20120107 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report Ph III_2016_20170515

PotashCorp PotashCorp -Aurora
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
March 21, 2017
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army,Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5t' Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Steffens:
Enclosed is the P and U Lands mitigation site Phase 3 (Year 3) monitoring report for the 2016
monitoring year. The entire report, including all text, tables, figures and appendices, as well as
the 2016 well data tables, Gum Swamp Run flow data and flow videos, are located on the DVD
which accompanies the report. Earthwork was initiated on Phase 3 in May 2012 and planting was
complete in February 2014. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], or Julia
Berger of CZR Incorporated at [phone].
Sincerely,
r �lln rune
Jef e Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
PC: Mac Haupt, DWR - Raleigh w/encl.
Anthony Scarbraugh, DWR — Wash. w/ encl.
S. Cooper, CZR w/encl.
23-11-020 w/encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T(252)322-4111
PotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com

THIRD ANNUAL (2016) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 3
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
'Phase 3
r.
a
a"• e M?
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
March 2017

THIRD ANNUAL (2016) REPORT FOR THE
P AND U LANDS RESTORATION SITE PHASE 3
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
Flow................................................................................................................................ 3
2.4
Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 3
2.5
Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 4
2.6
Reporting........................................................................................................................4
3.0
2016 RESULTS..............................................................................................................4
3.1
Rainfall...........................................................................................................................4
3.2
Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 4
3.3
Flow................................................................................................................................ 5
3.4
Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 5
3.5
Photographic Documentation......................................................................................... 6
4.0
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................7
LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................................................8
Cover Photos - Top: Aerial photo looking north over the section of Phase 3 that contains the
upper headwater valley of Gum Swamp Run, 15 March 2016. Bottom Left: Aerial photo looking
south over the western section of Phase 3 near the South Creek Canal, 15 March 2016. Bottom
Right: Aerial photo looking east over the middle and eastern section of Phase 3 that borders
County Line Road.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 P and U Lands Phase 3 performance criteria, methods summary, and current
Figure 1 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Monitoring Locations
Figure 3 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Soils
Figure 4 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Monitoring Locations on As Built LiDAR
Figure 5 2016 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 2016 Longest Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones during All Rainfall Conditions
Figure 7 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 2016 Hydroperiods and Estimated
Hydrologic Zones during WETS Normal and Below Normal Rainfall
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
status.......................................................................................................................... T-1
Table 2
Hydroperiods of 96 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 3
restoration site and three Rodman control wells during all rainfall conditions in
2016............................................................................................................................
T-2
Table 3
Hydroperiods of 96 non -riparian monitoring wells at P and U Lands Phase 3
restoration site and three Rodman control wells during normal and below normal
rainfallin 2016..........................................................................................................
T-17
Table 4
Summary of flow events recorded at fixed flow camera stations and during
monthlysite visits......................................................................................................
T-29
Table 5
Third annual survival of trees and shrubs planted in 94 0.3 -acre plots at P and U
LandsPhase 3..........................................................................................................
T-30
Table 6
Third annual survival of trees and shrubs planted in four 0.11 -acre buffer plots
along Gum Swamp Run and two 0.11 -acre buffer plots along a low energy
headwater valley south of Gum Swamp Run at P and U Lands Phase 3 ................
T-32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Monitoring Locations
Figure 3 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Soils
Figure 4 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 Monitoring Locations on As Built LiDAR
Figure 5 2016 Bay City and WETS -Aurora Rainfall
Figure 6 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 2016 Longest Hydroperiods and
Estimated Hydrologic Zones during All Rainfall Conditions
Figure 7 P and U Lands Mitigation Site - Phase 3 2016 Hydroperiods and Estimated
Hydrologic Zones during WETS Normal and Below Normal Rainfall
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 iii PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

APPENDICES
Appendix A Gum Swamp Run Stream 2016 Survey and Evidence of Flow
Appendix B Stem Counts at Individual Plots at P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3
Appendix C Selected Third Annual Restoration Photographs
NOTE: Copy of entire report, hydrology, and flow data included on DVDs:
DVD1 - Third Annual (2016) Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Report and
Cover Letter
DVD2 - 2016 Mounted Camera 1 Flow Videos
DVD3 - 2016 Mounted Camera 2 Flow Videos
DVD4 — 2016 Monthly Flow Observation Videos, Gum Swamp Run Stream Survey Videos, Gum
Swamp Run Daily Flow Observations in 2016, Hydrology Tables
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 iv PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 History. The approximately 3,667 -acre P and U Lands restoration site is part of
the PCS Phosphate Company Inc.'s (PCS) compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable
impacts to wetlands and waters authorized under United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Action ID: 200110096 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Water
Quality Certification (WQC) #2008-0868 version 2.0. As described in the mitigation plan prepared
for the pre -construction notification (PCN) to the USACE (CZR 2012), the site was planned to be
constructed in three phases as shown on Figure 1 of the plan. This report concerns third annual
monitoring of the 1,755 acres of Phase 3 conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) of Wilmington,
NC. (The P and U designation have no special meaning other than that was the historic label
given to PCS and Weyerhaeuser properties with similar ownership agreements.)
The design team consisted of Jonathan T. Ricketts, Inc. of Palm Beach Gardens, FL, the
restoration design engineer, PCS, and CZR. Earthwork was performed by Sawyer's Land
Developing, Inc. out of Belhaven, NC and supervised by the design team. Phase 1 and 2
restoration activities occurred September 2011 -March 2013. Phase 3 construction began in Gum
Swamp Run on 9 May 2012 and on 22 June 2012 on the larger Phase 3 area. Phase 3 was
constructed with a total of 14 NC Division of Land Resources Erosion and Sediment Control
(DLR) permits for land clearing which were subsequently modified for the construction of the
interior ditch plugs and perimeter berms and ditches. Planting of Phase 3 occurred February
2014.
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). Restoration of the headwaters and upper valley
of historic Gum Swamp Run, a tributary to South Creek, is one of the goals of Phase 3. Unlike
most other PCS mitigation sites, the P and U Lands are not prior -converted agricultural fields.
Other than the existing roads, most of the acreage in which earthwork occurred was in some
stage of silviculture, usually various -aged pine stands, and contained regularly spaced ditches
(deeper than the agricultural ditches on other restoration sites that were filled in as part of
restoration work) and the bedding common to pine plantations. The removal of all standing
timber and stumps and post-harvest debris presented particular challenges as the organic soils
precluded safe burning of the timber slash on site. Consequently, some of the debris was piled
into somewhat evenly shaped and sized mounds throughout the site which provide additional
wildlife habitat.
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 along 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/Rodman Road forms the western
boundary, and the Pamlico/Beaufort County line forms the southern boundary of the U Lands
(County Line Road itself is the southern boundary of only the eastern half of the U Lands as the
western limit of County Line Road terminates at the midpoint of the south property line). The
entire site is accessed via multiple gated roads along Bay City Road, Peele Road, County Line
Road, and/or Jaime/Executive Road. The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit
03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River basin within the South Creek subbasin at latitude 35.233831
and longitude 76.775742. Portions of the site can be found on the USGS Aurora, Bayboro, South
Creek, and Vandemere quadrangles (Figures 1 and 2).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

1.3 Goals and Performance Criteria. The primary goal of the entire project is to re-
establish a self-sustaining functional wetland and coastal plain headwater stream valley complex
to allow surface flow to move through vegetated wetlands before reaching any stream. Mitigation
yields are estimated and performance criteria are described for the project in detail in the
Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site (CZR 2012). Performance
criteria for Phase 3 are summarized in Table 1. Over time the 1,755 -acre Phase 3 portion of the
site is expected to successfully re-establish approximately:
150 wetland acres of headwater forest,
580 wetland acres of non-riverine swamp forest,
479 acres of pond -pine pocosin forest,
96 wetland acres of hardwood flat forest,
33 acres of Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer (under the new consolidated rules, the estimated
acres may increase),
7,141 linear feet of zero and first order stream including a low energy stream (Gum
Swamp Run), and
31 acres of open water in plugged ditches.
The work is also expected to successfully rehabilitate 271 acres of existing forested
wetland. This area would include the wooded area along the east property line south of Gum
Swamp Run and the wooded area north and east of the north end of Gum Road.
The remaining 57.84 acres are comprised of existing roads, perimeter berms, and other
man -dominated areas. Approximately 18,301 linear feet of jurisdictional waters in roadside
ditches and canals will be plugged in order to increase the hydroperiods within the adjacent
planted areas (these plugged jurisdictional ditches and canals are included in the 31 acres of
reestablished open water). Approximately 12,980 feet of roadside ditches parallel to Gum Road
and a 3,400 -foot roadside ditch north of Bay City 4 are unplugged.
2.0 REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Normal Rainfall and Growing Season. A continuous electronic rain gauge on the
adjacent Bay City Mitigation Site is downloaded once a month and its data are used in
conjunction with data from nearby automated weather stations (e.g., NRCS WETS data from
NOAA's site at Aurora and rain gauges at other nearby monitoring sites) to determine normal
rainfall during the monitoring period. Bay City data were compared to the WETS range of normal
precipitation to determine if Bay City rainfall was within the normal range. The range of normal
precipitation for this report refers to the 30th and 70th percentile thresholds of the probability of
having onsite rainfall amounts less than or higher than those thresholds. The range of normal
and the 30 -day rolling total data lines begin on the last day of each month and the current year
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 these locations on Beaufort County soil polygons, and Figure 4 shows all
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

monitoring locations on the as -built LiDAR. To document surface storage and hydroperiods of all
wetland types on the site, 96 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 3, with the exception of two wells that were installed near a ditch to be
used in conjunction with a nearby well to monitor lateral drainage effects from the open perimeter
ditches. Exclosures constructed of barbed wire wrapped around metal fence posts were built
around all wells to reduce likelihood of disturbance or equipment loss by black bears.
Three wells were installed 13 March 2013 in a recently timbered tract west of Rodman
Road in the Ponzer soil series as controls for the P and U Lands wells in the same soil type
(Figures 1-4). To serve as additional controls, in November of 2015, four wells were installed at
previous well locations within the adjacent Bay City Farm. According to the LiDAR data, these
four locations will also represent Ponzer soils but at lower elevations than the three Rodman
wells. Four wells were reinstalled in the Bay City Mitigation Site, also in the Ponzer soil series, on
3 and 4 November 2015 to be used as control wells to compare to the P and U Lands Restoration
Sites.
Electronic wells collect data every 1.5 hours, are downloaded once a month, and the data
evaluated to document wetland hydroperiods. Wetland hydroperiods are calculated by counting
consecutive days with water level no deeper than 12 inches below the soil surface during the
growing season under normal or below normal rainfall conditions and then for all rainfall
conditions.
2.3 Flow. Stream surveys are conducted annually to document conditions in the
restored headwater stream valley of Gum Swamp Run and the valley to the south. The entire
length of the valley is walked. Active flow and features formed by previous flow are documented
with GPS, photo and/or video. In the first few years, the surveys will be performed usually twice
annually (once in the dry time of year and once in the wet); however, herbaceous vegetation
colonization may vary this schedule. As an experiment, in April 2015, two game/trail cameras (Ltl
Acorn HD Video MMS Wireless 12 mega pixels) were installed in the upper valley of Gum Swamp
Run to capture flow conditions in the valley on a daily basis via regularly programmed video.
These cameras are mounted on wooden posts at the edge of the 40 -foot valley; the locations of
the camera may be moved over the course of monitoring depending on their functionality and
valley conditions through time. Also beginning in June 2015, at the monthly downloads, biologists
download these cameras and make observations at these two locations and also walk to the Gum
Swamp Run valley/stream in the vicinity of eight nearby monitoring wells and at two locations
along the valley to the south, to take additional video of flow, make note of other observations of
evidence of past or current flow (e.g., debris wrack, sediment scour or sorting), and water depth.
The cameras are programmed to record twice each day.
Within the Gum Swamp Run valley, a 2 -foot wide channel was constructed within the first
two field sections east of Bay City Road (SR1002) and in the lower half of the third section (in the
upper half of third section, no construction occurred). In order to recapture flow from a portion of
the adjacent Parker Farm which LiDAR indicated historically flowed to Gum Swamp Run, a
shallow 40 -foot wide valley was constructed from the fifth field section east of Bay City Road up
to the top of the valley. No construction occurred in the fourth field section, an area called the
bowl, where the slope flattened between the two constructed segments.
2.4 Vegetation. Annual surveys of the 94 0.3 -acre planted vegetation monitoring
plots occur in the fall, usually between September - December. The plots represent 2 percent of
the restoration area (Figure 2). Nuisance monitoring plots (1 meter square) were established in
2014 at the upper corner opposite the well (along the long axis of the plot) in all tree plots and all
woody stems taller than 1 foot were counted and identified. Six additional 0.11 -acre plots were
established and surveyed in December 2015 to monitor stem density in potential stream buffer
zones along the restored Gum Run headwaters (four plots) and the low-energy headwater valley
system south of Gum Swamp Run (Figure 2).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Extra stems (the unplanted footprint of the debris piles) from the Phase 4 2015 planting
were planted in Phase 3 in the 25 -foot wide area along the interior of the perimeter berm in some
locations (the bottom of the U Lands west of Gum Road, along Bay City Road, County Line Road,
and along Jamie Road at the top of Gum Road; a total of approximately 6 acres). These "25 -foot
offset areas", were unplanted in 2014 in order to maintain an equipment access corridor post -
planting in 2014. No additional vegetation monitoring plots were added.
2.5 Photographic Documentation. Fifteen permanent photo point locations were
established along the perimeter of the restoration area (Figure 2). Annual photos are taken in the
fall.
2.6 Reporting. Further details of construction and monitoring are included in the as
built, first annual, and second annual reports (CZR 2015a, 2015b, 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 performance criterion for hydrology in the hardwood flat zones
(Zone 5 and 6) is a wetland hydroperiod for 6 percent or more of the growing season, and 10
percent or more for the other zones (Table 1). During all rainfall conditions, all wells (10) in the
hardwood flat zones had a wetland hydroperiod for more than 6 percent of the growing season
(Table 2, Figure 6). When hydroperiods during above normal rainfall were excluded, all wells still
had a wetland hydroperiod for more than 6 percent of the growing season.
In the remaining zones, 91 percent of wells (79 of 86) had a wetland hydroperiod for
more than 10 percent of the growing season during all rainfall conditions. Five of the eight wells
with a hydroperiod for less than 10 percent of the growing season are along construction access
roads and/or located in areas where heavy equipment or piles of dirt for plug fills were staged
during construction. Two of the eight wells are along the most downstream section of the Gum
Swamp Run 2 -foot valley where heavy equipment was used to construct the channel. Soil
compaction in these areas may have affected the hydrology. The eighth well is one of a pair of
wells, PUM192 and PUM193, used to measure potential drainage effects from the perimeter
canal. PUM193 recorded a wetland hydroperiod for more than 10 percent of the growing season
while PUM192 did not. After hydroperiods that occurred during the five periods of above normal
rainfall were excluded, 78 wells had a hydroperiod for more than 10 percent of the growing
season.
During all rainfall conditions, the three Rodman control wells recorded a wetland
hydroperiod for 25-75 percent of the growing season. 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,
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

>12.5-25 percent, >25-75 percent, and >75 percent. Hydroperiods for the control wells were not
affected by the above normal rainfall.
3.3 Flow. Appendix A contains the 2016 flow information collected in Phase 3
stream valley surveys, selected photographs and referenced videos, and a list of videos of flow
captured in the two valleys in 2016. All 2016 flow videos are included only on the accompanying
three DVDS in three folders: mounted camera, monthly observations, and stream survey. Also
included on a DVD is a file containing data for each month with daily flow observations taken from
the videos of the two mounted cameras. In 2016, two stream surveys occurred (10 March and 16
November) which documented continuous high to moderate flow in March and moderate to low
flow within the lower Gum Swamp Run 2-foot valley during the November survey. Water depths
varied from 5 to 8 inches in March and 2 to 8 inches in November. It was evident that flow had
been out of the banks prior to both surveys, but was confined to the 2-foot channel during the
November survey. In March, the flow was lower and the water was deeper in sections where
water was not confined within the channel. The November survey noted the most herbaceous
vegetation obscuring the visibility of flow than had previously been seen and was the first to note
vegetation growing in the channel.
For the area known as the bowl (area of no construction between the 2-foot channel and
the 40-foot valley), the March survey documented low to moderate flow along a continuous path
across the entire bowl with depths averaging between 4 to 8 inches, and 12 inches deep in rutted
areas. In November, flow was low to moderate with depths ranging from 2 to 6 inches. The two
main flow paths through the bowl near XS13 noted previously contained water for their entire
length and joined into one flow path near the downstream end of the bowl; however, flow was not
discernible in the flow path on the southern side of the bowl and water was shallower than the
northern path in places.
In the 40-foot valley, low to moderate flow was consistent for the entire length during the
March survey and water depths were mostly between 6 to 12 inches with some areas around 16
inches deep. During the November survey, water depths ranged from 2 to 6 inches with 12
inches in some areas and low flow was more common.
All Gum Swamp Run flow observation locations had at least four observed flow events
during all rainfall and when periods of above normal rainfall were excluded (Table 4). Flow
events were also inferred at observation locations based on instances of observed flow at
shallower depths at the same station. The downstream flow station near PUM127 along the
headwater valley to the south of Gum Swamp Run had one documented flow event and three
inferred events during all rainfall and normal and below normal rainfall; flow was not observed in
2016 at the upstream flow station near PUM126. The volunteer channel, called PUM115 South
Feature, that formed downstream of the intervalley connector between Gum Swamp Run and the
secondary headwater valley also had one documented flow event (three inferred) during all
rainfall and normal and below normal rainfall. The two mounted cameras in the 40-foot valley
captured numerous flow events for the year; GSR Camera 1 recorded 58 flow events (271
inferred) and GSR Camera 2 recorded 155 flow events (227 inferred).
3.4 Vegetation. Planting zones of Phase 3 were divided into several community
types: riverine swamp forest (Z1), headwater forest (Z2), non- riverine swamp forest (Z3), pond
pine pocosin forest (Z4), and two zones of hardwood flat (Z5 and Z6). Using only the number of
planted stems that were unquestionably alive in the monitoring plots, the most conservative
estimate of survival is presented. Some stems appeared dead or questionable, but based on
prior monitoring experience, a stem needs to appear dead (or not be found) for two sampling
events before it can be confidently counted as dead. At the year three 2016 survey, Z1 had the
highest percent survival with 83 percent and Z6 had the lowest with 38 percent. The survival
percentages for Z2 through Z5 were similar: 71, 68, 70, and 67 respectively. Appendix B
contains the number of stems that were unquestionably alive in each plot for the fall 2016 survey.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 94 plots from the time of
planting to the third annual fall survey was 77 percent, with a corresponding density of 311 trees
per acre (Table 5). Deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), pond
cypress (T. ascendens), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), and water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica) had the highest survival of stems with 100, 97, 96, 90, and 90 percent of stems alive
respectively. Excluding unknown species, white oak (Quercus alba), sugarberry (Celtis
laevigata), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) had the lowest survival with 53, 57, and 58
percent of alive stems respectively. 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
83 percent and a density of 336 trees per acre.
Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to the
third annual fall survey was 79 percent with a corresponding density of nine shrubs per acre
scattered among the 11 species planted (Table 5). Inkberry (Ilex glabra), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) had the highest percent of
unquestionably alive stems with 93, 90, and 90 respectively. If all shrubs with uncertain survival
status (stem appeared dead but could not be confirmed) are included with shrubs that were
definitely alive, survival increases to 83 percent and the density remains nine stems per acre.
After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density
increases to 320 stems per acre and if stems with uncertain survival are added, the density
increases to 346 stems per acre. At year three, different species of trees are surviving and there
is a diverse assemblage of trees interspersed with a healthy shrub component. In many areas of
the site, volunteer woody wetland stems (e.g. red bay [Persea borbonia], sweet bay [Magnolia
virginiana]) will enhance the diversity and density of the site. The volunteers will be counted in
year five.
In the buffer plots, a total of 288 stems among 12 large tree species and three small tree
species were found (Table 6). Most of the identified trees were swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica); one
shrub, an American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), was tagged in a buffer plot. Based on
the six plots, the total density of trees alive in the buffer area was 398 stems per acre at year
three survey and 417 if the unsure stems are added. The results from the six buffer plots were
not added to the results from the other plots. After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown
species that were definitely alive, stem density increases to 405 stems per acre and if stems with
uncertain survival are added, the density within the riparian buffer increases to 427 stems per
acre.
The Corps determined that three tree species have the possibility to outcompete young
planted trees at a mitigation site and need to be monitored as nuisance species to ensure they do
not take over a mitigation site. These species are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). In 2016, a total of 470 stems were found in all
nuisance plots and 50 stems were of the three species mentioned (10.6 percent). Of the 50
stems, 25 were pine, 21 were red maple, and four were sweetgum. Young loblolly pine and pond
pine are often difficult to distinguish from each other and so some of the pond pine counted in
nuisance plots might be loblolly pine. Of the 25 pines previously mentioned, 17 were identified as
pond pine. None of the three nuisance species exceeded 20 percent (either in aggregate or
separately) in either Year 2 or Year 3 survey, so per the nuisance monitoring plan, no remediation
is necessary.
3.5 Photographic Documentation. A few photos representative of 2016 conditions
are included with this report (Appendix C). More are available upon request.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

