20080868 Ver 2_PCS Mining Expansion Volume II_20080522

FINAL
Environmental Impact Statement
for the
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
Aurora, North Carolina
Volume II-Appendices A, D, and F
May 2008
US Army Corps
of Engineers
APPENDIX F
NOTE: There are reports submitted by the applicant and the Pamlico Tar River Foundation
included here for reference. The Corps finds that both documents provide some valuable
compilations of existing research. The Corps does not agree with all conclusions
included in either report, especially those presented as definitive findings based on a
posteriori analysis of existing research and those definitive statements based on
speculative interpretation. Many of the findings the Corps determined appropriate have
been incorporated into the text of Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the FEIS.
ADDENDUM 1-POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF WATERSHED REDUCTION ON
TIDAL CREEKS- AS ASSESSMENT (ENTRIX 2007)
ADDENDUM 2- IMPACTS TO THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATED
WITH PCS PHOSPHATE INC. PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION (PTRF DEIS
LETTER ATTACHMENT)
ADDENDUM 3- COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
FISH COMMUNITIES IN DISTURBED, CREATED, AND NATURAL UPPER
ESTUARINE CREEKS SAMPLED IN JUNE 2007 NEAR PCS PHOSPHATE,
BEAUFORT COUNTY NC (CZR 2007)
ADDENDUM 4-2007 RED WOLF UPDATE (USFWS FAZIO LETTER)
ADDENDUM 5-EVALUATION OF THE PCS PHOSPHATE MINE
CONTINUATION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
PROJECT AREA FOR PRESENCE OF THE RED COCKADED
WOODPECKER (CZR 2007)
ADDENDUM 6- EVALUATION OF THE PCS PHOSPHATE PROJECT AREA
FOR THE PRESENCE OF NESTING BALD EAGLES (HALIAEETUS
LEUCOCEPHALUS) (CZR 2007)
ADDENDUM 7- SURVEY FOR SENSITIVE JOINT VETCH (AESCHYNOMENE
VIRGINICA [L] [BSP]) ON THE PCS BAY CITY FARM AND HELL SWAMP
MITIGATION SITES, BEAUFORT COUNTY NC (CZR 2007)
PCS Phosphate FEIS April 2008
Appendix F
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF WATERSHED REDUCTION
ON TIDAL CREEKS -AN ASSESSMENT
Prepared for
PCS Phosphate Inc.
Aurora, NC
Prepared by
ENTRIX, Inc.
829 Front Street, Suite J
Georgetown, SC 29585
December 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION (DBR) AND AFFECTED HABITATS ................................................. 1-3
1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 TECHNICAL APPROACH .................................................................................................................. 1-5
1.5 PROJECT SETTING- SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND PROPOSED DBRS ......................................... 1-5
2.0 COMPARISON OF PRE- AND POST- JACKS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
REDUCTION ..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 APPROACH ............................................................................................................................ .........2-1
2.2 FISHERIES CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE) ....................................................................... ......... 2-1
2.3 BENTHOS .............................................................................................................................. ......... 2-6
2.4 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................................. ....... 2-14
3.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN AN AFFECTED CREEK AND A REFERENCE SITE ........3-1
3.1 APPROACH ............................................................................................................................ .........3-1
3.2 FISHERIES CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE) ...................................................................... ......... 3-1
3.3 BENTHOS .............................................................................................................................. ......... 3-8
3.4 WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................................. ....... 3-11
4.0 REV IEW OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR PCS MAN-MADE CREEK (PAII)...4-1
4.1 GENERAL APPROACH ............................................................................................................ ......... 4-1
4.2 SUMMARY OF RULIFSON (199 1) ........................................................................................... ......... 4-1
4.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... ......... 4-2
4.4 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... .........4-4
4.5 SUMMARY OF CZR (2007) WITH ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS .................................................... ......... 4-5
4.6 SUMMARY OF WEST ET AL. (2000) ...................................................................................... ......... 4-9
5.0 CON CLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................5-1
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... .........5-1
5.2 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... ......... 5-8
6.0 LITERATURE CITED ..............................................................................................................6-1
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
i
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 1-1. Map of PCS current mining operations and proposed mine continuation area .................. 1-2
Figure 1-2. Map of NCPC historic and current drainage basin boundaries .......................................... 1-4
Figure 2-1a. CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, spot) in Jacks Creek sampled by NCDMF From 1984-2005 ............... 2-2
Figure 2-lb. CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, spot) in Jacks Creek sampled by NCDMF from 1984-2005 ................ 2-3
Figure 2-2a. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for all species pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998
DBR and associated box-and-whisker plots. Means are identified as solid black circles. 2-3
Figure 2-2b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six species individually (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) pre- and post- Jacks
Creek 1998 DBR and associated box-and-whisker plots. Means are identified as solid
black circles ........................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-3a. Total number oftaxa encountered at benthic sweep sampling stations at Jacks Creek. Data
provided by CZR ................................................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2-3b. Total number of taxa encountered at grab sampling stations at Jacks Creek. Data provided
by CZR ............................................................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-4a. Number of benthic macroinvertebrates per timed sweep collected at Jacks Creek upstream
sampling station. Species are divided by lower line segment. Data and figure provided by
CZR .................................................................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-4b. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per timed sweep collected at Jacks Creek
downstream sampling station. Species are divided by lower line segment. Data and figure
provided by CZR .............................................................................................................. 2-10
Figure 2-5a. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per ponar grab at Jacks Creek upstream
sampling stations. Species are divided by lower line segment. Data and figure provided by
CZR .................................................................................................................................. 2-11
Figure 2-5b. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per ponar grab at Jacks Creek downstream
sampling stations. Data and figure provided by CZR ..................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-6. Bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature
(B TEMP in °C), and surface temperature (S TEMP in °C) for Jacks Creek based on
NCDMF data sampled from 1984 to 2004 ....................................................................... 2-15
Figure 2-7a. Frequency distribution of mean water quality measures pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998
DBR including: surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), bottom
temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in
mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) ..........................................................................2-16
Figure 2-7b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998
DBR including: surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), bottom
temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in
mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L). Means are identified as solid black circles..... 2-17
Figure 3-la. Mean CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown
shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek by NCDMF from
1978-2005. Only those data for which both creeks were sampled in the same year are
shown .................................................................................................................................. 3 -2
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment ii
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-lb. Mean CPUE for six species individually (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden,
brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek sampled by
NCDMF from 1978-2005 ...................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2a. Frequency distribution and associated box-and-whisker plot of mean CPUE for six species
(blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot)
sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1978 to 2005. Means are indicated by solid black
circles in the box-and-whisker plots ..................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-2b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1978 to 2005 ................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-2c. Box-and-whisker plots of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1978 to 2005. Means are identified as solid black circles ............. 3-6
Figure 3-3a. Frequency distribution and associated box-and-whisker plots of mean CPUE for six species
(blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot)
sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1999 to 2005. Means in box-and-whisker plots
are indicated by solid black circles .....................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-3b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1999 to 2005 ................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-3c. Box-and-whisker plots of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1999 to 2005. Means are indicated by solid black circles .............. 3-8
Figure 3-4a. Total number of taxa encountered in benthic sweep samples from upstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR ........................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-4b. Total number of taxa encountered in benthic sweep samples from downstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR ...................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-5a. Total number oftaxa encountered in benthic grab samples from upstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR ...................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-5b. Total number oftaxa encountered in benthic grab samples from downstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR ...................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-6. Surface salinity (S Sal in ppt), bottom salinity (B Sal in ppt), surface temperature
(S Temp in °C), bottom temperature (B Temp in °C), surface DO (S DO in mg/L), and
bottom DO (B DO in mg/L) for Muddy and Jacks Creek (NCDMF data provided to
ENTRIX via CZR) ........................................................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3-7a. Frequency distribution of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity (B SAL
in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface
temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L),
and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by NCDMF from 1978-2005 for Muddy and
Jacks Creek .......................................................................................................................3-15
Figure 3-7b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity
(B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C),
surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in
mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by NCDMF from 1978-2005 for Muddy
and Jacks Creeks. Means are identified by solid black circles ........................................ 3-16
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
iii
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-8a. Frequency distribution plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity
(B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C),
surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in
mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by NCDMF from 1999-2005 for Muddy
and Jacks Creeks ...............................................................................................................3-17
Figure 3-8b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity (B SAL
in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface
temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L),
and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by NCDMF from 1999-2005 for Muddy and
Jacks Creeks. Means are identified by solid black circles ...............................................3-18
Figure 5-1. Estimates of bottom salinity (B Sal in ppt) for wet and dry years in Jacks Creek, and CPUE
estimates over time for southern flounder and brown shrimp ............................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2. Mean CPUE for brown shrimp and southern flounder in Tooley, Muddy and Jacks Creek
from 1978-2005 ..................................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-3. CPUE for Muddy and Jacks Creek for brown shrimp, southern flounder and spot from
1978-2005 ...........................................................................................................................5-5
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
iv
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 1-1. Percent drainage basin reduction (%DBR), historic drainage basin (ac), and current
drainage basin (ac), for creeks on and near the Hickory Point Peninsula, Beaufort County,
North Carolina (data provided to ENTRIX by CZR) ......................................................... 1-6
Table 2-1. Mean CPUE estimates for pre- (N=8) and post- (N=7) DBR for all species and
six individual species ..........................................................................................................2-6
Table 2-2. Benthic species and relative water quality indicator .......................................................... 2-8
Table 2-3. Average number of benthic taxa for Jacks Creek pre- and post- DBR encountered at
benthic sweep upstream (a) and downstream (b) sampling stations .................................2-13
Table 2-4. Average number of benthic taxa for Jacks Creek pre- and post- DBR encountered at
benthic ponar upstream (a) and downstream (b) sampling stations ................................. 2-14
Table 2-5. Mean water quality values pre- and post- drainage basin reduction ................................ 2-15
Table 3-1. Mean CPUE for Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1978-2005 for all species and six individual
species (N=17) ....................................................................................................................3-3
Table 3-2. Mean CPUE in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1999-2005 for selected species ................. 3-4
Table 3-3. Mean abundance and taxa for Muddy and Jacks upstream and downstream sites sampled
by CZR (2004) and associated P value ...............................................................................3-9
Table 3-4a. Mean number of benthic species, (with associated water quality indicator) for Jacks and
Muddy Creek based on 1999-2005 upstream and downstream sweep samples. Data
provided by CZR .............................................................................................................. 3-12
Table 3-4b. Mean number of benthic species (with associated water quality indicator) for Jacks and
Muddy Creek based on 1999-2005 upstream and downstream grab samples. Data provided
by CZR ............................................................................................................................. 3-12
Table 3-5. Mean water quality values for Muddy and Jacks Creek for all years sampled from
1978-2005 .........................................................................................................................3-13
Table 3-6. Mean water quality values for Muddy and Jacks Creek for the years 1999 - 2005......... 3-13
Table 4-1. Summary of results (No = no significant difference among creeks; Yes = significant
difference among creeks) comparing fish species abundance among creeks by gear type
(Trawl, Wegener Ring) .......................................................................................................4-4
Table 4-2. Number of each fish species captured by CZR in 2007 at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek and
PAII .................................................................................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-3. Mean size for four common species (pumpkinseed sunfish, pinfish, spot,
Atlantic menhaden) sampled from Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and PAII ......................... 4-8
Table 5-1. Benthic species, relative water quality indicator and relative increase or decrease post-
DBR ...................................................................................................................................5-3
Table 5-2. Mean size for four common species (pumpkinseed sunfish, pinfish, spot,
Atlantic menhaden) sampled from Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and PAII ......................... 5-7
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
PCS Phosphate, Inc. Aurora (PCS) owns and operates the Aurora Phosphate Mine and manufacturing
facilities in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The facilities are located on the Hickory Point Peninsula and
the south shore of the Pamlico River approximately six miles north of the Town of Aurora. On
2 November 2000, PCS applied for Department of the Army (DOA) authorization pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act to continue its open-pit phosphate mining operation once reserves are depleted under its
existing permit (Figure 1-1). The United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a Public
Notice describing this application on 2 January 2001. In response to comments on this Public Notice, PCS
elected to revise its proposed action, including the reduction of proposed impacts to wetlands and waters of
the U.S. Subsequently, PCS submitted a revised Section 404 permit application on 13 August 2001, and the
Corps published a second Public Notice on 4 October 2001 describing the revised application. The revised
application proposes the mine continuation as shown in Figure 1-1 and is referred to as the AP Alternative.
The Corps, in consultation with the applicant, determined that based on other similar activities, the impacts of
the proposed activity would require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An initial
scoping meeting was held in February 2001 and a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft EIS (DEIS) was
published in the Federal Register in October 2002.
In addition to inviting comments and input through the scoping process, the Corps assembled an
interdisciplinary Review Team (Review Team) comprised of representatives from other state and federal
regulatory and commenting agencies, environmental advocacy groups, PCS, and CZR Inc. The Review
Team met 19 times during the development of this DEIS, discussing, among other items, the Study Area, the
project area, the purpose and need statement, the mine plan boundaries development, wetland jurisdictional
boundaries, wetland impact avoidance and minimization, wetland valuation criteria, stream and buffer areas,
mitigation options, cost model development and mining equipment operational constraints.
The DEIS was prepared and a notice of preparation was published in October 2006 (CZR 2006; Federal
Register, 20 October 2006). The proposed action included a request for authorization to impact
approximately 2,408 acres of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, as a result of continuing a mine advance
into a 3,412-acre area of the NCPC Tract located adjacent to the Pamlico River.
The comments on the DEIS identified several issues and outstanding areas of controversy associated with
potential direct and indirect effects on the creeks, open waters, associated habitats, and estuarine resources.
Several of the agencies on the Review Team, including the NC DENR Division of Coastal Management
(DCM), Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) commented on
the apparent lack of treatment of potential effects on tidal creeks resulting from reductions in watershed area
(a.k.a., drainage basin reductions, or DBR). This document was prepared to address the concerns raised by
those agencies and others, and provides an analysis, based on best available information, of the potential
indirect effects on tidal creeks resulting from reductions in watershed area.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 1-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008

WAY" 4LO
.
.ATCS?aair

?
.. y i
d
®hGp>g ?CCH k?9`kP91II&Y 7 C6i96'
ry?
l P tltl
d

4 ?
?
CLAY ]MOMcLt03_

?+
: MMPV

...., .
.

h
?
y

s11
1
R

AURORA

aft I tae
'
''
A ?k.'1r:P Jri
I
?. ?.1' fi;M -?I H13
PCS PHOSPHATE NINF CONTINUATION

....... ?.`."
s

Figure 1-1. Map of PCS current mining operations and proposed mine continuation area.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 1-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
1.2 DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION (DBR) AND AFFECTED HABITATS
Long-term mining activities have led to drainage basin reductions (DBR) over several years in the tidal creek
basins of the Hickory Point Peninsula. Drainage basin reduction is an outcome of the mining process, and
can be temporary or permanent, depending on the reclamation and restoration process, and post-mining
grading and drainage. The mining process begins with land clearing activities and the construction of berms,
canals, and access roads around the perimeter of the mining block. These activities effectively truncate a
portion of the watershed area that would normally drain to the intermittent or perennial streams within the
basin. Following final land reclamation, typically occurring years after the mining activity has ceased,
drainage patterns and watershed boundaries will be reestablished generally in similar patterns. The
boundaries are subject to a reclamation plan approved by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources
(DLR).
Under the proposed action, streams in the proposed project area would gradually be affected by DBR as the
mine footprint advances over a period of years (Figure 1-2). The drainage area for some surface water bodies
would be reduced temporarily, while others may be reduced permanently. Drainage area effects are
considered to be temporary for those areas where mine configuration and reclamation allow drainage areas to
be restored through the approximate 15-year land reclamation process.
Based on the project description, it is assumed that potential effects of DBR on downstream tidal creeks and
open water habitats of the stream basins would be largely indirect. That is, with the exception of minor and
temporary construction impacts, the action proposed by PCS includes no direct physical habitat modification
(e.g., excavation, filling, modification) of the tidal creeks downstream of the mining berm, so most impacts
on these remaining habitats over time would be indirect (i.e., they would occur separately in time or space).
The direct and indirect effects of mine construction, including the temporary or permanent loss of creek
habitats within the mined area, are documented and discussed in the DEIS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(2006)).
1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
In an effort to address comments on the DEIS and to provide more information on the potential effects of
DBR on tidal creeks within the project area, PCS retained ENTRIX, Inc. (ENTRIX) to provide a
supplemental assessment of the indirect effects of watershed reductions on tidal creeks in the area of PCS's
Aurora Mine, based on existing data and literature.
The objective of this supplemental assessment is to use data from environmental monitoring over the past
20 years in and around tidal creeks of the Hickory Point Peninsula, existing information, and relevant
literature to assess whether the data indicate any changes in water quality or biota that may be indicative of
the effects of drainage basin reduction.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 1-3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008

a? ? R

f

r

.U .

d
itv ?'K:5 t'IP:?i
w.
"a
Figure 1-2. Map of NCPC historic and current drainage basin boundaries.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
1-4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
1.4 TECHNICAL APPROACH
This section describes the elements of the technical analysis and approach used to assemble and assess the
available data and information. The following steps were completed:
• Compiled and reviewed the record of available environmental monitoring data and information for
the tidal creeks and vicinity, focusing on data available and appropriate to support pre- and post-DBR
comparisons and other comparisons among historically DBR-affected creek and local tidal creek
reference conditions;
• Independently analyzed and interpreted the available historical environmental monitoring data for the
tidal creeks to look for trends that may indicate effects of previous DBRS in the study creeks;
• Reviewed literature relevant to tidal creek systems and ecology of regional estuarine tidal creeks to
help explain the findings and/or provide further insight; and
• Synthesized the body of results to make conclusions about the observed effects of DBR on tidal
creeks.
Several lines of evaluation were used to aid in the assessment of the effects of DBR on remaining
downstream tidal creek habitats. These included:
Using historical monitoring data to quantify changes in fish, benthos, and water quality pre- and
post-DBR in the Jacks Creek Basin;
• Using historical monitoring data from a DBR affected basin and creek (Jacks Creek) with a nearby
less affected reference creek (Muddy Creek); and
• Comparing water quality and biological data available for "created" tidal creek habitat with limited
drainage area near the mouth of Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks (site designated as PAII) with
historical monitoring data in nearby tidal creeks.
1.4.1 Potential Effects of DBR on Tidal Creeks
The purpose of this analysis is to use the best available existing data to make inferences about the effects of
DBR on tidal creeks in the PCS operational area. Drainage basin reduction has been identified by
commenters as having the potential to result in reduced surface runoff and shallow groundwater flow that
could subsequently cause altered flow, salinity, water quality changes, and impacts to biotic assemblages.
Inferences about the observed effects of DBR made in this analysis are based on fish species, the benthic
community, water quality, and to a much lesser degree, plants. This does not address impacts within the
mining area, post- reclamation conditions, or contaminant effects.
1.5 PROJECT SETTING - SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AND PROPOSED DBRS
1.5.1 Drainage Basin Reduction (DBR) and Affected Creeks
PCS Phosphate mining activities in and near the Hickory Point Peninsula area during the 1980s and 1990s
resulted in DBRS that potentially affected 11 tidal creeks. Table 1-1 summarizes the historical and current
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 1-5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
drainage basin areas of these creeks. It illustrates the range of DBR within the 11 creeks. Some creeks had
very little DBR while other creeks experienced a substantial amount. This information, in combination with
environmental monitoring data collected since 1978, and the presence of nearby reference tidal creeks,
provides for some comparisons that are helpful in illustrating the realized effects of DBR.
Table 1-1. Percent drainage basin reduction (%DBR), historic
drainage basin (ac), and current drainage basin (ac), for creeks on and near
the Hickory Point Peninsula, Beaufort County, North Carolina (data
provided to ENTRIX by CZR).

Creek
%DBR Historic Drainage Basin
(ac) Current Drainage Basin
(ac)
Bailey 21.9 3,740 2,922
Flannigan Gut 87.0 149 19
Jacobs 45.8 751 407
Porter 18.9 3,228 2,618
Long 62.9 603 224
Drinkwater 30.9 605 418
Tooley 19.7 536 430
Whitehurst 84.1 4,119 654
Short 47.4 382 201
Jacks 51.1 633 310
Muddy 5.6 1,825 1,723
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
1-6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
2.0 COMPARISON OF PRE- AND POST JACKS CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION
2.1 APPROACH
Between 1980 and 1983, Jacks Creek experienced a 17% drainage basin reduction. In 1998, the Jacks Creek
basin was reduced by an additional 34% (CZR, pers. comm.). We examined whether the data collected
before and after the drainage area reductions were indicative of DBR effects. To this end, pre- and post
datasets used for this analysis included 1984 - 1998 (pre- drainage reduction) and 1999-2005 (post- drainage
reduction). Data collected include catch per unit effort (CPUE), benthic samples, and two measures of water
quality (salinity and temperature).
2.2 FISHERIES CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CPUE)
Catch per unit effort is defined as the numbers collected per unit of fishing effort. NCDMF sampled and
calculated CPUE for Jacks Creek over several years (data provided to ENTRIX by CZR). These data were
used to examine changes in CPUE for various fish species in Jacks Creek pre- and post- drainage basin
reduction and determine whether a change in CPUE occurred.
Individual species were analyzed separately. These species include blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), Atlantic
croaker (Micropogonias undulates), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), brown shrimp
(Farfantepenaeus aztecus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus).
These species are identified in Nomination of Specific Inland Waters for Primary Nursery Designation, A
Report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (October 1989) as relatively abundant
economically important species used in designating Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs).
A Kolmogorov-Smimov test (KS test) was used to determine if the two datasets (pre- and post- drainage
basin reduction) differ significantly. The KS test has the advantage of making no assumption about the
distribution of data (it is non-parametric and distribution free). Frequency distributions and box-and-whisker
plots are used to examine data visually. The frequency distribution shows two histograms, one for each
sample, with the histogram for the second sample inverted below that of the first. The height of each bar,
whether above or below zero, represents the frequency or number of individuals in the sample. The X-axis
along the bottom contains the measured values. For example, for DO, the value is mg/L. This graph is used
to visualize the shapes of the two distributions and is helpful in making comparisons between two samples
with respect to their distributions.
The box-and-whisker plot procedure creates a plot designed to illustrate important features of a numeric data
column. This graph shows two box-and-whisker plots, one for each sample. The rectangular part of the plot
extends from the lower quartile to the upper quartile, covering the center half of each sample. The centerlines
within each box show the location of the sample medians. The solid black circles indicate the location of the
sample means. The whiskers extend from the box to the minimum and maximum values in each sample,
except for any outside or far outside points, which are plotted separately. Outside points are points which lay
more than 1.5 times the inter-quartile range above or below the box and are shown as small squares. Far
outside points are points which lie more than 3.0 times the interquartile range above or below the box and are
shown as small squares with plus signs through them. The presence of far outside points may indicate
outliers or a highly skewed distribution.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
2.2.1 Results
Catch per unit effort varies across years but there is no obvious pattern of mean CPUE before and after the
1998 DBR (Figure 2-1 a-b). It does appear that there are differences among species in terms of relative
frequency over time. For example, peaks in estimates of CPUE appear pre- DBR for blue crab and Atlantic
menhaden but post- DBR for southern flounder, brown shrimp and Atlantic Croaker. This observation is in
agreement with frequency of CPUE estimates pre- and post- DBR (Figure 2-2a-b).
There was a significant difference in mean CPUE for all species combined where CPUE was significantly
greater post-DBR (P <.05). There were no significant differences (P<.05) in mean CPUE between pre- and
post- DBR samples in Jacks Creek for species analyzed individually (Table 2-1).
Figure 2-1a. CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, spot) in Jacks Creek sampled by NCDMF From 1984-2005.
CPUE
100% -
\N ® spot

v
80% - N
® southern flounder
60% - ® brown shrimp

a 40% - ? Atlantic menhaden
w
U_
20% -
® Atlantic croaker
0% - ¦ blue crab
!?K ?4K C§§,
00
oD?
01,
o
0
o
ti ti ti
YEAR
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-lb. CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, spot) in Jacks Creek sampled by NCDMF from 1984-2005.
CPUE BLUE CRAB
25
20
i
7 15 - iJ
U 10

11 0`0 19, 01P 0&
1
YEAR
CPUE ATLANTIC CROAKER
1000

800
W 600

U 400
200
.,
00b 000 000 000 00`1' 00b 000 000 000 00`ll OOb

YEAR
CPUE ATLANTIC MENHADEN
120
100
80
D 60
U 40
20
0 - a....--a-,-a?.....a.....ar.. a....,a......?.,..?_..
04?`
000 0?
0
000
00`L
000
000
°00 `,
^
n ^
^
n
n
n
n
?j
YEAR
CPUE BROWN SHRIMP
30
25
W 20
?
R 15
U 10
5 m
00D? 000 000 0?'O 0?'? 0 0?'0 'll, O°'3 O°" O°ll
YEAR
CPUE SOUTHERN FLOUNDER
70
60
50
Wn 40
a 30
U 20
10
gwo? gw`° gww ggo ggti 0? ggo gge o0o Doti O°?
YEAR
CPUE SPOT
300
250
200
r
r
W t
? t
R 150 h 7 `y

100

50
p
e
YEAR
Figure 2-2a. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for all species pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998 DBR
and associated box-and-whisker plots. Means are identified as solid black circles.

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-2b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six species individually (blue crab, Atlantic
croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998 DBR
and associated box-and-whisker plots. Means are identified as solid black circles.

I?a

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008

- - - _-
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2-1. Mean CPUE estimates for pre- (N=8) and post- (N=7)
DBR for all species and six individual species.
Mean CPUE
Species Pre- DBR Post- DBR
All species* 25.7 52.8
Blue crab 4.0 2.4
Atlantic croaker 16.2 155.6
Atlantic menhaden 19.7 7.6
Brown shrimp .60 7.0
Southern flounder 1.6 10.5
Spot 112.2 138.8
*Significant difference (P<.05) between pre- and post- DBR.
2.3 BENTHOS
Benthic taxa were sampled with two different methods (timed sweep and ponar grab (grab) sampler) at
upstream and downstream sites. These samples and number of total taxa were used to examine differences
between pre- and post- DBR in Jacks Creek. Pre- DBR samples are limited to a single year (1998) and,
therefore, no statistical analysis was done. Some species sampled are considered indicative of water quality
and an assessment is made of these species pre- and post- DBR.
2.3.1 Results
CZR (2004) assessed the total number of taxa encountered in benthic sweep (Figure 2-3a), and grab
(Figure 2-3b) samples in Jacks Creek from 1998 to 2004. There are no obvious or consistent trends over time
or between 1998 and the rest of the years across all species.
The total number of taxa is greater pre-DBR (1998), compared to the average number of taxa post- DBR,
(1999-2005) for both sweep and grab samples, at both upstream and downstream sites. These data do not
reflect differences in water quality tolerance. In the sweep upstream and the grab upstream and downstream
samples there was at least one year post-DBR that had a higher number of taxa than the pre-DBR year.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-3a. Total number of taxa encountered at benthic sweep sampling
stations at Jacks Creek. Data provided by CZR.
..,., i

[Ei >r?i: ,
Figure 2-3b. Total number of taxa encountered at grab sampling stations at
Jacks Creek. Data provided by CZR.
CZR (2004) assessed the average number of benthic macro-invertebrates per timed sweep (Figure 2-4 a-b)
and grab samples (Figure 2-5 a-b) for the most abundant taxa collected at Jacks Creek upstream and
downstream from 1998 to 2004. The data vary overtime and, based on 95 % confidence intervals, there are
no significant differences in number for these taxa over time.
Individual species sampled in Jacks Creek vary overtime. Some of the species sampled are considered
indicative of water quality (Table 2-2). Measures of abundance of these species can be used to make
inferences about relative water quality.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2-2. Benthic species and relative water quality indicator.
Species Water Quality Indicator
Dicrotendipes nervosus Pollution indicative'
Dicrotendipes spp. Pollution indicative'
Macoma balthica Pollution sensitive'
Mediomastrus ambiseta Pollution sensitive', Pollution indicative 5
Streblospire benedicti Pollution sensitive', Pollution indicative2
Tubificoides heterochaetus Pollution sensitive', Pollution indicative2
Chironomus spp. Pollution indicative'
Cricotopus spp. Freshwater preference3
Gammarus tigrinus Freshwater preference4
'Llanso et al. (2002)
2Lerberg et al. (2000), 3Pinder (1986), 4Pinkster et al. (1992),
5Dauer et al. (2000)
To examine the effects of DBR more closely, and assess potential changes in species considered indicators
of water quality, numbers from 1998 (pre- DBR) were compared to average numbers from the 1999-2005
samples (post- DBR) for each species based on sweep (Table 2-3) and grab (Table 2-4) samples. Due to the
limited samples (i.e., one year pre- DBR), no statistical analysis was performed.
The observed differences in the data between pre- and post-DBR were not indicative of a consistent pattern of
abundance shift among species that were tolerant or intolerant or for species with a preference for freshwater.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-4a. Number of benthic macroinvertebrates per timed sweep collected at Jacks Creek upstream sampling station. Species are divided by
lower line segment. Data and figure provided by CZR.
AVERAGE NUMBER F ENT IC MACRO INVERTEBRATES PER TIMED SWEEP SAMPLE (WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL) FORT MOST ABUNDANT T A C LL CT AT JACKS CREEK UPSTREAM SAMPLING STATION I MAY OF
199 8 TH O G 2005.
500
a
400
' 300
200
as
Q 100
0
`?a ??Q td° ???' tat? ? 5???
??? °? a?® °? `??° ??? e?°
??? ??Q °?` `al? ,? at? ??
1a e ? ° ?ide °
e
o

Species
e
Il

r,t

e?
G°
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-4b. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per timed sweep collected at Jacks Creek downstream sampling station. Species are
divided by lower line segment. Data and figure provided by CZR.
AVERAGE NE F ETHIC AINVETAT PER TIMED SWEEP SAMPLE (WITH 5 PERCENT CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL) FOR THE MOST ABUNDANT TAXA COLLECTED AT JACKS CREEK DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING STATION I
MAY OF 1998 THROUGH 2005.
300
a
250
200
a
150
E
100
Q 50
0•••
Species
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
J55Y ,? IN o G?5` oy? 510N Ile
G
a?
G
Figure 2-5a. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per ponar grab at Jacks Creek upstream sampling stations. Species are divided by
lower line segment. Data and figure provided by CZR.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF I MACROINVERTEBRATES PER PONAR GRAB (WITH
CONFIDENCE PERCENT INTERVAL) FOR THE MOST NTAXA COLLECTED AT
JACKS SAMPLING STATION IN MAY OF 1998 THROUGH 2004
250
200
a
d
150
d
E
z
1 00
d
Q
50
0
Species
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-11
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Hobsonia florida Gammarus tigrinus Chironomus spp. Littoridinops sp.
Figure 2-5b. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates per ponar grab at Jacks Creek downstream sampling stations. Data and figure provided
by CZR.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF I INVERTEBRATES (WITH
CONFIDENCE PERCENT INTERVAL)
FOR THE MOST ABUNDANT TAXA COLLECTED AT
JACKS CREEK DOWNSTREAM STATION IN MAY OF 1998 THROUGH .
SAMPLING
160
140
120
t9
100
a
CL
80
E
60
as
a?
Q
40
20
0
Species
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-12
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Hobsonia Florida Chironomus spp. Gammarus tigrinus Macoma balthica Mediomastus Tubificoides Streblosplo
ambiseta heterochaetus benedlctl
Table 2-3. Average number of benthic taxa for Jacks Creek pre- and post- DBR encountered at
benthic sweep upstream (a) and downstream (b) sampling stations.
Table 2-3a.
Upstream
Species Pre- DBR Post- DBR
Gammarus tigrinus 121.67 94.90
Dicrotendipes spp. 74.67 1.10
Hobsonia florida 68.33 79.48
Littoridinops spp. 118.00 104.24
Cyprideis littoralis 15.33 81.76
Tanytarsus spp. 0.00 62.19
Dicrotendipes nervosus 0.00 46.24
Corophium lacustre 16.33 28.10
Goeldichironomus devineyae 1.33 34.33
Table 2-3b.
Downstream
Species Pre- DBR Post- DBR
Cricotopus spp. 93.67 0.00
Gammarus tigrinus 147.67 46.09
Cassidinidia lunifrons 123.67 15.23
Corophium lacustre 6.67 50.42
Dicrotendipes nervosus 0.00 17.95
Littoridinops spp. 0.00 83.23
Goeldichironomus devineyae 0.00 18.09
Mysidopsis almyra 14.67 36.66
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-13
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2-4. Average number of benthic taxa for Jacks Creek pre- and post- DBR encountered at
benthic ponar upstream (a) and downstream (b) sampling stations.
Table 2-4a.
Upstream
Species Pre- DBR Post- DBR
Hobsonia florida 11.60 21.50
Gammarus tigrinus 12.20 47.66
Chironomus spp. 2.80 26.86
Littoridinops spp. 0.0 9.23
Table 2-4b.
Downstream
Species Pre- DBR Post- DBR
Hobsonia florida 5.2 4.3
Chironomus spp. 9.8 7.5
Gammarus tigrinus 3.2 4.5
Macoma balthica 0.0 20.7
Mediomastus ambiseta 0.0 37.5
Tubificoides heterochaetus 8.4 38.2
Streblospio benedicti 0.0 16.6
2.4 WATER QUALITY
Water quality measures available for Jacks Creek include surface and bottom salinity and temperature from
1984-2005 and dissolved oxygen from 1997-2005 (data provided to ENTRIX by CZR). A
Kolmogorov-Smimov test (KS test) was used to determine if the two datasets (pre- and post- DBR) differ
significantly in these water quality parameters. Frequency distributions and box-and-whisker plots are used
to examine data visually and qualitatively.
2.4.1 Results
Though temperature and salinity are slightly higher post-DBR and DO is slightly reduced, no significant
differences (P< .05) in these water quality parameters were found (Table 2-5). Water quality measures are
almost identical between the surface and the bottom of the creek (Figure 2-7 a-b), which is to be expected
given the shallow depth of the creeks. All these measures vary overtime (Figure 2-6).
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-14
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2-5. Mean water quality values pre- and post- drainage
basin reduction.
Water Quality Mean Value
Measure Pre- DBR Post- DBR
Surface salinity 6.0 7.0
Bottom salinity 6.0 7.0
Surface temperature 24.2 25.4
Bottom temperature 24.0 25.4
Surface DO 7.3 6.5
Bottom DO 6.6 6.5
Figure 2-6. Bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature
(B TEMP in °C), and surface temperature (S TEMP in °C) for Jacks Creek based on NCDMF data sampled
from 1984 to 2004.
S SAL JACKS
12.00
10.00
F
a 8.00
n.
r 6.00
4.00
to
2,00
0.00
YEAR
SAL JACKS
12.00
10.00
ii 8.00
CL
J 6.00
Q
as 4,00
m 2.00
0.00
YEAR
S TEMPERATURE
v 30.00
25.03
20.00
15.00
aw 10.00
W 5.00
'- 0.00
0
g" 1"1 g1W 1?O g?ti I ti g?6 'g6 Q°o q°91 1
YEAR
B TEMPERATURE
U 30.00
wU 25.00
20.00 `
15.00
a 10.00
w 5.00
~ 0.00 ,
m
YEAR
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
2-15
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-7a. Frequency distribution of mean water quality measures pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998
DBR including: surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B
TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO
(S DO in mg/L).

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-16
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2-7b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures pre- and post- Jacks Creek 1998
DBR including: surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom salinity (B SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B
TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO
(S DO in mg/L). Means are identified as solid black circles.

2.4.2 Salinity Tolerance Gradient
CZR (2004) developed a salinity tolerance gradient of plant species for the western and eastern prongs of
Jacks Creek to examine potential effects of salinity changes on the community structure. For the percentage
of dominant species at each monitoring transect that are intolerant of brackish conditions, there is no apparent
pattern across time or between 1998 (pre reduction) and later years.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 2-17
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
3.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN AN AFFECTED CREEK AND A
REFERENCE SITE
3.1 APPROACH
Muddy Creek, in the same general local geographic area as Jacks Creek, has experienced relatively low levels
of DBR relative to Jacks Creek (Table 1-1; 6% vs. 51 % respectively) and is considered a reference site
(CZR 2004) to which other creeks can be compared to assess effects of DBR. A comparison between Jacks
and Muddy Creek is made here to examine various indicators of creek function (fisheries, benthos, and water
quality). Data are compared from 1978 - 2005 to incorporate early DBR in Jacks Creek, and separately from
1999 - 2005 after the greatest impact to Jacks Creek had occurred (the 34% DBR in 1998). The analysis was
limited to years when sampling was conducted in both creeks. Data collected include fisheries CPUE,
benthic samples, and three measures of water quality (salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen [DO]).
3.2 FISHERIES CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT CPUE)
CPUE data (collected by NCDMF, provided to ENTRIX by CZR) are compared between Muddy and Jacks
Creek for individual species. A KS test was used to determine whether a statistically significant difference in
CPUE exists between Muddy and Jacks Creek. Frequency distributions and box-and-whisker plots were
used to examine data visually.
3.2.1 Results
Estimates of CPUE for both sites appear to vary substantially over time (Figure 3-1 a-b). Some peaks occur
at the same time in all creeks (e.g. brown shrimp around year 2000), but many do not (e.g. Atlantic
menhaden).
CPUE 1978-2005
Estimates of mean CPUE incorporating all years (1978-2005) for means across all species, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, and spot are significantly different (P< .05). CPUE for the mean of all species and spot is
greater in Muddy Creek. Estimates of CPUE for brown shrimp and southern flounder are significantly
greater in Jacks Creek (P< .05) (Table 3-1). Estimates of CPUE for Atlantic menhaden are not significantly
different between Muddy and Jack Creek despite a much larger estimate in Muddy Creek. This is likely due
to a very high CPUE value (605.6) in 1987 (Figure 3-lb) in combination with the variance observed across
years.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-1a. Mean CPUE for six species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp,
southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek by NCDMF from 1978-2005. Only those data
for which both creeks were sampled in the same year are shown.
MEAN CPUE MUDDY VS JACKS
100%
80% -
60% MUDDYCREEK
40% - q JACKS CREEK
20% -
0%
co I` LO I` rn -- M LO
00 00 00 m M M CD CD CD
M M O O O
? V_ N N N
YEAR
Figure 3-1b. Mean CPUE for six species individually (blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden,
brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek sampled by NCDMF from 1978-
2005.
Muddy vs Jacks Blue Crab CPUE
25
20
j 15

U 10
5

YEAR
®--- Muddy
-Jacks
Muddy vs Jacks Atlantic Croaker CPUE
1000
800
LU 600 ®--- Muddy
U 400 Jacks
200
0,w?w
CIA'b el
CIIbA 4111
41c, e"" 4?1
I
I 1
1
YEAR
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-lb. (continued).
Muddy vs Jacks Atlantic Menhaden CPUE
700
600 w
500
j 400 -- Muddy
U 300 -Jacks
200
a
100
0
O 1 O 3 0 ° 6 h
YEAR
Muddy vs Jacks Southern Flounder CPUE
70
60
50
w 40 --?--- Muddy
Ua 30 -Jacks
20
10
O.w-awe-w..-...,?.?.?,?.?.?..ro
YEAR
Muddy vs Jacks Brown Shrimp CPUE
30
25
20
a 15 Muddy
10 Jacks
5
.?0 00 0'6 eP 00 00 ?? ?'6 4P 1O 4% 4`1 ell ell,
YEAR
Muddy vs Jacks Spot CPUE
800
700
600
4 ---?--- Muddy
w 500 300-
a 400,
U ?,.......-Jacks
200
100
0 ?w
O bA O O 1 O ti h
Nq" Nc° Nce 0 ?.°?O ?.°?O ?.°?O ?.°?O 16) 16)
YEAR
Table 3-1. Mean CPUE for Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1978-
2005 for all species and six individual species (N=17).
Mean CPUE
Species Muddy Creek Jacks Creek
All Species 68.1 37.3
Blue crab 1.6 3.4
Atlantic croaker 73.4 76.4
Atlantic menhaden 53.0 13.2
Brown shrimp 1.4 3.2
Southern flounder .70 5.2
Spot 310.2 122.0
"Significantly different (P<.05)
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
CPUE 1999-2005
No significant differences in any estimates of CPUE are detected between Muddy and Jacks Creek when
samples from 1999-2005 are compared. Some observations are similar to estimates made for all years
(1978-2005) however. For example, estimates of CPUE for spot and menhaden are higher in Muddy whereas
estimates for shrimp, croaker, blue crab and flounder are lower, but not significantly (Table 3-2; Figure 3-2 a,
b, and c; and Figure 3-3 a, b and c).
Table 3-2. Mean CPUE in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1999-2005
for selected species.
Mean CPUE
Species Muddy Creek Jacks Creek
All species 61.4 52.8
Blue crab 1.7 2.4
Atlantic croaker 45.4 155.6
Atlantic menhaden 22.2 3.7
Brown shrimp 2.7 7.0
Southern flounder 0.85 10.5
Spot 295.6 137.5
Figure 3-2a. Frequency distribution and associated box-and-whisker plot of mean CPUE for six species
(blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1978 to 2005. Means are indicated by solid black circles in the
box-and-whisker plots.
i..,? i_'E;

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-2b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker,
Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1978 to
2005.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-2c. Box-and-whisker plots of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker,
Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1978 to
2005. Means are identified as solid black circles.
w : . . . . ; . . . . . . ; ....... . .

