20120107 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report Ph II_2016_20170515

PotashCorp PotashCorp- Aurora
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
March 3, 2017
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
Enclosed is the P and U Lands mitigation site Phase 2 (Year 4) monitoring report for the 2016
monitoring year. The entire report, including all text, tables, figures and appendices, as well as
the 2016 well data tables, are located on the CD which accompanies the report. Planting in Phase
2 was complete in March 2013. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], or
Julia Berger of CZR Incorporated at [phone].
Sincerely,
i C JAM AAA -1
Je'i frey C. Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
PC: Mac Haupt, DWR - Raleigh w/encl.
Anthony Scarbraugh, DWR — Wash. w/ encl.
S. Cooper, CZR w/encl.
23-11-020 w/encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T [phone]
PotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com

FOURTH ANNUAL (2016) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 2
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
March 2017

FOURTH ANNUAL (2016) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 2
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................
1.1
History.............................................................
1.2
Location...........................................................
1.3
Goals and Performance Criteria ......................
2.0
REQUIREMENTS ...........................................
2.1
Normal Rainfall and Growing Season .............
2.2
Hydrology........................................................
2.3
Vegetation.......................................................
2.4
Photographic Documentation ..........................
2.5.
Reporting.........................................................
3.0
2016 RESULTS ..............................................
3.1
Rainfall............................................................
3.2
Hydrology........................................................
3.3
Vegetation.......................................................
3.4
Photographic Documentation ..........................
4.0
SUMMARY .....................................................
LITERATURE CITED .......................................................
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
Cover Photo: Aerial view to west over Phase 2, with Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 3 also
visible. 15 March 2016.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 2 performance criteria, methods summary, and current
status.......................................................................................................................... T-1
Table 2 Hydroperiods of 49 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 2
restoration site, three Rodman, and four Bay City control wells during all rainfall
conditionsin 2016....................................................................................................... T-2
Table 3 Hydroperiods of 49 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 2
restoration site, three Rodman, and four Bay City control wells during WETS
normal and below normal rainfall in 2016................................................................... T-9
Table 4 Fourth annual (fall 2016) survival of trees and shrubs planted in 48 0.3 -acre
plots at P and U Lands Phase 2............................................................................... T-17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase 2 and Two Control Sites
Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 2 and Two Control Sites
Figure 3 Soils P and U Lands Phase 2 and Two Control Sites
Figure 4 P and U Lands Phase2 and Rodman Monitoring Well Locations on As -Built
LiDAR
Figure 5 2016 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Two Control Sites Longest 2016 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones During All Rainfall Conditions
Figure 7 P and U Lands Phase 2 and Two Control Sites Longest 2016 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones Excluding WETS Above Normal Rainfall
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Appendix B Selected Fourth Annual Restoration Photographs
NOTE: Copy of entire report and hydrology data from monitoring wells included on
accompanying CD.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

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: 200110096 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Water
Quality Certification (WQC) #2008-0868 version 2.0. As described in the mitigation plan prepared
for the pre -construction notification (PCN) to the USACE (CZR 2012), the site is to be constructed
in three phases as shown on Figure 1. Wet conditions delayed construction in --138 acres of
Phase 3; these acres were planted in 2015, and are being monitored as Phase 4, and will be one
year behind the remainder of the previously described Phase 3 area. This annual report concerns
fourth annual monitoring of the 1,089 acres of Phase 2 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. Phase 1 and 2
restoration activities occurred September 2011 -March 2013. Phase 2 construction was
authorized by five NC Division of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control permits for land
clearing which were subsequently modified for the construction of the interior ditch plugs and
perimeter berms and ditches. Planting of Phase 2 occurred March 2013. Further details of
construction are included in the as built, first, second, and thrid annual reports (CZR 2014a, CZR
2014b, CZR 2015, and CZR 2016).
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, 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 2 acreage in which
earthwork occurred was in some stage of silviculture, 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) and the bedding common to pine plantations. 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.
1.2 Location. The P and U Lands site is located east and west of Bay City Road (SR
1002), approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Aurora, Richland Township, North Carolina. Bay City
Road runs through the P Lands portion of the site, which is bounded on the east by SR 1918
(Peele Road is the unpaved extension of SR 1918) and on the south by "County Line Road" (a
gated gravel road that functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico County border). The U Lands portion of
the site lies west and southwest of Bay City Farm (the western portion of the P Lands site
referred to as the "panhandle" separates Bay City Farm from the U Lands site). South Creek and
the South Creek Canal form the northern and northwestern boundaries, Bonner/Rodman Road
forms the western boundary, and the Pamlico/Beaufort County line forms the southern boundary
of the U Lands (County Line Road itself is the southern boundary of only the eastern half of the U
Lands as the western limit of County Line Road terminates at the midpoint of the south property
line). The entire site is accessed via multiple gated roads along Bay City Road, Peele Road,
County Line Road, and/or Jaime/Executive Road. The site is located within the Pamlico
Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River basin within the South Creek subbasin at
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

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 the entire project is to re-
establish a self-sustaining functional wetland complex to allow surface flow to move through
vegetated wetlands before reaching any stream. Mitigation yields are estimated and performance
criteria are described for the project in detail in the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U
Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance criteria for Phase 2 are summarized in Table 1.
Over time the 1,089 -acre Phase 2 portion of the site is expected to successfully re-establish
approximately:
40 wetland acres of headwater forest,
562 wetland acres of non-riverine swamp forest,
135 wetland acres of hardwood flat forest, and
25 acres of open water in plugged ditches.
The remaining 34 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 have been 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).
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 rain gauges at other nearby monitoring sites) to determine normal
rainfall during the monitoring period. Bay City 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 2016 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 monitoring
locations on the as -built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all wetland
types on the site, 49 semi -continuous electronic LevelTroll water level monitoring wells
(manufactured by In -Situ) are deployed at a density of approximately 1 well/15 acres across all
planted areas of Phase 2, with the exception of one well that was installed near a ditch to be used
in conjunction with a nearby well to monitor lateral drainage effects from the open perimeter ditch.
Exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence posts were built around all
wells to reduce likelihood of disturbance or equipment loss by black bears. Three wells were
installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman Road in the Ponzer soil
series as controls for the P and U Lands wells in the same soil type (Rodman Control Site,
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

Figures 2 and 3). Four wells were reinstalled in the Bay City Mitigation Site, also in the Ponzer
soil series, on 3 and 4 November 2015 to be used as control wells to compare to the P and U
Lands Restoration Sites.
Electronic wells collect data 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 and then for
all rainfall conditions.
2.3 Vegetation. The first annual survey of the 48 0.3 -acre planted tree and shrub
monitoring plots occurred July -September 2013. The second annual survey occurred October -
November 2014, the third annual survey in August -October 2015, and the fourth survey in
October -November 2016. The plots represent 2 percent of the restoration area (Figure 2).
Nuisance monitoring plots (1 meter square) were established in 2014 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. Seven permanent photo point locations were
established along the perimeter of the restoration area (Figure 2). The first annual photos were
taken 24 October 2013, the second annual photos were taken 23 October 2014, third annual
were taken in December 2015, and fourth annual photos were taken in October 2016.
2.5. Reporting. Annual monitoring reports required per the mitigation plan (CZR 2012)
have been prepared and submitted to regulatory agencies each year (CZR 2014a, 2014b, 2015,
and 2016 to date).
3.0 2016 RESULTS
3.1 Rainfall. Total rainfall in 2016 at Bay City was 60.6 inches, 4.2 inches more than
2015. The 30 -day rolling total of 2016 Bay City rainfall shows the following periods as above
normal (above the WETS 70th percentile longer than several days): 4 February — 4 March, 7 — 28
June, 2 July — 5 August, 12 September — 2 October, and 7 October — 5 November (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 2016, three of the 41 weeks of the growing season
were considered abnormally dry (DO) (19 April — 3 May); the remaining weeks were normal with
no drought status in the vicinity of the P and U Lands project area.
3.2 Hydrology. Post -restoration wetland hydrology monitoring for success officially
began in 2013. Tables depicting 2016 daily well readings and rainfall are included on a
companion CD with this report.
All wells in Phase 2 have exhibited wetland hydroperiods from 2013 to 2016. During all
rainfall conditions in 2016, a majority of wells (55 percent) had a continuous hydroperiod for the
entire growing season (Table 2, Figure 6). Approximately 35 percent (17) of wells recorded the
longest wetland hydroperiod between >25 to 75 percent of the growing season. The remaining
wells (five) recorded the longest hydroperiod for >12.5 to 25 percent of the growing season.
During normal or below normal WETS rainfall, two-thirds (40) of the wells had a hydroperiod for
>25 to 75 percent of the growing season and one-third (nine) had a hydroperiod for >12.5 to 25
percent of the growing season (Table 3, Figure 7).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