4.0 SUMMARY
According to WETS rainfall calculations, 2016 rainfall recorded at the Bay City gauge was
normal or below normal WETS rainfall except for February 4 — March 4, June 7 — 28, July 2 —
August 5, September 12 — October 2, and October 7 — November 5. The wells in the hardwood
flat zones had a wetland hydroperiod for six percent or more of the growing season during all
rainfall conditions and normal or below normal rainfall. In the remaining zones, 91 percent of
wells (79 of 86) had a wetland hydroperiod for more than 10 percent of the growing season during
all rainfall conditions. After excluding hydroperiods that occurred during the five periods of above
normal rainfall, 78 wells had a hydroperiod for more than 10 percent of the growing season.
In 2016, two stream surveys occurred (10 March and 16 November) which documented
continuous high to moderate flow in March and moderate to low flow within the lower Gum
Swamp Run 2 -foot valley during the November survey. Water depths varied from 5 to 8 inches in
March and 2 to 8 inches in November. It was evident that flow had been out of the banks prior to
both surveys, but was confined to the 2 -foot channel during the November survey. For the area
known as the bowl (area of no construction between the 2 -foot channel and the 40 -foot valley),
the March survey documented low to moderate flow along a continuous path across the entire
bowl with depths averaging between 4 to 8 inches, and 12 inches deep in rutted areas. In
November, flow was low to moderate with depths ranging from 2 to 6 inches. Flow was not
observed in the southern path where the flow splits though water was continuous. In the 40 -foot
valley, low to moderate flow was consistent for the entire length during the March survey and
water depths were mostly between 6 to 12 inches with some areas around 16 inches deep.
During the November survey, water depths were shallower at around 2 to 6 inches with some
areas around 12 inches deep and low flow was more common.
All Gum Swamp Run flow observation locations had at least four observed flow events
during all rainfall and when periods of above normal rainfall were excluded. The downstream flow
station near PUM127 along the headwater valley to the south of Gum Swamp Run had one
documented flow event and three inferred events during all rainfall and normal and below normal
rainfall; flow was not observed in 2016 at the upstream flow station near PUM126. The volunteer
channel, called PUM115 South Feature, that formed downstream of the intervalley connector
between Gum Swamp Run and the secondary headwater valley also had one documented flow
event (3 inferred) during all rainfall and normal and below normal rainfall. The two mounted
cameras in the 40 -foot valley captured numerous flow events for the year; GSR Camera 1
recorded 58 flow events (271 inferred) and GSR Camera 2 recorded 155 flow events (227
inferred).
Overall survival of trees that were unquestionably alive in the 94 plots from the time of
planting to the third annual fall survey was 77 percent, with a corresponding density of 311 trees
per acre. Overall survival of shrubs that were unquestionably alive from the time of planting to
the third annual fall survey was 79 percent with a corresponding density of nine shrubs per acre.
After combining the trees, shrubs and unknown species that were definitely alive, density
increases to 320 stems per acre. A total of 288 stems among 12 large tree species and three
small tree species were found in the buffer plots. Based on these six buffer plots, total density of
stems unquestionably alive was 398 stems per acre. Different species of trees and shrubs are
surviving well in the third 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] and sweet bay [Magnolia virginiana]) will enhance the diversity and density
of the site.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

LITERATURE CITED
CZR Incorporated. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation Plan for P and U Lands Restoration Site.
CZR Incorporated. 2015a. As -Built Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3.
CZR Incorporated. 2015b. First Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3.
CZR Incorporated. 2016. Second Annual Report for the P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3.
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 3 8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Table 1. P and U Lands Phase 3 performance criteria. methods summarv. and current status (third annual. 2016)
Type of mitigation
Performance criteria
Documentation methods
Dimension & controls
Current status
acre including 4 native
Planted stem plots within
as stated in modified 401
In 2016, all 10 wells in the
Alternate riparian buffer
species (trees/shrubs);
buffer area or buffer plots
certification dated 15
hardwood flat zones had a
restoration -coastal plain
no one species shall
that may be monitored
January 2009 (DWQ#based
wetland hydroperiod for 6
headwater stream valley
exceed 50 percent;
on stream
2008-0868); per October
percent or more of the growing
native volunteer stems
development or new buffer
2014 new consolidated
season during all rainfall and
>6 % hydroperiod on
Semi -continuous monitoring
Growing season 28 Feb-
normal or below normal rainfall.
hydric soils for
wells (1/15a nearby rain
6 Dec; Aurora NOAA
In the remaining zones, 79 of 86
hardwood flats; >10%
WETS data for normal
wells had a hydroperiod for
for other communities
u
gauge
rainfall
more than 10 percent of the
Non -riparian wetland re-
growing season during all
establishment
rainfall, and 78 of 86 wells had a
(restoration) of non-
hydroperiod for 10 percent or
riverine swamp forest,
more during normal or below
hardwood flat, headwater
normal rainfall.
forest communities
In 2016, survival of planted tree
stems that were unquestionably
Survival of 260 stems
alive was 311 stems/acre and
per acre of 5 -year old
Vegetation plots on
survivial of shrubs was 9
planted woody wetland
approximately 2% of the site
Annual monitoring
stems/acre. When trees,
shrubs, and unknown species of
stems
both categories are added
together, survival becomes 346
stems/acre.
All Gum Swamp Run flow
observation locations had at least
four flow events during all rainfall
conditions and when periods of
above normal rainfall were
excluded. The downstream flow
station along the headwater valley
to the south of Gum Swamp Run
had one documented flow event
(three inferred events) during all
Linear feet of credit
rainfall conditions and normal and
Zero to first order stream
based on most
Documentation of flow
Calendar year; Aurora
below normal rainfall. Flow was not
restoration within coastal
upstream location of
conditions' (see text for list
NOAA WETS data for
observed in 2016 at the upstream
plain riparian headwater
flow documented at
of conditions);
normal rainfall; flow
flow station. The volunteer channel,
system
least twice per year in 3
semi -continuous monitoring
confined to times of
called PUM115 South Feature, that
years out of 5 (starting
well arrays; GPS
normal rainfall
formed downstream of the
February 2013)
intervalley connector between Gum
Swamp Run and the secondary
headwater valley had one
documented flow event (three
inferred) during all rainfall and
normal and below normal
rainfall.The two stream surveys
conducted in March and November
2016 noted evidence of flow along
the 2 -foot and 40 -foot channel
sections of Gum Swamp Run.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
260 woody stems per
Flexible buffer mitigation
Six 0.11 -acre plots (2 in 40 -foot
acre including 4 native
Planted stem plots within
as stated in modified 401
Gum Swamp Run valley, 1 in the
Alternate riparian buffer
species (trees/shrubs);
buffer area or buffer plots
certification dated 15
bowl, 2 in 2 -foot Gum Swamp
restoration -coastal plain
no one species shall
that may be monitored
January 2009 (DWQ#based
Run valley, and 1 in headwater
headwater stream valley
exceed 50 percent;
on stream
2008-0868); per October
stream valley to south) showed
native volunteer stems
development or new buffer
2014 new consolidated
405 planted stems per acre
allowed in count
rule
buffer rule 15A NCAC
unquestionably alive in 2016.
026.0295
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

g e = g
\
\0k70
�
0 0 G =
�\e\
C)-0
\\°°
� y C:
§ % '7 £
2 .§ U)
c E
CO C
/ m
/n0
_ _
0 0 / 2
\ = o
) / £
£_E�
ƒMaw
®§ \
2\\¥
\ \-0 \
\/\\
q
CO f
m » E 5
m o = 5
m _ o n
iCD \/k
= o = 5
o
j w \ °
\-0 0
% / .§ 0
\ k \
« \_
$§_±
R q t 0
0) a)
0)/P
\0/f
E & o =
%/)£
CL
� 3 '0 C 0
�C)
\N20
c ��- /
CD
k(n
0 \ » 2 %
_0
0 c= (n
G / % % .0
//§)
a
�\\%E
12 = E
C'M
° E = E $
2- _ C:
M § 7 W o
- = 0 w
E
§
a
0
�
/
/
�
■
\
w
ƒ
t_
r
\
4
/
6\
\
/
\
/
/
C\1
@
®
¥
6
ƒ
\
/
/
\
x
x
/
A
ƒ
%
(6
CD
0
0) U) 0
\
.) q f ƒ \
e
M
\���
o$n B
2�y
\°
\
_
\
\
\ \
®
\
\
\ ®
9
$
4
a
2&/-
4
2
2\
�
d
k
/ k
/
C�
/
/
� \
t
#
n =
¥
»
m
It
$ _
\/\
/ Co \ o
k 2 /
.ƒ E
o
c#=
o=
G&
o c
j/\(D
t
t t
t
c
r
t
n z
LL
0 ƒ \
OR2
f�\)
%
.ƒ\{2
�
CN
7
A
\&ƒ
E % 2 c
a)
£ o =
R\±
a)
/ .§
\
\
° \
r 2 0
03\
/
\
�
/
/
�
■
\
w
#_
t_
r
\
4
/
6\
\
/
/
/
C\1
@
®
¥
6
CD / 2 & / /LO
�
/
\
\
e
\
/
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase a2 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

0
X
X I X
V I~ I M ICO I N
O
0
N
N
O
LO
O
N
�
Q
Z
Ln
1-
N
LO
M
N
N
(0
N
I,-
M
N
LO
r -
O
M
O
N
M
N
N
00
00
N
N
A
U)
N
00
N
N
M
N
M
M,
N
It
O
C4
N
r-
M,
N
w
Ln
C
M
M, '
N N
r O
Ln
Ln
N
0
A
C
0
0
N
OCOj U
LO
U
C�
LO
_O
N
O
_0
A
N
> -0 0
0
Ln
N
Cfl
AI
+J (� O
N
d'
v
0
0) c >,
O
O
c
�� 0)
ti
V
O N M O
N 00
O
r-
a-
N
0
X
X I X
V I~ I M ICO I N
O
0
N
N
r
cfl
O
N
Lf
LO
O
N
�
Q
Z
00
M
00
N
N
1-
N
LO
M
N
N
(0
N
I,-
M
N
LO
Ln
M
00
N
r-
O
M
O
N
M
N
N
00
00
N
N
rl-
O
N
000
U)
N
00
N
N
M
N
M
M,
N
It
N
c0
M,
N
U)
C4
N
r-
M,
N
w
Ln
C
M
M, '
N N
r O
00
N
j,CO
OCOj U
N
> -0 0
+J (� O
N
d'
w
O
O
O
O
M
ti
w
r-
It
00
M r-
7
V
N
d7
Ln
Ln
r-
Ln
N
N
N
Cfl
U O
O N LL
O L
U 3
m
>' > U
CO
0
0
(6 3:
It
-Co
—
N
N
N
=3 O N LL
E 00
3 �
L
O LL Q
N r- N
O i U)
r
L y N N N N N N r
?� N ; N
O ~
(0-0 E
Q O O
{
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3
Third Annual Report
w
C
U1 tG 00 W
r
r r r r r CO
(U
m
T-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

2
M
CD CD r CD CD O CD CD CD I- r r- N M "l, (0 CD r—
N N N N— M — N r N r r M r N N r N
N N — N N
_ L? CO ti 00 O r 00 r 00 Cfl OO L(? 00 r
M co O O 67 00 - 00 00 D� 00 M O co00 CF)�
N N N N
N LO CD rl- M N N Co N N Lr) ~ r -N Lr) M
0
00
Ln
X
N
CU > U
n
N
> 0
0
+ CO
O
CA 00 It 00 O O
M
r O
00 O
N 0
O LO r f` M
Ln
LO N N N N Ln
N
00
U) r N r
U 0-0
N 0 (N LL
pl
X
X
O L
Ln
C) cn
N
m
(3)
n
> ZCU > U
C
O
o
N
LO
rl-
M
r
ti
Ln
U
(V
O
N
N
N
= O N LL
i�
L()
x
E00
N
U
x
O
CV
3
O
r
L
L -Q
_0
A
Z O LL
>1-
N t,
CV
r—
r—
ti
ti
ti
(n r
N
U?
N
N
N
N
r
N O
QL6
(I
(D
v
o din O
c .C: O MC)) m
00
O
00
r�
§ U)U-a C= O
V OM CO O 0
O
N
O
Or
4
CD
O
CD
ti
r
d O U N O
2
M
CD CD r CD CD O CD CD CD I- r r- N M "l, (0 CD r—
N N N N— M — N r N r r M r N N r N
N N — N N
_ L? CO ti 00 O r 00 r 00 Cfl OO L(? 00 r
M co O O 67 00 - 00 00 D� 00 M O co00 CF)�
N N N N
N LO CD rl- M N N Co N N Lr) ~ r -N Lr) M
O N N N N N
r r r r r
LO
CO
N
ti
N
In
N
r
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
00
N
CU > U
N
> 0
+ CO
O
CA 00 It 00 O O
M
r O
00 O
N 0
O LO r f` M
7 L(.1
LO N N N N Ln
N
00
U) r N r
U 0-0
N 0 (N LL
O L
C) cn
m
> ZCU > U
> " CD
rl-
M
r
ti
Ln
ip
2� O�
M
N
O
N
N
N
= O N LL
E00
N
U
3
L
L -Q
Z O LL
N t,
CV
r—
r—
ti
ti
ti
(n r
N
N
N
N
N
N O
QL6
O N N N N N
r r r r r
LO
CO
N
ti
N
In
N
r
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

ti
N
a)
N
r
CR
06
0
N
-
N
�
CO
O
O
Co
M
LO
W
7
C7
N
LO
r-
O
r -
n
0
LO
LO
N
A
0
LO
N
LO
x
x
x
N
A
O
L()
N
AI
v
o
O
N-0 C O_
M
M
N
L
O O M O 0
N
O N 00 70
d
O
L
Cfl
N
M
M
O
N
Ln
N
CO
O
N
O
N
N
O
CO
N
-—
O
O
N
N
0
N
CO
N
—
—
--
N
O
Cb
N
O
N
M
r—
N
N
—
N
�
M
N
O
N
O
N
M
M
r—
�
N
0
M
N
M
�
O
M
N
N
L()
�
—
�
N
I
U)
O
N
1,CY)
N
N
M
> , N
CO CO > U
O L O N
-
> �
= N M O
6)
Ln
—
1�
O
O
r-
d'
—
O
M
O
O
�
O L,
"t
N
—
M
CO
N
N
LO
(fl
'IT
N
M
U O
C N LL
r
O L �
C) cn
a�
>,CU > U
> � O
d
Cfl
N O �'
_ O
CO
CO
N
=O N Ll
M
U N
L
O LL
N �
N
cn
N
N
N
a) >
N O
N
D
CO
Ll-
00
N
N
T -
N
ti
N
a)
N
r
CR
06
-
Lr) N - Ln
M
M
r
rl-
N
O
M
r
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
CO
N
-
N
�
CO
O
O
Co
M
W
7
C7
N
LO
r-
O
-
Lr) N - Ln
M
M
r
rl-
N
O
M
r
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-5 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Pa
Thi)
S
S
I
S
id UL
d Anni
a0
>' N
ZS ca > U
O L O N
> aa�O0
C O
U O
U N LL
r
O L �
U w
m
>+ZCo CU > U
-0 0
O O O
> +J L Cfl
�CO0
= O N U-
E aD
U`n N
L
O LLL
N r'-
� � N
0) '
UO
NCO
0 CO
>O
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
0
X
LO
X
X
—
n
--
0
x
LO
DD
r
LO
N
A
N
0
LO
N
L
i
LO
N
r
A
O
M
N
r
CO
d
AI
C6
v
ZS
o
O
C
c O O
O Q
U
O 0 CO O O
O
d
N O
L
U
O
M
0
a0
>' N
ZS ca > U
O L O N
> aa�O0
C O
U O
U N LL
r
O L �
U w
m
>+ZCo CU > U
-0 0
O O O
> +J L Cfl
�CO0
= O N U-
E aD
U`n N
L
O LLL
N r'-
� � N
0) '
UO
NCO
0 CO
>O
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
1_!
(6 LC) N r
N N N r
� LO 000 r
00 67 6) �
N N N N
N d Ln M
M I- O r
Ln N 00 r -
LO
N
r -
N
M
r
Phase 3
17
M
Ln r r
N r r
LO 00
LO 00 r
C6
i r
(N N
N U) M
00 00 r-
0
O
O
C6
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
M
ti
C6
CO
X
X
X
—
X
--
x
x
(0
DD
r
x
x
N
N
x
N
N
L
1_!
(6 LC) N r
N N N r
� LO 000 r
00 67 6) �
N N N N
N d Ln M
M I- O r
Ln N 00 r -
LO
N
r -
N
M
r
Phase 3
17
M
Ln r r
N r r
LO 00
LO 00 r
C6
i r
(N N
N U) M
00 00 r-
0
O
O
C6
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
M
ti
C6
CO
qttN
Ln
C)
�
—
N
--
O
(0
DD
r
i
N
N
N
N
N
L
M
r-
M
C6
CO
d
L6
67
N
N
r
00
N
N
O
N
0
O
O
r
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
1
O O
r CO
O
i r
00 '
N a7
N N
00
M
r C6
O
O
O
r
C6
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
M
Ln r O O
N N r M
Lf) (0C) 00 O
00 M r
N LO M
00 LO M
00 N It Ln
CnLO CO
N N rl-r INCD INI N INI N
N INI N ININI N INI N
N
M
r
T-6
It
M
r
M M M M
r r r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Pa
Thi)
S
S
I
S
id UL
d Anni
a0
>' N
ZS ca > U
L L O L
> L �O 0
CO
O
U O
C N N LL
r
O L �
C) w
L
>' -0 > p
-0
L L
> +J L Cfl
(0 CO O L
= L N U-
E aD
N
L
O LLL
N
r'-
U)
`U O
N CO
0 CO
>L
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
N
O
00
LO
N
d'
O
N
I,-
04
O
d'
r
Pha:
0
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
CO
00
N
I-
N
r
;e 3
00
O
00
00
N
N
LO
Li )
N
4
�
N
CYC
A
LO
0
IXIXIX
LO
N
LO
N
n
A
O
co
a0
>' N
ZS ca > U
L L O L
> L �O 0
CO
O
U O
C N N LL
r
O L �
C) w
L
>' -0 > p
-0
L L
> +J L Cfl
(0 CO O L
= L N U-
E aD
N
L
O LLL
N
r'-
U)
`U O
N CO
0 CO
>L
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
N
O
00
LO
N
d'
O
N
I,-
04
O
d'
r
Pha:
0
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
CO
00
N
I-
N
r
;e 3
00
O
00
00
N
N
LO
Li )
N
4
�
N
CYC
A
It
0
LO
N
LO
N
A
O
co
0
N
�;
AI
n
Co
N
v
N
0
N
a) o
C
C
p) L
70 C O-
U
p N CO p O
d
N O
L
LO
U
L
N
M
-
0
a0
>' N
ZS ca > U
L L O L
> L �O 0
CO
O
U O
C N N LL
r
O L �
C) w
L
>' -0 > p
-0
L L
> +J L Cfl
(0 CO O L
= L N U-
E aD
N
L
O LLL
N
r'-
U)
`U O
N CO
0 CO
>L
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
N
O
00
LO
N
d'
O
N
I,-
04
O
d'
r
Pha:
0
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
M
00
N
CO
00
N
I-
N
r
;e 3
00
O
00
00
N
N
LO
Li )
N
4
�
N
CYC
M
It
N
O
Oo
co
0
�;
N
n
ti
N
rn
N
N
N
r-
M
O
-
O
LO
N
-
'l-
00
r
r—
N
T-7
X I X
N I N
CO T
N N
X
O Cn Lf) \
N N N
� CO 00 r
00 61 ' O
N Ln ti 00
M N LO CD
00
N
X
0
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
AG
CO
00
N
L
N N N N
N
O
z
Lf�
r
0)
C
U
L<7 CO I-- U
r r r r (6
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
o
Oo
M
N
C9
N
N
N
C9
M
O
O
-
N
00
r
T
00
r
00
00
04
r
CA
r
CA
N
N
L
N
00
00N
O
'�
LO
O
N
Utz
Cep
N I N
CO T
N N
X
O Cn Lf) \
N N N
� CO 00 r
00 61 ' O
N Ln ti 00
M N LO CD
00
N
X
0
O
O
O
N
00
N
N
AG
CO
00
N
L
N N N N
N
O
z
Lf�
r
0)
C
U
L<7 CO I-- U
r r r r (6
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