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-3a. Frequency distribution and associated box-and-whisker plots of mean CPUE for six species
(blue crab, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy
and Jacks Creek from 1999 to 2005. Means in box-and-whisker plots are indicated by solid black circles.
Figure 3-3b. Frequency distribution of mean CPUE for six individual species (blue crab, Atlantic croaker,
Atlantic menhaden, brown shrimp, southern flounder, spot) sampled in Muddy and Jacks Creek from 1999 to
2005.

}
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008

3.3 BENTHOS

CZR (2004) identified a statistically significant (P < .05) difference in total abundance (grab data) between
creeks; values for Jacks Creek were greater than those of Muddy Creek (Table 3-3). There was a significant
difference between total taxa (sweep data) in the downstream sampling where total number of taxa in Muddy
Creek is greater than that observed for Jacks (P<.05).
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 3-3. Mean abundance and taxa for Muddy and Jacks upstream and downstream sites sampled
by CZR (2004) and associated P value.
Mean Value Mean Value
Benthic
Sample Muddy
Upstream Jacks
Upstream
P Value Muddy
Downstream Jacks
Downstream
P Value
Grab
Total abundance 157.6 860.5 0.01 438.7 825 0.10
Total taxa 11.7 17.7 0.08 16.2 19 0.18
Sweep
Total taxa 23 20.3 0.26 20.6 15.3 0.02
CZR (2004) assessed the total number of taxa encountered in benthic sweep (Figure 3-4 a-b) and grab
(Figure 3-5 a-b) samples in Jacks and Muddy Creek from 1998 to 2004. Generally, number oftaxa found in
sweep samples were higher for Muddy Creek, and number of taxa found in grab samples were higher for
Jacks Creek. However, there were no consistent trends or patterns.
Individual species present in Muddy and Jacks Creek vary and comparisons can be made using those species
considered indicative of water quality - specifically, Dicrotendipes nervosus, Dicrotendipes. spp., Macoma
balthica, Mediomastrus ambiseta, Gammarus tigr'inus, Mysidipsis almyra, Streblospire benedicti,
Tubifrcoides heterochaetus, Chironomus spp., and Cricotopus spp. A KS test was used to look for
differences between mean number of species sampled in Jacks and Muddy Creek.
Figure 3-4a. Total number oftaxa encountered in benthic sweep samples from upstream
sampling stations. Data provided by CZR.
SWEEP SAMPLES
$0
< 30
J 20 ......... ..... . ........ 1"'1111111111 .........
199)8 1l)99 2000 2001 2002 200'21 2C;54 20'_x;,
YEAR
u Jacks Upstream

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-4b. Total number of taxa encountered in benthic sweep samples from downstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR.
SWEEP SAMPLES
40
X 30
r-i Jacks Downstream
20 -
® Muddy Downstream
O 10 -.
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YEAR
Figure 3-5a. Total number oftaxa encountered in benthic grab samples from upstream sampling stations.
Data provided by CZR.
GRAB SAMPLES
35
a 30
Jacks Upstream
X 25 r7i
20 Muddy Upstream
Q 15
p 10
~ 5
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YEAR
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-5b. Total number of taxa encountered in benthic grab samples from downstream sampling
stations. Data provided by CZR.
GRAB SAMPLES
35
a 30
X 25
20 - Jacks Downstream
J
a 15 Muddy Downstream
p 10-
~ 5 -.
0-__ __ T I __ -
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YEAR
3.3.1 Sweep Samples
The mean number of Dicrotendipes nervosus in the upstream and downstream sweep samples was
significantly greater in Jacks Creek. Chironomus spp. was significantly greater in Muddy Creek for both the
upstream and downstream samples. These results are confounding. Both species are considered pollution
indicative (Llanso et al. 2002). Mean number of Cricotopus spp. was significantly greater in Muddy Creek
than Jacks Creek. This species has been identified as having a freshwater preference (Pinder 1986).
3.3.2 Grab Samples
Mean number of Tubifrcoides heterochaetus was significantly greater in the Jacks Creek downstream grab
samples and Chironomus spp. was in significantly greater numbers in the Muddy Creek downstream sample.
Chironomus spp. is considered pollution indicative; T. heterochaetus is considered pollution indicative by
some (e.g. Lerberg et al 2000) and pollution sensitive by others (e.g. Llanso et al. 2002).
3.4 WATER QUALITY
Water quality measures (salinity, temperature, DO) were measured by CZR (2004) and NCDMF
(data provided to ENTRIX by CZR). A KS test revealed no significant difference in mean values between
Muddy and Jacks Creek (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). Indeed, the values for these two creeks seem quite similar over
time (Figure 3-6), in terms of their frequency distributions for the period 1978-2005 (Figures 3-7a and 3-7b),
and when comparing the 1978-2005 period to the 1999-2005 period (3-8a and 3-8b).
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-11
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 3-4a. Mean number of benthic species, (with associated water quality indicator) for Jacks and
Muddy Creek based on 1999-2005 upstream and downstream sweep samples. Data provided by CZR.
Upstream Downstream
Water Quality Jacks Muddy Jacks Muddy
Species Indicator Creek Creek Creek Creek
Dicrotendipes nervosus* Pollution indicative' 46.2 0.0 17.9 0.0
Dicrotendipes spp. Pollution indicative' 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Macoma balthica Pollution sensitive' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mediomastrus ambiseta Pollution sensitive' 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pollution indicative
Pollution
ive'
Streblospire benedicti 2 0
ndicative
Pollution indica .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tubificoides heterochaetus Pollution sensitive' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pollution indicative
Chironomus spp. Pollution indicative' 0.0 19.4 0.0 31.6
Cricotopus spp. Freshwater preference3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4
Gammarus tigrinus Freshwater preference4 94.9 89.4 46.1 86.2
'Llanso et al. (2002), ZLerberg et al. (2000),3Pinder (1986), 4Pinkster et al. (1992), 5 Dauer et al (2001)
*Significant difference between means P<.05
Table 3-4b. Mean number of benthic species (with associated water quality indicator) for Jacks and
Muddy Creek based on 1999-2005 upstream and downstream grab samples. Data provided by CZR.
Upstream Downstream
Water Quality Jacks Muddy Jacks Muddy
Species Indicator Creek Creek Creek Creek
Dicrotendipes nervosus Pollution indicative' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dicrotendipes spp. Pollution indicative' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Macoma balthica Pollution sensitive' 0.0 0.0 20.6 22.4
Mediomastrus ambiseta Pollution sensitive' 5 0.0 0.0 37.5 8.3
Pollution indicative
Streblospire benedicti Pollution sensitive' 0.0 0.0 16.5 2.9
Pollution indicative
Tubificoides heterochaetus* Pollution sensitive' 0.0 0.0 38.2 .65
Pollution indicative
Chironomus spp. Pollution indicative' 26.8 17.7 7.5 23.8
Cricotopus spp. Freshwater preference3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gammarus tigrinus Freshwater preference4 47.6 1.47 4.5 3.1
'Llanso et al. (2002), ZLerberg et al. (2000),3Pinder (1986), 4Pinkster et al. (1992), 5 Dauer et al (2001)
*Significant difference between means P<.05
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-12
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 3-5. Mean water quality values for Muddy and Jacks Creek
for all years sampled from 1978-2005.
Water Quality Mean Value
Measure Muddy Creek Jacks Creek
Surface salinity 7.2 6.4
Bottom salinity 7.0 6.3
Surface temperature 24.9 24.4
Bottom temperature 24.6 24.2
Surface DO 6.8 6.7
Bottom DO 6.8 6.5
Table 3-6. Mean water quality values for Muddy and Jacks Creek
for the years 1999 - 2005.
Water Quality Mean Value
Measure Muddy Creek Jacks Creek
Surface salinity 7.5 7.0
Bottom salinity 7.6 7.0
Surface temperature 26.4 25.4
Bottom temperature 26.2 25.4
Surface DO 6.8 6.7
Bottom DO 6.8 6.6
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
3-13
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-6. Surface salinity (S Sal in ppt), bottom salinity (B Sal in ppt), surface temperature (S Temp in
°C), bottom temperature (B Temp in °C), surface DO (S DO in mg/L), and bottom DO (B DO in mg/L) for
Muddy and Jacks Creek (NCDMF data provided to ENTRIX via CZR).
Muddy vs Jacks B Sal
16.00
14.00
- 1200
.0- 10.00 r - - M uddy
J 8.00
600 t Jacks
Go 4.00 - -
2.00
0.00
YEAR
Jacks vs Muddy B TEMP
U 30.00
WU 25.00 -
F 20.00 ...®... Muddy
c( 15.00 ---ig--- Jacks
W 10.00
a
:?i 5.00
F 0.00
YEAR
Jacks vs Muddy B DO
12.00
10.00
8.00
0) ... ®... M uddy
E 6.00
® r Jacks
4.00
2.00
0.00
97 98 99 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005
YEAR
Muddy vs Jacks S Sal
16.00
14.00
F 12.00
4 10,00
-- Muddy
8.W
J
6.00 .:. Jacks
..
? 4.00
2.00 .. .. ..
0.00-.
di,
YEAR
Jacks vs Muddy S TEMP
30.00
W 25.00 ::. .. --
h 20.00
15.00 .r--PA uddy
a 10.00 --- Jacks
?E 5.00
W
I- 0.00
YEAR
Jacks vs Muddy S DO
12.00
10.00
8.00
? s:.. _ .. ... ®'.. Muddy
6.00 ....
® ---Jacks
U 4.00
2.00
0.00
97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 005
YEAR
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-14
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-7a. Frequency distribution of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity (B SAL in
ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in
°C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by
NCDMF from 1978-2005 for Muddy and Jacks Creek.
-------- Tq
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-7b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity
(B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature
(S TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L)
collected by NCDMF from 1978-2005 for Muddy and Jacks Creeks. Means are identified by solid black
circles.
-7
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-16
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-8a. Frequency distribution plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity
(B SAL in ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S
TEMP in °C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L)
collected by NCDMF from 1999-2005 for Muddy and Jacks Creeks.
_
{
-? ,-.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-17
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 3-8b. Box-and-whisker plots of mean water quality measures including bottom salinity (B SAL in
ppt), surface salinity (S SAL in ppt), bottom temperature (B TEMP in °C), surface temperature (S TEMP in
°C), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), bottom DO (B DO in mg/L), and surface DO (S DO in mg/L) collected by
NCDMF from 1999-2005 for Muddy and Jacks Creeks. Means are identified by solid black circles.

Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 3-18
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
4.0 REVIEW OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR PCS
MAN-MADE CREEK (PAII)
4.1 GENERAL APPROACH
This "created" creek (PAII) has a drainage basin of only 19 ac and is used here, therefore, as an example of a
creek with a very limited drainage basin. Although this creek has not experienced the process of drainage
basin reduction through mining activities or other means, it was deemed valuable to consider the chemistry
and biota of this creek, relative to natural creeks in the same area in this examination of the effects of DBR.
Three separate studies are summarized here and some additional analysis is provided. The studies include
Rulifson (1991), West (2000) and CzR (2007).
4.2 SUMMARY OF RuLIFSON (1991)
Note: This information is based on data provided by Rulifson (1991) and is a synopsis of selected material
from the report with some additional observations.
In 1983, North Carolina Phosphate Corporation (NCPC) constructed "created" wetland ecosystems referred
to as Project Area 1 and 2 (PAI and PAII). The goal of creating these creeks was "to establish self-sustaining
ecosystems that provided sufficient functionally-equivalent ecological value as the natural tributaries in South
Creek which the company wants to mine" (NCPC 1983, in Rulifson 1991).
The original goals of the study were to:
• Determine if created wetland ecosystems can develop faunal communities that are similar to natural
wetlands in the same vicinity;
• Determine the rate at which faunal communities of man-made wetlands develop; and
• Identify the major factors that determine rate of development.
Project Area II was constructed by NCPC to connect with Drinkwater Creek near its mouth. The basic
topography of upper Jacks Creek was followed constructing PAII and is oriented in approximately the same
direction.
Data were collected on fuifish in PAII (Rulifson 1991). Data included:
• Spatial and temporal distributions of juvenile and adult fish in four natural South Creek tributaries
(Tooley, Drinkwater, Jacobs, Jacks) from May 1984 - May 1985;
Environmental data (water temperature, salinity, DO, Secchi disk visibility depth, water depth, cloud
cover, wind direction); and
• Gear type assessment;
• Trawl -to collect juvenile and adult finfish at the mouth of each creek;
• Wegener (Wegener et al. 1974) Ring - to estimate finfish density and mobile invertebrates; and
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 4-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Experimental gill nets -to capture larger juvenile and adult fish.
4.2.1 Analysis of Catch Data
The purpose of this analysis was to compare PAII to the control (natural) sites. Rulifson (1991) notes that it
is difficult to assess whether or not a man-made creek is functioning as a natural creek, but that estimates on
comparability can be made based on number and abundance of species over time.
4.2.2 Finfish Food Habitat
Analysis of food habits were made based on gut analysis of spot and Bay anchovy. These species were
selected to identify potential differences in feeding habits among creeks (Drinkwater, Jacks, PAII) due to
their abundance and presence in the creeks at the same time of year.
4.2.3 Analysis of Catch Data
Drinkwater, PAII, and Jacks were used to examine creek variability; gear types were limited to trawls and
Wegener rings. Trawl data are based upon monthly values from June 1984 through December 1988. The
Wegener ring data were subdivided so that only April, July, and October samples from July 1984 to
October 1987 were analyzed.
Independent variables selected for analysis included: year, month, month nested within year, creek, and the
interaction of these variables.
4.3 RESULTS
4.3.1 Species Abundance by Gear Type
Numerical abundance of species varied by gear type - Overall, Bay anchovy was the most dominant followed
by spot and then croaker and menhaden.
The total number of finfish collected by trawl (all months) and Wegener ring (April, July, October) were
analyzed by an Analysis of Variance statistic (ANOVA).
Trawl data - A strong seasonal component in the data, with significant interactions of creek by year and creek
by month, but the variable creek was not significant by itself.
Differences in total finfish abundance exist among creeks, but the differences are not consistent, i.e., no one
creek dominates in the total number of fish present.
The distribution of fish spatially (from creek to creek) is influenced significantly by time (season and year).
Wegener ring - Samples collected from PAII contained significantly greater numbers of finfish than the
control creeks, which were statistically similar in total number of finfish caught.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
4-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
The abundance of all finfish collected by Wegener rings was analyzed seasonally to determine whether a
significant difference among creeks was evident. Results indicated significant differences (P <.01) in finfish
abundance by year, creek, and the interaction of creek by year for April, July and October. Abundance in
ring samples collected during April were statistically similar (P<.05) for PAII and Jacks, which were higher
than Drinkwater. In July, finfish abundance was significantly greater (P< .05) for PAII than for Drinkwater
or Jacks, which were statistically similar. In October, PAII had greater finfish abundance (P < .05) compared
to Jacks Creek, but was statistically similar to Drinkwater.
4.3.2 Dominant Finfish Species
Bay anchovy
Trawl data - Differences among creeks were not statistically significant due to strong year and seasonal
components of abundance. Anchovy catches in PAII resemble those of Drinkwater and Jacks through 1986,
but appear to decline relative to control creeks in 1987 and 1988. This is in part due to a one year (1987) high
abundance in Jacks Creek.
Wegener ring data - The general analysis did not reveal significant differences among creeks. However, this
is thought possibly due to a limited database.
In sum, abundance of bay anchovy was statistically similar in PAII to control creeks.
Atlantic menhaden
Trawl data - Catches in PAII were not significantly different from control creeks.
Wegener ring data - Catches in PAII were not significantly different from control creeks.
In sum, no statistically significant difference in the abundance of Atlantic menhaden among creeks could be
determined from collections made by trawl or Wegener ring.
Spot
Trawl data -Catches of spot were significantly greater (P < .05) in PAII than in the control creeks, which
were statistically similar (P < .05).
Wegener ring data -Catches of spot in PAII and Jacks Creek were statistically similar (P < .05) and higher
than those in Drinkwater.
In sum, PAII had a greater number of spot than the control creeks.
Atlantic Croaker
Trawl data - Number of Atlantic croaker was significantly different (P < .05) among creeks. Drinkwater
Creek had the greatest number followed by Jacks and PAII.
Wegener ring data - This gear type was not particularly efficient at collection of Atlantic croaker. No
significant difference in Atlantic croaker abundance was observed.
Southern Flounder
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 4-3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Trawl data - No significant difference among creeks was detected.
Wegener ring data - No significant difference among creeks was detected.
In sum, abundance of southern flounder was statistically similar in PAII to control creeks.
Table 4-1. Summary of results (No = no significant difference
among creeks; Yes = significant difference among creeks)
comparing fish species abundance among creeks by gear type
(Trawl, Wegener Ring).
Significance by Gear Type
Species Trawl Wegener Ring
Bay anchovy No No
Atlantic menhaden No No
Spot Yes Yes
Atlantic croaker Yes No
Southern flounder No No
4.3.3 Finfish Food Habits
Rulifson (1991) states that hard conclusions concerning significant differences in food habits of the
two species could not be made, but some trends were noticed. Percentage of fish containing food increases
with fish size.
Fish between 30 and 49 mm TL captured in PAII had fewer ostracods in stomachs compared to control
creeks in 1984. This observation may be due to a limited number of ostracods available in PAII, an increased
number of alternative prey (not identified), or both. No information on food availability in the water column
was obtained.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
• Based on trawl samples, the total number of finfish collected from PAII was not significantly
different from the control creeks;
• Based on Wegener ring samples, the total number of finfish collected from PAII was statistically
greater than the control creeks;
• The dominant fish species was Bay anchovy, the number of this species was not significantly
different in PAII relative to the control creeks;
• The abundance of Atlantic menhaden was not significantly different among creeks using either gear
type;
• The abundance of spot in trawl samples was significantly greater in PAII than the control creek;
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
4-4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
• The number of spot collected in PAII by Wegener ring was statistically similar to Jacks but
significantly greater than Drinkwater;
• Wegener ring sampling indicated that number of Atlantic croaker was not significantly different from
control creeks;
• There was no significant difference in southern flounder abundance among the three creeks for both
trawl and Wegener ring gear types; and
• Bay anchovy and spot foraging in PAII during the latter half of 1984 showed little variation in prey
items selected or in number of prey ingested.
4.5 SUMMARY OF CZR (2007) WITH ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
To examine the effects of DBR on tidal creeks, and obtain additional monitoring data, CZR (2007) quantified
fish and water quality parameters for several creeks (Jacks, Jacobs, PAII, Drinkwater, Tooley, Porter). The
fish data were based on Fyke net sampling methods. To this end, these data cannot be compared to earlier
estimates of fish distribution and abundance. However, the data are useful as a comparison among creeks at
this point in time and add to comparisons of creeks with varying degrees of DBR. Focus will be made here
upon the differences between Jacks Creek, PAII, and Tooley Creek. Jacks Creek has undergone the greatest
amount of DBR (51 %). Tooley has experienced much less (19%) but is considered similar to Jacks Creek in
size and structure. PAII is considered here due to its small drainage basin, and similarity to surrounding
creeks (i.e. those used in this [CZR (2007)] study). Focus is given to these three creeks in the summary. Any
text taken directly from the CZR (2007) report is shown below in italics.
4.5.1 Water Quality
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and subsequent post-hoc comparison (Tukey HSD, P<.05) revealed a
significant difference (P<.001) in conductivity, specific conductivity, salinity, and depth between Porter
Creek and all others (Jacks, Jacobs, PAII, Drink-water, Tooley). No significant difference in percent
dissolved oxygen, mg/L dissolved oxygen, temperature, or pH was found among creeks.
4.5.2 Fish Community
Species richness did not differ significantly among creeks (ANOVA, P 0.52). There was a significant
difference in number of individuals caught at each creek (ANOVA, P 0.028). Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests
show that Tooley Creek had significantly more individuals than Porter Creek (P< 0.05), which has been
identified as having different attributes than other creeks. Values of species diversity (Shannon- Weiner
index) did not differ significantly among creeks (ANOVA, P 0.538).
ANOSIM (analogous to ANOVA) is a non parametric test that compares values for many attributes
(i.e., numbers of 24 fish species) atone time. PAII data were compared to pooled data from all other creeks
(natural creeks) using ANOSIM. This was done in an attempt to determine whether PAII falls within a range
of conditions present at natural creeks instead of whether PAII resembles anyone creek. ANOSIMshowed
that the fish community at PAII was not significantly different from fish communities at all other creeks
combined (R0.05861, P0.6201). Because Porter Creek differed in physical and biological characteristics
from all other creeks, it was removed from comparison for second analysis ofPAII versus the other creeks.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 4-5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
ANOSIMresults showed that PAII was not significantly differentfrom all other creeks even when Porter
Creek is removed from analysis (R0.005456, P0.4389).
ANOSIMwas also used to compare Jacks Creek to Tooley Creek. Fish communities at the two creeks were
significantly different (R0.7188, P0.029). ANOSIMtakes the abundance ofall species into account, but,
in general, Tooley Creek had more abundance ofAtlantic menhaden, pinfish, and mummichog, while
rainwater killifish were more abundant at Jacks Creek. Numbers ofpumpkinseed, spot, and other; less
abundant species were comparable at the two creeks.
The fact that the fish community at Jacks Creek is significantly different from the fish community at a creek of
similar size (Tooley) could be due to a variety of human-induced activities; however; natural variation could
have produced this difference. Mining, resulting in the loss of 51 percent of the Jacks Creek watershed,
could have resulted in physical changes that changed the fish community. However; none of the physical
characteristics we measured explain the difference between Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek-fish communities.
Values for important water quality indicators, such as dissolved oxygen and salinity, were similar between
Jacks and Tooley Creek.
The total abundance of fish (number of fish captured of all species) was compared among Jacks, Tooley, and
PAII Creeks using ANOSIM and a significant difference (P <.05) was detected. Tooley Creek is
significantly different (P < .05) from both Jacks and PAIL As noted above, overall numbers are significantly
greater in Tooley Creek and numbers of some species are much higher in Tooley than in Jacks Creek
(e.g. Atlantic menhaden, mummichog, and pinfish). However, some of these same species are in high
numbers in PAII as well (e.g. Atlantic menhaden) (Table 4-2). Of these, only mummichog is in relatively
high numbers in Tooley Creek and rare in Jacks and PAIL The abundance of this species was significantly
different (P <.05; Kolmogorov-Smimov) between Jacks and Tooley and PAII and Tooley, but not different
between Jacks and PAIL It is possible that this is an indication of a difference in basin area.
Fish Community Ordination
Bray-Curtis values for percent community similarity show that the fish community atPAII is most similar to
Tooley (67.19 percent). The fish community at Jacks Creek is most similar to Drink-water (65.33 percent).
Fish Size Distribution
To determine whether significant differences exist among creeks with respect to fish size, data collected by
CZR (2007) were analyzed. A Kruskall-Wallis test revealed that significant differences (P <.05) in fish size
exist among Jacks, Tooley, and PAII for the most common species. Significant differences in mean size of
pumpkinseed sunfish were found among all sites; spot are significantly smaller in PAII and Atlantic
menhaden are significantly larger in Tooley Creek (Table 4-3). These data reveal no consistent trend. It may
suggest differences in food availability among creeks or differences in temperature, but these data do not
suggest necessarily that Tooley Creek (as the reference site) has sufficiently better habitat to allow these
species to grow at a faster rate or to a larger size.
4.5.3 Comparison to PAII Only
PAIL did not differ significantly from any creek, except Porter Creek, in terms of physical characteristics, fish
species richness, fish abundance, or fish diversity. Mean conductivity, specific conductivity, and salinity were
higher atPAII than any other creek, but not significantly. Fish species richness and abundance values from
PAIL were within the ranges observed at all other creeks. However; species evenness was lowest atPAII,
suggesting that some species were much more abundant than others.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 4-6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
The results of the current study are similar to those ofprevious work. Ruh/son (1991) obtained similar
results in a study conducted from 1984 through 1987, finding that PAII was statistically equal to or higher in
fish abundance than Drink-water and lacks Creeks. In that study, only Atlantic croaker were significantly
less abundant in PAII than in other creeks. Atlantic croaker was not caught in any of the creeks during this
study. Atlantic croaker may have been absentfrom the area because ofhigh salinity or high variation in
salinity during the sample period (Moser and Gerry 1989). In addition, Ruh/son (1991) sampled for a longer
period of time and with different gear types (trawls, Wegener rings, and experimental gill nets) than were
used in the current study.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
4-7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 4-2. Number of each fish species captured by CZR in
2007 at Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek and PAII.
Fish Count
Species Jacks Tooley PAII
American eel 0 0 1
Atlantic menhaden 14 230 219
Atlantic needlefish 0 1 0
Bluegill 1 2 3
Bluespotted sunfish 1 0 0
Golden shiner 1 4 0
Inland silverside 7 3 1
Longnose gar 1 0 0
Mosquitofish 1 0 1
Mummichog 2 253 0
Pinfish 49 117 74
Pirate perch 0 1 0
Pumpkinseed 126 84 151
Rainwater killifish 83 11 4
Sheepshead minnow 2 34 1
Southern flounder 3 0 2
Spot 154 210 397
Striped mullet 0 0 8
White perch 1 14 3
TOTAL 446 964 865
*Significantly different between Tooley and the other two creeks (Jacks and PAII).
Table 4-3. Mean size for four common species (pumpkinseed sunfish, pinfish, spot,
Atlantic menhaden) sampled from Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and PAII.
Mean Size (mm) by Creek
Species Jacks Tooley PAII
Pumpkinseed sunfish' 145.5 155.7 173.0
Pinfish 68.0 67.9 65.2
Spot2 71.9 70.0 64.1
Atlantic menhaden3 38.9 59.4 44.2
'Significant difference among all creeks
zSignificant difference between PAII and Jacks/Tooley
3Significant difference between Tooley and Jacks /PAII
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
4-8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
4.6 SUMMARY OF WEST ET AL. (2000)
Assessments of nursery area function were carried out over a 10-year period in a 3-ha, oligohaline marsh and
creek system (Project Area II [PAII]) and four natural "control" creeks (Drinkwater, Jacks, Jacobs,
and Tooley) located in the Pamlico River estuary, North Carolina. Habitat function was assessed by
comparing (1) growth and survival of fish; (2) long-term monitoring of water quality, sediment organic
carbon, and the benthic infaunal community; and (3) measurement of benthic food availability. Growth
(weight gain) and survival of the fish Leiostomus xanthurus (spot) held within enclosures were similar in both
created and natural habitats. Species composition, total fauna density, and species richness of the infaunal
community of PAII and the natural creeks were comparable within 3 years after construction of the Project
Area. However, the sediments of the Project Area lacked the woody detrital cover, high peat content, and
predominance of silt and clay characteristic of the natural creek sediments.
West (2000) stated that the created creek, PAII, was functionally equivalent to the natural creeks because
PAII developed an infaunal community of abundance and diversity rivaling that of the natural creeks and
because reproduction, growth, and survival of spot were similar between PAII and the natural creeks.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
4-9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study was to assess whether the available data indicate any changes in water quality or
biota that may be indicative of the effects of drainage basin reduction. Several lines of evidence were used to
assess these potential impacts. These lines of evidence specifically include:
• Pre- and post- DBR comparisons;
• Comparison of a DBR affected creek to a reference creek; and
• Comparison of natural creeks to a "created" tidal creek with limited drainage area.
5.1.1 Primary Conclusion
The primary conclusion of this assessment is that the environmental monitoring data that we examined
provided few indications of discernable changes that demonstrated an effect indicative of drainage basin
reduction. This result was true for comparison of pre- and post-DBR data from Jacks Creek, when post-DBR
data from affected creeks were compared with a local reference creek (Muddy Creek) and when data were
examined for the created creek (PAII, limited drainage area) in comparison to natural creeks. Indeed, overall
there was no discernable effect based on the water quality parameters, fish assemblages or general benthic
assemblage and condition, as indicated by species richness, expected dominance of certain taxonomic
groupings, presence of sensitive or tolerant species, and other biotic indices used for assessing the health and
integrity of estuarine tidal creeks.
5.1.2 Pre- and Post-DBR Comparisons
Mean CPUE, benthic samples, and water quality were compared between pre- and post- DBR in Jacks Creek.
No discernable effect of DBR on Jacks Creek was observed with these data.
Fisheries CPUE
Changes in mean CPUE were observed between pre- DBR and post- DBR samples . However, there were no
changes consistent with an effect due to DBR in Jacks Creek based on these data.
Mean CPUE for all species combined was significantly greater in the post- DBR samples. However, when
pre- and post- DBR estimates of CPUE were compared for individual species, no significant differences were
observed. In fact, some species (e.g. blue crab, Atlantic menhaden) had higher mean CPUE values pre- DBR
whereas others (e.g. brown shrimp, southern flounder, Atlantic croaker) had lower pre- DBR values.
The increase in overall mean CPUE despite both increased and decreased estimates for individual species is
likely due to the relatively large increase in a few species in a limited number of years post- DBR,
specifically around 2000 to 2002. Estimates of CPUE for brown shrimp and southern flounder increase
dramatically in these years specifically. The increases in these two species correspond with a known
extended period encompassing some low-flow years during 1998-2002 (Weaver 2005) (Figure 5-1) and may
be due to the associated increased salinity.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 5-1. Estimates of bottom salinity (B Sal in ppt) for wet and dry years in Jacks Creek, and CPUE
estimates overtime for southern flounder and brown shrimp.
JACKS CREEK B SAL
12.00
F 10.00 -
a 8.00
J 6.00 - a' 1
Q 4.00
y 2.00
0.00
YEAR
r-- J SAL WET ----a ----J SAL DRY
CPUE SOUTHERN FLOUNDER
70
60
50
W 40
a_
a 30
U 20
10
0 ;..
gad ,,;I' gab O ge?L g?"x ??6 0 Qd' O?ti gQ0.
YEAR
CPUE BROWN SH I P
30
25
W 20
:D 15
a_
U 10
5
0
'b"' OF' 'bIb °'Z 1311 06 b CSZ CJ?' CSC`
'?°y
YEAR
Mean CPUE was compared for three creeks (Tooley, Muddy, Jacks) using brown shrimp and southern
flounder. As previously, discussed, Jacks Creek has experienced the greatest DBR; Muddy Creek has been
used as a reference creek due to its limited DBR. Tooley Creek is added here as an additional reference site.
It has experienced some DBR (approximately 20%) but is considered similar to Jacks Creek in its physical
characteristics (CZR 2007).
Brown shrimp increased during the same time period at all three creeks, as did southern flounder in Jacks
Creek (Figure 5-2). It could be that the overall increase in CPUE post- DBR in Jacks Creek may, in fact,
have been due to a large increase in these particular species as the result of the effects of increased salinity
brought on by below average rainfall and flows for some extended periods during 1998-2002 (Weaver 2005).
It has been demonstrated that brown shrimp have greater hatching success and lower larval mortality at
salinity levels above 27 ppt (but not higher than 35ppt) (Cook and Murphy 1969). Brown shrimp abundance
may be related to the increased levels of salinity observed here. Southern flounder can tolerate a wide-range
of salinity regimes. A preference of 20-33 ppt has been documented, but they are known to tolerate 0-35 ppt
(Daniels 2000).
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
S-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 5-2. Mean CPUE for brown shrimp and southern flounder in Tooley, Muddy and Jacks Creek
from 1978-2005.
CPUE SOUTHERN FLOUNDER
70
60
50
j 40
U 30
20
10
0
0 '. '1 O 3 0 O ti h
YEAR
r-- Tooley
a---- M uddy
Jacks
CPUE BROWN SHRIMP
30 r
25
20 ®--- Tooley
m
a 15 Muddy
U 10 Jacks

5 .? a = sa
0- a-?
0 8A 3 P ti h

YEAR
Benthos
There are no clear overall trends in abundance of various species of benthic taxa that suggest a change in
water quality post- DBR in Jacks Creek (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1. Benthic species, relative water quality indicator and relative increase or decrease post-
DBR.
Relative increase or Gear type and sample
Species Water Quality Indicator decrease post- DBR site
Dicrotendipes nervosus Pollution indicative' Increase Sweep, Downstream
Dicrotendipes spp. Pollution indicative' Decrease Sweep, Upstream
Macoma balthica Pollution sensitive' Increase Grab, Downstream
Mediomastrus ambiseta Pollution sensitive' 5 Increase Grab
Downstream
Pollution indicative ,
Streblospire benedicti Pollution sensitive' Increase Grab, Downstream
Pollution indicative
Tubificoides Pollution sensitive'

