4 •{CY ?,ry9 'rti' .e.I ? -";?
\ l?? `?J ? f C ?J ti/ Nall '.--.
`r ,t.>??+?'
S Crc? , ?Jyuy???" #+ t?
!J{?
21
5 ? ?J r '? 1 ?? / / "?'Vt a ?,??jC - r,? ? ??j"?F ? ??1pP.?1 1, rtl•?''?
153
004
f rr o? t F x.[[11 , }x , .t
Awl:
?r1 "` 6rS y! lSipi 1, yp, 'L " fNT 3 '
r

Q ti
c
q Q Inn ma

?W W v
u
N
WV o y L

x
L
a
N
N
r
? 0z

O N d N
U)2
10
LL

M''
,

yl +t d ??
?
ii!
,r cc+?

f
?
5`?
v?
-?
r
J
?a

7
. ym r f .
t
r? o
?'?'1 Ud
j aw J z
/ ?iDU(J
l W¢ J
J ogoz?
0-
o< r Moog
4? 1 r 02
I moo?
1 ` ruaam
woz@
I pdYrD
UOU
w co 0
0 DEW
,
J
ltnq-c
•
•
a
C
W
L
N
cu
Y
N
N
U
r-
O
U
U) O
as
E m
w
3
m =5
_m
a? rn
2 Q
It
VN.
r?-
1^ Q W C°
,111..........

hf?'1 6 ml
¦? ?`? l r / 1 fit, C`? ??,??1 ? n try°? fa jr `ip5^y/?h
1 _7 \ , s IP
/ a
)t s
rr fl
dr,
.mss ?? $ jr'? fi
? 1 • ? jl,?.tyt,a
? 1v
( ? 11 4: jj?y ,?_J alb r
it; N
gwy
?! sr
pp1_"+s' ' 's
5111
ou i/ s',4?P1, +, 1? trL
W 011
?AMA 1w .1
0.1
o -zti ?`Jy r< f -? a 4tti?i "-'l1se v?`
any #v 7+?iiV(G ?! rt
U3 1-1
w

?- ? ?'1 ?° Jam'
v r r a
C ?
\ V h ?,
r
?j
! x
rte, j 1?Kt
t
ell
W Ct? r
CREEK
v i w
L ?J wIs?
cc LL, z

L
r
r
/ z
?
O
?
_
?f
2 m
r
>r ?
» {Hive. O
LL U?O1
a M ? ??, ? U W
SUF

1
t
iL'
Q

r mw
w
U
?d
L
? a o
? z
U
7 g
of
t?-J?

V
rn
iu n ~
z?
C /
2 U) V
UZJ
J
o¢a?
M,
Z2 o"
0 Lr,)?
awQm
zwmw
Oo-Yw
CW.>
Ft'ti1?a
F
CLO
Z
z a?Ma
r
% t .
i?
?U

0
0
in-
W
a
O N
In
N
0
U
T
c
m
a
0
ao
N N
O Z
r ?
a 2
a fi
U
x
C
m
a
Q
u??t
u;,,•? i. ,fl f
•???au" '1?f ?.//' 1, .
r t I t J ??
ILI
I'll I r,
;tfF G
4y Y f
lp
m
s
N
d
f6
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U ?
o
CL o.
E m
f0
m ?
_m
2 Q
9 1 0 1 0

°w { F e'<

o p.?nrurrnrp,.

1( J ?
o a?
+ N ^\ h
?R t.
M
w
w
?r
00-
/ 0D„
S ? a sz?
x }

c
I
l ?
9ti?y
/4
a
w
wWD
Z
W-jjQ
3: U ZVU
J
a5(
OQpZo co
?.?
z
oQOX
zJa?
2-Z z-c
jcfd>-
Er wam
c~na20
paa..Yuull
OUw
111 FVW -0
oil. O
0 owra
0
U