CO
O
N O
C
00 '
O
N N
N
00
N It
00 O
0
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
WM0
0 CD
O O
� r
M M
N N
� r
N N
N N
M CO
00 00
N N
O
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
M
c
O
N
U
0)
O
O
-O
2
O
Lr)
rlA
O
Ln
1
Ln
N
A
o
LO
N
LO
N
A
0
Ln
N
AI
v
X
X
Cfl
X
M
M
N
o EC >,m.O
ED
X
N
U?
c0 M rna)
3 C O_
It
V M
O O M O O
N 00 -0
aD
w
O
a) N O
L
CV
O
N M
~
r
LO
67
a)
M
�
-
0
00
N
rn
N M
O
N
It
N
L
0)
a0
N
> ,CO
OCO> U
O L O N
CD 0
-0
;..� M
N
LC) r
Ln
7 L ,
U O
Ln
r N
U) - N LL
O L
U 3
a)
>' > U
)
> - (6 "(0
O
Co O 6
O
= O N LL
E 00
L
a)
O U-
N
r -
N
L — r
N
3: N >
a)
U O
D
M U
C
C
O
U
N
Co
a)
(0
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site Phase
3
Third
Annual
Report
CO
O
N O
C
00 '
O
N N
N
00
N It
00 O
0
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
WM0
0 CD
O O
� r
M M
N N
� r
N N
N N
M CO
00 00
N N
O
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
M
X
x
X
X
Cfl
X
M
M
N
N
X
CO
O
N O
C
00 '
O
N N
N
00
N It
00 O
0
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
WM0
0 CD
O O
� r
M M
N N
� r
N N
N N
M CO
00 00
N N
O
O
O
r
O
N
00
N
N
CO
00
N
M
CO
CO
CO
LO 00 w CON ININI N INCO I
N INININ
d'
r
LO LNC
r r
T-8
N
le
LC)
r
X
O (D
N
00
00 M
N N
N 0000
00 O
r -
Ln
N
M
N CCDV
i
a)
C
7
C
U)
Ln U
Ln E
r �
(0
0
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
Cfl
N
M
M
N
N
N
U?
0?
CO
w
O
oo
CV
N
~
r
LO
67
M
LO
-
M
—
N
It
CO
CO
CO
LO 00 w CON ININI N INCO I
N INININ
d'
r
LO LNC
r r
T-8
N
le
LC)
r
X
O (D
N
00
00 M
N N
N 0000
00 O
r -
Ln
N
M
N CCDV
i
a)
C
7
C
U)
Ln U
Ln E
r �
(0
0
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Pa
Thi)
S
S
I
)
s
id UL
d Anni
00
j, N
CO -
Z3 CO > U
O L O N
ID -0
U O
U " N LL
O L
U 3 U)
a)
CO
>' E > U
a) a)Ca
> — L CO
Co (6 Co O a)
O O N LL
E M
N
L
CO
O LL
N �
i) N
O '
?' >
U O
CO 6 -0
Cu
a)
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
O
Ln
Ln
Cfl
rlA
X
X
O
Ln
Ln
N
00
x
Ln
OM
N
00
A
N
0
M
LIQ
N
N
L
i
LO
�
N
r
A
O
Ln
N
r
(fl
AI
v
Z3
°
E c , a) •°
ED
c
O M 0) �
U) Zs c a
U3
O M M O O
O N
N O
L
U
00
j, N
CO -
Z3 CO > U
O L O N
ID -0
U O
U " N LL
O L
U 3 U)
a)
CO
>' E > U
a) a)Ca
> — L CO
Co (6 Co O a)
O O N LL
E M
N
L
CO
O LL
N �
i) N
O '
?' >
U O
CO 6 -0
Cu
a)
ands Restoration Site
ial Report
CD
O
Ln
X
Cfl
X
X
X
N
Ln
Cfl
N
00
x
CD
O
Ln
Cfl
N
N
LO
N
N
Ln
Cfl
N
00
O
00
OM
N
00
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
L
�
M
LO
O N N—
Lr)
N
rlN
CO
r
Phase 3
NT
M
N O
r �
� O
OC) r
00 '
N N
� r
r
67
CO 00
I'- M
N �
M O
0�
1 r
'
N O
� N
N 00
O
N It
00 (fl
r
O
6
O
r
O
N
M
M
O
N
LO - N It Ln
M LO N I CO OCV
ti
LO
T -f
00
LO
T-
M
LO
T-
0
ON
O 0) "1- � N
r 6
O O
M 1 1 1 1
M M M M r
N
CO
r
ti
N
O
CD O
r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
Ln
O
N
LO N
O
r
N
O
r
N
m
L
O
C
O
LO - N It Ln
M LO N I CO OCV
ti
LO
T -f
00
LO
T-
M
LO
T-
0
ON
O 0) "1- � N
r 6
O O
M 1 1 1 1
M M M M r
N
CO
r
ti
N
O
CD O
r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase am
Third Annual Report
e
/
LO
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
\
\
6
6
CO
4
A
2
\
ƒ
\
A
\
\
f
-
\
\
6
6
&
\
r
&
\
^
/
ƒ
H
g
9
E
\
\
A
»-
I
y
R
%
AI
f
% X70
E'0»=
o
0
0
0
0
0
U) =
\ \ j / ƒ
k
\
\
\
\
\
\
§
\
ƒ&mo%\�
s\
e
§
q
&
&
2
&
&
&
/
k
\
00
\
k
00
\
t
t%
A
q/
6
- --
-
-
%
\ R
f f \ o
ƒ k 3
°
CO
CO
CO
5 �
\
\
\
\
\
o R o 3
$ea)�
±
§ /
/
C)
_
f � 0
ƒ /�c
r
n
r
c
m
n
r
\
\
\
\
\
\w
\
\
\ 2 /
= f & ±
\ / \ \
\b\
�&\
7
9
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
\\En
\
0
CU
CU
.
2
�
/
\
k/
k
k
k
k
k
k
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase am
Third Annual Report
e
x
\
/
Ob
CN
CO
X
x
\ & E 9
@ 6 \ Q
Ob N \ / CO d
ƒ N $ b
U') �N CO I co I CN \
\
$
/
E
�
E
_ n
\ E
CU
2
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
/
/
2
n
\
\
6
6
CO
4
\
2
\
\
A
\
\
f
-
\
\
6
6
a
\
r
&
x
\
/
Ob
CN
CO
X
x
\ & E 9
@ 6 \ Q
Ob N \ / CO d
ƒ N $ b
U') �N CO I co I CN \
\
$
/
E
�
E
_ n
\ E
CU
2
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Pa
Thii
N
C
O
N
U
_O
O
L
Z)
T�
1
idUL
d Anni
0
Cn
r -
A
0
Cn
N
Oo
N
T
A
�
d:
O
LO
r`
(N
ti
CO
LO
AI
C
(fl
O
v
CO
E
�. 70
M
N
0 6) C �, aa) '=
Cz
C N Cu a) a)
O
C
0 O N CO O 0
Cfl
N
N
T
M
N
—
=
N
O
T
LO
N
m 0)Ln004-
0\0
T
O
\
M
d O >
M
N
M
\
d'
N
L?
00
N
CN
N
rn
N
L
Ln
O
O
N
N
N
N
—
T
0
N
M
L?
0)
N
It
Cfl
0)�;�
N
Lr)
N00
00
ao
N
�
N
N
O
M
00
CO
It
O
Cfl
00
N
N
It
T
00
N
Ln
Ln
'0 > U
N
Ln
LO
T
rl-
T
O L O (3)
(D 0
ti
r
M
Ln
> (0
Cu
V
7 L (
A
Ln
00
U O
C a) N LL
T
O L �
U � w
a)
>' -0 > U
-0
a) a) Cu
CD
N
O N
N
O O N LL
E 00
N
L
a)
O U-
N
� N
�
N
a) >
U Z O
Co
(C6 CO
T
ands Restoration Site Phase 3
ial Report
d'
v
O
N
N
LO
T
0
rl-
M
N
N
f�
N
M
M
N
00
P-
T -
rl-
Oo
N
r-,
�
d:
U
LO
r`
ti
It
LO
C
00
O
U
CO
E
M
M
N
Cz
0
N
N
Cfl
N
T
M
N
—
=
N
O
T
LO
N
O
N
0\0
T
O
\
M
d
M
N
M
\
d'
N
L?
00
N
CN
N
rn
N
L
Ln
C?O
CO
CO
N
M O
Oo
N
N
d'
0o
N
N
l
M
U
C4
M
N
Lr)
6?T
r
M
N
00
00
N
N
L?
0)
N
It
Cfl
0)�;�
N
Lr)
00
ao
N
�
O
N
O
O
M
M
N
CO
It
O
Cfl
00
N
It
M
It
T
00
N
Ln
Ln
N
�
N
Ln
LO
T
rl-
T
M
N
ti
r
M
Ln
rl-
M
N
N
f�
N
M
M
N
00
P-
T -
rl-
N
�
U
LO
ti
O1
C
O
U
E
T
M
Cz
0
N
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

/
H
g
E
0
70
I
ƒ
x
\
X
x
ƒ
x
®
X
x
\
A
ƒ
/
9
/
%
\
/
2
ƒ
&
(6
®
f
c_
r
n_
\
' 0)c \ » 0
c
} \ ° / k
04\
@
0
> e ) \ 0 0
%
%
} 0
¥
m
\ /
\ \
=
c
—r -
@ 2 \
/
Cb
/ J
/ \
«
/
t /
t $
00
>1
/ 3 \ o
/
/
@
/
\ QD
G /
/ \ \
R 0 ±
4
o
ee= a)
LL
/
0 / \
O R .§
CO
f�0
>RCoR{7
$
/
= m
t
t
= f A LL
k Q�
\ a)\ \
d
k\/
O R •-
N\
a)
N\\
$ 0 =
�&r-
_r_ \
\
\
3: ° \
m 2 0
�JU
a
¥
\
\
k
T-
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase s2 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017
x
X
x
x
/
/
%
/
®
c_
r
n_
\
o
c
04\
\ e
/
¥
/
»
@
$
6
/
�
/
»
/
/
@
/
/
4
/
CO
6
//
k Q�
d
k\/
N\
N\\
6
6
a
¥
Co
t
o®
t#$®¥\=
/
/
/
\ $
ƒ
/
\
/
q
2
\
/
/
/
/
Co
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
k
\
\
\
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase s2 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

Pa
Thi1
N
C
O
N
U
0
LO
r -
n
0
LO
N
A
X
O
O
ZS
N
CV
r
n
N
r
A I
v
O
r
�
00
N
—CO
&
N
X
0�0 O
00
N C�
N
O
CD
r
67
o
o
N
N
LO
r
LO
r M
c
N -0 Q
CO
L
OL M O OL
U 70
r
M
LO
N
d
O
N
LO
L
M
�
M
O
CO r
CO
M
O
+
,
N
I--
O
, r
M
O
00
N
i
M-0
i
N N
i
N
N
I, -M
M
- 00
>1 N
ZS CO
> U
O L O N
> � -0
N" Cfl
_
�
Ll7
N
r M
r
U O
N LL
r
O L �
C) cn
a�
>,CU > U
> O
CO
O
N O �'
CO
I-
r
O
r
O
=O N Ll
00
N
L
O LL
N �
N
ti
fn r
N
N
S
U O
CO
�
S
0
I
)
s
O
00
00
id U Lands
Restoration Site Phase 3
d Annual Report
X
�
N
M
O
r
�
00
N
—CO
&
N
N
CO
0�0 O
00
N C�
N
O
CD
r
67
N
N
N
N
LO
r
LO
r M
00
M
O
N
N
LO
M
M
00
w
M
M
N
00
N
LO
00
CoCO C.0
I U-)
N N
N I N
00
rM
M ,
0� O
N M
N
O r
N N
LD
N
r
ti
N
N
O)
r
X
LO
O
N
I --
C14 N
X
W
00
N
O
r
�
00
N
—CO
&
N
N
CO
0�0 O
00
N C�
N
LO
I--
r
67
r
LO
N
00 00
LO
r
N
r M
ti
r
rl-
N
r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase aw PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017
x
/
X
®
A
X
ƒ
®
9
\
®
9
\
/
ƒ
%
%
7
9
\
7
&
/
2
\
m
M
\
&
ƒ
\
\
/
f
/
&
\
N
@
$ =
Q
ƒ
2
2
AI
a
M
$ _
@
f
k
X70
d\
\ k f / k
©
k
d/\
CD
B 0 M 0 0
N
/
d
k
gym\%=
_
M
\
%
®
A#
$
y
$
/
\
t
dN
\
\
C
«
o
t
t/\
0
§ CO \ o
r
M
M&
M
7 / 2 /
o¥It#
0
o
§CU©
R o ±
/
(N$
t r=
\
L)
2 e & ƒ
N#
o=
N r/
§/s
M&#
c
a R .§
0
\
\
\
>a)(UCD«
/
/
§ 2 / \
CNt
t
_ = q LL
E % 2 c
~
a)
C\1
\
7 0 =
\
�&¥
�s9
r
w
w
/ .�
q
A
� ° >
\
\
U) s o
CO
-
\
-
�
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase aw PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017
x
X
x
X
®
9
CO
9
\
%
%
7
7
&
/
\
\
m
M
\
&
\
\
/
f
/
\
N
@
$ =
Q
ƒ
2
2
/
a
M
$ _
@
2 /
d\
/\
k
d/\
N\/
N
k
d
k
M
N
e«
e
A#
r
t$®=
t
r®
CO
0
¥#
r
M
M&
M
r
o¥It#
o
o c
r
e
t r=
n
t
N#
o=
N r/
M&#
c
\
\
\
\
C\1
\
\
\
\
k
\
\
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase aw PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

Pa
Thil
0
LO
rl-
n
0
LO
LO
N
N n
C
O o
N Ln
U C�
O LO
O CV
O
ZS n
>1-
0
Lq
N
Cfl
AI
v
° C >,
O M
U
C O
C f
V OM CM O
a) p) to 00v- z
- O S
U)
a)
M
0
O
U)
Z N
CU -0 j U
O L O N
> N -
7
U O
N N LL
O )
U 3 U)
m
>' � > U
M0
a) a) M
CO
(6 N
O N LL
E 00
U N
L
a)
° LL
N
a) � N
a) '
U O
S (�
COS 0
I a)
S
id U Lands Restoration Si
d Annual Report
x
M
L
dj
f
Ln
N
N
C9
It
O
M
N
'7
00
67
O
M
�
N
It
Ln
~
O
i
N
N
N
-
N
N
Lr)
~
N
d
00
d'
LO
Lf)
r—
M
CO
CD
Ln
N
N
d'
Ln
—
—
r`
—
LO
N
00
O
N
to Phase 3
x
I�
N
� N
00
00 '
O
N N
N 00
N C6
r-- 00
r�
N
r -
N
x
I- C.0 O
C.0 000 O
N N CA
N CD 0000
N CO—
N
Ln
N
rl-
N
(A O
O
N N
T-15
x
CO
Lf)
M
LO — C6
N N — N
LO CO 0-0
m rn 1 rn
00
O
00 N LO
'IT CO
O
N
N
N
0
C6
r
I--
(14
x
O
67
00
00
N
N
I --
CA
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
Ln
It
N
CY)
LO
N
'7
LL?
c6
W
O
00
6)
O
M
00
i
N
N
N
N
N
N
~
d'
LO
r—
M
CO
CD
Ln
N
rl-
d'
Ln
—
—
N
—
LO
C6
r
I--
(14
x
O
67
00
00
N
N
I --
CA
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
O
rn
N
Ln
N N
LO T
L\
M
N T
00 M
N
LO
r`
N
N
U
x
O
6
N
O
N N
� T
LO T
LO
M T
T
N Ln
00 T
Lr)
T
r--
CN
`N
M
U
X
00
00 O
T �
MLO ,
LO
M N
M
N
00
O
X
� u7 �p
N N N
LO 00 T
L!7
M OD T
T
T O T
00 N M
M
M
T
X
,It
,It
O
r`
x
y
T
N
LO Lfl
C O
M M T
T
0) M M
M
CO
T
r`
N
!Y
U
CO
PCS Phosphat(
r*
N
E
ca
Lia
D
Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
C
O
N
U
i)
O
O
_0
0
LO
r`
n
0
LO
LO
N
n
o
Ln
C�
LO
N
T
A
Lq
N
(I
v
x
o o
C
� C �-
L6
V O CU CM O 0
O 0) N 00 — -0
C\1
N
O >
LO
N
.�
T
Lir)
M
00
>1 Z N
CU "O > U
O L O N
> N -
Co N O
U
N
r`
O
N N LL
O L
U 3 U)
m
>' > U
0
�
N O L6
> ++L CO
M
M O
O N LL
a 00
L
a)
O L
N
�
� N
�
N
O N
U) O
CU
N
Co CO
o
U
L
O
U
O
>
E
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase
3
Third
Annual
Report
x
O
rn
N
Ln
N N
LO T
L\
M
N T
00 M
N
LO
r`
N
N
U
x
O
6
N
O
N N
� T
LO T
LO
M T
T
N Ln
00 T
Lr)
T
r--
CN
`N
M
U
X
00
00 O
T �
MLO ,
LO
M N
M
N
00
O
X
� u7 �p
N N N
LO 00 T
L!7
M OD T
T
T O T
00 N M
M
M
T
X
,It
,It
O
r`
x
y
T
N
LO Lfl
C O
M M T
T
0) M M
M
CO
T
r`
N
!Y
U
CO
PCS Phosphat(
r*
N
E
ca
Lia
D
Company, Inc.
March 2017

