20120107 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report Ph I_2016_20170515

a` PotashCorp®
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
March 29, 2017
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5h Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
PotashCorp - Aurora
Enclosed is the "Fifth Annual (2016) Report and Monitoring Summary for the P and U Lands
Restoration Site Phase 1, Richland Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina". 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. Earthwork was initiated on Phase 1 in October
2010 and planting was complete in March 2012. Since we have completed the required 5 -year
monitoring period for Phase 1, I am requesting project close-out for those acres.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], or Julia Berger of CZR Incorporated
at [phone].
Sincer
ely,
Jeffrey C. Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Mac Haupt, DWR - Raleigh w/encl.
Anthony Scarbraugh, DWR — Wash. w/ encl.
J. Ricketts, JTR w/encl.
S. Cooper, CZR w/encl.
23-11-020 w/encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T [phone]
PotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com

FIFTH ANNUAL (2016) REPORT AND MONITORING SUMMARY
FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AY 'fir•. %}
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
March 2017

FIFTH ANNUAL (2016) REPORT AND MONITORING SUMMARY
FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 1
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................1
1.1
History............................................................................................................................
1
1.2
Location..........................................................................................................................
1
1.3
Goals and Performance Criteria.....................................................................................
2
2.0
REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................................2
2.1
Normal Rainfall and Growing Season............................................................................
2
2.2
Hydrology.......................................................................................................................
2
2.3
Vegetation......................................................................................................................
3
2.4
Photographic Documentation.........................................................................................
3
3.0
2016 RESULTS..............................................................................................................3
3.1
Rainfall...........................................................................................................................3
3.2
Hydrology.......................................................................................................................
3
3.3
Vegetation......................................................................................................................
4
3.4
Design Activities.............................................................................................................
5
3.5
Photographic Documentation.........................................................................................
6
4.0
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................6
LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................................................7
Cover Photos:
Top photo: a stand of Atlantic white cedar, trees approximately
15 feet tall, PUM4
to the left, 16 November 2016.
Bottom photo: zoomed in view of top photo,
biologist to the left of stand
approximately six feet tall, 16 November 2016.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 1 performance criteria, methods summary, and current
status.......................................................................................................................... T-1
Table 2 Hydroperiods of 60 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1
restoration site, three Rodman, and four Bay City control wells during all rainfall
conditionsin 2016....................................................................................................... T-2
Table 3 Hydroperiods of 60 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 1
restoration site, three Rodman, and four Bay City control wells during normal
and below normal rainfall in 2015............................................................................. T-10
Table 4 Survival of trees and shrubs planted in 58 0.3 -acre plots at P and U Lands
Phase 1 from baseline (fall 2012) to fall 2016.......................................................... T-21
Table 5 Fifth annual woody volunteer vegetation table ................................................ T-23
Table 6 Annual rainfall summary table.................................................................................. T-24
Table 7a Summary hydroperiods all rainfall............................................................................ T-25
Table 7b Summary hydroperiods WETs normal rainfall.......................................................... T-28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map P and U Lands Phase 1 and Two Control Sites
Figure 2 Monitoring Locations P and U Lands Phase 1 and Two Control Sites
Figure 3 Soils P and U Lands Phase 1 and Two Control Sites
Figure 4 P and U Lands Phase 1 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 1 and Two Control Sites Longest 2016 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones during all Rainfall Conditions
Figure 7 P and U Lands Phase 1 and Two Control Longest 2016 Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones during WETS Normal and Below Normal Rainfall
APPENDICES
Appendix A Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Appendix B Selected Fifth Annual (2016) Restoration Photographs
Appendix C P and U Lands Phase 1 Non -hydric Soil Field Investigation 23 February 2017
NOTE: Copy of entire report and hydrology tables from monitoring wells included on
accompanying CD.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary 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: 2001-10096 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Water
Quality Certification (WQC) #2008-0868 version 2.0. As described in the mitigation plan prepared
for the pre -construction notification (PCN) to the USACE (CZR 2012), the site was planned to be
constructed in three phases as shown on Figure 1, but as Phase 3 was constructed/planted in
2014, completion of approximately 138 acres of Phase 3 was delayed until 2015. These 138
acres comprise Phase 4 monitoring and are one year behind Phase 3. This annual report
documents the fifth annual monitoring of the 970 acres of Phase 1 of the P Lands portion,
conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) of Wilmington, NC. (The P and U designation have no
special meaning other than that was the historic label given to PCS and Weyerhaeuser properties
with similar ownership agreements.)
The design team consisted of Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, FL, the
restoration design engineer, PCS, and CZR. Earthwork was performed by Sawyer's Land
Developing, Inc. out of Belhaven, NC and supervised by the design team. Restoration activities
occurred September 2011 -March 2013. Phase 1 construction was authorized with a total of six
NC Division of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control permits and included modifications
to four of those permits as construction progressed. Planting of Phase 1 occurred from 12-23
March 2012. Further details of construction and monitoring are included in the As Built Report for
P and U Lands Phase 1 and the first - fourth annual reports (CZR 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2015, and
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, was also restored as part of the P and U Lands
mitigation site, in Phase 3. Unlike most other PCS mitigation sites, the P and U Lands are not
prior -converted agricultural fields. Other than the existing roads, all of Phase 1 acreage in which
earthwork occurred was in some stage of silvicultural activity, usually various -aged pine stands,
and contained regularly spaced ditches (deeper than the agricultural ditches on other restoration
sites that were filled in as part of restoration work). The removal of all standing timber and
stumps and post-harvest debris presented particular challenges as the organic soils precluded
safe burning of the timber slash on site. To compensate for this, much of the debris was pushed
into mostly uniform piles that provide habitat to wildlife and provide roosting sites for birds.
1.2 Location. The P and U Lands site is located east and west of Bay City Road
(SR1002), approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Aurora, Richland Township, North Carolina. Bay
City Road runs through the P Lands portion of the site, which is bounded on the east by SR 1918
(Peele Road is the unpaved extension of SR 1918) and on the south by "County Line Road" (a
gated gravel road that functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico County border). The U Lands portion of
the site lies west and southwest of Bay City Farm (the western portion of the P Lands site
referred to as the "panhandle" separates Bay City Farm from the U Lands). South Creek and the
South Creek Canal form the northern and northwestern boundaries, Bonner Road forms the
western boundary, and the Pamlico/Beaufort County line forms the southern boundary of the U
Lands (County Line Road itself is the southern boundary of only the eastern half of the U Lands
as the western limit of County Line Road terminates at the midpoint of the south property line).
The entire site is accessed via multiple gated roads along Bay City Road, Peele Road, County
Line Road, and/or Jaime/Executive Road. The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit
03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River basin within the South Creek subbasin at latitude
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

35.233831and longitude 76.775742. Portions of the site can be found on the USGS Aurora,
Bayboro, South Creek, and Vandemere quadrangles (Figure 1).
1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria. The primary goal of Phase 1 activities is to re-
establish a self-sustaining functional wetland complex to allow surface flow to move through
vegetated wetlands before it reaches any stream. Mitigation yields are estimated and
performance criteria are described for the project in detail in the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for
P and U Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance criteria and the current status are
summarized in Table 1. Over time the Phase 1 portion of the site is expected to successfully re-
establish approximately:
302 wetland acres of non-riverine swamp forest,
327 wetland acres of pond pine pocosin forest,
238 wetland acres of hardwood flat forest,
25 acres of open water in plugged ditches, and
30 wetland acres of swales.
The remaining 49 acres are comprised of existing roads, perimeter berms, and other
man -dominated areas. Approximately 25,131 linear feet of jurisdictional waters in roadside
ditches and canals were plugged in order to increase the hydroperiods within the adjacent
planted areas (these plugged jurisdictional ditches and canals are included in the 25 acres of
reestablished open water). Approximately 8,700 feet of roadside ditch adjacent to Phase 1 along
the south side of Small Road were plugged in 2013.
Included in the planted communities above are 19.5 acres underlain by hydric soils which
may be "potential non -wetland" areas due to predicted drainage effects from perimeter ditches
that must remain open. Perimeter berm design included a "keyway" feature to interrupt the lateral
drainage effect from the open ditch. Monitoring well data was used to determine the
effectiveness of the interruption.
2.0 REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season. A continuous electronic rain gauge on the
adjacent Bay City Mitigation Site is downloaded once a month and its data are used in
conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations (e.g., NRCS WETS data from
NOAA's site at Aurora and at other nearby monitored sites) to determine normal rainfall during
the monitoring period. Bay City rainfall data were compared to the WETS range of normal
precipitation to determine if Bay City rainfall was within the normal range. The range of normal
precipitation for this report refers to the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds of the probability of
having onsite rainfall amounts less than or higher than those thresholds. The range of normal
and the 30 -day rolling total data lines begin on the last day of each month and the 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 the
monitoring locations on the as -built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

wetland types on the site, 60 semi -continuous electronic LevelTroll water level monitoring wells
(manufactured by InSitu) are deployed at a density of approximately 1 well/15 acres across all
planted areas of Phase 1. There are also two well arrays to monitor lateral drainage effects from
the open perimeter ditches in the two soil types which underlay most of Phase 1. Bear
exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence posts were built around all
wells. Three wells were installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman
Road in the Ponzer soil series as controls for the P and U Lands wells located in the same type of
soil according to the Beaufort County Soil Survey (Kirby 1995) (Figures 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 record water levels every 1.5 hours, are downloaded once a month, and
the data are evaluated on an annual basis to document wetland hydroperiods. Wetland
hydroperiods are calculated by counting consecutive days with water level no deeper than 12
inches below the soil surface during the growing season under normal or below normal rainfall
conditions as well as for all rainfall conditions, if applicable.
2.3 Vegetation. The first annual survey of the 58 0.3 -acre planted tree and shrub
monitoring plots occurred July -August 2012. The second and third annual surveys occurred
September -October 2013 and 2014. The fourth annual survey occurred December 2015 -January
2016 and the fifth annual survey occurred November 2016. The plots represent 2 percent of the
restoration area (Figure 2). Nuisance monitoring plots (1 meter square) were established in 2013
at the upper corner opposite the well (along the long axis of the plot) in all tree plots and all
woody stems taller than 1 foot were counted and identified in 2014 and 2015. No nuisance
species remediation was required.
2.4 Photographic Documentation. Four permanent photo point locations were
established along the perimeter of the restoration area and three were established at the end of
interior roads (Figure 2). Photographs were taken in the four cardinal directions (approximately).
Annual photos were taken October 2012, 2013, 2014, December 2015, and October 2016.
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. The first full year of post -restoration hydrology data for the entire site
was 2013 because not all wells were installed at the start of the 2012 growing season due to
construction activities. However, all wells were in the ground by early March 2012 and recorded
most of the growing season. Tables depicting 2016 daily well readings and rainfall are included
on a companion CD with this report.
During all rainfall conditions, 70 percent of wells (42 of 60) recorded a continuous wetland
hydroperiod for the entire length of the growing season, 20 percent (12 of 60) recorded the
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

longest wetland hydroperiod for >25-75 percent of the growing season, three wells recorded a
wetland hydroperiod for >12.5-25 percent of the growing season, and three wells (PUM35, 36,
and 37) did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod for more than 6 percent of the growing season
(Tables 2 and 3, Figures 6 and 7). After excluding the five periods of above normal rainfall, 83
percent of wells (50 of 60) recorded a wetland hydroperiod >25 to 75 percent of the growing
season, 12 percent (7 of 60) recorded wetland hydroperiods for >12.5-25 percent of the growing
season, and three wells (PUM35, 36, and 37) did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod for more than
6 percent of the growing season. According to the Beaufort County soil survey, PUM35 is in a
non -hydric soil type (Tarboro) that drains very quickly and is located at a slightly higher elevation
than most of the other wells (Figures 3 and 4). Also nearby are wells PUM36 and 37. All three
wells have not recorded a wetland hydroperiod for a majority of monitoring years.
Both well pairs in place to monitor potential drainage effects from perimeter canals
(PUM4 and 5, and 25 and 26) recorded hydroperiods greater than 25 percent in 2016, even after
excluding above normal rainfall periods. One of each pair is located 50 feet away from the toe of
the perimeter berm and the second is 100 feet away. The water level data at these four wells for
the past three years appear to demonstrate that the clay keyway incorporated into the berm
retards lateral water movement as designed.
During all rainfall conditions, the control wells in the Rodman Control Site recorded a
wetland hydroperiod for 25-75 percent of the growing season, which is less than a majority of the
Phase 1 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. Hydroperiod ranges for the control wells did not changed after excluding the above
normal rainfall.
3.3 Vegetation. Phase 1 is divided into four community types: swale, hardwood flat,
pond pine-pocosin, and non-riverine swamp forest. The hardwood flat areas had the highest
survival and the swale had the lowest survival, which is typical. The lower survival of the swale
zone is likely a result of large expanses of prolonged standing water despite being planted with
species considered tolerant of such conditions. 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 annual sample events before
it can be confidently counted as dead. Appendix A contains the number of stems that were alive
in each plot for the final 2016 survey compared to baseline.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting to the fifth annual fall survey was 62 percent, with a corresponding density of 317 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 66 percent and
a density of 337 trees per acre. Excluding unknown/uncertain species, of the 26 tree species,
deciduous holly (Ilex decidua) and water hickory (Carya aquatica) had the lowest survival of 2
and 5 percent respectively. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) had 100 percent survival (same as
2014), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) had 98 and 96
percent respectively (Table 4). Five of the remaining known species had 75 percent and higher
survival.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
fifth annual fall survey was 53 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per acre
(Table 4). If shrubs with uncertain survival status (stem appeared dead for the current sampling
event but could not be confirmed) are included with shrubs that were definitely alive (less
conservative estimate of survival), survival increases to 56 percent and a density of eight shrubs
per acre. Both estimates of percent survival are lower than last year. When excluding stems with
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