? a
co
Q E
U
U w
c-
?p O 1/7 L
rd N
?.J N ca
CL
U
un cD
CL LL
w ,?? ~ 5 f N
Z
LU L)
olz
J
'j- PF
1
•-? ? ? J1 r? t} ? I? ? 1 r ?-? S n
o ?DI
r °p1 ??1 S -- _ _ oyr 'Sts+y" Sso`urtot+g0 Grp I r ?, JZ
Se 3
!4 W
D -1-1
c? z
zr 1? `~ I ol< .1 00
Q (D ri ! LL. r-.
?O J 1 Zw
D tU' 1 L? e r? (cf
1
D- 0
z
iL aN oD
wz r
O w S ?? 1 mLU C?1o>? l `o. J
1 S ?7 I DF
C
L 1 ! ao
1\ j r ?l 1 -? J _
l i ?M
w cn
551 ?? _$ NU
m u3
?-
c
?a.? 1.1 )
111
U
x
ma
a
Y
N
U
0
0
U ?
O
CL a
E m
cc
3=
cl) m
N y
2 Q

0
a_ w o
Wgd- wr•-Q ci
? N :s???s ?o¢ Q?•,1 c
3 s"grg-a4 UVU 'G c
in-
<zF-? W p
o ?ssrtsmnrq D.OO0 U
_? ? iaoy; LLl p
I's A,
t
zs•? 0 o H t 0
F o`, j qOa f CL N
co N d N
Z 2
ci U)
LL In U
LLam d LL
C oars
w?EU-woo
0 ow >- °m
: z coma
)j Q
z ?I r
0
y y? Z \ m i `` bps
l o
< s ? oo ? I O'? ? {? ? ? s
2 S s1?. fro
55
°? ?- 1 ??J {? ??? / 1~1
[O w X
>? $ t r l ?-
r mr
cl EL
a. 0
z 7n 1 \
7r 0 wo i \n ter` } _ (--
? `1 ?' ? cam' `?'.? )? ? ?? ? ? ?? ) ? ? ?? ? c ? t?--?? ?•
J U L?. (f c ??; ? `? 1
i
XSEC 231.r o.
00.
?. Sys v r ?,
1 ? GSM ?
W 81? ?N?)yo { ? ? _j
r
(f} `bW r ?
z
(\suojd\zj

U
x
O
CL
Q
t
Y
N
d
U
0
0
U ?
O
as
c0
3=
-m
m w
= Q
d 0
Up
0 c na W
N has W-W
a S
3: Cc,
1 g!
"? ..+++ pnuprr ,, OdQz CO
d <
V
Pg 20Y
'app •......./fit.', F. ? V' ?
• z
,''rrrpuiH++,,,N'' 11
?I am
v~id4°w
ZCLYv3
IwPSO
LLI
r ??? x DDpS+ey b 1? °zl°
m0.
us
3NS
J -J,
r )?? J '7 it <) (J '? 1f r :_ ? L
S.1
S
J
ti z
r
A c 1 1 '60
E/3 0,
LU Z,)
1 ?
w 7 1 ?, l r ?l p
L? aW ` ?.•' ?i- s CN ?? ?r
oa 1s ?? ?rl + f Z?
m tu
WU°o +1 $ r- ?- L)ico C
co
0: w
w L, Z F-
aa.. d c_ 1 1 J a w
M En
a- 1 t \ ?i po
W Wz l 1' 1 ??,??, 1 >J 1,
?--
w o
m
s U
l ! ?? r
S t o /?) ? "fir ILo
1 /? `? j i (f0 1r r L/ Z?
?f ( Li w ? vii
Z
l i ? ?? r r ? ? f {
r ? 1`-
l
i ! f
PLI
U) Qj
"6P'Ei-gso-99CZ11\sucld\ii
0 1 0 1 - It
U
C
C
m
a -
E
U
t?
a?
y N
O Z
L CU
CL LL
U
x
C
CD
CL
Y
N
U
0
0
U ?
O
aC
E?
m
u) co
N y
T-
s@. D
WU
rz 06 ?`i'icS 0..1112 D U
v1UZ-U-1 O N
? HQ,, vi 'n a
-- ----- ' Z1- w? E
,,"gnrgrrq „' D D In O
•`` .`?o, a ZO0.?W Na Q
M?t ^?w V..rx U m?
q? w o v1 a o
0 %i L ca
,'rruru?nnirP`` 1? DLL0.C0 d L
Ln a)
fAD`LD d LL.
O'L
ggnw
-c~n>F'O
FWI
22+OO.OD t" f
MATCHLINE 11T1 SHEET 7 STA. OOW>-X
z4Dm0.
1 l?L `??f I l? g l
1 ? 1
L ( .?
C- z
J ?V ?J
00
UiE
t?s ?
ll?
r / { =W
?l r? m LLJ
ry 1 D p;.
f
o. CL z
>: CL 0
S r < j ??
in O ?- f 1A , W (/J
co C)
00
YW 2' /11F
ai l ` t sr ? /? ;j f
W
F- J,
a:W
0o
D
J
ff
fj,
1
0 D-
J as I / o
W
o
zU
o ?
r
fn 0
k? a" ?l
I n
u6p'yl-gco-99L211\cuold\a11ng_c
00
U
x
c
ma
a
Q
d
L
w
Y
N
U
0
0
U
(n O
Q, a
E a)
m
3=
U) S
-m
N y
2Q
a 1 0
1 0