\ \ C 0
%\\
\JgE%
2 = e o
S \
O E §'5
g A o 0
» ± E -S $
\ E \
2 m »m CO
\%\\\
) � § F I
E § 2 5 £
0J" \
E -
= r / 7 4
E & ®m
£ 2 ° = a
®\dam
&\/S
_ C: a- = o
.g 2 B O
\ m E f
0 04 I - 3:
§ /
CO e \ a
/ / CO
= t )°
»eƒ7
to % « _\ e
) / 2 E >
E _
\ LL - R ?
_ \ ° 0
CU
\E\=
E = : 2
\ x w S
°
2 �7=
sof 22
C:) CO
E \ % 0
0 / q \
7
/
_\- \
CO CO = o M E '
0\///
/ 2 = n =
_
%%R2�a
U)
k /
= 5 % 0 ® §
.g E _ _ -•
% 0 E 0 CUe
0 \»\ CO
/ k % \ §
LU LO
C6 % % -C §
=E 7 2 .0
5 _ 0 ± _ $
/ f ( &
0
L)
-\
0
I
\
2
x
@
\
/
\
/
��Mm
Em��10
\ �\�V�N V "t \� \
x I x
\ � \
8-0
/
A
E
ƒ
CL
/
\
@
/
/
9
\
\
\
6
N
\
A
6
ƒ
\
/
r#
Al
#
f
4
7
y@
0
U)
\
CO / k
\ 20 §
8
/
CU ®2 0
0
ƒ�En�t�
M
M\
\
2
x
@
\
/
\
/
��Mm
Em��10
\ �\�V�N V "t \� \
x I x
\ � \
CO \I7I/1CO - - /I7 \ /I/ \I/ \
\ U')I-C1$11\
C\1 I\I\1\1\1\1\1 \
� �C" I 1�1LO
1-� 2
\ I \
/
E
CL
%
\
@
/
\
9
/
\
\
\
N
J
6
/
r#
f 6
#
4
7
y@
n©
c»
/
\
M
M\
z-
z/\
0
L\
M/
M/
M
\
CO
r
r
M
n
r=/
r/
r%
CO \I7I/1CO - - /I7 \ /I/ \I/ \
\ U')I-C1$11\
C\1 I\I\1\1\1\1\1 \
� �C" I 1�1LO
1-� 2
\ I \
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase a9 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017
/
E
CL
\
\
/
E
/
E
\
2
/
\
M
0
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase a9 PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

x
x
0
Lf
X
X
x
P-
A n
0
Lf
ti
X
Lf )
N
a)
n
C
N
8-0
L()
U_
N
O)
Lr)
O
N
O
A
2
8-°
0
U)
N
r
A I
(D
V
+. -0
O
C �, a) 'O
C
C
p) O
N
V
N �
� C O-
O O CO O 0
M
CO
0 O
70
d
� O
L
cn
O
M
LOM
00
W
CUN
O > U
O L O a)
a)
O
7 L
M
CO
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
a)
>+:ECO CU > U
> " O
d7
O
O
C O N LL
E N = 00
N
L
a] LQ
O L L
N r'-
N
L .N
N
>
_
N O
Co
(0
C
O
U
(rj
O
N
r
a)
CO
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
Third
Annual
Report
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
y
O O
N N
00 7
LO M
M00
N
00
wk
y
M
6)
N
C0 N
N
Ln
CO
M N
00 N
N
L6
C.0 C\1
M N
L( )
CO Ln
I,- LO N
N N N
t L? 00
6)
CO N 0000
d'
� ti ti
LO N
M
O
Ln
M
M
M
6)
N
M
"T
CO
47 I U') I Co I N I L6 I LO LO
N I N I N I N I N I N ININI
(N
N
V-
T -18 T-18
M
N
V-
It
N
U-) C6 ti 00
N N N N
r r r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

r-
06
T
CO N N
N � N
4 U? a0
W
� N �
M� 00
LO N T
O
6)
N
LO
N
LO
In
M
N
00
N
M
M
T CO
C.0T N
CO
M T
0) M M
M
N
M
M
N
N
T —LO T
M (6 6
Op T
T
� M T
M
T
CD T N
COC—))
C T
i
MCo
r
r
0') M CO
V
C6 T
LO M
M 00
N
M
M
T Cfl
COT N
C6 T
LOC6 C
M � r
r
0) M M
I"I I I
CO M CO M LO CO M (D
r T r r T T T
N I C I N I C I N I N I N I N
CO
T
It
M
T
LO
CO
T�
CO I f� I CO
CO M CO
T r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
0
x
LO
x
x
x
P-
A n
x
0
LO
ti
LO
N
a)
n
C
O
o
U)
U
N
0)
Ln
X
O
N
O
T
A
2
08-°
U?
N
r
A I
(O
V
+. -0
O C �, a) 'O
C
C p) O
N
M
V3 M C
O O CO O O
0
a) N O'0
L
6) M
CO
' CA
N
M LO
CUN
O j U
O L O a)
a)
-0
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
a)
>+:ECO CU > U
a) a)(o
L
O
C O N LL
E N = M
N
L
a) LQ
O L L
N r'-
N
T) T
P-
N
N Z O
Co
(6
C
O
U
CIS
>
C
M
m
CO
I—
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
Third
Annual
Report
r-
06
T
CO N N
N � N
4 U? a0
W
� N �
M� 00
LO N T
O
6)
N
LO
N
LO
In
M
N
00
N
M
M
T CO
C.0T N
CO
M T
0) M M
M
N
M
M
N
N
T —LO T
M (6 6
Op T
T
� M T
M
T
CD T N
COC—))
C T
i
MCo
r
r
0') M CO
V
C6 T
LO M
M 00
N
M
M
T Cfl
COT N
C6 T
LOC6 C
M � r
r
0) M M
I"I I I
CO M CO M LO CO M (D
r T r r T T T
N I C I N I C I N I N I N I N
CO
T
It
M
T
LO
CO
T�
CO I f� I CO
CO M CO
T r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r-
06
T
CO N N
N � N
4 U? a0
W
� N �
M� 00
LO N T
O
6)
N
LO
N
LO
In
M
N
00
N
M
M
T CO
C.0T N
CO
M T
0) M M
M
N
M
M
N
N
T —LO T
M (6 6
Op T
T
� M T
M
T
CD T N
COC—))
C T
i
MCo
r
r
0') M CO
V
C6 T
LO M
M 00
N
M
M
T Cfl
COT N
C6 T
LOC6 C
M � r
r
0) M M
I"I I I
CO M CO M LO CO M (D
r T r r T T T
N I C I N I C I N I N I N I N
CO
T
It
M
T
LO
CO
T�
CO I f� I CO
CO M CO
T r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
Lf )
P-
A n
0
Lf )
ti
Lf )
N
A
0
U)
N
i
U)
N
r
A
O
Lr)
N
r
A I
V
7_
O C V) 'O
C
NM O) 4)
C O-
U p 0) CO p 0
d O N O >
L
N
O
M
W
CUN
O > U
N L O N
U O
N LL
r
O L �
C) v,
m
>+CU � > U
-0 ❑
(1) 4) CO
> +J L CO
(0 O 41
N N LL
E 00
N
L
L -Q
O LLL
N �
i) N
N Z O
M
❑ c6
xi x l x I x I I x I x
x
x
O
N
N
N
E
N
C
LO
N
rl-
O
Cfl
Z
N
6
M
�
M
M
(0
6
M
❑
6)
C6
M
N
M
CO
CO
r
M
N
r
M
L17
N
CD
r
r
(D
r
r
C -0r
N
r
Ir. -r
r
r
N
r
(D
N
O
N
r
r
Ln
N
r
r
N
Ln
i
L\
CO
�
M
a—)
i
CO
00
LO
M
M—
i
�
00
7
(D
r
LO
M
rn
00
4T
M
cfl
LO
rn
6)
N
00
L
,
L\
M
6)
N
00
0W0
i
�
M
4
i
L\
M
M
i
W
M
00
i
00
LO
M
M
i
Co
r
I00 MIM M MIM MMM -IW - NIrl-S - (IM M M
M r 6) 1--0M M Lr)
N LO CO ;1- O CO CO
r r r r r r
INI N I N I N INI N I N
0)
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-20 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
N
N
E
C
N
O
Z
Ln
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-20 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017
rn
C
r
r
�
(0
❑
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-20 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

X X
N N
M M
M M
LO CD
0? W W r
LO CO M L\
M N M
M M
N - M M M
ti ti
N N
O
LO
r �-
se 3 T
X I X I X I X I X
V
N
r
CO
00
M M CO
-21
N
M
M
CO
� � N
O � r
M
M
0) M CO
N
M
CO
CO
O
N
CD
N
M
6
M
CO
M
N
M
M
N
0-0
LO '
M -N
M M
M N
I °' lu,l M
� �
Nrl-
LO
r
ti
N
N
LO
N N N ON
i
C
It
C
W
U)
CO 'I "I
Ln LO LO E
(6
❑
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
a)
C
O
U
0)
O
O
2
0
Lf
P-
A n
0
Lf
ti
Lf )
N
n
o
U)
N
U)
N
A
0
Uf )
N
r
A I
V
70
X
O C �, a) 'O
C
C p) O
N C Q
M
VM
O O CO 0 0
0)
d N O -0
L
�
a)
M
M
W
CUN
O j U
O L O a)
a)
-0
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
a)
>+:ECU > U
- ❑
m a)M
L
O
C O N LL
E N = M
N
L
a] LQ
O L L
N r'-
N
L .N r
N
N O
❑ (6
C
O
U
M
>
W
r
m
CQ
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Pha
Third
Annual
Report
X X
N N
M M
M M
LO CD
0? W W r
LO CO M L\
M N M
M M
N - M M M
ti ti
N N
O
LO
r �-
se 3 T
X I X I X I X I X
V
N
r
CO
00
M M CO
-21
N
M
M
CO
� � N
O � r
M
M
0) M CO
N
M
CO
CO
O
N
CD
N
M
6
M
CO
M
N
M
M
N
0-0
LO '
M -N
M M
M N
I °' lu,l M
� �
Nrl-
LO
r
ti
N
N
LO
N N N ON
i
C
It
C
W
U)
CO 'I "I
Ln LO LO E
(6
❑
U
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
a)
C
O
_U
0)
O
O
0
Lf)
P-
A n
0
Lf)
ti
Lf)
N
n
o
U)
N
u7
N
A
8-02
N
r
A I
V
a. 70
X
X
x
X
C
O C �, a) 'O
X
X
.N
.§
M
M
a) N-0 C Q
i O a)M 0 0
64
67
N
O7
70
�
N
a) � O
L
N
N
N
LO
U)
Lf)
6
M
M
W
CUN
O > U
O L O a)
a)-00
+ (0 (0
M
M
L1
00
00
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
a)
>+:ECU > U
> - " (0M
M O -6
(0 3:a)
N
C O N LL
E N = M
N
L
a) LQ
O L L
N r'-
N
T)
N
N
(n Z o
CU
C
O
U
M
O
LA
LO
(Q
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase
3
Third
Annual
Report
x
X
X
x
X
C
X
X
.N
N
M
M
N
T 0-0
LO i
M—
N
00
M 04 N -
y
M
LO (D
N
I Lj
LO M
M U-)
N d'
LO r
N
L(7
r
Q0
d'
i
LO
CO
M
,It
V
r CD
C.0 � N
� � r
i
1-0
M 0
r
M M Cl)
N I N I N I N I N
CO
LO
V-
D)
Ln
r
T-22
O
r
r
CD
r
N
r
r
(0 � N
T
i
L\ (0CSD
M 0
r
It
M M
N
M
M
� >
N N O
Z
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
C
.N
CO
�
N
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

x
N
M
M
r
r N
M
M r
m M M
C7)
(0
r`
N
r
x
r CO
N
(9 r
LO CDM
00 r
M M CO
O7
r`
N
T-23
x I x
N
0
N
LO
M
P-
M
A n
M
0
M
LO
r
r`
x
r
CO
LO
N
O
A
C
N
8-0
U)
M
U_
N
M
0)
u7
00
r
r
O
N
r
O
r
-
A
M
M
M
2
08-°
U)
N
r
A I
(9
V
+. -0
O C >' a) ,O
C
C p) O
N
N
3 M C
V O O M O 0
M
M
0 '0
d N O
L
r
M
LOM
00
W
CUN
O j U
O L O N
D
7 L ,
0') M
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L �
C) v,
m
>+CO CU � > U
OO M
L
Lf)
> O
LO
C O N LL
E00
N
L
L -Q
O LL
N �
N
.N r
N
N Z O
Co
C6
C
O
U
CIS
>
LO
CO
r
�
>
CO
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
Third
Annual
Report
x
N
M
M
r
r N
M
M r
m M M
C7)
(0
r`
N
r
x
r CO
N
(9 r
LO CDM
00 r
M M CO
O7
r`
N
T-23
x I x
r` r`
co CO
r r
r`I r`
N N
CO
co CO
r r
Co
C IT
M IT
00
CO N
CO
'IT u7
r r
CO
r`
N
x
N
M
M
r
(0 r N
CO r
LO
CO r
CO r
M CO CO
r`
N
ti r`
r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
r
N
r
CO
CD
M
M
r
00
r
r
00
r
-
M
M
M
M
r` r`
co CO
r r
r`I r`
N N
CO
co CO
r r
Co
C IT
M IT
00
CO N
CO
'IT u7
r r
CO
r`
N
x
N
M
M
r
(0 r N
CO r
LO
CO r
CO r
M CO CO
r`
N
ti r`
r r
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

0
Lf )
P-
A n
0
Lf )
ti
x
x
x
x
x
Lf )
N
a)
n
C
O
o
U)
N
_U
0)
U)
x
x
O
N
O
r
A
2
8-°
N
r
AI
(9
V
x
a. -0
-
O
C >, a) 'O
CU p) Q
N
CO
N
Lr)
r--:
N
O
00
L
N
O O CO O 0
M
N
M
V
N
M
0 -0
a)
N --
L
r
N
N
CO
QO
r O
N
[1-r
r
N
r
CD (fl
r
CA
M
N
Ln
NN
M
CT r
Q—
r
N
-4
- N
Lf') 00
C�
d'
LCi
❑
(D
C4
LO
LOLOD
CD
M CO
N
Z
LO
(
(D
0
M CO
M
N
N
M
—
00
—
r
—
M00
—
00
— r
r
M
M
oo
r
r
M
LO M
-OC)
M
W
CUN
O j U
O L O a)
a)-0❑
' (� (a
d
I-
�
M
It
r
'It LO
d
cY
I-
CO
00
It r
d
CO
Lr)
7 L ,
M
M
r
00
M
N
r r
V
00
CA
M
r
d
r N
r
Lr)
r
U 0-0
C a) N LL
r
O L �
C) v,
a)
>+:ECO CU > U
❑
a) CO
r
CLO O
O
M O-6
CO 3:a)
C.0
r
M
r
LO
r
0-)
f
r
N
r
r
O N LL
E N = 00
N
L
a) LQ
OLLL
N r' -
CV
N r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
a)
N Z O
Co
❑ C6
I�
C
4
0)
C
O
D
N
M
�
Ln
m
CD
r-00
CA
CIS
>
ti
t
ti
ti
r
r
r
ti
r
r
a)
>
r
C6
mo
M
IO
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
T-24
PCS Phosphate
Company,
Inc.
Third
Annual
Report
March
2017

f -
N
U?LO ,
N
M
00
00 -
00
N
r
ti
N
T-
oo
r
O
6)
N
LO
N
Ln
Ln
M
N
00
ti
N
N
00
r
M
C6
0
M
C6
Ln
L6
=
x
Ln
V
Lf
N
M
M
17
r
M
N
M
M=
P-
L?
N
,I
0
T
L\
M
N
00
'6
6)
N
00
N\
-
=
=
A n
Q
Z
-M
M
-M
N
r
r
LO
N
in
M
0
LO
M
Lf
ti
X
Lf )
N
0)
n
C
N
8-0
U)
U_
N
0)
Ln
O
N
O
A
A
2
08-°
U)
N
r
A I
CO
V
+. -0
O
O) C V)'O
C
C
p) O
N
V
N
3 M C a
O O CO O 0
M
M
O
d
� O >
L
N
Q
CO
00
00
CO
CUN
a j U
O L O N
O -
(a
M
04
7 L ,
a7
N
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
m
>' >U
O 4) CO
L
O a
LO
C ON LL
E N = 00
N
L
LQ
O L L
N r'-
N
L .N r
N
>
_
N Z O
Co
C
O
U
(rj
>
00
r
0)
>
CO
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
Third
Annual
Report
f -
N
U?LO ,
N
M
00
00 -
00
N
r
ti
N
T-
oo
r
O
6)
N
LO
N
Ln
Ln
M
N
00
ti
N
N
00
r
M
C6
M
C6
Ln
L6
=
x
Ln
V
N
M
M
17
r
M
N
M
M=
\
d.
LOCT)
M
L?
N
,I
0
T
L\
M
N
00
'6
6)
N
00
N\
-
=
=
LO
M
Q
Z
-M
M
-M
N
r
r
LO
N
in
M
67
LO
N r
0-0 r
r
LO
M
CD
I N M I d I� I I M M M I oN0 O d
O I fD I Co I( I L I CO I LO
-LO 00
N I N INININI N I N
M I I Ln I CD I ti I CO
00 CO Co Co 00 Co M
C r - ' r r I --
T-25
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