questionable survival, of the 16 species, swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina), spicebush (Lindera
benzoin), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and dusty zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta), had the lowest
survival of 0 percent. Three species had greater than 75 percent survival: swamp doghobble
(Leucothoe/Eubotrys racemosa), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), and red chokeberry (Aronia
arbutifolia) at 100, 93, and 79 percent respectively. After combining the trees, shrubs and
unknown species that were definitely alive, density increases to 324 stems per acre and if stems
with uncertain survival are added, the density increases to 345 stems per acre.
Due to their quick growth, the Corps determined that three tree species have the
possibility to outcompete young planted hardwoods at a mitigation site and need to be monitored
as nuisance species to ensure they do not outcompete the preferred species. The three species
considered nuisance are, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Two years of nuisance plot monitoring data indicate that neither a
single nuisance species, nor the three nuisance species in aggregate, exceeded 20 percent of
the stems in the nuisance plots in either year. There were three nuisance stems out of 135 stems
in 2014 (2.2 percent) and five nuisance stems out of 122 stems in 2015 (4.1 percent). No further
nuisance monitoring was conducted for this site.
The current planted tree density is higher than the 260 stems required for success with
many trees surviving well into the fifth year, and there is a diverse assemblage of trees
interspersed with a healthy shrub component. In many areas of the site, volunteer woody wetland
stems (e.g. red bay [Persea borbonia], wax myrtle [Morella cerifera], groundsel tree [Baccharis
halimifolia], high bush blueberry [Vaccinium corymbosum]) enhance the diversity and density of
the site. As part of the final vegetation monitoring in 2016, woody volunteer stems in each plot
were also identified and counted and the wetland status of each species was assigned. A total
4,480 stems of 21 tree species were identified as woody volunteers and of those, 1,325 stems of
17 species are considered non -nuisance wetland species (Table 5). The density of non -nuisance
wetland trees was 76 stems per acre and 28 stems per acre for non -nuisance wetland shrubs
with a total of 104 stems per acre.
For the first year of vegetation monitoring (2012), pond pine (Pinus serotina) had the
lowest survival of all the identified planted tree species at 41 percent. By the second year (2013),
pond pine survival had decreased to 24 percent. When the relatively poor survival of pond pine in
Zones 4 and 4A was noted in the first annual data evaluation, supplemental planting of
approximately 30,000 stems of pond pine was planned for 2013. However, no nursery had
enough pines available to plant in 2013, so supplemental planting was pushed into early 2014.
Pine survival appeared to be primarily compromised by improper planting across the site and
secondarily by excessive wetness in some areas. A total of 218 replanted pond pines were
identified in the 24 plots after the fifth annual survey. Of those stems, approximately 73 percent
(158 stems) were unquestionably alive, 10 percent (22) were questionably alive, and 17 percent
(38) were dead. Because the new stems were planted during the third year of monitoring, it was
difficult to determine if some stems were planted or volunteers. During the fifth annual survey, all
volunteers were counted throughout the plots (Table 5). There were 89 pond pines identified in
Zones 4 and 4A as volunteers, and if these stems are added to the monitored stems, a total of
307 pond pines were found with 80 percent (247) of stems unquestionably alive.
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) was among the 21 native wetland
hardwood tree species planted in Phase 1. The cedars were not interplanted with the other
species, but were planted in clumps on higher topographic areas across the site. By the end of
the fifth year of monitoring, cedars made up 13 percent of trees identified throughout the
vegetation plots (Table 4). A total of 789 stems were identified as cedars, with 89 percent (703
stems) as unquestionably alive. The height of the cedars ranged from five to 18 feet, with the
majority of cedars in the eight to 15 feet range. An example of a typical Phase 1 cedar stand can
be seen on the cover photo for this report.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

3.4 Design Activities. Approximately 8,700 feet of roadside ditch adjacent to Phase 1
along the south side of Small Road were plugged in 2013. When original planting occurred, fill
was stored along open ditches to be used as future plugs, so those storage areas were not
planted in 2012. The fill was used to plug the roadside ditches and those areas were planted in
February 2014 in conjunction with Phase 3 planting. Approximately 14 acres were planted in
2014 with 7,750 stems of swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), swamp black gum, willow oak (Q.
phellos), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) in various combinations dependent on planting
zone; these areas included the plugs, a segment inside the berm along Peele Road, and areas
adjacent to the NCWRC-requested parking lots at the west end of Bay City Roads 1 and 3 and on
the south side of Bay City 4. There are no monitoring plots within these planted areas.
3.5 Photographic Documentation. A few photos representative of 2016 conditions
are included with this report (Appendix B). More are available upon request.
4.0 FIVE-YEAR MONITORING SUMMARY
Over the five monitoring years (2012-2016), rainfall recorded at the Bay City rain gauge
was considered normal or below normal WETS rainfall for all of 2012 and 2013, above normal for
two months in 2014, above normal for slightly over two months in 2015, and above normal for
over four months in 2016, as shown in Table 6. Post -restoration wetland hydroperiods during all
and normal rainfall conditions demonstrate that by the fifth monitoring year, 93 percent of wells
(56 of 60) recorded a wetland hydroperiod for all monitoring years, PUM45 had a wetland
hydroperiod for four out of five monitoring years, and three wells (PUM35, 36, and 37) had a
wetland hydroperiod for less than 50 percent of monitoring years (Tables 7a and 7b). Of the 60
wells, 57 wells have met or exceeded the hydrological performance criteria as described in Table
1.
A field investigation of non -hydric soils around the three wells that did not meet the
hydrology restoration criterion was conducted on 23 February 2017 (Appendix C). A 1.7 -acre
polygon of non -hydric soil has been subtracted from the 15 acres represented by PUM35 and the
0.02 -acre non -hydric soil area also has been subtracted from the 15 acres represented by
PUM36. However, for PUM37, no acres will be subtracted from the 15 -acre area represented by
this well as all soils were found to be hydric. Based on the field investigation, it appears PUM36
and PUM37 were installed on or next to old woody debris piles. Although PUM36 and PUM37 did
not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod during the monitoring period, they are surrounded by hydric soil
and as the woody debris in the soil profile decays further, wetland hydrology in the vicinity of each
well is expected to return.
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 58 plots from the time of
planting (2012) to the fifth annual fall survey was 62 percent, with a corresponding density of 317
trees per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting
to the fifth annual fall survey was 53 percent with a corresponding density of seven shrubs per
acre. The density of unquestionably alive trees and shrubs combined is 324 stems per acre. The
current planted tree density is higher than the 260 stems required for success. Woody non -
nuisance wetland volunteers provide an average of an additional 104 stems per plot and as
shown in Table 5, they increase the stem count per acre to 428. There is a diverse assemblage of
planted trees interspersed with planted shrubs in addition to a woody wetland volunteer
component which demonstrate the site has met or exceeded the vegetation performance criteria
as described in Table 1.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site.
CZR Incorporated. 2013a. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
CZR Incorporated. 2013b. First Annual (2012) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
CZR Incorporated. 2014. Second Annual (2013) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
CZR Incorporated. 2015. Third Annual (2014) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
CZR Incorporated. 2016. Fourth Annual (2015) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site
Phase 1.
Kirby, Robert M. 1995. The soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory guidance letter (RGL) 02-02. Guidance on
Compensatory mitigation projects for aquatic resource impacts under the Corps
regulatory program pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites. WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2). U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03. Minimum
monitoring requirements for compensatory mitigation projects involving the restoration,
establishment, and/or enhancement of aquatic resources.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain region. Version 2.0. J.S. Wakeley,
R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. ERCD/EL TR -08-30, Vicksburg, MS.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 a1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report Mar 2017
\_#\a
2000A
CO 0
k��-rM
00
_ _
= 2
a e=
\0)
—0
= o 0 o
E
*
E o m E
m
0
(
§
_
2 /
\
\ 2 / e ®
§ \
ƒ -0 \
2
/
f % n
E
@ a
0
_ »
%
o = = c =
-
/ 2
_ _
�
a)
7 -a E
e
�'- E
m
£ R= w
CO c ^
$_
a
0 o e E$
o'er _ =
n
a
c c m o o
0 = - " "
CO
0 £
CU
o
m m
= 2 7 7
n
.@ \)
m
2
%= e 0\§\
0 E E 2\
o==-0
CO 2£-0\
\
2
5 CO
E% E
°
\
=
�
2 m
= %.g m o
5=�_
o=
o
0 o
CO o"±=
a)C)o
2 m
0 7 COw
>
E
CO
E E
_ 04
-0 7 n
m
3 #
Q CO
2
= c a=
= mo=
o»
_
x o
@
g@
y 2 Cn m=
E@
o
£ o E o
«
m%= E/
0 E
E E 2\
� 7\
7
E 2@ m
E
2 2%
Q
a= e/
\ 2 �_ / 7
0 0
0@
E C 7 0<
'� E 2
0 o
#
o a-= a
2/ o
m m
Q¥
_-
0 m 2 E
@ Q o
o
2
2 E
0 o
g
�a\k�
���
�� \/
���\��
C\l
=3
CO�
_
q)%CU
0
§
LL
/
E
2
o
%�f
04 ƒ %
E
/
0
CU
9
\
\ /
§
0
§ @
Cn
§
2\2
C
CU
k
k
0
/
3 c
k
2
3
°
2
2
f
/
n
\
y
0
C
7
§ 6
E $
m �
2 0
E
c
n E Q
�ƒ
o
=..�
EA
\
o CU
.g
/
Co J
E
_f
0�
&COX
o
/
$ 0
CID
E
k
$ƒ k
U) 6
@
\E
/ m
m -02
.
0 2
f a g
m\
/ ^�§
m CO $
v
m iii E
oy
�
E§
0� J 0
2§
&
E
> 0-0
y2o
y
a) 2 f
/
cu
CL
0
/ ƒ
)
ƒ
�
f� / /
:
/ k 0-
/
U)
.k
ƒ
(D ƒ
-
/ _ k
4 f
ƒ
2
2
k
L 2§ 2/
E
g 5 0§
7 m -o
CO f /
w
C
m m f 2
°
Q
0o
\ " 0
CU
2 . / CL
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 a1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report Mar 2017

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 0
0/ 0 0 0 0 0 0/ 0 0/// 0
e o o f 9 9 9 9 9 9$ 9 9 9 9
6& 6 A g t A t N t N t N t A
w $ w $ w $ CO $ w $ CO $ CO \ CO
n n n n n n n n n n n n n r r
w c w c w c w c w c o c c= w
A t q t q A q A q q q q q a q
r n n n n n n r n n n n n r r
c c c c w c = = w c w c c = c
N q t t q A q q q A q A q
w w w ¥ ¥ ¥ w ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ P --
kCO
/ w§ w g o_ N n# 0 o¥
i a i a a a a
CL (L (L (L / (L [L /
T-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
ƒ
b
>
(n
-0
m\�
�
ƒ(\
/
)
\ \
(
y
=
g
\
\/\
E
6
E o %
\
«
\ \ /
3
\
ƒ
4)
£ B
Wiz/
\ }
v
�/
0
�.
=2»
%cc�7.7
/
\(
V) f / k /
m
2
0$ r B/
00
/\�
����0>
_o
Eo£
_ ~ c
¥
7 E /
$ r
\ j/
_�/
°
\ CO (
\
\ c
5
q «
f
/ ( f
\ \
.2 r
(0
E
K
§ ) o \
o c
2e\ LL
§f
0®
/)2
3c%
R
o.§ t
E R 0a)m
c B «
» 2 > o
f 3
§ c m
2/
f /
R§
> k o r
' I 2
=
o 3
R R= m r
E U) e
/
§ % \ \
E.2
2
C:
(0
a)
7\7'-
\/LL
N g = e
\ / w
/ \
/ g \(D [
2 G 2 \
\ / o
/fes/
�3\
0W
/\%/
/ E E /
Pak u Lands Restoration
Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual U«. i9 and Summary Report
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 0
0/ 0 0 0 0 0 0/ 0 0/// 0
e o o f 9 9 9 9 9 9$ 9 9 9 9
6& 6 A g t A t N t N t N t A
w $ w $ w $ CO $ w $ CO $ CO \ CO
n n n n n n n n n n n n n r r
w c w c w c w c w c o c c= w
A t q t q A q A q q q q q a q
r n n n n n n r n n n n n r r
c c c c w c = = w c w c c = c
N q t t q A q q q A q A q
w w w ¥ ¥ ¥ w ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ P --
kCO
/ w§ w g o_ N n# 0 o¥
i a i a a a a
CL (L (L (L / (L [L /
T-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

1�111I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
x
0
x
x
LO
x
X
x
X
I-
A n
0
x
O
Lf
O
O
O
O
LO
O
r
O O
T
O
T
LO
N
N
T
O
r
04
CO
CO
CO
T
O
n
CO
CO
ItN
d• M
C
N
N
N
N
N
o
N
N - N
r
U
•�
Ln
N
Ln
W
r
r
r
F
y
(�
\
� 00 O
I
00
00
00
O
Ln
O
00
00
�
6)W
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
-0
n
N
N
N
� N N
2
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
Ln
\
00
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
Ln
\ \
r- 6)
r
r
000
000
CO
00
N
r
0)
O
O
LO
r
N - LO
N
N
N
N
000
A I
N
N
CO
M
M
r-
M
V
Lf)
00
00
00
(D
00
00
0Cl) �_
O
N
N
N
p(1)
O
O
O
O
N
U�?U -O O Q
O O M O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L U) 05 �
O
r
r
r
r
N
CL 04 O
N
N
N
N
0 i
N
N
N
(D
Cfl
(D
Cfl
UN
N
N
N
N
Qi
r
r
r
r
CO
❑
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
E
E
N
N
N
N
>
>
D
:D
>
O N
a
a
0-
CO
-a
a
s
a
N O U
0) - > N
T-3
> L O Q
W
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
Z O
co
w
00
� LO �'
N
N
N
N
(j)- LL
O (1)
Q 1
m
>'ZCO CU > U
- C)>
.O O
M
M
MM
t0 M N
N
co N
N
00
N
O N LL
E 00
D N
L
O LL
N �
� O O
O
N
N Z
CU
7
C
M -0
N
❑
O
U
00
07
O
r
T
r
N
N
1�111I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O
r
O O
T
O
T
N
N
T
O
r
CO
CO
CO
T
CO
CO
CO
CO
ItN
d• M
CD
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N - N
r
r
r
Ln
W
r
r
r
F
y
(�
\
� 00 O
I
00
00
00
00
67
O
00
00
�
6)W
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
� N N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
Ln
\
00
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
Ln
\ \
r- 6)
r
r
000
000
CO
00
�
0)
O
O
LO
r
N - LO
N
N
N
N
000
N
N
CO
M
M
r-
M
M
Lf)
00
00
00
(D
00
00
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
2
2
2
E
E
2
>
>
D
:D
>
a
a
0-
0-
a
s
a
T-3
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
March 2017