During all rainfall conditions, the three Rodman control wells recorded a wetland
hydroperiod for 25-75 percent of the growing season, which is less than a majority of the Phase 2
wells. The four Bay City control wells had a wetland hydroperiod, but each well was in one of the
four hydrologic zones: >6-12.5 percent, >12.5-25 percent, >25-75 percent, and >75 percent.
Hydroperiods for the control wells were not affected by the above normal rainfall.
3.3 Vegetation. When 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 survey events before it can be
confidently counted as dead. Appendix A contains the number of stems that were unquestionably
alive in each plot for the fall 2016 survey.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of
planting to the fourth annual fall survey in 2016 was 64 percent, with a corresponding density of
232 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 68
percent (because a stem was not considered dead until it was not confirmed alive twice in a row)
and a density of 247 trees per acre. Excluding unknown species/uncertain survivals, sugarberry
(Celtis laevigata), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and willow
oak (Q. phellos) had the lowest survival of the 19 species (Table 4). Six of the 15 remaining
known species had survivals of 80 percent and higher, with one (Taxodium ascendens) of them
at 100 percent.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
fourth annual fall survey was 67 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per acre
(Table 4). If shrubs with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead for the current survey
event but will not be confirmed until next survey) are included with shrubs that were definitely
alive (less conservative estimate of survival), survival increases to 69 percent with the same
density of seven shrubs per acre. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) had the lowest survival of the
eight species and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), red choke berry (Aronia arbutifolia),
and possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) had the highest survival (Table 4).
After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density
increases to 239 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density
increases to 255 stems per acre. Phase 2 is divided into three community types: headwater
forest, non-riverine swamp forest, and hardwood flat. Survival of all zones was similar: 55, 51,
and 49 percent, respectively. Plots with low stem survival are spread throughout Phase 2 and
are not concentrated in any particular area of the site. No correlation can be made between low
stem survival and soil series, water depth, or ponding duration. As the density is below the 260
stem per acre performance threshold, discussions with agencies to address mortality for Phase 2
are in process. Volunteer wetland trees were estimated in plots that had 78 or more stems that
were unquestionably alive (260 stems per acre) to gauge the contribution to stem density which
might be expected during the fifth year of monitoring. In the 14 plots selected, the number of
volunteer wetland trees per plot ranged from six to 37 (20 to 123 stems per acre) with an average
of 18 (59 stems per acre). Common species included red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), black willow (Salix nigra), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), and sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana). Volunteers in all plots will be counted in year five.
The Corps determined that three tree species have the possibility to outcompete young
planted trees at a mitigation site and need to be monitored as nuisance species to ensure they do
not take over a mitigation site. These species are loblolly pine, red maple, and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Monitoring of nuisance plots in both Year 2 (2014 -seven stems) and
Year 3 (2015 -nine stems) as required by the mitigation plan proved that none of the three species
alone was over the 20 percent threshold, but in aggregate they were just over the 20 percent
threshold in 2014 (21.2) and under in 2015 (19.1). Of the nine nuisance stems found in the plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

in 2015, loblolly pine represented 11.1 percent (one stem), sweet gum represented 22.2 percent
(two stems), and red maple represented the remaining 66.6 percent (six stems). No nuisance
remediation is required per the nuisance monitoring criteria.
3.4 Photographic Documentation. A few photos representative of 2016 conditions
are included with this report (Appendix B). More are available upon request.
4.0 SUMMARY
According to the 30 -day rolling total of 2016 Bay City rainfall, the following periods were
considered above the normal WETS rainfall: February 4 — March 4, June 7 — 28, July 2 — August
5, September 12 — October 2, and October 7 — November 5. All wells in Phase 2 recorded a
wetland hydroperiod, even when periods of above normal rainfall were excluded. During all
rainfall conditions, a majority of wells (55 percent) had a continuous hydroperiod for the entire
growing season. Approximately 35 percent (17) of wells recorded the longest wetland
hydroperiod between >25 to 75 percent of the growing season. The remaining wells (5) recorded
the longest hydroperiod for >12.5 to 25 percent of the growing season. During normal or below
normal WETS rainfall, two-thirds (40) of the wells had a hydroperiod for >25 to 75 percent of the
growing season; one-third (9) had a hydroperiod for >12.5 to 25 percent of the growing season.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 48 plots from the time of
planting to the fourth annual fall survey was 64 percent, with a corresponding density of 232 trees
per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to
the fourth annual fall survey was 67 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per
acre. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density
increases to 239 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density
increases to 255 stems per acre. The current tree density is below to the 260 stems required for
success. Currently, plans are being made to address mortality and appropriate adaptive
management steps will be coordinated with permitting agencies. In many areas of the site,
volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g. sweet bay, black willow, and wax myrtle) will enhance the
diversity and density of the site.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site.
CZR Incorporated. 2014a. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated. 2014b. First Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated. 2015. Second Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
CZR Incorporated. 2016. Third Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2.
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 2 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase a, PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report Mar 2017
2 c$ e
= 7 7? a 5
© a
«
/®
m
2 •E = 6
n ° � _ ®r ° E ±
_ _ _ c m -
A F = r o
�.- � m
E
q
/
E
S R 7$ 0
0 f o° o ®o
£ o P= 2-»= o
R$ o°
e= m
m
E>=
E o E o
l
e o
§
P =
-0 / /
S E � e e e / \ --0
» /
f
*
± 2
)
rn 2
k �
\
§ 2 = E 2 � 2
0
E =
0
a
-
C/) / %
'-
/ /
>
■®
- E 0- 0
7© D{ CO -0\
n® M _0 0)
2 e{
o=
0£
% 5-0
n w
E¥ �
m
'� E
2
e.- o
55f��.R%
o&
0G® ===-
mo
o
0)
®=
e
y
s
E 77n�e
2
== w=
a y
R ® o= e e t
o== o
®_ e
= e= o=
>
m E
n= M.)
E_
_
m m
e e a
S = ° §
0 r- a)
0) ? A \ E \ \ ±
/ % / E \
±
§ 0
§ * R
k J %
Q
9 = % 0
E - ° _ _ = m =
CO a o
_
$
® n o
= / q
A g± 0_
% E= e E 2= 5=
®®_ =
n» E 2
°
n
%
m m E\
E _ �
\ D _ _
= 0 0 m t
» ® _ _
Ems%
£
ƒfn
o e
\\/�\°\/f.2�a)
4
a)
7
0
5
=
R _
�
_
%
E m
�-
�w7
/LL$
/
/
§
\
\ƒf
0
§
k06
\ k k
&
§
$ " E
\
k
(no
�/
(5
k
E
4
«
/
3
■
c E
3
o
2
2
.� .§
/
(n
�
0
/E/
/
3?
E
\ E a)
25- /
o
=• - c
_
A
§
\
k / 0)
.0
\ $
f
°0
2
\ E
/
§
.¥ (n°
0
» 0
E
k
$ƒ
OL
k
m
@
. /
2§
E / m
(n= 2
t'
o o/
f s g
°/
0 Al§
% a)�
°
2 $ E
f n
2
k\
/ §c40
U
? y o $
§�
2
0 *
/
/ %
2
/ -C -0
\
CN
$
I
Al CO 2
/ k OL
/
0
C
) / 0-
-m
@
� o
_/
E @
g 2 R =
Cn
(D n
/
;
5 2 { §
2 /
§
) §
@ E
0
.$ E
=
0
R E
\ / /
2 o
/
\
.� / / %
/
ƒ
k k 4-- /
R
e
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase a, PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report Mar 2017