ƒ
P-
- ƒ
\
x
x
x
/
ƒ
\
X
x
&
\
ƒ
\
x
\I
f
x
\%__>V
\\ 0/
f
r
om
tfk
_
e 0 CO 2 0
®
\\
/
\
\
ƒ���0
/@
M/
9
+
It m Q
@®@
4
7
$ %
o a
7 %
c M
g 9
n I+
\
» k
/
/
/ / k
/ $ k
/ $ /
M n
M
n
n I
n c
n=_
00
>1
CU
f \ 0
k -0 0
.2
It
&
$
$
i
M / M
M \ M
\ & /
\ 2 \ 2
7
(D =a)
±
/ /
U R ,§
f �-0
ƒk"=
e
c
=
#
c
w
\ M 0
Q0
/
e
/
(D
/
= f N ±
\ a)\ \
J R -
m�=
7 0 =
�&\
779
w
w&
r
w
w
w
/ 2
q
A
N
N
N
a
R = \
m 5 0
Co
LO
\
k
\
\
�
/
\
\
X
CO
\
\
x
I
7 \ Q CO
/ / � /
m
n / \
M \ CD / M
\
\
\
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase am PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

x
I-
06
M
CD N
N
-'T Ln
LO 67
N
M
�
(D 00
O
ti
N
O
O
N
v
T-27
rl-
N
M
O
N
X
N
M
CO
r
O �
O O
L\ M
M 00
M
ti
N
x
LO (.0
N N
Ln d7
CO N
M M �
NIt r
00 - M
LO
LO
N
X
It
M
LO
N
Ln
67
M N
IT
N Cfl
LO r
M
O
rl-
N
x
O O
LO di i
M
M
0') CO
O
(D
I -
C14
r N M
� r r
N N N
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017
0
Lf
P-
A n
0
Lf
ti
X
Lf )
N
a)
n
C
O
o
L)
N
_U
O)
Lr)
O
N
O
A
2
08-°
U)
N
r
A I
(O
V
+. -0
O
O C >' a) ,O
C
C
O O
�
V
N � C O-
0M O O
67
N
O7
d
N O
L
I�
N
N
N
LO
00
(B
O
N
M
00 M
r
W
CUN
O > U
O L O a)
a)
-0
U 0-0
N LL
r
O L
C) v,
a)
>+:ECO CU > U
>
O aLO
C O N LL
E N = M
N
L
a] LQ
O L L
N r�-
N
L .N
N
N Z O
Co
(6
C
O
U
CIS
>
ti
O
O
>
N
CO
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase 3
Third
Annual
Report
x
I-
06
M
CD N
N
-'T Ln
LO 67
N
M
�
(D 00
O
ti
N
O
O
N
v
T-27
rl-
N
M
O
N
X
N
M
CO
r
O �
O O
L\ M
M 00
M
ti
N
x
LO (.0
N N
Ln d7
CO N
M M �
NIt r
00 - M
LO
LO
N
X
It
M
LO
N
Ln
67
M N
IT
N Cfl
LO r
M
O
rl-
N
x
O O
LO di i
M
M
0') CO
O
(D
I -
C14
r N M
� r r
N N N
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
March 2017

X
O
O
N
Ln (D
N N
LO r
L\
M
00 M
N
LI)
X
O
O
N
O
LO N N
� r
LO r
LO
M r
r
N Ln
00 r
Lr)
r
r—
C14
M
U
X
00
00 O
r �
c d
M ,
M N
M
N
O
O
X
"Zi- LO
N N N
LO 00
L\
M 00
r Or
00 N M
M
M
r
X
LO
L()
r
Lf )
M
N
NT
CO
r—
X
M
r O
� r N
O r
O 66 O
� O
M M r
r
M M M
v
U
CO
PCS Phosphat(
L
a)
.Q
E
a)
U
a)
a)
E
a)
O
Z
if
.N
N
E
ca
Company, Inc.
March 2017
0
L( )
n
0
Ln
�
X
LO
N
a)
n
C
N
LO
N
_U
O
O
Ln
O
N
r
A
2
Lq
N
r
A I
O
V
-O
O O ,O
C
O p) a)
W
4) � Q
�
Lf)
O COD M O 0
N
a) 00 4— -0
v O -C
LLi
a)
.�
r
LO
M
Cn 00
>1 Z N
N
OCO> U
NL O (D
a)�D
>
=3 N O
N
U O
N " N LL
O a)
U Ln
m
>' > U
a) N co
>++ L O
O
. 6 CO O N
N
O O N LL
E00
L
a)
CO O LL
N
�
N
ti
N
N
En O
CU
a)
CO �
(n
o
U
�
O
U
CIS
m
E
P and
U Lands
Restoration Site
Phase
3
Third
Annual
Report
X
O
O
N
Ln (D
N N
LO r
L\
M
00 M
N
LI)
X
O
O
N
O
LO N N
� r
LO r
LO
M r
r
N Ln
00 r
Lr)
r
r—
C14
M
U
X
00
00 O
r �
c d
M ,
M N
M
N
O
O
X
"Zi- LO
N N N
LO 00
L\
M 00
r Or
00 N M
M
M
r
X
LO
L()
r
Lf )
M
N
NT
CO
r—
X
M
r O
� r N
O r
O 66 O
� O
M M r
r
M M M
v
U
CO
PCS Phosphat(
L
a)
.Q
E
a)
U
a)
a)
E
a)
O
Z
if
.N
N
E
ca
Company, Inc.
March 2017

O Q O
N_
O
�O (1)+U �,
:
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
L -
>
O
fn
d
a)
C
.-C Q)
O
+
O
NO
'E cO
N
0>(
;
T
:E0
0 0 0 0 O O O O O
T
O
N
U E
O
3
Q)
N O
3 o C
-------------------------------------------
---
-�--*--------
0
U 0 U
L
�' Q)
* * * O x * * * *
W CO O MCC) O T T CM O Ln
T
T
I-
CA
ti
N
T
T
N
Q) p 0
O
U) T
M_ - N_ N CO N N T T
N N * T * M � * " * �
M
(D
N
�
T-
�
O
T
Q
Q)
-0 O
L N W L
(0
U
00 T C�') O 00 O N
00-
T
CO
U)
N O
= C
N
.�
CU
O
(n
M
T
T
N
-0 N Co
-
Q)
N
T
(.0
OT
(flaj
>p
\\
O O O
\M
M
Q
CO
D
M
.�
U
d
m
Q
U p
O>,
CN
Ln
O
o CO O
U U
Co
00
C
75
O
_0
T T T T O O C) T T O
O
T
'IT'
p O
_ Q)
N
_X
D
E
Q)
C
N
Q) '-' a)
LL.
*
a)
C
O N r-
C CO p U
t
C
(B
(0
L
*
0 0 00 O T O* *
M M L�
MCY) M
*
CO
N
f�
N
N
*
N
O
Q
Q)
L
Q
3
E N
T N T T*
N T
T
T
T
Q)
CoU)
N
C 2 O
C
CD (0
I� N t N� N
N
LO
N
O
t3 C
o
U
N
N
LO
(j)
I-
(6 O51COE
CO
T
3
p. COU
O
_
J
N
T
Ur
.�
L
o L E
U
T T T T O T T\\ T T
O O
T
T
T
p
3C
O
C �m
CO
�
=3
V
CO N
-a
N
U)
O
n\
T T T T O OTOO
O0)
O
-r
>
U Q=
O
D
0
L(3LD_
° 0
-o
Co
v
-
E
LL
E
�
LU) 0
_
T T T T
OLO
O
>
M
D
LO
E>O
>
L
>_
Q) C
O-
d
O
L
N
N
E
Q) (n O E
3
p
C
p
0 p
V^
(nT
-
O OO TO O
O
00
LO
RI-
00
LO
N
U 3
p
E
CD
p
O
>O
- (n Q)
3
n
U
O
U
O
(� O Q) :SC
O M
LO N
N
0)
-
N
O
Q) O U O
T
m
M
M
COS
M
C
p (
3 p
O T 0 0 0 C) O O O O
\
Q(n
.O
3
> O
U) Q)
O
O
T
T
T
T
L
O O
U
LL
Q)
N
N
N
N
- O Co p
Cfl O -p
C
O
E
Q
O)
C
L
3
O N
(O
CO
0
L
U
Q) OL
=
O
=
O
(n
Q)
5
O
6
Q)
o
Q
Z
Q
Z-0
O
t E
L
Q)
Q)L
C
Q)
(A
E>
C O
Eo u
0
3>
v)
3 C O (� C
L
L
L
W
_
Na)
:F�-
C
Q)
C6
C6
Ln
L
M
U, '- >
L L-0-0
i (6 E N E
E
O
*k
U
C
O>
w
C
O
a�
C
3 m_a
U
>�
3
U
Q)
U U
Q> p
O
C L C >, O_ >
M Q) p 0 0 3 3 3 Q) U O
U
Q)
O>
Q)
w-
0
0
O
LL
W
W
I— >Lc O
2
�LL:2Q���QCn0Z
0
I—
W
*k
LL
@
*
—
N ti
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-29 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

m
c
m
C1
wo
2
Cn
a)
a)
0
a U) m
C 2 O
N
LO LO O LO O N O
O W� W W
O W LO I- t--
V O O CT (fl
W CO r
(O
a) Cn
W M LO
-
N O O O
O
a)
CO W O
O CO N O
O O O
N O
CL o >
V M
CU
@
O
(O (O LO LO LO
COM
LO r- LO (O
� M W
r- r- N N
O
1- CO O
r- W
CO
H
W CO W CO M W LO -
O W 00 W
LO t` W r.- r.-
W f - O O W
r- O 00 �O
W r-
CO
7
to
C
U >
M W W r O 00O 00
O h N N
M0 O LO
O O W n
M M CO
Cl) f�
r�
p a
W LO r --LO OO
rl W
LO CO W CO r
W (O O O CO
(O W W
W CO
M
m
O Cl) 'IT
N V O00 r.0
V O CO C)
W
O
(p
0
M G)` N
CO a) 00 W
W LO (W9 00
M
Cl) O
M 00 W
O
M
Cn
cri
E
N
CO
LO .-
LO V M r LO CO
f� W f�
V(D N 0
N O �
0 00 CO
e- N
0') V O
N
N O O
O (O
Q) LO
O N
O C
f�
N
CO
LL
LO d. W O
LO CO M
N O O
00O
V N 00';q
-
(O
M 0) CO O
W W W r- r
W V CD CI\O
Q O M
00 W
W M
CO
Map
W _ Ict 0)
O CO N
Cfl
CO N LO CO M
0 0 0
W CO G)
(O N
It � M t -t`
O M V
(O M V M
N CLC)
N CT
p
V LO N
CO 6)
t` t` -
(V
r
LO
N
^ C'')
rn
E
a)) N
(D:3
O O O N O N
O M O
O N LO O
O N O O
O O O O
N M
O t\
C
N
a)
Cn
(6
CO
O (O N M
N LLo O OCD M
_ r �_ M O
o O NC14
(O d' M
CO
O p)
¢
V LO N
'�
W 6) M
t` t`
00
N LO
C')
0 '�
't M W M M M
O N WO r-- O
U,� N ti
00 N M
M
t`
(`')
Cl)
0) (D
0) O
LO LO N O r- N
ItO
p O V
M
Cor--
W Co_ N
t` f�
p O N
.- N T
C14N
N LO
O
H
h
E m
N N
co co
O N
E
E
@Y
C
to
U)
LD
O
OO
O
n
N
E
00Y
Y
T
U
p
O
o 0 M
)
C6 E
o U) U)
L
a)
a
_m
O_ O
(D
Y CO
0L Y
i @ N
U)Y
Q C
h
`) O L O U M O
n Q •CO O
p O p- U O
O >+ O_ (0
O- E O
m >'
OM
c m CO a)
Y
tz U
> a@
in ¢
a
3
-j 3 m
— o m E
0
3 ate)
c�
(n (n
o U)
U a CO ¢
CO a o
rn w
ami m
c ° m
m
co
Q) E
yr
m
m
a m Ca
m m
c
m
(D4U)
m m . CO 0
a)
Q) c
— m
m o c
m ._
m
Ea
m
y
N CO 0) Q Cll m
U
:zz
CQy
M a L
M
•L
Ui
'L
� N
.�
N 0 4
N N CO
° CO N
a0 ° m
i Cd CC O a
.CU -OQ
m
.� m Cn
a° m
m t a s
� m a-0
°c am)
.c
m
,�
CB @ �' G
Q sZ
U
LLC
N N Cd N t i O S'
G CO j
N N
N ,�
l4
rn�m0U�Ut�
zzzaaC0c
c c c c
c c r_F_
C) C) o_Za
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-30 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

70
0
\
/
—
\
CD
C 0 0 0 C—
N 0 \ > @ \ » ®\ \
0 ES
—N r r o&
=a/
�
�~
CU M
or= m o o=�
a w w 2#= r= w=_
m,
}/
k2
o r= r= w o o= o
a,_
}\
c== a m= r w w c
1--
0
=r o m = o
00C.0
r= r(.0 = r#\
0 a
0
a
2
\
E
±�
{ §
_ — — — — r o o a
/ o/
m q
\ /
}
/
% z 7 CO a g CO y\
c»
k j
0
® ® CO00r ®�
a r a
0
2
Cl)
k $
\
C')
(D
@ a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0\
CO
CO �
s#
/
_
7 2& Nt\% e Q k
7/
E
Cq
7 R
#
a
<
@ _ $ 4 Q $ 2 CO /
»
m
\
G
#
C q
_
/
(�
\§
> 6
. ;
/\
M
E
§
® k
E
E
E
e
\ ) \
f
CO
$
0
_
0 az :3\
%
+ 0 § \ k
3
E
§ §
2 0 a»\ E
e%
g
/ § _0 ƒ \ \ \ �
%
@
:t:;
\ \
\
CO 7 CO / & ƒ /
/
»
a E
/ 0
.
0 E f E
_
°
§
k 0 \ / , \ , 0 \
CL
2-
\ t / 2 5 / / \ /
2\
\
Z , _
% \ / / / \ \ ± \ ƒ
Pand uLands Restoration sb Phase s$ PCSPhosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report Mar 2017

C
o w (.0
C «E N
CO M O t-- � O M. CO Co. O O�
O
0
0
�.
U N C
NC)
N O O N O O M O N O O
O
(0
a o >
a M
M mO
o 0 0 0 O �y O O O 0 0
O
o
HM
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
7
rn
C
U j
O O M 0 0 0 O
IL Q
"
cac
V
CO M N LO 1� O CO O M M M O CO
l[) I�
I�
�- N
CO
N I.-
CO N
�
N 't
N a
E
� N
N
O O CM N 0 0 0 0 0 I-, O O O 0 0 CD
D
O O
M
LO
N
O
CO
LL
>
LOCO M O S O CO a) CO CO M O V)
CMO O)
CO
to O
Q
N M
N d
M@
LO 't N� V N O 0 CD 0 V) O
M N U')N
I"G
O O
N
O V'
p
F
C'7
V
N V
to
� N
N �
N y
C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
�- N
0
0 0
0
r N
C
m
m
LO N V N 0 0 0 M V) O
CO
00 GAO
G
O O
N
Q) M
Q
N M
d'
N lzt
mC
N 1� O M M M M O CO
CO CO
01 U)
N Ch
M a
(6 C6
Q
�
E N
E N
E .N
N to
2 to
w C
CO CO
CO CO
V)
Q) p
N .I.
Q p
.I.
A
CO
E�c)
~ 0
m
O
~
O
E
7 N
o
L
U
o
O
U
Y O
6 ° O YE N N a
i
N
CL
O
CU
(U
i
CL N
U
a
aNi
L L L N d Y O L Y O Q.
(0 >
N
L
y
CO
o m `o a Q `O o CL o o a CL
Q)
M
3
E E 6 U E 3)"O -O a a)
�-
s
> C°°°
a O N U C N M C -O O N -p
O
CO
Y
°6 nCO m 0 3: a) (CO
Q
Z)
A
U CO �
CO
m
N
.2Uto
Q)N > s;
o
to o o U a"i 'c =
Q)
ami
c
.5
.k CO E •�
U
N
N
d U Q U O N y
m° m m °Q
3
w
Z3 ti a m v i 'o
�°
-
4) m c c CO Z p 'z" 2 m a m m
m
o
`m o Q E a s E
('o a`
w
-j m U LL Z Z Z a CY C'1 C'1 C'1 I- F= h U a
h U
O
N
3
E
0
m
(U
N
a
N
L
F-
0) m
c
Q
E
N
w
r
c
0
a
0
t
c
C
_O
N
E o
d >
N
a tT
(U C
a
m E
0. m
O C
� O
C U
N (U
N
0
CL U
N
O (U
C C
O y0
O
C C
N (U O
tT
N O x
0
o �
a) = o
U
N f0 (6
N
o y m
M
a) O N
E
M E N
C d CO
y o
L (U N
Y
t @
(U O
C O
N
u) ON U
�_ a c m
� � U
U +
a a O m
m c.> 3
0)o m m
@ wU N >
m N
N MO 7
.0
a) N @ E
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 T-32 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Al1RORA •E r, } ;I rr
a. IyI Olt)
di y
SOUTH CREEK
- -- 'xCORRIDOR ., i S '• E.. �__4 I
,
,
-
j-
.� P LANDS a '•.,
SOUTH CREEK
coRRIDOR PHASE2 --
PHASE 1
m PHASE 2 P LANDS
PHASE
PHASE 4 COBAY CITY
5NTROL srt
U LANDS f
_ m PHA 1 s� o. -,.•'�
PHASE
_ P LANDS PARKER FARM
SECTIONS A -J
ZIL;T., 35'14'15.04"
LONG: 76'46'19.20" .
RODMAN NI'�y
CONTROL � -
_ _-- --
SITE .--'-'
CASEY TRACT
PHASE 4
U LANDS P LANDS 2 ➢ �r ro>*s ./ _.r - '
ULANDS w w.
- fs V
+
LEGEND
P and U LANDS BOUNDARY
P and U LANDS PHASE 3
0 6,000 12,000
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR AND
PARKER FARM BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH CAROLINA VICINITY MAP
P AND U LANDS PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
SITE LOCATION PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P and U LANDS
SOURCE: SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009 DATE: 10/20/16 FILE: PLANDS_VIC_PH3_
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE 2016
NAD 1983EFEETRT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES, CP#1745.59.32.3
�^ ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
EIV2
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]