N
a)
Z
n3
P and U Lar
Fifth Annual
0
X
X
X
M
r—
O
LO
X
x
X
I-
O
O
O
Lr)
W
1-
A A
M
Ln
Lr)
Ln
0
O
O
O
V
V
V
LO
i
N
x
N
a a
X
LO
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Q
Q
Q
N
Oo
Oo
Oo
z
z
z
A
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
Lr)
N
i
Ln
N
N
N
V
V
V
N
r
A
w
CO
CO
0
N
N
N
M
LO
LO
Ln
N
r
i
O
AI
O
V
�O O C > 'O
O .O O (0 O) Q
CO
O
w -0 O
V O CU M O 0
Ln
M
M
M
0 0 00 Z
p j
CLN
L
(D
Ln
CO
Cfl
N
(n
LL')
N
00
N
=
-
L?
N
Lfl
N
00
N
CO Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LO
w
N
U)
67
O
a) 00
O
-a
N O U
a) — > a)
> L O Q
'7 .O NO
67
O
O
It
M
O
O
f--
00
Il-
N
LO
O
U L
a) O N
C (i) - LL
O (1)
Q
a)
>+: > U
CO
mo Q
> .O O
O
t0 O N
N
N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
�
a)
a) cn
N
N
a) >
N Z O
CU N
Q
M
O
N
CO
Q
Q
d
�
ds Restoration Site Phase
1
T-4
Monitoring and Summary Report
x
X
X
X
M
r—
O
X
x
X
O
O
O
O
Lr)
W
1-
M
Ln
Lr)
Ln
O
O
O
O
V
V
V
N
N
N
N
a a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Q
Q
Q
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
z
z
z
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
V
V
V
CO
w
CO
CO
N
N
N
N
M
LO
LO
ti
ti
M
r—
O
N
M
qt
Lr)
W
1-
M
M
a
M
a a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LL)
I-
A A
0
LO
LL)
N
A
0
Lr)
N
LQ
N
r
A
0
Ln
N
r
A I
CO
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
CL O N O j
L
N
a)
CO
0
U
O a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 0
7 N
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo Q
a) a)C6
> - L (0
CO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
a)
O
N Z O
N
7
r
C"
CU
C
(0
N
—
O
Lf)
CO
U
Co
O
x
Lr)
O
Ln
r
r
N
(0
N
—
r
Lf)
CO
i�:
Co
O
N
M
00
r
N
N
CO
N
N
N
L
~
ti
M
LO
CO
r-
CA
CO
M
d
M
r
r-
N
N
r
Ln
N 4)
a) �
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
N
CO
N
ti
N
00
Cl)
a
0
N)
r-
N
r
LO
N
r
M
N
�-
000
Cfl
d
(D0
CO
O
00
M
00
r
N
N
(7
N
N
N
~
~
ti
Ln
LO
CO
d
CA
O
M
N
00
d
Ln
r
N
r
Ln
T-5
O
r -
r
0
Ln
-
r
r
N
N
CD
Lf)
Cfl
-
r
CO
00
r
00
'
r
N
N
N
N
~
Ln
M
CO
d
a0
N
I,-
N
't
rl-
CO
M
N
rl-
N
M
CO
N
N
N
N
CD
March 2017
-
N
CO
00
r
a0
'
'
N
N
N
N
Lf
O)
Ln
It
CD
LO
N
LC)
M
O
CO
N
O
T-
D
D
a a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
X
X
X
X
X
X
I-
A n
0
LO
x
Ln
04
a)
A
C
O
o
U
Ln
O
LNr)
x
O
N
A
s
N
r
A I
O
V
O
O N ,O
0 ED 0)
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
U�?
07 "a C Q
p O 0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L6
00
O
O
O
O
M
L 06
r
r
r
(Y)
r
r
r
CL._.
O
L
LD
w
CD
CD
Lr)
Ln
00 LO
LD
CD
r-
N
M
It
M
O
O
(nN
N
N
N
N
N
- N
N
N
-
N
N
N
r
r
r
r
l(j
CD
ao
r
(D
00
O
r
r
❑
N
'
M
00
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
d
N
LC)
N
N
00
N
N
N
Ln
N
t—
N
M
N
N
N
N
U
a) N
O
-a
NO U
a) +J > a)
> L O Q
.O N O
M
O0
00
M
OO
000
00
r M
O
C)
LO
L17
r
00
N
OMO
00
7
U
N
N
N
N
LO
N
N
N N
N
Lf)
r
N
r
N
N
L'
a) O
C Q) = LL
04
O a)
Q '
a)
>'Z> U CU
mo ❑
> +OCo
O
M
M
M
M
M
O
M
M
0
t0 � N
N
CO
N
N
CO
N
LO
N
rl—
r
N
N
C O N LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N �
a) N
ti
ti
ti
r—
ti
a) cn
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m a)
O
a)
N Z
>1 M -0
7
C
N
❑
C
O
U
N
M
I
LO
LO
f--
CO
0)
—
It
v
N
a)
>a)
>
>
>
❑
D
D
a
a
a
111
a
a
s
c�
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site Phase
1
T-6
PCS Phosphate
Company,
Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
March 2017

0
LC)
I-
A A
0
LC)
I
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
L()
N
r
A
0
Ln
N
r
A I
O
V
1 O C > 'r-
C
C U -0 Q
Up CU(Y) p O
06
CL
0 U N p
L
(n
a)
CO
Cn
O a) 00
-a N(1) U
> 0 ❑
7 O C6
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
>'Z > U
mo ❑
a) a)C6
> — L CO
CO � 0 N
O a)N LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
t.Cn r
Z. _. m
-01>' :E O
a) CO N
C ❑
I
!s!
N 4)
a) �
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
CD
N
rlN
O
LC)
n
O
O
O
r
N
r
C14
N
N
C)
00
N
O
O
O
r
N
r
N
N
C')
00
N
r (D
N N
0000 r
00 6)
N N
N 00
C6 O
!� O
r r
In
x
X
CD
X
X
X
N
x
,It
X
C6
00
r
x
N 4)
a) �
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
CD
N
rlN
O
LC)
n
O
O
O
r
N
r
C14
N
N
C)
00
N
O
O
O
r
N
r
N
N
C')
00
N
r (D
N N
0000 r
00 6)
N N
N 00
C6 O
!� O
r r
In
CD
M
CD
00
N
N
N
N
,It
Lt
C6
00
r
CO
6)
6)
O
O
N
N
N
N
M
N
It
Ln
C6
00
O
C6
CO
N
Lr)
Ln
N
N
d
O
N 4)
a) �
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
CD
N
rlN
O
LC)
n
O
O
O
r
N
r
C14
N
N
C)
00
N
O
O
O
r
N
r
N
N
C')
00
N
r (D
N N
0000 r
00 6)
N N
N 00
C6 O
!� O
r r
In
Cf)
�
00
00
I-
11
N
N
N
V
N
N
r
N
M
LO
LC)
LC)
O
N
O
N
N
:)
D
D
CIL
0-
0-
T-7 T-7
O
O
O
r
N
r
Cb
N
N
C)
00
N
O
V
Lr)
r
�
I—
N
(N
r
Cfl
N
N
LLC)
CD
co
r
I
1
I
'
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
LO
(D
CA
00
d
O
C6
CO
N
Lr)
O
rl-
N
LL9
D
a
�
ti
I—
CN
N
N
LLO
L�
LO
a
a
a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
Ln
M
0
Lr)
Ln
N
-
CO
Ln
Cfl
[--
LC)
O
00
M
X
00
N
N
N
(7
I-
N
N
CA
ti
LOCD
Lf)
A n
0)
00
CD
M
M
O
I�
—
N
0
CD
LO
X
x
LO
a)
A
C
O
o
U
Lr)
•�
N
O
Ln
O
N
A
s
N
r
A I
CD
V
OO
C > N 'O
L
.0(0 p) a)
M
O
Lr)
V
wC Q-
O CU M O 0
Ln
M
O
N
CD
O
U 00 Z
CL
N O j
L
(D
C14
-
-
N
N
C'4
N
�
U?
000
CO
N
M
Cb
N
Q
N
N
N
N
N
LO
w
N
N
00
a) 00
-a
N O U
> L O Q
O
M
f—
O
N
000
000
O
=
a0
N
fl-
O
U L
a) O N
C 0 - LL
O CV
U
a)
>'ZCO CU > U
mo Q
> +0Co
O
Lr)
M
I�
CO �: =
N
N
N
C O N LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N �
a) N
r—
ti
ti
a) O
N
N
N
m a)
O
a)
N Z
>1 -0
7
C
M (9
Q
O
U
00
O)
O
Lr)
Lf)
O
a)
>—
>
Q
D
Q
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site Phase
1
T_g
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
Ln
M
Lr)
Lr)
Ln
N
-
CO
Ln
Cfl
[--
00
O
00
M
O
00
N
N
N
(7
N
N
N
CA
ti
LOCD
Lf)
N
0)
00
CD
M
M
O
I�
—
N
—
CD
Ln
N
N
rl-
N
X
y
LO
Lr)
CD
N
U)
CD
00
00
O
N
N
CA
LOCD
N
00
�
a7
O
O
N
r—
N
N
U
w
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LC)
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
LQ
N
r
A
0
Ln
N
r
A I
CO
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
CL U N O j
L
(n
a)
CO
U
O a) 00
N O U
>a) m ❑
7 N O Cfl
a) �: O -0
C Q) - LLL
O a) 04
U � '
>+� > U
❑
O OC6
> — L CO
CO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) >
x
M
CD
Lr)
N
rl-
N
_0
C.0
Co CU
ON
N
N
O
C)
LnCD00
CO
C0
1
O
Ln
O
O
a0
O
M
N
N
N
C)
�
N
N
M
Q)
Ln
N
LO
0')
CO
It
0
O
w
N
It
00
CD
Lr)
N
rl-
N
_0
C.0
Co CU
�
U
N
❑
C)
C
CO
C0
1
O
Ln
O
O
U
N
M
N
N
M
Ll')
M
N
M
Q)
Ln
N
N
O
rl-
O
CD
O
M
M
Ln
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
06
00
C.0
N
�
N
N
N
C)
L
1
CO
C0
1
CO
Ln
O
O
N
N
M
N
N
M
Ll')
67
O
M
d'
Ln
N
N
O
T-9
O
r
M
LC)
M
PCS P
x
ti
ti •- LC)
� � O
00 O O
N N N
N LO M
O O
Lr) r r
d'
r
ti
N
M
M
LY
U
CO
-iosphate Compa
Marc
x
O
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
M
00
N
rlN
d'
!Y
U
CO
lY,
h2
.O
a)
CO
a)
O
0
L
a)
0-
O
L
a)
E
a)
U
a)
❑
CD
LL
a)
E
a)
O
Z
Ln
t7'J
C
rn
civ
ca
❑
Inc.
)17
N
N
N
N
L
1
CO
C0
1
00
M
'
M
N
N
N
N
LLC)
0O0
O
rl-
O
CD
O
M
M
Ln
f�
N
PCS P
x
ti
ti •- LC)
� � O
00 O O
N N N
N LO M
O O
Lr) r r
d'
r
ti
N
M
M
LY
U
CO
-iosphate Compa
Marc
x
O
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
M
00
N
rlN
d'
!Y
U
CO
lY,
h2
.O
a)
CO
a)
O
0
L
a)
0-
O
L
a)
E
a)
U
a)
❑
CD
LL
a)
E
a)
O
Z
Ln
t7'J
C
rn
civ
ca
❑
Inc.
)17