heterochaetus ,
Pollution indicative2
Increase
Grab, Downstream
Chironomus spp. Pollution indicative' Increase (grab,upstream) Grab, Upstream
Cricotopus spp. Freshwater preference3 Decrease Sweep, Downstream
Increase (grab, upstream), Grab, Upstream
Gammarus tigrinus Freshwater preference4 Decrease (sweep (increase), Sweep,
downstream) Downstream (decrease)
'Llanso et al. (2002), 2Lerberg et al. (2000), 3Pinder (1986), 4Pinkster et al. (1992), 5 Dauer et al (2001)
The downstream site samples contained the majority of both the species more indicative of a decrease in
water quality as well as an increase in water quality, providing no clear pattern of presence/absence of
particular water quality indicative species.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
S-3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Water Quality
No significant differences (P< .05) in water quality parameters (salinity, temperature, DO) were detected
between pre- and post- DBR samples for Jacks Creek. Although not statistically significant, the data suggest
that both temperature and salinity are slightly higher post-DBR and DO is slightly reduced. However, the
observed changes in water chemistry coincided with a period of drought.
It is possible that interpretation of the potential effect of DBR based upon pre- and post- 1998 samples may
be confounded by the data being collected during some years with abnormally low flows, which would be
expected to lead to increased salinity in the estuary and adjacent tidal creeks.
DBR-Affected Creeks Compared to Reference Creeks
Mean CPUE, benthic samples, and water quality were compared between Jacks Creek and a reference creek
(Muddy Creek). No discernable effect of DBR on Jacks Creek was observed with these data.
Fisheries CPUE
Some differences in mean CPUE were observed between Jacks and Muddy Creek. However, mean CPUE
estimates analyzed for this comparison do not indicate effects of DBR on Jacks Creek relative to Muddy
Creek.
Mean CPUE estimated for all species (Atlantic menhaden, spot, Atlantic croaker, brown shrimp, blue crab,
southern flounder) across all years (1978-2005) is significantly greater for Muddy Creek than Jacks Creek
(P<.05). Estimates of mean CPUE for Muddy Creek for this same time period are significantly greater for
spot. However, estimates for brown shrimp and southern flounder are significantly greater for Jacks Creek
When samples were compared using 1999-2005 (Jacks post- DBR) only, no significant differences in any
estimates of CPUE are detected between Muddy and Jacks Creek. Some observations are similar to estimates
made for all years (1978-2005) however. For example, estimates of CPUE for spot are higher in Muddy
Creek whereas estimates for shrimp and flounder are lower, but not significantly.
The data from 1978-2005 include a large number of years where CPUE estimates of brown shrimp and
southern flounder are low relative to later years, whereas spot are in greater numbers consistently across years
(Figure 5-3). As mentioned earlier, increases in both brown shrimp and southern flounder corresponded to
the end of the 1998-2002 period, which included years with abnormally low flows. Because spot are in
greater numbers in Muddy Creek even before DBR in Jacks Creek, it is likely that the creeks naturally differ
in numbers of this species due to differences in habitat type.
The increase in brown shrimp and southern flounder are specific to the years associated with abnormally low
flow discussed earlier. Because the relative increase in number of these two species is greater in Jacks than
Muddy Creek, it is possible that the low-flow periods affected Jacks Creek to a greater degree.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 5-3. CPUE for Muddy and Jacks Creek for brown shrimp, southern flounder and spot from
1978-2005.
Muddy vs Jacks Spot CPUE
800
700
600
w 500
? ---r--Muddy
a 400 m
U 300 -Jacks
200.x'
100
0
0 1
0 O 3 0 °j L h
00 00 00 00
NO,
YEAR
Muddy vs Jacks Brown Shrimp CPUE
30
25
20
w
a 15
10
5
a
1e 11%o eti o° e6 11%% o0 oti o'1 06 oe o0 oti o"
YEAR
I.. Muddy
-Jacks
Muddy vs Jacks Southern Flounder CPUE
70
60
50
m 40 -°°®--- Muddy
a 30 Jacks
U
20
10
0
^0.?0 ,?00^ ^O? ^00'1 ^000 ^003 ^0°j6 ^000 `LOO(1• ry00y
YEAR
Benthos
There were no obvious and consistent differences in benthic invertebrate abundance, number of taxa, or
distribution of pollution indicative/pollution sensitive species between Muddy and Jacks Creek.
Overall Number and Abundance
When total number of taxa was compared between sites, Muddy Creek had a significantly greater number at
the downstream site
There was a slight reduction in total number of taxa in 1999 in the Jacks Creek upstream sweep samples.
However, these samples rebounded in later years. The overall abundance of benthic taxa is significantly
greater in Jacks Creek than in Muddy Creek. If the change in abundance is due to a reduction in water
quality, a compositional change of water quality indicative species should be observed, but it was not.
Water Quality
There were no significant differences in water quality data between Muddy and Jacks Creek for either the
1978-2005 or the 1999-2005 samples. Estimates of salinity are slightly greater in Muddy Creek for both data
sets.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
S-S
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
5.1.3 Comparison to a Created Tidal Creek with Limited Drainage Area
Summary of Rulifson (1991)
Fish abundance, benthic and water quality data were compared between a created tidal creek (PAII) and
several surrounding creeks including Jacks Creek. This site (PAII) is considered representative of a creek
with essentially no drainage basin and is used to make inferences about the effects of a complete DBR.
No difference was found between PAII, a creek essentially without a drainage basin and surrounding creeks.
The finfish utilization data from the "created" marsh and creek system (PAII) had statistically similar fish
assemblages and relative abundance compared to the affected and reference tidal creeks of the Hickory Point
Peninsula study area. This tidal creek, with minimal drainage basin area, was used by a number of
recreationally and commercially important species. Additionally, it was used as nursery grounds for marine
and estuarine species, as a residence for euryhaline species, and as a refuge for transient species.
Summary of CZR (2007) Data and Additional Analysis
To examine the effects of DBR on tidal creeks, and obtain additional monitoring data, CZR (2007) quantified
fish and water quality parameters for several creeks (Jacks, Jacobs, PAII, Drinkwater, Tooley, Porter). The
fish data were based on Fyke net sampling methods. To this end, these data cannot be compared to earlier
estimates of fish distribution and abundance.
Water Quality
No significant difference in percent dissolved oxygen, mg/L dissolved oxygen, temperature, or pH was found
between PAII and surrounding creeks.
A significant difference in conductivity, specific conductivity, salinity, and depth was found between Porter
Creek and all others sampled.
Fish Community
Species richness did not differ significantly among creeks (ANOVA, P=0.52). There was a significant
difference in number of individuals caught at each creek (ANOVA, P=0.028). Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests
show that Tooley Creek had significantly more individuals than Porter Creek (P<0.05), Values of species
diversity (Shannon-Weiner index) did not differ significantly among creeks (ANOVA, P=0.538).
A non-parametric test (ANOSIM) to compare differences in numbers of fish species among creeks was used
to compare PAII data from all other creeks (natural creeks) The fish community at PAII was not significantly
different from fish communities at all other creeks combined (R=0.05861, P=0.6201). ANOSIM results
showed that PAII was not significantly different from all other creeks even when Porter Creek is removed
from analysis (R=0.005456, P=0.4389).
ANOSIM was also used to compare Jacks Creek to Tooley Creek. Fish communities at the two creeks were
significantly different (R=0.7188, P=0.029). ANOSIM takes the abundance of all species into account, but,
in general, Tooley Creek had more abundance of Atlantic menhaden, pinfish, and mummichog, while
rainwater killifish were more abundant at Jacks Creek. Numbers of pumpkinseed, spot, and other, less
abundant species were comparable at the two creeks.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
None of the physical characteristics that were measured explain the difference between Jacks Creek and
Tooley Creek fish communities. Values for important water quality indicators, such as dissolved oxygen and
salinity, were similar between Jacks and Tooley Creek.
The total abundance of fish (number of fish captured of all species) was compared among Jacks, Tooley, and
PA II Creeks using ANOSIM and a significant difference (P<.05) was detected. Tooley Creek is
significantly different (P < .05) from both Jacks and PAIL As noted above, overall numbers are significantly
greater in Tooley Creek and numbers of some species are much higher in Tooley than in Jacks Creek
(e.g. Atlantic menhaden, mummichog, and pinfish). However, some of these same species are in high
numbers in PAII as well (e.g. Atlantic menhaden). Of these, only mummichog is in relatively high numbers
in Tooley Creek (253) and rare in Jacks (2) and PAII (0). The abundance of this species is, in fact,
significantly different (P <.05; Kolmogorov-Smirnov) between Jacks and Tooley and PAII and Tooley, but
not different between Jacks and PAII.
Fish Community Ordination
Bray-Curtis values for percent community similarity show that the fish community at PAII is most similar to
Tooley (67.19 percent). The fish community at Jacks Creek is most similar to Drinkwater (65.33 percent).
Fish Size Distribution
A Kruskall-Wallis test revealed that significant differences (P <.05) in size exist among Jacks, Tooley and
PAII for the most common species. Significant differences in mean size of pumpkinseed sunfish were found
among all three sites; spot are significantly smaller in PAII and Atlantic menhaden are significantly larger in
Tooley Creek (Table 5-2). These data reveal no consistent trend. These data may suggest some differences
in prey base, but these data do not suggest necessarily that Tooley Creek (as the reference site) has
sufficiently better habitat to allow these species to grow at a faster rate or to a larger size.
Table 5-2. Mean size for four common species (pumpkinseed sunfish, pinfish, spot,
Atlantic menhaden) sampled from Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and PAII.
Mean Size (mm) by Creek
Species Jacks Tooley PAII
Pumpkinseed sunfish' 145.5 155.7 173.0
Pinfish 68.0 67.9 65.2
Spot2 71.9 70.0 64.1
Atlantic menhaden3 38.9 59.4 44.2
'Significant difference among all creeks
2Significant difference between PAII and Jacks/Tooley
3Significant difference between Tooley and Jacks/PAII
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Comparison to PAII Only
PAII did not differ significantly from any creek, except Porter Creek, in terms of physical characteristics, fish
species richness, fish abundance, or fish diversity. Mean conductivity, specific conductivity, and salinity
were higher at PAII than any other creek, but not significantly. Fish species richness and abundance values
from PAII were within the ranges observed at all other creeks. However, species evenness was lowest at
PAII, suggesting that some species were much more abundant than others.
The results of the current study are similar to previous work done by Rulifson (1991). However, in that
study, Atlantic croaker was significantly less abundant in PAII than in other creeks. Atlantic croaker was not
caught in any of the creeks during this study. Atlantic croaker may have been absent from the area because
of high salinity or high variation in salinity during the sample period (Moser and Gerry 1989). In addition,
Rulifson (1991) sampled for a longer period of time and with different gear types (trawls, Wegener rings,
and experimental gill nets) than were used in the current study.
Summary of West (2000)
West et al (2000) determined species composition, total fauna density, and species richness of the infaunal
community of the Project Area and the natural creeks were comparable within 3 years after construction of
PAII.
5.2 DISCUSSION
There are several possible reasons why an effect of DBR was not observed in the study creeks with the
available data. One reason might be that a threshold drainage basin reduction necessary to cause a
discernable change may not have been reached. It is possible that the reduction of 51 % of the watershed, as
occurred in Jacks Creek, is not great enough to result in a substantial or significant impact on the parameters
measured in this analysis. However, this seems to be an unlikely reason, because the detailed examination of
another "created" tidal creek, one with a near-zero drainage area, also had similar fish, benthic, and water
quality characteristics as local reference streams. West et al. (2000) presented evidence that the creeks
examined - creeks with unaltered drainage area, with drainage area reduction (Jacks Creek), and a created
tidal creek with very little drainage area - had patterns of salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen that
were virtually the same throughout all of the creeks, and the creeks showed an equivalence of nursery area
functions. One would expect that if drainage area and its associated local freshwater inflow was a primary
factor driving the water quality and biotic assemblages of these creeks, consistent patterns of differences
among the creeks would be manifested along a gradient of drainage area. Such patterns were not found in the
data and studies examined.
A second reason why an effect of DBR was not observed in the study creeks is that the variability of the data
may have been too large to discern significant differences or may have masked certain trends or differences.
While it is true that the variation in the fish, benthic, and water quality data was at times high, this is not
unexpected or unusual. Estuarine systems and tidal creeks are well known and recognized throughout the
literature as having high inherent natural variability. Such variance can make trends difficult to identify, hard
to detect statistically, and requires more data to make certain conclusions. Assessing changes in fish
abundance and diversity is difficult at best because high inherent natural variability in estuarine conditions
and biota often limit the ability to make predictions about the effects of changes in freshwater input. For
example, Allen and Barker (1990) noted that patterns of the relative abundance of early stage fish larvae were
not consistent from year to year. Indeed, large irregular fluctuations in relative abundance accounted for the
largest sources of variation.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
Accepted biological criteria or threshold values have not been developed for determining when tidal creek
macrobenthic and fish assemblages have been substantially changed or degraded (Holland et al. 2004).
However, considering the stress-tolerant nature of most biota inhabiting tidal creeks, Holland et al. (2004)
established a two standard error threshold for biological degradation to tidal creeks. As stated by
Holland et al., "This, in effect, amounts to requiring a statistically significant difference before the level of
impact is considered to be degraded." Holland et al. considered this stringent criterion to be justified given
the nature of the tidal creek communities and their inherent natural variability. Significant differences in fish
and macrobenthic communities of the magnitude proposed by Holland et al. as indicative of degradation were
not observed among natural, disturbed, and created tidal creeks on the Hickory Point peninsula.
A third potential reason for why an effect of DBR was not observed in the study creeks is because freshwater
input in these tidal creeks may be short-lived or limited and may not have a long-term or appreciable effect
on water quality and structuring biotic communities in these tidal creeks. The input of freshwater flow into
the upper ends of the tidal creeks tends to be seasonal and sporadic and closely related to rainfall events
(CZR 2005). For extended periods in the summer and fall or during drought conditions, freshwater inflow
and groundwater contribution can be very low. Therefore, the occurrence of low salinity waters in the upper
reaches of the tidal creeks is also likely to be relatively short-term events, as would the persistence of
associated low-salinity habitats. If this is the case, a reduction in this level of freshwater input into these
creeks may not lead to substantial changes in water chemistry or biota.
A fourth possible reason why an effect of DBR was not observed in the study creeks is because the
parameters measured and the accuracy of the measurement of those parameters could have been inaccurate or
inappropriate. However, it seems unlikely that the widely accepted measures of the community composition,
relative abundance, and water quality used in this study and widely throughout estuarine studies are
inappropriate for attempting to detect changes in tidal creeks. The studies performed do not reveal any gross
differences in dominant salinity regime, water quality, and fish or macrobenthic communities indicative of a
substantial impact. The available data simply do not support the supposition that large effects were present
but not detected.
A final reason exists why an effect of DBR was not observed in the study creeks is the effect may not be
there. That is, the estuarine communities of smaller tidal creeks in this part of Pamlico Sound are not highly
dependent upon localized freshwater flow or the changes in runoff/inflow to date have not been sufficient to
affect the benthic and fish assemblages. There may be reasons why DBR is not affecting the parameters
measured here. The effects of freshwater reductions on tidal creek salinities are occurring within the context
of a system whose general salinity patterns are driven by freshwater inflows from the Tar/Pamlico River as
well as influenced locally by tidal flux and strongly by wind tides. In this context, effects of changing local
watershed inflows may be small or difficult to detect. In fact, even though the multiple tributary streams of
South Creek have different contributing watershed areas and tidal creek mixing volumes (area of open tidal
creek within the "mouth" of the creek), the creeks had remarkably similar salinity regimes and few
statistically significant differences were observed among them.
This system experiences a high degree of variation in abiotic parameters (e.g. temperature, salinity, DO)
among years. This variability limits faunal diversity to a relatively small group of resilient eurytolerant
estuarine taxa (Boesch et al. 1976). Therefore, the species that are present in this system are likely tolerant of
a wide-range of abiotic parameters. Subsequently, changes in species composition may not occur unless
changes in abiotic parameters are much greater. A related and important observation about the study area
creeks was provided by West et al. (2000), who stated that "...perhaps most importantly, the oligohaline
ecosystem of which the project area is a part is characterized by intensely variable abiotic factors
(temperature, salinity, DO). This variability evidently limits faunal diversity to a small subset of resilient
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 5-9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
eurytolerant estuarine taxa (Boesch et al., 1976). These oligohaline infaunal communities probably never
reach a stable state before a seasonal disturbance initiates a new round of recruitment."
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
5-10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Allen, D.M., D.L. Barker. 1990. Interannual Variations in Larval Fish Recruitment to Estuarine
Epibenthic Habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Vol. 63: 113-125.
Boesch, D.F., Wass, M.L., Vimstein, R.W., 1976. The dynamics of estuarine benthic communities. In:
Wiley, M. (Ed.), Estuarine Processes. Uses, Stresses, and Adaptation to the Estuary, vol. 1.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 177-196.
Cook, H.L., and M.A. Murphy. 1969. The culture of larval penaeid shrimp Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 98:751-754.
CZR. 2007. Comparison of Physical Characteristics and Fish Communities in Disturbed, Created, and
Natural Upper Estuarine Creeks Sampled in June 2007 near PCS Phosphate,
Beaufort County, NC.
CZR. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation, Aurora,
North Carolina. September 2006. Available on the Internet at
http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/WETLANDS/Projects/PCS/DEIS/PCS%20DEIS%2OReport/PC
S%20DEIS%20TEXT/PCS%2020060/o2ODEIS%2OSection%201.O.pdf.
CZR. 2005. NCPC tract stream monitoring program for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Year seven
(2004) end-of-year report. March 2005.
Dauer, D.M. Benthic biological monitoring program of the Elizabeth River watershed. 2001. Submitted to
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 30 pp.
Dauer, D. M., S. B. Weisberg, and J. A. Ranasinghe. 2000. Relationships between benthic community
condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake
Bay. Estuaries 23:80-96.
Daniels, H.V. 2000. Species Profile: Southern Flounder. Publication of the Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center. October 2000. SRAC Publication No. 726.
Holland, Frederick A, Denise M. Sanger, Christopher P. Gawle, Scott B. Lerberg, Santiago, Marielis
Sexto, Riekerk, George H.M., Zimmerman, Lynn E., Scott, Geoffrey L 2004. Linkages between
tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. The
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298: 172-174.
Lerberg, S. B., A. F. Holland, AND D. M. Sanger. 2000. Responses of tidal creek macrobenthic
communities to the effects of watershed development. Estuaries 23:838-853.
Llanso, R.S., L.C. Scott, J.L. Hyland, D.M. Dauer, D.E. Russell, and F.W. Katz. 2002. An Estuarine
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Region of the U. S. IL Index Development.
Estuaries. 25 (65A):1231-1242.
Moser, M. L., L. R. Gerry. 1989. Differential effects of salinity changes on two estuarine fishes,
Leiostomus xanthurus and Micropogonias undulatus. Estuaries 12:35-41.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment 6-1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
NCPC (North Carolina Phosphate Corporation). 1983. NCPC Preliminary Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report - Response Document, September 23, 1983. Aurora, North Carolina.
Pinder L.C.V. 1986. Biology of freshwater Chironomidae, p.1-23. In Mittler T.E., Radovsky F.J.,
Resh V.H. (eds.), Annual Review of Entomology. 31. Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Pinkster, S. and D. Platvoet, 1983. Further observations on the distribution and biology of two alien
amphipods, Gammarus tigrinus Sexton, 1939 and Crangonyx pseudogracilis Bousfield. 1958 in
the Netherlands (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Bulletin zoo** logisch Museum Universiteit van
Amsterdam 9: 153-164.
Pinkster, S., M. Scheepmaker, D. Platvoet and N. Broodbakker. 1992. Drastic changes in the amphipod
fauna (Crustacea) of Dutch inland waters during the last 25 years. Bijdragen tot de
Dierkunde 61: 193-204.
Rulifson, R. A. 1991. Finfish utilization of man-initiated and adjacent natural creeks of south creek
estuary, North Carolina using multiple gear types. Estuaries. Vol. 14. No. 4. 447-484.
Weaver, C.J. The Drought of 1998-2002 in North Carolina - Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions.
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center. Publication Scientific Investigations
Report 2005-5053.
Wegener, W.D., D. Holcomb, and V. Williams. 1974. Sampling shallow water fish populations using the
Wegener ring. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game
and Fish Commissioners. 27: 663-673.
West, T.L. L.M Clough, W. G. Ambrose Jr. 2000. Assessment of function in an oligohaline
environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecological
Engineering 15: 303-321.
Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks -An Assessment
6-2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 1 of Appendix F April 2008
GAR
Z) VR?
C
February 8, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Div.
ATTN: File Number 2001-10096
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
ID, QW[0,
d,AR - 7 2007
CZA IC1COMOra-?d
Wilrr!inc vn, 'vC
This letter and attached document is in response to the request by the PCS Phosphate, inc.
which applied to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a Clean Water Act Section
404 permit to impact and fill wetlands and waters of the state for the purpose of continuing
its mining operations along South Creek and the Pamlico River in eastern Beaufort County
near the town of Aurora. The permit request includes excavation of 2,408 acres of wetlands
and waters, including brackish marsh and public trust areas, and greater than 38,800 linear
feet of stream. Sections of three designated inland Primary Nursery Areas that drain to
South Creels, a Secondary Nursery Area, would be excavated under the Applicant
Preferred mining alternative. This alternative lies within a tract of land known as the
NCPC tract, which is bordered to the north by the Pamlico River and to the east by South
Creek.
Due to the special nature of the upland-, wetland-, and estuarine-creek ecosystem within
the NCPC tract, we, the undersigned believe that the Applicant Preferred alternative would
result in a significant adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem that cannot be replaced
through mitigation in a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, we contend that any mining
through the headwaters or other downstream portions of the three PNAs and their
associated riparian wetland complex would result in significant degradation. The attached
document, "Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with the PCS Phosphate, Inc.
Proposed Mime Expansion" produced by the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation has been
included to support this claim.
Sincerely,
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar RIVE=PER°
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

John Alderman, President Dorothea Ames
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Geologist, PG
David Knowles, Ecologist Michelle Duval, Ph.D.
Greenville, NC Scientist
Environmental Defense
Joe Rudek, Ph.D. Doug Rader, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist Principal Scientist for Oceans
Environmental Defense and Estuaries
Environmental Defense
William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D. JoAnn Burkholder, Ph.D.
James B. Duke Professor, Biogeochemistry Director, Center for Applied
& Dean Aquatic Ecology
The Nicholas School of the North Carolina State University
Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University
William W. Kirby-Smith, Ph.D. Robert R. Christian, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of the Practice of Marine Ecology Coastal Ecologist
Duke, University Marine Laboratory
Noun Christensen, Ph.D. Emily S. Bernhardt, Ph.D.
Professor of Ecology Assistant Professor
Nicholas School of the Environment Department of Biology
Duke University Duke University
2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with PCS Phosphate, Inc.
Proposed Mine Expansion
I) INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose:: The purpose of this document is to evaluate the impacts to the aquatic
environment located within and adjacent to the proposed mine expansion by PCS Phosphate, Inc.
This tract of land is commonly referred to as the NCPC tract (formerly owned by the North
Carolina Phosphate Company). Information originates from peer reviewed journals, the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and personal communication with researchers and
DENR Agency personnel.
1.2 Significant Degradation: Under 404(b)l guidelines of the Clean Water Act, the US
Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the Corps) must deny a permit to fill wetlands
if it will result in significant degradation of the waters of the U.S. The burden of proof Lies with
the applicant to prove that wetland and water fill activities will not cause significant degradation.
Two considerations that are balanced in determining whether significant degradation occurs are
a) impact to the environment and b) the mitigation required by the permit. The Corps may be
more likely to find significant degradation if: 1) the.impact affects a particularly sensitive or
unique area; 2) the impact affects a large area; or 3) the aMeted environment has other features
that are not easily replicated by mitigation.
Pour broad categories of impacts can result in significant degradation:
1. Impacts to human health;
2. Impacts to wildlife;
3. Impacts to the aquatic ecosystem; and
4. Impacts to recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.
When evaluating these impacts, the guidelines specify, a focus on the "persistence and
permanence" of the impacts. This paper's focus is on proposed mining sequences and their
associated aquatic ecosystem impacts. Certain impacts to aquatic environments that are
scrutinized by the Corps include but are not limited to:
water chemistry salinity temperature dissolved gas levels
nutrients eutrophication diversion of flow hydrologic changes
shoreline erosion aquatic communities aquatic habitat spawning areas
nutrient cycling contaminant levels invasive species
altering upstream or downstream areas
1.3 Applicant Preferred Alternative. PCS Phosphate, Inc. has applied for a permit to
impact 2,408 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. A breakdown of the impact can be
found in Table 1. The request includes more than 38,800 linear feet 0t) of intermittent and
perennial stream impact and a 70% to > 90% reduction of the drainage basins of 6 named
tributary drainage basins (Table 2). Some reductions are considered permanent, others temporary
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

in the DEIS. The present natural hydrology within and in the periphery of the mine site will be
permanently altered. Three streams located within the NCPC tract proposed to be excavated are
listed as inland Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) (Street at al. 2005).
Table 1: ]Breakdown of wetland and water impacts by biotic community type (DEIS)
Biotic Community Type Applicant
Preferred Site
Public Trust Waters acres 5
Public Trust Waters (linear feet 14564
Perennial Stream acres 3
Perennial Stream linear feet 7008
Intermittent Stream acres 3
Intermittent Stream (linear feet 17267
Wetland Brackish Marsh 38
Wetland Bottomland Hardwood
Forest 102
Wetland Herbaceous Assemblage 235
Wetland Scrub-Shrub 202
Wetland Pine-Plantation 514
Wetland Hardwood Forest 504
Wetland Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Forest 564
Wetland Pine Forest 195
Pond 19
U land Herbaceous 234
Upland Scrub-Shrub 262
Upland Pine Plantation 55
Upland Hardwood Forest 67
Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 140
Upland Pine Forest 38
Upland Agricultural Land 117
Upland non-vegetated/maintained
areas 92
Total wetlands, waters, upland) 3412
Total linear feet streams 38839
Total Uplands acres 1005
Total Wetlands/water acres 2407
4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

Table 2: Drainage basin reductions for tributaries to the Pamlico River and South
Creek under the applicant preferred (AP) alternative (DEIS)

Creek Nain a Existing Total
Drainage
acres. Drainage in
NCPC Tract
aches Drainage in AP
to be Excavated .
acres Proposed
Drainage Basin.
Reduction
Jacobs 418 407 370 89
Jacks 320 310 280 88
Toole 444 430 375 84
Drink-water 426 418 373 88
Huddles Cut 756 707 702 93
Hudd Gut 392 285 285 73
1.4 NCPC Characterization:
More than 70% of the NCPC tract proposed for mining consists of delineated, federal and state
jurisdictional wetlands and open waterways. Riparian wetland types located in this tract of land
and within, the AP site include estuarine, riverine, headwater, and flat or depressional hardwood
and pine wetlands. Certain wetland types such as brackish marsh, bottomland hardwoods and
scrub-shrub within the NCPC tract are irregularly inundated due to dominance of wind tides,
which can cause dramatic fluctuations in salinity and water levels. The soils are poorly drained
with a high runoff potential. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table ranges from
ground surface to 2 feet below ground level. Wetland types are noted in Table 1. Jacobs, Jacks,
and Tooley Creeks are designated inland PNAs and South Creek is a special secondary nursery
area. These nursery areas are important habitats for numerous finfish and shellfish species.
Complete descriptions of the significant tributaries to South Creek within the NCPC track can be
found in the Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society (1985 v.101). In general, tributaries
to South Creek within the NCPC tract have complex marsh biotic communities that are
influenced by complex, interacting environmental factors rather than one environmental gradient.
They occur along steep physical gradients where laterally uplands and forested wetlands
dominate and upstream areas gradually give way to swamp forests. Most of the tributaries are
relatively shallow, narrow systems where runoff is greatest during the winter season when
evapotranspiration is low. Downstream reaches of the tributaries are bordered by brackish marsh
dominanted by Juncus romerianus (needlerush), but also include a mosaic of other marsh
species. Creek sediments are high in organic content South Creek is dominated by wind tides.
Annual precipitation is around 50 inches/year.
The following sections provide information on the potential for water quality and
other aquatic environmental impacts associated with the proposed mining
alten7ative.
Ae first discussion below in section H is related to downstream and peripheral
impacts to areas not directly impacted via the proposed mine expansion within the
NCPC tract.
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

II) Impacts to Downstream/Peripheral Wetlands of the Proposed Mine Site
Wetlands perform many functions critical to the health of aquatic environments (USEPA, 2001).
North Carolina has lost approximately 50% of its original 11.1 million acres of wetlands (Dorney
et al. 2004). Today, approximately 95% of the remaining wetland acres in the state are found
within the coastal plain (Bales and Newcomb 1999). The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary is a
nationally significant estuarine resource. This estuarine system provides essential nursery habitat
for most of the commercial and recreational fish and shellfish species caught on the U5 east
coast. Over 90% of North Carolina's commercial fish landings and over 60% of recreational
harvest by weight are comprised of estuarine-dependent fish species (Street et al. 2005),
Wetland and stream functions (2408 acres) within the mine excavation site will be permanently
lost, as noted in the DEIS. The uses of the land to be mined will also be permanently altered.
Section III of this document describes functions that will be lost within the mine site (AP), and
assesses whether or not these functions can be recovered through mitigation/reclamation within a
reasonable time frame (10 years). Table 3 includes functions that will be lost or reduced in
wetland and stream systems along the periphery of the mine site within the NCPC tract. Impacts
to downstream areas are not required to be mitigated; therefore, any impact or loss of function in
these areas will not be replaced.
Table 3: List of functions provided by downstream and peripheral wetlands of the
proposed AP mine alternative and associated impacts.
Functions Provided Impacted by AP Alternative Explanation
Flood control Impacted Section 2.4
Nutrient cycling Impacted Section 2.4a
Carbon sink or source Impacted Section 2.5
Loss of upstream functions as
sink and placement of dike
Sink for pollutants Impacted constructed with contaminated
sand tailings. Section 2.6.
Sediment accumulation Not Impacted
Soil Organic Matter Nat Impacted
accumulation
Increasing load from upstream
Primary Productivity Impacted nutrients and groundwater input.
Sections 2.4a and 25
Dampen wave energy Not Impacted
(erosion control)
Habitat (terrestrial & aquatic Impacted Section 2.3
Nursery Impacted Section 2.4
Detritus export Impacted Section 2.5
Z.I. Elemental Contamination
A study conducted prior to the implementation of the wastewater recycling system at the plant
site revealed that sediments in the vicinity of discharge sites on the Pamlico River and South
Creek contained elevated levels of cadmium, molybdenum, arsenic, Manganese, vanadium and
6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
I .t ,'. .. i. . i'. ; i
titanium as well as fluorine (Riggs et al 1989). All of these elements are found within the
phosphate grains. The toxicity of heavy metals to the aquatic environment has been well studied.
Specifically in the Pamlico Estuary several studies have associated metal contamination with
crab shell disease (Engel and Noga 1989; Brouwer et al. 1992; Gemperline et al. 1992;
Weinstein et al. 1992). Since the recycling system has been in place in the mid-1990s for PCS
Phosphate, crab shell disease has declined (personal communication, Sean McKenna, DMF
2006). The reclamation process uses a blend of gypsum and clay, which results in elevated levels
of metals, specifically cadmium within the mine site. Studies conducted by North Carolina State
University and outlined in the DEIS also found that cadmium had bio-accumulated in several
plant species located on existing reclamation areas. Further studies revealed elevated levels of
cadmium in benthic organisms, blue crabs and clams adjacent to PCS outfalls and ponds on
company property.
Df particular concern is the potential impact of metals leaching into downstream muds from
reclamation areas. The company proposes, at some point in the future, to reconnect natural
downstream areas with reclaimed streambeds within the mine site. It is clear in the DEIS that
current levels of cadmium and other metals around the mine site are elevated, including areas in
the NCPC tract which could cause adverse biological effects. The future longterm impacts from
mining and reclamation activities on cadmium and other heavy metal accumulation within the
aquatic environment are unknown. The potential suspension and transport of contaminated muds
during hurricane events or other strong storm events should also be evaluated. The DEIS fails to
consider these long-term impacts to the downstream aquatic environment.
2.2 Flow Dynamic Impacts on Salinity Gradient
The tributaries of South Creek have varying salinities (0-17 ppt). During low precipitation years,
it is evident that salinities are mainly driven by South Creek and ultimately by the Pamlico River
Estuary (Davis et al. 1985). Watershed input of precipitation and potentially surficial
groundwater flow are sources of freshwater to the headwater portions of these streams, and also
play an important role in producing a downstream salinity gradient. The greatest runoff occurs
during winter when evapotranspiration is low (Bradshaw et al. 1985). Both vertical and
downstream stratification occurs after periods of runoff. Groundwater salinities for the Sacks
Creek watershed ranges from fresh (--0) to 13 ppt (Brinson et al 1985). Sun et al. (2002) suggest
that topography affects stream flow patterns and storm flow peaks and volumes, and is the key to
wetland development in the southern US. The unique features and diversity of the contiguous
forested wetlands, uplands, and riparian wetlands (marsh, bottomland hardwood) within the
proposed mine block underscore the potential difficulty of providing mitigation that replicates
the complexity of this system.
The 2005 DEIS uses a similar argument to the previous permit EIS against any significant
salinity change due to large drainage basin reductions and excavation of ephemeral, intermittent,
and perennial stream segments. The basis for such an argument appears to come from two
studies: West's (1990) benthic study comparing Project Area H to 4 natural stream channels, and
the NCPC monitoring program in Jack's Creek (CZR Incorporated et al. 2005). West's (1990)
study sample size for water quality parameters is 4 replicates throughout one year, of which the
report states, 'It should be noted... that these data address only gross trends in temporal variation
in water quality because the time scale of sampling (trimonthly) far exceeded the time scale of
7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

significant change in water quality parameters (<l day)." Furthermore, the sample sites were
located in the lower stream segments (lower half to third approximately) of each tributary (Jacks,
Jacobs, Drinkwater and TooIeys) where influence from South Creek likely is the dominant
factor. The 2-4 ppt salinity change in this study does not capture the salinity regime of the
upstream portions. The second study on Jacks Creek is seriously limited because 1) Only one
year of baseline sampling took place, and 2) The impact described for Jacks Creek (37%
drainage basin reduction) cannot be reliably scaled up to assess potential aquatic system impacts
from 73-93% drainage basin reductions as proposed in the DEIS.
These cited studies do not provide sufficient evidence to support the premise that drainage basin
reductions will not result in salinity changes to downstream segments. By mining through upland
and adjacent wetlands areas, as well as headwaters and perennial stream segments, the drainage
basins will be severely reduced. As a result, there could be potentially significant increases
salinity for at least 15 years until reclamation can, at best, re-establish a drainage basin. At this
time it is unclear how the drainage basins will be permanently altered by reclamation activities,
but it is clear that the alterations will be significant and long-term. Due to the significant increase
in elevation of the reclamation area and altered soil horizons that will not resemble natural
conditions, drainage basins could potentially be permanently and significantly altered. The
affects of salinity changes on stream systems are further described in the following sections.
2.2.a Groundwater Alterations:
There is little information in the DEIS regarding the nature of groundwater- or surface water
flow in reclaimed areas as compared to flow under natural conditions. Castle Hayne Aquifer
impacts have been studied fairly extensively, but there is a lack of information on how surficial
aquifer or subsurface (rain-driven subsurface flow) may be altered in either adjacent natural
areas or in reclaimed tracts. The potential loss of groundwater input as well as surface drainage
loss to South Creek tributaries could further impact the naturally occurring vertical and
downstream salinity gradients.
2.3. Salinity Change impacts to Other Factors
Eliminating the freshwater /saltwater interface will most likely significantly alter natural function
of the creeks; including nutrient cycling (discussed in section 2.4.a below). Salinity changes will
also result in the loss of freshwater habitat for beneficial finfish species such as pumpkinseed,
largemouth bass, and bluegill. WRC shock studies from November 2006 (Data provide by Maria
Tripp, NC WRC) as well as Rulifson (1990) confirm freshwater species present; including those
listed above, in South Creek tributaries within the NCPC tract.
There also exists the potential for accelerated sea level rise that would result in salt-induced
stress to forested and bottomland-hardwood freshwater wetland areas and more rapid succession
to brackish marsh. Such salinity stress could affect the carbon and nutrient dynamics of these
wetlands, resulting in nutrient and energy loss (Lugo et al. 1988). This could, in haul, result in the
loss of bottomland hardwood- and freshwater marsh functions at a much faster rate than what
would occur naturally.
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
2.4 Hydrologic Changes and Consequences
EPA estimates than one acre of wetland can hold up to one and a half million gallons of
floodwater (US EPA, 2001). Verry (1997) suggests that wetlands can reduce flood peaks even
when wetlands are at water storage capacity, behaving similarly as reservoirs or lakes. Such
flood storage loss will alter the local hydrology within the NCPC tract. Dike construction may
induce more lateral flow and floodwater movement to areas previously inundated on less
frequent levels. Altered hydroperiods would result in an increase in frequency and magnitude of
anaerobic conditions within the riparian wetland areas. Increased anaerobic conditions can
promote release of nutrients (especially phosphorus and iron) from sediments into the water
column. Increased nutrients could result in increased algal blooms, further exacerbating
anaerobic bottom waters and mortality of fish and benthic fauna. Elevated levels of phosphorus
can also stimulate blooms of potentially toxic cyanobacteria (Burkholder 2002).
2.4.a Nutrient Cycling
Changes in hydrology resulting in prolonged anoxic conditions could significantly alter the
nutrient dynamics of the system. Nfitsch and Gosselink (1993) stated, "Anoxic conditions during
flooding have several other effects on nutrient availability. Flooding causes soils to be in a highly
reduced oxidation state and often causes a shift in pH, thereby increasing mobilization of certain
minerals such a P, N, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, B, Cu, and Zn. This can lead to both greater availability of
certain nutrients and also to an accumulation of potentially toxic compounds in the soil."
Phosphorus sorption potential in forested wetlands is partly a function of flooding and saturated
soil conditions that cause the accumulation of organic matter and aluminum (Axt and Walbridge
1999). Natural wetlands appear to have superior P sorption capacity in surface soils and,
conversely, upland P sorption occurs in the subsurface soil. Thus, wetlands appear to perform P
sorption via surface runoff and upland areas are more suited for improving groundwater quality.
(i.e. differences in soil chemistry as a function of landscape position). Again, it is important to
point out the diversity of upland, riparian wetland, and forested wetland systems in the NC-PC
tract.
It is unclear from the DEIS whether groundwater input is significant in the wetland and estuarine
creek systems of the NCPC tract. If groundwater input does play an important role, then there is
likely to be a high input of nutrients entering the system from the subsurface flow through
organic soils. Therefore, the primary productivity in upper areas of the creek systems may
depend on this high nutrient groundwater input.
An active point in the nutrient cycle is the naturally occurring die-offs of freshwater algae. The
potential loss of freshwater input and subsequent loss of freshwater algae could eliminate this
part of the nutrient cycle (personal communication, Robert Christian, ECU 2006).
Finally, marshes act as sinks for nutrients, sequestering them in plant tissue and sediments thus
removing them from the water column. The major tributaries to the Pamlico Sound, the Neuse
and Tar Rivers, have been designated by the NC Environmental Management Commission as
"Nutrient Sensitive Waters" due to consistently elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and other
pollutants and basin-wide nutrient reduction strategies have been implemented. This nutrient
enrichment has promoted algal productivity, hypoxia, anoxia, and fish kills in the lower estuaries
9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

[Burkholder et al. 2006). Removal of wetlands in the Pamlico Sound system would exacerbate
the impacts of this loading by removing the nutrient uptake capability of the marshes.
2.5 Carbon Cycle (Export and. Sequester)
The interaction of marshes and adjacent, aquatic systems can be very important to the supply or
sequestering of organic carbon to those aquatic ecosystems. Some studies suggest that marshes
can either export or retain carbon, depending on the relationship between aerobic microbes and
their consumers (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Marshes are detrital-based systems and conversely
many studies have found the export of detrital (particulate organic) and/or dissolved organic
carbon to be an important input to aquatic systems. Bottomland Hardwoods (BLH) perform
functions such as nutrient uptake and transformations, sediment retention, floodwater storage,
and organic C export to downstream ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Other studies
have found that much carbon is exported from marsh systems in the guts of migratory feeding
fish and birds or cycled through the marsh to the upper ends of tidal creeks and back to the
marsh. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Mining in the areas close to the estuary as proposed in all
altematives (except in the area south of highway NC 33) will remove mature watersheds that are
potentially significant sources of organic carbon to the estuary.
Unless the impact is mitigated with creation or effective, carefully evaluated restoration of
systems that can provide, a similar magnitude and quality of organic carbon to the estuary, the
estuary will suffer a net loss of habitat quality.
2.6 Headwater Stream Function
The proposed mine site includes raining through more than 38,000 linear feet of stream,
including 100 acres of BLH wetlands and other areas of riparian wetlands. Of particular concern
is any mining alternative that would eliminate the headwater stream channel as well as its
associated BLH and freshwater riparian wetlands. A memo from John. Dorney (NC DWQ), April
2006 states, "Headwater streams are very common and provide significant benefits to
downstream water quality and aquatic life. Intermittent streams have significant aquatic life even
though their flow is not constant throughout the year. Headwater wetlands are often associated
with these streams and provide important water quality filtration to protect downstream water
quality as well as significant aquatic life habitat. Therefore based on this on-going research, the
Division of Water Quality believes that protection of these headwater streams and wetlands is
essential to protect downstream water quality."
Headwater stream areas are typically influenced by adjacent riparian zones and should be
considered jointly with their associated riparian wetland areas. Physical hydrology/topography
(geomorphology) defines ecosystem function of headwater wetlands (Havens et al. 2004).
Coastal plain headwater wetlands typically have higher frequencies of overbank flows, flatter
hydrograph and longer inundation periods than piedmont or mountainous headwater regions
(Hupp 2000).
2.6 Other Mining Impacts
Construction of the dike system that will transect South Creek tributaries may also directly
impact surface water quality via sedimentation and increased turbidity. Another main concern is
10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
the direct erosion of contaminated sand tailings, which are the base used in dike construction.
The DEIS motes that a 1980 study found cadmium present in all three ore-processing by-products
[sand tailings, clay, and phosphogypsum) in levels that exceed natural background
concentrations at the ground surface (Wakefield 1980). Therefore, dike construction may cause
direct contamination of surface water and/or muds of the tributaries within the NCPC tract
2.7 Section II Summary
Existing in-stream data for South Creek tributaries within the NCPC tract suggest that drainage
basin input of freshwater is important to the overall function of those stream systems. The direct
raining of headwater, intermittent, and perennial stream channels as well as their associated
riparian wetlands would impact the hydrology, salinity gradient, nutrient cycling, and carbon
availability of the downstream portions of the south Creek tributaries, listed in Table 2. The
DEIS fails to demonstrate that mining portions of the estuarine creeks and riparian wetlands
would not result in a significant impact to downstream and peripheral areas.
The following section discusses direct impacts via the mine expansion, including a
discussion of existing wetland functions and the possibility that these functions can
be replaced through reclamation and mitigation.
III) MMGATTON
The DEIS notes that the existing functions of the 2,408 acres of wetlands within the mine
expansion boundary would be lost. The question then remains is whether resulting
compensatory mitigation and the reclamation process can replace the functions lost through
raining- and fill activities (Table 4). PCS Phosphates' conceptual mitigation plan could result in
approximately 4,000 acres of restored, enhanced or preserved land. Mitigation ratios in this plan
depend upon the wetland type. At this time, it is unclear where mitigation will take place,
although it is understood that one planned site is located on a tributary to Pungo Creep which
drains to the Pungo River. It has not been demonstrated or suggested by the company that all of
the mitigation would take place within the South Creek watershed, where the impacts would
occur. Furthermore, the buffer mitigation requirements are so large that the company has
requested a flexible plan that will replace required buffer restoration with other BMPs aimed at
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. This telling fact should be clearly conveyed in the
DEIS.
The more than 2000 acres of wetlands and waters, along with the 1000 upland acres proposed to
be impacted within the South Creek watershed, comprise a contiguous and interdependent
system, which currently includes three inland primary nursery areas (PNAs). Will the resulting
mitigation of unknown acreage per mitigation site result in complete replacement of the
functions lost from the proposed wetland- and waters, within an appropriate timeline (10 years)?
Will the resulting mitigation offer the full suite of functions and protection to PNA that the
existing wetlands and upstream channels of the NCPC tract provide?
As compensatory wetland mitigation becomes increasingly important in the health of our aquatic
ecosystems, the research related to assessing the functional equivalency of restored or created
sites to natural conditions has also increased. The section below summarizes research conducted
11
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

on-site or in similar wetland systems found within the NCPC tract, including the success of
restoring wetland function.
Table 4. Wetland functions (combined for all wetland types) and whether such loss of functions
from mining activities can be replaced within a 10 year timeframe.
Lost / Recoverable with
Mitigation within 10-
Functions Provided years lCa lanriiSon
Loss of floodpWn due to reclamation and resulting
higher elevations; potential for not loss of 100-year
Flood Control Lost floodplain. Mitigation may enhance flood control
functions, but flood plain acres will be lost
Aspects of complex biogeochemical cycling will not
Nutrient cycling Lost recover within 10 years. See Section 3.1 and 3.3.
Carbon sink or source Lost Not recoverable within 10 years. See Section 3.31
Recoverable with However, it is unlikely that mitigation will occur
Sink for pollutants mitigation upstream or adjacent to an inland PNA.
Sediment accumulation 'Not wholly recaverable See Section 3.3.
SOM content will be lower and will not recover in 10
SOM accumulation Lost years. See Section 3.2.