u? ?, ul -`1°3
O X17 o wsno

u - -
-
p
?.aumnl..,,
d
Al I.. 1A.
?
-
tw y n u;
•
I''
,,`,
l1I1,11!!M!!"` ?a
1-N,
\? J '41
mod-" ? ? lti '?
?? 1 ?? J 35 ?_ ?? ?
}S?l? ? ? s??? IIJ
D
L ?
e
roN?oa?b ? ?? ? ? ? `
r,.. v
0
w
WOO
z
WN
?UUUU
2J
z
O00
zJ Q
H?z?
?U-am
0
oaY
Uto
w
t?>F-U
a4md
°0'DS+bg I's B -L33Hs E.Ln
• 1 3N1lH3 _VW
C,
//W
vJ
z
? H
64
W
O
0
O
h
u3
G y
N
N
1 r
?, 1 r
1 el \ ?? ` / 1 F? r n \N
? v? ? ?1 ?r? l?? f? ..r
? r' J T 1 G -
?•• z
z
? o
°0°asb C-- J2/ z W J(r
w
W
as L
>.
l)
1 ?J
w
U V
QU

o

cc
a. 0
U
z
cc
?n
u.i
al
w
n
i o

U
C
C
1L
E
U
W
L ?
a°
N N
O Z
L ?
2
?a
CL lL
U
x
CD
CD
a
N
L
`m
Y
N
N
U
0
O
U V
Cn O
a a
E
m ?
U) m
2Q

w
i

I '1FI ee°8 e
`_yy' ° 35u3Q?
??pnungn,.
[W?^Y
m 'S
•:14vJ?? i

w
wwo
?
z
r
W
rQ
y
}?Z J

000¢
zoa?w
¢
K
U
OO
znca
w 'OK2
20
a>-
C/)
C/) - m a?
Q
m°
ZW
a?y-y
U?jw

T

R C5

u1 CID
a
E
Coll?

?J
o
N a)
co
W U) N
j? 'n
N O
L f0
r°n U y
CL UL
IL w
F- 1-. U
zIaoma
P
1
C ? I
r
yy ,? r
0
34. -V C*
r9? ,
\ Z
oo n?
LL F-
COO
Lou
w
ti
COD
C--3 U
L3
1 / \ ?I J J ao
1 l? fir ?` P \ itl j 0
? } v
CD r-,
\ -' ? o o
1 ? C
} L?
L/Z (L ? ref ? ._.
u5p•9l-gsc-B9LZ11\auvld\,4 11
• I •
O
N
X
V
C
a
CL
t
Y
d
N
U
0
U
(n O
as
E m
U 5
-m
CD
_¢
U
C