c
y
/
»\\±
\/�\
L
f
IzE2
/ ¥ °LO
2 E \ E
/
A
7 fN
%
+
o = 2
U) .> of
o
n
t
\N5
o
3
E
0
&
07 »
A
±\0
I
y
/k 't\
r
£ r %
&
»0
\I
�\$\
_C14•0£
_
.g\ k 2
@ = E 5
\\
0__72
_ _
.§ q f C:
R
CO
\ » =
=
¢ o = CO 2 /
§�/¢
COCLIv
I�®�5J
=
j §
CO
_
7 ± 7 =
n t --
m
12Ee
002-
»_\
U=�f0
COf
®\ \ \ >
/ /
\ f \
\ k CO
c — M m
= R ¥ \
.§ f CO \
In E \ LL
/5 U)
//2
§ \ 2 /
»
E E _ _
= b 2 e
g m
\ \ > o
g c £
_ 2 /
% a S 5
> / CO
'�
f C 0
% CO = \
\ /k $
2 A E
E
\ /00
m=
».
(.0 "
W 2
� "
$ o ƒ
\E
/
C 0
\ §
/ m
70 =
G
G >
2
¥g§\
rso
®c2
\§ m n
/ e
_ &
z$0
\_ / /
\
$ .d
£=)>
/E%3&
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual U«. i9 and
Summary Report
x
B
ƒ Q N
* / /
COn
7 \ 7
ƒ
\
/
2
E
X
�
■
x
�
■
X
B
x
�
■
ƒ
$
$
$
Gg
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
r
A I
O
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
dU C14O
— L
a)
CO
U
a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
7 O O
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> - L CO
LO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) r N
x
y
x
x
y
O
O
r
O
O
r
x
r CD
� r N
� i
i
L\ Lfl
M
00
'Itti r
O) M M
x
y
x
O
O
r
6D
O
r
r-
rl-
ti
N
N
N
O
O
a)
D
N Z O
d
C
CO -0
CD N
O
U
(0
M
a)
IZ
N
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
O
O
r
x
r CD
� r N
� i
i
L\ Lfl
M
00
'Itti r
O) M M
x
y
x
O
O
r
6D
O
r
r-
rl-
ti
N
N
N
O
O
D
D
d
r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
r
A I
(D
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
CL U N O j
L
a)
CO
U
a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
7 N
a) O �
(n (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L CO
(0 � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) r N
x
O')
r
x
V
r N
i�
L\ (D
M
0
r r
M CO
0)
r
x
y
r �
r N
� � r
i
L\
CO — r
W r
�r
r
O) M M
Q0
T-12
x
N
M
CO
C4
� r N
� i
i
L\ Lfl
M
00
'Itti r
O) M M
G)
r
x
y
x
r
6D
�
�
ti
N
N
N
LO
(D
Il -
D
D
D
a)
d
N Z O
CO7
C
N
❑
O
U
N
M
a)a)
a)
>
D
N
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
V
r N
i�
L\ (D
M
0
r r
M CO
0)
r
x
y
r �
r N
� � r
i
L\
CO — r
W r
�r
r
O) M M
Q0
T-12
x
N
M
CO
C4
� r N
� i
i
L\ Lfl
M
00
'Itti r
O) M M
G)
r
x
y
x
r
6D
�
�
ti
N
N
N
LO
(D
Il -
D
D
D
0-
d
0 -
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
r
A I
Lfl
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
CL U N O j
_ L
a)
CO
U
a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
7 N
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L CO
LO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
x
f
N
a)
rl-
N Z O
�
N
7
C
N
❑
N
N
N
O
2E
D
U
a-
M
cyi
a)
a)
>
>
❑
1�I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
V
�- N
L\ Lfl
M
0
r r
M CO
0)
T-13
x
y
c- N
L\ (DC\p
CO
W
-tj-r
r
O) M M
Q0
rl-
N
O
N
2E
D
!Z
x
N
M
CO
C4
� � N
L\ Lfl
M
00
'Itti
r
O) M M
G)
r
x
y
� � N
L\ C
CO
W
r-
6) CO CO
r
r--
rl-
N
N
N
N
N
2
2E
D
D
a-
0 -
PCS
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LC)
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
r
A I
Cfl
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
Up CUM p 0
06
CL U N O j
_ L
a)
CO
U
O a) 00
-a N (1) U
> 0 ❑
7 N
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L (fl
LO � 0 N
O a)N LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) r N
X
y
T
X
T
r N
LO C�
M T
0 T
r r
M CO
T-14
X
9
r CY)
r N
L9 r
Ln
� T
M T
00T
CO M
CO
LO
T
rl-
N
Lf)
N
CL
X
r
CD T N
1? r
L() Cfl
CD
M — r
0 r
r- r
O) M M
M
T
X
r
CD T N
Cfl � r
LO
C
M00
0 T
T
i— r
O) M CO
0)
CO
r
X
CO
T
ti
ti
N
N
1-
00
N
N
2
2
a)
N Z O
CO7
0-
d
C
N
❑
O
U
C.,.)
—
N
M
OO
N
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
X
T
r N
LO C�
M T
0 T
r r
M CO
T-14
X
9
r CY)
r N
L9 r
Ln
� T
M T
00T
CO M
CO
LO
T
rl-
N
Lf)
N
CL
X
r
CD T N
1? r
L() Cfl
CD
M — r
0 r
r- r
O) M M
M
T
X
r
CD T N
Cfl � r
LO
C
M00
0 T
T
i— r
O) M CO
0)
CO
r
X
CO
T
ti
ti
N
N
1-
00
N
N
2
2
0-
d
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
T
A I
O
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
Up CUM p 0
06
CL U N O j
L
a)
CO
0
U
O a) 00
-a N (1) U
> 0 0
7 O O
a) O �
C � - LL
04
O (1)
U '
a)
>+� > U
mo 0
a) a)O
> — L CO
LO � 0 N
O a)N LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
x
C.0
LO
T
C.0
7
C
N
N
�
N
M
w
CO
r
O
D
U
a_
0)
M
a0
C
r
M
OO
a)
>
:D
�
d
O
O
T
rl-
N
a)
rl-
N Z O
-0
N
7
C
N
�
M
M
CO
O
D
U
a_
0)
—
N
M
OO
a)
>
:D
�
d
N
H
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
I x
N N
� � r
Ln 00 ,
O
M 00
M Il r
f-- r CO
6,
O
CO
2
d
T-15
x
T �
� T N
O r
O ,
,
L\ O
M — T
00 T
-Itti r
O MCO
O
CO
T
x
y
T
(.0 r N
, O �
L\ O
CO — r
00 r
r
O CO M
O')
O
r
x
OD
O
r
rl-
rl-
N
N
M
M
CO
D
D
a_
a_
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A
0
Lf)
Lf)
N
A
0
Lf)
N
i
Lf)
N
r
A
0
Ln
N
r
A I
(fl
V
�O Cl) C > 0
C
O U -0 E Q
UO CU M O O
CL U N O j
L
a)
CO
a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
7 N
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L CO
LO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) r N
x
y
r (.0
� r N
T r
i
M C r
Co r
� r
M M CO
►A
x
�
x
N
N
x
x
N
x
x
Lr)
N
LL)
In
6
CO
N
rl
00
C4 M
N N N
'IT 00
Lf) Cfl �
M 00 r
M 00 r
Lf) r M
(0I r I CO l O l r l l r l Cfl cc
1�0I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
01
T-16
N
O
a
r—
�
ti
N
N
N
r
N
M
a)
N Z O
-0
CO7 N
C
❑
O
U
Lf)
a)
>
>
❑
❑
1�0I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
01
T-16
N
O
a
r—
�
ti
N
N
N
r
N
M
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LC)
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
LQ
N
T
A
0
N
T
A I
CO
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
00
CL U N O j
L
a)
CO
U
O a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
—=3 CO
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) OC6
> — L CA
CO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
x
y
rl-
N
a)
N
N Z O
CU
7
C
N
❑
Lf)
M
O
06
U
IZI.
T
T
1�I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
x
ti
N
LO
N
Ln
T
N
(0
!Z
CO
CA
x
y
T
rl-
N
00
"t
2E
D
0-
T-17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
'T
Lf)
M
06
LC)
CO
T
T
CD
(D
CO
T
Lf)
N
[I -CD
T
N
N
�
N
T
N
(p
T
.may
LC)
LO
(0LC)
C)
M
(D
�
N
N
In
M
00
T
M
T
M
T
T
IT
M
T
T
r-
T
q
T
M
M
L17
N
T
M
q
M
ti
N
LO
N
Ln
T
N
(0
!Z
CO
CA
x
y
T
rl-
N
00
"t
2E
D
0-
T-17 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
N
r
A I
(D
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
UO CU M O O
06
CL U N O j
L
a)
CO
U
a) 00
-a N O U
> 0 ❑
7 N
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L Cfl
LO � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
x
CD
r
rl-
N
a)
N
N Z O
-0
7
C
N
❑
M
M
O
CO
U
�
tl
1�0I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
r--
06 06
CO (0
N N N
' 0) CO
LO N
M - r
M 00
Ln N M
L()
r
T-18
x
y
r �
r N
� � r
L\ i
CO — r
00 r
r
O) M M
M
r
rl-
N
LO
2
D
a
x I x
CO (NO
r r
x
r �
� r N
CO
00
'It � r
M CO CO
67
r
� I � I ti
N N N
N CO I-
U') LC)
D D D
a_ d a_
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
N
M
M
CO
M
L\
i
CO
-
CO
CO
00
M
00
r
�
r
I-
r
�
(fl
r
M
M
M
r
M
CO (NO
r r
x
r �
� r N
CO
00
'It � r
M CO CO
67
r
� I � I ti
N N N
N CO I-
U') LC)
D D D
a_ d a_
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
I-
A A
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
Lr)
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
Lf)
N
r
A I
O
V
1 C > 'r-
C
O U -0 Q
Up CUM p 0
06
CL U C14 O
L
a)
CO
U
O a) 00
-a N (1) U
> 0 ❑
7 O O
a) O �
C (i) - LL
O (1)
U J --
a) a)
CO
>+: > U
mo ❑
a) a)O
> — L CO
LO � 0 N
O a)N LL
E " = M
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
a) '
a) a)
x
O
O
r
rl-
N
a)
N
N Z O
�
N
7
C
O
N
❑
CO
:D
:D
O
d
PCS Phosphate
M
U
March 2017
M
Ln
Lr)
a)
r
>—
>
D
N
1�I
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
x
V
� O
r N
i�
L\ O
M
O
r-
0)
O M M
0)
O
r
x
LO CD
N N
L9 r
U') (.0
M
N
00 M
r -
Lf)
r
T-19
x
O — LSO
N N
r
L i
LO N
CO — r
M r
CO Ch r
00 — M
N
00
LO
2
d
x I x
ti
N
N
N
N
O
L!7
CO
:D
:D
0-
d
PCS Phosphate
M
March 2017
M
CD
r
O
N
N
N
—
N
CO
r
CO
-
r
ID
M
00
M
N
00
r
CO
r
CO
r
Ln
r
ti
[I-
N
N
O
O
L!7
CO
:D
:D
0-
d
PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
LO
ti
A
0
Lf )
ti
Ln
N
A
0
Ln
N
Ln
N
r
A
0
Ln
N
r
A I
v
oCl) >
C:
0 -0 0' a
Up CUM p 0
06
CL U N O j
L
N
O
CO
0
U
O O 00
N NU
>a) m 0
7 N O O
O � O a)
C Q) - LL
O O 04
U � '
>+� > U
O OO
> — L CO
t0 � 0 N
O ON LL
E " = 00
U N
L
a)
LL
N
a) � N
O '
� V) r
x
L1i
N
LO
Ln
LSA
M
N
r -
M
N
r
rl—
N
x I x
0
r -
>
O
d7
0)
_0
6)
N _a O
>'co�
U)
Q'
:3
M
Co�' La
�
O
CO
U
C
L
�
�
C
04
O
N
N
�
r
LO
L?
r
U
M
(0
C
r
O
>Q)
>
E
00
M
00
r
N
r
Ln
r
Lf)
r
N
P and U Lands
Restoration Site Phase 1
Fifth Annual
Monitoring and Summary
Report
x I x
0
r -
0
N
d7
CO
6)
N
Q'
N
M
N
r
r
CO
O
L
�
LO
04
N
�
N
N
�
r
LO
L?
r
LO
LO
(0
r
00
M
00
r
N
r
Ln
r
Lf)
r
N
r-
r -
C14
N
N
CO
Q'
Q'
T-20
x
00
r �
M ,
L
�O N
M
M
,It
N
r-
04
r`
U
CO
x
x
LO
Ln
r
� Ln (0 �
N N N r
Lf 00 r 4
L(j O (.0 L(j
CO N M I-
0') Lfl
CO ti
r
PCS PI
x
N
N
N
M
M
N
r
r
CO
O
�
r
LO
U
O
U
m
m
PCS PI
x
N
M
M
CO
r
r
N
O
�
r
LO
O
M
r
r
0)
N
M
M
N
N
O
^L'
a)
O-
O
O
r
E
m
U
0)
C)
E
N
O
Z
LO
r
01
C
E
m
0
iosphate
Company,
Inc.
March 2017

a U)
m
C 2
O
N
N
0
O
0"t
O LOIt N Or
0 1- LO O O�
LO
0
M
O
O
M m O O"t r'- LO -t
(0 M O -t N N 09 O
N O LO 'It
�t O O
(0 r -
V CO
N O
i@
N
.�
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
CO
O
O
O N Lf7 O (fl O N O
0 0 0 0
a o
>
M
CO
N
@°
O (.0
M LC) O O O (fl r rl-
S
O N (0 Lf) O M LC) N M
CLO O
(O
.>
1-
LO
M
O CO LO
CO M M
h
00M (0 LO (0 � O M
W
O n
(O
7
O
C
N
`
N
>
LO
O O
_
O LO O
CO M
L[)
O
_
O O O M CO M
't
O O N
6) O
N
O
Q
N
M
W N N
r M M
(0
CO N LO CO d• r*- M CO
LO CO
CO n
to
a
N
Lp
N
O
LO N
r- M
M S d. N O
(D N O O
Co W CO N O
N N N N LO
t` CO M N M N N
N W
N M (fl N O
M
F --
r
C'
O
E
O
O
_M
U)
O Lf)
M .- O
CO
M
O
O M M M O M O N O
N O O
N
LL) N
Cl)
O
N
C
�
CO
LL
M
LO O M
W M (0 �' O
N
(O Cl)
It
LO
r�
LO N
LO O M �- O
h
O t` CO
(0 N M
O
r- O n N V- N
�7' N CO r
N M N
O
N
L() �-
C)
LON
Lp
CO
CO M
tt' LO
O CO M O
LO O LO
t` O
LO O
M 00: LO LO CO 1
CO M co (D
O O O LO (O
co O n
(MO W
0)
N
O
N
r'
rl- 0) 00
N
Cl) N N
LO (0 (O CO
N —
N —
CO
W d'
O
N
�--
r
N
(D
O
N
OO
=000
O
O
LO
N N O N
W
O
LO
LO
M O N V
O CO M O O M O
O O O N
N
O
�.
N
C
C
�
N
CU
>
M "'Ll
1 M
O ml -
O mtM't
LO W h
O O�
LO
LO
O O O LO CO r-
CO O N r O (0
O) (O �
M O
'7 V
n CO
CO CO
LO
Q
N
— h
1- 0) CO
N
M
Cl) N N
LO (0 LO CO
N —
N
a)
d'
C\
f6
N
N
N
CO LO
N 0) �
'�'
M LO
p
O
� N LO W
r r CO
C0
Cl)
O
V
O Cl)
— N
O W V' CO
CO
t` a1
N
CO O CO N M M N N O
LO (D (0 CO
N M
h V
N
pO e-
Lt)
rT
N
CO
Q
f--
� U
co
N ter•
Lo
° .r.
a)
F
°
co
E
E
M
°
m m
C
0
Y
�
N �
CO
O
0
(n C2
O
E
U Y
O
Q
(n
7
@
O >
U
cB
°
O @
° O
@
..C-
N O O
O. L
N
N
O
.c (6 O
O_
O
3
O O Q D- ° ° % U
Q 7
N
°
°
O�
s2
�°
E
CO
3
�
E
CO
0°
m 2 F o
L:3
°
C
`� ° a@
0>
c
m> 3 m— L E
3 w 3 a°)
3 ate)
m
—
Q C�
m a
(n
°
O cn U CO Q
U) a o
(n 0-1
42
z
CU
m
w
@
ca m
c
Q3
j6
z
E
'k 'p
rn
i
CO
C
O
y -C
LO
U
�p Q N N
O U O. ,O
R O
U
O
O_
cn
M N O
z Cl) Q
(0
O
0� U O O
-Q
i
> O
w
i U
Cl)
[i
N N i O
.0
@ O
h
h
O N LO O O
N N O a
LU -O
ZZ
N
N .�
0.3
j N
a h h
i
@
-O O N V t i p
m 11 �
z
>; •�
me
m
m E c a
t
CO
M E
a) m
m i o
@
a) .g X
m
U)
-i Q
m U
U U Li z z
z z a
a
a
0 0 a 0 0 0 a �- 5
CO � U o_
Z a
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-21 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