Productivity
Primar Recoverable with PP is a function of stream depth. See Section 3.4.
y mitigation
Highly dependent on location of mitigation site. A Parker
Dampen wave energy Recoverable with Farm-like mitigation effort will not replace functions lost
(erosion control) mitigation in riparian wetland systems adjacent to estuarine streams
Habitat Recoverable with See Section 33.
(terrestrial & aquatic) mitigation
Recoverable with However, successful mitigation projectsa function of
Nursery mitigation location. See Section 3.5.
Detritus export Lost Not recoverable within 10 years.
3.1 Denitrification:
A study comparing restored to natural BLH wetlands found that restored wetlands have lower
denitrification potentials:, even though the correct hydrology and vegetation was present (Hunter
and Faullmer 2001). This study suggests that restoration of water quality functions of BLHs are
dependent on more than hydrology alone.
3.2 Soil Organic Matter (SOM):
Soil properties of created and restored wetlands systems differ from those of natural wetlands
(Verhoeven et al. 2001). in restored and created wetlands in the NC coastal plain, mean SOM
content for all created and restored wetlands analyzed was significantly lower than the mean
SOM content in adjacent natural wetlands for four HGM settings (headwater riverine, mainstem
rive.rine, non-riverine mineral soil flat, and nonriverine organic soil flat; Bruland and. Richardson
12
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
77
2006). Bailey Creek and Parker Farm are compensatory mitigation sites for PCS located within
the South Creek watershed. The Parker Farm restored areas have only 24.2% SOM content,
whereas SOM content of the adjacent natural wetland is 77.4% (Breland and Richardson 2006).
There was no significant difference in SOM content between the created site and natural site on
the Bailey Creek area. However, it is important to note that the natural area of Bailey Crack bad
the second lowest SOM content (8.9%) out of 11 natural wetlands analyzed. Low SOM content
may hinder development of microbial communities, which are critical to wetland function
(Duncan and Grroffman 1994, Bruland 2004). Bacterial communities that rely upon this organic
matter for energy provide via mineralization, inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon to the
wetland system.
3.3 In-stream and Riparian Wetland Soil Structure:
West's (2000) analysis of Project Area 2 (created estuarine creeklmarsh) as compared to Jacobs,
Drinkwater, Jacks, and Tooley Creeks revealed that PA2 sediments lacked woody-detrital
covering, significant peat component, and predominance of silt and clay found in natural creek
sediments. West also pointed out that evidence is lacking for detectable accretion of these
components over a 10 year period in PA2.
Based upon a 15 year study of vegetation and soil development in the created PA2 brackish
marsh system, wetland soil formation is slower to develop than the plant community (Craft et al.
2002). Biomass of the regularly inundated Spartina alterniflora reached natural levels within
three years. Juncus roemerianus and S. c}n Osuroides, two species inundated less frequently,
required nine years to match natural marsh conditions, and the upland S. patens had not achieved
natural marsh equivalence after 15 years. Soil characteristics, including porosity, organic C and
total N reservoirs, along the streamside and interior areas were estimated to require 70-90 years
to reach natural marsh conditions. Wetland soil conditions of the upland border, dominated by S.
patens were estimated to require more than 200 years to recover.
3.4 Sediment Interaction
Bradshaw at al. (1985) suggested the physical attributes of South Creek tributaries strongly
influence sediment chemistry: "The large amount of metabolism per unit surface area in such
shallow waters also means that primary productivity is highly concentrated per unit area, an
important characteristic for a viable nursery. Because these creeks are so shallow, activity of the
sediments is necessarily a large proportion of ecosystem function." This is an important aspect to
consider if estuarine stream channels are to be impacted. The resulting mitigation must match not
only the hydrology, soil, and vegetation of the natural area, but stream depth as well to replace
the high productivity found in the existing NCPC South Creek tributaries.
3.5 Habitat Replacement
An assessment of nursery fimction of the created brackish-marsh / estuarine-stream complex
PA2 over a 10-year period found that nursery functions, as related to ichthyofauna and benthic
infauna (Rulifson 1991), were supported in the created area (West et al. 2000). West at al. (2000)
linked the success of the created area to four aspects related to its location. First, the created
habitat is surrounded by the same habitat it was intended to replace or mimic. Second, the
surrounding area is a large undeveloped habitat that eliminates anthropogenic sources of
pollution and other aspects that can negatively impact restoration or creation projects. Third, due
13
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

to its non tidal nature, erosive forces are minimal. Lastly, the created area, similar to its adjacent
natural habitats, is limited in the amount of fauna it can sustain under highly variable abiotic
factors. As West at al. (2000) points out, the majority of the taxa found in the area are part of a
small subset of resilient, tolerant estuarine species. Due to the proximity of PA2 to two relatively
undisturbed natural creek systems, invertebrate recruitment pools are large and ultimately may
play an important role to the success'of the PA2 mitigation site. Considering that the proposed
mining alternatives would require a much larger scaled salt marsh mitigation site, it is
questionable whether recruitment pools will be sufficient to garner similar results. The DEIS
needs to provide evidence that scaling up a project such as PA2 is feasible with a high
probability of success.
As noted above, the sediments are dissimilar between the natural creeks in the NCPC tract and
the created PA2 area, and there was no evidence of accretion of peat, woody detritus and silt and
clay over a ten-year period. Perhaps this is a function of a lack of upstream watershed, including
riparian and forested wetland habitat. However, this difference seems to play an insignificant
role in the ability of mobile benthic and fish fauna to inhabit the area; there appeared to be
enough high quality food to account for the equality of abundances of invertebrates in created vs.
the natural system. Other potential functions of woody detrital material, such as nutrient cycling
functions, were not tested. The soil and vegetation study described in Section 3.3 estimated that
wetland soil characteristics in created brackish-marsh systems require 70-200 years to re-
establish natural conditions (Craft at al. 2002). While the West at al. (2000) and Rulifson (1991)
studies demonstrate that created marsh creek system can support fauna, these studies did not
address whether created wetlands can establish the biogeochemical, microbial and other
functions of natural wetlands.
There is also an important question related to reference sites for future mitigation. If a mining
alternative were to be permitted that would directly impact the estuarine creek systems and their
associated riparian wetlands in the NCPC tract, what wetland and streams systems would be used
as a reference for evaluating future mitigation success? Due to climate change and off-shore
evidence of shifts in range of species, it will be important to have a contemporary reference point
to evaluate future mitigation efforts. Use of a static reference paint, from historical South Creek
tributary data, will not be sufficient to adequately evaluate the success of future mitigation
efforts.
Final aspects to consider are the loss of a native seed bank with the removal of wetlands under
any mining alternative, and the possibility for invasive plant species colonization. Wetland
mitigation also cannot replace seed bank loss. The DEIS fails to consider the potential for spread
of invasive plant species to peripheral and downstream wetland areas not directly impacted by
mining activities. Phf agmites sp. and other invasive species are present on the current
reclamation areas.
3.6 Section M Summary
The proposed impacts via the AP mining alternative would directly and indirectly impact
estuarine stream and riparian wetland ecosystem health and function. As evaluated in Section II,
the AP alternative would result in significant degradation of the aquatic enviromnent. Section III
analyzes the potential for functional equivalence between restored or created wetland systems to
14
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
natural conditions. While some functions, such as aquatic habitat, maybe restored within 14
years, many other functions and natural wetland characteristics will only be restored with a
significant lag period on the order of decades. Furthermore, the DEIS fails to demonstrate the
feasibility of reliably scaling up mitigation efforts (compared to much smaller past projects) that
would yield a high probability of success.
The proposed brackish marsh mitigation will be similar to PAl and 2 located between Jacobs
and Drinkwater Creeks on the west side of South Creek. The loss of the salinity/ freshwater
interface by mining through a major portion of South Creek tributary's drainage basins will not
be recovered through this type of mitigation. The complexities of the systems located within the
NCPC tract cannot be replicated through mitigation without an associated significant lag time as
mentioned. Existing riparian wetlands within the NCPC tract provide quality protections for the
inland PNAs, and resulting mitigation must also provide this protection. Many individual
functions of the wetlands and stream channels located within the NCPC track are interdependent,
Replacing a contiguous wetland/stream system with smaller, fractured mitigation sites will result
in the loss of interdependent functions, the interaction of upland, flat and riparian wetlands and
coastal streams, and the complexity of the system presently occurring within the NCPC tract.
M CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that mining activities within the NCPC tract, especially
within riparian wetlands and stream channels, will not cause significant degradation of the
aquatic environment. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that appropriate
mitigation will take place in a timely manner to replace the functions lost through the excavation
of wetlands and waters. Situations identified in this document that would lead to a significant
adverse impact to the aquatic environment include:
- Elemental enrichment of estuarine streams from mining and reclamation activities,
including cadmium and fluorine, as well as phosphate enriclmient, that would cause
adverse biological effects.
Hydrologic alterations due to drainage basin reductions that would result in
downstream salinity changes.
- Hydrologic alterations that would result in increased anaerobic conditions in riparian
wetland areas resulting in changes to the nutrient cycling.
- Loss of freshwater habitat due to drainage basin reductions from mining.
- Changes to the carbon cycle due to the removal of mature watersheds that are
potentially significant sources of organic carbon to the estuary.
- Loss of headwater stream function and their associated wetlands that would result in
the loss of water quality filtration.
- Direct sedimentation and metal contamination impacts from dyke construction across
estuarine streams.
Therefore, it is our determination that mining riparian wetlands and streams, including sections
of three designated inland PNAs within the NCPC tract will result in adverse impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem that cannot be appropriately mitigated and would constitute significant
degradation under 464(b)l guidelines.
15
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

V) REFERENCES
Axt, J.R., and M.RWalbridge. 1999. Phosphate Removal Capacity of Palustrine Forested
Wetlands and Adjacent Uplands in Virginia. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:1019-
1031.
Bales, J,D. and D.J. Newcomb, 1999, North Carolina Wetland Resources. Raleigh, NC: US
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425.
Bradshaw, H.D., M.M. Brinson, E.A. Matson, and G.J. Davis. 1985. Composition and
Metabolism of Sediments in Irregularly Flushed Estuarine Creeks in North Carolina. Journal of
the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2): 52-75•
Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and M.N. Jones. 1985• Transitions in Forested Wetlands along
Gradients of Salinity and Hydroperiod. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2):
76-94.
Brouwer, M., D.E. Engel, J. Bonaventura, and G.A. Johnson. 1992• In "Vivo Magnetic Resonance
Imaging of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus: Effect of Cadmium Accumulation in Tissues on
Proton Relaxation Properties. The Journal ofExper-imental Zoology 263:32-40.
Bruland G.L. 2004. An observational, geostatistical, and experimental assessment of edaphic
properties and process in created, restored, and natural wetlands of the southeastern coastal plain.
Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Bruland, G. L. and C.J. Richardson. 2006. Comparison of soil organic matter in created, restored
and paired natural wetlands in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:245-251.
Burkholder, J.M. 2002. Cyanobacteria, pp. 952-982. Invited, peer-reviewed contribution for the
Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, by G. Bitton (ed.). Wiley Publishers, New York.
Burkholder, J.M., D.A. Dickey, C, Kinder, R.E. Reed, M.A. Mallin, G. Melia, M.R. McIver,
L.B. Cahoon, C. Brownie, N. Deamer, J. Springer, H. Glasgow, D. Toms and J. Smith. 2006.
Comprehensive trend analysis of nutrients and related variables in a large eutrophic estuary: A
decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Limnology and Oceanography 51:463-
487.
Craft, C., S.Broome, and C. Campbell, 2002. Fifteen years of vegetation and soil development
after brackish-water marsh creation. Restoration Ecology 10(2): 248-258•
CZR Incorporated, R.W. Skaggs, and D.W. Stanley. 2005. NCPC Tract stream monitoring
program for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Year seven (2004) end-of-year report.
16
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

Davis, G.J, H.D. Brasdshaw, M.M. Brunson, and G.M. Lekson. 1985. Salinity and Nutrient
Dynamics in racks, Jacobs, and South Creaks in North Carolina, October 1981-November 1982.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2),.37-51.
Dorney, J. April 5, 2006. Memo: Background information on the water quality and aquatic life
values of headwater streams and headwater wetlands. Wetlands Program Development Unit. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Dorney, J., D. Hugget, and R. Ferrell. 2004. State Wetland Programs: North Carolina. Windham,
ME: Association of State Wetland Managers. Available at
htt ://vvw.asrvrn.orulsw /northcaroli.na9.htm.
Duncan C.P. and P.M. Groffman. 1994. Comparing microbial parameters in natural and
constructed wetlands. Journal ofEmdr•onmental Quality 23: 298-305.
Gemperline, P.r., K.H. Miller, T.L.West, J.E. Weinstein, J.C, Hamilton, and J.T. Bray. 1992.
Principal Component Analysis, Trace Elements, and Blue Crab Shell Disease. Analytical
Chemistry 64(9): 523-531.
Havens K.J, D. O'Brien, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt, D. Schatt, and C. Hersi er. 2004. Initiating
development of a forested headwater wetland HGM model for wetlands management in Virginia.
Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Final Report
to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (CD #983596-01).
Hunter RG., and S.P. Faulkner 2001. Denitrification potential in restored and natural wetlands.
Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 65: 1865-1572.
Hupp, C.R. 2000. Hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation of Coastal Plain rivers in the south-
eastern USA. Hydrological Processes 14: 2991-3010.
Lugo A.E, S. Brown and M.M. Brinson. 1988. Forested wetlands in freshwater and salt-water
environments. Limnology and Oceanography 33(4 part 2), 894-909.
Mitsch, W.J and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, Zed Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York.
Riggs, S.R, E.R. Powers, J.T. Bray, P.M. Stout, C. Hamilton, D. Ames, R Moore, J. Watson, S.
Lucas, and M. Williamson. 1989. Heavy metal pollutants in organic-rich muds of the Pamlico
River Estuarine System: Their concentration, distribution, and effects upon benthic environments
and water quality. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Project No. 89-06.
Rulifson, R.A. 1991. Finfish Utilization of Man-Initiated and Adjacent Natural Creeks of South
Creek Estuary, North Carolina Using Multiple Gear Types. Estuaries 14(4): 447-464.
17
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008

Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North, Carolina Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries.
Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, D.M. Arnatya, R-W Skaggs, L.W. Swift Jr., J.P. Shepard, and
H.Riekerh2002. A comparison of the watershed hydrology of coastal forested wetlands and the
mountainous uplands in the Southern US. Journal of Hydrology 263:92-104.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation, Aurora, North Carolina.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. Sustainable Communities.
Office of Water document number EPA843-F-01-002L
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001.Functions and Values of
Wetlands. Office of Water document number EPA843-F-01-002c.
Verhoeven J.T.A., D.F. Whigham, R. van Logtestijn, and J. O'Neil. 2001.A comparative study
of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in tidal and non-tidal riverine wetlands. Wetlands 21: 210-
222.
Verry, E.S. 1997. Hydrological processes of natural, northen forested wetlands. In. Trettin, C.C.,
Jurgensen, M.F., Grigal, D.F., Gale, M.R. Jeglum, J.F. (Eds.). Northern Forested Wetlands,
Ecology and Mangament. Lewis, New York, pp. 163-188,
Wakefield, Z.T. 1980. Distribution of cadmium and selected metals in phosphate fertilizer
processing. TVA Publication Y-159.
Weinstein, J.E., T.L. West, and J.T. Bray, 1992. Shell Disease and Metal Content of Blue Crabs,
Callinectes sapidus, from the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, North Carolina. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 23:355-362.
West, T. L. 1990. Benthic Invertebrate Utilization of Man-Made and Natural Wetlands. Report to
Texasgulf Chemicals, Inc. Aurora, North Carolina 27896.
West T.L., L.M. Clough, and W.G. Ambrose Jr. 2000• Assessment of function in an oligohaline
environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecological
Engineering 15:303-32L
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, and T.W.S.E,C. Pendleton.1982. The ecology ofbottomland
hardwood swamps of the southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program., Washington, D.C.
18
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 2 of Appendix F April 2008
Comparison of physical characteristics and fish communities in disturbed,
created, and natural upper estuarine creeks sampled in June 2007
near PCS Phosphate, Beaufort County, NC.
r
Prepared for:
PCS Phospate Company
Aurora, NC
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Comparison of physical characteristics and fish communities in disturbed,
created, and natural upper estuarine creeks sampled in June 2007 near
PCS Phosphate, Beaufort County, NC.
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Comparison of physical characteristics and fish communities in disturbed,
created, and natural upper estuarine creeks sampled in June 2007 near
PCS Phosphate, Beaufort County, NC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
COVER PAGE .................................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................1
METHODS ...................................................................................................................4
Field Methods .............................................................................................4
Analysis Methods .......................................................................................5
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................6
Water Quality Parameters ..........................................................................6
Fish Community ..........................................................................................6
Fish Community Ordination ........................................................................7
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................10
Constructed vs. Natural Creeks ................................................................10
Disturbed vs. Undisturbed Creeks ............................................................11
Conclusion ................................................................................................11
LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................12
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Fyke net locations depicted on a USGS topographic map ....................................3
2 Example of net setup ............................................................................................5
3 Graphical representation (Correspondence Analysis) of community
similarity among Porter Creek and five tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort
County, NC during June ........................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Mean water quality parameters during June 2007 from Porter Creek
and five tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC. Within
each row, values that are significantly different from each other
(ANOVA, P<0.05) have a different letter next to them (i.e., Several
parameters are different between Porter Creek and all other creeks,
but the other creeks do not differ from each other) ...............................................6
2 Characteristics of fish communities in Porter Creek and five
tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC in June 2007.
Within each row, values that are significantly different (ANOVA,
P<0.05) from each other have different letters next to them (i.e.,
Mean abundance differs significantly between Tooley and Porter
creeks, but no other pair of creeks differs significantly in any
parameter .............................................................................................................. 7
3 Percent similarity (Bray-Curtis Similarity Index) of the fish
communities among Porter Creek and five tributaries of South
Creek, Beaufort County, NC during June 2007 .....................................................9
4 Mean abundance of each species caught at Porter Creek and five
tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC during June 2007 ....................10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A Site Photographs .................................................................................................14
B Raw Data ............................................................................................................18
IV
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Comparison of physical characteristics and fish communities in disturbed,
created, and natural upper estuarine creeks sampled in June 2007 near
PCS Phosphate, Beaufort County, NC.
Introduction
This study was conducted to determine whether a human-made estuarine
creek functions as a nursery area for fishes, and to evaluate the affects of a
reduced drainage basin, from mining activities, on fish communities.
Project Area II (PAII) is a human-created marsh that was completed in
1983 by North Carolina Phosphate Company as upfront mitigation for proposed
impacts to brackish marsh in Jacks Creek. Wetland mitigation often involves
creation and/or restoration of habitat that is similar to that which has been
affected. Previous work has shown that PAII is similar to natural creeks and
performs many of the same functions (Rulifson 1991, West 2000), although most
published data on the project area are over a decade old. The current study is
aimed at determining whether PAII, a created estuarine creek, still functions as a
fisheries nursery 24 years post-construction.
The watershed of Jacks Creek was reduced by approximately 51 percent
from 1980 to 1983 when headwater wetlands and uplands were mined for
phosphate (CZR 1994). One of the focuses of the current study is to determine
whether drainage basin reduction has significantly reduced the fisheries nursery
function of Jacks Creek.
Study Area
Sampling was conducted in the upper estuarine creeks of six watersheds
largely in the vicinity of the PCS phosphate mine. All six streams drain into the
Pamlico River estuary, North Carolina (Figure 1). All of the streams, except
Porter Creek, are tributaries on the northwestern side of South Creek. Porter
Creek is a tributary of Durham Creek. Both Durham Creek and South Creek
drain into the south side of the Pamlico River in the vicinity of Aurora, NC. Four
of the streams (all except PAII and Drinkwater Creek) have been designated as
Primary Nursery Areas for ocean-spawned fishes by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission as advised by the NC Department of Marine Fisheries.
All creeks besides PAII and Jacks Creek are fairly natural with drainage
basins that have been minimally impacted by mining, silviculture, and/or
agricultural channelization (Appendix A). The drainage basin of Tooley Creek
has been least affected by mining. The reaches of all streams sampled can be
characterized as shallow (1.5-6 ft.) and clear (creek bottom visible from surface).
The bottom substrate at all streams except PAII consists of a large portion of silt
and detritus, while the bottom at PAII consists of more sand. All streams have
submerged aquatic vegetation comprised mainly of Eurasian watermilfoil
CZR Incorporated 1 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
(Myriophyllum spicatum) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), bordered by salt
marsh species such as smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), big cordgrass
(Spartina cynosuroides), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), black
needlerush (Juncus roemarianus), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), saw grass
(Cladium jamaicense), and the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis).
CZR Incorporated 2 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
0
N
0
0
0
v
(D
Q
Legend
0 Fyke net locations
4;,o rel
w
D1 hlkvJrtiel*
.I :I., J„0 I"A l
J.14, *
T ..ley*
1 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8
Miles
Fyke net locations on US GS top ogra ph is map.
Loc ators in six oreeks near Aurora, NC sampled during June 2007.
All . 1. el' WNW.

k CPS 1746.62.06
C FIGURE 1
VJ
(D
((DD
Cr
(D
N
O
O
4
Figure 1. Fyke net locations depicted on a USGS topographic map.
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Methods
Field Methods
Two fyke nets (2 ft. diameter X 4 ft. tall X 6 ft. long Y4" mesh hoop net with
22 ft. wide wings) were set in each stream. The tails of both fyke nets were tied
to the same pole, with one fyke net facing downstream and one net facing
upstream (Figure 2). All nets, except for Porter Creek, were set during the same
night, once a week, for four weeks in June 2007. Due to logistical constraints,
Porter Creek was always set during the night before all other nets.
Prior to checking nets, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, specific
conductivity, salinity, and temperature were measured using a YSI® Model 85
meter. An Oaklon Testro pH meter was used to measure pH. All water quality
measurements were taken from the middle of the water column. Water clarity
was determined using a standard Secchi disk and tape measure, and depth was
measured with a tape measure.
Nets were pulled and emptied before noon on the day after they were set.
If too many fish were caught to process before noon, then the fish were placed in
labeled coolers with aerators. Fish were identified to species, counted, and the
first 30 individuals of each species from each net were measured (total length).
All fish were returned to the immediate vicinity of the net in which they were
caught after measurement and identification.
CZR Incorporated 4 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 2. Example of net setup.
Analysis Methods
One-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare eight
physical parameters at each creek: dissolved oxygen (percent), dissolved oxygen
(mg/L), conductivity (mS), specific conductivity (mS), salinity (ppt), temperature
(°C), pH and depth (in.). Two-way ANOVAs were used to compare fish
community parameters. Creek and net (upstream or downstream fyke net) were
independent variables in all three ANOVAs. The number of individuals
(abundance), number of species (richness), and Shannon-Weiner diversity index
were dependent variables for each of three ANOVAs. Abundance data were
square-root transformed prior to analysis because they violated the normality
assumption for two-way ANOVA. Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD)
tests were used in all post-hoc comparisons to identify specific differences
among creeks. PAST software (version 1.72) was used to produce species
diversity and evenness indices. SigmaStat (version 2.03) software was used in
all statistical analyses. Significance was established at an alpha of P=0.05.
Community ordination techniques, including Correspondence Analysis, the
Bray-Curtis Similarity Index, and Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM), were used to
compare fish communities among creeks. Community ordination methods
compare the abundances of a set of species in one creek to the abundances of
that same set of species in other creeks. These methods make comparisons at
CZR Incorporated 5 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
the community level to a greater extent than do analyses of species richness and
overall abundance. Therefore, community ordination methods are more helpful
in determining similarity of communities at each creek. PAST software was used
for these analyses.
Results
Water Quality Parameters
The following parameters differed significantly among creeks: conductivity
(ANOVA, P<0.001), specific conductivity (ANOVA, P<0.001), salinity (ANOVA,
P<0.001), and depth (ANOVA, P<0.001). Post-hoc comparisons showed that
Porter Creek was the source of significant differences because it is significantly
less conductive, less saline, and deeper than the other five creeks (Tukey HSD,
P<0.05).
The following parameters did not differ significantly among creeks: percent
dissolved oxygen (ANOVA, P=0.904), mg/L dissolved oxygen (ANOVA,
P=0.896), temperature (ANOVA, P=0.96), or pH (ANOVA, P=0.559; Table 1).
Table 1. Mean water quality parameters during June 2007 from Porter Creek
and five tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC. Within each row,
values that are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, P<0.05) have a
different letter next to them (i.e., Several parameters are different between Porter
Creek and all other creeks, but the other creeks do not differ from each other).
Parameter Jacks Jacobs PA II Drinkwater Tooley Porter
Dissolved Oxygen (%) 24.46a 24.30a 23.20a 20.47a 35.57a 34.10a
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 1.82a 1.81 a 1.68a 1.58a 2.60a 2.57a
Conductivity (mS) 13.82a 14.25a 14.70a 13.79a 13.41 a 9.37b
Specific Conductivity (mS) 13.70a 14.29a 14.65a 13.79a 13.29a 8.61 b
Salinity (ppt) 7.93a 8.28a 8.50a 7.96a 7.65a 4.80b
Temperature (°C) 25.50a 25.07a 25.83a 25.57a 26.40a 26.65a
pH 7.18a 7.50a 7.33a 7.13a 7.40a 7.08a
Secchi Depth (inches)* >32.69 >24.94 >25 >33.75 >29 >59.75
Depth (inches) 32.69a 24.94a 25.00a 33.75a 29.00a 59.75b
* Not suitable for statistical comparison
Fish Community
Species richness did not differ significantly among creeks (ANOVA,
P=0.52) or nets (ANOVA, P=0.279). Neither upstream nor downstream nets
differed significantly in species richness among streams (ANOVA, P=0.689).
There was a significant difference in number of individuals caught at each
stream (ANOVA, P=0.028). Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests show that Tooley Creek
CZR Incorporated 6 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
had significantly more individuals than Porter Creek (P<0.05). Number of
individuals did not differ significantly among nets (ANOVA, P=0.095). Neither
upstream nor downstream nets differed significantly in number of individuals
among streams (ANOVA, P=0.164).
Species diversity (Shannon-Weiner index) values did not differ
significantly among creeks (ANOVA, P=0.538) or nets (ANOVA, P=0.779).
Neither upstream nor downstream nets differed significantly in species diversity
among streams (ANOVA, P=0.876). Species diversity is composed of two
components: richness (number of species) and evenness (low evenness means
that there are a lot of some species and very few of another). Some creeks that
had very high species richness (e.g., Jacks) actually had lower diversity than
other creeks (e.g., Tooley) because species evenness was lower at the lower
diversity creeks (Jacks, Table 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of fish communities in Porter Creek and five tributaries
of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC in June 2007. Within each row, values that
are significantly different (ANOVA, P<0.05) from each other have different letters
next to them (i.e., Mean abundance differs significantly between Tooley and
Porter Creeks, but no other pair of creeks differs significantly in any parameter).
Parameter Jacks Jacobs PA II Drinkwater Tooley Porter
Mean Species Richness 7.50' 5.75 a 6.25 a 6.50 a 8.25 a 6.25 a
Mean Abundance 111.50a,b 149.00',b 216.25a,b 88.75 a,b 241.00' 40.25b
Total Species Richness* 15.00 9.00 13.00 12.00 13.00 10.00
Total Abundance* 446.00 596.00 810.00 353.00 964.00 161.00
Shannon Diversity Index 1.6180 a 1.4160 a 1.4110 a 1.6320 a 1.7920 a 1.4310 a
Species Evenness* 0.3362 0.4579 0.3153 0.4261 0.4616 0.4181
Summary statistic that is not suitable for statistical comparison
Fish Community Ordination
Correspondence analysis (a graphical method depicting community
similarity) showed that the fish community at Porter Creek was very different from
the other creeks. By comparison, PAII, Jacks, Drinkwater, Tooley, and Jacobs
Creeks are all relatively similar (Figure 3).
CZR Incorporated 7 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
-----------------------•-------- ------- ---
Po rter
3.6
1
1.8
Y
1.2 Jacobs
a
M
E 0.6 I
0 ------- ---- ------- ------- ------- -------
Tooley DriYkwater
-0.6
;•
Jacks
-1.2 P A 2
-1.8
1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6
Similarity Units
Figure 3. Graphical representation (Correspondence Analysis) of community
similarity among Porter Creek and five tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort
County, NC during June 2007.
Bray-Curtis values for percent community similarity show that the Porter
Creek fish community is highly dissimilar to communities at the other creeks
(Table 3). The fish community at PAII is most similar to Tooley (67.19 percent)
and least similar to Porter Creek (22.45 percent). The fish community at Jacks
Creek is most similar to Drinkwater (65.33 percent) and least similar to Porter
Creek (37.23 percent, Table 3).
CZR Incorporated 8 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 3. Percent similarity (Bray-Curtis Similarity Index) of the fish communities
among Porter Creek and five tributaries of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC
during June 2007.
Jacks Jacobs PA II Drinkwater Tooley Porter
Jacks 100.00% 37.43% 56.21% 65.33% 45.67% 37.23%
Jacobs 37.43% 100.00% 27.31% 38.57% 62.69% 20.34%
PA II 56.21% 27.31% 100.00% 55.55% 67.19% 22.45%
Drinkwater 65.33% 38.57% 55.55% 100.00% 41.61% 42.80%
Tooley 45.67% 62.69% 67.19% 41.61% 100.00% 18.13%
Porter 37.23% 20.34% 22.45% 42.80% 18.13% 100.00%
ANOSIM (analogous to ANOVA) is a non-parametric test that compares
values for many attributes (i.e., numbers of 24 fish species) at one time. PAII
(created creek) data were compared to pooled data from all other creeks (natural
creeks) using ANOSIM. This was done in an attempt to determine whether PAII
falls within a range of conditions present at natural creeks instead of whether
PAII resembles any one creek. ANOSIM showed that the fish community at PAII
was not significantly different from fish communities at all other creeks combined
(R=0.05861, P=0.6201). Because Porter Creek differed in physical and
biological characteristics from all other creeks, it was removed from comparison
for second analysis of PAII versus the other creeks. ANOSIM results showed
that PAII was not significantly from all other creeks even when Porter Creek is
removed from analysis (R=0.005456, P=0.4389).
ANOSIM was also used to compare Jacks Creek (disturbed by mining) to
Tooley Creek (relatively undisturbed and similar in size to Jacks Creek). Fish
communities at the two creeks were significantly different (R=0.7188, P=0.029).
ANOSIM takes the abundance of all species into account, but, in general, Tooley
Creek had more abundance of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), pinfish
(Lagodon rhomboids), and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), while rainwater
killifish (Lucania parva) were more abundant at Jacks Creek. Numbers of
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), spot (Leiostomus xanthrus), and other, less
abundant species were comparable at the two creeks (Table 4).
CZR Incorporated 9 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 4. Mean abundance of each species caught at Porter Creek and five tributaries
of South Creek, Beaufort County, NC during June 2007.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Jacks
Jacobs
PA II Creek
Drinkwater
Tooley
Porter
American eel Anguilla rostrata 0 0 0.25 0 0 0
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 3.5 0 54.75 13.5 57.5 0
Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0 0 0 0 0.25 0
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.5
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 2.25
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0 0 0 0 0 4
Flier Centrarchus macropterus 0 0 0 0 0 0.25
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0 0 0.75 0 0 0
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.25 0 0 0 1 1.25
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 1.75 0 0.25 0.75 0.75 0
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.5
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 0.25 1 0.25 0.75 0 0
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 0.5 80.25 0 2.25 63.25 0
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 12.25 8.5 18.5 12.75 29.25 0
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 0 0 0 0 0.25 2.75
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 31.5 16 37.75 38.75 21 24.5
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 20.75 0 1 0 2.75 0
Sheepshead Cyprinodon variegatus
minnow 0.5 16.5 0.25 1.25 8.5 0
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 0.75 0 0.5 1 0 0
Spot Leiostomus xanthrus 38.5 22.25 85.5 14.75 52.5 2.75
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 0 0 2 0 0 0
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 0 0 0 0 0 1.5
White perch Morone americanus 0.25 4 0.75 2 3.5 0
Yellow perch Perca flavescens 0 0 0 0.25 0 0
Discussion
With the exception of Porter Creek, all streams were similar in terms of
physical characteristics, species richness, and species abundance. Porter Creek
is physically different from the other streams. Because it is a larger system, the
fyke nets had to be located farther upstream compared to other net locations.
Nets had to be located where the channel was narrow enough to be blocked by
fyke nets. Therefore, the Porter Creek site is less saline. Porter Creek also has
a history of agricultural channelization which may have resulted in it having a
deeper channel.
Physical characteristics probably resulted in the difference in fish
abundance and fish community observed between Porter Creek and the other
streams. First of all, the depth of Porter Creek may have allowed some species
to travel under the net, resulting in lower recorded abundance. Secondly, lower
salinity probably explains the observation of proportionately more freshwater
species such as pumpkinseed, bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus),
CZR Incorporated 10 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) in Porter Creek than in other creeks
(Table 4).
Constructed vs. Natural Creeks
PAII did not differ significantly from any creek, except Porter Creek, in
terms of physical characteristics, fish species richness, fish abundance, or fish
diversity. Mean conductivity, specific conductivity, and salinity were higher at
PAII than any other creek, but not significantly (Table 1). Fish species richness
and abundance values from PAII were within the ranges observed at all other
creeks. However, species evenness was lowest at PAII, suggesting that some
species were much more abundant than others (Table 2). For example, Atlantic
menhaden and spot were very abundant at PAII, while many other species were
represented by a single individual (Table 4). Correspondence analysis, Bray-
Curtis Similarity Index, and ANOSIM support the conclusion that the PAII fish
community was not significantly different from natural creeks.
The results of the current study are similar to those of previous work.
Rulifson (1991) obtained similar results in a study conducted from 1984 through
1987, finding that PAII was statistically equal to or higher in fish abundance than
Drinkwater and Jacks Creeks. In that study, only Atlantic croaker were
significantly less abundant in PAII than in other creeks. We did not catch Atlantic
croaker in any of the creeks during this study. Atlantic croaker may have been
absent from the area because of high salinity or high variation in salinity during
the sample period (Moser and Gerry 1989). In addition, Rulifson (1991) sampled
for a longer period of time and with different gear types (trawls, Wegener rings,
and experimental gill nets) than were used in the current study.
In a series of experiments and collections spanning 1985-1995, West et
al. (2000) found that growth and survival of spot, species composition, total
faunal density, and species richness were statistically similar between PAII and
natural creeks (Drinkwater, Jacks, Jacobs, and Tooley). The only major
difference identified between PAII and natural creeks by West et al. was the lack
of woody detrital cover in PAII sediments.
Disturbed vs. Undisturbed Creeks
Physical characteristics, fish abundance, fish species richness, and fish
diversity were similar between Jacks Creek and the relatively undisturbed creeks
(Table 1 and 2). Jacks Creek had the highest number of species recorded in this
study, but not the highest diversity because species evenness was lower than
any creek except PAII.
The fact that the fish community at Jacks Creek is significantly different
from the fish community at a stream of similar size (Tooley) could be due to a
variety of human-induced activities; however, natural variation could have
CZR Incorporated 11 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
produced this difference. Mining, resulting in the loss of 51 percent of the Jacks
Creek watershed, could have resulted in physical changes that changed the fish
community. However, none of the physical characteristics we measured explain
the difference between Jacks Creek and Tooley Creek fish communities. Values
for important water quality indicators, such as dissolved oxygen and salinity,
were similar between Jacks and Tooley Creek (Table 1).
Other characteristics such as submerged aquatic vegetation cover,
turbidity, presence of toxins, or distance from the mouth of South Creek could
explain differences in fish community. The fish community is not necessarily of
lower quality, and the species that differ in abundance at the two creeks are not
known to be threatened or endangered. In addition, it is important to note that
this is not a comparison of the fish community before and after mining. The fish
communities at these two creeks may have always been different. There is a
high amount of spatial and temporal variability in fish distribution within creeks
(Rulifson 1991); therefore, sampling at a different time or location within both
streams may result in complete overlap of fish communities.
Conclusion
Traditional indices of ecosystem quality such as water quality, fish
abundance, species richness, and diversity were similar among five of the six
creeks in this study. Analyses aimed at comparing fish communities among
streams yielded somewhat similar results. The current study, combined with past
work (Rulifson 1991, West et al. 2000), suggests that a marsh can be created
which will provide estuarine fish habitat. Comparison of a disturbed creek
(Jacks) and an undisturbed creek (Tooley) suggests that there may be some
differences in fish community associated with drainage basin reduction.
However, this point is impossible to fully support without before/after data.
Literature Cited
CZR Incorporated. 1994. Compilation and analyses of drainage area, salinity,
rainfall, and fisheries data to address potential impacts to the tidal
estuarine creeks in the NCPC Tract due to drainage basin reductions
involved with Texasgulf's proposed Alternative B.
Moser, M. L., L. R. Gerry. 1989. Differential effects of salinity changes on two
estuarine fishes, Leiostomus xanthurus and Micropogonias undulatus.
Estuaries 12:35-41.
Rulifson, R. A. 1991. Finfish utilization of man-initiated and adjacent natural
creeks of South Creek Estuary, North Carolina using multiple gear types.
Estuaries 14:447-464.
CZR Incorporated 12 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
West, T. L., L. M. Clough, W. G. Ambrose Jr. 2000. Assessment of function in
an oligohaline environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and
natural habitats. Ecological Engineering 15:303-321.
CZR Incorporated 13 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Appendix A- Site Photographs
Jacks Creek Site

Jacobs Creek Site
CZR Incorporated 14 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
F
?rv
Drinkwater Creek Site
CZR Incorporated 15 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
PAII Site

Porter Creek Site (downstream net, vegetation too thick for picture of both nets)
CZR Incorporated 16 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
Tooley Creek Site
CZR Incorporated 17 September 2007
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
0
N
0
0
0
v
((D
Q
W
U)
(D
(D
3
CT
(D
N
O
O
4
Appendix B- Raw Data
Fyke Net Survey Results
6-7 June 2007

Species Jacks
Creek Jacobs
Creek Project
Area II Drinkwater
Creek
Tooley Creek Porter
Creek
Common Name Scientific Name Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down
American eel Anguilla rostrata 1
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 10 202 17 120
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1 1 2
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 1
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 2
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 3
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 27 20 49
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 27 24 9 42 19 1 31 11 64
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 2
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 56 25 26 9 41 6 32 16 32 26 6 13
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 6 13 6
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 1 2
Spot Leiostomus xanthrus 5 5 30 7 197 55 3 2 45 110 4
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 1 7
White perch Morone americanus 7 7 2 1 1 3
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER NET 74 57 121 66 487 105 38 51 211 262 10 15
TOTAL SPECIES PER NET 4 3 7 7 8 6 4 5 6 8 2 2
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER SITE 131 187 592 89 473 25
TOTAL SPECIES PER SITE 5 8 9 6 9 3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
n
N
0
0
0
v
(D
Q
(D
U)
(D
(D
3
CT
(D
N
O
O
4
Fyke Net Survey Results
13-14 June 2007
Species Jacks
Creek Jacobs
Creek Project
Area II Drinkwater
Creek Tooley
Creek Porter
Creek
Common Name Scientific Name Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 2
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus glonosus 1 2
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 1 3
Flier Centrarchus macropterus 1
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 1
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 1 2 3
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 1 3 81
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 2
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 1 7
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 12 5 28 22 33 3 19 25
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 4
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon vanegatus 9 18
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma
Spot Leiostomus xanthrus 70 16 16 10 20 7 3 10 7 2
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 1
White perch Morone amencanus 1 1 1 1 1 1
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER N ET 86 7 45 28 33 20 42 9 32 115 28 16
TOTAL SPECIES PER NET 5 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 7 4 6
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER SITE 93 73 53 51 147 44
TOTAL SPECIES PER SITE 7 5 3 4 9 9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
0
N
0
0
0
v
((D
Q
N
O
U)
(D
(D
3
CT
(D
N
O
O
4
Fyke Net Survey Results
20-21 July 2007
Species Jacks
Creek Jacobs
Creek Project
Area II Drinkwater
Creek Tooley
Creek Porter
Creek
Common Name Scientific Name Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 4 4 3 48
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 1 3
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 1
Flier Centrarchus macropterus
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 1 2
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 1
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 24 3 39
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 3 1 9 1 14 1 36 5
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 2 1 3 18 45 13 1 13 6
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 65 7
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 1 7 2 1 1
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 1 1
Spot Leiostomus xanthrus 16 25 18 86 13 24 7 25 10 5
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 2
White perch Morone amencanus 1 1 4 4 4
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER NET 23 97 52 5 101 33 92 21 116 67 19 12
TOTAL SPECIES PER NET 4 6 6 2 6 4 6 3 8 4 3 4
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER SITE 120 57 134 113 183 31
TOTAL SPECIES PER SITE 8 6 7 6 8 5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
0
N
0
0
0
v
((D
Q
N
U)
(D
((D
3
CT
(D
N
0
0
4
Fyke Net Survey Results
27-28 June 2007
Species Jacks
Creek Jacobs
Creek Project
Area II Drinkwater
Creek Tooley
Creek Porter
Creek
Common Name Scientific Name Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down Up Down
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 50 7 50
Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 1
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1 1
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 2 1
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 11
Flier Centrarchus macropterus
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 3
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 1 1
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 2
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 1 4 1 2 1
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 1 121 123 1 8 84
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 17 3 1 3 1
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus 2
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 26 61 10 3 4 2 12 23
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 3 15 4
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 1 19 10 1 4 9
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 3 1
Spot Leiostomus xanthrus 28 5 2 2 14 13 3
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 3
White perch Morone americanus 2 1
Yellow perch Perca flavescens 1
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER NET 80 22 142 137 67 19 82 20 15 146 20 41
TOTAL SPECIES PER NET 8 4 3 3 4 3 10 6 4 5 5 6
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS PER SITE 102 279 86 102 161 61
TOTAL SPECIES PER SITE 10 4 6 10 7 8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 3 of Appendix F April 2008
0711812007 15:12
N L of p

t

2524734836
RED WOLF PROGRAM
United State ]Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
. L,LIGAT OR RTV -GR N,VC10NAL WILD= RUT GyU
RED NVQLF BE CDVERY PROGRAM
P. 0. 73nx 196.9
Man too, ti or, t'h Carolina, P.7954
(eop) 41 1131
July 1. S, 2007
Julia Kirkland Berger, Ass-k_ Office Manager
Senior Environmental Scientist, CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
WiImmgton, NC 28403
Dear Julia:
PAGE 01101
We respond to your inquiries earlier this year regarding the potential for -red wolves to occur
south of the Farnhco Rivet, especially in the vicinity of PCS Phosphate Mine activity near
Aurora in southern Beaufort County, North Carolina. We atterapt to answer your questions and
update you on red wolf status in the County. Please let us know if you need further clarification.
We currently are not aware of any red evolves using southern Beaufort County for. dens or any
other purpose. So, we do not expect .rxt.ine activity to affect red wolves at this time, A check of
our records still, show the last known red wolf to occur in. Beaufort County south of the Pamlico
River was on November 13, 2001.
You asked if we radio collar all red wolves. The answer is that we collar 75% of red wolves
known to occur every year. Is it possible for uncollared zed wolves to disperse into southern
Beaufort County? Yes, such dispersal is possible, but we usually hear about it from people at
some Point in time.
Regarding potential habitat loss caused by mine activity, we generally are not concerned about
such loss for red wolf, unless a red wolf den or territory becomes established within company
awned land. At any time during onvironmental surveys or monitoring, ifpeaple working smith
you or the mine company notice large wolf tracks or see red wolves, we will appreciate your
notifying us. If such an instance occurs, we can work with the mine company to assure that
needs of both the company and red wolves are met successfully.
Please let us know if we can be offurt-ber assistance.
Si.rtcerely,
r
Buddy . Fazio, Team Leader
Red Wolf Recovery Program
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 4 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of the PCS Phosphate Company Mine Continuation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Project Area
for Presence of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Beaufort County, North Carolina

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Digital Library, http://images.fws.gov
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of the PCS Phosphate Company Mine Continuation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Project Area
for Presence of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of the PCS Phosphate Company Mine Continuation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Project Area
for Presence of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF TABLES.........
LIST OF FIGURES ......
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... ...............................................1
II. SURVEY AREA ...................................................... ...............................................1
III. PROCEDURES ...................................................... ...............................................3
IV. METHODS ............................................................. ...............................................3
V. RESULTS ............................................................... .............................................16
VI. LITERATURE CITED ............................................. .............................................26
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
January 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paqe
1 Red-cockaded woodpecker records from Beaufort and Pamlico Counties......... 15
2 RCW survey information by transect and biotic communities ............................. 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Paqe
Figure 1 PCS Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Key Sheet for Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects ........................ 5
Figure 3 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 1 ...................................................................................... 6
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 2 ...................................................................................... 7
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 3 ...................................................................................... 8
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 4 ...................................................................................... 9
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 5 .................................................................................... 10
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects South of 33 and Biotic
Communities Sheet 6 .................................................................................... 11
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects Bonnerton and Biotic
Communities Sheet 7 .................................................................................... 12
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey Transects Bonnerton and Biotic
Communities Sheet 8 .................................................................................... 13
Figure 4 Known Red-cockaded Woodpecker Clusters ................................................ 14
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey iii January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Species encountered along transects during surveys for the red-
cockaded woodpecker on PCS Phosphate lands during October
and November 2007 ................................................................................ 27
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey iv January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of the PCS Phosphate Company Mine Continuation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Project Area
for Presence of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
1. INTRODUCTION
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) were once common in pine forests of
the southeastern United States. As of 2003, RCW populations had been reduced to
3 percent of their estimated abundance at the time of European settlement. Large
stands of mature pine forest (longleaf, loblolly, shortleaf, pond, slash, pitch, and/or
Virginia pines) are needed in order for RCWs to excavate nest cavities in large, live
trees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Survey methods for the
presence/absence of RCWs have remained straight-forward and unchanged for
decades (Henry 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003); although foraging area
analysis methods and proper RCW management have advanced since that time
(Walsh 2005).
II. SURVEY AREA
A survey for RCW was conducted on PCS Phosphate (PCS) property in
Beaufort County, North Carolina between 29 October and 16 November 2007 in the
vicinity of the PCS Mine Continuation Project Area (Figure 1). The survey
concentrated primarily in pine uplands along NC 306 along the Suffolk Scarp, a
geomorphic feature which separates the inner and outer coastal plain of North
Carolina. These areas of the Scarp along NC 306 have the the best potential RCW
habitat within the area designated to be surveyed. The NCPC Tract portion of the
PCS DEIS project area lacks older stands of pine forest and therefore was not
surveyed for RCW. Portions of the NCPC Tract were surveyed for birds and RCWs
in conjunction with previous field work associated with the 1996 PCS FEIS. Based
on extensive biotic community mapping done in conjunction with the PCS 2006
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 1 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
2
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
DEIS, ongoing silvicultural activities since the last FEIS, long term on-the-ground
familiarity with the area, and best professional judgement, the NCPC Tract was
determined not to have suitable nesting habitat for RCW.
III. PROCEDURES
Survey methods for RCWs were based on Appendix 4 of "The Recovery Plan
for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Second Revision" (U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2003). Evaluation of the project area for RCWs included the
following steps:
1. Determine the distance from the project area to the closest known RCW
cavity trees.
2. Determine if the project area contains forest stands suitable for RCW
cavity trees or suitable foraging habitat within 0.5-mile of a known nest.
3. If suitable nesting habitat exists, conduct surveys for cavity trees and
document all surveyed transects using handheld GPS Trimble unit or
information from georeferenced photographs.
4. For cavity trees found within the survey area, determine status (active,
inactive, relic) and cavity condition (start, advanced start, complete cavity,
etc.).
5. Determine the likelihood of the project area to be used by foraging RCWs.
IV. METHODS
Nesting Habitat Survey
Nesting habitat is considered to be pine, pine/hardwood, or hardwood/pine
forests that contain pines that are at least 60 years old. Aerial photographs, biotic
community mapping, and knowledge of the area was used to identify areas of
potential RCW nesting habitat within the project area. Once identified, potential
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 3 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
nesting habitats were inspected from the ground in order to determine if they contain
any pines with an estimated age greater than 60 years.
Transects were surveyed in potential nesting habitats to determine if RCW
cavities exist. A key map was produced (Figure 2) showing the sheets which display
the transect locations and identification numbers within the survey area (Figure 3-
sheets 1-8). Transects were oriented on a north-south axis, where possible,
because most cavity entrances are oriented in a westerly direction. Observers
familiar and experienced with RCWs walked along transects, within sight of each
other while surveying potential habitat. Surveyors visually inspected medium-sized
and large pines for evidence of RCW cavities, stopping at intervals to scan 360
degrees with binoculars and to listen for RCWs. Beginning and ending GPS points
and times were recorded for all transects in order to determine sample effort.
Selected habitats outside the PCS properties and within 0.5 mile of the project area
were also surveyed.
Foraging Habitat Survey
Suitable foraging habitat is considered to be pine or pine/hardwood forests
where 50 percent or more of the dominant trees are pines which are at least 30
years old. Surveys for foraging habitats must be conducted within 0.5 mile of known
cavity trees.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed for the
closest known RCW cavity tree to the project area (Table 1). No cavity tree was
identified within 0.5 mile of the project area (Figure 4). Based on this database
information, no foraging habitat survey was to be conducted unless a new cavity tree
were to be encountered during the PCS survey. All the cavity trees depicted on
Figure 4 are considered to be inactive (Personal communication, Dr. Harry LeGrand,
January, 2008).
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 4 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 5 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 6 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 7 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008

x
TG8 , T64
T63
,T53
T5
T55
r?
j

T65-
4-

T64.765 $.Y4
z d.$ { l }Tf,d
s T5?

t
, F
T60 ` /T60
/ 53 ? ... 4
u:. ..
'T
T5I
- - T57
T57

35+ ?..
7,T77: T76

s
T48

T47 , a. aza
- 745 -$T47:"r4e
t T46
..
TSB.
._ r?r
?
• . Y+? F5d3
c
w?. w
i• .
i

.s

A4 T44

D R A F T
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 8 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008

k'-4: '..
- a?
- T66
v . 7 z
T.7
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
9
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
e.
ILLF a : ljr?
- - --- _.