L C-- 5x
J L °Q o
\ sc yes e NHS tc
PIC-
r
w
U)
Z
?.l
OfIATION BOUIiPAAY ?•` V ` /?- J r, ^
- STRENA Ft r--
L
I C Sf, ( 1
v / 7
f .?
' .r t, ? ? 1 ? z f L r ? •,?
r.
tr CO
m
`?1 5 L
?,
U?
oa
O
az
a0
LO v
Z
g?
iu a N
z? O
0
w
w w zZ
W J Q
3:0 -
cn J
0F-yF-
16
OQO
X
ZnWM
9202
00
CrLLnam
inn?o
w
p0.YLO
C)OOM
W
l CO> ~
ai O
Oow>-D!
Z coma
.'L --\
ZI`qrQ-QgZZi1\suvjd\ajtnq_sv?u6ts- ask
uuZisZil
T
C
co
CL
E
0
U
N
r _
a?
0 N
O
L C13
a 2
U m
CL LL
L
(A
d
m
Y
N
U
0
0
U ?
O
Qa
E m
mry
3=
N o
co
-at rn
2 Q

Y C??
t°u Pe
5

$ N
n $
In $
'
w { .
?
;
V
;
-
tlttt IIIIIII
t

06C
14
J b ern

k/7k
°W
Wwa
W?a
UVU
U1 ?J
J
_ M ~Z~
R-<
Om?W
U<pK
z?v,a
pnza
D,Wam

rrQ
_J
N
0
0
O
N
w
u
O to
In
N
0
??yyy mpgw
o?-Ym
r 8 J
IJF
W> 0
°°Wt.
z aama
S _ r
y.-SEC 31 r J?
\JLA l (,.
1?-
S ^' 1
)1 } 4l 1 m? , o? ??? ???r `?U??` ?? L J `J ?sr??~ y f--j ``? us•-?.
LL.
W vr
W
x s> -?
\ ?\ 1 z
111 ??? }S a° i {?? ? } ? ? L (? <_ f? a
on W 00
? a? v 11 u ?"??
11i?
S ??{ s tZ ! l ?L. ;? 1 ;? zILJ 1
CL 0
LU _r
F- UJ
W. CO, z
:c cl
_5 0
1I I? Y
\ 1 1? ?I ?\ ?? ~ ? }Jv 1 Jrtfr? l?` J I mW
ff 4 °
ao r
\q
JC --,
r r
U
1
U
C
T
C
(0
0.
O
U
m
m?
aN
N N
O Z
L N
° 2
a ?i
N
N
U
x
c
a?
a
Q
a
r
Y
N
N
U
0
O
U
(n O
CLs
E
(n 5
-m
m y
_¢
• I •
I Ps.
o I^'1 ? ?SeYg
N 2222 Ia
Sy 1IYS11S] rn'1 t "7
?'.y,.'.rp o r'iry
MATCHL]NE UT8 SHEET 20 STA. 28+00.00
n
Jl
(
r
(

1
I °

o ! 1
?l z
O s .?
LL?
LLI

1.
S

C)
?r
W
wwn
z
w-J¢
'>UZU
J
d' ¢
o a to
0oox
ZQyR
o?z?
aE'-E O•m
LLI v'-i[O W
co
tVOUW
(H EIW
-. U
H tn> O
OOW>D:
Z agmn

I j l l f? 1f?1? r??l'N ? r(

S ?

U F
W to
FF
z
oy !? S J ? I(tt 1 _?? ?, Jj 11 io¢ jr! 11S?1
c'
l l
p U v I ? ??.7 ,
U G
7? 7 ?1 1 C
Q IL
0. O 1 / I
n?
0. L 1
wul
°zl w °
L, C? ` L L1 i
?S r
ben, j')
1 ;
0
0
j Ui
Q
N u
MW O N
tn
O
In

a
0
O
m
z
O
M
Op
U W
w
w
W?
2 F-
N
wW
z F-
< w
<N
z?
Oo
mw
U
o?
UU
o?
9L o
0,-,-
Z
U
co
+tI Q' co
LLI 1 WU
C,
C
L
1 ?? f
U