a U)
m
C
N
O
N
n
00 N N
O M
O O O N
O O
O (O O CO
CO
CD 'It O O
O N N O
p
tq
00 O O
— O CO
0 0
6� ;: 6
O
O
a o
>
M_N
CU
m
O O O
0
0 O d' O O n
O O
0 M M O
CO
O
.i
00 LO
CO CO 4
U-) LO
Co
M O
Lo
O
O
F
C
U
>0
0
0 O V
d' O O
0 0
n
O M M O
M
O
N
Q
n LO
(0 C0 -t
LO LO
(o
MM
LO
a
N
CU
N Lf,
N O N V
M N O
N
O (O O
M
00
N
Q
L*
p
U
F--
i-
M
E
Ow
O O N 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
00
O
N
l0 N
(R
O
Cl)
O
N
r
N O N d'
M N O
N
O CO O
N
�
O
LMp N
M
Q
i-
to
CU
N O
.- LO M O
LO
N N N
M
O � O N
MU
LO
N
'Cr
E
f--
N
r\
LO
O
N
to
N
(n
O O O
O O O O
O O O
O
�t N O O
r�
O
MM
to
(D
O
�
C
U
rp
m
N
(V M
�- LO M 00
CD N N N
M
N N
pN
n
0000
d
Q
N
Cl)
00
@
N
�
C
O
N O
M In M 61
O N M N
M
(O
C-)
O�j
0000 W
O
N
—
N
O
W
CU
F --
ti
U
_
N
co
d to
h
t\
y d
CO
0)
S
O
E
H O
C
O
E
O
0)
EL
0)
U
E
-O> O
O
0)
(O
UQ
U
O
L
CO
0
Omt
OaimO0
c
2
m
m
N°CO
E°ma
o
m0
E
Y
E
'm
3
Eu)
-0
3
cN
:3
0� Q CO
n U)
cn cn li
0
CO = a 0
D
o
A
E
m
m
m
h
U
co m
a
m
m
cQ,
,
E
o m
m W no m
Q o
w
cEa
C13 +�..
m
U C a
o ma_
a
a
c
L)
@ a m
Q
.�
aoi
@ E
O
(t
O
U
hX
Y
(n
y
Q U UU
U�
J J J
R
C>> N
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-22
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report
C
0)
0)
O
C
.Q
E
m
U
C
7
U
O
L
U
N
C
0)
Y
O
C
O O_
O)
O X
C �
Oj C_
7
_ U
.fl m
M (O
0) O
� N
N O)
CO CO
d U
CL E
CO
E
U O
a�
COm_
� a
c �6
m cm,
N t w
Fn •�
o m
U N >
w 0) Z
m -O
3 � �
,0 c
m
m i
U) a
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Table 5. Volunteer woody stems in P and U Lands Phase 1 vegetation monitoring plots during fifth
annual survey in 2016. Success criteria for volunteer woody stems can count only non -nuisance
species with wetland status.
WOODY VOLUNTEERS IN ALL 0.3 ACRE PLOTS (58 PLOTS)
Wetland
Scientific name
Common name
Count
Percent of total
status
Trees
Acer rubrum
red maple
FAC
1,030
22.99
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
FAC
1
0.02
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
FACW
1
0.02
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
FACW
5
0.11
Cyrilla racemiflora
titi
FACW
131
2.92
Ilex opaca
American holly
FAC
8
0.18
Liquidambar styraciflua'
sweetgum
FAC
66
1.47
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
FACW
63
1.41
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
FAC
282
6.29
Nyssa aquatica
water tupelo
OBL
3
0.07
N. biflora
swamp tupelo
OBL
5
0.11
Persea borbonia
red bay
FACW
724
16.16
Pinus serotina
pond pine
FACW
91
2.03
Pinus taeda'
loblolly pine
FAC
312
6.96
Quercus spp.
unknown oak species
UPL-013L
1
0.02
Q. laurifolia
laurel oak
FACW
1
0.02
Q. lyrata
overcup oak
OBL
1
0.02
Q. michauxii
swamp chesnut oak
FACW
5
0.11
Q. phellos
willow oak
FACW
2
0.04
Rhus copallinum'
winged sumac
UPL
1,747
39.00
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
OBL
1
0.02
TOTAL TREE STEMS
4,480
100
TOTAL NON
-NUISANCE VOLUNTEER WETLAND TREE STEMS
1,325
DENSITY NON -NUISANCE VOLUNTEER WETLAND TREE STEMSI
76
Shrubs
Baccharis halimifolia
groundsel tree
FAC
222
45.49
Ilex glabra
inkberry
FACW
62
12.70
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
FACW
8
1.64
Vaccinium corymbosum
high bush blueberry
FACW
196
40.16
TOTAL VOLUNTEER WETLAND SHRUB STEMS
488
100
DENSITY VOLUNTEER WETLAND SHRUB STEMS
28
TOTAL NON -NUISANCE WETLAND STEMS
1,813
TOTAL VOLUNTEER
WETLAND STEM DENSITY (stems117.4ac)
104
'Not used in density calculations, including final totals because of non -wetland status and/or
considered a nuisance by the ACOE
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-23 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

Table 6. Summary of rainfall recorded at the Bay City Farm rain gauge and PCS Aurora NOAA station 6N
over the five monitoring years and periods of each year considered above WETS normal rainfall. Periods
of above normal WETS rainfall were not included in hydroperiods used for restoration success criteria.
Annual total Annual total Entire year
Monitoring inches rainfall inches rainfall considered within Above WETS normal
year recorded at Bay recorded at PCS or below normal periods
City rain gauge Aurora NOAA 6N WETS rainfall
2012
48.92
49.98
Yes
None
2013
43.00
42.61
Yes
None
19 June — 20 July
2014
54.00
58.16
No
3 August — 30 August
7 June — 5 July
2015
52.40
63.02
No
2 October — 1 November
18 November — 6 December
4 February — 4 March
7 — 28 June
2016
60.6
59.10
No
2 July — 5 August
12 September — 2 October
7 October — 5 November
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-24 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

M U CC) CU
O7 N OCU
E O p C c6
Z L c)
NE
U) - o L E
O (p N d O
Z
d LO o O
(!J O O `
N O (6
N O O p
c
O II U O O
CO
Q O
_0 75-
E
c� L O >
CU o _0 a) U
_3 �>,�E
❑ > U O ` U)
C'S NN L a) +
O O U N
II O C q
CO Z _ O Q
L
cn Z U) O
O
O L O
C O
a)
Q
O 00 -0
cs, O U � � ca
U
O U o a)
CO Co C .0
N m i L C
a)
p -
II :O
L
O N
O = En L L
O O
O ❑ >
= a)
L
O O O 4)
U a)
� E a)
: O L CO Ln
O U O -0 +-' E
� > O O a)
O C p 7
CO CO N - O
a) i ❑ f0
0 LO U � +0-' M C
O : CO U a)
a) c E 'rn ->
O� :0 11 C O
Z
U L L O
N mW O E Lm
U
a) vN _ E C
Cn a �
7 a) O O a)
U L O 0) 4-
0
�+ >
0 U O O O O U)O -0L _ O
(6 O O U) Y
ERZ cin �a
E Q O L
7 N r> X
oL
n3 m
(n E ��=
L 4) a) p
O cn O
ti C � L +-❑
>
o-00 0) Z-0 Un >, M
t �
E
Z
L Z C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O Od O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
3 z
O m
0
3 z c
L z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
d r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
3 z
0 m
0
L
i w N
M L
0= M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
} O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
y- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O
Q
O
N
C LO 0 LO LO 0 LO LO LO LO LO LO Lr) LO LO LO 0 Lr) LO LO LO LO �
r. V V V V V v V v V v V v V V V V V V V V V
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r — r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ti ti "t 00 ti r r M ti Z Z
O O N N r M N C`')® Ln r Q Q
N Lf) CO O O O O O Ln CO 2 2
v v v v v v � v v v v v v V v V v V v V v
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
�
O O O CO O O O M It d. M Nt O't N CO O d. O til Z Z
T-
Q 00 00 00 O 00 O O - M Lr) 00 Ln M Ln N - 00 LL") O ', Z Z
`
Lf) Lr) Ln d' Lr) N N N 't It Lr) d' LO 't 't T Ui � 0 d
N r d' r- ti CO O M O CO Ov 00 M r M d' M O M O
p N CO LLj � M ti (D L1j r LL7 CO M- CO N t� Z M
N r- M CO ti N N CO Lr) LO LO N M N N N It N LO N
r NM d' LO CO r- 00 O O r N MLO CO P%-00 O O
� � � � r r r r r r r r r r N N � ❑
> > > > > > > >> > >
M M M M M M M D- 0- 0- a a a a M d 0- a 0- 0- 0-
CL
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-25 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

t0
O
N
r
O
N
O
N
Cl)
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T T T T T T T T T T T T T r r T T T T T T T T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ON C) 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
• • • O • • LO CO O • • • • O T O • • • • • Z Z
• • • • • O Ln M • • • • C� CO V r` O r- . • • • • W • Q Q
• • • • • N CO M • • • • V V V N T N M • • • • r •
CA 't O lzt O
T CO L6 M T
M LO 0 N M
O04
. 4 Ln O
LO 04
N CSO • N O
O�'1� M CO O ti (` M Lq '-t O O
V O T N N N N LO LO LO " N N Ln
d 00 M a0 d 4 CO N D N T CO
V V N M� M N ® M Ln N LO M M
T N N N O O O O N T O
L!7 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti OLn Lf� d7 ti MC'?
N N
A N O N O 4 O GVO GVO v M r-- LO O w- tiO M O
N d' M N T N rl- LO Nt LO N- N N� NN N N
: T M r� r- O r- O C'M Ln Ln CO O LQ T CO O CO LQ O ti N r* r 0 CO
U O N O r- r- CO CO M ti CO CO N V V V C4 O O M N CO V W N M
M N M LO r- LO r- M T M'It M M N rl- N T LO M M T N T N
Z Z
Z CO
C
O
U
W
N
N
2
D
M
N
2
D
S
N
2
D
LO
N
2
D
CO
N
2
D
r1 -
N
2
D
O
N
2
D
M
N
2
D
O
M
2
D
T
CO
2E
D
N
CO
2
D
CO
CO
2
D
CO
2
D
LOCO
CO
2
D
M
2�5
D
r-
CO
D
COM
CO
2
D
C')
2
D
O
-'t
2
D
2
D
N
d'
2
D
M
d'
2
S
d'
2i
LOCO
����t
2:2i
r-
2
O
2
D
d
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-26 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r r r r T r T T r
O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
T T T r r r r T T T T T
O O O O O O O O O O O 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r r r T T T r
O O O
O O O
T T T
O O O
O O O
T T T
O O O
O O O
T T T
O O O O
O O O O
T T T T
,-=)
1-:)
0 0
O O O O
T T T T
O O O O
O O O O
T T T T
1 1
O MLn CO O) r r C+ r -
Q Q
M LO N ti M rLO r -
M M(I N M CO M —12 2
O ON
CD
N CO CO
Lf')
O
N
O
N
M
0
N
M M O M CO O O
CO M Cl)C ® M CNO CO LSA N CO N
�t N M LO M M M M
00 N 00 N 00 CV)N 00 r CO CO N CO
Cfl (D O N CD Cfl M M
N
'It M CO 'It N M Nrl- M r M 0
LO <F O Ln O O M O O co
'It 't- N d N O Lij N N N CO N
O
O
CO
N
O
O
r
O
N
L6
'
Ln
'
M
M
M
N
r
70
O
0
N
r
LO
6
6
M
M
r
r
r
LO
O
O
O
LO
r`
d'
LO
LO
N
N
N
N
N'IT
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report0)ONOO�OLC3A
D CU
Cn
0
J -0O C
N Co
O0a+�
syLstw++O
UCD 0U
O CD
L O
O (nE ca Q
CD 70 0
(3) _0
a)
(n -0 m
O t�
iO 0
O 0
O Cn
UO
CD m
NOO7OC) NO
E 0
O cn_
U) U
C (D Na)O cn O
0)O
O N
V JE
_0N
OM 'N
T �+O
C)
C U)
L aCLN�4QLaLCL4CNC_CNONNU�)
U O O
M O
toO
O O rn
C 0
,
a)FD-0U)3:C 0 u
UC)i)
,
NV
LLJ OB
U) � =OL
Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
M
N
O
N
67
Lf7
r
O
r
O
O
O
N
70
O
0
N
r
LO
6
6
M
M
r
r
r
LO
t
M�
T
r
M�
N
r
M
N
r
r
L!7
Z
00
U
C
O
O
T
N
M
t7
LO
CO
rl-
00
M
O
�_
� m
r`
rr
O)
N
M
It
_
L1j
L(•)
L(7
LC)
0
0
LO
LO
LO
0
CO
>M
d
U
0 U
()f
CL
CL
CO
d
d
d
d
d
d
0-
CL
0-
d
d
d
U
U
U
U
m
m
m m
P and
U Lands Restoration
Site
Phase 1
T-27
PCs
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report0)ONOO�OLC3A
D CU
Cn
0
J -0O C
N Co
O0a+�
syLstw++O
UCD 0U
O CD
L O
O (nE ca Q
CD 70 0
(3) _0
a)
(n -0 m
O t�
iO 0
O 0
O Cn
UO
CD m
NOO7OC) NO
E 0
O cn_
U) U
C (D Na)O cn O
0)O
O N
V JE
_0N
OM 'N
T �+O
C)
C U)
L aCLN�4QLaLCL4CNC_CNONNU�)
U O O
M O
toO
O O rn
C 0
,
a)FD-0U)3:C 0 u
UC)i)
,
NV
LLJ OB
U) � =OL
Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