C: 0
ƒ
__�
/ a /
\
w
n
U)
�E
?
@
c
Z)
/
$ % 7 % /
\
LO
+
/
/
/ 0 § \
/
A
E
_
c
o c \
°
0
w
/
0
»o)
u
r
^
/ \ZE
\
6
»=3=°
e=om
\
&
f CO C
COf
_
A
0
y
7 / 0)-
\
/ S/\
m / E %
AI
CD
00C
v
±ee-0
§'rZ 0 E
0 %
£ E % 2
B
0 S ^
& / 0
I n
o
/ \
CO
0 04
z
ƒ_\/(D
^%f\
$
§ G 2 W
k
=R©
E =75
$ \ E
=m==
E m °'(n
\ 2 \
0-
=
0�0
2 a = c
c U
� /
I f \ \
\ \
t C)- =
2 § \ L
2 ) %.�
\(D0
/ $ U)
U) a)
: 0 >'
\ M O>
0Gf
\ L
® \
\
k
Cn
EE\o
¥\
a) 04
C I- E E
+
3 0 £ m
\ [
\
. ) 0
0
U) (
/
£ o =
\ $ £
o
{ / w
-
0 ®b A o
= .§
_ .§ E _ =
R = \
= m e J
m 2 0
\ -C / (
3
0 0 >'
> E Cz §
I_2@»
& oCO =
4
o- » -0
5 r §
7 ¢
e - e x
R e = = E
Pand uLands Restoration
sb Phase
Fourth Annual Report
X
G t \
,q- \ 6
r\1 \
U') / 7
\
Q
B
ƒ / / ƒ
\
\
\
\
\
04
?
@
2
Z)
0-
\
\
=04
+
/
/
/
/
/
r
/
c
A
@
=
a
ƒ / / ƒ
\
T-2
Q
L6
\
\
\
q
k
k
@
2
Z)
0-
\
\
T-2
Q
L6
/
\
k
2
I
Q
+
\
q
/
^
@
2
c
\
\
+
/
/
/
/
t
r
o
c
\
\
\
\
ƒ
\
$
/
/
\
k
2
I
Q
/ $ /
\
k
2 0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
L6
\
\
+
/
^
@
2
=
\
\
\
\
/ $ /
\
k
2 0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

LO
\
ƒ
\
\
E ^
§ y
\
0 6
/ A
z /
r
w
AI
f
0 = .
0 CU 0
2 $ \ § @
Ecf E \
%ono@
0 04
�
IZ-
0)
\
e
\/\
f 3 ¢ o
//2CO3
\ 2
0-0
$e=°
0 / / ±
C)
fCU\Q
= m CU
>—"_
\2/\
= f N ±
\ / \ Co
\ b\
a)&\
LL
\ \
° \
m 5 0
\ off\
_
0
/ k
5
/
Pand uLands Restoration sbI
Fourth Annual Report
■
/
A
mae2
\
$
2
_
E
0
�
■
q
®
m
/
%
4
4
2
/
2
6
Cb
\
k
k
C\1
k
/
k
w
a
t
n
t
¥
e
/
/
q
\
/
mae2
\
$
2
_
E
0
�
■
as
\
\
CA:
\
q
®
\
C\1
\
4
6
2
2
6
Q
\
k
k
/
k
w
a
t
r
e
as
\
\
CA:
\
\
\
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
\
/
#
/
\
4
6
/
±
6
&
2
®
w
a
\
\
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

X
X
O
O
O
O
r
X
O
O
O
r
M
M
N N
X
LO
x
�
�
00
00
00
rin
00
r
Ln 00 r
r
r
r
00
00
00 M M
oo
o0
o0
CN
O
N
LO
N
N
N LO 000
N
N
N
1
X
Lf )
00
CD
N
00
00
r00
N
O
N
C
n
LL
U)
7
N
O
o
N
N
N
N
U
•�
Ln
N
N
O
O
N
C
A
(0
2
0
Lf
N
r
M
r
O
r
M
A
0)
0)
O
v
C
ti
ti
ti
C
N
_N
2
2
0 O -O
2
E
>
>
a
O O
CU� N ,L
>
a-
>
o.
>
a
>
�
M
M
is
C (/� N(Dr
4) OQ
�M
L6
N
O �
0
0
a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
N
March 2017
O 04 L
0
CA
O
Ln
Ln
rl-
to
O
N
NCU
r
00
N
0)
N
i
M
N
N
N
Ln
r-
00
00
(0
CO > U
O L O N
N 0
> �D
+ CO O
N
M
M
CA
r
7 L ,
Ln
N
N
r
fl -
U O -0
O N LL
O r
C) cn
m
>,ZCo CU > U
mo 0
OQJ (0
> + L (D
M
.g � O
N
= O N LL
00
N
L
O LL
N r_
N
-C r
N
a) >
_
U O
Co N
C
O
N
O
m
a
CU
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 2
Fourth
Annual
Report
X
X
X
O
O
O
r
X
O
O
O
r
M
M
N N
X
N N -
x
N
M
O
N
1.4
O
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
M
00
N
O
O
O
r
CO
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
M
00
N
I,- [I-
04 N
6r
O �
a a
T-4
Lf)
N0
O
O
O
r
Cl)
L6
M
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
M
M
N N
N N -
—
�
�
00
00
00
00
r
Ln 00 r
r
r
r
00
00
00 M M
oo
o0
o0
CN
N
N
N
N LO 000
N
N
N
00
00
CD
00
00
00
r00
N
O
N
N
N
Ln
CO
O
M
M
M
Il-
00
�
00
00
00
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
LL
U)
7
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
(0
7
M
r
r
M
0)
0)
C
C
ti
ti
ti
a
N
_N
2
2
2
E
>
>
a
>
a-
>
o.
>
a
>
�
M
M
is
CO
0
0
a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

O
LO
rin
O
Lf )
Lf )
N
N A
C
ON o
U Ln
O
O N
n
2
0
Lf
N
r
CO
A
(D
v
c
0 O -O
O
O
CU� N ,L
a)U (0 Q
•0)M O
O 04 N L
0)
N
O
CU
0
00
(0
> U
O L O N
> N �D
7 C O
U
0-0
N LL
O r
C) cn
m
>,ZCo CU > U
-0 0
OQJ (0
> + L (.0
l6 � CU 0 N
= O N LL
E Co
U 3 N
L
O LL
N r ­
C14
O '
-C
_ a >
O O
Co
CU
C
O
U _
N >O
N
Co
P and U Lands Restoration Site f
Fourth Annual Report
Cl)
L6
M
rl-
r
N
CD
N
N
N
N
Lf7
CO
N
00
r
Cb
LO
CD
N
N
N
N
N
M
CD
00
O
tet-
Ln
O
Or
O
N
Ln
ti
N
',1-
ti
N
N
00
a
'hase 2
r- O
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
00
N
N
M
00
N
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
N
N
M
OD
N
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
00
N
N
0
M
00
N
(D
X
X
X
X
N
X
N
-
CO
N
DD
(.0
LO
CD
00
X
r- O
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
00
N
N
M
00
N
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
N
N
M
OD
N
O
O
O
r
CD
N
r
00
N
N
0
M
00
N
(D
Ln
N
N
M
N
N
N
-
CO
N
DD
(.0
LO
CD
00
r
00
O
O
1
MN
1
M
ti
N
',1-
Lr,
Lr) N r N r CD
N I N I N I N I N I N
T-5
ti
N
N
00
a
I -
C%11
CO)
00
2
D
a
r -
C\1
00
00
2
D
a -
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
N
N
�
DD
DD
a-
a
a
T-5
ti
N
N
00
a
I -
C%11
CO)
00
2
D
a
r -
C\1
00
00
2
D
a -
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Fourth Annual Report
12
�
-
\
\
®
9
2
LO
t
/
x
/
\
\
\
k
k
/
t
#
r
w
a
ƒ
11
x
x
\
E
^
(
y
\
=
0
6
/
A
I
ƒ
w
AI
f
- -
.
0 =
0 cu LD
2 $ J § @
@
R
/ES E0
7
/
/
a) 0 O
0
� IZ-
04
0)
C\1
t
f
o
t
n
9
e
g
n
q
9--
N
$
2
=
=
=
ƒ
2 ƒ
=
k
k
k
k\
k\
k
�
N
c=
A
t#
e
e
\/\
f 3 ¢ o
\ O CO �
\
2
o
r
00
\
\ \
/
U R 0 3
/
®
$eL
±
0 / /
UR2
fCU\Q
= m CU
>—"=w
m
r
\2/\
\
\
\
= f N ±
\ / \ \
\b\
�\
&
779
w
w
w
/ 2
&
q
a
° \
m 5 0
\
off\
:
0
LO
$
$
\00
~/
\
D
/
/
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
ae
Fourth Annual Report
12
�
\
x
/
x
LO A r
/ T /
\ / C�
A r 6
$ / \
$
\
00k
a D
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
-
\
\
®
9
2
\
t
/
/
\
\
k
k
/
t
#
r
w
a
\
x
/
x
LO A r
/ T /
\ / C�
A r 6
$ / \
$
\
00k
a D
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