S, v
191
f ` I-
h `
? ?J 1
LlJ ? ? ?? t?? y ?
Z
u5p•6j-9sa-89LZ11\suvjd\3

U
C
T
c
co
CL
O
U
L 0
0.0
(n N
O Z.
L
CL CU U) ?2
CL ti
M
N
U
x
c
O
CL
CL
L
Y
N
U
0
O
U
(n p
a a
E °'
co
3
CO
_m
m ?
2 ¢
• I • I •
m ?
a N
z
o
=mot ; s ti-VV

W
o
woo
Hal CraZ
€a't
4U
? y 9 to Q L
play j W
ax=`s y u
UdOE o in
J 1[?2yj]
Z E--
7) rEoa
121 )ti Ooz o
XLLILM 10
C) IL gu)
??JS? ??`Il? ???• ry1?.t ? of ??..` 'r1J?1..a,?r'_/??t?;-, ? J' 1` C?-`" ?w??
N
t6?-11611 7.
A
r
J r1 ?1 r ?
Ni
1 r
?J
7
i
` '`? r" > I I F l ?? ;t`7 •? vim' ?p _? ?~s ?_
1 41
j (? /'rte °'
0
Z
D
0
m
z
QO
O Q
U.
ZW
Y?
U
a V)
W
H
io_
Q CO
z ?-
bJ
O
mw
V
? H
WU,
U
D
m
ap
U

I/ Mwz L) *
LJ
IL 0
7 ?, ref L f g:D

rJ/
r I
r
r, i,\x
Val,
Al 00
Cis
r 1?, C o-? ?? l 1
17
S r- ?j m a P; a W
L En
f
Z I--
W , M
>- CA
03 LU
U -S
., J L g? ~r I nP: f

of
006, L) T`1-1

%
W
•
i
V,
ri
.1
° i
pin9-c
•
U
C
T
c
m
a
E
0
U
r?
a?
N N
0
=
a m
2
a
a Li
It
N
X
'O
C
0.
a
Q
Y
U
00
U
U) o
na
E
m
3=
U
_m
N N
=Q
J
_c°Ew

0 o r5 F'

W ? m"Ecy??

W
O .t`/nurutllt

rt:
?
v o ,
: r
`'
un1U?`?,?` • E
w
F-
(XWz
W:j¢

y ,000

aQ
zQ?
3?aa
? v3H

a
LLJ
-t
u
PZ
ti °¢
?
oO-
HE -.-• w o u
S
r
U?3 ?
z-?l-
- r? as rmon
N?\NE n w
MP?G
N
!! I UaaM O
WLLam
¢
6. ?lti 1 ?W?117
s
1 w i -iurU
Z °Q>-0.
L tit
rl
°B ~ L? Q7
' = r
/? r.s vi ti, ?1 ¢ ?
Op

0
g
Z
t._

00
CO

?W 1
'Y Fem.. ,-\
m
a a

rs ,. U3
m S •r- r
tr U
W L
1
1 U¢
b a

x 7
/ .
2 0.0
m co /} u g
u/
? 1 16°
z
d
r z? y
0 1 0
U
c
T
C
m
a
O
tU
a?
N N
o Z
r
ai
OU li
Lo
N
X
v
a
a
a
a?
L
y
3
Y
N
N
U
0
U
In O
D.C.
E N
m?
3=
m ?
_m
\L w 1 a .: -
vY m?c!i" ? U
? t$?gEe? moz-L ? i°n ?
?.?._ _ _ P$Uww7 J
G \- -
?QzL-
o pb uJ
z !-Lu
OWS
c vU,
23 STA 36 ` `
UpUa w
zb??Q ?'I'i in
o n MATCHt1NE U;3
`ti F ao
1 / J l J LL
51.>1 0
s r ?:
J 1*
a
? ? •q ? ?i Q 1 ? ? 'J ? rl r !
:u: .?} 1 ?? ` sus ?? `l r
1N j \ f
C ?
f y sl .?! o `?`
LLJ
0 ix
1 ?UL ?
C1 by
LY
rl 8
_ r
?9L a?sx`
Cf^j / N
Z
Um
L-
a LL
e, V
ao
'? J Z
t mU ?
LLI
U b
a s v
?? 557 v a (L
a0 j
z U bo
J as ' r` w o ` l I
r rr Z rn U o ?ar?
T1 51P.Z
UK3 5N?