% 2 A 2 e
EE o c M
--.r0 ~ / E
} E ° 0 \ \
\ 0 ° C �
= m A \ / CO
\0 %C23
§ $ % 0
\ \ / k: Co
/ /\e»
$ E 2 0 C q
%E �W\\
\ § O D 5 %
m-777\
q CU
0x
2\ _\/E
E
\ 2 \ C f U)
/0Ef
Z =-�7
/g \E
7# $_/§
\ " \ ) /
R 0 y &
0 § / $
o s = \ 0) \
0 -0 O 0 £
q1' >\f=
R I 0 e -
N = _ 2 \
7E %/co
A E , 0 %
0m M CU
\
§ a)0 f i 2
f = 0 0 - 0
U 0 x §
2 = " _
0) 2 2 q / \
02 -0 /E
/?/
=E f 0
= B = 2 \
_0 q \ w
\ C:f '/
0 CO z £ 0 m
$ ) 0)
o \ � )
_$ § / _
\ K CU CU 0
0 = w m 5
§ 2 2 £ /
Sƒ%G�=e
2
0 / 0 _ / R
±2=>c-�
=�2
I t \ 2 c
E 2, f
CO° ^ x
U)E7 \79
0 = m = - e
/ = E
\co'C:\
3za)a
22%p$(
@ _ Z = m » e
�
k
t
�
CD
T-
Q
�
k
n
C14
q
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 OCD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/ / / / 00 / / / / OCD / / 00 / / CDC) / '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/// 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0// 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I
r r n r n o r r r r n r n r r n n r r r r,,
& A A@ A 5 5 e A A A N N A N& A t& t& Z Z
a a a n w r n n w 6 a a w a w w a 6 w a w<<
w¥ w&¥¥¥& w w¥&¥ w w& w w w w w 2 2
y¥ It y It c¥ f y f y It y f It f f f# f
o < 2 < z
m o c c c c¥ I c c o c e c o c c o c o
n n n n M r n r n n n n n n n n n n n n n
M M c CO c c c r f Nt M¥ c f A= M w� c w z z
w» a 6 M 6 6- n r» r M r & '» 4 6 5¥ 2 2
LO n r# r 3 A&## r It r� \ r te't r NT
. f w w o o m c o cI
= c o f n c n= Z z
\ e a ' R M t- ' a a a n 6& w 2 I
w ,. n n& N& r G 7 7N 7 A N N 7 N M&
■ �
N CO t n c ¥ CO c _c A_ n_ / r_ __ w_ c_ _c o
g k k k k k k k k k k k d k\
2= 2 2 2 2 S== 2 2 2 I E
Pak u Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 sa PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report Mar 2017

O
N
4')
r
O
N
r
O
N
M_
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N� O O O O O O O CO O O O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
M Ln M Ln M M M M M M M M M 0 r N LO LO M M LO M Lr) '�I- LO LO LO
N N N O N N O w O N N N N O 0 0 d. Lr) �r--� N N N N-": U? N
Oi M M 4 M M CO 6 r- M M M M V V V M LO LO W M M M M 00 LO M
M M M N M M r N N M M M M N r N r M M M M r r M
I- rI- r- M ti r- 1�t M O I,- r- M r1- CO ". ",� O� r-� CD M � r- � r- "�: O ti
M M M r M M M r r M M r M V M N 1- N d' � M CO CO M M N CO
M M M M M M N M CO M CO CO M r N N N N CO CO CO M N N CO
M -,t Cfl co ;T Ln M 00 "t "t "t t O '0 ;t M CO 00 M 't M 00 M N - CO
O) d7 O V O) d7 a7 O O V V N M't M d' O 't d' 't LO M It
M M M N M M N M M M M M M r N N N M M M M M N r M
M 00 ' O Cfl O M O O' M r-- OO Lr) 't LO O�"t M M NN 't
6 -:M - r- N O N 00 � 00 CVV LO I- LO O It 00 -M M O)
N 'Y M r- N r N r- LO It LO N r N N� N N N N
04 Mt*-: ti O) ti W M Lr) LAS CO O Lq r CO CO CO Ln Or" N ti r O CO O
7 OO MNtiV V V N=�MN�
N M LO � LO r,- LO (0 00
LO CLr) N V O r N
z z
Q Q
z z
Q Q
z z
Q Q
z z
z z
z z
z CO
c
c
O
U
N
M
It
LO
CO
r-
CO
O
O
r
N
M
d
Ln
CO
r-
00
O
O
r
N
M't
Lf)
CO
r-
CO
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M"t
-'t
-'t
�
d-
d
2
2
2:2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2:2
2E
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
o=
N
a-a_a.aa.aa.0-a.ILa.0-a.a_a.12
a.a_a_a_a.a_Ma_0-a_0-
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-29 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

s �
Z
L Z C
(L mss
3 Z
0=m
0
s �
F i Z E
a°' s
3 Z
0 m
0
cc
O
N
4')
r
O
N
O
N
M_
O
N
N_
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
0C?
0 0 oI
O O O O
r r r r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
LO U-) M Ln LO M LO LO LO M Lr) Lf-) � 't 't I d' CO 't M
N N N N N N N O M N N d O Or CO Lr) N
M Co M M M M M CM 6) 6) M M Lf) 6) 6) 00 LO M
M r M M M M M M N N M M N N N O N r CO
[-, O C0 � CO 1— ti r-� M CO CO CO co (0
M r N M M M CO' co, Ln N CO' N—'—'—' ' ' ' '
CO CO M M M M co M N M M CO CO CO CO
00 N 00 � 00 ',1- 00 M CO CO 'It CO O M O
6 CO 4 6 4 O4 4 O N 6 N O O O
M N M M M M M M N M M M M M M
N (D
Lr•) 6
N r
O)
Lr) d
ct
C0
CO
N"t
LO
N
C0
N
M
C0
C0
N
M
Lr)
r—
r-
N
CO
r�
N
r
O
N
M
C6
C0
O
00
N
6)
O
LO
r-
O
N
r-
6)
N
N
Ln
N
S
ti
N
M
4
N'It
LO
Z
Z
r
N
L
L
c�
G
M
O N
O
N
r`
6)
Lr)
r
O
r
0
67
(0
N.
r
r
-O
r
LO
M
M
r
r
r
LO
O
M
r
M
N
M
N
'
'
'
LO
Lr)
r
z
m
a)
—
N
C
O O
It Lr)
d rZ
r
LO
it
N
LO
rZ
M
LO
d
Lr)
rl
LO
LSA
d
C0
LO
rl
rl-
LO
d
00
LO
a.
CY)
LO
iZ
O
CO
IL
`6
U
m
U
m
C)
1�
>r
>
m
M
N>
>
m
M
>M
>
m
I.
m
a)
3
N
m
C
O
U) 3
NU)
C)C
0
oca �
�$ O
� m �
o � o
N y
co
O U)
O
C -a 0-
(0 _0
o
O O U
L s
0 L
O
a)
0-
> 0
O
E U L
m_0)
L
L
0_
a)
3 -0 0
a) con
�
-0a) a
O s
O
r Lf) C
CD a)
04 CDN
O
O a) 0
E
O
� � U
M
(n () X
a)
C
O N 0
�p C
a) O
a) CO
C
.N
U a)
C
m > ca
0 o C
� J
L a)
O
M 7
N
E U
O CO C
— O
a) =3
L 4H
a) o co
N
0O >O
a) m
�: 0 II
O >
O U U
LU C t0 C)
o Cz O
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 T-30 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

AURORA
i
-{{{✓� :4. CORRIDOREK
^.. G
U ,r -..._
F
SOUTH REEK P LANDS �o
�p
3,x
PHASE2 _ _.---�---
-'- ---
-._.. - ASE PHASE 7
HOLLOWELL TRACT - P LANDS "-
PHASE 3
-� BAY CITY
PHASE 4 CONTROL SIT u ,.x",,/J
U LANDS Sy.
-- s PHASE3
PHASE i P LANDS PARKER FARM
SECTIONS A—J �
•�'"•.--facuriv onouAwer+ono. p � �.
LAT. 351415.04 - -
.. LONG: 76"46'19.20" _.
RODMANCONTROL
� _
SITE _ --
CASEY TRACT
PHASE 4
U LANDS P LANDS
U LANDS
=k -
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
P and U LANDS PHASE 1 0 5,500 11,000
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
VICINITY MAP
NORTH CAROLINA P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
SITE LOCATION PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P LANDS
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES, P LANDS_VIC_
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 10/20/16 FILE -
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE PH1 2016
WWW.CO. BEAUFORT. NC. US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET. '41v CP#1745.59.32.1
�^ ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRESUD 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]

P LANDS
F�
F
�O
90
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.
MONITORING LOCATIONS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 and TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 1,800 3,600 DATE: 01/31/17 FILE: 20LANDS—WELL—PHI
ACP#1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET PC,.,
L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] FIGURE 2
SMALL ROAD
PHASEI
W
�9
56
52�
47
"<
54
50
ss P
46 45 PLPS 7
LANDS
-+
SMALL ROAD
*460
W
49
PHASE 2
7 X63
�51 �48
PHASE 3
0
D
0
Ay
vs�
N
PHASE3
PHASE 1
BAY CITY FARM
O
to
PLPS 6
LEGEND
PLPS 5
BAY
C4Ty NO
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
2
0
BCRW-44 ❑
PHASE 3
37
42
J
PHASE
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
O
Lj
*
35 39
BCRW-29
BCRW-33
ROADS
%38
BAY CITY
34
�28
®
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
ROAD /
FARM
BCRW-17 36
27 25
� 0
TREE SAMPLING PLOT
EXECUTIVE
JAIME ROAD
CONTROL
I]
�2
"�O ` 2s
6
PLPS 4
O
WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
SITE
3t
`
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT MAY
33
24
NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
R O D M A N
�
N°• 3
�
APPROXIMATE.)
CONTROL
� BAY
21_ 23
PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
RC -1
SITE
PHASE 4
19`
P
L ND
PLPS ,
RC -2
U LANDS
r (7Sb
20 21
�11
0
12
CI
CONTROL WELL
RC -3
MC
z
18
z�
— —�
14 10
PLPS 3
PHASE 4
-
U LANDS
c
N
BAY CITY
�17
-_ '
AREAS PLANTED IN PHASE 1:
f
�O
_�-_.F..
-
D
ZONE 3 NON-RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST
Z
0
0
ZONE 4 POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
�
o
P LANDS
t
PLPS 2
®
ZONE 4A POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
D
U
LANDS
5
O
ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1
0
LINE ROADz?PLPS 1
0
ZONE 6 HARDWOOD FLAT 2
O
COUNTY
N m
0
ZONE 7 SWALES
D
Z
w
O
D
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.
MONITORING LOCATIONS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 and TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 1,800 3,600 DATE: 01/31/17 FILE: 20LANDS—WELL—PHI
ACP#1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET PC,.,
L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] FIGURE 2

A
P LANDS
09
O
\J
SMALL ROAD
59 56 52 50 47
PO
a)
PO 46
-1
SMALL ROAD
58 54 49
345
PHASE
SE 3
60
57 55 53 51 Wd 48
�
Wd
v
q
Ny9sF
V
Pt
Pt
A
PHASE 3
PHASE 1
O
Da
To
�+
BAY CITY
FARM
Tab4
No.
BCW -44
PHASE
Ase
gpY CITY
41
\37
44
42
o
�..?
BCW -29
BCW -33
35 Wd 39
43
40
BAY CITY
34
Da
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
FARM
38 2
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
PO
CONTROL
BCW -17
36
25
27 6
LEGEND
JAIME ROAD
P LANDS 30 29
PHASE 1 (970.4 ACRES)
32 31
R O D M A N
33 3
No
24
• WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
PO
CONTROL
BAY CITY
22 23
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT
RC -1 SITE PHASE
4
19
T HAVE
APPRMAY OXIMATE.) A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
U LANDS
21
11
RC -2
r-020
mZ
PO 12
❑� CONTROL WELL
RC -3
18
Z --i1
0
4-
16
10 `.
SOILS
PHASE 4
No. 2
15 13
#
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
TO C
ro
gpY
CITY
17
9
Da DARE (ORGANIC)(60.8 ACRES)
c
1
CITY
Po PONZER (.9 ACRES)
A(MIN(
ZBAY
3No
7
Pt PORTSMOUOTH (MINERAL)
rn D
1TaB
TARBORO SAND (4.2 ACRES)
6
8
To TOMOTLEY (MINERAL)
P
LANDS
2 4
Wd WASDA (ORGANIC)(153.5 ACRES)
g U LANDS
r 5
0 HYDRIC SOILS
P®o
COUNTY LINE
ROAD
® NON -HYDRIC SOILS
= S 4
D
_
m m
w
NOTE:
Z
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
O
OR ORGANIC.
SOILS
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 and TWO CONTROL SITES
SOURCE:POR
ONS OF THE BOUNDARY JOBVI#2009
BY: ROBERT M11/119/2009
/+
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, SNC.
96, DATED:DED
NEW.
NORTH CAROLINA,
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
DATE: 03/27/17 FILE: 2016DS—SOILS—PH1—
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
0
1,800
3.600
CP#1 745.59.32.1
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: NC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,��°�
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
� SUITE 2
WEBSITE: WWW.NCMAPONE.COM
SCALE
IN FEET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
RL FIGURE 3
ENVUIONM NCSUL ANTS FAX 910TEL /392 9139
TOAON

I RC -3
!s �
h
11-12
'
41
12-13
j
V
Jim
ga
r �
Z)
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/ y
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
RC -1\ SITE [PHASE 4
LANDS
ZZm
PHASE 4
U LANDS
vO
70
ODvU
LANDS
v
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.
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT AND
PAMLICO COUNTIES,LIDAR, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM
7_0
ZO
mZ
Z�
o
m
SII I SMALL
r _ D
BAY CITY FARM
Y CITY o' 044
BCRW-449 PHASE 3 •37 BA 410 42
PHASE 1 • 39 •
O •35
❑ BCRW-29 BCRW-33 •43
•40
BAY CITY 34• 038 028
% FARM BCRW-17O 36 • 25
CONTROL •30 29 27
SITE •33 •32 031 -_•-
• 24
SMALL ROAD PHASE 1
•56 52• • AF`
• 59 54 50• 47 <�
• 46 4 i �•p
58 P LA N D S� 0
60 7 55 53 51 49 48 90
• • •
LEGEND
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
WELL LOCATION
O CONTROL WELL
- BAY CITY 2� 3 3 Legend
19 P 2 2 D.S Elevation in Feet
• Value
20 •21 • •1 i 0 0 - 2
•$ 12 2-4
14 •10 ® 4-5
06 •
5-6
BAY CITY No. 2 015 • 13 __,
017 ___ - 09 _6-7
C6
NO 1 I Q 7-8
3 0 8-9
1•6 8 9-10
P LANDS 0 4 10-11
ROAD
NTLINE
5
l
11-12
12-13
13-14
+
14-15
_ 15-16
16-21
21-48
MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS ON
AS—BUILT LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 and TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 01/31/17
FILE: PLAN DS—PH 1_WELL_
LIDAR_2016_FIG4
0 1,800 3,600
0
CP# 1745.59.32.1
V",ZR
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET
NCORPORATED
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
TEL [phone]
FIGURE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
FAX [phone]