U
a)
M
0
O
j N
(0
> U
O L O N
> a) �D
7 (6 M O
U O
U N LL
O r
C) cn
m
>' > U
-0 mo 0
a) a) N
� a) L (D
l6 �: = a)
= O N LL
E Co
U 3 N
L
a)
LL
N r ­
C14
a) '
-C
a) >
U
CO
Lf)
CO
fl-
O
N
LO
rin
r-
w
N
O
N
LO
-
L( )
N
'i
A
O
0
O
LO
00
N
Cid
4
00
N_
A
0
Lf)
N
N
r
LO
O
A
r-
Cfl
v
c
0 O -O
O
O
CU� N ,L
O
U
0) O
•O M O
O N L
E
0)
U
a)
M
0
O
j N
(0
> U
O L O N
> a) �D
7 (6 M O
U O
U N LL
O r
C) cn
m
>' > U
-0 mo 0
a) a) N
� a) L (D
l6 �: = a)
= O N LL
E Co
U 3 N
L
a)
LL
N r ­
C14
a) '
-C
a) >
U
CO
Lf)
CO
fl-
O
N
O
r-
w
N
N
N
N
-
N
'i
Lf
O
O
r
00
M
Cid
4
00
L
N
It
LO
(D
r-
CO
O 00 Ln M r O
CO N N M N Or
(C6 -0
0 ca
C
O
U _
N O
m �
CU
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Fourth Annual Report
CO
CO
N
ti
N
O
2
D
0-
T-7
X
M
6
CO
I� CO CD
04
L9 C?
N N N
N in 0000
O
M 00 O
rl-
N
N
O
D
a
X1XIXIXIXIXIX
CD I I I I I I
OOO O O O O
TM EOE EXO7 EOM E&C
00O 00 ':6 r 00 00 O
r r r
N N N N N N N
'.�■000O©v
CO Co N I CO Co Co Co 00 00 00
I N I N I CO N I CO N I CO
N
O
Co
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
L
()
E
a)
U
a)
0
LO
r
a)
O
Z
Oo
N
C
N
U)
COCO
a
a
a
a
a
a
as
0
U
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
March 2017

U
4)
C
O
R
N
N
CU
0
LO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
A
0
LO
11
X
x
x
Lr)
N
A
0
Ln
N
L()
N_
A
O
Lf )
N
r
AI
CD
V
C
0 O -0
0 cu LD
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
M
a) O a
0
Or
Or
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CV
O
O
O
O
O
L) •O M O
O
It
N C
O04
0)
N r (D
M
M
M
(D
O
r (D
(0
(D
r M
CN
—N N N r
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N N N
O
r
T O0 r
r
r
r
r
00 r
r
r
T 00 r
CO
00
00 4
00
00
00
00
00 61
00
00
c0 M 6
N
N CD 00
N
N
N
N
N CO
N
N
N (D 00
00
(B
> U
N
N-0 0
CO CO
M
O O O
M
M
M
M
O O
M
M'
LO O
CO
ULO
3: Z
00
N
r
r LO rl-
00
N
00
N
M
N
00
N
ti O
r r
00
N
00
N
r O
r r
O
U " N LL
O r
C) cn
m
>' > U
-0
mo Q
>-" (0M00
M
M
M
CO
(D
M
M
N
N O -6
C6
00
N
Ln
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
00
N
I-
N
00
N
00
N
�
N
_O
O N LL
00
N
L
LL
N �
CV
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
a) O r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a) >
U O
Co
O
r
N
M
V
0
CD
rl-
CO
0)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
>a)
r
r
r
T-
D
>
>
>
>
D
>
a
a_
d
a
d
a
a.
a
d
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

O
LO
rin
O
LO
LO
N
a) A
C
O o
U LO
O
O N
n
2
0
Lr)
N
r
CO
A
Cfl
v
c
0 O -O
O
O
CU� N ,L
a) U (0 Q
a•�
) M O
O N
�
IZ-
0)
U
a)
CU
0
00
(0
> U
O L O N
> a) �D
7 (6 C O
U
0-0
O " N LL
O r
U cn
a)
>,Z > U
-0 0
a) a)N
> — L (.0
l6 �: = a)
= O N LL
E Co
U 3 N
L
LL
N r_
i) N
a) '
-C
_ a) >
O O
a) Co -0
7 N
C
0
U _
N a)
a)
CU
P and U Lands Restoration Site f
Fourth Annual Report
x
CO
r`
N
Lr) M LO r
Ln
— — N — M
Ln C9 � 00 O
00 O r) 00
N N N N
N LO I- O
0w0 Cfl N M 0
M
N
N
N
m
O
L
0
U _
� U
E
0
0
V
LO
r
ON
N
N
Ln
CO
Ln
CO
N
LO
(.0-
pp
a0
O
M
N
N
N
C7
N
U
U
00
00 N O
'hase 2 T-9
O
O
N
r—
N
N
U
0
LO
m
ON
N
N
(.0
Ln
CO
0
pp
M
O)
r
N
N
C7
N
U
U
N
LO
O)
Lv
00
N
d
00
O
LO
N
N
M
U
KA
00
ao CO N :!�
r r r
M � � O
00 Lr) O O
N N M N
O M It 0
N N r r
rl-
N
m
U)
O
L
0
U
�
C)
U
U
m
Lv
m
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

O
LO
rin
O
LLQ
Lf )
N
A
0
Ln
N
N_
A
0
Lf
N
r
CO
A
Cfl
v
c
0 O -O
O
O
CU� N ,L
Q
•0)M O
O N IZ-
0)
U
O
CU
0
00
(0
> U
O L O N
> N �D
7 (6 C O
U
0-0
U N LL
O r
U cn
m
>,ZCo CU > U
-0 0
O ON
> — L (.0
l6 �: = N
= O N LL
E Co
U 3 N
L
LL
N r_
N
O '
-C
a) >
X
f— O CO O
00 M Ln
N
U O
N
N
Co
0 Ca
Ln
C.
Co
r
co
OW
U
U
N
N
N
N
LO
0000
f— O CO O
00 M Ln
N
x
i
I� r Ln
O
00 O O
N N N
N LO O
OLO
O
'ch
r
ti
N
O
O
O
r
O
N
r
00
N
N
M
00
N
CO
00
N
I
N
CY)
U O
Co
0 Ca
ry
U
U
U
CO
C
-a
O
R
CA
O
>N
N
a)
U
C
m
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Fourth Annual Report
x
i
I� r Ln
O
00 O O
N N N
N LO O
OLO
O
'ch
r
ti
N
O
O
O
r
O
N
r
00
N
N
M
00
N
CO
00
N
I
N
CY)
ry
U
U
m
CO
T-10
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0 E
\_ §\
% 7 m
2z2n=
0 = _ = o
0 O
\ % $ /
e § a 0
E
g 0
>�z2
CO m - -0_
I=00
E m �
f) \
7 m = CU §
\2\�7
E § @ s --r-
-a
�E-
(Dn 74
@ & ® CU
£ e 0 U) e
/ \ 2 § e
0 = §
®&\28
c E = o
��CU $�\
o N 3:
)¥ I�
COCO
N e \
CU CO
>\/k
2
%
CO
E _
\ U $ 2 %
_ \ / 0
I = � = 5
$ \ �0 0
2 \7-0
a)
E N \ \ ƒ
0 / § \
'E / a f =
E U) /
c _ _ C o
\ k / ƒ
o c
/ C:
R o 0
�\&t\
$ = m $ £
57����
m •k
0
7-0
e = g
E
\ § 2 = 2 CO
@ > ®� m
= m o \
> e z CO o §
Iwn=#»
w 4 i % -r §
=2/752
Z = .2 2 CO ¢
/ 2 / / ( &
Pand uLands Rs &
Fourth Annual Report
\
\
\
\
/ ^
§ \
0 a
/ A
I
\
/
AI
CD
0 .0
\�\\\
2
0)-0 = E
»� Cl) o=
I 0 �
c
$
/
\Z\o
\/23
2 $ ® (.0
s � 0
\ } \ U-
0 \
O ±—
M
� 0
> (.0
\2/\
E % / \
C)
��_
# o =
\/\
/gC14
® ® \
m5o
M
\
. Site Phase
x
7
x
\
■
B
\ N / /
/ LO / / k
r c =
av
\
\
CO
_
I
x
x
x
$
x
B
R
$
\ 1?1 \ —M
,0
$
$
E
/
/
/
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
B
x
x
E
/
\
�
F21
tg
E
■
+ q \ 04
C\ \ \
CO Co $
G
x
E
§
/
LO
/
>
\
\
»
c
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
«
LLt
/
\
\
3
»
/
A
§
%
J
\
x
/
A
z
g
LO
&
AI
f
\ �
» — .0
k W �
^
0)
e _ °
%
m � Cl) o _0
�J\
&�
\ \
$
�
\ 2
a
\\«
0> L)
.>$Mo
5 = 0
$ ;
\}%
\ 00
\�C14
rn
f�\0
_ n
,��o
w
\2/\
E % / %
^
\ 0 =
LL
\\w
f .§
\
®® I
U) 5 0
\
c
0
°
2
cli
$
/
$
@
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
Fourth
Annual
Report
x
B
x
x
E
/
\
�
F21
tg
E
■
+ q \ 04
C\ \ \
CO Co $
G
x
E
n
§
/
%
/
>
>
\
c
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
LLt
\
\
»
§
\
n
/
%
/
>
>
.\
E
c
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