u6p•ZZ-9?o-89LZ11\nueid\0
U
C
T
C
m
CL
0
io
a
y N
O 2.•
r co
d `
??
CL LL
CD
N
U
x
°'
a
Q
r
N
a?
m
Y
N
N
U
0
0
U r
fn O
an
E CD
m
3 }'
cn 5
_m
N n
=Q
0 1 is 1 0
?r eso ?
? a W:s- ww? o?
@, a
i m??=.a: SOU
tnUZci o
d CO)
00 z
Off
c v -5 Z FQ
'••.,r,,,rr,,,.,P`'` " OQ'00+gb'VLS 54 ,?am o?
3HS 61n 3Nl'IN3Zt/W
'??
_V .0 00 ci5 U.,
j?LLJ
21 LU L)
f y
( h ~r ? r
OTC
ti
(11 p // ] o z
`lY 1 ? P 1 1 ? ?ji is
c`3
??'? ?? s` 1 `r c vI r? l0 9f If
s fU w
°
a
ILI
Ell
>o
LLJ
' U
1 \L? Lam; C??a C_r
1 5a l'. , •} s 1 1 .f ti
N o
Vas w n IZO
( G1 ? l
1
iOF- 81?3SY~ , ti 7
C° f ^'
f ?IpTCHLIt4 1153 5HEE7
W
U)
Z
L y.

!`
Z-r
I
? v1
u6pE2-gsa-89L2 ?\nuojd\p I tnq_sa\u6nern co, gyn.
°OUSZ/1
U
c
c
co
E
O
N
N
.c
0-0
N N
O ?'
L f6
a`
6
6.'0
CL LL
in o
as
E
(0 ?
3
io
-m
m rn
2Q
0 1 0 1
0
•
1 0
•
O
O
O
LO

4-
0
L
?C p
i
V
co
4w O
C l) J V)
0
? ' 0
co
3

m o
N
?
O
O

00
f? Cfl M N
O N O
(4) uOIJenOl3
? 0
•
•
O
O
ti
LO
O
O
LO
LO
O
O O
O
?. M
LO
LCD
O

O
+
co O
O
N M
CL L
o

y=
O s
°_'

v'
a O
CF)
.he
a?
a?
L
V ca
m
O
V/
?
? O
O

co LO

d

O
O

LO
M N O M
N
(4) uoi;eA813
•
•
•
u
4-
O
L.
I1
r
I--
D
O
O
'IT
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
C
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
LO M LO N LO r LO O
M N r- p
(g) U01jen813
m
U 00
C ?
_ d
C C
Co Co
a
0 0U
U
0 CD
t U)
CL U)
0 °
.r-
CL
U
U co
?m
0
M
U°
N
5
"? f6
C
N ?
a?
a0
Q U-
a
a?
a?
m
a?
U
0
U r
to 0
a?
E ?
co _
iQ
0
•
4)
4-
O
L.
a
N
H
D
0
0
0
0
0
LO
0
O
E
c
0
00
M N
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
O
M N
O
I
(}j) uoiiena13
•
•
•
•

O
O
O

O
O

O
O
M
C)

0
r.
Cl)
A
/4
C
CO)

H
O
rn
D N
O
I N

E rn

U '..
'
.. O
O
r
O
O
O
co ti CO LO 't co N
O
(}}) UOIIBA013
N
U 0
? O
?
c c?
aN
O p
U ?
N O
io U
L N
a0
o
L U
d
U
U cu
am
M r
U°
N
"O c0
c 7
Q U
N
L
>O
,C
N
N
U
O
U r
U O
Q O_
E (D
co
U
2 Q
•
•
0
O
IL
H
D
o I
O
0
o I
0
ti
O I
O
0
o I
0
Or
0
? o
CO
o I
0
M
r
O I
O
N
r
O I
_O
r
O
O
O
ct M N if ) Lf) O 0
M N r- O O
(}}) U014BA013
•
•
4)
4-
O
I
LO
D
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
LO