7 -

1

.yg 6 ;

T
R
? +r
E e

Kt° \ T83

a ;

T82 y
?E
- y
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
10
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
µ ...
gyp: ? :.. r l .
h
v
D R A F T
3 6?CS f'Hl3 f'HA7 L. MIN[ Ca NTiNuotjw" is
_...... _
J _ C Z R ...
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
11
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
-.. 'yam
II PCS PHOPHA ji t rMNE CONY' NURTION E35
3
D R A F T ?
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 12 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 13 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 14 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker records from Beaufort and Pamlico Counties a

County
Figure 4
Site # Natural
Heritage
Program
Approximate
Location

Last Survey Date
Last Observed
Date and Data
EO ID #
Beaufort B1 20090 Goose Creek January 1996 1990; four groups
State Park of cavity trees, two
groups of birds
Beaufort B2 776 Bath February 1979 February 1979;
trees reported
Beaufort B3 6263 US 264/ February 1979 February 1979;
Everett's trees and birds
Lookout reported
Beaufort B4 15674 W. of NC 32- Spring 1990 Spring 1990; two
Weyerhauser cavity trees
Rd
Beaufort B5 1897 Camp Bonner 17 December 1995 17 December 1995;
Boy Scout one breeding
Camp pair(spring), three
birds counted
Beaufort B6 23004 Goose Creek 2005 August 1992; three
(South Site) Game Land active cavity trees
Beaufort B7 23004 Goose Creek 2005 Colony inactive
(North Site)* Game Land
Pamlico P1 5363 North of 14 May 1982 14 May 1982; one
Grantsboro active cavity tree,
near HWY 306 bird heard
a Unpublished NC Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) Data, April 2007.
* CZR has determined per discussion with David Allen of NC WRC (January 18, 2008) that this element
occurance (EO) is a duplicate record (EO ID# 775) NC NHP lists from Pamlico County. Tract 6 of the
Goose Creek Game Lands occurs solely in Beaufort County.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 15 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
V. RESULTS
While potential habitat for RCWs occurs within the PCS project area and in
the vicinity, no cavity tree or RCW was observed during the survey. The nearest
known RCW cavity tree is located in Pamlico County (P1 on Figure 4),
approximately 1.5 miles south of the South 33 Tract, or about 4.5 miles north of
Grantsboro, NC. The nearest active RCW cluster is in the Croatan National Forest
in Craven County approximately 24 miles to the south of the South 33 Tract
boundary.
The results of the survey are summarized in Table 2 which indicates the biotic
community type(s) walked per transect and whether a cavity tree or a RCW was
documented. For those survey areas outside of the existing biotic community map
produced for the DEIS, surveyors characterized the transect habitat using the same
biotic categories as the existing biotic community map. Appendix A contains a
tabular checklist of other birds identified per transect.
Beaufort County represents the northern extent of the long leaf pine savanna
community, the preferred habitat for RCW, and areas along NC 306 on the Suffolk
Scarp contain the best potential RCW habitat in the PCS project area vicinity.
Typically, RCWs expand from an existing cluster into nearby suitable habitat.
Although apparent suitable habitat exists along the Scarp, no active RCWs are
known from Beaufort County. The distance to the closest known active site (24
miles) makes colonization of the area by RCWs unlikely without considerable and
deliberate effort to manage for favorable habitat and/or possible translocation of
birds.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
16
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2. RCW survey information by transect and biotic communities.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator` Community Yes / No Presence (P)
X=2733901.17 X=2734047.35
1 10/29/07 9:50 - 10:15 19 2447.97 Y A
Y=541433.59 Y=543067.58
X=2733858.54 X=2733919.92
2 10/29/07 9:50 - 10:15 19 1719.68 Y A
Y=541494.49 Y=543046.36
X=2733865.48 X=2733773.33
3 10/29/07 10:15 - 10:45 20 1462.80 Y A
Y=541611.14 Y=543001.02
X=2733834.78 X=2733662.43
4 10/29/07 10:15 - 10:45 20 1260.69 Y A
Y=541758.81 Y=542991.59
X=2734043.19 X=2733974.84
5 10/29/07 10:45 - 11:15 19 1880.74 Y A
Y=543117.26 Y=544956.61
X=2733925.92 X=2733797.40
6 10/29/07 10:45 - 11:15 19 1680.62 Y A
Y=543147.20 Y=544805.72
X=2733782.46 X=2733415.86
7 10/29/07 11:15 - 11:35 20 1715.36 Y A
Y=543101.94 Y=544903.54
X=2733665.22 X=2733555.55
8 10/29/07 11:15 - 11:35 20 1887.10 Y A
Y=543056.86 Y=544790.38
9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863.44
............................................................ . . . . . . . . ........................
. Y A
X=2733627.44 X=2733657.60 ?
? 8
5
?
.. N
9 10/29/07 11:45 - 12:30 ................................
.
............................... ................................._
.
_
....................................
:_
Y=544988.47 Y=546540.79 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825.18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y A
20 473.88 N A
X=2733412.19 X=2733276.28 9
9
20
?
2
Y
A
10 10/29/07 11:45 - 12:30 .................................................................. ..............................
...
.
.:
..............................
Y=544980.65 Y=546461.58 20
.......................................................................... 243.12
............................................................................................. Y
......................................................................... A
............................................................................................
X=2733215.73 X=2733498.90 ..
31
22 N A
11 10/29/07 12:35 - 1:00 ................................... .................................... ................................ ..............................._
..
..:
.................................
Y=546548.75 Y=546710.96 20 1400.52 Y A
9 100.79 N A
X=2733325.22 X=2734529.61
12 10/29/07 1:00 - 1:20 11 113.12 N A
Y=546601.56 Y=546842.99 ......... .... ..... ........
20 1024.36 Y A
X=2733389.21 X=27333071.79
13 10/29/07 1:35 - 2:00 20 2351.39 Y A
Y=542546.76 Y=544872.83
14 10/29/07 1:35-2:25 X=273670.90 X=2642388.73 4 158.28 N A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 17
Beaufort County, North Carolina
January 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
7 425.91 N A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
..................................
.
.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
988.32
................................
...
...............................
Y
A

Y=547299
94 1
2 74
335. N A
Y=548023.79 . 17 359.54 Y A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1485.49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Y
A
20 1333.61 N A
X=2733272.24 X=2732947.20
15 10/29/07 2:00 - 2:35 19 2783.35 Y A
Y=542573.41 Y=544865.28
9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.01
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y A
10 275.24 N A

X=2732383.76
X=2733640.72 ..........................................................................
?
.. .............................................................................................
925
37 .........................................................................
N ............................................................................................
A
16 10/29/07 3:00 - 3:45 ................................
._
.................................. .............................._
...
.................................
Y=549116.83 Y=550914.98 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259.67
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
18 381.52 N A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4023.76
Y
A
X=2732282.87 X=2733275.81 ? ?
8
23 N '?
17 10/29/07 3:00 - 3:45 ................................
..................................... ..................................
.
:.
................................... .................................
.................................. ..........................................
...........................................
Y=549386.93 Y=550958.64 20 2006.11 Y A
X=2642241.72 X=2733410.49
18 10/29/07 3:45 - 4:10 20 1697.58 Y A
Y=548698.79 Y=550910.95
11 215.84 N A
X=2641968.26 X=2641605.72
19 10/29/07 4:10 - 4:30 8
? 334
06 N A

Y=548524.35
Y=548996.24 ................................
.
................................ ...............................
...
................................. .................................
.................................. .....................................................................................
20 549.53 Y A
X=2642441.26 X=2642270.27 ? 253
37 Y ?
20 10/30/07 9:30 - 10:10 ..................................
................................... ...............................
...
................................. .................................
................................. ...........................................
...........................................
Y=550244.62 Y=551841.45 20 740.09 Y A
X=2641989.28 X=2642231.39 9 67
?
5
?
Y
A
21 10/30/07 10:40 - 11:10 .................................................................. ................................
....
.
..................................
Y=550412.12 Y=551449.00 20 393.26 Y A
X=2640137.00 X=2640400.70
22 10/30/07 11:20 - 11:40 19 263.77 Y A
Y=549754.77 Y=549760.80
X=2641215.72 X=2640492.20
23 10/30/07 11:45 - 12:15 Cut 2284.56 N A
Y=548834.62 Y=549297.07
8 113.12 N A
X=2642989.99 X=2642776.07 .......................................................................... .............................................................................................
24 10/30/07 1:00 - 1:40 1
8 82
40 N A
Y=552219.46 Y=552808.65 .
............................... ................................._
:.
..................................
"
20 163.24
1163.24 Y A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 18 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
11 48.86 N A

25
10/30/07
1:50 - 2:10 X=2642277.71 X=2642989.99
19
288
61
N
A
Y=552030
84 Y=552219
46 .
. . 20 1356.94 Y A
X=2642243.41 X=2641775.34
26 10/30/07 2:25 - 2:50 18 1091.51 N A
Y=552870.86 Y=553485.17
8 845.30 N A
27 10/30/07 3:05 - 3:40 X=2641775.34 X=2642856.82 18 200.32 N A
Y=553485.17 Y=553753.35 .......................................................................... .............................................................................................
19 139.35 N A
8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.81
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
X=2643198.09 X=2642387.07 8
1 88628 N A
28 10/30/07 3:45 - 4:00 ................................
.
................................ ...............................
................................. .................................
.................................. .........
Y=553190.19 Y=553720.53 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.52
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
22 133.58 N A
X=2642387.07 X=2641507.20 8 320
0
1
N
A
29 10/31/07 8:35 - 9:25 ..................................................................... .................................:.
.
.................................
Y=553720.53 Y=553982.67 19 597.98 N A
9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.01
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 158.58 N A
X=2641507.20 X=2642275.58 .................................
.
............................... ................................
..
................................
30 10/31/07 9:25 - 9:50 1
8 76
286. N A
Y=553982.67 Y=555509.66
19
................................................................ 731.97
.................................
............................... N A
20 500.33 N A
8 706.00 N A
X=264226.96 X=2641081.00 .......................................................................... .............................................................................................
31 10/31/07 10:20 - 11:35 9
1 5519
42 N A
Y=552873.40 Y=554744.26 .
............................... ............................_
..
.............................
20 344.55 N A
X=2642133.23 X=2642145.14
32 10/31/07 12:25 - 12:45 19 357.81 N A
Y=552502.47 Y=552860.08
X=2639506.59 X=2639835.96
33 10/31/07 12:45 - 1:20 19 1446.96 N A
Y=554877.43 Y=555373.45
X=2639455.78 X=2639704.44
34 10/31/07 1:30 - 2:15 19 1962.64 Y A
Y=553065.76 Y=554618.28
X=2641554.57 X=2641554.57
35 10/31/07 2:30 - 3:40 8/18 4351.74 N A
Y=556142.48 Y=556142.48
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 19 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
X=2641627.71 X=2641701.77
36 10/31/07 3:55 - 4:30 19 1410.17 N A
Y=557000.54 Y=556982.57
X=2640492.69 X=2638939.63
37 11/01/07 8:35 - 10:30 19 7522.46 Y A
Y=547313.09 Y=551420.11
X=2640610.15 X=2641183.62
38 11/01/07 11:00 - 11:15 19 646.93 Y A
Y=549041.79 Y=549341.20
10
.......................................................................... 359.73
............................................................................................. N A
X=2641207.69 X=2642443.22 18 1590.17 N A
39 11/01/07 11:40 - 12:10
Y=549863.27 Y=550574.53 19 820.98 N A
20 197.30 N A
X=2641070.93 X=2642361.47 409
09
1 N A
40 11/01/07 12:15 - 1:05 ................................... .................................... ................................ ............................_
.
.:
..............................
Y=549981.48 Y=550824.03 20 880.62 N A
X=2641311.33 X=2641437.69
41 11/01/07 2:00 - 2:20 19 1098.52 N A
Y=551653.00 Y=552743.45
X=2641388.88 X=2641551.52
42 11/01/07 2:25 - 2:55 19 2136.41 N A
Y=551622.01 Y=552731.86
X=2641270.40 X=2641245.87
43 11/01/07 3:00 - 3:05 19 539.69 N A
Y=552050.01 Y=552589.14
7 260.37 N A
X=2641593.97 X=2642304.11 .................................. ................................
...
..
.................................
44 11/01/07 4:10 - 4:45 9 1
483
6 N A
Y=557096.27 Y=557067.86 .......................................................................... .............................................................................................
19 1333.14 N A
X=2639239.87 X=2639251.23
45 11/02/07 9:00 - 9:15 20 (logged) 495.03 N A
Y=558788.52 Y=559283.42
X=2639239.87 X=2639370.88
46 11/02/07 9:20 - 9:30 20 (logged) 515.73 N A
Y=558788.52 Y=559238.69
X=2640072.73 X=2641048.12
47 11/02/07 9:30 - 10:00 18 1152.64 N A
Y=559648.49 Y=559361.10
X=2640055.40 X=2641048.12
48 11/02/07 10:00 - 10:30 18 1373.46 N A
Y=559798.49 Y=559361.10
X=2640763.51 X=2640869.52
49 11/02/07 11:05 - 11:15 18 245.20 N A
Y=560051.13 Y=560272.23
X=2641496.85 X=2642213.33 ?
8 ?
?
?
..
33 N A
50 11/02/07 11:20:11:45 ................................
.
................................ ............................_
..
_
_
...:
..............................
Y=558950.98 Y=558843.31 19 893.07 N A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 20 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
X=2640820.58 X=2640837.81
51 11/02/07 11:55 - 12:20 10/18 452.46 N A
Y=557110.59 Y=557562.72
X=2638338.45 X=2639037.47
52 11/12/07 8:45 - 9:50 20 3942.06 Y A
Y=561145.35 Y=560908.11
X=2639828.33 X=2639357.92
53 11/12/07 10:00 - 11:10 19/20 4803.35 Y A
Y=561569.57 Y=562337.82
X=2639264.67 X=2639198.70
54 11/12/07 11:10 - 11:15 19 181.13 N A
Y=562021.46 Y=562190.15
X=2638718.22 X=2639191.50
55 11/12/07 11:15 - 11:25 19 522.59 N A
Y=562189.26 Y=562326.80
X=2638739.36 X=2639260.42
56 11/12/07 11:25 - 11:35 19/20 539.82 N A
Y=562595.98 Y=562454.91
X=2640115.45 X=2641329.70
57 11/12/07 12:30 - 12:55 18 1216.21 N A
Y=561245.82 Y=561314.59
X=2640137.64 X=2641316.00
58 11/12/07 12:55 - 1:20 18 1178.37 N A
Y=561376.90 Y=561371.21
X=2640126.60 X=2640508.87
59 11/12/07 1:25 - 1:30 18 382.86 N A
Y=561462.76 Y=561483.92
X=2640137.05 X=2640529.25
60 11/12/07 1:35 - 1:45 18 585.76 N A
Y=561678.49 Y=561510.44
X=2640141.64 X=2640446.48
61 11/12/07 1:50 - 2:00 18 438.29 N A
Y=561732.34 Y=561884.23
X=2640169.41 X=2640571.44
62 11/12/07 2:10 - 2:20 18 797.58 N A
Y=562083.38 Y=562562.26
X=2640158.79 X=2640571.44
63 11/12/07 2:20 - 2:30 19 445.80 N A
Y=562632.74 Y=562562.26
X=2640271.21 X=2640352.21
64 11/12/07 3:00 - 3:10 18 382.65 N A
Y=562521.47 Y=562895.45
X=2640271.21 X=2640451.51
65 11/12/07 3:10 - 3:20 18 533.94 N A
Y=562521.47 Y=562885.71
X=2640068.99 X=2640437.67
66 11/12/07 3:30 - 3:55 18/19 1580.14 Y A
Y=563498.78 Y=563672.12
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 21 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
X=2640524.42 X=2640546.10
67 11/12/07 3:50 - 4:00 19 256.60 N A
Y=563615.79 Y=563871.47
X=2639352.50 X=2638994.10
68 11/13/07 8:10 - 8:30 10/19 2612.53 Y A
Y=562897.48 Y=563992.20
X=2638453.35 X=2638749.90
69 11/13/07 9:10 - 9:50 18/19 1074.15 Y A
Y=565827.81 Y-566115.75
X=2638362.86 X=2638403.39
70 11/13/07 9:55 - 10:15 8/18 1079.47 N A
Y=565835.06 Y=565838.10
X=2637438.01 X=2637626.64
71 11/13/07 10:40 - 11:15 18/19 2014.64 Y A
Y=567082.42 Y=568184.25
X=2638223.05 X=2638026.38
72 11/13/07 11:20 - 11:40 19 1455.54 Y A
Y=567371.64 Y=567851.78
X=2638749.90 X=2638137.72
73 11/13/07 11:45 - 12:05 18/19 962.37 N A
Y=566115.75 Y=566579.18
4
...................................
.................................. 112.41
...................................
.................................. N
...................................
................................ A
...........................................
.........................................
7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.86
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
8 48821 N A
X=2641167.60 X=2641408.57
.
...................................................................
. .
.............................. .................................
...................................................................
.........
74 11/13/07 12:45 - 1:20 9 784
55 N A
Y=562440.69 Y=563239.11
...................................
............................._ . ................................
.
.
.
14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396.36
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
A
18 461.25 N
X=2641793.49 X=2641765.66
75 11/13/07 1:30 - 1:40 19 1060.48 Y A
Y=560402.00 Y=560643.52
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N A
4 116.64 N A

X=2641894.19
X=2643214.03 ..........................................................................
? .............................................................................................
882
09
. .........................................................................
N ............................................................................................
A
76 11/13/07 1:45 - 2:05 ................................._
................................... .............................._
.
.
.................................
Y=560339.93 Y=560375.14 8
..
............................... 1065.49
.................................
................................ N A
1
8 398.79 N A
...............................................................
22 ....................................................................
46.1 10 .
N
A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 22 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Biotic Linear Feet Suitable RCW
Transect Time Coordinates Coordinates
Date Community by Habitat Absence (A)
# Start - End Start End
Designator* Community Yes / No Presence P
X=2640875.06 X=2641000.37
77 11/13/07 2:30 - 3:05 18/19 1598.63 N A
Y=560319.75 Y=560313.98
9 318.70 N A
X=2640064.92 X=2641417.13 ............................... ...............................
.............................
78 11/13/07 3:20 - 4:00 14 1239.68 N A
Y=566027.40 Y=565768.64 .......................................................................... .............................................................................................
19 1550.19 N A
X=2640413.68 X=2640718.81
79 11/14/07 8:00 - 8:40 18/19 3595.39 N A
Y=576450.19 Y=576518.59
X=2640718.81 X=2641481.99
80 11/14/07 8:55 - 10:00 15 2778.96 N A
Y=576518.59 Y=579129.60
81 ---- NOT USED ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
3 155.15 N A
10 742.97 N A
11 142.39 N A
82 11/14/07 10:10 - 12:30 X= 638041.85 X=2639003.28 12 86
17 N A
Y=576834
73 Y=577027
84 .
. . 18 4641.48 N A
20 2895.69 Y A
22 588.11 N A
3 144.14 N A
4 414.39 N A
5 2116.09 N A
83 11/14/07 1
15
3
45 X=2639342.55 X=2639936.36 8 208.77 N A
:
-
: Y=577521.12 Y=578065.57 10 4922.19 N A
18 1421.58 N A
20 377.69 N A
22 75.19 N A
84 11/14/07 4
05
5
00 X=2640484.72 X=2640550.32 10 824.08 N A
:
-
: Y=580646.62 Y=580687.52 11 264.91 N A
85 11/15/07 7
50
8
25 X=2640728.80 X=2640728.80 10 800.13 N A
:
-
: Y=580762.63 Y=580762.63 11 1763.77 N A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 23 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 continued.
Transect
#
Date Time
Start - End Coordinates
Start Coordinates
End Biotic
Community
Designator* Linear Feet
by
Community Suitable
Habitat
Yes / No RCW
Absence (A)
Presence P
6 1906.35 Y A
7 873.16 N A
8 360.35 N A
9 636.59 Y A
10 1589.13 N A
86 11/15/07 8
30 - 12
00 X=2638594.91 X=2642350.43 11 139.24 Y A
:
: Y=581804.48 Y=581256.64 15 281.30 Y A
16 1050.73 Y A
17 748.39 N A
18 3061.94 Y A
19 146.42 N A
20 2365.04 Y A
87 11/16/07 8:00 - 8:25 X=2637641.71
Y=584161.53 X=2637718.90
Y=584169.97 8/18 975.01 N A
8 133.63 N A
9 1872.34 N A
11 352.64 N A
88 11/16/07 8:30 - 10:30 X=2637718.90
Y=584169
97 X=2637734.02
Y=584192
59 18 2854.76 N A
. . 19 524.25 N A
20 3479.48 N A
22 919.88 N A
89 11/16/07 10:35 - 11:30 X=2637925.64
Y=585374.09 X=2637928.77
Y=585381.09 20 5336.94 Y A
90 11/16/07 11:30 - 12:00 X=2637936.03
Y=585370.16 X=2637954.35
Y=585524.10 18/20 1631.43 N A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 24 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Table 2 concluded.
* FOOTNOTES:
DESIGNATOR BIOTIC COMMUNITY DESIGNATOR BIOTIC COMMUNITY
1 CREEK/ OPEN WATER
1A PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
1B PERENNIALSTREAM
1C INTERMITTENT STREAM
2 WETLAND BRACKISH MARSH 13 WETLAND MAINTAINED AREA
COMPLEX
3 WETLAND BOTTOMLAND 14 UPLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE
HARDWOOD FOREST
WETLAND HERBACEOUS
4
ASSEMBLAGE 15 UPLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE
WETLAND SHRUB - SCRUB
5
ASSEMBLAGE 16 UPLAND PINE PLANTATION
6 WETLAND PINE PLANTATION 17 UPLAND HARDOOD FOREST
7 WETLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 18 UPLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST
8 WETLAND MIXED PINE - 19 UPLAND PINE FOREST
HARDWOOD FOREST
9 WETLAND PINE FOREST 20 UPLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST
WETLAND POCOSIN - BAY
10
FOREST 21 UPLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND
11 WETLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 22 UPLAND NON-VEGETATED / MAINTAINED AREA
12 POND
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 25
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
VI. LITERATURE CITED
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and
evaluations for the red-cockaded woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Accessed January 2008 at
&- Y...-icnhp.org/
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
Walsh, N. 2005. Memo: Implementation procedures for use of foraging habitat
guidelines and analysis of project impacts under the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) recovery plan: second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
26
January 2008
Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
APPENDIX A. Species encountered along transects during surveys for the red-cockaded woodpecker on PCS Phosphate lands during October and November 2007.
TRANSECT NUMBER'
SPECIES
1 2 3 4
7
t
0 71
7 7i
Wood Duck
Turkey Vulture
Bald Eagle
Red-shouldered Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
American Kestrel
Northern Bobwhite
Killdeer
American Woodcock
Mourning Dove
Barred Owl
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Eastern Wood Pewee
Acadian Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Tree Swallow
Blue Jay
American Crow
Fish Crow
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Brown-headed Nuthatch
Carolina Wren
House Wren
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
-
- -
- - - -
- X - - - - -
- - - X - - - -
- X - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- X - - - - - -
- - - - - X -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - -
X - - - - - X - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - -
- X - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - - - - - - - X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - -
- X - - X - K - X - - - - X - - X - X - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - - - - - X X - - - X - X X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - X - -
- - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - - - - - - -
- - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - X - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - X -
- - - X - - - - - - - X - X - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - - X - - - - - - -
- X - X - - - X X - X - - X XX XX - X - - - X - - - X - -
- - - X - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - -
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X - - - - - - X X X - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- A - X - - - X - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - -
X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X - - - - - - K - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X - -
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 27 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
TRANSECT NUMBER'
SPECIES
7 ?
9
7 a n 11
' ! I
i
Golden-crowned Kinglet - - - - - - - - a - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eastern Bluebird - - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - -
American Robin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - -
Hermit Thrush - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gray Catbird - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - X - -
Brown Thrasher - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Northern Mockingbird - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - -
Cedar Waxwing - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Red-eyed Vireo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - - - - - - -
Yellow-rumped Warbler X - X - X - X X - X - - - - XX - X X - - - - - - - - - - -
Pine Warbler - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ovenbird - - - - - - - - - - - X - X - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - -
Common Yellowthroat - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - - X - -
Yellow-breasted Chat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - -
Northern Cardinal - - - X - - - - - - X - - - X X - - X - - X - - - - - - - -
Rufous-sided Towhee - - - X - - X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - XX X -
Chipping Sparrow - - - X - - X - - - - - - - - - - - XX X - - - - - - - - -
Song Sparrow - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
White-throated Sparrow - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dark-eyed juneo - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Red-winged Blackbird - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Common Grackle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - X - X - - X - -
Brown-headed Cowbird - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - - - - - -
American Goldfinch - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Transect numbers correspond to information in Figure 3.
Woidljobs1174A621081Appendix A
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Survey 28 January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 5 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of PCS Phosphate Project Area
for the Presence of Nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beaufort County, North Carolina

Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of PCS Phosphate Project Area
for the Presence of Nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of PCS Phosphate Project Area
for the Presence of Nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. iii
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
II. Project Area ..........................................................................................................1
III. Methods ................................................................................................................1
IV. Results & Discussion ............................................................................................4
V. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................5
Bald Eagle Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
January 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paqe
Status, tree type, and location of bald eagle nests observed during
NCWRC surveys in 2005-2007 .............................................................................4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Location of known bald eagle nests in Beaufort County, NC, and
route of aerial survey conducted 30 May 2007 ......................................................3
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Photographs ................................................................................................6
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina iii
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
Evaluation of PCS Phosphate Project Area
for the Presence of Nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Beaufort County, North Carolina
1. Introduction
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) populations are rebounding in the
southeastern United States. Legislation such as the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (1940) and Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species of
Wildlife and Plants (bald eagles listed in 1967), and the restriction of DDT usage
have allowed this species to increase since the dramatic population declines of
the mid-1900's (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). Even though bald eagles
have been delisted (28 June 2007) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) List of Endangered and Threatened Species, bald eagles remain
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. Bald eagles are still threatened by habitat loss due to human
encroachment, and remain listed as "threatened" by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) under the State Endangered Species Act
(G.S. 113-331 to 113-337). Observations from the PCS Phosphate area occur
regularly and there are documented recent and historic nesting sites from the
vicinity (CZR and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission unpublished
data). The purpose of this document is to report results of a bald eagle survey
conducted for PCS Phosphate.
II. Project Area
An aerial bald eagle survey was conducted over suitable habitats located
within 0.5 mile of PCS project area tracts (NCPC, Bonnerton, and South of NC
33) proposed for mine continuation in Beaufort County, North Carolina. Suitable
habitats were identified using criteria set forth in the Draft National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines (USFWS 2006). In general, forested areas near large
bodies of water were searched. The survey was concentrated primarily along
Durham Creek, Porter Creek, Huddles Cut, Huddy Gut, South Creek, and the
tributaries of these drainages (Figure 1).
III. Methods
Methods were adapted from the Southeastern States Bald Eagle
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1989) and the Virginia Bald Eagle Nest and Productivity
Survey: Year 2003 Report (Watts and Byrd 2003). An aerial survey was
conducted on 30 May 2007 to locate bald eagle nests. Aerial transects were
completed along major drainages from a fixed-wing aircraft in order to search the
entire project area. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restricts flying by
fixed-wing aircraft at altitudes lower than 500 feet in populated areas. The pilot
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
must maintain a distance of no less than 500 feet from any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. This regulation restricted most of the flight to an altitude of
at least 500 feet. In a few less populated locations along portions of some
drainages a lower altitude was flown when deemed safe by the pilot. The flight
path was recorded with a Trimble GeoXT handheld GPS unit set to record a point
every 5 seconds (Figure 1).
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
. Legend
r.
?•
Path of aerial bald eaqle
j r,elc ii nd?j 1-1 edan
::.. 910 Pr1a'I. 21_107
4 :_ Fir oj?et aria boundaries

Lnc frn nflno?rnha Id eagle
r" I _ r,a t (I1(: +ildlife F,e Du?res
-w- Cnrnmis?ur? ?u?aey? data)
_ L cation i-if o,ihle ha Id
;... 11g le ne,t

0 w

J

m„.

q
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Miles

Bald eagle survey path and locations of
"? - - known eagle nests in Beaufort County, NC
[over a 1998 color infrared photograph].
Pis Pri,F lihl a? Bald Eagle Survey
LE wru .^PPF-AWED BY: DRAM BY TTB
E,
u?
TE. 1-_a
Iy LL?E- f BuPPM1i£ CP#1745.62.08
..
.T "
CZ R
FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Location of known bald eagle nests in Beaufort County, NC, and route
of aerial survey conduction 30 May 2007.
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
IV. Results and Discussion
Known bald eagle nest locations in North Carolina were obtained from
David Allen of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and
represent data collected during surveys in 2005-2007 (Table 1). Survey data
from NCWRC documented at least 70 active or occupied bald eagle nests plus
an additional 18 nests that may or may not have been active in North Carolina
during 2007. Ten of these nest sites were located in Beaufort County (Table 1
and Figure 1).
Table 1. Statusa, tree type, and location of bald eagle nests observed during NCWRC
surveys in 2005-2007.
Nest 2005 2006 2007 Tree Latitude Longitude
Beaufort #1 i i a Bald Cypress 35.361530 76.872500
Beaufort #2 a i a Bald Cypress 35.434700 76.928170
Beaufort #3 a i i Dead Bald Cypress 35.550550 76.678280
Beaufort #4 a i a Bald Cypress 35.404430 76.851920
Beaufort #5 i i a Bald Cypress 35.417580 77.070970
Beaufort #6 a i a Dead Pine 35.478280 76.941200
Beaufort #7 a i a Pine 35.301050 76.642530
Beaufort #8 i i i Pine 35.468670 77.013000
Beaufort #9 n n i Unknown 35.515000 77.066670
Beaufort #10 n n a Pine 35.424660 76.972120
aa=active, i=insufficient data, n=not noted
One potential bald eagle nest not previously identified by the NCWRC was
noted during the CZR survey. It was located in a large bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum) tree south of State Route 1003 in the vicinity of Spring Branch on
Durham Creek (Figure 1). Maps showing the location of this potential nest were
provided to the NCWRC but they were unable to confirm the nest in the 2007
season. No bald eagles were seen in the vicinity, and it is possible that the nest
in question was built by ospreys (Pandion haliaetus). Representative
photographs taken during the survey are included in Appendix A.
In summary, no bald eagle nests were documented or are known from
within the project area. The closest known nest (Beaufort #1) is found near
Durham Creek, approximately 4,200 feet west of the project area. The potential
nest, near Spring Branch, west of the Bonnerton Tract, is approximately 5,700
feet from the northwest corner of the South of 33 Tract. The nest near Core
Point (Beaufort #4) is approximately 12,300 feet west of the Bonnerton Tract. All
of the known nest sites are well past the USFWS recommended distances (660
feet and 0.5 mile) for avoiding bald eagle disturbances as a result of potential,
project-related disturbances (USFWS 2006).
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
V. Literature Cited
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2007. Unpublished survey data
from David Allen, Non-game Biologist.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery
Plan. USFWS Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 162 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines. Accessed April 2007 at:
'- t.Go - - 9.200
Watts, B. D. and M. A. Byrd 2003. Virginia bald eagle nest and productivity
survey: Year 2003 report. Center for Conservation Biology Technical
Report Series, CCBTR-03-03. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
VA. 26 pp.
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
Appendix A- Photographs
Photo 1. Fixed-wing aircraft used in survey for bald eagles in the
vicinity of PCS Phosphate on 30 May 2007.
Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
0
Photo 3. Circle indicates the location of a potential bald eagle nest identified
on 30 May 2007 near Spring Branch west of Aurora on a prong of
Durham Creek. Road in the upper-right is SR 1003, and view
is to the south.
Bald Eagle Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate FEIS
7
Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
January 2008

Bald Eagle Survey January 2008
Beaufort County, North Carolina 8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008

Photo 7. View of the mouths of 3 creeks: Jacobs (uppermost), PAII
(at the arrow), and Drinkwater (bottommost).
Photo 8. View of the mouth of Tooley Creek.
Bald Eagle Survey
Beaufort County, North Carolina 9
January 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 6 of Appendix F April 2008
Survey for Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica (L.) BSP.)
In the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area,
Beaufort County, North Carolina

Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
Survey for Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica (L.) BSP.)
In the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area,
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
Wilmington, North Carolina
JANUARY 2008
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. iv
1.0 Introduction ........................................................ ...................................................1
2.0 Methods ............................................................. ...................................................2
3.0 Results ............................................................... ...................................................2
4.0 Conclusions ........................................................ ...................................................4
5.0 Literature Cited ................................................... ...................................................4
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
iii
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 PCS Project Area for 2006 DEIS ...........................................................................5
2 Recently mowed ditch parallel to NC Hwy 33 in Aurora, NC and is along
the northern boundary of the South of NC Hwy 33 Tract ......................................6
3 Agricultural ditch running north-south in the northern portion of the South
of NC Hwy 33 Tract ...............................................................................................6
4 Agricultural ditch running north-south through a field between West and
Whitley Roads in the South of NC Hwy 33 Tract ...................................................7
5 Map of the South of NC Hwy 33 Tract showing approximate areas
surveyed ................................................................................................................ 8
6 Representative section of marsh surveyed along Tooley Creek, near the
sonde location ....................................................................................................... 9
7 Representative section of Huddles Cut surveyed, near the sonde location ..........9
8 Map of NCPC Tract showing approximate areas surveyed .................................10
9 Map of Bonnerton Tract showing approximate areas surveyed ..........................11
10 Roadside surveyed in the Bonnerton Tract .........................................................12
11 East side of railroad surveyed in the NCPC Tract ...............................................12
12 Fallow field in the NCPC Tract that contained A. indica ......................................13
13 Upper reaches of a tributary of South Creek in the northeastern section of
the NCPC Tract ...................................................................................................13
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
iv
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In August and September 1993, CZR conducted a survey of the Texasgulf
(now PCS Phosphate) Project Area in Beaufort County, NC, for the federally
threatened and state endangered sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica)
plant. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) requested the survey to
satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, and to support Texasgulf's 1992 permit request to move its mining
operation into the NCPC Tract. Within the 14,200-acre project area, CZR
surveyed the areas most likely to support the species. Areas surveyed included
the irregularly flooded CAMA coastal marshes along creeks and drainages,
drainage ditches in the agricultural lands in the Whitehurst and Bailey Creek
drainages, and the drainage ditches, canals, and powerline corridors in the
NCPC Tract.
In 2000 PCS Phosphate (PCS) applied for a new permit to continue its
mining operation, and subsequently the USACOE prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (USACOE 2006) to evaluate the new
permit application. At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
another survey encompassing the new and larger project area was conducted in
October 2006. The current PCS project area is comprised of three tracts, the
3,609-acre NCPC Tract, the 2,806-acre Bonnerton Tract, and the 8,686-acre S33
Tract (the agricultural/wooded area south of NC Hwy 33) (Figure 1). The new
survey was requested because sensitive joint-vetch is an annual and may not be
evident every year. Also, what was thought to be a new population was
discovered in Washington, NC in the last two years, making it plausible that a
new population might have developed on PCS property.
Sensitive joint-vetch is a legume with yellow pea-type flowers streaked
with red and typically grows to 1-2 meters, but can reach 2.4 meters. It flowers
July through October, with concurrent fruit production. A. virginica has often
been confused with Indian joint-vetch (A. indica) and zigzag joint-vetch (A. rudis),
but each species has noticeable differences when using identification keys
(Godfrey and Wooten 1981, Weakley 2006). The USFWS (1995) previously
recognized two populations of sensitive joint-vetch in North Carolina: one in Hyde
County and the other in Beaufort County, but recent surveys in 2007 by USFWS
and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) biologists determined the plants in
Beaufort County were A. indica and did not find any extant populations of A.
virginica (personal communication, Dale Suiter, biologist, USFWS, 23 October
2007). It is possible that the Hyde County population of sensitive joint-vetch may
have also been misidentified. Several official reports and descriptions (e.g.,
USFWS 1995, 1999) list suitable habitat as bare to sparsely-vegetated fresh to
slightly brackish tidal marshes, particularly the upper tidal limits in the marsh.
However, North Carolina populations appear to exploit different habitats;
sensitive joint-vetch has been found in disturbed weedy areas (e.g., ditches,
agricultural fields) (Ware 1991, Weakley 2006). DuMond (1993) conducted a
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
1
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
similar survey for the plant in the same general area as the present survey and
considered appropriate tidal marsh habitat on PCS Phosphate property to be an
early successional stage that would eventually convert to tidal swamp forest.
However, there are miles of roadside and agricultural ditches, and acres of fields
on PCS Phosphate property that may provide habitat for sensitive joint-vetch in
the absence of appropriate tidal marsh.
2.0 METHODS
A survey of potential sensitive joint-vetch habitat within the current PCS
project area was conducted by four CZR biologists 10-12 October 2006, within
the approximate 15,100-acre area near Aurora in Beaufort County, NC. Prior to
the survey, several sites where sensitive joint-vetch was thought to occur were
visited. The first site was the marsh along the boardwalk at the Estuarium in
Washington, NC on the Pamlico River, and the second site was an agricultural
field ditch along NC 92, east of Bath, NC. The plants, which were determined to
be A. indica, had several clearly visible flowers, mature fruits, and were in good
condition. A third site, near a railroad track crossing of SR 1166, was also
visited, but no plants were found by the biologists.
Due to the various habitats exploited by the plant, the upper tidal reaches
of several creeks and tributaries were targeted as well as roadside ditches
(Figures 2 and 10), and agricultural field ditches (Figures 3 and 4). Surveyed
creeks and tributaries included portions of Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp
Creek, two tributaries of South Creek, on the 8,686-acre S33 Tract (Figure 5),
and selected sections of Tooley Creek (Figure 6), Drinkwater Creek, Jacobs
Creek, Sibyl Creek, Huddles Cut (Figure 7), Huddy Gut, and two other unnamed
drainages in the 3,608-acre NCPC Tract (Figure 8). Selected areas in the 2,806-
acre Bonnerton Tract were also surveyed (Figures 9 and 10). Four biologists
from CZR familiar with the appearance of sensitive joint-vetch and potential
habitat, individually walked along ditches and edges of fields and creeks noting
species encountered. Clearly visible ditches alongside dirt roads were surveyed
from a slow moving vehicle.
3.0 RESULTS
Four biologists spent approximately 7 hours walking (63 percent of miles
surveyed) and driving approximately 50 miles along ditches, edges of fields, and
creeks and drainages in the S33 Tract. They also spent approximately 2.5 hours
surveying by foot about 6 miles in the NCPC Tract in the same kind of habitat
mentioned previously and along the railroad tracks cutting through the middle of
the tract (Figure 11). Less effort was needed on this tract because of the lack of
appropriate habitat (i.e., most areas were forested). Two biologists spent
approximately 1.5 hours surveying approximately 9.5 miles in the Bonnerton
Tract; 20 percent was done by foot in this tract. Again, less effort was needed
because of a lack of appropriate habitat.
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
2
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
Sensitive joint-vetch was not found on any of the surveyed areas. Several
species known to occur with sensitive joint-vetch were found, such as Polygonum
spp. and rice cutgrass (Leersia otyzoides), and a similar species, Indian joint-
vetch, was also found. The two types of preferred habitat that were surveyed for
this species, agricultural ditches and tidal creeks, are briefly described below.
Field ditches ranged in size from approximately 2 to 4 feet wide and about
2 to 4 feet deep. Hydrology of the ditches ranged from dry to holding 3 to 12
inches of standing water. Monthly rainfall and the three-month rolling total rainfall
for the spring and summer months of 2006 were within normal, with the
exception of July which was below normal (NOAH climate center at PCS).
Ditches along the roads surrounding and dividing the fields were larger, up
to 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep, but with only a few inches to 12 inches of standing
water. Some ditches were surrounded by soybean plants up to the edge of the
ditch and so the ditches had very few other plants growing in them (Figure 4).
Other ditches had only dead vegetation, possibly as a result of herbicide use.
Mechanical mowing along several ditches and edges of fields limited the growth
of herbaceous species and therefore minimized the survey area. Frequently
encountered vegetation included several species of Polygonum, java-bean
(Cassia obtusifolia), Aster spp., switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea), broadleaf
cattail (Typha latifolia), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), green arrow arum
(Peltandra virginica), saw greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox), Solidago spp., cutleaf
groundcherry (Physalis angulata), tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum),
Ambrosia sp., dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), showy rattlebox (Crotalaria
spectabilis), Stylimisa spp., Ipomea spp., barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli),
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), Cyperus sp., and Juncus sp. A
few of the ditches in fallow fields, or at the edge of fields bordered by forest,
supported denser vegetation and contained honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and winged sumac
(Rhus copallinum), in addition to some of the above-mentioned species. Several
individuals of Indian joint-vetch, a similar species in the same genus as sensitive
joint-vetch, were found in a few ditches in the S33 Tract and in three fallow fields
in the NCPC Tract (Figure 12).
The vegetative communities associated with creeks and tributaries were
variable. A few areas consisted mostly of needlegrass rush (Juncus
roemerianus) bordering the creek, with eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia)
and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) scattered throughout, and a dense border of
common reed (Phragmites australis). More frequently the creeks were bordered
by forest vegetation (Figure 13) such as water oak (Quercus nigra), water tupelo
and/or swamp tupelo (Nyssa sp.), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora),
sweet gum, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), wax myrtle, red bay (Persea
palustris), and swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora). Cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnomomea), royal fern (O. rega/is), herb of grace (Bacopa monnieri), and
pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis) were occasionally encountered in the
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
3
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
transition area between low, wet marsh habitat of primarily needlegrass rush and
the higher forest habitat described above.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
A significant amount (approximately 65 miles) of potential habitat for
sensitive joint-vetch was surveyed over three days, but no individuals were
found. No suitable marsh habitat along tidal creeks and tributaries was found in
the areas surveyed as vegetation was too dense in the marshes surveyed for
sensitive joint-vetch to colonize. Suitable ditch habitat did not contain any
evidence (fruits, plants, etc.) of sensitive joint-vetch, and many ditches were
unsuitable due to chemical spraying of the fields and ditches, mowing/harvesting
along ditches, and dense crops growing adjacent to the ditches. DuMond (1993)
suggested that a lack of seed source as a result of the limited distribution of
sensitive joint-vetch, is a limiting factor to the dispersal of the plant.
At this time, it is unlikely that sensitive joint-vetch occurs on the PCS
Phosphate project area surveyed in October of 2006.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
DuMond, D.M. 1993. Survey for sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica
(L.) B.S.P.) in the vicinity of the Texasgulf Phosphate Mine, Beaufort
County, North Carolina. CZR Incorporated, Wilmington, NC.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of
southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia
Press, Athens, GA. pp. 250-251.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement for
the PCS Phosphate mine continuation, Aurora, NC. September.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
virginica) recovery plan. Hadley, MA. 55 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Sensitive joint-vetch: a threatened species.
(pamphlet) Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, VA.
Ware, D.M.E. 1991. Northern joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). In Virginia's
endangered species: Proceedings of a symposium. (ed.) K. Terwilliger.
The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, VA. pp.
119-121.
Weakley, A.S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia and the
surrounding areas. On-line at http-//www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm.
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
4
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

om,
m - .a

..
INS,

4w I=

.. .
.

ma eazi
r
•? .
..
9& S?&E

W
w

LE-,-?E:W,
IRGiLCT ARLA 50UrICAF2Y
RCS tP"cfecl .ArFa lo! -'U06 DEIS
8000 soco FU0
PCS PHOSPHATE HIDE CONTINUATION
?p ?: "'Y!1? P:!A-e.r - ,=, H:.: `•5?fd arc:; ri BFS; LJ
D R A F T C.
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
5
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

Figure 2. Recently mowed ditch parallel to NC Hwy 33 in Aurora, NC, along the
northern boundary of the S 33 Tract. (Ditch was surveyed by walking.)
Figure 3. Agricultural ditch running north-south in the northern portion of the S33
Tract. (Ditch was surveyed by walking.)
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
6
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 4. Agricultural ditch running north-south through a field between West and
Whitley roads in the S33 Tract. (Ditch was surveyed by walking.)
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
7
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
8
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
9
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

1 f
S
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
10
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

i:N N-'-.'1 C
{ N F1?TI 'E -?OI T V TCF? IJRVFY
PCS PHOSPHATE WHE CONTINUATION
z SZ
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
11
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008

Figure 10. Roadside surveyed in the Bonnerton Tract.
Figure 11. East side of railroad surveyed in the NCPC Tract.
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
12
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
Figure 12. Fallow field in the NCPC Tract that contained Aeschynomene indica.
The two lines of trees bordering the field surround ditches.
Figure 13. Upper reaches of an unnamed tributary of South Creek, in the
northeastern section of the NCPC Tract. The tributary channel is behind the
trees.
Sensitive Joint-vetch Survey PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Project Area
Beaufort County, NC January 2008
13
PCS Phosphate FEIS Addendum 7 of Appendix F April 2008
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
STATE JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE B (SJAB) -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT1011
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioa Stripping volume (1000bcv1 34,048 35,095 35,441 37,485 36,268 35,653 38,475 40,458 43,141 46,886 43,906 42,661 40,839 40,066 39,053 37,030 39,539 40,380 40,441 40,620
Total Mined Area (acres) 183 181 171 178 176 174 179 184 188 197 181 175 178 177 183 189 206 219 208 203
Pumped Ore 11000 tons I 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,831 12,125 12,192 12,283 12,242 12,118 12,116 12,130 11,971 11,699 11,884 12,571 13,029 13,064 12,776
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoit Iacresl 6 7 -1 -57 -14 -34 -41 -20 -17 -20 -6 11 38 37 -5 19 20 56 48 -4
Production Costs (5000)
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,658 $ 10,658 $ 10,033 $ 10,033 $ 9,456 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,942 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587
Maintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,024 $ 4,024 $ 4,061 $ 4,163 $ 4,163 $ 4,127 $ 4,127 $ 3,816 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 3,983 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089
Operatinq Supplies $ 7,538 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,352 $ 5,837 $ 6,395 $ 6,771 $ 7,580 $ 8,337 $ 8,032 $ 7,689 $ 7,313 $ 7,126 $ 7,125 $ 6,632 $ 8,133 $ 8,071 $ 9,896 $ 9,998 $ 10,174
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 651 $ 682 $ 721 $ 760 $ 788 $ 711 $ 708 $ 612 $ 574 $ 575 $ 534 $ 648 $ 701 $ 734 $ 721
Reagents,FRiellLime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,128 $ 6,127 $ 6,096 $ 6,063 $ 6,019 $ 6,129 $ 6,132 $ 6,347 $ 6,352 $ 6,241 $ 6,407 $ 6,742 $ 6,952 $ 6,874 $ 6,665
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
Maintenance Supplies $ 13,997 $ 14,185 $ 13,850 $ 13,980 $ 13,967 $ 14,095 $ 14,351 $ 14,974 $ 15,378 $ 15,616 $ 15,404 $ 15,328 $ 15,066 $ 15,055 $ 14,442 $ 14,214 $ 15,735 $ 15,981 $ 16,195 $ 16,292
Electric torn?er $ 10,686 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,202 $ 9,311 $ 9,661 $ 9,968 $ 10,608 $ 11,400 $ 10,718 $ 10,645 $ 11,040 $ 10,983 $ 11,908 $ 10,528 $ 9,985 $ 12,189 $ 12,869 $ 12,877 $ 13,574
Contract r1aintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,040 $ 2,021 $ 6,117 $ 2,177 $ 2,236 $ 2,385 $ 6,339 $ 2,320 $ 2,280 $ 2,250 $ 6,112 $ 2,368 $ 2,252 $ 2,530 $ 6,602 $ 2,586
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 11,181 $ 13,904 $ 14,666 $ 13,136 $ 14,053 $ 13,782 $ 17,392 $ 13,561 $ 15,958 $ 16,219 $ 11,249 $ 11,120 $ 12,698 $ 12,994 $ 12,878 $ 12,827
Other Expense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 899 $ 902 $ 914 $ 936 $ 997 $ 1,023 $ 991 $ 975 $ 935 $ 934 $ 905 $ 620 $ 1,115 $ 875 $ 859 $ 843
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,652 $ 65,676 $ 67,952 $ 64,102 $ 63,270 $ 67,087 $ 73,815 $ 70,445 $ 74,102 $ 73,792 $ 80,727 $ 72,142 $ 74,074 $ 74,296 $ 70,013 $ 66,113 $ 73,982 $ 77,079 $ 81,299 $ 77,963
r al i?eetCa m ,aor1 I e $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.41 $ 5.43 $ 5.67 $ 6.09 $ 5.78 $ 6.03 $ 6.03 $ 6.66 $ 5.95 $ 6.11 $ 6.21 $ 5.98 $ 5.56 $ 5.88 $ 5.92 $ 6.22 $ 6.10
r al iiaet m a m - e _ tmr $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.82 $ 12.65 $ 13.42 $ 14.76 $ 14.09 $ 14.82 $ 14.76 $ 16.15 $ 14.43 $ 14.81 $ 14.86 $ 14.00 $ 13.22 $ 14.80 $ 15.42 $ 16.26 $ 15.59
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,502 $ 19,502 $ 19,780 $ 20,010 $ 20,010 $ 19,733 $ 19,733 $ 19,360 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,634 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529
Total Cash Costs $ 84,530 $ 84,554 $ 86,830 $ 82,980 $ 82,399 $ 86,216 $ 93,317 $ 89,947 $ 93,882 $ 93,802 $ 100,737 $ 91,875 $ 93,807 $ 93,655 $ 89,142 $ 84,991 $ 93,616 $ 96,608 $ 100,828 $ 97,492
Total Cash Costuwnpd ore ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.36 $ 7.00 $ 7.07 $ 7.29 $ 7.70 $ 7.38 $ 7.64 $ 7.66 $ 8.31 $ 7.58 $ 7.73 $ 7.82 $ 7.62 $ 7.15 $ 7.45 $ 7.41 $ 7.72 $ 7.63
r a; rash C-ot c- poste ton $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.60 $ 16.48 $ 17.24 $ 18.66 $ 17.99 $ 18.78 $ 18.76 $ 20.15 $ 18.37 $ 18.76 $ 18.73 $ 17.83 $ 17.00 $ 18.72 $ 19.32 $ 20.17 $ 19.50
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,348 $ 11,952 $ 12,075 $ 12,325 $ 12,544 $ 12,753 $ 12,818 $ 12,746 $ 12,861 $ 12,951 $ 13,101 $ 12,479 $ 12,542 $ 13,303 $ 13,986 $ 13,928 $ 13,792
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 789 $ 788 $ 802 $ 796 $ 803 $ 780 $ 803 $ 824 $ 824 $ 805 $ 813 $ 731 $ 707 $ 708 $ 716
Chanclein Prestrip In, entoi, $ (496) $ (603) $ 68 $ 4,733 $ 1,149 $ 2,801 $ 3,411 $ 1,660 $ 1,446 $ 1,644 $ 498 $ (951) $ (3,168) $ (3,065) $ 434 $ (1,622) $ (1,629) $ (4,640) $ (3,984) $ 306
PICPC AftE Development Writeoff $ 1,792 $ 1,792 $ 1,792 $ 7,496 $ 7,495 $ 6,324 $ 60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 843 $ 2,783 $ 3,329 $ 476 $ - $ - $ -
W F(- Aft -E Wetlands h4ittllation 8 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 480 $ 5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 64 $ 211 $ 253 $ 36 $ - $ - $ -
U;FCDe velopment'LandWriteoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 232 $ 1.473 $ 1.484 $ 1.484 $ 1.484 $ 1.484 $ 1.484 $ 1.484 $ 1317 $ 911 $ A25 $ 23A $ - $ - $ _
aiitidation Costs HC PCUpdate 1 .,.;9 _cd- E':' .; ..'E' .017 '.1 1. .C ?41
-
-
-
BonnertoitDa a I0 pment a nd La nd Vriteoff " Y - - - - -
Bonnerton ReceJmd Face Writeoff Y - ;I - b - Y - „ - b - ;I - 5 - - ;, - - - ;. - ;.. - " - - - - - -
IlitidationCosts - Donn Updates '4103 Y `- Y `- .. - - - - - - -
' Development Vriteoff
A21

969
S-: Receding Face Vriteoff " - 5 - :. - " - " I' - - - - - -
Mifidation Costs ?3 Update ff' 4100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,- 99 S -.,
Plantlmxooements Met All Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Tota I Operatinq Costs $ 99,596 $ 99,652 $ 102,399 $ 108,917 $ 104,340 $ 109,447 $ 114,749 $ 109,836 $ 113,761 $ 113,951 $ 119,644 $ 109,471 $ 109,297 $ 109,757 $ 108,925 $ 103,021 $ 111,032 $ 111,447 $ 116,268 $ 117,095
r a Teepat (m mpe I.. $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.19 $ 8.95 $ 9.25 $ 9.46 $ 9.01 $ 9.26 $ 9.31 $ 9.87 $ 9.04 $ 9.01 $ 9.17 $ 9.31 $ 8.67 $ 8.83 $ 8.55 $ 8.90 $ 9.17
T -al 0g-rat ( m ^cen et_ ton $ 19.92 $ 19.93 $ 20.46 $ 21.78 $ 20.67 $ 21.89 $ 22.95 $ 21.97 $ 22.75 $ 22.79 $ 23.93 $ 21.89 $ 21.66 $ 21.95 $ 21.79 $ 20.60 $ 22.21 $ 22.29 $ 23.25 $ 23.42

[litigation Costs - PICPC IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 313 $ 1,985 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 1,776 $ 1,258 $ 1,113 $ 321 $ $ $
[litigation Costs - Bonn IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
[litigation Costs-S33(DEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 345 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444
f4itigation Costs PI:;PC Updates 4/03 +95 ..., I'T I. '_,n 145 - - -
C9itigationCosts-Bonn Update O '4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r1iti-lationCosts ±' Update 0'14103 o-n J9 5 s 4
T,- a; 4p Co. ,o ate tc„ $ 19.92 $ 19.93 $ 20.46 $ 21.78 $ 20.67 $ 21.85 $ 22.67 $ 21.69 $ 22.47 $ 22.51 $ 23.65 $ 21.61 $ 21.58 $ 21.70 $ 21.61 $ 20.45 $ 22.11 $ 22.22 $ 23.16 $ 23.35
r 'a C,gCc., ?aleton 'ISS- 19 042 '1- - 11 -1 - -19 - - '_12 9 __1 1.. 06 1 _1.,- Lr -I - 'A
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
STATE JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE B (SJAB) -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIFTIOg
Froduction Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year 32
Effectioa Stripping volume (1000bcv1 38,923 36,243 37,051 45,683 44,429 48,515 51,204 59,411 59,628 54,773 56,236 53,198 55,336 54,114 55,735 58,702 58,516 51,101 40,789
Total Mined Area (acres) 201 192 193 266 238 250 225 264 269 281 306 279 276 246 256 275 295 259 226
Fum ped Ore 11000 tons I 12,693 12,600 13,134 16,082 14,980 14,686 14,410 15,964 15,958 16,040 16,401 14,828 14,277 14,154 14,112 14,039 14,090 13,482 12,459
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,962 5,038 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,957 5,043 5,000
Change in Frestrip Inventoit Iacresl 17 -10 5 -51 -58 -64 61 13 34 -6 -56 -45 -55 36 -16 11 -69 41 99
Froduction Costs (5000)
Operating Labor $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 11,127 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,414 $ 9,925
Maintenance Labor $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,293 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,374 $ 3,945
Operatinq Supplies $ 10,165 $ 9,762 $ 10,120 $ 11,923 $ 11,640 $ 11,896 $ 11,825 $ 13,201 $ 13,264 $ 12,196 $ 12,166 $ 11,391 $ 11,675 $ 12,545 $ 13,000 $ 12,812 $ 12,230 $ 11,043 $ 8,884
Flocculant $ 709 $ 716 $ 754 $ 927 $ 870 $ 888 $ 950 $ 1,028 $ 933 $ 1,009 $ 1,059 $ 926 $ 849 $ 841 $ 779 $ 800 $ 860 $ 756 $ 727
Reagents,FLiellLime $ 6,613 $ 6,566 $ 6,760 $ 8,319 $ 7,747 $ 7,444 $ 7,026 $ 7,775 $ 8,046 $ 7,930 $ 8,204 $ 7,531 $ 7,291 $ 7,180 $ 7,274 $ 7,254 $ 7,159 $ 7,009 $ 6,483
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 602 $ 611 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 601 $ 611 $ 606
r laintenance Supplies $ 16,240 $ 15,930 $ 16,426 $ 19,206 $ 18,562 $ 18,771 $ 19,250 $ 21,275 $ 21,524 $ 20,896 $ 21,192 $ 19,944 $ 19,995 $ 20,112 $ 20,569 $ 20,770 $ 20,637 $ 19,207 $ 16,987
Electric torn?er $ 14,127 $ 14,042 $ 14,855 $ 19,772 $ 18,680 $ 19,089 $ 19,627 $ 22,158 $ 22,740 $ 22,433 $ 22,936 $ 21,222 $ 20,938 $ 21,041 $ 21,895 $ 22,589 $ 22,720 $ 20,699 $ 17,168
Contract 6aintenance $ 2,533 $ 2,432 $ 6,515 $ 3,007 $ 2,907 $ 2,973 $ 6,758 $ 3,190 $ 3,253 $ 3,045 $ 7,138 $ 2,910 $ 2,949 $ 2,951 $ 7,029 $ 3,086 $ 3,039 $ 2,813 $ 6,415
ContractOperations $ 12,807 $ 13,537 $ 15,139 $ 13,460 $ 13,182 $ 13,303 $ 14,059 $ 14,451 $ 15,048 $ 13,802 $ 14,868 $ 14,281 $ 13,746 $ 14,271 $ 14,046 $ 14,783 $ 15,101 $ 13,503 $ 12,180
Other Expense $ 830 $ 810 $ 819 $ 960 $ 903 $ 918 $ 1,236 $ 1,344 $ 1,362 $ 1,343 $ 1,353 $ 1,263 $ 1,295 $ 1,291 $ 1,325 $ 1,327 $ 1,328 $ 1,186 $ 1,012
Flant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 78,306 $ 78,078 $ 85,671 $ 92,484 $ 89,402 $ 90,192 $ 96,756 $ 101,076 $ 102,823 $ 98,710 $ 104,967 $ 95,529 $ 94,794 $ 96,887 $ 102,571 $ 100,075 $ 99,124 $ 92,616 $ 84,333
r al ,eetca m "aor1 I e $ 6.17 $ 6.20 $ 6.52 $ 5.75 $ 5.97 $ 6.14 $ 6.71 $ 6.33 $ 6.44 $ 6.15 $ 6.40 $ 6.44 $ 6.64 $ 6.85 $ 7.27 $ 7.13 $ 7.04 $ 6.87 $ 6.77
r al iiaet m a m - e _ tmr $ 15.66 $ 15.62 $ 17.13 $ 18.50 $ 17.88 $ 18.04 $ 19.35 $ 20.22 $ 20.56 $ 19.74 $ 21.15 $ 18.96 $ 18.96 $ 19.38 $ 20.51 $ 20.02 $ 20.00 $ 18.37 $ 16.87
Allocated Overhead $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 20,261 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,416 $ 19,611
Total Cash Costs $ 97,835 $ 97,607 $ 105,200 $ 112,278 $ 109,196 $ 109,985 $ 117,018 $ 121,601 $ 123,349 $ 118,985 $ 125,242 $ 115,804 $ 115,068 $ 117,412 $ 123,097 $ 120,601 $ 119,399 $ 113,033 $ 103,944
Total Cash Costuwned ore ton $ 7.71 $ 7.75 $ 8.01 $ 6.98 $ 7.29 $ 7.49 $ 8.12 $ 7.62 $ 7.73 $ 7.42 $ 7.64 $ 7.81 $ 8.06 $ 8.30 $ 8.72 $ 8.59 $ 8.47 $ 8.38 $ 8.34
r a; rash C,3t C- rtrate ton $ 19.57 $ 19.52 $ 21.04 $ 22.46 $ 21.84 $ 22.00 $ 23.40 $ 24.32 $ 24.67 $ 23.80 $ 25.24 $ 22.99 $ 23.01 $ 23.48 $ 24.62 $ 24.12 $ 24.09 $ 22.41 $ 20.79
Depreciation $ 13,749 $ 13,484 $ 13,976 $ 17,345 $ 16,412 $ 16,441 $ 16,427 $ 18,082 $ 18,459 $ 18,008 $ 18,471 $ 17,198 $ 16,922 $ 16,907 $ 17,177 $ 17,374 $ 17,333 $ 16,536 $ 14,865
Depletion $ 711 $ 701 $ 719 $ 716 $ 714 $ 713 $ 731 $ 767 $ 725 $ 728 $ 686 $ 693 $ 704 $ 699 $ 690 $ 699 $ 688 $ 717 $ 735
Changein Frestrip In, entoi, $ (1,401) $ 860 $ (452) $ 4,263 $ 4,820 $ 5,360 $ (5,098) $ (1,063) $ (2,833) $ 484 $ 4,702 $ 3,773 $ 4,597 $ (3,007) $ 1,336 $ (909) $ 5,745 $ (3,439) $ (8,248)
H(- FC Alt E Development Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
W FC Alt E Wetlancis h4itidation R - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FCDevelopment'LandWriteoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
r.iticlationCosts HC FCUpdate
4;J3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EonnertonDe ?elopmentand Land Vriteoff 114- -909
Bonnerton ReceJmd Face Writeoff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
flitidationCosts - Bonn Updates '4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IC9 5 449,
S' De velopment,Vriteoff
?T_a
a
'hy _?-
-
-R Reoedina Face ,Vriteoff 1 ' "Oa S "P- S 264 1 ^49 S 1014 S J14 S aF5 _ ?9 ^.4 `- 5 414 C 1W S.A71 _ ac0 -
rlificlationCosts L3Update0' 4103 i90 z 99 e ., 79J 99 t 79J z 799 -„ ?- .. 9J -99 t -„ 792 43- -
Flantlmxooementslet All
Costs
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
19
$
12
$
-
Tota I Operating Costs $ 115,840 $ 118,135 $ 125,033 $ 140,202 $ 136,793 $ 138,262 $ 135,114 $ 146,089 $ 146,401 $ 144,982 $ 156,249 $ 144,723 $ 144,493 $ 139,213 $ 150,186 $ 145,650 $ 150,983 $ 134,985 $ 119,654
r a Teepat (m mpe I.. $ 9.13 $ 9.38 $ 9.52 $ 8.72 $ 9.13 $ 9.41 $ 9.38 $ 9.15 $ 9.17 $ 9.04 $ 9.53 $ 9.76 $ 10.12 $ 9.84 $ 10.64 $ 10.37 $ 10.72 $ 10.01 $ 9.60
T- a Tgerat (m ncen et_ ton $ 23.17 $ 23.63 $ 25.01 $ 28.04 $ 27.36 $ 27.65 $ 27.02 $ 29.22 $ 29.28 $ 29.00 $ 31.49 $ 28.73 $ 28.90 $ 27.84 $ 30.04 $ 29.13 $ 30.46 $ 26.77 $ 23.93

(`.litigation COsts - IR- IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Mitigation Costs - Bonn IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,159 $ 2,954
1 4itigation Costs - SC' (DEIST $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 441 $ 447 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 440 $ 274 $
f litigation Costs RI:;PC Update 0 4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
flitiaationCosts-Bonn Update 0 '4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I:+9 5 '.44'1
I litigation Costs a±' Update 0't4103 - J9 g .a i99 Ica i99 - - J9 .,a -
T, a; O, Co. L ate tc„ $ 23.10 $ 23.56 $ 24.94 $ 27.97 $ 27.29 $ 27.58 $ 26.95 $ 29.15 $ 29.21 $ 28.93 $ 31.42 $ 28.65 $ 28.83 $ 27.77 $ 29.97 $ 29.06 $ 30.39 $ 26.53 $ 23.43
r 'a Gp C a ?a?e ton aJo 1! -1 3.15 -, -1 6 11 11 1.01 0.04 S __ - ',1.4t - 34 04 9.13 5.40 11 PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
STATE JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE B (SJAB) -
TOTAL-ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIFTIOJ
Froduction Statistics Year33 Year34 Year35 Year36 Year37 Year38 Total/Avg.
Effectiaa Stn,ping volume (1000 bcj1 32,655 34,719 47,858 51,706 37,585 21,380 1 97_J79
Total Mined Area (acres) 222 246 295 289 280 181 10.04"_
Fumped Ore 11000 tons) 12,247 12,912 13,863 13,302 12,636 8,765 -11,0 9?1
-
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,090 5,009 5,000 5,000 5,900 3,549 2`?.`49
Change in Frestrip Inventory )acres) -56 -47 32 17 -44 -128 <16

Froduction Costs (5000)
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 10,502 $ 10,502 $ 8,962 $ 5,031 5 44'.44`
Maintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 4,256 $ 4,256 $ 4,052 $ 2,577 5 12190^_
Operatinq Supplies $ 8,824 $ 9,934 $ 9,694 $ 9,849 $ 9,435 $ 5,113 5 4^_' i97
Flocculant $ 678 $ 731 $ 848 $ 780 $ 707 $ 497 5 3,745
Reagents,FLiekLime $ 6,494 $ 6,739 $ 6,985 $ 6,844 $ 6,551 $ 4,519 5 - -
Sulfuric Acid $ 696 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 430 S 100
b06aintenance Supplies $ 15,520 $ 15,782 $ 17,283 $ 17,375 $ 15,262 $ 9,660 5 7`6474
Electric Porn?er $ 16,091 $ 14,358 $ 13,989 $ 14,441 $ 12,333 $ 8,290 5 076.'144
Contract 6aintenance $ 2,323 $ 2,473 $ 2,690 $ 6,735 $ 2,497 $ 1,499 5 1`9.061
ContractOperations $ 11,955 $ 11,697 $ 13,745 $ 13,686 $ 13,415 $ 9,115 5 -
OlherExpense $ 637 $ 666 $ 1,971 $ 1,050 $ 668 $ 427 5 4,.631
Flant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 75,164 $ 75,105 $ 81,669 $ 86,124 $ 74,489 $ 47,068 5 - -
i al i?eetca um1 I $ 6.14 $ 5.82 $ 5.89 $ 6.47 $ 5.89 $ 5.37 i19
i al i'ect p a - e _ t n $ 15.93 $ 15.02 $ 16.33 $ 17.22 $ 14.90 $ 13.26 1136
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,984 $ 19,984 $ 19,251 $ 11,421 -
Total Cash Costs $ 94,042 $ 93,983 $ 101,653 $ 196,108 $ 93,740 $ 58,489
Total Cash Costpuwned ore tot; $ 7.68 $ 7.28 $ 7.33 $ 7.98 $ 7.42 $ 6.67 5 -
i a; Cash C,3t C- ntrate ton $ 18.81 $ 18.89 $ 20.33 $ 21.22 $ 18.75 $ 16.48
Depreciation $ 14,041 $ 14,209 $ 15,118 $ 15,214 $ 13,560 $ 8,745 5 65'1.344
Depletion $ 739 $ 739 $ 761 $ 755 $ 762 $ 542 5 Cz,446
Chancre in Frestrip lm entoi, $ 4,654 $ 3,941 $ (2,657) $ (1,386) $ 3,649 $ 10,649
fI?PC Alt E De elopment Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 417;
fI-PCAlt E w,ietlands $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FCDevelopment'LandWriteoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
fliticlation Costs HCF(_Update 4/05 - - - - - - 'I 3R.
Eonnerton Deaelopment and Land Vriteoff _L ,YJ
Bonnerton Re e ling Face Writeoff - - - - - - -
11ifidationCosts -Bonn Updates 4103 `.449 S 44.E S -.449 5 449 S x.449 '.66 64
De velopment,Vriteoff - - - - - - 34977
? Recedin.1 Face Vriteoff - - - - - - __..,
L4ifidation Costs -3 Update 4100 - - - - - - 17.091
Fl ant l mprovements[let All Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 409
Tota I Operatinq Costs $ 121,834 $ 121,230 $ 123,233 $ 129,049 $ 129,969 $ 84,357 $ 5,525,365
i a; Teepat (propel.. ,e t, $ 9.95 $ 9.39 $ 8.89 $ 9.70 $ 9.50 $ 9.62 $ 9.35
i aTgerat C, At c? nc-n at- tors $ 24.37 $ 24.25 $ 24.65 $ 25.61 $ 24.01 $ 23.77 $ 24.72

(410gatlon Costs fI CPC IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 157-=
[litigation Costs - BonnIDEISi $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,097 5
I litigation Costs z(DEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 949`
(litigation Costs W F(_, Updates 4/05 - - - - - - 3'I "6`
(litigation Costs - Bonn Update C '4/05 a449 `44 44.9 ° 449 `449 2 04
Mitigation Costs S3 Ddate 0-W-4,02 17.091
i a; O, Co. L ate $ 23.67 $ 23.75 $ 24.15 $ 25.31 $ 23.51 $ 23.27 $ 24.54
i L'a C',Co., -4.= _4'- '4_- 4'I -4.01 - - ^_4. 11 PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAB cost model update

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
See Distribution
Samuel Cooper, Julia Berger
1 May 2008
Summary Minutes of the 20th meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
Permit Application Review Team (1 September 2006).
1 The 20th meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit application
2 was held at the NCEEP office in Raleigh, NC. The following people attended:
3
4 Tom Walker - USACE
5 Ken Jolly - USACE
6 Heather Jaco bs - PTRF
7 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
8 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
9 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
10 Richard Atwo od - PCS Phosphate
11 Curtis Brown - PCS Phosphate
12 Geoff Gisler - SELC
21
13 Becky Fox - EPA
14 John Dorney - NCDWQ
15 Mike Wicker - USFWS
16 Terry Moore - NCDCM
17 Dave McNaught - Env.Defense
18 Samuel Cooper - CZR
19 Julia Berger - CZR
20 Jim Hudgens - CZR
22 PLACEHOLDER DATES FOR NEXT REVIEW TEAM MEETING:
23
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-1 April 2008
Appendix A
24 2 October 2006 (first choice) and 29 September 2006 (second choice)-venue to be
25 determined, but may be held in Raleigh since it is a mid-point between Asheville and
26 Washington. This meeting will likely be agency-only in the afternoon. Corps will send
27 out email.
28
29 ITEMS DISCUSSED OR DECIDED BY GROUP:
30 • Corps wanted to follow the agenda emailed to group (Attachment 1). No formal
31 comment sought at this time, but Corps asked for general input on any glaring omissions
32 in document. Corps also wanted to talk about the components to be included in the
33 conceptual mitigation plan that accompanies the DEIS and the FEIS.
34 • Corps recognized that another meeting may be necessary due to those who were
35 unable to attend from Washington.
36 • Although the group had decided at the 14th meeting that prior notification was
37 necessary if an attorney would be attending any subsequent meeting, the SELC was
38 represented by Geoff Gisler at the 20th meeting, without any such notice. PTRF
39 apologized. Mr. Walker stated he would not ask Mr. Gisler to leave since these were not
40 closed or private meetings however, he did acknowledge that Mr. Gisler's presence was
41 contrary to the teams agreement which was instituted when PTRF and SELC objected to
42 the applicants attorney being present at the 14th meeting. PCS officially protested the
43 presence of an attorney without notification. Environmental Defense indicated that the
44 SELC attorney would not engage in any discussion and was being educated to the
45 process.
46 • USFWS officially protested the timing and schedule of the meeting and indicated that
47 important team members such as NMFS, DMF and NCWRC were unable to attend.
48 DCM said that the Corps was disregarding the Governor's request for state employees
49 and the public to stay off the roads until noon on Friday due to tropical storm Ernesto.
50 Corps was not aware, nor was it made aware by any state employee, of the Governor's
51 request. Corps reminded group of the historic difficulty of group calendar coordination,
52 that no meeting had 100% attendance, that a month's notice had been given for this
53 meeting, and that the Corps desired to keep the process moving forward. Corps also
54 informed group that this meeting was scheduled for a Friday because a number of the
55 regulatory agency Team members were already in Raleigh for another meeting on
56 Thursday.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-2 April 2008
Appendix A
57 • Corps stated that all Team members were recently provided a copy of DEIS text,
58 tables, figures, and the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The economic analysis (Section 2.7
59 of DEIS) was not included but is nearly complete and members should have a copy of
60 this text shortly, within a week or so. Corps is working closely with applicant and the
61 USGS on the economic information.
62 • The DEIS will include information that the Corps will be using to make any
63 practicability decision. Corps may or may not make practicability decision on some
64 alternatives in the DEIS.
65 • Depending on whether Team notices any glaring omissions, the DEIS is likely to be
66 ready for publication in a couple of weeks. The best case scenario would be publication
67 in mid-September, followed by a public hearing 60 days from publication (mid-to-late
68 November), and an additional 30 day comment period. The 90-day total comment
69 period would then be over in mid-to-late December. In light of the November and
70 December holidays, a longer comment period or an extension of 90-day comment period
71 may be considered since the public will be seeing the document for the first time. Corps
72 reminded group that agency meetings have been occurring since 2001 regarding the
73 information in the DEIS and alternative development.
74 • Corps had most concern over economic analysis, mitigation, and
75 cumulative/secondary/indirect impacts and asked for additional input from Team. Corps
76 recognized that most cumulative and secondary impacts of projects are development
77 driven and stem from increased population and infrastructure and services expansion
78 that result from a project. In the case of PCS, none of these typical future impacts are
79 likely to occur. When it comes to cumulative impacts to wetlands and waters, the Corps
80 is compiling a list of permits from their database of permits in the area, but this list will
81 pale in comparison to the direct impacts of PCS's operations over time. PCS has
82 already quantified their past impacts and the Corps information will also be added.
83 However, quantification of indirect impacts is more complicated.
84 • DWQ stated that the 401 rules do not allow the AP alternative to be permitted and
85 that a letter would be provided by DWQ stating that phosphate mining is not a water
86 dependent activity and therefore impacts to salt marsh are not allowed. PCS could
87 apply to EMC for a variance from this restriction, but DWQ thinks PCS should apply for
88 an alternative that is permittable. For different reasons, USFWS indicated they would
89 also recommend that AP not be permitted.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-3 April 2008
Appendix A
90 • Corps perspective is that the DEIS is a "public notice" of sorts and is not necessarily
91 an indication that the Corps is in favor of any alternative. NEPA does not require the
92 agency preferred alternative be identified in the DEIS. The Corps cannot require an
93 applicant to change the applicant preferred alternative. PCS reminded group that there
94 is a full range of alternatives in DEIS to be evaluated.
95 • DCM expressed concern similar to DWQ and stated that the document had no
96 proposals to mitigate for impacts to Public Trust, although DCM acknowledged they may
97 have overlooked it. DCM also noted that the coastal shoreline AEC is not quantified in
98 document. DCM requested that language be changed in the DEIS regarding the
99 determination of the upstream limits of their jurisdiction.
100 • USFWS expressed dismay with what is considered an incomplete document.
101 USFWS noted the age of RCW and bald eagle surveys and indicated that new surveys
102 for federal species will need to be conducted. USFWS expressed concern that the
103 process is going too fast and that the permit review team process had been largely
104 ignored. USFWS stated that alternative analysis should not be used as a tool of
105 negotiation.
106 • Environmental Defense was troubled by fact that PCS is not able to meet the Tar-
107 Pamlico buffer mitigation requirement. PCS explained that their variance request to
108 WQC of EMC was not to evade or be exempt from the buffer requirements but only to
109 request approval of various flexible methodologies that would achieve the goals of the
110 buffer rules regarding nutrient removal and reduction in conjunction with other stream
111 and wetland mitigation (DWQ agreed with this explanation). Environmental Defense
112 questioned why the preferred alternative couldn't be redesigned to use the S33 Tract as
113 mitigation. PCS reminded group that the S33 Tract is within the 30 ratio and while it is
114 not practicable to mine at this time, PCS would not want to remove the area from
115 potential future mining.
116 • EPA had not yet read everything provided, but doubted that indirect impacts have
117 been completely addressed. EPA inquired whether indirect impacts and water
118 drawdown were treated for each alternative. PCS asked whether all drainage basin
119 reduction information should be presented like the cadmium issue and compiled in one
120 section. PCS also noted the new aquatic technical report which summarizes existing
121 studies (Appendix F-not distributed to Team yet).
122 • Corps mentioned that PCS had recently shared their reclamation plan for NCPC
123 which includes recontouring the blend areas to minimize elevated areas near the South
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-4 April 2008
Appendix A
124 Creek tributaries. PCS plans to create valleys and reclaim streams similar to what was
125 done at Whitehurst Creek which will require some previously mined and backfilled areas
126 to be raised to accommodate the extra materials that would have gone on top of historic
127 stream locations.
128 • EPA asked how it would be handled if they felt like there should be another
129 alternative. PCS asked if the Corps had received any comments on the 10 alternatives
130 distributed to the interagency review team in the 9 March 2006 book. Corps indicated
131 that no agency had suggested any additional alternatives and depending on how
132 realistic a new alternative is if one is suggested, it may be evaluated in a supplemental
133 document. Corps invited any new alternative from group as long as it was technically
134 feasible and significantly different in impact from those already developed. EPA
135 requested another agency-only meeting soon to discuss possible additional
136 alternative(s).
137 • Corps summarized the economic and practicability issues. There are two national
138 sources of the cost of phosphate (USGS and The Fertilizer Institute-TFI. Difficulty
139 comes from the fact that no one is selling the product domestically, everyone consumes
140 it internally. Steve Jasinski with the USGS has estimated the "average price" based on
141 the "costs of mining" instead of a sales price. PCS, USGS, and The Fertilizer Institute
142 have provided information which shows:
143 a) average costs of mining (not developed by applicant, done independently)
144 b) cyclicity and volatile nature of DAP market controlled by demand not supply.
145 These costs are included in the cost of mining and cannot be passed along to
146 consumer
147 c) PCS net margin (operating income) data from 2000 forward (confidential).
148 Environmental Defense inquired if the probabilities of volatility had been incorporated
149 in the economic analysis. PCS replied that market intelligence now is that it may not
150 peak again because China and India are now building their own facilities with the goal of
151 eliminating fertilizer imports. Corps shared the fact that PCS plans to increase non-
152 fertilizer capability to offset market volatility and that this type of information would be in
153 Section 2.7. Corps does have concerns about making projections too far into the future
154 due to the loss of predictability and accuracy. Corps again invited others to share the
155 economic information with experts when they receive it and to contact USGS or Corps
156 with questions.
157
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-5 April 2008
Appendix A
158 Break 12:25-1:50 pm
159
160 • PCS presented a Powerpoint presentation on mitigation site search efforts thus far
161 and some draft information on three sites that PCS currently has landowner
162 commitments and will likely be the first mitigation sites in the ground (Attachment 2).
163 Background points accompanying the slides are summarized below:
164 a) Site search parameters included 250-acre and 1,000-foot minimums for wetland
165 and stream sites, mucky soils preferred initially for wetland sites but hydric
166 mineral sites have also been included, ecological corridors, 303d streams,
167 watershed approach, requests from agencies about specific parcels of interest,
168 and adjacency to existing natural heritage sites among others.
169 b) First slide on aerial photo base shows - 170 sites, but now there are -250 sites
170 identified by CZR or EBX including -71K acres of potential wetland restoration
171 and -137 miles of potential stream restoration. Sites were prioritized on
172 characteristics including large watersheds, wetland and stream complexes,
173 limited number of owners, and headwater location.
174 c) South Creek Corridor Complex would be largely preservation but PCS is
175 exploring the potential of reconnecting South Creek to the floodplain on some
176 parcels by berm or dike modification and/or equalization pipes.
177 d) Remaining slides are self-explanatory for the most part and depict the Bay City
178 Farm south of Aurora and the Hell Swamp and Scott Creek headwaters sites
179 west of Belhaven on the appropriate USGS, soils maps, aerial photos, and lidar
180 bases. For the Scott Creek site, draft stream restoration and stream valley
181 restoration were included to show locations of these mitigation activities.
182
183 • USFWS indicated that what PCS showed is not on the scale of what is proposed for
184 impact and obviously would result in significant degradation to the NCPC creeks which
185 would be impossible to mitigate. USFWS stated that agency ability to comment is
186 diminished because there are no specifics on mitigation. USFWS wants to see water,
187 proximity to impacts, soils characteristics of impact area compared to mitigation areas,
188 reasonable aspects to offset functional impacts, and functional equivalents included as
189 specifics in the plan. The plan should be convincing enough to show that what is difficult
190 is actually possible but that there was no way to mitigate for declines in estuarine
191 productivity. USFWS indicated that resource agencies likely have absolute consensus
192 on significant degradation.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-6 April 2008
Appendix A
193 • Corps stated that significant degradation is a permit decision. Corps indicated that
194 the level of detail provided in the current mitigation plan is likely adequate for this stage
195 of the review process however, a much more detailed mitigation plan would need to be
196 provided before the final EIS. PCS is going ahead with some mitigation now, regardless
197 of what is permitted and like the last permit, it is their prerogative to do so. Corps
198 reminded group that there will be more discussion on mitigation before the final permit
199 decision. The Corps stated that the final plan would need to address PCS's level of
200 control of proposed mitigation properties as well as timing of project development. Any
201 permit will likely include milestones for compensatory mitigation. It is reasonable to
202 consider that some mitigation will be done concurrent with impacts, at least initially, but
203 that the applicant could, at some point, provide mitigation in advance of impacts.
204 • PCS remarked that the years of NCPC creek monitoring indicate that the South
205 Creek estuarine tributary systems are driven by Pamlico River and South Creek and that
206 estuarine productivity is not driven by headwaters. USFWS indicated that the DMF and
207 NCWRC experts were not present to agree or disagree with that statement. DWQ
208 reminded group that NCPC creeks monitoring required in the 1997 permit will identify
209 any problems and if reduction of watershed has an effect, PCS will have to correct it.
210 DWQ summarized mitigation topics and concerns as follows:
211 a) Restoration or creation at 1:1
212 b) Old guidance had only two wetland categories riparian and non-riparian.
213 c) NCWAM identifies one more additional type-estuarine. NCWAM may add more
214 in future. Not exactly clear how to implement NCWAM into PCS mitigation.
215 Functional replacement issues and how to incorporate are under discussion now
216 and may be in place by the time of the permit.
217 d) Buffer-WQC/EMC accepted the flexible methodology approach to buffer
218 mitigation and invited PCS to reapply for variance after it is clear what alternative
219 may be permitted.
220 e) PCS already incorporating coastal stream valley guidance.
221 f) South Creek Corridor Complex is positive especially if gaps are filled in. DWQ
222 would look favorably upon reducing preservation ratios if PCS fills in gaps.
223 g) DWQ will suggest some wetland parcels in some tracts that if avoided will also
224 receive more favorable preservation ratios.
225 h) DWQ's historic stream origin approximates and drainage basin data will be
226 available very soon (Periann Russell's data and project).
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-7 April 2008
Appendix A
227
228 Meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm
229
230 Action Items (Corps):
231 • Instigate next Team meeting
232 • Complete Section 2.7 and distribute to Team members
233 • Quantify 404 permits in project area from Corps database
234 Action Items (PCS):
235 • Verify indirect impacts have been adequately addressed and determine whether or
236 not to compile in one section
237 Action Items (CZR):
238 • Edit word choice regarding determination of Public Trust
239 • Quantify coastal shoreline AEC in tables and text of DEIS
240 • Verify indirect impacts have been adequately addressed and determine whether or
241 not to compile in one section
ATTACHMENT 1- draft agenda
ATTACHMENT 2-PCS mitigation Powerpoint
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-8 April 2008
Appendix A
DISTRIBUTION:
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Kyle Barnes
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
2151 Alternate A1A, Suite100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-3902
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-9 April 2008
Appendix A
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ted Tyndall
North Carolina Division of Coastal Mgmt
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy.24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-10 April 2008
Appendix A

DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
See Distribution
Samuel Cooper, Julia Berger
28 August 2007
Summary Minutes of the 21St meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
Permit Application Review Team (24 July 2007).
1 The 21St meeting of the permit review team for PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the NCDENR Archdale building in Raleigh, NC. This was the first team
3 meeting held after publication of the DEIS. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE 18 Cyndi Karoly - NCDWQ
6 Lori Beckwith - USACE 19 Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
7 Scott Jones - USACE 20 David Moye - NCDCM
8 Dave Lekson - USACE
9 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
10 Dave Emmerling - PTRF
11 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
12 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
13 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
14 Geoff Gisler - SELC
15 Melissa Anderson - SELC
16 Becky Fox - EPA
17 John Dorney - NCDWQ
21 Mike Thomas - NCDCM
22 Maria Dunn - NCWRC
23 Mike Wicker- USFWS
24 Richard Peed - NCDLR
25 Dave McNaught - Env.Defense
26 Samuel Cooper - CZR
27 Julia Berger - CZR
28 Jim Hudgens - CZR
29 George House - Brooks, Pierce et al.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-11 April 2008
Appendix A
30
31
32 ITEMS DISCUSSED OR DECIDED BY GROUP:
33 • Corps called this meeting to provide the team an opportunity to see the progress
34 PCS has made on mitigation since the generic mitigation plan that was included in the
35 DEIS. The DEIS mitigation plan was generic because it was unrealistic to identify
36 specific sites based upon the diverse alternatives considered in the DEIS. However,
37 since the publication of the DEIS, PCS has purchased some options and closed on
38 some parcels and has applied for at least one NWP to engage in active mitigation.
39 Corps stressed that the PCS presentation on mitigation to be shown to review team is in
40 no way linked to a specific alternative boundary, nor was PCS asking for concurrence or
41 agreement from the group about any of these sites and their suitability as mitigation for
42 the specific impacts that may or may not result from a future permit.
43 • Corps indicated that they and some members of the Review Team had been
44 discussing a new alternative for some time and the Corps has requested that one
45 additional alternative be analyzed and introduced to the public through a supplement to
46 the DEIS (SDEIS). The new alternative boundary (L) is a reconfiguration of existing
47 alternative boundaries within the same project areas evaluated in the DEIS. The SDEIS
48 is expected to be published in about a month and will only contain an evaluation of any
49 new alternative boundaries.
50 • Corps provided a condensed summary of their cost analysis and reminded the group
51 that PCS had maintained that only the Applicant Preferred Sequence A was practicable.
52 After analysis of the materials requested by Corps (or other agencies) and provided by
53 PCS, the Corps determined that some alternatives were not practicable, but did not
54 conclude a practicability determination about others such as SCRA and SJAA. Since
55 publication of the DEIS, PCS provided cash cost basis economic information of the costs
56 incurred of relocations or "jumps" (moving the mine pit from one tract to another). The
57 cost model used in preparation of the DEIS spreads out the cost of a relocation over the
58 life of mining the area to which the relocation occurs, whereas the cash cost basis
59 expenses the cost at the time of expenditure. Since the AP boundary includes 15 years
60 of mining north of Hwy 33, from an economic perspective, it is reasonable to compare
61 other boundaries to it using the same evaluation period (15 years). Two relocations are
62 required for SCRA within the first fifteen years and the costs of the first relocation to
63 Bonnerton are absorbed over the life of mining in Bonnerton (within the fifteen year
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-12 April 2008
Appendix A
64 period). However, the cash cost basis was considered because the poorer ore quality in
65 the lower portions of the S33 tract may make it impracticable to mine beyond the first 5
66 to 7 years which would result in the second relocation costs not being spread across the
67 years of mining the entire tract. This analysis has resulted in the Corps' request for a
68 new alternative to be evaluated that provides at least 15 years of mining north of Hwy
69 33.
70 • The SDEIS will provide the public and agencies an opportunity to review the new
71 cost analysis. The Corps tentatively agrees with the new PCS cost analysis. EPA
72 economists also recognize the validity of the new cost analysis but have not "accepted"
73 that this analysis makes SCRA and SJAA impracticable. EPA is concerned with the new
74 alternative L as far as Bonnerton is concerned (L = SCR on NCPC, Porter Creek
75 avoidance in north half of Bonnerton and AP in the southern half, and CAMA avoidance
76 and no mining south of the South Creek canal in S33). Therefore, EPA has scheduled a
77 three-day field visit August 21-23 for several of their personnel who have never seen the
78 resources which may be impacted and for any review team members who also may wish
79 to attend. This August field visit will provide EPA with additional information for their
80 significant degradation evaluation. EPA recognized that making a significant
81 degradation determination will require rigorous examination and lots of data and
82 supporting backup information.
83 • Some details of the August field trip include: meeting at the PCS Land Office in
84 Aurora on the 21St and examining where the new L boundary line crosses aquatic
85 resources by driving to various locations, particularly on the NCPC Tract. The 22nd will
86 be spent entirely on the Bonnerton Tract and the 23?d will be a half-day looking at
87 potential mitigation sites. PTRF may have some boats available for investigation of the
88 downstream components of the South Creek tributaries. All participants should pack
89 lunches.
90 • DCM requested that the SDEIS be very clear to indicate the new or revised
91 language. However, the Corps wants the document to include just the information
92 needed to evaluate the new boundary (ies) and does not want it to be difficult to read like
93 a complicated heavily formatted tracked change document can be. The DEIS will need
94 to be used extensively as a reference by all reviewers of the SDEIS.
95 • PCS presented a Powerpoint presentation on mitigation and some information on
96 functional uplift opportunities on sites for which PCS currently has an option, owns
97 directly, or has made preliminary landowner contacts. (A copy of the mitigation
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-13 April 2008
Appendix A
98 presentation was provided to all Review Team members under separate cover on 3
99 August 2007). Over 370 potential mitigation sites have been identified for evaluation.
100 PCS acknowledged that they are taking a risk by engaging in mitigation efforts before
101 any permit has been issued. At this time, PCS is not seeking concurrence or approval of
102 any of these sites as mitigation to offset any specific impacts or any impacts.
103
104 Break 12:40-1:20 pm
105
106 During the presentation there was discussion about specific target functions that may
107 be impacted, how these functions must be replaced by mitigation, and what pre-
108 restoration water quality information is prudent, realistic, and/or required to be collected.
109 DWQ indicated that EPA and DWQ have done a study of headwater systems that
110 contains a lot of valuable information which he will provide to PCS and CZR. The Corps
111 indicated that the final mitigation plan would hopefully go out to the review team prior to
112 publication of the FEIS and that the review team will likely have the opportunity to see
113 some of the PCS sites for background as they build their decisions. Corps appreciated
114 the recent SELC letter which linked mitigation to function and which reminded everyone
115 of the need to avoid an acre-for-acre accounting approach.
116 • USFWS inquired whether there will be a response to the DEIS agency comment
117 letters prior to the FEIS. Corps replied that there are likely to be one or two more review
118 team meetings before the FEIS publication and that a formal response to agency
119 comments will definitely be included in the FEIS, if not provided before.
120
121
122 Meeting adjourned at 1:50 pm.
123
124 Action Items (Corps): none identified beyond production of the SDEIS.
125 Action Items (PCS): none identified beyond production of the SDEIS.
126 Action Items (CZR): none identified beyond production of the SDEIS.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-14 April 2008
Appendix A

DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
See Distribution
Samuel Cooper, Julia Berger
13 February 2008
Summary Minutes of the 22ndmeeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
Permit Application Review Team (12 February 2008).
1 The 22nd meeting of the permit review team for PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Corps' Falls Lake Visitor Center in Raleigh, NC. This was the first
3 team meeting held after publication of the SDEIS. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Dave Lekson - USACE
7 Heather Jacobs - PTRF (via telecon)
8 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
9 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
10 Geoff Gisler - SELC
11 Becky Fox - EPA (via telecon)
12 John Dorney - NCDWQ
13 David Moye - NCDCM
14 Maria Dunn - NCWRC
15 Richard Peed - NCDLR
16 Samuel Cooper - CZR
17 Julia Berger - CZR
18 George House - Brooks, Pierce et al.
19 Randy Tinsley - Brooks, Pierce et al.
20 Ron Sechler- NMFS (via telecon)
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-15 April 2008
Appendix A
21
22
23 ITEMS DISCUSSED:
24 Purpose of meeting was to give team an opportunity to provide input on the accuracy,
25 presentation, consistency, and appropriateness of the interpretation of the data in the 2007
26 Entrix report Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks-An Assessment, and to
27 identify any issues not addressed in the Entrix report. Participants were invited to also identify
28 particular impacts which may result in significant degradation. Corps acknowleged that any
29 permit issued will have impacts and will address proposed mitigation. Discussed the 404(b)(1)
30 Guidelines vs. elevation MOAs. The determination by a federal review agency that the project
31 will result in unacceptable adverse affects to aquatic resources of national importance is not
32 synonomus to a determination of significant degradation pursuant to the Guidelines. The Corps
33 does take mitigation into consideration in the decision of whether the project overall results in
34 significant degradation to waters of the US as specified in the Guidelines. [Note: the following
35 text provided by CZR- As spelled out in the 1992 MOAs between the Department of the Interior
36 (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce (NMFS) and the
37 Department of the Army, USFWS, EPA, or NMFS can request higher level review of projects
38 which they believe will have significant and unacceptable impacts on an aquatic resource of
39 national importance (ARNI). The process begins with attempts to resolve the issue at the field
40 office level. If unsuccessful, the issue is raised to the Regional level and, finally, to the
41 Washington DC level. The final decision on the need to elevate a specific individual permit case
42 or policy issue rests with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Corps must
43 inform the three federal agencies of their intent to proceed 5 days before they plan to issue a
44 permit. Regional agency administrators have 15 days (from receipt of Corps' Notice of Intent) to
45 review the Corps decision document and permit and whether to elevate. If elevated, the
46 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has 30 days to decide the course of action. If
47 her/his decision is contrary to that of EPA, EPA can decide to veto the process.] The three
48 federal agencies have provided 404(q) notices to Corps stating their intent to elevate depending
49 on what permit action Corps takes. Corps has kept its South Atlantic Division and USACE
50 Headquaters informed of status of project.
51
52 Corps stated that applicant has not yet provided all information requested or needed in order for
53 Corps to finalize the FEIS and that the timetable for publication of the FEIS by the end of March
54 2008 is very aggressive. This timetable also may include EFH consultation with NMFS and
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-16 April 2008
Appendix A
55 further Section 7 discussions with USFWS. The Corps has concerns that this timetable may not
56 be sufficient for the applicant to provide adequate information to fully address the agencies'
57 comments and Corps requests.
58
59 Items of concern expressed by participants by topic at the meeting:
60
61 DWQ- macrobenthos: water quality conclusions in the report are based on relative
62 abundance of macrobenthos etc, and biotic indices (Bls) should be used for comparison
63 between sites. Suggested need to improve sweep method to capture more taxa
64 diversity (i.e., swamp method). More crustaceans, Coleopterans, and Odonates were
65 expected. Asked who and how the macrobenthos were collected and how were
66 specimens identified. Data is useless if identification was not done by certified lab.,
67
68 DWQ- mitigation: Bonnerton bay forest does not have same merit as the Bonnerton
69 wetland hardwood forest. A higher mitigation ratio is likely for the Bonnerton wet
70 hardwood forest because of its uniqueness and more credit should be given if it is
71 preserved.
72
73 • DWQ- monitoring: if permit is issued for PCS, the 401 certification will have new
74 monitoring conditions which are likely to include dissolved organic carbon and potentially
75 other parameters.
76
77 • PTRF- Entrix report: Page 4-9 left out some conclusions in the 2000 West study. West
78 indicates that natural creeks and PAII are not equivalent on all grounds (e.g., lack of
79 woody detritus among others) and that similarity of fauna could be based on reasons
80 other than functional equivalency. West's sample sites were all very downstream which
81 may not be good for comparisons. Asked for source of Muddy Creek data set. Asked
82 whether 50 percent drainage basin reduction (DBR) and Jacks data can be used to
83 confidently extrapolate to 90 percent DBR and would same results be seen for other
84 reductions. Other things affect significant DBR such as biogeochemical and hydrological
85 issues. Encouraged team to read West report. Inquired whether any groundwater
86 monitoring was currently being conducted (Note: only surface water is monitored
87 currently).
88
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-17 April 2008
Appendix A
89 NMFS- Entrix report: report a "comprehensive, exhaustive analysis" and was generally
90 followed and conclusions were understood. Another NMFS staff member is to review
91 report and final comment is reserved until then. Intends to complete review in the next
92 week or so. NMFS provided additional comments on Entrix report (Attachment 2).
93
94 NMFS- watershed and estuary: concerned that the creeks provide pathways for organic
95 detritus to get into food chain/system. Unclear to what extent this transport would be lost
96 from impacts to headwaters and how these impacts may affect processes and animals.
97 NMFS has both small scale concerns to individual creeks and large scale concerns for
98 river and beyond.
99
100 NMFS- impacts/mitigation: concerned that many of the impacts are adjacent to
101 estuarine waters and upper streams above PNAs will be impacted (acknowleged there
102 will be setbacks and other protections). Asked how significant the location of impacts to
103 these PNAs and estuarine waters is relative to landscape position of mitigation sites
104 proposed by PCS.
105
106 DCM- Entrix report: suggested more use be made of the extensive data (size, DO,
107 salinity, etc.) in the DMF 120 program instead of just CPUE. Concerned with loss of
108 watershed which may not drive changes in numbers of fish but will drive changes in
109 plant community on edges of these systems. Asked what the significance of the change
110 in loss of adjacent headwaters may have. Suggested Long and Short Creek as good
111 examples. Concerned about change in dominance from freshwater wetlands to
112 saltwater wetlands. Concerned about how and where samples were taken and that
113 upper-middle-lower sites were not separated for comparison.
114
115 DCM- timeline of FEIS: Concerned about Corps' timeline for FEIS and whether the
116 DEIS/SDEIS deficiencies identified by commenters had been or will be sufficiently
117 addressed to Corps' satisfaction.
118
119 WRC- Entrix report: noted the lack of any freshwater species in the document and said
120 that inland species were dominant when WRC sampled in November 2006. Stated
121 these freshwater species would be more impacted by DBR than estuarine species.
122 Effects from DBR may have been missed in Jacks Creek if effects occurred at 10
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-18 April 2008
Appendix A
123 percent reduction and if the effects were to freshwater species, effects may have already
124 occurred since they may be more sensitive to upstream disturbances. WRC understood
125 why Muddy Creek was chosen as reference creek, but questions whether or not it is very
126 good as reference because it is so close to mouth of South Creek. No linkages were
127 made between biota and what variable(s) supports the species or is most influential in
128 prediction of future trends.
129
130 EPA- ARNI: still evaluating the wetland hardwood forest in Bonnerton (not the bay
131 forest) using the site visit with Mike Schafale and additional materials he has provided
132 since that visit. The forest has been designated a State Significant Natural Heritage
133 Area (SSNHA). EPA uncertain what the significance of that forest also being designated
134 a national SNHA would have on significant degradation. EPA is probably 2 weeks away
135 from providing their position on this forest.
136
137 DMF- representative was unable to attend the meeting due to illness.
138
139
140 Meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm.
141
142 Action Items (Corps): continue on response to comments (DEIS and SDEIS), local
143 coordination, and production of the FEIS.
144 Action Items (PCS): communicate concerns of agencies to Entrix, continue on response
145 to comments (DEIS and SDEIS)
146 Action Items (CZR): assist Corps/PCS as needed in edits/modifications/improvements to
147 and production of FEIS.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-19 April 2008
Appendix A
ATTACHMENT1
Summary of discussions between CZR and NC DWQ regarding DWQ comments on Entrix
report at 12 Feb 2008 PCS EIS Review Team meeting
DWQ's concerns with the Entrix report fall into three main categories:
1) Methods for analysis of data - abundance/diversity data vs. use of Biotic Indices.
2) Adequacy of sampling - methods and resulting data.
3) Use of a certified lab for identification of benthic invertebrates.
John Dorney was the "messenger" for comments presented at the 12 February 2008 team
meeting from Eric Fleek, who reviewed the Entrix report. It became clearer, after additional
conversations between CZR and DWQ personnel (Larry Eaton - Senior Environmental Specialist,
Eric Fleek - Environmental Biologist, Trish MacPherson - BAU supervisor), that the report was
reviewed quickly and by someone who is not familiar with the history of the PCS monitoring or
with context of the data in the NCPC stream monitoring reports. The purpose of the Entrix report
was not to provide that kind of information, but perhaps the report could have better referenced
readers to more detailed information, that likely would have answered many of the underlying
questions raised.
1) Community indices data have been included within each annual NCPC stream monitoring
report. The Estuarine Biotic Index (EBI) was used because it was the DWQ method for analysis
of benthic communities at the time of methodology design. Subsequently, DWQ no longer
monitors estuarine systems and does not use the Estuarine Biotic Index; only the Biotic Indices
(BI) in freshwater systems. Sam Cooper (CZR) talked with Larry Eaton on 18 Feb 08 who
confirmed that Bls were not appropriate for use in estuarine systems. Larry has assisted CZR in
past years by assigning estuarine tolerance values (TVs) for fresh and estuarine species for use
in calculation of EBIs. Larry has also assisted in the past by assigning TVs for estuarine species
for use in Bls, because it is the DWQ method for analysis of benthic communities. Thus, some
species have been assigned a TV for use in BI (freshwater, with a scale between 1 and 10) and a
TV for use in EBI (estuarine, with a scale between 1 and 5).
Larry indicated that he could assist with assigning TVs for additional benthic species, but it would
be Eric Fleek who would decide the best method to evaluate the data. Larry indicated that
assigning EBI TVs to those species included in any previous reports could be a "headache" for
Eric.
It is more appropriate to continue use of EBI at PCS, because 1) species are primarily estuarine
and 2) EBI data exist in the older reports and are readily available for use/comparison of pre vs.
post impact data. However, if Bls must be used, it is likely that many estuarine species will need
a "freshwater" BI assigned to them (i.e., a bigger "headache" for Eric). In light of these
conversations, it was apparent there was some discrepancy on the most appropriate method for
data analysis of community indices.
2) Sampling methods/procedures are addressed and included in the NCPC stream monitoring
reports, and have been and continue to be conducted as required by the DWQ 401 certification
associated with the current mine permit. Sampling locations and methods were deemed
acceptable by regulatory agencies to monitor and address potential impacts associated with
reduction of drainage basins associated with the current mine permit. If use of a certified lab is
required from now on (as implied by John) written clarification from DWQ describing the
modification will be needed. Data collected and evaluated to date have been as
authorized/required under existing 401 permit conditions. The NCPC sampling area is on the
eastern boundary of Region B (Level IV Ecoregions, Figure 1 SOP for Benthic Macros 2006).
While the upper segments of NCPC creeks may be more typical swamp streams, many of the
NCPC sampling sites are clearly estuarine in nature. Larry suggested it may be good for Eric to
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-20 April 2008
Appendix A
visit and see the creeks in person, so he can become more familiar with the area, habitats, and
locations sampled.
In regard to some specific questions with this topic,
- NCPC collection methods are similar to DWQ's "swamp method" of collections. Three 10
minutes sweep samples are collected.
- Sweeps have encompassed the diversity of habitats at each sampling location.
- Data are representative of the diversity of habitats present and sampled. Details on
sample locations are described in the annual NCPC reports.
- Benthic data/tables in the Entrix report consist of the "most abundant" species, not all
species. Odonate and Coleoptera taxa were collected from sites as reported in the
NCPC reports, but did not comprise the most abundant taxa.
3) Regarding the appropriate use of a DWQ certified Lab, CZR talked with Trish MacPherson on
18 Feb 08 and was informed that the certification process for biological labs was designed for use
with NPDES permits and primarily aquatic toxicology studies, and was not associated with the
401/wetland process. Trish was unaware of any DWQ language that requires use of such of labs
with the 401 process. She said that 401/wetland folks may require use of these labs, but she did
not believe that the lab certification process was established for this purpose. She deferred my
question to Larry Eaton. In a follow-up conversation between CZR and Larry Eaton on 18 Feb
08, Larry indicated that he was not aware of a specific 401 requirement to use certified labs and
said that was a question for John Dorney or Eric Fleek. CZR talked with Eric Fleek on 19 Feb 08
and Eric said the only DWQ legal language requiring use of certified labs was in the section
below.
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02H .1100 NORTH CAROLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Page 1 SECTION .1100 - BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY
CERTIFICATION .1101 PURPOSE
These Rules set forth the requirements for certification of commercial, industrial, and
public laboratories to perform biological toxicity testing and population surveys of water
and wastewater as required for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits by G.S. 143-215.3(a)(10) and Environmental Management Commission
Rules for Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters
of North Carolina, found in Subchapter 2B of this Chapter, Section .0200, and Rules for
Surface Water Monitoring, Reporting, found in Subchapter 2B of this Chapter, Section
.0500. History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(a)(10); 143-
215.66; Eff. October 1, 1988; Amended Eff. March 1, 1993.
Eric said that use of a certified lab for identification of benthic organisms was required with a
recent 401 certification involving monitoring of a stream mitigation site near Raleigh, but that was
a project specific condition.
Clearly there are some mixed signals with regard to what is required and what DWQ presented at
the 12 February 2008 team meeting. DWQ's comment that the existing data are "useless" unless
identified by a certified lab is likely to be disturbing to many aquatic researchers in the North
Carolina scientific and academic communities. It is important these issues be resolved and
adequately tied to the meeting minutes, to detour any potential misinterpretations.
On 26 February 2008 CZR talked with John Dorney to request additional guidance regarding the
lab and use of EBIs vs. Bls. John indicated that CZR could continue to use the EBI for analysis
of NCPC data from 2007. John would like for PCS, CZR, Eric, and Larry to get together on-site to
discuss/review the methods and discuss potential modifications. John indicated he would forward
CZR the web address to language that linked use of certified labs to monitoring being conducted
under 401 certification requirements. CZR called John on 27 February 2008 to inquire about the
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-21 April 2008
Appendix A
supporting lab language again and was told that he, Eric, and Larry were "working on it." No
additional information was available as of 8 March 2008.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-22 April 2008
Appendix A
ATTACHMENT 2
(sent to Tom Walker from Ron Sechler)
Review of the ENTRIX Report Titled: Potential Effects of Watershed Reduction
on Tidal Creeks- An Assessment.
In reviewing the report by ENTRIX concerning the proposal by PCS Phosphate
mine expansion I have difficulty believing the conclusions of the report. There are many
reasons to question these conclusions, but I will enumerate some of the more significant
ones.
The analyses that were performed were flawed in that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
two sample test, which is used to compare distribution frequency, was used. This type of
test should be used for continuous data (as in length, weight, volume etc.) frequency
analysis, and not catch data (which is not continuous) that has been altered in an attempt
to make it continuous. Because of this the analyses provided and conclusions derived
from these analyses are not acceptable evidence. Further, the replication level is too low
to give an appropriate indication of significant difference at the p < 0.05 level. The
maximum number of annual catch replicates used in this report is seven, and this is much
too low for a reasonable and reliable testing. Distribution analysis typically involves
many more observations than used in this report and even Chi Square Analysis (a more
appropriate test for this data) requires at least 6 independent replicates to show significant
differences, and those can only be revealed if all 6 replicate outcomes favor a particular
treatment. If differences between treatments are not so overwhelmingly consistent then
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-23 April 2008
Appendix A
many more replicates are necessary to detect significant differences that might occur.
The fact is, that even had that correct analysis been conducted, the replication level used
was not sufficient to test for significant differences and the replication level would have
needed to be much higher, by at least a factor of 2-3 times.
Another major flaw is the nekton community assessed for effects. The
community that should have been tested should be that which might be reliant on the
shallow water marsh and wetland. Species that spawn in pelagic marine environments
(spot, flounder, shrimp etc.) and who are known to have good dispersal ability should be
less affected than marsh dependant species such as mummichog and sheepshead minnow.
Mummichog and sheepshead minnow are key estuarine species and are useful in
determining marsh health. These two species are marsh residents and complete their
entire life history within marshes. Based on the limited data that this report presents,
these two species were prevalent in the less impacted marsh at Tooley Creek and
essentially non-existent in the more impacted Jacks Creek and created marsh PAII.
These two species are reliant on shallow marsh and lay their eggs in the shallows where
their larvae and juveniles grow until they are large enough to survive in deeper water
areas of the marsh. Any direct or in this case indirect impact to shallow water marsh
areas can significantly negatively affect these species population size and extinction
potential. Mummichog and sheepshead minnow are also important vectors for energy
transfer of marsh productivity to higher trophic levels, thus providing a key ecological
link to economically valuable fisheries species.
I am also concerned that a well designed study to assess the effect of drainage
basin reduction on creek nekton function was not instituted with a replication level
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-24 April 2008
Appendix A
sufficient to adequately test for potential effects. Given the planned expansion for the
mining operation, it would have been better to institute such a study which could have
produced appropriate original data and perhaps more convincing results based on
specifically testing associated hypotheses. Instead, what is presented is a poorly
composed report that does not give details of how data were collected, collection
frequency, temporal periods, site or sub-site replication, excludes the marsh community
that could be most impacted, and uses inappropriate data analysis that are bound to show
no significant effect, as was the intent of the report. This method of data mining really
does nothing to support the report conclusions.
To exacerbate the obvious bias the report further does not tend to recognize the
results that are contrary to the reports predetermined objectives nor realize their
significance. The trend of differences in mummichog and sheepshead minnow
abundance and the preponderance of "freshwater" benthic species in the downstream
location of Muddy Creek (un-impacted) compared to Jacks Creek (after impact), and
their preponderance within the downstream location of Jacks Creek prior to impact
compared to after impact, suggests that freshwater pulses into Jacks Creek might have
become too less frequent and intense for support of these species. These results, tentative
as they are, suggest that a change within Jacks Creek might have occurred with only a
51% reduction in drainage basin. One can only imagine what a 90% or larger reduction
in drainage basin would do.
I have no choice but to reject the conclusions of this study due to its shortcomings
and suggest that no such permit be allowed for mining expansion due to apparent
detrimental effects on the bordering creeks and adjacent estuary.
PCS Phosphate FEIS A-25 April 2008
Appendix A
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NCPC APPLICANT PREFERRED PLAN (AP) -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT1011 Total NCPC
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year -4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year 1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year s Year6 Year? Year8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Total!Avg.
Eff t eShipl gVJ - UOObcyl 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,476 36,414 37,011 37,000 35,997 41,374 45,588 46,381 40,937 39,987 40,789 39,540 38,772 37,512 36,790 35,081 36,730 33,802 22,230 823 ??c
Total Ilined -aiacie,, 183 181 171 178 176 178 175 177 184 201 203 188 182 180 170 176 183 178 177 177 181 177 -
Pumped Orer1000tonsi 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,754 11,689 12,118 11,626 12,291 12,567 12,049 12,356 12,139 11,965 12,061 12,224 11,715 12,000 11,378 11,584 10,890 261.195
TotalCn-entrateiluuutn,- 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,431 105331
Chang- in Pre t try iaaes 6 7 -1 -36 -7 23 -9 45 -7 -7 -67 10 -38 -17 -2 4 -2 -5 35 -11 -60 -177 315

Production Casts,'Fnn'
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,635 $ 9,587 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 7,464 $ 5,454 S 194--27
[ laintenance Labor, $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 3,751 $ 4,089 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,534 $ 3,038 S 63574
Dperating Supplles $ 7,537 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,485 $ 7,492 $ 6,288 $ 6,285 $ 7,931 $ 8,440 $ 9,057 $ 9,165 $ 6,667 $ 8,266 $ 6,408 $ 6,335 $ 8,214 $ 7,745 $ 7,731 $ 6,193 $ 6,787 $ 7,166 $ 4,629 S 165633
Flocadant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 654 $ 638 $ 701 $ 705 $ 792 $ 836 $ 696 $ 752 $ 694 $ 665 $ 712 $ 624 $ 528 $ 605 $ 532 $ 519 $ 507 S 14.155
ReagentslFue1 /Lime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,085 $ 6,053 $ 6,163 $ 5,816 $ 6,028 $ 6,133 $ 5,971 $ 6,132 $ 6,144 $ 6,119 $ 6,108 $ 6,367 $ 6,292 $ 6,301 $ 6,102 $ 6,273 $ 5,788 S 134733
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 537 S 13255
1 laintenance Supplles $ 13,996 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 14,024 $ 13,814 $ 14,142 $ 14,169 $ 14,117 $ 14,496 $ 15,398 $ 15,718 $ 14,755 $ 14,963 $ 14,747 $ 14,880 $ 15,074 $ 14,335 $ 14,122 $ 14,262 $ 14,492 $ 13,381 $ 11,036 S 313955
Electric Poem $ 10,685 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,314 $ 8,981 $ 9,480 $ 9,491 $ 9,259 $ 9,684 $ 10,519 $ 10,700 $ 10,026 $ 9,962 $ 10,263 $ 10,623 $ 10,490 $ 10,226 $ 10,081 $ 10,473 $ 10,632 $ 9,734 $ 8,297 S 21,-2
Contract I iaintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,325 $ 2,042 $ 6,051 $ 2,357 $ 2,427 $ 2,610 $ 6,682 $ 2,154 $ 2,523 $ 2,165 $ 6,159 $ 2,553 $ 2,401 $ 2,370 $ 6,048 $ 2,115 $ 2,174 $ 1,749 S ,'-1.210
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 10,992 $ 11,198 $ 11,668 $ 11,000 $ 14,653 $ 13,627 $ 12,827 $ 12,865 $ 13,522 $ 12,794 $ 11,311 $ 13,575 $ 11,059 $ 11,010 $ 11,189 $ 11,190 $ 12,505 $ 10,774 S 5115
Other&pense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 944 $ 940 $ 630 $ 681 $ 754 $ 761 $ 986 $ 677 $ 991 $ 987 $ 675 $ 633 $ 620 $ 905 $ 865 $ 590 $ 494 S 16235
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 65,649 $ 65,677 $ 67,952 $ 64,392 $ 63,661 $ 64,163 $ 68,624 $ 64,889 $ 71,184 $ 73,065 $ 77,104 $ 68,999 $ 71,078 $ 69,085 $ 71,070 $ 71,684 $ 66,123 $ 65,485 $ 69,305 $ 66,045 $ 63,947 $ 52,305 S 1481453
irect Ca I C p npeJ Cm ton $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.43 $ 5.46 $ 5.46 $ 5.87 $ 5.35 $ 6.12 $ 5.94 $ 6.14 $ 5.73 $ 5.75 $ 5.69 $ 5.94 $ 5.94 $ 5.41 $ 5.59 $ 5.78 $ 5.80 $ 5.52 $ 4.80 S - -
vectCash C $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.88 $ 12.73 $ 12.83 $ 13.72 $ 12.98 $ 14.24 $ 14.61 $ 15.42 $ 13.80 $ 14.22 $ 13.82 $ 14.21 $ 14.34 $ 13.22 $ 13.10 $ 13.86 $ 13.21 $ 12.79 $ 11.80 S 1354
(located Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,407 $ 19,529 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 17,324 $ 12,878 S 414358
Total Cash Costs $ 84,527 $ 84,555 $ 86,830 $ 83,270 $ 82,539 $ 83,292 $ 87,753 $ 83,767 $ 90,713 $ 92,594 $ 96,633 $ 88,778 $ 90,607 $ 88,865 $ 90,477 $ 91,213 $ 85,001 $ 84,363 $ 88,434 $ 85,174 $ 81,272 $ 65,184 S 1 99,,541
Tctal Cash Cc y p !-ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.02 $ 7.08 $ 7.09 $ 7.51 $ 6.91 $ 7.80 $ 7.53 $ 7.69 $ 7.37 $ 7.33 $ 7.32 $ 7.56 $ 7.56 $ 6.95 $ 7.20 $ 7.37 $ 7.49 $ 7.02 $ 5.99 S -
Cash Cc ` $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.65 $ 16.51 $ 16.66 $ 17.55 $ 16.75 $ 18.14 $ 18.52 $ 19.33 $ 17.76 $ 18.12 $ 17.77 $ 18.10 $ 18.24 $ 17.00 $ 16.87 $ 17.69 $ 17.03 $ 16.25 $ 14.71 S 32
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,371 $ 12,136 $ 12,117 $ 12,053 $ 12,335 $ 12,224 $ 12,874 $ 13,081 $ 12,347 $ 12,610 $ 12,584 $ 12,538 $ 12,654 $ 12,846 $ 12,544 $ 12,359 $ 12,118 $ 12,008 $ 10,070 S 271.151
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 790 $ 789 $ 788 $ 792 $ 802 $ 804 $ 766 $ 802 $ 798 $ 777 $ 789 $ 851 $ 802 $ 836 $ 788 $ 797 $ 749 S 1-4---
Chang- In Pre t I In -t $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 2,976 $ 552 $ (1,908) $ 790 $ (3,782) $ 544 $ 603 $ 5,634 $ (836) $ 3,207 $ 1,449 $ 160 $ (343) $ 194 $ 401 $ (2,943) $ 877 $ 4,969 $ 14,769 S ^3254
11CPC Alt-ED1 1 t Viiteoff $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 7,337 $ 7,337 $ 5,504 $ 1,137 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,954 $ 4,609 S 34183
IICPC-ItE r, 1-flanik, tltgatian 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 421 $ 87 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 226 $ - -
IICPCGselop tL tl riteott - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 155 $ 524 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 370 $ JiW- S -
14igatnCost D-1a1i'1^4708 S - S - S 4,71 ; ..a.!5 6.415 6.4..5 1419 n a49 n _.4n9 S ..4Ja ? :4.14 ? ..4.!5 ? fl 4..1 `v.4..5 alt-! a49
n ...
_.
R nn-H De' 1 pn - t and Land Liit- ff
Ronnerton Receding Face UViiteoff
L litigation Costs
C -lapin rt riteoff
?- Receding Face Wiiteoff
L litigation Costs
Plant ImprrnemenG 11 All Costs
Total Operating Costs $ 99,562 $ 99,621 $ 102,368 $ 107,307 $ 103,901 $ 101,723 $ 107,704 $ 99,137 $ 110,302 $ 112,902 $ 122,180 $ 107,084 $ 113,256 $ 109,726 $ 109,981 $ 110,342 $ 104,920 $ 104,139 $ 104,716 $ 104,985 $ 105,828 $ 97,288 $ 2,338,972
p rat,-C !: P3pedareron $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.68 $ 9.05 $ 8.91 $ 8.65 $ 9.21 $ 8.18 $ 9.49 $ 9.19 $ 9.72 $ 8.89 $ 9.17 $ 9.04 $ 9.19 $ 9.15 $ 8.58 $ 8.89 $ 8.73 $ 9.23 $ 9.14 $ 8.93 $ 8.95
Total Operating Cost cc ncentrte ton $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 20.47 $ 21.46 $ 20.78 $ 20.34 $ 21.54 $ 19.83 $ 22.06 $ 22.58 $ 24.44 $ 21.42 $ 22.65 $ 21.95 $ 22.00 $ 22.07 $ 20.98 $ 20.83 $ 20.94 $ 21.00 $ 21.17 $ 21.96 $ 21.37

li'g t n Costs-DE15 $ $ $ $ $ $ 777 $ 2628 $ 3.110 $ 9110 $ 3.110 $ 3110 $ 3.110 $ 3110 $ 3.110 $ 3.110 $ 3.110 $ 9110 $ 3.110 $ 3110 $ 3.110 $ 1.858 $ 803 S 4457
111 It3at.,n C,,t Up lot-,"4/O8 S S S 5 5 S 1351 S 45',1 S X409 S v.405 S v405 S 536 5 545 5 _375 S 779 S .r409 S X409 S v.405 S v405 S 536 5 545 5 231 $ 1,396 S -
Op 1.-t o13 -0EI5 $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 2047 $ 2146 $ 20.78 $ 20.23 $ 21.15 $ 19.37 $ 21.60 $ 22.12 $ 23.98 $ 20.96 $ 22.19 $ 21.49 $ 21.54 $ 21.61 $ 20.52 $ 20.37 $ 2948 $ 20.54 $ 20.89 $ 21.82 $ 21.06
a Jp C?sf _ ?alav 1551 IC92 S "0.47 $ 2146 s °778 s 2034 S 2154 $ 13.53 " 2205 S 22 `8 24.44 s 2142 s - 1.55 s 2- 22o 2o - - -0.94 s 21.00 s 2117 s .1.55 s 31 a',
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
AP cost model update
APPENDIX A
ADDENDUM
1- REVIEW TEAM MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 2006 - FEBRUARY 2007
(MEETINGS 20th -22 nd
NOTE: Meeting summary minutes were finalized
for the 20th meeting. The 21St and 22nd meeting
summary minutes are included as draft versions
PCS Phosphate FEIS April 2008
Appendix A
APPENDIX D
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
including
MINE PLAN COMPOSITE MAPS BY MINE YEAR (same as DEIS),
and ADDENDUM 1:
UPDATED COST MODEL SUMMARIES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
WITH NEW MITIGATION COSTS ADDED
PCS Phosphate FEIS April 2008
Appendix D
O I
0
°' ILa
O1
co
La
01
O
`o ILa
O1
La
La
0 2,500
2,630,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
5,000
Feet
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1927
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLINA, FIPS 3200 FEET
G-5
1 00 10,000 rr— `��� / G-6
YEAR 11
- -__ - -
YEAR 12 '
BONNERTON AREA
YEAR 12
0
Legend
YEAR 38
YEAR 10
D
YEAR 11
La
12
YEAR 13
D
MINE PERMIT 7-1
YEAR 40
BONNERTON ALT -L PERMIT BOUNDARY
YEAR 19
S33 ALT -L PERMIT BOUNDARY
I
PROJECT BOUNDARY
YEAR 20
D
YEAR 27
YEAR 35
YEAR 21
NCPC SCR PERMIT BOUNDARY
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
" " " 4+ "4
RELOCATED RAILROAD
0
0
0
M
La0
CREEK
SURFACE PLUG
OPERATING BENCH PLUG
R -5W
WOO
Dredge
Lake
R-5
Recycle Lake
1p
R-4 0a _ �OJ
Whitehurst Cree
Reclamation t x
Project - St 1 f 1
fit
R-6
R-7
1�
wwwNw.
YEAR -5
YEAR -4
YEAR -3
YEAR -2
YEAR -1
YEAR 0
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
JACOBS CREEK
14, moo 14 W,
13
e ..• } y
#,-,,,.AURORA
'EAR 22
Broomfield
ILII
ro
ss
Run
if
Go
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
YEAR 8 � YEAR 15 F-7 YEAR 22
YEAR 16 YEAR 23
YEAR 9
YEAR 38
YEAR 10
D
YEAR 11
DYEAR
12
YEAR 13
D
YEAR 14
YEAR 16 YEAR 23
1 �c
YEAR 31
YEAR 38
YEAR 17
D
YEAR 24
YEAR 39
YEAR 18
D
YEAR 25
YEAR 40
YEAR 47
YEAR 19
YEAR 26
YEAR 48
YEAR 20
D
YEAR 27
YEAR 35
YEAR 21
YEAR 28
1 �c
YEAR 31
YEAR 38
YEAR 45
YEAR 32
YEAR 39
YEAR 46
YEAR 33
YEAR 40
YEAR 47
YEAR 34
YEAR 41
YEAR 48
YEAR 35
YEAR 42
YEAR 49
�c
SCJ
- �L
Ar
Phumphatek
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
ALTERNATIVE L
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JULY 2007 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/ALT-L2000.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Cc Marston
www.marston.com DWG: E610-5107-07