�o
o�
LO
M1
A
LO
Ln
N
A
o
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
co
Ai
m
v
° o
O
?) C O
M O -O
0o T
N L
A
U
N
N
N N
Z > U
M 0 0
� L
N
O N U-
CL) 00
U N
N
-0 0
N N CD
� L
Q
O N LL
00
U N
' L
O LL
N
a
A
r- N (.0
M M r
LSj GO M
N
M d0 M
N
r
x
r CO
N
� N
LO i
Cl) M e-
0') M CO
M
Q0
r -
N
LO
r-
73
T-13
x
N
Cl)
CO
M
x
N
CO
CO
� N
i
M 0
0') M M
07
r
Q
0)
7
Q
rl-
N
N N
N
U O
N
7
0 CU
M
00
M
C
Co
C
M
�
O
U
D
E
d
CU
M
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
N
�
March 2017
N
�
N
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Fourth Annual Report
x
r CO
N
� N
LO i
Cl) M e-
0') M CO
M
Q0
r -
N
LO
r-
73
T-13
x
N
Cl)
CO
M
x
N
CO
CO
� N
i
M 0
0') M M
07
r
Q
N
0)
7
Q
rl-
N
N
7
M
00
M
Co
C
M
�
U)
(A
D
E
d
N
0)
7
Q
rl-
N
N
7
M
O)
C
M
�
U)
(A
D
E
d
CU
M
0
n
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
x
B
x
\
x
x
\
$
$
/
E
\
\ � \
/
7
LO
\
\
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
»
«
/
>
3
/
A
\
J
:
\
0
a
/
A
z
g
LO
&
AI
f
\ �M
0 — .0
kW\k
C,
eC:°
&
m � CO o _0
�J\
&�
f \
$
M
L6 — 2
n
a
\\«
a)
.>$�9
5M»=
7 ;
\ } % U-
00
\ \�C14
rn
f�\0
_ n
>��o
\2/\
§ % / %
^
a)
\ 0 =
LL
\\w
f .§ �
\
® ® I
U) 5 0
\
c
0
0
\
�
s
/
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
Fourth
Annual
Report
x
x
B
x
\
x
x
\
$
$
/
E
\
\ � \
/
7
/
\
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

�o
o�
LO
M1
A
LO
Ln
N
A
o
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
co
Ai
m
v
° o
O
?) C O
M O -°
00 T
N L
A
U
N
N
N N
Z > U
M 0 0
N � O
� L
3: = N
O N U-
CL) 00
U N
N
-0 0
N N CD
� L
Q
O N LL
00
U N
' L
O LL
N
12
N
M
CO
N O
N N
� O � —1LO i
M �D N
O 00 r
M
r
x
r CO
N
� N
� O i
i
LO 600
Cl) 00 e-
0') M CO
M
N
CO
00
d
T-15
ti
x
x
x
N
x
CO
O
O N
00
Co
U O
N
0 CU
C
a
a
O
U
_
00
M
>O
N
>
0
D
n3
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Fourth Annual Report
x
r CO
N
� N
� O i
i
LO 600
Cl) 00 e-
0') M CO
M
N
CO
00
d
T-15
V LO �- (D
N N N
4 Ln
LSj O (p
N
M
It O �
LSA N M M
LO LSA (0
N N N
Ln O
N ;
M —
N I� �-
LO N M
N LO
M d'
� In
� N �
6� It
CO
00 M
O I CO
CO CO
r
�
ti
x
x
x
N
x
V LO �- (D
N N N
4 Ln
LSj O (p
N
M
It O �
LSA N M M
LO LSA (0
N N N
Ln O
N ;
M —
N I� �-
LO N M
N LO
M d'
� In
� N �
6� It
CO
00 M
O I CO
CO CO
r
�
ti
ti
N
N
N
CO
O
O
00
Co
O
a
a
a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

�o
o�
LO
M1
A
LO
Ln
N
A
o
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
co
Ai
m
v
° o
O
?) C O
M O -O
00 T
N L
A
U
N
t6
N N
Z > U
M 0 0
� L
N
O N U-
CL) 00
U N
N
-0 0
O N CD
� L
Q
O N LL
00
U N
' L
O LL
N
0
(.0 r GO
N N
4 Ln (T N N
LO
M N N
d' 00
LO00 'It
N — M
LO
r
KA
A
M 00 r
lf) 6 0)
M 00 M
d 00 �h �-
00
CO
(D
r
N
ti
T-16
X
N
M
Cl)
D7
X
N
M
Cl)
r
— N
7
M 00 �-
0') M M
X
N
CO
CO
� N
i
M 00
0') M M
M D7
L
U
N
N,
N
N
N
E
N
N N
U O
N
Z
0 CU
00
N
C
O)
C
L(7
O
U
_
�
M
N
a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2
Fourth Annual Report
KA
A
M 00 r
lf) 6 0)
M 00 M
d 00 �h �-
00
CO
(D
r
N
ti
T-16
X
N
M
Cl)
D7
X
N
M
Cl)
r
— N
7
M 00 �-
0') M M
X
N
CO
CO
� N
i
M 00
0') M M
M D7
L
U
N
N,
N
0
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
N
E
N
O
Z
00
N
O)
C
L(7
U)
0
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

X
x
x
\
x
B
x
B
$
$
\
E
E
/
\ I \
= D
E
0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
LO
\
»
«
/
>
3
/
A
%
J
:
\
0
a
/
A
z
g
LO
&
AI
f
\ �
0 — .0
U)
k
C,e
C:°
C,
m � CO o _0
�J\
&�
$ \
$
/
C')
>1
\fk\
.>$Mo
5M »a
7 %
\ } %
\ 00
\�C14
rn
f�\0
_ n
>
\2/\
§ % / %
^
\ 0 =
LL
\\w
f .§
\
® ® I
U) 5 0
\
c
0
\
�
s
/
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
Fourth
Annual
Report
X
x
x
\
x
B
x
B
$
$
\
E
E
/
\ I \
= D
E
0-
s Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
X
X
■
\
x
B
E
$
\
$
CO
ƒ
\
\
±
\
LO
\
\
\
I
E
»
March 2017
«
/
>
3
/
A
%
J
:
\
0
a
/
A
z
g
LO
&
AI
f
\ �
0 — .0
U)
k
C,e
C:°
C,
m � CO o _0
�J\
&�
$ \
$
/
C')
>1
\fk\
.>$Mo
5M »a
7 %
\ } %
\ 00
\�C14
rn
f�\0
_ n
>
\2/\
§ % / %
^
\ 0 =
LL
\\w
f .§
\
®® I
U) 5 0
\
c
0
_
°
c
\
\
-
s
E
/
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
Fourth
Annual
Report
x
X
X
■
\
x
B
E
$
\
$
CO
ƒ
\
\
±
\
\
\
I
E
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
q
aq
x
/
�
x I x
7
/
LO
/
\
\
a
»
\
«
LO
N
\
\
\
/
>
3
/
A
/
6
\
\
%
J
m
:
\
PC!
0
a
/
/
/
\
A
z
g
LO
&
AI
f
\ �
0 — .0
k \ k
C,
e_ °
&
m � Cl) o _0
�J\
&�
$ \
$
/
C')
>1
\fk\
.>$Mo
5M »a
7 %
\ } %
\ 00
\�C14
rn
f�\0
_ n
>
\2/\
§ % / %
^
\ 0 =
LL
\\w
f .§
[
®® I
U) 5 0
\
/
\
/
a
\
j
/
/
Pand
uLands
Restoration sb
Phase
Fourth
Annual
Report
x
q
aq
x
/
�
x I x
C\1
7
/
/
\
04
a
\
LO
N
\
\
\
\
04
\
\
/
6
\
\
m
PC!
/
/
\
/
C\1
7
\
\
\
/
\
04
\
\
\
m
PC!
x
\
/ /
\ \
CO r
w_
\
�
O
CO
:maPb
x
7
/
O
CO
»cmpny, In
March 201

Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase am PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report Mar 2017
LO
\
»
«
/
x
3
m
!
J
LO
/
x
C14
\
J
LO
&
AI
f
\ �
» — 7
\ E / \ i o
n
2 2 C:°
\
\
m— Cl) o _0
�J\
&�
\
\
C14\
$
2 c
7
\ \ k
f
n c Q
n
>1-
a)
.>$�9
5 M » =
co \ %
$
\}%
00
\ \' 04
rn
f�\0
n
\\/\
— -
/
®
.
§ % / %
-0
=m^
E
-E
in
ate_
\\/
9
�
a)
f .§
\
\
E
\\\_
\
\
%
\
\
Cm
f
COr)
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase am PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report Mar 2017