O c
O o
r
U)
O
O
M
O
O
N
r
O
O
r
O
O
O
?t M N O
(}}) uol;ena13 '
0
•
•

O
L.
IL
co
D
O
O
LO
M
O
O
O
M
O
O
N O
cn
0
0
0
N
O
O
LO
V-
O
O
O
LO lqj- M N O N co ?
(46 UOIJena13
N
0-
C: C L
c
c: C
O (a
Q ?
O p
U
c? U)
U)
N 0
O
-U
L
m N
U m
? m
L?
M
U°
N
x 2.,
0m
c
C?
QQ LL
N
L
Y
m
9)
L
U
O
U V
(n O
QQ
E °'
co
(n
2 Q
•

•
0
L
a
I?
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
r

c
O_
O
CD Cl)
T-
0
O
r
O
O
N
T-
O
O
O
d LO M LO N In ?- LO O
M N V- O
(}}) UOIIBA013
m
U 0
? O
a
c
C C
c6 N
? U
O p
U
m cn
t U)
N 0
O °
-C U
0- L
V^ U cu
am
M
U°
N
0m
a> L
Q
a CD
Q LL
a>
L
U
N
>cu
Y
N
U
0
U V
(n O
aC
E ?
ca
co
=Q
•
0
0
LO
M
•
O
L.
a
co
1

J

O
O
O
M
O ?
LO C
N O
O
O
O
N
O
O
Ln
r
O
O
O
c7 N O N
(}}) u014en013
•
•
•
SC Cross-section #1
10
9
8
0
7
w
6
m
w 5
4

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
SCCross-section #2
8
7
$ 6
=
0 5
> 4
m
w 3
2

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
SCCross-section #3
6
5
$ 4
= 3
0
w
2
m
w 1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-38 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•
•
SCCross-section #4
6

5
? 4
0
3
2
0
w 1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)

SCCross-section #5
6

5
4
0
0 3
2
m
w 1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
SCCross-section #6
7
6
$ 5
4
0
3
m
w 2
1
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-39 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•
•
SCCross-section #7
6
5
$ 4
=
0 3
2
m
w 1
0

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
SCCross-section #8
5
4
$ 3
= 2
0
r
m
w 0
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft)
SCCross-section #9
6
5
$ 4
=
0 3
w

2
110.
m
w 1
0

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-40 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•

•
UT1 Cross-section #10
7
6
5
4
0
3
0
ILL! 2
1
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
UT1 Cross-section #11
6

5
$ 4

0 3
0
2
m
w 1
0

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)

UT3 Cross-section #12
10

9
8

7
0
M 6
m
w 5
4

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-41 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•
•
UT3 Cross-section #13
10
9
8
7
0
6
m
w 5
4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT3 Cross-section #14
8
7
6
0
0
5
M 4
a?
w 3
2

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT3 Cross-section #15
8
7
6
5
0
r
4
m
w 3
2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As-built Report
Appendix C-42 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
UT3 Cross-section #16
8
7
$ 6
5
0
0 4
m
w 3
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
•
•
UT3 Cross-section #17
7
6
0 5
4
m
Fu 3
2
1
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
UT3 Cross-section #18
6
5
$ 4
= 3
0
M 2
as
w 1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-43 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles

•
0
UT3 Cross-section #19
6

5
$ 4
= 3
0
w
2
m
w 1
0

0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)

UT 4Cross-section #20
6

5
4
= 3
0
2
4)
w 1
0

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT4 Cross-section #21
5
4
3
= 2
0
ea 1
m
W 0
-1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-44 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•
•
UT 5Cross-section #22
5
4
3
=
0 2
M 1
>
as
w 0
1
-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT6 Cross-section #23
6
5
$ 4
0
3
2
w
1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT6 Cross-section #24
5
4
3
E
a 2
m
w 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-45 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
r
U