PHASE 3 - AREAS PLANTED (1,357.28 ACRES): PHASE 2
® ZONE 1 RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST P LANDS
D ZONE 1A TAR—PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER
D ZONE 2 HEADWATER FOREST
® ZONE 2A TAR—PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY
207 0
ROADS
1PULPS 8
SMALL ROAD
BERMS AND PARKING AREAS
0
FORESTED WETLAND
0
PULPS 14
_.!
® ZONE 2A TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER ALSO
0
UN—PLANTED 2 FOOT CHANNEL
L
PHASE 2
PLANTED WITH LIVE STAKES 5 X 5 SPACING
(SEE DETAIL AREA 2)
•
PHASE 3 WELL LOCATION
NOTE:
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY (3,666.92 ACRES)
0
PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
PLPS 6
CONTROL WELL
BUFFER PLOT B
0
BUFFER PLOT A 7
119
D ZONE 3 NON—RIVERINE SWAMP FOREST
PULPS 15
(TOTAL ACREAGE INCLUDES 12.52 ACRES OF
O
0
p
zoa
© U
2 CHANNEL
PULP
'
�
ts4°
' 167 ,sa
•
1s °`
•
115 I�
BUFFER PLOT C
D ZONE 4 POND PINE POCOSIN FOREST
or
174
°—
175 • 161
v ..-N\\
`—' 1ta
123 Q
O ZONE 5 HARDWOOD FLAT 1
0
©
211 Q 210 171
_ Q 125 124
Zt 40' CHANNEL 121 /
ZONE 6 HARDWOOD FLAT 2
COUNTY LINE
BAY
CITY FARM
TiW15mON AREA
t27
126BUFFER
131 BUFFEnR \`-`��
$ •--�—• EDGES OF CHANNEL PLANTED WITH LIVE STAKES
1`
172 °
°170
OF ERF
% PLOT D 4✓
EVERY 3 FEET (SEE DETAIL AREA 1)
w
P AND U LANDS PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
130
,122
132
w
W y w w
W
D 04112840
1` 129•®®
A,
4 PULPS 6
v W
J
W W W
BCRW-44❑°
`
PHASE3 BAY CITY
No.
w W W W W W
y W W W
Ow W
PHASE 1 0
PULPS 5
W
W W W W
W
PULPS 17
- j
�\
BCRW-29
BCRW-33
N
W W W W W W
w W W W W W W
w w w W W y
W
PHASE 4
BAY CITY
o
PHASE 1
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
PULPS 22
W W W
"
W y
w
y U LANDS
BCRW-17 U1
P LANDS
EXECUTIVE ROAD/ -
y .
W
.
FARM
JAIME ROAD 193 - —
W
W
CONTROL
PULPS 23 •194
PULPS 21
--�
'
SITE
o
196
PULPS 24 195 _ -AN
187
r188
W
. W
N
B AY CITY No. 3
o u W 138
197 ° ®137 x 135
RODMAN 186 las WWW 141x x ®x • 134°
CONTROL 198 / a x x 140 139 136
zo1 Q
-------------r-� 142 0 t
RC -1 147
Z O
184 FSC Q 150 IPULPS 16
RC -2
Z
RC -3 H A S E 4 - 183 O • _— - O _< 146 ® 144 0145 148 O 14 152
°
U LANDS 161
143 2
O ® N �'- BAY CITY lQ; °® 15 ,
C 182
°_ 155
p ©5 180 ®160 15a . BAY CITY No.
1
z PULPS 19
120
4--
E
E ,
10
SMALL ROAD
PHASE 1
P LANDS
PHASE 1
LEGEND — PHASE 3 (1.755.10 ACRES
z
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY
207 0
ROADS
—
®
BERMS AND PARKING AREAS
0
FORESTED WETLAND
0
FORESTED NON—WETLAND
_.!
OPENWATER
0
UN—PLANTED 2 FOOT CHANNEL
L
UN—PLANTED 25 OFF—SET
PHASE 4 NOT PLANTED IN 2014
•
PHASE 3 WELL LOCATION
NOTE:
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY (3,666.92 ACRES)
TREE SAMPLING PLOT
PHOTO STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION
PLPS 6
CONTROL WELL
BUFFER PLOT LOCATION
z
207 0
1
_:57
154 169
rn
i0
206
a
- 0 D,
n� 177
0tts
®
159
_•
NOTE:
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY (3,666.92 ACRES)
Z7
209 178 •
P LAN D,S
166
PULPS 15
(TOTAL ACREAGE INCLUDES 12.52 ACRES OF
O
0
p
zoa
© U
Q
LANDS
PULP
'
1 8
ts4°
' 167 ,sa
•
1s °`
•
RIGHT—OF—WAY ALONG STATE ROADS NOT
PLANTED)
.L7
®
®73
174
°—
175 • 161
163 °® `
ROAD
0
©
211 Q 210 171
°
`
162
•
COUNTY LINE
Z =
MONITORING LOCATIONS
D
1`
172 °
°170
m m
P AND U LANDS PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
•212
2130
w
`
'`
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
O
PULPS 17
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.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 021417 FILE: PLANDS_PLANT_MON_
WELL PH3 2016
0 1,400 2,soo CP#1745.59.32.3
7 4709 COLLEGE ACRES
SUT DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET L WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL CONSULTANTS FAX 910ATED TEL /392-9139 392-9253 FIGURE 2

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: INC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
WEBSITE: WWW.NCMAPONE.COM
SOILS
P AND U LANDS
PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE
COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/17/17
>
-1
4709 COLLEGE ACRES UIDRIVE2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
CP#1745.59.32.3
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
f
G
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS BOUNDARY
N)
�O
O
D
•
WELL LOCATION AND TREE MONITORING PLOT
�L
(WELLS TO MONITOR LATERAL DRAINAGE EFFECT
l/
MAY NOT HAVE A TREE PLOT. LOCATIONS ARE
S!y
APPROXIMATE.)
Po
0
O
SMALL
ROAD
D
CONTROL WELL
PO
PHA 2
PO 70.
PH
113 112
111
Do
Wd
116114
117
119
SOILS
120 Ayv
118
SYMBOL
SOIL NAME
V
+ `
Pt
Pt
Pt
125
12
\_ _ \ 0 PHASE 3
PERENNIAL
124
Da121 PHASE
_ i
INTERMITTENT
127
,26
Po
-
TO
Wd
131
122
Do
DARE (ORGANIC)(723.0 ACRES)
Pt
BAY CITY
FARM
,3a
132
13
Do
DOROVAN (ORGANIC (1.2 ACRES)
126 129
4
Po
PONZER (ORGANIC)((896.3 ACRES)
BCRW-44
ASE3
gqY CITY
No.
Pt
PORTSMOUTH (MINERAL)(11.0 ACRES)
p
P F1
To
TOMOTLEY (MINERAL)(16.8 ACRES)
Po
BCRW-29
BCRW-33
Wd
WASDA (ORGANIC)(103.7 ACRES)
PHASE
4
BAY CITY
0 HYDRIC
SOILS
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
Da PO
U
LANDS
FARM
BCRW-17
EXECUTIVE ROAD/ 192 To
JAIME ROAD 193AA
CONTROL
P
LANDS
NOTE:
194 197
SITE
ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL
Pt 96
[
OR ORGANIC.
195
188
187
BY CITY
A
No.
RODM
197
138 37
CON OL186
SITE PO
198 PO
185
142 141 40
136 135
734
201
39
F
RC -1
147
151
TO RC -2
184
150
RC -3
PHASE 4183
r n
'44
148
149
U LANDS
Da 181
Z O
mc:
145
143
146
NOS 2
NO.
153
152
c182
zt
CITY
BAS 156
155
PO
�
O
180
ns
0
ro
160 158
BAY
CITY No
1 Y
z A
z 207 O
206 D
Da
157
154
169
�7
m
x
0
177
176
159
P LANDS
70 209
0 208
178
,66
166
U
LANDS
,65
167
Po
o
\
;O
174
173
175
161 162
,64
163
_LI
=
E OAD
N R
{1
9.
_
1
210
17,
,.
? _
D
nz
no
ym m >
z 212 PO 213
-
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.
SOIL SURVEY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, US DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONVERSATION SERVICE,
ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 1995
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: INC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
WEBSITE: WWW.NCMAPONE.COM
SOILS
P AND U LANDS
PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE
COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN
APPROVED BY:
DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/17/17
FILE: P_LANDS_SOILS_PH3_
2016
-1
4709 COLLEGE ACRES UIDRIVE2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
CP#1745.59.32.3
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 3

c
k.
Jir
Air
SOUTH CREEK CANAL . "
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
92
JAIME ROAD 193 1s1•
°19a
•
O 19s
SMALL ROAD P LANDS
'PHASE 2
Ji PHASE 3113 12 • 111 yl� O'0 PHASE 1
1140
1160 0117 0119 A
0 2' CHAHN , r
1200
_ I .� 120 °115 b 23 ®118
Ay9�lopO 12 1240 140'CHANNEL 121 • v S
�
PHASE 3
,RAN0N AREA PHASE 1
,
a
B CITYFARM_ 127 •126
TRANS
MON
n
•izz
0 1330 •128 129 0130 132
Q7 4
NO
BCRW-44 0 PHASE3 BAY CITY .
s PHASE 1 n
-1
BCRW-29
BCRW-33 �
;U
PHASE 4m B I T Y o PHASE 1
U LANDSFARM. P LANDS
BCRW-17 Cn
CONTROL
-� SITE 0 — LEGEND
N
Q
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
L 16-21
0 21-48
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/14/17 FILE: PLAN DS016WELL_LIDAR_
0 1,400 2,800 01,
� CP#1745.59.32.3
,e1r J ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACREDRIVE
SU2
T' L K WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
SCALE IN FEET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSD NSu ANTS FAX 910%392 9 39 FIGURE 4
195
188
•
.� �
No 3
PHASE 3 PLANTING AREA
RODMAN
®97
187
�8 0 7
1 5
BAY CIT
OPEN WATER OR PLUGGED/FILLED DITCH
CONTROL
•
186
13
SITE
198
'850
4,
1 ,fig - :36
• -_ 1400 •
ROADS
201
- -- n
142 71
® PERIMETER BERM AND PARKING AREAS
RC -1
Z O
14
• 151
184
rr1 C
`
150 °
0 FORESTED WETLAND
RC -2
RC -3
PHASE 4
®
Z
-_----,:.
0
--- -
144 148 •149
°
•
0 FORESTED NON -WETLAND
U LANDS
183
•
181
�4s 146•
®143 2
;�t 1
� WELL LOCATION
®
N __
N O •
BAY CITY 156
153
O
L CONTROL WELL
C
182
__--
• • •
155
•
179
180
160 158
•
CITY
BAY
Legend
z
z
207 O
---
157
154 1 s
No • �
Elevation in Feet
m
A
� 6
• n
°
•
Value
Q 0-2
0177
0176
159 0
Q 2-4
T7
0209
178 0
166
=4-5
O
0208
0
0 7 168
°
_ 6-6
174
1640165
i
=6-7
8
0
211
•73
0
175®
1630 l/
01 LINROAD
E
M8 9
� 6
9-10
•
210
•
171
02
O U
N T
o?
S
-10-11
D
2 •
0 17
m m
11 -12
.
/�T
W
©12-13
z
0212 2130
JU 13-14
_ 14-15
0
N
15-16
Q
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
L 16-21
0 21-48
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ON LIDAR
P AND U LANDS PHASE 3 AND TWO CONTROL SITES
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 02/14/17 FILE: PLAN DS016WELL_LIDAR_
0 1,400 2,800 01,
� CP#1745.59.32.3
,e1r J ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACREDRIVE
SU2
T' L K WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
SCALE IN FEET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSD NSu ANTS FAX 910%392 9 39 FIGURE 4

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

LEGEND -
PHASE 3
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY
0 e = G6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (37.1 ACRES)
ROADS
®
BERMS AND PARKING AREAS
0
FORESTED WETLAND
0
FORESTED NON -WETLAND
OPENWATER
0
UN -PLANTED 2 FOOT CHANNEL
0
PHASE 3 WELL LOCATION
L.
CONTROL WELL LOCATION
O O
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
--- '
ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
LENGTH; REPORTED HYDROPERIOD COULD
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE
POSSIBLY BE SHORTER THAN WHAT
WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
HYDROLOGIC
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
0 e = G6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (37.1 ACRES)
O O = 26 - 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (18.6 ACRE)
ROYAL ROAD
O Q = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (536.7 ACRES)
O O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (336.7 ACRES)
ROYAL ROAD
PHASE 2
® _ >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (432.0 ACRES)
P LANDS
O O
NOTE:
90
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE
127
WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD
SMALL ROAD
BOUNDARIES.
N
PHASE 1
SMALL ROAD P LANDS
PHASE 2 13
.., ,...�.,
- 10
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.
12 0 111
°117
0 123 116°
125 1240 tin
2-
0126
0126 1310
0122
0130 13 0
• BAY CITY
PHASE 1
P LANDS
BAY CITY No. 3
O119
1
0 1,800 3,600
BAY CITY__No. 1
159 SCALE IN FEET
� 11
O O
BAY CITY FARM
127
N
0128
O
BCRW
'!
N
pHASE3
°
�
.
pHASE1
I
.
C (B RW -29
BCRW 33
PHASE 4
U LANDS BAY CITY
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVEOADA
�'
FARM
BCRW 17_
JAIME
0792
193 0191
CONTROL
01 94
0
SITE
198
195
RODMAN
CONTROL °
,
, .
,37
1340
SITE 198
.
-
1390
za,
14
RC -1
r n
ZO
O
'
RC -2
r1C
Z
-
RC -3
•163
0 <
0144
T4s "°• 1486
149
° 1°52
PHASE 4
181
N
°tai No.2
Fe-1°�
U LANDS
BA CITY
•
C
W
158
0 155
01
;
180
0
•160
Z
z207
A
0
0 O
179
157
0
O
154
A206
O
0209
0 178
176
O
P LANDS
"o_
'
o
208
U LANDS
164 165
167 168
° °
3
y
Z
0
173
1740
0175
163
161 162 ° °'-
0 0
.-
LINE ROA[
0211 0210-
COUNTY
0
172
•
• 0170
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.
12 0 111
°117
0 123 116°
125 1240 tin
2-
0126
0126 1310
0122
0130 13 0
• BAY CITY
PHASE 1
P LANDS
BAY CITY No. 3
O119
1
0 1,800 3,600
BAY CITY__No. 1
159 SCALE IN FEET

BEN
LEGEND — PHASE 3
HYDROLOGIC
P & U LANDS BOUNDARY
ZONES WETLAND HYDROPERIODS
— ROADS
O 0 = G6% OF THE GROWING SEASON (55.7 ACRES)
® BERMS AND PARKING AREAS
O O = >6 — 12.5 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
ROYAL ROAD
0 FORESTED WETLAND
O Q = >12.5 — 25 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (366.4 ACRES)
0 FORESTED NON—WETLAND
O O = >25 — 75 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON (939.0 ACRES)
ROYAL ROAD
PHASE 2
OPENWATER
® • = >75 — 100 PERCENT OF THE GROWING SEASON
P LANDS °F
��
F
0 UN—PLANTED 2 FOOT CHANNEL
'p°
;i PHASE 3 WELL LOCATION
va
�I CONTROL WELL
NOTE:
WELL MALFUNCTION RESULTED IN AN
HYDROLOGIC ZONES ARE A VISUAL APPROXIMATION OF TOTAL ACRES
SMALL ROAD
— - ESTIMATION OF EXACT HYDROPERIOD
REPRESENTED BY WELL HYDROPERIOD CATEGORIES BASED ON ONE
LENGTH; REPORTED COULD
CHAT
WELL PER 15 ACRES, KNOWLEDGE OF SITE CONDITIONS, AND LIDAR
POSSIBLY BE SHORTEERR THAN WHAT
CONTOURS. THE ZONES DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL HYDROPERIOD
PHASE 1
ACTUALLY OCCURRED
BOUNDARIES.
CAA Al I_ ROAD
P LANDS
SOUTH CREEK CANAL
EXECUTIVE ROAD/
JAIME ROAD p182 191
0194 193 0
O
• 196
195
188
RODMAN .16
CONTROL o 197 166
SITE 198 0 05
201
RC -1
RC -2 X840
RC -3 0183 0
PHASE 4 181
U LANDS °182
3 180
O 179 °
Z 207 y
m
206 0 O
v O
0 0209 ® 78 '
770
g 0 oe
U LANDS - 174
0 00
173
Z0211 0210
0 02 ®71
O
DO 212
2130
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND 02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW.CO. BEAU FORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
BAY CITY FARM
BCRW�44
(:j'B RW -29;
113
03 1140
0 111
116 0117
r
0
125 1240
O O �
127 0126
1310
N
A
0130 130
O 0128 -
N • BAY CITY No. 4
1
0119
1,210
0118
PHASE 4 PHASE 1
U LANDS BAY CITY P LANDS
®
FARM BCRW 17
C
CONTROL
® SITE
gAY CITY No. 3
O 3s
1411 140 '�O '137©3B b 134°
74
;EO 1470 0 0
151
mZ 150
o < °144 1480
O
49 ,
11 148•
45
N 152
0
143 CITY N0. 2 ....
BA 156 0 Q
o O 155
0160 15B BAY CITY 11
0. 1
O
1157 154 169
176 159 O
P LA DS +6
0 O, 169
I 1 0 tss p
•175
'�°
C
0 0 OUNTY LINE ROAD _
o p
Z y
•,70 m m
0 1,800 3,600
SCALE IN FEET

APPENDIX A
2016 Gum Swamp Run Stream Surveys
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3
1) 2016 Gum Swamp Run Stream Surveys — text and select photos
2) Figure A-1