M LO N
O M (p O M M O O M (b N N O
N 1-- M
O O
O
O �2—
O 02 �!
O O N
m LO M N N
V O
O
O ON
O O O
O O N
L011- r Cb
O
O Cl)
�-
co
Cb LO
0')C)
N
CO M N O
�
Cb CA
CO
C:) M
O O M
O O N
LO M 0 t--
r-,
M M M
ch
O V
V
(b
O O
LO M N O
(O
f-- O N
CO
_
M N
O O
WMN
N(0O�L
LO
O(jMO
CC)
V CO
(O V
M
Cl) N II
Nt
N
C`i
N CO
LO
ON
O
0 0
0) 00 W 0 N
N
V O N
e- LO
N
�
co CO Cl)
NO
LMO
O V
O O
N I
MMO
Cl)W�
M N
O
O
O 00 V
(
O
LO OV
MLOp
Lf')
V LO
O M
OW NO
M
Ln O
C')
Lr
O
O
O N
C14
NLf)�
O
O
Cl)It
O
00 M
M cc_
_
M O
�
00
0)
O
-It
O N
CO V LO
CO O LO
Iz O Co M
O
(O �'
e -
Ln
Cfl M
N�
LO I C
C')
N
CO M
lt N
f- It
M N f- O O
CO O N
�!' N'
M
O �'
V V
O CO
CO M LO O O
O
LO (O
N CO
LO
O
Lf') CO Cp
Lr C')
co
U
CO m
N d
d'
(D
o E
m
U
O
t
U
0o
U
@ O N
@
Y in y U)
(D
U
L
O
Y
i .0 t
Q O Q
O Y
p t Y
Q
m
CU
T
m
m
F
EO
0F
3
e a�
m c
o o o
o
m
2U)
Q
> (n
U) 7 J
O U) > Of m
(n
H (n of
kz
Cn
Q m
a .V
m
0
E
y
m
o
aoi Z3
�
m
CO c
t
_m
-0
111 Q3
CZ
co
m .c
m
�
CU a ti
m i
m o o
=° oc M
w Q
�'
m k
m Cn
N =°
�, E 0-
m t
'i i
y
x k
C)
m C
c i
U U
zz z
a a c�c�00
�
CO
� g a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-21 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

i
ti
10 M C'7 0 CO 0 W I-- �
O
N V M h r--�
O
M
O _
W Lf') f� Cb � CO � CA
COD
O
O (fl O O r N O
r
O
00 Lo r-- N C0 �' 00
CO
M Lf') O Cb
O I�
e-
�-
to
M L
N
M
O O O O N O O O
CO O
Lo
T
N
M �2 Lf') 't Cp Cb
O I,
O
LO
M
N
O CO O O
O
qj
O
CT
T O
TCb
't Ln
�
to
O O N 0 0 0 0 0
C`') O
N
�
ti N
^ T
T
TC'O O f --Ln CO O
Cl)
eN-
t
i-
Cp
M le
M
(Y)� (fl O O O O
M LO
to i-
�-
O
Cl)
N
M M
Cn
U
CU
N
w
E
d C
CO
N d
lE
H 0
m �
�
O
N
N
CL~
U
.O
U
(U O O O
L o o 3
m
CZ
Q
0
Y N 3 L L L C6
7 0)lU to N L
Q
Vl
O
O
-p .� L L L O
O
U O
�O U w L N
-O Y C 01 O O
t
[n
D
0� m U) > cn u^ = a
C
D
R
G
Q) CO
jN
' Z3o m m o M O Z
a
m
3
mC1-13
m z . .T ,c
O C i X CO a O U
Y
Q U U
U)
C
E
O
U
N
7
N
CU
CD
Cn
N
N
L
c
O
CU
m
c
CL
E
N
(0
(U
L
c
N
O
a
O
L_
J
O
N
E N
Cn
>
a m
D _c
o E
n Ca
N Cn
O c
E
-O 7
c U
N Cy
y L
N
U (p
C1 U
rn
O CU
c c
O Y
p O
U �
C C
CU O
� CU
O O
Q C
O
Q
CU
y a
U -O
O @
CU N
O _0
N
a �
� N
rn C1
7 @
a
@ E
C CU
N m
a N
rn Y
r .-
CUO �
C 7
O C
Cn 7
L .N a
CE N
6 O 6
� CO
U2 o
@ U
7 �
a � 3
7O
C c >
3 �n
m
E
O
N
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 T-22 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

AURORA'`' i 1
"•
.SOUTH CREEK
CORRIDOR
"�::' --_ I -. - l
Wk
wm
P LANDS
C.
SOUTH CREEK
CORRIDOR S
PHASE 2
".---- ---- I —PHASE 1
PHASE 2 P LFINDS
PHASE
_ PHASE 4 CONTROAY LI SIT +' +r _� _ �• r
U LANDS
PHASES
_¢ PHASE 1 P LANDS I PARKER FARM
SECTIONS A -J t
ou 35' 14' 15.04"
LONG: 76'46'19.20" .��^ f
RODMAN
CONTROL -_ ---- -
SITE -_ . - ---------
CASEY TRACT — -
PHASE 4 - -"
U LANDS P LANDS 9 _
U LANDS rn m _ _ _ 5
l g�
,+-
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
P and U LANDS PHASE 2 0 5,500 11,000
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
VICINITY MAP
NORTH CAROLINA P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
SITE LOCATION PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P LANDS
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, P LANDS_VIC_
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 10/20/16 FILE:
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH2 2016
WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET. '41v CP#1745.59.32.2
�^ ^ 4709 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]

SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN I
RC -1 SITE PHASE 4
RC -2 U LANDS
rn
ZO
RC -3 rr, z
o -i
—<n
b
PHASE 4
U LANDS
O
70
ODrU LANDS
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.
BAY CITY FARM
BCRW-44
BCRW-29
BAY CITY
FARM
CONTROL
SITE
N I BAY CITY No. '-
P
P LANDS
PLPS 12 BENFEWELL ROAD PLPS 13
1099,,
j07 108 !/
106 103 10
105
/i�, ,024
PLPS 11 �!�"'� ROYAL ROA
9s j 97 99
PLPS 10 1
*,#.98 1001
PLPS 59
89 87 P LANDS
O
0`94�ng2 O\ O \ 88 86 85i �4 �83
95 93 (/\ 0
74
\\ % 76
67 9 O 070 O 75.40 ■ 77 7 0
71 SMALL 73 ROAD
co
\A�'
P LANDS
X 65 Q v °� Q E
n 64 62'
{ 66 SMALL ROAD
o PLPS 58
0
N
TJ
O
0
N
BAYNo. 4
Eol
BCRW-33
-17 P LANDS
n
7BCRW: BAY CITY No' 3
COUNTY
ROAD
BAY CITY No' 1
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
PLPS 7
P LANDS PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
TREE SAMPLING PLOT
• WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY
NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
CONTROL WELL
PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
PLPS 1
AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE 2:
0 ZONE 2 HEADWATER FOREST
0 ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST
D ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1