UT6 Cross-section #25
5
4
3
c
0 2
:r
>
m
W 0
-1

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT6 Cross-section #26
3
2
$ 1
0 0
0
-1
m
w -2
-3
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station(ft)
UT6 Cross-section #27
4
3
2
1
0
ca 0
m
FU -1
-2
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-46 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
E
•
•
UT7 Cross-section #28
6
5
$ 4
c
0
3

m
w
2
1

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT7 Cross-section #29
6
5
^ 4
0
0
3
w
ca
2
m
w 1
0

0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT8Cross-section #30
6
5
4
3
0
:r
2
m
w 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-47 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•

UT8 Cross-section #31
6
5
$ 4
3
0
2
m
W 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT8 Cross-section #32
6
5
$ 4
0
3
2
m
w 1
0

0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
UT8 Cross-section #33
6
5
$ 4
= 3
0
w
2
4)
w 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix C-48 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As-built Report February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
•
U
UT8 Cross-section #34
6
5
$ 4
3
0
2
m
w 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
UT2 Cross-section #35
6
5
$ 4
3
0
2-?--? -
m
w 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As-built Report
Appendix C-49 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011 Baker Cross Sections and Profiles
•
APPENDIX D
SELECTED PRE- AND POST-RESTORATION PHOTOGRAPHS
E
•
Hell Swamp/Scott Creek Watershed
As-Built Report
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011

Field treatment after crown removal, lower Hell Swamp site; Winfield tract in
background.
{ 5
iI? ??ID ?t
S ? $
•
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
Typical Hell Swamp topography prior to fall 2009 seeding. Winfield tract in right
background.
•
•
•
areas.
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
View of Marsh Master used for first herbicide treatment for common reed in wetland
Application of herbicide on common reed in areas of UT6.
•
•
•
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
View upstream UT7 post construction and prior to planting (Seed Tick Neck Road in
background along treeline). Valley edge planting zone marked with white pin flags.
View upstream UT6 post construction and prior to planting. Houses along Seed Tick
Neck Road visible in middle background. Valley edge marked with white pin flags.
•
•
•
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix D -4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
View to west and upstream of upper Scott Creek post-construction but prior to planting.
Large woody debris saved for use in Scott Creek single thread channel construction
•
•

Ask-P
74
Sediment and erosion control structure (- location of monitoring well HS42). View to
northeast just above the end of the single thread portion of Scott Creek prior to filling of
larger drainage ditch between the Woolard and the Smith tracts. Houses along Seed Tick
Neck Road visible in left background. .
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
Planting day one, Hell Swamp.

View downstream along single thread Scott Creek channel with top and bottom of bank
marks and bed elevation control point.
•
• Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix D -6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
View downstream from upper end of UT8; HS 109 monitoring plot stakes at right.
•
•
r?

Vices to cast of most downstream portion of upper Scott Creek. Simdc thread channel
portion ends at Juncus (dark grass) in left middle distance.
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
View to east along berm parallel to Seed Tick Neck Road.
•
Windley tract
•
•
w:
•i
h
11"6 ,? "t u}>>tt, gun ?>, l! I I iv Iicrc It joins the sigdc thread channel of- upper Scott
Creek. Scott Creek channel in foreground, flow from right to left.

Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
Stream crossing 1 at upper Scott Creek, view to east; downstream to right.
C?
•
•

Post-restoration view downstream old Scott Creek canal fill at old farm road. Note same
suite of trees indicated by arrows in this and previous 2007 photo. Scott Creek flow now
directed into swamp to right side of photo.
Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed
As Built Report
Appendix D -9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 2011
Prior to restoration-view downstream old Scott Creek canal at old farm road culvert.
•
•
View upstream old Scott Creek canal fill at old farm road crossing. Trees in distance at
arrow are hardwoods left after removal of pines and other nuisance species seen at arrow
in previous photo. End of single thread portion of Scott Creek is at dark band of Juncus
visible between biologist and hardwood trees in middle far distance.
• Hell Swamp Scott Creek Watershed Appendix D -10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
As Built Report February 2011
View upstream old Scott Creek canal at old farm road culvert 31 January 2007.