J
J
Q
LL
Z
Q
a
O
Q
W
i
f6
H
V
co
E �
L
94
O
c O
d�ro
t v
}c
Y �
O
m
9I
•N �
Y
10
�
O v
Y
Y �
c v
2 Y
3 �
c
•
o
9I O g
m 3
2
0
(6 Y
Flo
L
p v
c �
m
L f6
Q co
Y
9r
� N C O
N
gds O O
� O •� Y
rocu
ai
O v Q
rho � p Z
9r
co
7d
o a
CL m
L
o
p N � O
o�
o�
v a
s
�± O � In
9
r/�j
o � � av
OC U
ro m
t
v
o t �
o
Lu
m v
O
— v 4L-
Y
r1,
C C �
o
ro N p O
m
CO m
>, v o �
0-N t
9r'
0
p
rLo � � O
Y
(O O N
r
L M L
L i 4- a -I
_Qo v�v
M
9I
bA M L
c
N
mob,
to Y Q Y
ro
M1
>_
o
L U � fC
O U
O w
O t0
Q
O
? m
9I✓�
z
U U
v �
OA i O i Y
m
ro m J
C o -p �; c
ro •�
o
Z v p
o ��
9r o 0
9d
6i tw
' I
yl'
CL
9r�
lD
r.4 O OO to
N O �OA
ro
(sapul) llejule�l AlyluoW
pue Alien
J
J
Q
LL
Z
Q
a
O
Q
W
i
f6
H
V
co
o
O t0
Q
z
1W
W
N
r

BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
NOTE:
co
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 n
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD
BOUNDARIES. PHASE2
PHASE 3 m
O
D
N
U A
BAY CITY FARM o
0
N
MALL ROAD
S
BENFEWELL ROAD
056
058
60 ° IO IL 55
ROYAL ROAD
520
50°
P LA N -D -S
03 051
46
HYDROLOGIC
LEGEND
ZONES
WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
0 e
= <67. OF THE GROWING SEASON
J
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (1.7 ACRES)
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
o37 410 42
0 O
= >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
® ROADS
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
0 Q
= >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
O WELL LOCATION
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (40.3 ACRES)
RW -29; BCRW 33
G
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
CONTROL WELL
0 O
= >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (209.4 ACRES)
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
040
RODMAN CONTROL SITE (23.5 ACRES)
-' ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
BAY CITY
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
® e
= >75 - 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (644.8 ACRES)
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
NOTE:
co
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 n
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD
BOUNDARIES. PHASE2
PHASE 3 m
O
D
N
U A
BAY CITY FARM o
0
N
MALL ROAD
S
BENFEWELL ROAD
056
058
60 ° IO IL 55
ROYAL ROAD
520
50°
P LA N -D -S
03 051
46
ROAD
COUNTY
O
D
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
-
044
J
BCRW 44''PHASE 3 ',c
o37 410 42
O
PHASE 1
`3 . °
39
RW -29; BCRW 33
G
� 1®
- ---
040
043
BAY CITY
34 038 028
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
FARM BCRW 17
%6°
25
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
6
JAIME ROAD
CONTROL
30 29
SITE
032 °
033
®24
RODMAN
BAY CITY -z 223
23
RC -1 SITE
PHASE 4
19 P LANDS
RC -2
U LANDS
2 0 021
r
01 1
C7
O
0
12
RC -3
mZ
08
Z4
16 a
010
PHASE 4
2
°
I u U LANDS
N
CITY NO
BAY
015 013
09
0 1,800 3,600
m
c
017
NO. 1
O
Z
3 70
SCALE IN FEET
O
10 O
°
8
P LANDS
0 4 6
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1 and TWO CONTROL SITES
O
D
U
LANDS
5
2016 LONGEST HYDROPERIODS AND ESTIMATED HYDROLOGIC ZONES
ROAD
COUNTY
O
D
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.

SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
Rc-1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
BAY CITY FARM
JBCRw 4E12
RW -29i
i8 i
BAY CITY
FARM
CONTROL
SITE
PHASE 4
U LANDS
L; PHASE 4
U LANDS
0 A
z O
Z D
m v
U LANDS
0
0
v
3
D
Z
A
O
D
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
r0
ZO
mZ
Z
-q _
N I BAY CITY NO' 2
P LANDS
n
SMALL ROAD
;u
O
O
N
IT( No. 044
e 037 BAY 410 42
0
IJ 5 @39
33 043
040
340 038 028
V 17 36 29 279 25
r'
032 0
033 31 o24
BAY CITY 2°q2 3 23
19 P LA ND
20 021# o 011
0 12
1
16 04 010
0
®15 013
017 09
BAY Cy N0.
1
q7
0
10 0 8
2 4 6
O
COUNTUOE Y
ROAD
BENFEWELL ROAD
R
SMALL ROAD
NP"HM14059 c 5200 0O4, 500 58 P LAN� y1 46 o
60 1087 55�I503 : 5149I 4890
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET
HYDROLOGIC
LEGEND
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
0 e = <67. OF THE GROWING SEASON
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (1.7 ACRES)
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
0 O = >6 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
-
ROADS
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
+
PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
0 Q = >12.5 - 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (86.6 ACRES)
O
WELL LOCATION
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (10 ACRES)
CONTROL WELL
0 O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE PH1 (807.9 ACRES)
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
RODMAN CONTROL SITE (23.5 ACRES)
—
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
BAY CITY FARM CONTROL SITE (20 ACRES)
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
NOTE:
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
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
v
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD D
BOUNDARIES. {
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD
RODMAN
CONTROL
Rc-1 SITE
RC -2\RC -3,
BAY CITY FARM
JBCRw 4E12
RW -29i
i8 i
BAY CITY
FARM
CONTROL
SITE
PHASE 4
U LANDS
L; PHASE 4
U LANDS
0 A
z O
Z D
m v
U LANDS
0
0
v
3
D
Z
A
O
D
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
r0
ZO
mZ
Z
-q _
N I BAY CITY NO' 2
P LANDS
n
SMALL ROAD
;u
O
O
N
IT( No. 044
e 037 BAY 410 42
0
IJ 5 @39
33 043
040
340 038 028
V 17 36 29 279 25
r'
032 0
033 31 o24
BAY CITY 2°q2 3 23
19 P LA ND
20 021# o 011
0 12
1
16 04 010
0
®15 013
017 09
BAY Cy N0.
1
q7
0
10 0 8
2 4 6
O
COUNTUOE Y
ROAD
BENFEWELL ROAD
R
SMALL ROAD
NP"HM14059 c 5200 0O4, 500 58 P LAN� y1 46 o
60 1087 55�I503 : 5149I 4890
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET

APPENDIX A
Stem Counts at Individual Plots at
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1

Appendix A. Individual tree/shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 1 first (2012) and fifth annual (2016) fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-1
Zone 3
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
49
50
51
52
Common name Scientific name
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Unknown
?
7
3
1
12
9
6
7
1
9
2
15
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
4
3
6
3
5
2
1
11
3
21
6
10
7
4
3
12
3
3
5
6
1
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
1
4
1
3
2
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
1
6
5
1
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3
1
19
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
2
9
7
8
3
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
5
7
4
2
2
3
3
2
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
Maquatica
19
18
1
2
8
10
13
14
9
9
19
18
12
10
22
17
2
2
19
17
8
7
6
6
19
19
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
12
8
7
35
34
3
1
2
2
10
8
4
4
13
14
9
9
17
15
25
25
30
27
11
10
Red bay
Persea borbonia
4
5
6
5
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
5
1
3
12
2
1
3
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
1
23
7
19
10
3
15
6
54
15
22
6
6
3
4
1
2
2
4
4
15
2
5
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
16
14
9
11
19
19
12
6
22
10
22
16
15
17
11
9
12
6
23
10
20
18
13
12
7
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
4
8
3
18
17
12
8
9
8
37
24
42
14
32
3
26
16
30
3
22
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
44
39
22
16
29
22
3
1
20
8
21
12
32
12
17
9
9
4
9
1
15
8
17
7
12
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
2
2
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
5
5
10
9
19
19
6
6
10
9
10
11
7
6
43
41
28
28
18
18
42
42
5
6
29
29
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
6
9
2
2
1
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
1
1
TOTAL
123
105
98
59
161
138
83
49
113
50
187
115
137
70
164
127
113
69
145
72
143
120
130
66
148
60
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-1

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 4
10
Zone 3
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Total
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
5
8
1
2
52
75
72
2
4
93
2
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
17
1
7
2
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
3
1
4
6
11
11
Paw paw
Asima triloba
4
1
5
5
15
12
5
4
7
7
17
17
River birch
Betula nigra
15
2
20
2
15
27
13
9
8
4
15
2
1
1
161
50
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
14
2
19
8
22
11
21
5
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
10
4
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
135
77
146
121
146
109
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
14
12
71
70
32
32
37
25
163
145
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
3
1
1
15
8
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
4
1
5
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
22
1
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
1
1
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
29
18
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
8
7
3
5
5
29
27
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
2
2
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
2
2
2
2
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
18
20
18
17
17
12
16
14
10
8
12
9
248
229
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
18
14
26
25
6
8
4
5
20
20
8
8
7
6
268
254
Red bay
Persea borbonia
12
11
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
1
1
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
1
1
33
White oak
Q. alba
1
1
1
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
2
5
1
4
1
7
1
13
4
17
16
1
239
67
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
24
6
22
2
12
6
5
5
24
18
10
8
9
4
307
197
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
28
10
18
16
6
43
27
8
2
14
2
2
369
148
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
23
16
8
9
5
4
24
14
29
8
23
9
371
190
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
3
2
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
28
28
15
16
39
38
38
37
31
31
10
10
2
2
395
391
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
10
14
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
2
TOTALI
166
103
159
77
174
141
152
113
144
104
157
81 11
108
55
2,805
1,774
Zone 4
10
11
12
14
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
6
6
7
12
6
1
8
2
1
55
52
75
72
2
17
1
7
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
14
4
6
20
19
24
21
4
1
5
5
15
12
5
4
7
7
17
17
3
2
7
4
5
3
15
27
13
3
7
10
18
26
4
1
14
2
19
8
22
11
21
5
1
14
6
93
89
9
10
8
6
11
11
2
2
185
155
135
77
146
121
146
109
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-2

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 4A
2
Zone 4
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
16
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
20
4
3
4
10
6
17
1
15
7
17
66
10
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
19
5
19
6
1
1
19
11
3
29
48
47
14
14
4
1
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
188
98
209
84
192
91
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
6
1
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
10
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush'
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
64
57
42
35
13
9
249
226
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
2
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
1
23
19
1
1
26
21
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
1
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
2
10
2
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
5
4
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
5
5
4
4
9
9
1
2
5
4
2
2
11
12
5
4
80
81
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
1
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
7
1
2
10
9
3
1
18
11
1
1
5
4
1
1
95
67
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
18
25
22
20
20
50
48
46
46
39
38
9
7
26
26
256
253
Red bay
Persea borbonia
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
1
29
16
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
17
16
7
1
11
34
13
17
1
16
27
23
18
17
5
3
152
193
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
5
3
2
1
3
1
19
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
14
4
6
24
8
10
1
5
2
9
2
7
1
12
3
143
42
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
1
4
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
27
15
28
1
28
9
18
3
27
23
21
12
5
2
32
1
226
73
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
1
1
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
14
14
5
5
16
16
6
6
34
35
13
12
14
14
7
7
230
225
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
2
4
3
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTALI
101
73
84
33
128
109
111
78
153
140
191
150
137
111
116
56
1,633
1,212
Zone 4A
2
3
4
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
9
16
1
18
25
34
9
1
4
37
36
58
43
27
20
17
10
6
20
17
24
15
20
17
21
10
16
11
19
5
19
6
49
11
19
11
28
29
48
47
14
14
1
188
98
209
84
192
91
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-3

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 5
25
Zone 4A
6
7
8
9
13
15
Total
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
7
2
8
2
21
2
6
9
5
3
76
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
2
1
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
2
1
1
Paw paw
Asima triloba
1
1
4
4
River birch
Betula nigra
1
1
10
6
7
6
3
5
3
3
3
4
14
12
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
48
45
41
36
18
17
3
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
4
1
1
11
22
1
13
128
1
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
3
4
21
1
28
4
11
8
9
5
90
5
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
22
8
56
53
21
18
9
9
7
1
22
18
Buttonbush'
Cephalanthus occidentalis
11
7
9
3
31
8
23
14
7
6
3
2
20
17
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
63
64
54
55
27
26
65
43
81
82
358
323
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
78
53
160
92
194
163
145
107
96
71
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
3
2
1
1
26
4
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
6
1
12
7
6
96
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
4
1
10
8
3
19
6
8
6
10
7
70
28
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
2
1
2
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
9
8
24
24
25
22
12
5
16
15
36
34
186
157
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
15
11
19
10
39
24
14
8
10
8
24
13
177
100
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
27
13
18
29
14
5
3
22
25
22
29
186
144
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
1
1
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
13
13
27
26
30
29
15
14
28
28
38
37
241
237
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTALI
155
128
162
141
180
90
177
84
211
165
163
122
1,637
1,003
Zone 5
25
27
28
29
30
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
8
2
8
2
8
9
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
10
6
7
6
3
5
3
3
3
4
14
12
34
34
48
45
41
36
18
17
3
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
2
2
1
5
2
20
5
18
8
10
5
3
1
1
22
8
56
53
21
18
9
9
7
1
22
18
32
20
11
7
9
3
31
8
23
14
7
6
3
2
20
17
28
27
13
14
15
15
27
26
2
78
53
160
92
194
163
145
107
96
71
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-4