Gum Swamp Run Flow Surveys
10 March and 16 November 2016
Low to moderate flow was visible and documented for nearly the entire length of 40 -foot Gum Swamp
Run headwater valley, the entire bowl, and the entire 2 -foot channel of Gum Swamp Run during both
surveys; flow speed depended on water depth, amount of vegetation, type of vegetation, and whether or
not flow was constricted at any given location. During the March survey, for the first time during a stream
survey, the canal at the top of the 40 -foot valley was bankfull and --75 feet above the constructed 40 -foot
valley there was evidence of overbank flooding from this canal. During the November survey water levels
were —4 inches below bankfull for the entire length of the 40 -foot headwater valley and the 2 -foot Gum
Swamp Run channel.
Water depths varied from 3 to 12.5 inches in the 40 -foot headwater valley in March and 2 to 12 inches in
November, with some sections of the valley dry and exposed. The bowl contained depths of 4 to 8 inches
in March, with some areas of 12 inches and varied from 2 to 6 inches in November. The 2 -foot channel
contained 5 to 8 inches of water in March, was out of its banks in several locations between Stations
52+00 and 59+00, and was mostly out of its banks from Station 59+00 vicinity to Station 47+00. By
November, water depths varied from 2 to 8 inches and was confined to the 2 -foot channel for the entire
length. All flow videos from the survey are on the DVD which accompanies this report and specific ones
are mentioned in the text below.
Figure 1 shows the Gum Swamp Run stream construction stationing plan over a 2016 aerial that also
identifies the locations of numbered cross section monitoring poles (e.g., XS10) and eight filled ditches to
show their relationship to the stations/photos/videos referenced in the surveys. Also depicted on Figure 1
are flow features within the Gum Swamp Run system collected by GPS during the annual stream surveys.
NOTE: Taller vegetation in the March 2016 survey made it more difficult to orient either to the landmarks
on the distant horizon or to nearby monitoring well marker poles, all of which were easily seen during
previous stream surveys. The XS poles/locations therefore became the most important navigation aids;
however, it was discovered that in the vicinity of Ditch 4 (near the bottom of the 40 -foot headwater valley)
there were no poles for some of those XS locations as depicted. Therefore, on 4 April 2016, the XS pole
locations were verified in the field with CZR, the project designer (Jonathan Ricketts), and the project
surveyor (Matrix East) and labels were added to all poles. There are now no poles numbered XS18-XS20
and what was previously shown as XS20 is now XS17. The audio for some of the March 2016 survey
videos in the vicinity of the locations which had no XS poles in the field thus refer to some of the XS
locations by their `old" numbers on the figure used during the survey; the new "correct' XS designation
has been noted in the text or file name of video.
For photo/video camera file number sequence order: in March, the system was walked from downstream
to upstream and in November the system was walked from upstream to downstream.
Crl�JuFAYD, di I i alUl
40 -foot Headwater Valle
During the March survey, low to moderate flow was consistent throughout the valley while during the
November survey low flow was more common with moderate flow only in a few locations. Water depths
ranged from 6 to 12 inches with some areas of 16 inches in March while the November survey water level
variation was 2 to 6 inches with deeper areas of 12 inches. Beaver activity (severed/gnawed cypress
stems) was noted in the March survey in vicinity of XS22, XS23, and XS24 but no beaver activity was
noted anywhere in the November survey.
Video 1 PFarm connection 10mar16_1604.AVI shows moderate flow through a constriction just downstream from
Parker Farm spill way into adjacent Phase 1 perimeter ditch (NOTE: audio mistakenly refers to the connection ditch
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

between spillway and constriction as Phase 2 ditch). This constriction was the location of a low beaver dam which
was removed down to the previous invert.
At this location in the November 2016 survey, there was no visible flow and the beavers did not appear to
be active; water level was 6 to 8 inches just downstream of the connection.
Video 2 upper 40ft valley 16nov16_1006.AVI shows low flow across entire valley in vicinity of Station 2+75; water
level 6 to 8 inches.
Video 3 Camera 1 10mar16_1600.AVI shows low flow and path visible through filamentous algae at Camera 1 (near
Station 8+00).
Video 4 Camera 1 16nov16_1009.AVI shows moderate to low flow at Camera 1; water depth at staff gauge was 0.48
feet.
7
Photos 1 and 2: 10 March 2016 upper 40 -foot headwater valley in vicinity of Station 12+00. Left photo
view upstream from northwest corner of preserved woods in vicinity of station 10+00; right photo
downstream from same location. Water depths varied from 8 to 10 inches with low flow; persistent
preferred flow path on west side of valley previously GPSd visible to right on downstream view.
Photos 3 and 4: 16 November 2016 upper 40 -ft headwater valley in vicinity of Station 12+00. Left
photo view upstream from northwest corner of preserved woods in vicinity of station 10+00; right photo
downstream from same location. Water depths varied from 10 to 12 inches near the corner with low
flow.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-2 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Video 5 near NW corner woods 16nov16_1015.AVI (upstream of Video 5) near the NW corner of the preserved
woods shows flow typical of the vicinity along the northern edge of the preserved woods in November survey -
numerous small flow ways through the filamentous algae or around other clumps of vegetation. Water depths 4 to 10
inches.
Video 6 flow near XS23 10mar16_1597.AVI shows flow in vicinity of Station 16+00 in March 2016 where water was
shallower (-6 inches) than it was further downstream, flow was slightly less, and previously GPSd flow paths nearby
were not as evident.
In November, there was moderate flow with multiple paths opposite PUM121 (at NW corner of woods); by
the downstream end of the tree plot at that well (—Station 14+00), water depths were 4 to 8 inches with
shallow riffles in 5 inches of water and multiple flow paths remained evident. Between Station 16+00 to
Station 18+00, water was shallower and flow was slower. By Station 20+50 near XS22, water depths
were 3 to 5 inches in the valley.
Just upstream of Camera 2 (near Station 28+00), GPS points were collected in two "gaps" where
previous surveys had not found evidence of incipient channel formation. There was no evidence of sorting
apparent in the November survey in these two areas, but the preferred path was evident and low flow was
visible.
Video 7 moderate flow at Camera 2 10mar16_1596.AV1 shows flow at Camera 2 location with staff gauge at —0.5
feet. Compare to Photos 5 and 6 below for November conditions at the downstream flow Camera 2 (vicinity of
Station 28+00).
Photos 5 and 6: 16 November 2016 lower 40 -ft valley at Camera 2. Left photo view upstream at Camera
2, right photo view downstream at Camera 2. Low flow, water depths 3 to 5 inches, and stakes held by
biologists mark the flow path. Staff gauge was at 0.2 feet.
Video 8 upstr XS17 16nov16_1020.AVI shows flow at constriction point on south side of valley downstream of
Camera 2 and upstream of XS17 (note: audio says "halfway between XS20 and XS21", but that XS20 is now XS17
on Figure 1). This constriction point has been persistent in earlier surveys and marked with pin flags.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

About 70 feet upstream of PUM123, the 40 -foot headwater valley contained two distinct paths of low flow
confined to either side of the valley (Photos 7 and 8).
Photos 7 and 8: 16 November 2016 40 -foot headwater valley near PUM 123. Views downstream of two
confined channels with low flow in valley near XS17 and upstream of PUM123; stakes held by biologists
mark flow path in 6 to 8 inches of water. Left photo shows channel on south side of valley and right photo
shows the north side channel.
The north channel (photo 8, above right photo) contained riffles near the most downstream biologist. Near
the end of this north channel, bed and bank formation was documented with photo and GPS (10 -inch
wide channel with 4- to 5 -inch high submerged banks, Photo 9 below).
Photos 9 and 10: 16 November 2016 lower 40 -foot headwater valley. Left photo shows bed and bank
formed at downstream end of north channel before it joins the south channel in vicinity of XS17; stake is
on north side of bank with low flow from right to left. Right photo is view downstream from vicinity of XS17
where the two channels have joined and flow is confined to south side of headwater valley; water depths
—3 inches and moderate flow. The channel then switches to north side of valley beyond the biologist.
Video 9 near bottom of 40ft 10mar16_1592.AVI shows low flow in headwater valley just upstream of Ditch 4. (NOTE:
audio refers to being in "vicinity of XS17 and XS18" ---as shown on old XS depiction.)
Video 10 betw XS16XS15 16nov16_1027.AVI shows moderate flow and sediment sorting in 3 inches of water
between XS16 and XS15 near the downstream end of the 40 -foot headwater valley (GPS points were also collected
at beginning and end of sorting).
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-7 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Video 11 flow at bottom 40ft 10mar16_1591.AVI shows low to moderate flow in 10 inches of water in vicinity of
bottom of constructed 40 -foot headwater valley.
During the November 2016 survey in vicinity of Video 11, flow was low and in the last GPSd channel
curve in the 40 -foot headwater valley near XS16, water depths were several inches deeper but could not
be measured or flow ascertained due to unconsolidated sediments which made walking very difficult. The
channel in this vicinity has consistently been on the north side of the valley and the sediments have been
very soft in places in this curve since construction. The slope across the valley east of Ditch 4 was one of
the reasons for the closer cluster of XS locations shown on earlier depictions (XS15 and XS16 and "old"
XS17 and XS18).
The Bowl (deeply rutted area of no construction between the 2 -foot Gum Swamp Run constructed
channel and 40 -foot constructed headwater valley)
In the March 2016 survey, low to moderate flow was continuous across the entire bowl with water depths
consistently 4 to 8 inches with 12 -inch depths in a few rutted areas (ruts run N to S across the bowl). Pin
flags used to mark constriction points in previous times of low water remain to mark the continued flow
path through the bowl and, as was evident in 2015, two distinct flow paths contained water; the north
channel again had the most flow and deeper water in March 2016. In the November 2016 survey where
depths in the bowl varied from 2 to 6 inches with low to moderate flow, the southern flow path contained
water continuously connected to itself, but flow was not detected. The northern channel was GPSd as
was a —50 -foot section of sorted sediments in channel near the bottom of the bowl where the two flow
paths joined.
During the March 2016 survey, several cypress were noted to be severed by beavers in vicinity of XS13
but no further beaver damage was noted during the November survey.
Video 12 north flow path of bowl 16nov16_1028.AVI shows flow in upper portion of bowl in vicnity of Buffer Plot C.
This north channel flows east, then shifts to the north along a rut wall, then back to south, before again turning east
and eventually joining the south flow path.
Photo 11. 16 November 2016 bowl: view downstream of area of moderate flow through lower portion of
bowl at XS13 where sorting was evident for a distance of — 50 feet of channel shown in photo. This is
downstream of area where north and south flow paths join.
Video 13 bowl betw plot C and Ditch 3 10mar15_1590.AVI shows moderate flow about 1/3 of the way from bottom of
bowl.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Video 14 Ditch 3 below XS13 10mar16_1589.AVI shows low flow across filled Ditch 3 in 8 to 12 inches of water with
flow path through algae.
Video 15 at XS13 16nov16_1030.AVI shows flow in the bottom of the bowl and across the fill of Ditch 3, depths in
places >12 inches. (NOTE: audio correctly calls out XS13 label from nearby pole but narrator incorrectly locates the
video as being closer to the beginning of the constructed 2 -foot channel.)
2 -foot Channel
In the March 2016 survey, flow was high to moderate within the entire length of the 2 -foot channel. Up to
vicinity of XS5, the channel was clear of vegetation, and evidence of sediment transport was visible from
place to place. Above XS5, flow was moderate when it was confined within the banks; however, most of
the valley between XS6 and XS8 and then above XS9 to the beginning of the constructed portion of the
actual 2 -foot channel (--vicinity of station 47+00) water was unconfined and flow was slower in these
conditions. Water depths in the channel varied from 8 to 10 inches when confined and 12 to 18 inches
when not confined.
In November, within the entire length of the 2 -foot channel, flow was low to moderate, herbaceous
vegetation (e.g., wool grass Scirpus cyperinus) obscured easy visibility of the channel in more places
than ever before, especially downstream of XS5, and herbaceous vegetation (Polygonum sp. and Bacopa
sp.) was rooted in the channel itself in places which also had not been noted in prior surveys
(predominantly downstream of XS5 as well). Of the live stake species planted along the channel edge,
button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and willow (Salix sp.) are the only species which appear to have
thrived; they also have increased their cover across the channel mostly downstream of XS5. Water was
confined to the channel for the entire length and depths varied from 2 to 6 inches with a few places at 12
inches.
Evidence of beaver activity (severed cypress stems) was documented for the first time in areas along the
2 -foot channel near XS2 and in slough at the end of tree plot 116 (between XS3 and XS4) in March 2016
survey. No new beaver activity was noted and prior activity was not evident in November survey.
Video 16 near XS11 XS12 10mar16_1587.AVI shows low to moderate flow near the top of 2 -foot channel a bit
downstream from Photos 12 and 13 below.
Photos12 and 13. Upstream and downstream from XS12 in 2 -foot channel 16 November 2016. Left photo
view upstream with XS13 pole in distance; right photo view downstream with XS11 pole in distance
beyond biologist. Water depths 2 to 4 inches with low flow.
During the November 2016 survey, between XS11 and XS9, water depths were 2 to 5 inches and flow
was low to moderate. Between XS9 and XS8, flow was moderate with sorting evident, but by XS7 depths
had increased to 4 to 12 inches, no more sorting was visible and flow was low.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Video 17 side channel nearXS7 10mar16 1586.AVI shows low flow in a volunteer side channel from the north which
joins the 2 -foot channel near XS7. Water was out of the banks in this vicinity (and from between XS4 and XS5), but
confined within the banks at XS8 a little further upstream of this video. With the increase in dense vegetation growth
and drier conditions, this side channel was not noted in the November survey.
Photo 14. 10 March 2016 view downstream along 2 -foot Gum Swamp Run channel near Station 64+50.
Small Road gate is just to left of solitary pine tree above forest horizon right of center. Poles for XS3 are
visible just downstream from point where water in channel is no longer discernible in photo (at multi -
stemmed red maple).
Photos 15 and 16. Upstream and downstream views 16 November 2016 in same vicinity of Photo 14
above (between XS4 and XS3); low flow with water depth 6 inches. Channel more open upstream (left
photo) but vegetation closed in over channel downstream at this location (right photo); no vegetation was
rooted in channel at this location but other nearby segments did have vegetation rooted in channel
(between XS5 and location of these photos and downstream of XS3).
Video 18 opposite PUM115 10mar16_1576.AVI shows moderate flow in 10 inches of water between XS2 and XS1.
Video 19 volunteer channel and IVC 10mar16_1574 shows low flow through intervalley connector (IVC) and into the
volunteer channel. Volunteer channel and IVC were both dry in November and the lower —200 feet bed of the
volunteer stream/valley close to Gum Swamp Run 2 -foot channel was unvegetated but difficult to see because of
dense clumping vegetation on the sides of the flow way.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Video 20 end of 2ft 10mar16_1573.AVI shows high to moderate flow in 2 -foot channel into the Newberry riffle and
upstream. The bays to the right of the video in the upstream view are the same bays noted in Video 19 audio as
location of where the volunteer channel joins the constructed 2 -foot channel of Gum Swamp Run.
Video 21 end of 2ft 16nov16 1036.AVI shows low to moderate flow in 3 inches of water at the bottom of the 2 -foot
channel where it meets the Newberry riffle.
HEADWATER VALLEY SOUTH OF GUM SWAMP RUN
Post -construction it was apparent that the fill in Ditch 1 across the LiDAR headwater valley to the south of
Gum Swamp Run was about 1 foot higher than the invert of the valley floor upstream of the ditch. This
elevation difference caused water in the valley upstream of Ditch 1 to stack up against the ditch fill until it
reached sufficient depth to flow across and into the valley downstream of Ditch 1. (The ponding may
have also drowned some stems in the nearby buffer plot F; initial stem density in this buffer plot was
lower than expected.) Matrix East had previously staked the invert in the field from the LiDAR data and,
at times of higher water levels or during previous stream surveys, CZR had pin -flagged the flow path in
the valley downstream of Ditch 1 and across the fill to the ponded area east. During the March 2016
survey, CZR increased the density of the pin flags in the apparent flow path across Ditch 1 and then used
shovels to dig a narrow channel (-1-foot wide) along this flow path to connect the valley east of Ditch 1
with the downstream portion of the valley.
00 U
Photo 17. View downstream 10 March 2016 downstream across Ditch 1 with lime green pin flags (circled)
marking flowpath.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-11 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

Photos 18 and 19. Channel across overfilled Ditch 1 10 March 2016. Left: view of east edge of Ditch 1 fill
and the ponded area, flow to left. East edge of ditch fill is at juncus clump in center right of photo (taken
just a few minutes after the first few feet were dug). Water color change shows flowpath and stake is
where Matrix East marked valley invert as perceived by LiDAR. Right photo is downstream view of shovel
operation from same location as Photo 18.
Video 2210mar16_1569.AVI shows flow from east side of ditch1 in first few feet of shovel operation.
Video 23 10mar16_1588.AVI shows flow from west side of Ditch 1 after flowpath connection across the fill was
completed
A GPS line of the channel across Ditch 1 was collected in November (Figure 1), but like the intervalley
connector, no water was present in the LiDAR valley above or below Ditch 1. The flowpath completed in
March across Ditch 1 was free of vegetation in November but the immediate edge of the channel was
densely covered with clumping herbaceous species which obscured the easy visibility of the channel. The
leaves intertwined across the channel also made walking beside the channel or in the channel difficult
along most of the flowpath across Ditch 1.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix A-12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

71+41.78 pi
XS, XS3
X52
0 00
115
BUFFER
LANDS
PHASE 2 SMALL ROAD
PHASE 3[2]
5
3 4
0
(BUFFER PLOT B
xslo SEE DETAIL "A"
XS11 BUFFER PLOT C
XS15
XS12 + £.
XS9 XS16
)5 h� + + XS14 16 - BUFFER PLOT E \
36+87± 12 3 Xs, 7
XS13 a4*Op XS21
� 32.00
127 •a /BUFFER PLOT F 30+00
1 2 1 12+00
i
i- XS22 XS23 o-00
t.126 '' +53# 18+05±
20,00
�' S 12
',, 122
vN IN
NBUFFER PLOT D
� r
CSS _
PARKER FARM
SPILLWAY
XS25
XS24
Coo q+00
`�' �- :ter ' ..F. � .0 � ¢-• ..y'.� s _
a
BAY
NO. CITY x{•a .,;:� o,`: ,�
i
1 ,.
SOURCE:
PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY: ROBERT M. CHILES,
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA, JOB #2009096, DATED: 11/19/2009
AND02/02/2010 AND BEAUFORT COUNTY GIS DATA WEBSITE
WWW. CO.BEAUFORT.NC.US, BEAUFORT COUNTY PARCEL DATA SHAPEFILES,
NAD 1983 FEET.
MINOR STREAM HISTORICAL TRIBUTARY LOCATION PROVIDED BY: MATRIX
EAST, LLC, 906 NORTH QUEEN STREET, SUITE A, KINSTON, NC 28501,
[phone]
AS BUILT LIDAR FOR DIGITIZING RESTORED HEADWATER VALLEY
PROVIDED BY:
JONATHAN RICKETTS ENGINEERING,
3450 NORTHIAKE BLVD., PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, PHONE 561_630_6700
AERIAL IMAGE FROM: NC ONE MAP GEOGRAPHIC DATA,
2016, NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD1983 FEET,
WEBSITE: WWW.NCMAPONE.COM
DETAIL "A". .y
VWNT
00 O
�," 40+00
tows �
a r
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
P AND U LANDS
DESIGN CENTERLINE OF GUM SWAMP RUN
40—FOOT VALLEY FLOW PATH (11-20-14)
MONTHLY FLOW OBSERVATION LOCATION
MONITORING WELL CLOSEST TO MONTHLY
FLOW OBSERVATION
BUFFER PLOT LOCATIONS
FLOW VIDEO CAMERA LOCATIONS
CROSS SECTION NUMBER AND LOCATION
RESTORED HEADWATER VALLEY WITH NO
VALLEY CONSTRUCTION (DIGITIZED FROM
AS BUILT LIDAR)
DITCH NUMBER
FLOW PATH OBSERVED/FEATURE FORMED
SORTING/SCOUR
BED/BANK
0 500 1,000
SCALE IN FEET
P AND U LANDS MITIGATION SITE — PHASE 3
GUM SWAMP RUN
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 03/14/17 FILE: P_LANDS_GUMRUN_
PH3 APPX 2016
CP# 1745.59.32.3
OP-0-IRPORATED
74709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
LSUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 APPENDIX A
TEL [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] FIGURE 1

APPENDIX B
2016 Third Annual Stem Counts at Individual Plots at
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3