Pt
94 2 9�
95 93 Wd
To Ap
67 69 71
68 70
Po A Pt 65 pa64 63 62 61
p 66 SMALL ROAD
w
O A
z 0
Z D
m v
U LANDS -
Po
70
Pt
BENFEWELL ROAD
Pt
106 107
108 109
Pt 05 103 102 101
104 ROYAL ROAD
96 97
99
98
87 P LANDS 100
39 88 85 83 82 <<I-
86
86 Po 84 �0
f
74 76 79
72
73 75 77 78 80 81
SMALL ROAD
9sF LEGEND
PHASE 3
PHASE
Pt Pt
P AND U LANDS PH2 (796.4 ACRES)
•
WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
'
To
O
iBAY
APPROXIMATE.)
CITY FARM
CONTROL WELL
SOILS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 and TWO CONTROL SITES
SYMBOL
BCW-44
PHASE BAY CITY NO' 4
ARAPAHOE (MINERAL) (12.7 ACRES)
Do
DARE (ORGANIC) (0.1 ACRES)
Po
SE
Pt
PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL) (74.0 ACRES)
To
BCW -29
BCW -33
WASDA (ORGANIC) (219.2 ACRES)
Q
HYDRIC SOILS
BAY CITY
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
OR ORGANIC.
r
NAD 1963 FEET.
FARM
APPROVED BY:
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
PO CONTROL
BCW -17
JAIME ROAD
FILE: PLANDS_SOILS_PH2_
SITE
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,.
2016
3
R O D M A N
CP#1 745.59.32.2
cITY N°'
Po CONTROL
'411
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
BAY
C-1 SITE
PHASE 4
FIGURE 3
'I
;
U LANDS
RC -2
rn
ZO
RC -3
1*tZ
Z--4
o -<
PHASE 4
N
CITY N°. 2
To U LANDS Cr,-'
BAY
w
O A
z 0
Z D
m v
U LANDS -
Po
70
Pt
BENFEWELL ROAD
Pt
106 107
108 109
Pt 05 103 102 101
104 ROYAL ROAD
96 97
99
98
87 P LANDS 100
39 88 85 83 82 <<I-
86
86 Po 84 �0
f
74 76 79
72
73 75 77 78 80 81
SMALL ROAD
9sF LEGEND
PHASE 3
PHASE
P AND U LANDS PH2 (796.4 ACRES)
•
WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
'
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT
MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.)
- Q
CONTROL WELL
SOILS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 and TWO CONTROL SITES
SYMBOL
SOIL NAME
Ap
ARAPAHOE (MINERAL) (12.7 ACRES)
Do
DARE (ORGANIC) (0.1 ACRES)
Po
PONZER (ORGANIC) (488.5 ACRES)
Pt
PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL) (74.0 ACRES)
To
TOMOTLEY (MINERAL) (1.9 ACRES)
Wd
WASDA (ORGANIC) (219.2 ACRES)
Q
HYDRIC SOILS
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
OR ORGANIC.
r
BpY CITY NO.
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
'
SOILS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 and TWO CONTROL SITES
LINE• ROAD
b
,
SOURCE:INC.
y
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC•
?�
m m
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
.,-. _.
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
r�
NAD 1963 FEET.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
DATE: 02/21/17
FILE: PLANDS_SOILS_PH2_
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,.
2016
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
CP#1 745.59.32.2
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: NC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
'411
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WEBSITE: WWW.NCMAPONE.COM
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 26403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
FIGURE 3
'I
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

BCRW-44 ❑•
d
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
<
PHASE2
��. PHASES Z1
O
rr •94 092
95 093 ®9
0 67 68 69
6 0 5 63
0 •
660 GMALL ROAD 62
IIIII&I04L
D
TY
,�ARM o -
N F
❑• BCRW-29
BAY CITY
FARM
CONTROL
SITE
'ASE 3
BAY CITY NO. 4
INSE 1
0 'I_:�IR �rrlw
BCRW-33
BCRW-17 P LANDS
O
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE PHASE 4
RC -2
U LANDS
Zo„ IL _ a.
RC -3 1 E mc:: r:
PHASE 4
U LANDS N BAY C1TY Np. z
o A
Z O
Z D
U ` LANDS P LANDS
D
O COUNTY LI
D
NE ROAD
0
Z
�1
O
D
O
BAY CITY No. 3
BAY CITY NO. 1
BENFEWELL ROAD
109•
• 107 1080 1
106 'a'
•105 01 3
010
102
104 •ROYAL ROA
096 •97 pg
•98I 1000
it 089
067 P LAND
85 • 0=83
1 090 1, 86 84
I 0820
0— 74• I *79
• 72 076
75 7
070 71• SMALL 73 ROAD • 0 •e
-` P LANDS
61
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. BEAU FORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFI
NAD 1983 FEET.
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND
PAMLICO COUNTIES, LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM
LEGEND
PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
0 ROADS
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
WELL LOCATION
Q CONTROL WELL
Legend
Elevation in Feet
Value
=0-2
=2-4
=4-5
0 5-6
=6
=7-8
08-9
9-10
- 10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
_ 15-16
16-21
21-46
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON AS—BUILT LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 2 and TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/06/17 FILE: PLAN DS_WELL_LIDAR_
PH2-2016
`141 CP#1745.59.32.2
4709 COLLEGE ACRESDRIVE
RIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]

Figure 5. 2016 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL
16
14
—
12
a�
5
v
c
—
10
c
Cr
2-
g
0
2t
6
a
c
�o
4
2
0
ti0 ti0 ti� ti0 ti� tiIL
� ti0 ti� ti� ti� ti� ti�
<�� fat' Pic �aJ ,J� ti��\ P�Qo �eQ O�� �oA' Oed
O
O,
pti O� Oy Oti O� Oy Oti Oy Oy Oti
X2016 Bay City Daily Rainfall Bay City 30 -day Rolling Total • 2016 Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total
30% Less Chance 30% More Chance 2016 Bay City Monthly Rainfall
Figure 5. 2016 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL
NOTE: "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 1981-2010). WETS Data subject to periodic revision. Data shown are latest available from
http://agacis. rcc-acis.org/?fips=37013
"Aurora Monthly Rainfall Total" refers to monthly totals from the PCS -Aurora 6 N NOAA Station.
Figure 5. 2016 BAY CITY and WETS -AURORA RAINFALL

SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
iiLPHA
w
0A
ZO
70
DS
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.
094 092
95 093
Q 091 °90
o
68 69 070 710
640 I ®63 062 I o 1
j'6'5
j BCRW PHASE3 BAY CITY NO. 4
O PHASEI
�B RW -29 BCRW 33
BAY CITY
FARM BCRW n J P LANDS
CONTROL
SITE
BAY CITY No. 3
PHASE 4
U LANDS
BENFEWELL ROAD
1090
0107 108°
106
105 100 100
0 0 102
104
RO?A ROAD
96 097
098 1000
a6 P ANDS
85o,_---8 FF
0 3 <<,
p88 i 84 ° 820
9
072 740 I 079 O
7�
P LANDS
r0
ZO
mZ
Z -i
o {
CITY No. 2
BAY CITY
No. 1 0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
P LANDS P AND U 1 ANDS PHASF 2 and TW0 CONTRO1 SITES
ROAD
COUNTY
HYDROLOGIC
LEGEND
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA
D O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
O Q _ >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (87.4 ACRES)
—
ROADS
0 O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (263.9 ACRES)
®
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
® • = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (386.3 ACRES)
O
WELL LOCATION
CONTROL WELLS
NOTE:
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
--
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD 067
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
BOUNDARIES.
co
D
n
660
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 Z7
0
D
VA
U �
BAY CITY FARM 0
0
N
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
iiLPHA
w
0A
ZO
70
DS
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.
094 092
95 093
Q 091 °90
o
68 69 070 710
640 I ®63 062 I o 1
j'6'5
j BCRW PHASE3 BAY CITY NO. 4
O PHASEI
�B RW -29 BCRW 33
BAY CITY
FARM BCRW n J P LANDS
CONTROL
SITE
BAY CITY No. 3
PHASE 4
U LANDS
BENFEWELL ROAD
1090
0107 108°
106
105 100 100
0 0 102
104
RO?A ROAD
96 097
098 1000
a6 P ANDS
85o,_---8 FF
0 3 <<,
p88 i 84 ° 820
9
072 740 I 079 O
7�
P LANDS
r0
ZO
mZ
Z -i
o {
CITY No. 2
BAY CITY
No. 1 0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
P LANDS P AND U 1 ANDS PHASF 2 and TW0 CONTRO1 SITES
ROAD
COUNTY

LEGEND
BENFEWELL ROAD
PHASE 2 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
®
ROADS
+
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
106
WELL LOCATION
0-1
CONTROL WELL
101
100 0 0
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
--
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD LENGTH;
° 103 102
REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD POSSIBLY
BE SHORTER THAN WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED
HYDROLOGIC
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
0 O = >6 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
D 0 = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
(152.0 ACRES)
D Q = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
(585.6 ACRES)
0 _ >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
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.
m
D
n
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
O
D
U
BAY CITY FARM o
0
N
�J
J
O
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1 SITE PHASE 4
RC -2 U LANDS
RC-3� \
zZ
PHASE 4
U LANDS
O
ODmDU LANDS
0
D
Z
m
O
D
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB 02009096, 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.
BCRW
RW -29
G,13 --
BAY CITY
FARM
CONTROL
SITE
E: (-)
Z
mZ
Z
�p
N I BAY CITY No. Z
P LANDS
BAY C '. 4
7 P LANDS
F-
-1 BAY CITY NO' 3
COUN� ROADA,
9 7
N m
m
BAY CITY No. �
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
BENFEWELL ROAD
0 07 108° 1090
106
101
100 0 0
° 103 102
104 '20 L ROA
096 097 0 9
098 100®
°$'` P LAND S
A�
,
0 8
85o, �
094
092
090
o883
1
820
a�
95
°93 091
86 84
�O
9
O
4° °79
0 076
0
67
070
° 68
0
69
71°
0 750 77 7E60681
MAL 73 ROAD 0
080
P LANDS
°
6563
° 61
640
66° eMLL
ROA
062 0
BAY C '. 4
7 P LANDS
F-
-1 BAY CITY NO' 3
COUN� ROADA,
9 7
N m
m
BAY CITY No. �
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET

APPENDIX A
Stem Counts at Individual Plots at
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2

Appendix A. Individual tree/shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 2 first (2013) and fourth annual (2016) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
Zone 3
63
Zone 2
104
105
107
108
Total
1 st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Unknown
?
12
12
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
1
1
1
8
7
2
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
39
28
26
21
Paw paw
Asima triloba
18
20
40
35
1
2
1
4
2
River birch
Betula nigra
3
4
1
1
5
7
11
18
17
30
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
13
1
5
1
4
2
17
10
26
14
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
4
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
1
1
1
1
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
1
2
3
3
6
3
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
2
10
10
9
9
7
6
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
7
14
20
17
16
14
1
8
7
3
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
1
1
2
4
1
5
1
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
1.
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
18
1
1
1
18
3
2
4
3
6
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
15
8
33
23
19
13
31
22
13
9
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
6
5
1
4
4
10
2
24
13
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
14
57
23
37
14
6
2
123
53
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
13
2
10
1
4
19
18
17
18
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
21
19
10
13
10
9
15
17
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
2
2
4
4
6
5
10
4
22
15
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
61
50
116
85
130
80
166
104
113
74
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
1 75
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
8
7
5
4
6
4
2
3
21
18
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
1
1
17
14
15
13
33
28
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
6
6
23
24
23
32
3
55
62
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
2
4
6
Oak
Quercus spp.
1
1
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
11
5
8
3
9
4
36
22
64
34
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
34
34
27
26
7
8
68
68
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
4
1
3
4
4
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
98
78
162
103
117
90
99
68
476
339
Zone 3
63
64
65
66
69
70
71
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1
1
1
1
8
7
2
39
28
26
21
22
16
18
20
40
35
1
2
1
4
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
4
3
13
6
2
1
3
1
4
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
6
6
8
8
2
2
10
10
9
9
7
6
12
11
14
14
20
17
16
14
1
8
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
6
1.
18
4
6
2
18
3
5
2
7
1
3
15
8
33
23
19
13
31
22
13
9
4
2
6
5
1
4
4
10
2
24
13
14
3
9
1
19
7
7
2
13
10
11
2
21
5
13
2
10
1
4
19
18
17
18
3
3
21
19
10
13
10
9
15
17
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
61
50
116
85
130
80
166
104
113
74
79
54
106
1 75
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-1

Appendix A. (continued)
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-2
Zone 3
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
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
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
1
8
3
1
3
4
25
5
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush"
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
6
6
6
5
8
8
5
5
35
35
39
35
9
9
4
2
9
6
10
8
22
21
7
7
12
10
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
1
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
2
2
1
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
9
9
2
1
5
6
7
7
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
11
11
11
12
13
10
18
16
11
10
17
17
13
13
20
20
11
11
15
14
22
23
9
7
25
23
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
2
4
1
3
5
5
5
33
33
15
16
10
11
3
3
22
17
13
11
5
8
14
14
5
6
Red bay
Persea borbonia
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
4
4
1
2
1
1
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
1
6
4
8
1
2
2
3
9
1
8
1
3
3
3
1
7
11
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
22
13
26
10
2
6
1
5
3
12
7
3
2
23
12
3
6
12
6
4
1
15
14
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
22
5
14
2
4
25
4
10
1
8
5
8
3
2
11
1
6
3
8
7
9
8
6
5
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
8
2
5
3
12
1
1
4
1
8
5
14
5
6
1
4
3
16
7
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
25
31
17
19
19
20
23
24
29
32
10
12
26
29
30
35
14
13
15
17
24
25
24
28
20
21
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
1
1
1
3
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
100
75
99
50
65
44
112
62
122
112
106
93
96
72
84
66
113
61
80
68
133
1 93
79
1 75
118
105
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-2

Appendix A. (continued)
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-3
Zone 3
86
87
88
89
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
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
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
9
1
2
6
20
11
3
2
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
1
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
3
1
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
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
2
27
22
21
21
22
16
7
5
1
1
3
3
26
21
68
62
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
1
1
1
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
1
1
2
5
8
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
3
2
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
2
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
2
2
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
9
7
5
5
6
5
6
4
7
7
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
5
3
3
6
7
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
3
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
14
15
6
12
4
6
15
18
15
13
10
12
15
14
13
12
19
20
27
30
12
12
11
8
15
15
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
9
9
10
9
5
3
9
7
1
1
4
2
8
12
7
7
3
3
31
29
2
2
14
17
Red bay
Persea borbonia
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
13
5
4
18
6
9
4
1
9
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
2
2
1
1
10
1
6
3
2
1
8
1
14
5
13
4
6
2
5
2
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
3
1
6
1
9
1
10
7
7
3
12
10
1
33
26
20
12
2
1
9
7
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
5
1
1
4
1
12
8
13
18
5
26
2
6
9
34
12
18
19
1
31
24
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
5
2
1
18
7
13
22
2
8
5
4
1
26
12
8
1
4
1
19
17
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
17
18
11
12
19
20
16
16
9
10
26
29
24
24
51
42
25
29
5
5
22
23
19
19
18
18
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
1
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
86
53
68
58
71
59
113
82
78
33
127
64
127
68
113
68
92
56
174
122
108
1 62
115
1 73
190
168
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-3

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 5
61
Zone 3
102
103
109
Total
91
92
1st
4th
1st
4th
1st
4th
1st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
1 st
4th
17
4th
15
137
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
5
3
1
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
6
3
1
3
17
12
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
11
6
1
1
1
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
2
4
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
6
4
5
5
3
1
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
8
2
1
Buttonbush"
Cephalanthus occidentalis
2
1
3
1
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
2
6
5
502
437
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
3
1
3
1
1
21
21
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
2
3
1
3
1
20
10
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
2
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
2
1
12
13
45
35
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
2
1
1
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
1
1
1
1
6
6
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
8
1
1
3
1
4
4
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
8
5
12
7
14
13
26
20
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
5
2
11
13
5
12
2
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
2
5
3
12
2
10
11
11
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
4
4
3
3
3
27
29
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
2
5
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
4
9
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
5
4
2
2
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
1
1
1
3
4
117
112
Mulberry
Morus rubra
6
4
6
5
19
21
11
8
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
10
9
7
5
5
2
3
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
27
26
27
25
13
12
529
518
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
14
16
6
8
2
4
265
280
Red bay
Persea borbonia
5
1
3
15
1
1
3
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
10
11
8
8
22
22
3
4
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
12
12
8
8
2
Oak
Quercus spp.
3
1
3
3
95
White oak
Q. alba
32
13
56
50
108
84
114
84
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
10
3
9
6
1
1 36
213
55
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
10
10
6
2
11
10
407
234
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
20
10
24
14
8
5
468
157
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
8
6
7
2
13
3
334
93
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
17
18
1
1
8
8
662
695
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
2
1
20
5
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
5
1
6
4
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
122
99
111
67
105
73
3,905
2,703
Zone 5
61
62
67
68
78
90
91
92
1 st
4th
1st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
1 st
4th
2
5
3
7
6
3
1
4
4
11
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
2
6
4
5
5
3
1
4
3
8
2
1
10
5
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
5
5
9
8
1
1
3
1
4
4
2
2
8
5
12
7
14
13
26
20
2
3
5
2
11
13
5
12
2
1
14
2
5
3
12
2
10
11
11
7
10
12
5
1
1
1
2
5
5
4
4
10
8
6
4
2
2
1
13
5
7
3
6
4
6
5
19
21
11
8
5
7
10
9
7
5
5
2
6
2
1
3
3
1
20
6
13
2
5
1
3
15
1
9
2
1
1
10
11
8
8
22
22
3
4
12
12
12
12
8
8
2
3
3
3
1
1
32
13
56
50
108
84
114
84
27
35
61
48
73
53
73
1 36
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-4

Appendix A. (concluded)
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-5
Zone 5
Total
1st
4th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
17
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
10
4
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
14
7
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
6
7
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
26
15
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
15
8
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
3
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
2
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
4
2
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
30
28
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
81
75
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
36
69
Red bay
Persea borbonia
3
7
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
5
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
45
22
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
64
61
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
6
2
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q. phellos
66
13
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
73
78
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
10
3
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
517
403
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 Fourth Annual Report A-5

Selected Fourth Annual (2016) 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 8: northeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2013
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 9: southeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2013
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 10: southwest, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2013
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 11: east, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2013
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 12: southeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2014
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 13: southwest (taken from the berm), top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 24 October 2013
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 2 B-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fourth Annual Report March 2017