Appendix A. (continued)
Zone 6
35
Zone 5
31
32
33
34
36
38
46
47
60
Total
2
1
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
1
47
2
47
12
17
4
17
7
1
1
6
7
6
10
1
47
1
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
1
35
22
35
22
14
12
14
12
25
15
25
15
6
2
6
2
232
160
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
5
2
4
4
6
2
15
61
8
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush*
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
1
9
9
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
1
1
4
2
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
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
1
1
1
4
3
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
6
2
6
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
1
6
6
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
3
3
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
21
18
19
16
5
5
21
19
1
1
24
22
33
28
34
31
7
9
191
173
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
11
11
24
27
37
37
32
31
9
7
12
13
37
37
47
46
19
18
383
371
Red bay
Persea borbonia
13
11
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
36
29
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
8
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
4
6
5
1
1
4
1
32
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
4
1
5
1
4
1
11
21
8
4
3
1
4
2
8
3
115
38
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
28
9
34
14
44
15
17
2
15
13
18
15
28
31
15
15
12
3
320
205
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
2
18
1
9
2
14
2
23
14
15
14
34
33
19
15
206
127
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
19
4
10
55
20
18
3
9
5
4
4
2
190
69
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
16
16
19
19
23
23
7
7
34
34
15
15
24
25
24
24
53
56
318
318
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
2
2
4
2
10
2
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTALI
111
59
160
91
201
106
132
66
131
86
107
94
162
154
146
133
128
89
1,951
1,364
Zone 6
35
Total
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
8
8
2
1
2
1
14
8
14
8
3
3
3
3
26
24
26
24
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
57
47
57
47
25
17
25
17
1
1
7
6
7
6
3
1
3
1
1
1
35
22
35
22
14
12
14
12
25
15
25
15
6
2
6
2
232
160
232
160
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-5

Appendix A. (concluded)
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-6
Zone 7
1
17
Total
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
1 st
5th
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
11
19
30
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
8
1
1
9
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
23
29
52
Deciduous holly
Ilex decidua
Inkberry
Ilex glabra
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N.aquatica
32
25
22
11
54
36
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
Water oak
Q. nigra
Willow oak
Q.phellos
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodaefolia
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
2
2
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
58
57
34
32
92
89
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
132
83
107
43
239
126
*Planted but in such a low density, did not show up in plots
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report A-6

/_1„a1►1QPAN :3
Selected Fifth 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-1: northeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 30 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

PLPS-3: east southeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 30 October 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

PLPS 4: southeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 30 October 2012; white
poles mark trees in plots.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

A4Pie- A4
,
On�
_ R
f
l `

`4 �� ._
s �.
. "
� �
,. � �.ti�,�;�
�
'� � ���
;� � � 9'�
' r� '� i n :.:
1
�i
a� �ti � \ \
�-� ' '
r e
`\\
`�
�.
\ 1! � ,1, , _
�
., � -
.�
1
+� / __..
1
r t�/
��..

PLPS-7: northwest, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 23 Oct 2012.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 B-7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

APPENDIX C
P and U Lands Phase 1 Non -hydric Soil Field Investigation
23 February 2017
1. P and U Lands Phase 1 non -hydric Soil Field Investigation - text and photos
2. Table C
3. Figure C-1
4. Figure C-2

P and U Lands Phase 1
Non -hydric Soil Field Investigation
23 February 2017
A field investigation of the soils surrounding the three wells (PUM35, 36, and 37) that did not meet the
hydrology restoration criterion was conducted on 23 February 2017 (Figures C-1 and C-2, Table C).
According to the Beaufort County soil survey, two of the wells (PUM36 and PUM37) are underlain by
hydric soils, Ponzer and Wasda respectively, and PUM35 is underlain by Tarboro, a non -hydric soil.
At the time of the field investigation on 23 February, the roadside ditch on the south side of Bay City Road
No 4 was fully charged as were the partially filled/plugged ditches on either side of the two field sections
of the site where the three wells are located. At each well, the soil profile was explored in the immediate
vicinity of the well to a depth of at least 15 to 20 inches and then away from the well along a vector until
non -hydric soil was encountered. If non -hydric soil was encountered, then further holes were augured in
the vicinity to refine the non-hydric/hydric boundary and a polygon was delineated to represent the non -
hydric soils encountered. If only hydric soil was encountered in the vicinity of the well, then numerous
holes were augured in concentric circles around the well at 10-, 15-, and 30 -foot distances from the well
to ensure an adequate area around each well was investigated.
PUM35
From the road, the herbaceous vegetation around PUM35 appeared to somewhat follow the shape of the
Tarboro polygon shown in the soil survey, so that vegetation boundary was investigated first; however,
contrary to expectations, the herbaceous vegetation was not an accurate indicator of the hydric/non-
hydric soil boundary. In the vicinity of PUM35, the investigation revealed that a 1.7 -acre polygon around
the well was non -hydric and presumed to be Tarboro soil. The non -hydric soil had a top layer around 1 to
4 inches thick of dark loamy sand followed by a layer of yellow or reddish orange sand. There was an
obvious elevation difference and change in hydrology surrounding the area that was delineated as non -
hydric soil.
Photo 1. Non -hydric soil plug.
Photo 2. Area at PUM35 with non -hydric soil.
PUM35 well marker pole is circled.
The hydric soil had a top layer of dark loamy sand 4 inches thick with faint redox concentrations occuring
as pore linings. The next layer was a mixture of 10YR 4/1 and 10YR 6/2 sand with 5 percent of the matrix
as faint redox concentrations. The soil shown in Photo 3 met hydric soil national hydric soil indicator S7
Dark Surface described in the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA 2010).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 C-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

Photo 3. Hydric soil plug outside of delineated area
Photo 4. View looking towards hydric soil.
PUM36
At PUM36, a soil plug next to the well revealed a top layer of black soil with some muck present
approximately eight inches thick, and was followed by a layer of yellowish brown soil. Among all the
holes dug within the concentric circles around the well, only two contained non -hydric soil. Approximately
15 feet away from the well, the top black layer was thicker and underlain by a depleted layer with a
chroma of 2; therefore, a 15 -foot radius around the well (0.02 acre) was considered non -hydric soil based
on the yellowish brown soil horizon found in the two holes near the well. It is also important to note older
woody debris in various stages of decay was found in many of the soil plugs near the well. The small,
dense clump of Rhus copallinum (winged sumac) about 8 feet wide suggests a drier area next to the well.
Like living and decaying tree roots which are known to affect hydraulic conductivity of soils, the woody
debris creates pathways for water to migrate lower in the profile and be held in the profile for shorter
periods; either characteristic would alter the hydrology in the immediate vicinity.
Photo 5. Soil plug next to PUM36.
Photo 6. Clump of winged sumac near PUM36.
PUM37
The soil surrounding PUM37 was black sandy muck deeper than 12 inches with uncoated sand grains
present in various amounts within most all of the holes dug, suggesting the movement of water through
the profile. All soil plugs in a 30 -foot radius around the well were considered hydric, met the A7 5 cm
Mucky Mineral indicator, and appeared to confirm the Wasda muck as shown and described in the county
soil survey. The well was surrounded by a small, dense clump of winged sumac about 10 feet wide, and
similar to PUM36, woody debris in various stages of decomposition was found in the soil plugs. In the
investigation of the soils around PUM37, many of the holes encountered more "resistant" woody material
than that at PUM36; another hole often needed to be started in order examine the target profile thickness.
As at PUM36, it is likely that the woody debris in the vicinity of PUM37 alters the hydrology.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 C-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

Photo 7. Clump of winged sumac around PUM37.
Photo 8. Extent of winged sumac clump; biologist
standing at edge of 30 -foot radius in the
background through sumac clump (circled).
SUMMARY
The 1.7 -acre polygon of non -hydric soil has been subtracted from the 15 acres represented by PUM35
and the 0.02 -acre non -hydric soil area also has been subtracted from the 15 acres represented by
PUM36. However, for PUM37, no acres will be subtracted from the 15 -acre area represented by this well
as all soils were found to be hydric. We propose that the non -wetland hydroperiods demonstrated at
PUM36 and PUM37 are representative of a very small area near each well and can be regarded in the
same manner as the acres beneath the piles of woody debris left on the surface of the site. Although the
surface woody debris piles were not planted with hardwood seedlings, they are underlain by hydric soils,
the debris piles will eventually decay, and appropriate volunteer wetland vegetation will colonize the
footprint over time. Although PUM36 and PUM37 did not exhibit a wetland hydroperiod during the
monitoring period, they are underlain by (except for the 0.02 -acre around PUM36) and surrounded by
hydric soil, and as the woody debris in the soil profile decays further, wetland hydrology similar to that of
the surrounding areas will return.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 C-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual and Summary Report March 2017

"p fn II a)
0)- "O a)
L Y U L u7 ' =
U -p -p C U
N Q
CU C (n CO
--E U U (p C
U p (n a) a)
a) E N
j w
Y L O (0 , a)
C CO O
CU
U) a)
N
(n O
0 � � �
O
OCO
C a)
� -C
;N
M
� 70
O CO Y a)
(0 .� N
E ... a) E
(0 a) L U
CO
a) "O
-C
U L L
>, O O c
!?
O a)
t
N
O
O Y U U O
a) O O O
(n L 3
O
>+ p
>' aS U= U (0 CO
E ca >+
N a) E 0
a)
.0 U
t
CO C .�
L
U
O ,
CN
O Oa) p- 3:
Ca) >'_O
Q
(n II
ZM
U-
C L
p
a) C O
O
L
G
O U U
n
>LC
C a3
Q
U 0 a)U)
Q
C O
UC
(a
M
p
L
(0
p
C
a) >' (Un -0 O (o C
Q.
-p M
E
L a)
Q .0 L
(0
i
aS�
•� a)
a) U >' "O ate-+ N U—
Cn _
O C U 0) a)
O O
tU) � >,
LL
O—
N E-0
O C 7 0 0
E� C E O LE p
C .- •- L
co (Lo O ca
O O O
N? X O
O
O a) o O p (6 C
a) LiNY
(n 0 0) > O
Oa)
O a)
-O
Q O
)(n
x E — OCU
U co
C- Z
O Q N
� A
O U C � >, O
(C0
On �C
Q
-C
— E (6 O N
v- C
a)
N
z O
N N
a) O CO
N
U) O 0
++
-0-0 E a)
U "
O
A
=-
O
N o O U 7 p
0 0
_� 'r O
o (a - as
-0 LO � w E U
o - E
�Uo co
LU a) a) LL >+
LA Q
> C >
>' >'
Z C CO C C C -0 a5
O Y L
C '� O
L C M
O a) Q.
Q (6
•C
E C0 E
C a) a) a)
a) U �' (0 1 -0 a)
C Y Y O
U U N >,
U Z C C
0 O N
O
N O •
E
-E
E
� N
a0O
U0 07 LEOE
UZO
()
o N
rn C
r O r �,
O
L
c6
Oa) E O
Q O 7
O
N
U
�
-0 3 C
0 U)
-
cn
— _ C
iv _ .0 L
E
Q
> Q
0 O a) N
p M R
d M C y
O
O
N
O
3
(6
p, I I U (n
CIO = w
3
� �
0
-p 0 N U >
N
(n a) LL Q
N
O (a
O
O
N
O •C a) L
#k =
a) CU Cn $
3
p- c v E _ �
O O C p a) E
-0 L C 3
L L C
r
N
O
V
CO
V
CO
V
Q Q
(D
O U ON
C a) �
O
Z Z
Co
C
U
N
N N
>
° g 0
M Q
CVO
CVO
Um (a
LI I
G
N
Q Q
OZ O L
N
r
O O0 -0 'p
0 0 p
r
CO
(D
CO
Z Z
c6 -O C (nU
N
V
V
V
Z Z
E >, cu a)
n3
-FUC
CN O O a)
(n E "E
N
CVO
CVO
CVO
Z
a)
O p
CD
N m
-C
4) C U
a) E ai >
—
H C m Z �:
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 1 C-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Fifth Annual Monitoring and Summary Report March 2017

LEGEND
PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/
FILLED DITCH
- ROADS
• WELL LOCATION
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW .CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: NC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
AREAS OF NON -HYDRIC SOIL DELINEATED BY CZR INC.
AROUND MONITORING WELLS 35, 36 AND 37
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/28/17 FILE: PLANDS_PH 1 _NON_HYD-
SOILS AER 2016 C-1
A CP# 1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
ENVIRONM ENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910%392-9139 FIGURE C-1
ti
Wd
Po PONZER MUCK (ORGANIC)
TaB TARBORO SAND
Wd WASDA MUCK (ORGANIC)
HYDRIC SOILS
EQ
NON—HYDRIC SOILS
�
CZR DELINEATION AS
�.-�«"
•
NON—HYDRIC
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED
MINERAL OR ORGANIC.
Po
z
36:
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW .CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: NC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
AREAS OF NON -HYDRIC SOIL DELINEATED BY CZR INC.
AROUND MONITORING WELLS 35, 36 AND 37
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/28/17 FILE: PLANDS_PH 1 _NON_HYD-
SOILS AER 2016 C-1
A CP# 1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
ENVIRONM ENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910%392-9139 FIGURE C-1

Wd y
1
34
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW 'CO. BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
IJDAR FROM: NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, BEAUFORT
AND PAMLICO COUNTIES, NC STATEPLANE, NAD 1983, FEET,
WWW.NCFLOODMAPS.COM
LEGEND
P
37 PHASE 1 PLANTING AREA
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/
FILLED DITCH
ROADS
WELL LOCATION
SOILS
SYMBOL SOIL NAME
PO PONZER MUCK (ORGANIC)
TaB TARBORO SAND
Wd WASDA MUCK (ORGANIC)
0 HYDRIC SOILS
® NON—HYDRIC SOILS
CZR DELINEATION AS
NON—HYDRIC
NOTE:
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED
MINERAL OR ORGANIC.
Elevation in Feet
Value
® 0-2
2-4
714-5
5-6
_ 6-7
7-8
36 Q 8-9
_ 9-10
-
10-11
11-12
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
AREAS OF NON—HYDRIC SOIL DELINEATED BY CZR INC.
AROUND MONITORING WELLS 35, 36 AND 37 ON
AS—BUILT LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 1
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 03/06/17 FILE: PLANDS_PH 1 _NON_HYD_
SOILS LIDAR 2016 C2
A CP# 1745.59.32.1
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
L SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX 910% 392-9253 FIGURE C-2
392-9139