Appendix B. Individual tree/shrub plot counts from P and U Lands Phase 3 first (2014) and third (2016) annual fall monitoring. Numbers in each column indicate trees unquestionably alive at sampling. Plot size is 0.3 acre.
Zone 2
112
Zone 1
115
116
191
196
Total
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
Common name
Scientific name
Unknown
?
4
1
8
5
1
1
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
18
20
21
21
9
4
10
7
4
4
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
4
8
2
6
1
Paw paw
Asima triloba
1
1
River birch
Betula nigra
4
14
14
2
2
2
2
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
13
8
10
4
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
1
2
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
1
1
1
1
1
1
Buttonbush"
Cephalanthus occidentalis
1
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
10
11
37
33
23
15
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
22
22
13
14
1
16
1
1
2
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
1
1
1
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
3
2
3
2
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
2
2
2
2
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
5
6
3
3
6
4
5
4
13
11
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
7
6
1
4
1
6
3
3
3
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
16
34
34
5
4
27
26
83
80
Deciduous holly
L decidua
4
3
5
5
10
10
Inkberry
I. glabra
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
19
15
13
13
14
9
12
8
19
16
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
15
18
3
3
7
7
22
20
9
9
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
26
26
1
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
1
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
3
3
2
1
5
4
Mulberry
Morus rubra
64
62
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
76
49
1
56
3
71
112
96
4
104
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
20
20
17
17
11
11
15
14
63
62
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
28
25
14
10
11
4
1
1
54
40
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
9
8
9
8
Oak
Quercus spp.
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
1
1
1
1
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
2
3
2
1
10
11
17
15
31
30
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
48
45
19
20
27
20
11
11
105
96
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1
1
21
21
22
22
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
4
4
4
4
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
6
6
13
14
7
8
12
12
38
40
American elm
Ulmus americana
1
1
6
5
5
5
12
11
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
2
1
2
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
2
1
1
2
3
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
124
118
102
98
102
84
115
109
443
409
Zone 2
112
114
117
118
127
193
194
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
4
1
8
5
2
1
2
18
20
21
21
9
4
10
7
4
4
14
13
4
8
2
6
1
1
1
4
14
14
12
12
1
13
8
10
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
10
11
37
33
23
15
30
9
22
22
13
14
16
16
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
5
6
3
3
6
4
5
4
13
11
2
1
7
6
1
4
1
6
3
3
3
6
5
13
10
14
12
6
3
13
10
4
3
5
5
10
10
1
1
2
7
3
19
15
13
13
14
9
12
8
19
16
7
5
15
18
3
3
7
7
22
20
9
9
12
12
26
26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
64
62
109
94
76
49
97
56
78
71
112
96
115
104
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-1

Appendix B. (continued)
Zone 2A
Zone 2
122
195
197
198
Total
Common name Scientific name
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
Unknown
?
1
2
5
1
1
29
1
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
2
8
4
4
5
5
6
4
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
1
2
2
1
9
Paw paw
Asima triloba
1
1
9
9
1
1
River birch
Betula nigra
23
24
14
10
18
11
135
122
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
5
4
5
7
4
4
5
4
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
3
1
1
6
5
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
1
6
1
6
2
39
35
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
2
16
19
10
24
23
26
12
Buttonbush'
Cephalanthus occidentalis
16
8
18
1
2
2
6
7
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
2
2
1
1
0
0
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
4
3
1
1
1
1
5
3
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
72
36
1
7
4
3
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
1
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
5
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
1
1
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
28
26
13
9
36
29
139
89
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
10
13
14
31
30
205
174
Deciduous holly
1, decidua
13
12
7
4
8
8
60
57
Inkberry
1. glabra
1
1
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
102
81
91
66
1
95
1
408
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
6
4
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
10
10
4
4
2
2
57
51
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
9
10
8
9
6
78
57
Red bay
Persea borbonia
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
19
16
12
4
19
17
88
68
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
1
1
4
0
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
1
1
0
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
4
14
13
9
10
118
96
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
0
0
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
5
5
18
16
22
18
139
134
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
2
3
American elm
Ulmus americana
1
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTALI
89
1 81
1 99
1 73
1 121
1 99
1 958
1 783
Zone 2A
121
122
123
125
Total
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
4
2
5
4
1
9
1
1
2
8
4
4
5
5
6
4
1
2
2
1
9
1
1
9
9
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
5
4
5
7
4
4
5
4
3
2
3
2
1
4
3
0
43
30
24
16
19
10
24
23
110
79
14
10
16
8
18
14
2
2
2
2
20
11
2
2
1
1
2
3
81
78
4
3
17
15
39
33
141
129
102
90
72
36
12
7
12
7
1
1
5
5
1
1
62
25
28
26
13
9
36
29
139
89
9
11
14
16
23
27
32
33
13
12
7
4
8
8
60
57
1
1
1
1
223
166
102
81
91
66
109
95
525
408
Zone 3
111
119
120
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
2
12
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
10
8
5
5
4
2
2
6
9
18
10
9
9
3
1
22
21
1
1
13
16
5
7
4
4
37
24
1
1
3
1
4
3
4
7
5
17
11
6
5
18
14
14
10
16
8
18
14
6
3
4
3
20
11
1
2
16
16
1
28
28
3
102
90
72
36
171
134
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-2

Appendix B. (continued)
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-3
Zone 3
124
126
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
136
137
138
139
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
Unknown
?
2
9
9
9
3
2
2
6
39
2
15
8
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
11
10
River birch
Betula nigra
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
1
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
1
1
Buttonbush`
Cephalanthus occidentalis
3
3
17
15
2
2
2
2
2
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
21
20
12
9
15
14
20
10
11
10
14
12
6
6
6
6
3
3
9
6
2
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
9
4
9
5
5
4
4
1
1
1
5
4
2
1
5
4
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
6
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
29
2
2
1
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
1
1
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
1
1
1
6
6
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
1
Inkberry
1. glabra
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
2
2
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
5
5
5
4
3
3
1
16
12
8
7
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
5
1
5
1
2
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
12
12
1
22
24
8
10
4
5
9
9
14
14
5
9
25
20
12
6
10
14
22
19
21
18
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
16
12
12
9
6
4
20
12
8
5
12
4
2
4
29
18
16
11
12
8
18
14
6
7
Red bay
Persea borbonia
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
4
9
1
2
10
5
7
20
7
1
6
3
16
White oak
Q. alba
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
16
7
5
5
10
8
11
8
10
14
6
1
14
2
8
7
7
2
6
2
7
4
2
2
6
3
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
6
6
12
11
26
22
31
28
15
13
21
14
13
9
17
14
7
3
4
4
9
6
8
6
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
8
6
19
13
36
29
37
35
31
11
17
11
14
7
7
2
24
5
33
10
22
13
20
8
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
8
6
1
1
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
5
6
24
22
37
23
15
9
5
2
10
6
11
9
7
6
1
3
3
14
13
7
5
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
26
24
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
5
5
17
17
27
27
7
7
14
12
18
17
21
22
15
15
25
22
20
19
16
16
11
11
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
86
78
TOTAL
120
89
172
156
186
143
205
160
166
119
133
77
136
86
147
112
123
79
140
60
120
1 76
136
1 93
113
62
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-3

Appendix B. (continued)
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-4
Zone 3
140
141
142
147
149
150
151
178
179
182
183
184
186
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
Unknown
?
23
48
13
1
3
3
1
12
1
2
2
6
1
3
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
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
29
25
6
6
26
24
7
7
5
5
15
15
24
22
63
62
17
15
24
23
33
26
21
20
21
20
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
4
4
1
1
3
5
1
1
4
1
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
1
6
4
2
2
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
Inkberry
1. glabra
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
3
1
1
2
1
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
7
5
1
1
2
1
9
7
1
1
2
2
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
2
1
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
12
6
16
11
14
12
16
17
5
5
6
5
4
5
17
15
26
25
16
16
15
15
14
14
20
19
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
12
9
13
4
20
13
6
3
2
1
9
6
7
2
1
3
3
6
5
5
3
10
9
Red bay
Persea borbonia
2
4
4
5
4
2
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
1
3
12
6
3
1
7
4
4
7
1
4
8
3
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
4
2
1
2
7
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
7
9
5
17
10
11
8
30
18
12
13
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
7
6
7
13
8
2
8
8
8
3
9
3
34
31
21
20
19
14
52
46
15
13
10
10
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
19
5
16
1
16
7
9
4
9
6
19
3
13
7
12
12
8
4
41
21
21
22
24
19
28
26
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
17
8
4
2
13
7
6
1
9
5
4
2
12
6
2
2
6
5
32
15
20
16
19
16
12
13
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
10
10
19
19
23
23
18
17
34
30
8
8
18
18
16
16
22
23
16
15
23
23
20
20
23
24
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
4
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
148
86
138
47
161
103
81
1 59
92
73
82
52
130
80
1 151
145
119
102
182
119
186
162
160
124
149
140
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-4

Appendix B. (continued)
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-5
Zone 3
187
188
201
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
Total
Common name
Scientific name
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
Unknown
?
6
1
1
1
3
1
9
256
3
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Paw paw
Asima triloba
River birch
Betula nigra
7
5
10
7
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
2
2
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
2
2
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
1
1
Buttonbush'
Cephalanthus occidentalis
2
36
29
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
1
1
4
4
5
2
31
30
7
5
14
13
14
13
24
21
31
24
20
20
555
512
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
2
2
1
1
57
39
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
6
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
12
8
44
33
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
4
5
5
5
2
2
71
71
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
11
6
38
24
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
1
Inkberry
1. glabra
2
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
1
1
1
1
14
12
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
2
1
2
2
75
67
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
34
3
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
4
4
5
5
24
20
10
8
7
5
10
5
34
35
22
23
1
1
19
11
16
14
514
494
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
10
6
2
2
12
11
8
7
17
11
12
5
28
20
5
5
13
10
20
17
414
295
Red bay
Persea borbonia
20
18
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
5
1
8
1
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
7
8
5
4
1
4
1
3
185
7
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
2
15
8
28
17
15
5
22
14
18
17
28
19
21
12
37
31
48
22
20
15
479
322
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
6
6
18
11
5
5
24
25
37
29
30
25
7
8
29
28
23
19
9
26
17
15
593
514
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
18
17
10
7
14
9
28
22
20
16
29
24
16
15
17
9
11
9
22
20
16
8
724
475
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
9
7
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
6
7
18
7
21
17
61
53
13
9
20
19
29
28
23
19
18
12
50
46
54
32
626
468
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
9
8
36
34
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
7
7
24
24
14
15
10
10
15
15
26
25
24
23
21
21
38
38
26
24
34
34
707
716
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
2
17
7
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
28
29
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
108
87
106
70
134
101
164
134
156
122
157
131
166
147
187
148
175
146
220
183
209
155
5,553
1 4,195
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-5

Appendix B. (continued)
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-6
Zone 4
143
144
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Common name Scientific name
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
Unknown
?
5
3
12
16
12
8
21
35
5
3
16
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
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
7
5
5
4
17
14
8
6
15
12
6
8
16
16
6
4
9
9
11
13
16
17
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
5
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
9
4
5
3
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
1
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
I. decidua
2
Inkberry
L glabra
1
1
3
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
6
1
1
1
4
2
3
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
6
6
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
1
7
6
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
1
1
2
4
8
5
23
13
1
1
4
4
8
9
2
2
2
2
4
4
6
6
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
1
1
1
1
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
22
22
12
9
11
3
46
39
25
22
41
34
17
14
20
15
20
14
13
9
37
33
13
13
15
14
Red bay
Persea borbonia
1
4
2
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
56
50
50
48
3
2
24
20
38
29
54
40
46
39
31
18
28
24
55
51
35
32
24
28
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
5
1
13
3
1
2
3
4
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
3
9
6
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
13
8
9
6
11
6
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
3
1
1
1
1
2
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
1
1
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
8
2
18
15
1
3
2
2
5
2
8
6
8
6
4
1
10
6
19
9
7
3
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
11
12
3
2
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
8
8
24
24
15
16
4
4
2
2
15
12
10
10
20
20
20
19
35
32
41
40
42
40
16
16
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
4
3
2
2
1
1
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
139
100
135
121
83
41
1 108
77
75
61
120
87
122
86
114
90
122
80
124
73
168
143
158
1 129
140
108
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-6

Appendix B. (continued)
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-7
Zone 4
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
174
175
176
180
Common name Scientific name
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
Unknown
?
3
16
15
3
5
12
2
7
17
4
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
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
27
27
15
13
14
12
17
16
5
5
20
17
50
40
22
22
18
18
13
13
25
24
31
31
43
43
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
1
5
3
1
1
3
2
5
2
5
3
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
2
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
1
Inkberry
1. glabra
2
3
3
1
1
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
4
2
5
3
2
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
2
2
1
8
8
5
4
3
3
2
1
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
1
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
7
7
2
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
8
7
3
3
5
6
3
3
4
1
5
5
Mulberry
Morus rubra
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
5
5
1
1
1
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
16
12
11
10
27
25
16
14
13
12
20
16
11
11
16
15
15
12
19
19
6
4
21
15
Red bay
Persea borbonia
5
2
5
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
27
19
66
47
34
25
38
29
56
39
10
8
46
46
62
55
42
42
35
33
29
29
48
46
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
2
8
3
1
5
2
2
3
2
8
1
White oak
Q. alba
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
2
1
2
9
3
3
3
3
1
3
15
14
4
3
27
17
16
7
9
1
12
10
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
Water oak
Q. nigra
1
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
6
1
3
4
2
5
4
6
3
2
2
4
1
17
14
32
32
11
10
10
3
18
17
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
3
3
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
30
30
18
18
17
19
9
9
4
4
23
22
25
25
11
11
7
8
18
18
25
25
20
20
American elm
Ulmus americana
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
1
1
6
6
1
1
2
2
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
TOTAL
124
102
147
97
114
90
107
78
I 100
71
73
51
105
75
166
152
145
129
152
129
140
120
148
100
175
159
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-7

Appendix B. (continued)
Zone 5
Zone 4
172
Total
Common name Scientific name
1st
3rd
Unknown
?
220
1st
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
3rd
1st
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
3rd
1st
Paw paw
Asima triloba
3rd
9
River birch
Betula nigra
1
2
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
10
5
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
1
42
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
2
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
13
10
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
416
389
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
57
38
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
1
2
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
1
1
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
4
7
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
2
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
1
1
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7
3
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
3
1
Inkberry
1. glabra
4
11
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
25
9
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
36
39
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
3
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
9
7
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
102
93
Mulberry
Morus rubra
6
4
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
1
32
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
9
8
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
483
406
Red bay
Persea borbonia
31
10
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
937
799
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
2
Oak
Quercus spp.
69
4
White oak
Q. alba
1
1
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
166
90
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
5
4
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
4
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
1
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
1
1
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
211
141
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
11
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
12
9
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
17
17
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
459
452
American elm
Ulmus americana
2
4
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
17
16
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
2
17
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
9
17
TOTAL
3,304
2,549
Zone 5
110
172
173
177
181
185
Total
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
9
3
1
2
10
10
5
1
13
1
42
2
3
2
2
20
12
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
26
15
3
4
3
2
3
1
1
10
7
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
15
2
3
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
8
5
11
8
2
1
7
6
4
4
1
32
24
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
7
6
1
2
4
4
6
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
7
3
12
9
1
1
3
3
3
2
4
6
7
6
4
4
17
15
9
9
17
17
12
12
16
15
4
4
12
11
70
68
7
5
3
4
20
19
9
7
26
21
4
2
69
58
1
1
1
1
5
3
11
11
16
14
4
9
6
5
3
5
32
17
9
9
4
13
7
24
17
16
13
10
12
89
62
12
11
25
17
17
15
11
14
11
8
76
65
1
1
11
6
17
9
23
20
29
17
12
10
30
20
122
82
4
4
12
12
17
17
8
8
8
8
40
40
89
89
1
1
4
2
1
2
5
1
2
7
12
3
3
8
7
1
1
1
1
13
12
112
74
128
88
120
96
136
101
115
92
115
86
726
537
Zone 6
134
145
146
148
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1 st
3rd
12
4
3
6
1
10
7
1
1
3
2
14
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
15
8
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
7
6
4
4
6
2
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
10
11
2
1
7
3
12
9
20
17
7
1
6
4
6
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
89
58
36
6
38
21
59
38
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-8

Appendix B. (concluded)
Gum Swamp Run Buffer Plot
Zone 6
B
Total
Common name Scientific name
1st
3rd
Unknown
?
25
1st
Serviceberry
Amelanchier canadensis
3rd
1st
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
3rd
1st
Paw paw
Asima triloba
3rd
2
River birch
Betula nigra
1
11
American beautyberry
Callicarpa americana
1
7
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
12
7
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
3
2
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
14
15
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia
3
3
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
3
Swamp dogwood
Cornus foemina
Titi
Cyrilla racemiflora
1
Persimmon
Diospora virginiana
4
6
Strawberry bush
Euonymous americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
28
11
Deciduous holly
1. decidua
14
1
Inkberry
1. glabra
1
11
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
3
30
Virginia sweetspire
Itea virginica
3
Swamp doghobble
Leucothoe (Eubotrys) racemosa
1
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
1
Fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
5
1
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
4
1
Mulberry
Morus rubra
2
Unknown gum/tupelo
Nyssa spp.
2
Water tupelo
N. aquatica
1
1
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa biflora
2
3
Red bay
Persea borbonia
4
7
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
45
1
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Oak
Quercus spp.
13
3
White oak
Q. alba
15
8
Laurel oak
Q. laurifolia
1
1
Overcup oak
Q. lyrata
2
2
Swamp chestnut oak
Q. michauxii
2
1
Water oak
Q. nigra
19
15
Cherrybark oak
Q. pagoda
12
9
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
39
25
Dwarf azalea
Rhododendron atlanticum
1
1
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Pond cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
3
3
American elm
Ulmus americana
9
2
High bush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum
1
Dusty zenobia
Zenobia pulverulenta
2
TOTAL
222
123
Gum Swamp Run Buffer Plot
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
1 st
3rd
1st
3rd
1st
3rd
2
4
11
1
3
1
7
1
6
33
3
1
5
5
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
11
14
1
1
3
1
11
8
3
3
30
35
3
3
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
1
8
1
8
10
9
16
18
1
27
45
1
4
3
3
4
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
7
7
25
26
24
20
21
18
20
17
6
9
103
97
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
7
4
10
11
12
12
23
23
3
3
56
56
16
26
53
63
47
41
51
43
81
71
24
23
272
267
P and U Lands Phase 3 Third Annual Report B-9

APPENDIX C
Selected Third Annual (2016) P and U Lands Phase 3 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.
4_
PLPS 5: northeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 23 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

V 71
L
`r F
+ C
•! tf` �`i!k � � �h '� fK� � t
T f
� . * fes, ,, .-- �- :j i � �••t I ,'�Z �� � ..� t � _
T t

PLPS 14: southeast, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-3 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 15: northwest, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-4 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

2v
4-A
: V,_-w'y r .1

PLPS 16: southwest, top photo 18 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-6 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

n
'rF r p
P
1
U
f,
l �
1 F
x

PLPS 17: northwest, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-8 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 18: northwest, top photo19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-9 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 18: southwest, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-10 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

ot,:r _ ° ��� • Y
„e 1

PLPS 19: southeast, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 23 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-12 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

=poll
r
PLPS 20: northeast, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-13 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

PLPS 20: northwest, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-14 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017

�_ �
- .. '� -_�
R y��
♦. �A rte n.�'.�.,f41 �. ."�i _
_- - - 4. ��
i �
? - - t-
• � � � -`
�` `- �`—
• 4� ^
� '� _
r ��,�'

VOW
PLPS 25: northeast, top photo 19 October 2016, bottom photo 22 October 2014.
P and U Lands Restoration Site Phase 3 Appendix C-16 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Third Annual Report March 2017