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Feet
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1927
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLINA, FIPS 3200 FEET
R-3
YEAR 12
YEAR 15 t
BONNERTON AREA �: _ . '•
o
co
La
co
La
o
La
La
Legend
YEAR 9
YEAR 38
MINE PERMIT 7-1
D
YEAR 11
DYEAR
12
ALTERNATIVE M PERMIT BOUNDARY
D
YEAR 14
BONNERTON ALT -M PERMIT BOUNDARY
01110101110101111
S33 ALT -M PERMIT BOUNDARY
I
PROJECT BOUNDARY
YEAR 47
YEAR 34
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
....... " " "
RELOCATED RAILROAD
YEAR 48
CREEK
SURFACE PLUG
OPERATING BENCH PLUG
YEAR 17
4
YEAR 18
33
FJ
f�
R -5W
WOO
Dredge
Lake
R-5
Whitehurst Cree
Reclamation t x
Project - St 1 fat
R-6
,x
AV
R-7
YEAR -5
YEAR -4
YEAR -3
YEAR -2
YEAR -1
YEAR 0
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
G-5
G-6
Recycle Lake
G-3/4
R-2
i
R��FR
UP1
NC
IF soft a
C AREA
HUDDLES CUT
HUDDY GUT
3
�o
ss
Run
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
YEAR 8 � YEAR 15 YEAR 22
YEAR 16 YEAR 23
YEAR 9
YEAR 38
YEAR 10
D
YEAR 11
DYEAR
12
YEAR 13
D
YEAR 14
YEAR 16 YEAR 23
1 �c
YEAR 31
YEAR 38
YEAR 17
D
YEAR 24
YEAR 39
YEAR 18
D
YEAR 25
YEAR 19
YEAR 26
YEAR 47
YEAR 34
YEAR 20
D
YEAR 27
YEAR 48
YEAR 35
YEAR 21
YEAR 28
1 �c
YEAR 31
YEAR 38
YEAR 45
YEAR 32
YEAR 39
YEAR 46
YEAR 33
YEAR 40
YEAR 47
YEAR 34
YEAR 41
YEAR 48
YEAR 35
YEAR 42
YEAR 49
co
�c
- �L
Pus
F homphafiek.
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
ALTERNATIVE M
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JULY 2007 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/ALT-M 2000.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
CIL, Marston
v�.I�rStOI�.�Orr� DWG : E610-6107-07

2,630,000 2,640,000
Legend
2,660,000
WIMIMIN111
MINE PERMIT 7-1
2,660,000
2,670,000
2,680,000
PERMIT BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
La
......
RELOCATED RAILROAD
�'1'
SURFACE PLUG
OPERATING BENCH PULG
foul
�t
Jfft
0
Jy
Upi
N C P C AREA
G-5
HUDDLES CUT
G-3/4
Y
A
A
Gee
R-1
EAR 1
HUDDY GUT
G -6
Y 0 AR R YEAR
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Feet
YEAR
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1927
a
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLINA, FIPS 3200 FEET
R-3
EAR
YEAR 4
a
R-2
..........................................
YEAR 5
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .
.. .........
....
.....................
YEAR 7
............ ...... ...... ...... .......... .. .. .. .. ........ ........
..
UT5
Recycle
Lake
EAR .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..
................................. ..... 11 .. .. .. .. . . .
.......................
.. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ...
.....................
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................
AR
UT3
..........
.........
.................................... UT2
R-4
A
BONNERTON AREA
................................................
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .
..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..
...............................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..
. . . . . . . .....................................
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . TOOLEY CREEK
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .
............. .....................................................
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
AR 11 .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
Ila
Y R12
R -5W
DRINKWATER CREEK
JACOBS CREEK
R-5
4
0
(D
top
Whitehurst Gree
Reclamation
'AbA
ow 5 SON
EA 5
JACKS CREEK
O
La
co ILa
MML-M�
oI
O
00
PUS
Phosphat
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
AP - NCPC
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/DWG3060.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Cc, Marston
www.marston.com DWG: E610-3060-06
Legend
WIMIMIN111
MINE PERMIT 7-1
PERMIT BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
La
......
RELOCATED RAILROAD
CREEK
SURFACE PLUG
OPERATING BENCH PULG
00
PUS
Phosphat
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
AP - NCPC
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/DWG3060.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Cc, Marston
www.marston.com DWG: E610-3060-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N C P C AREA
G-5
o -/4 o G3 HUDDLES CUT ° °
e~ o e _ o ~ ° 0
HUDDY GUT
a R-1 ~r
o . ~
G-6
0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000

i Feet e~ u
' rr
YEAR 25 ~
COORDINATE SYSTEM: 'NAD 1927 '
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLJNA, FIPS 3200 FEET R 3
YEAR 24 I I .
I i I
I I I ~ ' R-2 YEAR 24
A\ 1
YEAR 25
I I YEAR 0
YEAR 23 ~ -
i EAR 2 UT5

Rec cle Lake ; ~ YE Y " YEA 1

o o o ~ UT3 ¢~(i °
N YEAR 2 %J 0 YEAR 2 ~ °
UT2 J'~~ °
j J~ I I
R_4 EAR
.
i YEAR 3 TOOLEY CREEK

I I I
I YEAR b.~,-.. A A2
YEAR 26 I
•

DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5W YEAR
~ 'J JACOBS CREEK
YEAR 27 R-5
i ~ O~~
C0~
UT1
UT6 Y AR ~ ~
SIBYL CREEK CAD
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o ~ ~ a, I °
o Reclamation o ti. Profecf I iU S ° ° °
t Gr ° °
R_g

R_ ~ os 8 <
33
o,
R-7
C~
- ~ CD
~ ~ r , CD
e - -
' Dred a f g .
r Lake - r~ .
AURORA
r ~
o ; 1 ° °
C , . r.. 0 n ° 0
A 6 °
g YEAR 8 YEAR 9 ' ~ ' m r-~°^ YEAR 7
r ,
YEAR 6
YE 10
3os a EAR EAR 5
® EAR YEA 1 EAR 2
B roomfiel d
~o e e a~ ,e
V \ ¦
~ I ''gyp
~€A~
j 1 r i
i ~I~ YEAR 10 ~AR~~11 YEAR 12 ~ Y ~3 ~ ~
1 II
~ ~ ~ YEAR 13 ~
C ~ r ~ YEAR 14
~ YEAR 11 1
L ~,I ~ Y AR 16
-T I I O O O
O RJ
~ - YEF{,I~ 14
I~ ~ ~
r' ~ I I ' ~ YEAR 16
~ I L YEAR 17
Y~AR 78
~ ~ ~
I. I ~ J r~ss
~ ~ YEAR 18 ~ RUn ~
~ YEAR 19 YEAR 20 ~ ~ ~.y~
~ _ I rte- ~ YT R;~1 G.,e~ V
i YEAR 19
~ -i 1 / P
~~J I FP' ~
~ ~'i YEAR 21 ~
i Y~AR 23 YEAR 22 f ~ O
i ~ 1' j O RJ
~ ~I~ ~~YEAR 22 RJ
\
30 ~
i /
1 ~
1 ~

1 /
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O La RJ
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 Legend ~ YEAR -5 ~ YEAR 2 ~ YEAR 9 ~ YEAR 16 ~ YEAR 23 ~ YEAR 30 ~ YEAR 3 ' MINE PERMIT 7-1 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 P, C
'hosw%hate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 PROJECT BOUNDARY D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 L..... . YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
131-1 B - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence B
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
` - RouTe sos Re~ocnTioN D YEAR -2 D YEAR 5 D YEAR 12 D YEAR 19 D YEAR 26 D YEAR 33 D YEAR 4 RELOCATED R4ILROAD YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3069.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
CREEK
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG .ooo ~ YEAR 0 ~ YEAR 7 ~ YEAR 14 ~ YEAR 21 ~ YEAR 28 ~ YEAR 35 ~ YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
DWG : E610-3069-06

o�
0
0
0
0
CDILa
co
o1
La
L�La
2,630,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
1
YEAR 24
total=* �+ x
33
.4 .
R -5W
Dredge
Lake
R-5
m
AW,
G-6
Recycle Lake
Whitehurst Creek t
Reclamation t
Project t U S p
t
R-6 ' '1
r r
N
G-3/4
R-2
t � v
817;._AURORA
AR 31
Broo
mfield
® 10 1404111
s�
ss
Run
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
Jt—sSIBYL
CREEK
JACKS CREEK
3
Em
A
r r UP1 NC
4
w
0
SCO
C0�
—zz�' <
Q_A—
�c
�L
'm"a' a� S
YEAR -6 YEAR 1 YEAR 8 YEAR 15 YEAR 22 YEAR 29 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 PU IV
YEAR -5 YEAR 2 YEAR 9 YEAR 16 YEAR 23 YEAR 30 YEAR 37 YEAR 44 Phumphittek
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
YEAR -4 YEAR 3 YEAR 10 YEAR 17 YEAR 24 YEAR 31 YEAR 38 YEAR 45
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
EAPA - NCPC, Bonnerton and S33
YEAR -3 YEAR 4 YEAR 11 YEAR 18 YEAR 25 YEAR 32 YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence A
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR -2 YEAR 5 YEAR 12 YEAR 19 YEAR 26 YEAR 33 YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006
Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3061.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
YEAR -1 YEAR 6 YEAR 13 YEAR 20 YEAR 27 YEAR 34 YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1 = 2000
YEAR 0 .YEAR 7 YEAR 14 YEAR 21 YEAR 28 YEAR 35 YEAR 42 YEAR 49
Marston
www.marston.com
DWG: E610-3061-06
Legend
10101IM11011 MINE PERMIT 7-1
PERMIT BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
. . .
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
0
0
M
RELOCATED RAILROAD
CREEK
SURFACE PLUG
OPERATING BENCH PLUG
YEAR 24
total=* �+ x
33
.4 .
R -5W
Dredge
Lake
R-5
m
AW,
G-6
Recycle Lake
Whitehurst Creek t
Reclamation t
Project t U S p
t
R-6 ' '1
r r
N
G-3/4
R-2
t � v
817;._AURORA
AR 31
Broo
mfield
® 10 1404111
s�
ss
Run
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
Jt—sSIBYL
CREEK
JACKS CREEK
3
Em
A
r r UP1 NC
4
w
0
SCO
C0�
—zz�' <
Q_A—
�c
�L
'm"a' a� S
YEAR -6 YEAR 1 YEAR 8 YEAR 15 YEAR 22 YEAR 29 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 PU IV
YEAR -5 YEAR 2 YEAR 9 YEAR 16 YEAR 23 YEAR 30 YEAR 37 YEAR 44 Phumphittek
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
YEAR -4 YEAR 3 YEAR 10 YEAR 17 YEAR 24 YEAR 31 YEAR 38 YEAR 45
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
EAPA - NCPC, Bonnerton and S33
YEAR -3 YEAR 4 YEAR 11 YEAR 18 YEAR 25 YEAR 32 YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence A
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR -2 YEAR 5 YEAR 12 YEAR 19 YEAR 26 YEAR 33 YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006
Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3061.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
YEAR -1 YEAR 6 YEAR 13 YEAR 20 YEAR 27 YEAR 34 YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1 = 2000
YEAR 0 .YEAR 7 YEAR 14 YEAR 21 YEAR 28 YEAR 35 YEAR 42 YEAR 49
Marston
www.marston.com
DWG: E610-3061-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
1
o�
0
0
0
0
0 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet
COORDINATE SYSTEM: :NAD -1927
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLINA, FIPS 3200 FEET
BON
�I
0
�I
0
10,000
ft
ERTON AREA
r
&
33 r
R -5W
•
Dredge
Lake
R-5
Whitehurst Cree
Reclamation
R-7
R-3
G-5
G-6
Recycle Lake
G-3/4
R-2
AURORA
YEAR 22
E 23
Broomfield
ro
ss
Run
41
�SIBYL
/ CREEK
JACKS CREEK
4
r ]yr UP1
NCPC AREA
r
r,
HUDDLES CUT
0
Legend
DRAGLINE MINING
MINE PERMIT 7-1
JONIMINIMM
®®
- YEAR -6
D YEAR 1
D YEAR 8
D YEAR 15
PERMIT BOUNDARY
D YEAR 29
®®®®®
D YEAR 43
'® '
PROJECT BOUNDARY
YEAR 9
......
YEAR 23
YEAR 30
YEAR 37
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION
0
D YEAR -4
YEAR 3
0
D YEAR 17
RELOCATED RAILROAD
D YEAR 31
D YEAR 38
CREEK
D YEAR -3
D YEAR 4
SURFACE PLUG
D YEAR 18
D YEAR 25
OPERATING BENCH PLUG
D YEAR 39
10,000
ft
ERTON AREA
r
&
33 r
R -5W
•
Dredge
Lake
R-5
Whitehurst Cree
Reclamation
R-7
R-3
G-5
G-6
Recycle Lake
G-3/4
R-2
AURORA
YEAR 22
E 23
Broomfield
ro
ss
Run
41
�SIBYL
/ CREEK
JACKS CREEK
4
r ]yr UP1
NCPC AREA
r
r,
HUDDLES CUT
0
HUDDY GUT
4
TOOLEY CREEK
e-
0
C0�
�c
�L
Phumphatek
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
EAPB - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
Sequence B
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP — BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/DWG3063.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1 = 2000
CIL, Marston
°�.�r'arSt0l�.�0'� DWG: E610-3063-06
DRAGLINE MINING
SEQUENCE
- YEAR -6
D YEAR 1
D YEAR 8
D YEAR 15
D YEAR 22
D YEAR 29
YEAR 36
D YEAR 43
DYEAR -5
D YEAR 2
YEAR 9
YEAR 16
YEAR 23
YEAR 30
YEAR 37
YEAR 44
D YEAR -4
YEAR 3
YEAR 10
D YEAR 17
D YEAR 24
D YEAR 31
D YEAR 38
D YEAR 45
D YEAR -3
D YEAR 4
D YEAR 11
D YEAR 18
D YEAR 25
D YEAR 32
D YEAR 39
D YEAR 46
YEAR -2
D YEAR 5
D YEAR 12
YEAR 19
D YEAR 26
D YEAR 33
YEAR 40
D YEAR 47
D YEAR -1
D YEAR 6
YEAR 13
YEAR 20
D YEAR 27
D YEAR 34
D YEAR 41
D YEAR 48
,000
YEAR 0
F--IYEAR 7
=1 YEAR 14
RM YEAR 21
YEAR 28
YEAR 35
YEAR 42
YEAR 49
HUDDY GUT
4
TOOLEY CREEK
e-
0
C0�
�c
�L
Phumphatek
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
NEAR AURORA. N.C.
EAPB - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
Sequence B
DRAGLINE PLAN LAYOUT AND SEQUENCE
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP — BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mineplan/DWG3063.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
SCALE: 1 = 2000
CIL, Marston
°�.�r'arSt0l�.�0'� DWG: E610-3063-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N C P C AREA
G-5
o -/4 o G3 HUDDLES CUT ° °
e~ o e o ~ ° 0
HUDDY GUT
a R-1 ~r
o . ~
G-6
0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000

i Feet u
' rr
COORDINATE SYSTEM: 'NAD 1927 '
STATE PLANE NORTH CAROLJNA FIPS 3200 FEET I ~ - R3 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
i i ~ i ,l/
I I ~ I R-2 ~

ti

-
, A UT5
i i
Rec cle Lake Y I ~ I
i i
c i c i o ° UT3 ¢~(i ° °
o N i?
I i~7 I UT2 J'~~
I I i I
R-4
I I I
y TOOLEY CREEK

'I A A2
V' 1
i ii ~

~ DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5W
JACOBS CREEK
R-5
O~~
C0~
UT1
UT6 ~ ~
i i SIBYL CREEK CAD
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o ~ ~ ~ a, i °
o Reclamation o ti. Profecf S ° ° °
t Gr ° °
R-6

R_ ~ os 8 <
33
' o,
R-7
C~
• - ~ CD
~ ~ r , CD
e - -
Drell e ~ f g .
r Lake
' ~ 33 a -
, ~ AURORA r~ ~ .
o ~ EAR , . ° °
o , 0 n ° 0
~~1 °
YEAR 3 ; . r-l°^ YEAR 2
r ,
E 0
EAR
306 a
YEAR 1
B o roomfiel
. d YEAIR 4 . . .
®1
e YEAR 4 _ ' "~L
a d
L a e 1
.AR 5 YEAR 9
I YEAR 5 /
m

a YEAR fi
YEAR 6
YEAR 7 YEAR 9
YEAR 8 Y AR 0
~e 0
o ~ 0 O O O
N I O RJ
YEA
C I
° 1
~ YEAR 11 e YEAR 10 ~
o ~I~
1 YEAR 15 L - 'br
® (Production ~ ~ r s
a Shortfall) q s
R I YEAR 11 Un a
I
YEAR 11 YEA 14 ~
Lm ~ ' (roducti ' T
G ~i Shortfall ~
e YEAR 12
I
'
a YEAR 14 ~
' I Production ~ '
Shortfall ~ r'EAR 1 ~ o I O
c vnnn .t~ c o 1 CHR IJ O RJ
N RJ
a
t
306 ~ g
~ NOTE: YEAR514 AND 15 PRODUCTION SHORTFALL DUE TO g j MINIMUM PR WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR TH REE $ m DRAGLINES. REFERENCE. MARSTON REPORT
' ' "MINIMUM PERMITWIDTH ANALYSIS FOR o ' MININGALTERNATIVES",AUGUST 2003
~ a
® I.
9 ~
1 /
maamm® `m
0 0 0 O O
0 a N I. O La RJ
DRA LINE MININ E EN E
YEAR -6 YEAR 1 YEAR 8 YEAR 15 YEAR 22 YEAR 29 YEAR 3( YEAR 36 YEAR 43 P, C
'hosw%hate
YEAR -5 YEAR 2 YEAR 9 YEAR 16 YEAR 23 YEAR 30 YEAR 3. YEAR 37 YEAR 44
Le end 9 PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
YEAR -4 YEAR 3 YEAR 10 YEAR 17 YEAR 24 YEAR 31 YEAR 3f YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
a MINE PERMIT 7-1
No Action Plan - S33
YEAR -3 YEAR 4 YEAR 11 YEAR 18 YEAR 25 YEAR 32 YEAR 34 YEAR 39 YEAR 46
PERMIT BOUNDARY
o RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
o YEAR -2 YEAR 5 YEAR 12 YEAR 19 YEAR 26 YEAR 33 YEAR 4( o I PROJECT BOUNDARY YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3064.mxd
M e N Le e em
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
ROUTE 306 RELOCATION I
YEAR -1 YEAR 6 YEAR 13 YEAR 20 YEAR 27 YEAR 34 YEAR 4' YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
° RELOCATED RAILROAD ,aao
CREEK
YEAR 0 YEAR 7 YEAR 14 YEAR 21 YEAR 28 YEAR 35 YEAR 4~ Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
OPERATING BENCH PLUG DWG : E610-3064-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N C P C AREA
G-5

o -/4 o G 3 Y~Af HUDDLES CUT ° YEA 0 °
o , o ee ~ i o G~ EAR tl 0 e EAR HUDDY GUT -
a R-1 ~r e
o
Y AR ~-4 G-6 b y Y A R \-'E' ,
0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000
o A 4
Feet ~ , A~~ I ±
rr
AR ~
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD_1927 YEAR 1O AR 10 '
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLJNA, FIPS 3200 FEET R-3
~ ~ f~
A YEAR ~ YEAR 3 ~
R-2
YEAR 9 YEAR 10 , . YEAR 2 ~
YEAR 0 1
I I
- Y YEAR 1 _
YEAR 11 YEAR 8 UT5
YEAR 2
Rec cle Lake ; Y

o o c YFAR d ° 'YEoR d UT3 o
c - i ~ a N i?
i~7 b UT2 J'~~ °
I i I i w i i% EAR ~O
R-4
YEA 5 5
i TOOLEY CREEK
i ~ i
i ~ ^r ® EAR
YEAR 6 ~ ~
YEAR 11 I I ~ w,,,,~ A i ~ A2
I I ~ 1
i i
YEAR ~I I
DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5W ~ ~
YEAR 12 ~I YEAR 6 ~ ! JACOBS CREEK
YEAR 5 R-5 ' ~R 5
O~~
C0~
UT1 YE' UT6
Y AR 2 ~ , SIBYL ~ ~
CREEK CAD
YEAR
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o ~ ~ a, °
o Reclamation o ti. Profecf I iU S ° ° °
t Gr ° °
R_g

R_ ~ os 8 <
33
o,
R-7
C~
- ~ CD
~ ~ r , CD
e - -
Drell e ~ f g .
r Lake - r~ .
AURORA
r ~
o ; 1 ° °
C , . r.. 0 ° °
N °
YEAR 18 ; m r--~ YEAR 17 EAR 1
r AR ,
e YEAR 15
3os Y R 12 Y AR EAR 14
YEAR 13
B roomfiel d
. . ,e
\ ¦ I 1~
b
YEAR 19 _ ~ L i~~
~ r ~
~ I~~ '1 YEAR 21~~, YEAR 22 ~ I~ ~
. ~ I~ YEAR 20 ~1 I~~ ~~i AR 3 YEAR 25 i~~
~ ~ _ - ` I FEAR 2 YEAR 24
4--, -
_r YEAR 21 ~4~~g~ O O O
O RJ
YE~ 25 ~
YEAR 26
~ YEAR 27

I ~ ~
QL
~ . _ YEAR 27 ~ ~ 'Or~OS
j I v za ~ s Run
i YEAR 30 - ~
l._. I YEAR 28 YEAR 29 ~ ,.~,e~ 3 Gte 'Qoh
i I
YEAR 30
~ ~ ~
i ~~i YEAR 32 Y AR ~ YEAR 31 f ~ ~o O
~ i i j i I i O RJ
RJ
30 `
i
i ~

i /
i. _._._.__._._.-.-.-.-.i~
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O La RJ
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 Legend ~ YEAR -5 ~ YEAR 2 ~ YEAR 9 ~ YEAR 16 ~ YEAR 23 ~ YEAR 30 ~ YEAR 3 ' MINE PERMIT 7-1 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 P, C
'hosw%hate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 PROJECT BOUNDARY D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 L..... . YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
SCRA - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence A
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
` - RouTe sos Re~ocnTioN D YEAR -2 D YEAR 5 D YEAR 12 D YEAR 19 D YEAR 26 D YEAR 33 D YEAR 4 RELOCATED R4ILROAD YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3065.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
CREEK
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG .ooo ~ YEAR 0 ~ YEAR 7 ~ YEAR 14 ~ YEAR 21 ~ YEAR 28 ~ YEAR 35 ~ YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
DWG : E610-3065-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N C P C AREA
G-5
o /4 o G-3 HUDDLES CUT 0
e~ o e o ~
HUDDY GUT e EAR'0
a R-~ EAR'0 ~r
o ~ _

G-6 . '
0 2 600 5 200 7 800 10 400 4. : ~ ' YEAR 0 4y I
p
- ti Feet ~ , jj i~ l b ~
' rr 1
EAR 12
COORDINATE SYSTEM: 'NAD 1927 ' YEAR 3 YEAR
~ i i i~ STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLJNA, FIPS 3200 FEET R-3 ~r
i i YEAR 2 f
i ~ i ,l/ YEAR 11
R-2 YEAR 12 \ _
\ A 1 ~
Y A 13 YEAR 0
I I
A? YEAR 1 _
Y A UT5
YEAR 10
Rec cle Lake Y YEAR 13 ~ ! Y YE 4 AR
~ , ~
o 'YEAR o 1(EAF' \ n n UT3 ~Ci~ o
o , N I I i~ I UT2 J'~~
Y AR ~

R-4 YEAR 5 ~
Y R 6 R 6 TOOLEY CREEK
I Y ~ I
i ~ i , EAR
A 6
I~ i YEAR 14 ~ ~ I
~I A A2
I I ii ~ ~
I ~ YEAR ~
I I
DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5W ~ ~
1 YEAR 8 YEAR 15 ~ = 8 JACOBS CREEK
YEAR R-5 R
!1 YE 1 1
~ ~ " Y~ 7 YEAR 15 ~ ~ , C0~
UT1
EAR UT6 ~ ~
SIBYL I CREEK CAD
YEA
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o YEAR 16 ~'=a. 0
o Reclamation ti o _ Projecf iU 0 0 0
St N Gr
R-6

YEAR 17
R_ ~ os 8 <
33
o,
R-7
C~
- CD
~ ~ r , CD
e - -
Drell e ~ f g .
r Lake - ~~~rT .
/ ~ ~ AURORA r'r
o ; 1 0 0
C , . r.. 0 0 0
~~1
. r--"'^ YEAR 21 YEAR 23
r AR YEAR 22 ,
306 a A R
® EAR 1 YEAR 18
YEAR 19
Bro omf~eld
a ~ ~
i . ' _ , I ~ ~ a
YEAR 25 II~YEAR 26
~I YEAR 24 11 1~ YEAR 26 I j YEAR 27 ~
_ 111 ,
~ I YEAR ~
~ i
YEAR 2S
_r YEAR 29 i~ / ~f~ O O O
O RJ
I YEAR 30 YEAR 29
~ YEAR 31 ''~.:r ~
/ EAR '~I
V
~ ~
~ I~
I ~ ~ I QL
`rS
I r~ Argo
YEAR 32 ~ J ~ WEAR 35~~~ RUn
~ YEAR 33 ~ 3 I-, YEAR 34 ~
e I ~ YEAR 33 Gi RVh
~.J ~ ~I YEAR 35 j ,p'
f J
I i YEAR 37 YEAR 36 ~ ~ f~CiJ~
O
~ ~ i AIL ~ ~ YEAR 36 O RJ
RJ
~
I , 111 YEAR 38
~ YEAR 37
~
~ -
1.-.-.,
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O La RJ
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 Legend ~ YEAR -5 ~ YEAR 2 ~ YEAR 9 ~ YEAR 16 ~ YEAR 23 ~ YEAR 30 ~ YEAR 3 ' MINE PERMIT 7-1 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 P, C
'hosw%hate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 PROJECT BOUNDARY D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 L..... . YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
SJAA - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence A
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
` - RouTe sos Re~ocnTioN D YEAR -2 D YEAR 5 D YEAR 12 D YEAR 19 D YEAR 26 D YEAR 33 D YEAR 4 RELOCATED R4ILROAD YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3067.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
CREEK
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG .ooo ~ YEAR 0 ~ YEAR 7 ~ YEAR 14 ~ YEAR 21 ~ YEAR 28 ~ YEAR 35 ~ YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
DWG : E610-3067-06

2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N C P C AREA
G-5
o /4 o G-3 HUDDLES CUT 0
e~ o e o ~ o
HUDDY GUT e EAR'0
a R-~ EAR'0 ~r
o

G-6 . '
0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000 4. : ~ ' YEAR 0 .Ff
A~ _ ~i~
- ti Feet ~ , ` ;
' rr 1
COORDINATE SYSTEM: 'NAD 1927 ' _ YEAR 3 YEAR
- ~ YEAR 33 ~ STATE PLANE NORTH CAROLJNA FIPS 3200 FEET - ~ R3
YEAR 2 f
i ~ i ,l/
R-2 \
YEAR 34 , EA 3 \ A 1
YEAR 32 YEAR 0
I I
- A? YEAR 1 _ Y A UT5
~ l~ ~
YEAR 34 ;J
Rec cle Lake Y Y ' YE 4 AR
i YEAR 31 i
o i ~ ; i YEAR o YEAF' \ n n UT3 ~Ci~ o
YEAR 35 I N I UT2 J'~~
/ ,
j J~ i I
R-4 YEAR 5 ~
Y R 6 R 6 TOOLEY CREEK

YEAR 35 i i EAR
^r A 6
I I I
A A2
I~ ~ ~
I YEAR ~

YEAR 36 I I ~ DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5W
YEAR 8 ' JACOBS CREEK
I I I 8 YEAR R-5 R _
!1 YE 1 1
i A R ~
Y 7 C0~
, UT1
EAR UT6 ~ ~
YEAR 37 SIBYL I CREEK CAD
YEA
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o ~ ~ a, 0
o Reclamation o ti. ~ Profecf I iU S 0 0 0
t Gr
R-6
YEAR 38

R_ ~ os 8 <
33
' o,
R-7
C~
- CD
~ ~ r , CD
e - -
' Dred e ~ f g .
Lake ' ~~~rT .
/ ~ ' AURORA r'r
o ; 1 0 0
C , . r.. 0 0 0
~~1
. YEAR 16 ' . YEAR 14 YEAR 15
r AR 1 ,
3os e Y AR YEAR 11
YEAR 10 YEAR 12
B roomfiel d
a ~
~ ~~r ~ YEAR 18 1 ~ YEAR 20 ~ ~ , YEAR 19 ~I NEAR 19 Y R,~21
YEAR 17 1~~ ~
~ ~ 1 1
~
~ YEAR 21
f„r ~ ~ YEAR 22 O O O
O RJ
ti
i
I YEAR 24 YEAR 23 I ,r~ YEAR 22
/ Y~AR 5 u~~
V
~ J
I % QLAr~
I YEAR 25 ~ RUn
YEAR 26 ~---YEAR 27 Y AR ~8 - - 3
Gte Rory ~ ~ ~ ~ e~
i YEAR 26 I~
~ ~
i ~ J YEAR 28 ,~Fp~ o
YEAR 29
i NEAR 30 ~ ~ % ~ / O
O RJ
~ ~ YEAR 29 / RJ
I I
~ Lam- /
30 `
~ ~(I EAR 31
~ YEAR 30 i
~
1.-.-.,
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O La RJ
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 Legend ~ YEAR -5 ~ YEAR 2 ~ YEAR 9 ~ YEAR 16 ~ YEAR 23 ~ YEAR 30 ~ YEAR 3 ' MINE PERMIT 7-1 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 P, C
'hosw%hate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 PROJECT BOUNDARY D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 L..... . YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
SJAB - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence B
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
` - RouTe sos Re~ocnTioN D YEAR -2 D YEAR 5 D YEAR 12 D YEAR 19 D YEAR 26 D YEAR 33 D YEAR 4 RELOCATED R4ILROAD YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3068.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
CREEK
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG .ooo ~ YEAR 0 ~ YEAR 7 ~ YEAR 14 ~ YEAR 21 ~ YEAR 28 ~ YEAR 35 ~ YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
DWG : E610-3068-06

PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
NCPC ONE DRAGLINE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE B (DL1 B) -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTIOrl
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioe Stripping Volume 11000 bcvl 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,477 33,341 33,820 43,942 40,218 40,526 38,108 37,827 38,231 40,002 40,892 37,143 37,735 42,573 50,854 44,662 52,614
Total Mined Area(acresl 183 181 171 178 176 176 195 190 204 202 200 200 202 214 193 189 255 287 244 252
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,790 12,222 12,338 12,749 12,584 12,638 12,611 12,643 12,706 12,578 12,859 15,604 16,400 15,159 15,255
Total Concentrate 11000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestri) Inventoi,, lanes, 6 7 -1 -68 -39 -15 77 13 55 16 24 29 9 -10 5 40 -61 -102 -46 -17
Production Costs (S000r
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,925 $ 10,918 $ 10,918 $ 10,472 $ 10,472 $ 9,847 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 9,587 $ 11,191
r1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,945 $ 4,195 $ 4,195 $ 4,093 $ 4,093 $ 4,121 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,089 $ 4,260
Operating Supplies $ 7,538 $ 7,545 $ 7,267 $ 7,401 $ 6,711 $ 7,316 $ 8,340 $ 8,165 $ 8,251 $ 7,491 $ 7,568 $ 9,084 $ 9,845 $ 10,034 $ 9,679 $ 10,099 $ 11,434 $ 12,809 $ 12,290 $ 11,271
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 646 $ 647 $ 614 $ 658 $ 643 $ 643 $ 664 $ 722 $ 708 $ 715 $ 736 $ 890 $ 942 $ 897 $ 916
Reagents,Fuellffne $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,120 $ 6,317 $ 6,587 $ 6,776 $ 6,727 $ 6,744 $ 6,624 $ 6,599 $ 6,623 $ 6,556 $ 6,618 $ 8,120 $ 8,448 $ 7,770 $ 7,694
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 13,997 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 13,996 $ 13,351 $ 13,719 $ 15,378 $ 15,428 $ 15,631 $ 15,235 $ 15,228 $ 15,259 $ 15,672 $ 16,129 $ 15,831 $ 16,166 $ 18,496 $ 19,890 $ 18,764 $ 19,690
Electric Po,,er $ 10,686 $ 10,410 $ 9,440 $ 9,244 $ 8,785 $ 9,000 $ 10,387 $ 10,982 $ 11,281 $ 11,543 $ 11,534 $ 11,197 $ 11,610 $ 13,018 $ 13,158 $ 13,963 $ 18,515 $ 20,161 $ 19,367 $ 19,632
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,180 $ 2,225 $ 6,487 $ 2,342 $ 2,381 $ 2,213 $ 6,225 $ 2,490 $ 2,521 $ 2,578 $ 6,461 $ 2,507 $ 2,883 $ 3,201 $ 6,912 $ 2,899
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 11,492 $ 15,334 $ 11,370 $ 12,885 $ 13,028 $ 13,005 $ 12,986 $ 12,803 $ 12,821 $ 12,944 $ 13,545 $ 14,470 $ 13,848 $ 13,671 $ 13,238 $ 13,512
Other Ex pense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 599 $ 608 $ 848 $ 945 $ 996 $ 1,009 $ 997 $ 760 $ 837 $ 846 $ 817 $ 820 $ 925 $ 1,017 $ 913 $ 1,275
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,652 $ 65,675 $ 67,951 $ 64,210 $ 62,558 $ 67,701 $ 74,249 $ 73,667 $ 74,721 $ 73,037 $ 77,098 $ 73,454 $ 74,908 $ 77,162 $ 81,044 $ 79,661 $ 89,392 $ 95,049 $ 94,432 $ 92,945
T- a !-ctCaCot ffn aror4 J $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.42 $ 5.37 $ 5.74 $ 5.39 $ 5.97 $ 5.86 $ 5.80 $ 6.10 $ 5.82 $ 5.92 $ 6.07 $ 6.44 $ 6.19 $ 5.73 $ 5.80 $ 6.23 $ 6.09
T -al i?ectra C-ot e_tmr $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.84 $ 12.51 $ 13.54 $ 13.18 $ 14.73 $ 14.94 $ 14.61 $ 15.42 $ 14.69 $ 14.98 $ 15.43 $ 16.21 $ 15.93 $ 17.88 $ 19.01 $ 18.89 $ 18.59
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,611 $ 20,133 $ 20,133 $ 19,902 $ 19,902 $ 19,652 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,529 $ 20,275
Total Cash Costs $ 84,530 $ 84,553 $ 86,829 $ 83,088 $ 81,436 $ 86,579 $ 93,860 $ 93,800 $ 94,854 $ 92,939 $ 97,000 $ 93,105 $ 94,437 $ 96,691 $ 100,573 $ 99,190 $ 108,921 $ 114,842 $ 113,961 $ 113,220
T a! Cash C-st 9 o,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.36 $ 7.01 $ 6.99 $ 7.34 $ 6.75 $ 7.60 $ 7.44 $ 7.39 $ 7.68 $ 7.38 $ 7.47 $ 7.61 $ 8.00 $ 7.71 $ 6.98 $ 7.00 $ 7.52 $ 7.42
T -'a! Cash C ntrate too $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.62 $ 16.29 $ 17.32 $ 16.50 $ 18.76 $ 18.97 $ 18.59 $ 19.40 $ 18.62 $ 18.89 $ 19.34 $ 20.11 $ 19.84 $ 21.78 $ 22.97 $ 22.79 $ 22.64
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,357 $ 11,794 $ 11,958 $ 13,080 $ 13,124 $ 13,423 $ 13,107 $ 13,133 $ 13,193 $ 13,302 $ 13,524 $ 13,311 $ 13,718 $ 16,689 $ 17,826 $ 16,664 $ 16,976
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 786 $ 818 $ 766 $ 763 $ 743 $ 753 $ 763 $ 713 $ 717 $ 705 $ 721 $ 715 $ 708 $ 722 $ 727
Changein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 5,651 $ 3,247 $ 1,293 $ (6,410) $ (1,088) $ (4,620) $ (1,347) $ (2,027) $ (2,449) $ (716) $ 876 $ (430) $ (3,333) $ 5,078 $ 8,539 $ 3,839 $ 1,439
NC PC AIt E Development Writeoff $ 1,820 $ 1,820 $ 1,820 $ 7,682 $ 7,682 $ 7,013 $ 4,667 $ 1,680 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NCPCAItEWetlandsh4itidation $ 578 $ 578 $ 578 $ 578 $ 578 $ 527 $ 351 $ 126 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U 0FC DevelohmenGLand Writeoff - g - g - ? - g - R 2oa a 1 Doi g 1.143 R 970 g 98F g LOOa a 1 0?7 g - R - 1? - g - R - g - g - ? -
LlifigationCosts II(_F Update C ^_4/02 - - - - - 361 3 16'i S 1.£10 S I ?- 1.?60 1.496 3 1.64_ - - - S - - - - -
Eonnerton Development and Land Vriteoff 5 " 5 " Y
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
C9ititlation Costs - Bonn Update C '4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Development Vriteoff - I 4 4 "' 4 4 3% 4"d 4 4 4.537
a_' Receding Face Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 172 8 763 $ 882 $ 892 $ 950 $ 950 8 1.089
r,iitidation Costs S"' Update 410' - S - - - S - - S - S ?3 ;16 . 313 _„ _?
Plant l mpro?ements`let All Costs $ - $ 7 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 99,633 $ 99,687 $ 102,435 $ 110,146 $ 105,511 $ 108,745 $ 109,020 $ 113,105 $ 110,110 $ 111,143 $ 114,575 $ 110,346 $ 112,794 $ 117,039 $ 119,980 $ 116,237 $ 137,353 $ 147,923 $ 141,194 $ 138,509
r a ?ne,at ) rpe I e $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.29 $ 9.05 $ 9.22 $ 8.92 $ 9.17 $ 8.64 $ 8.83 $ 9.07 $ 8.75 $ 8.92 $ 9.21 $ 9.54 $ 9.04 $ 8.80 $ 9.02 $ 9.31 $ 9.08
Total Operating Cost,concentiate ton $ 19.93 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 22.03 $ 21.10 $ 21.75 $ 21.80 $ 22.62 $ 22.02 $ 22.23 $ 22.91 $ 22.07 $ 22.56 $ 23.41 $ 24.00 $ 23.25 $ 27.47 $ 29.58 $ 28.24 $ 27.70

Ilitidation Costs - PICP(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ 175 $ 789 $ 878 $ 744 $ 757 $ 774 $ 796 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Nlitidation Costs - DonnIDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Illitidation Costs-S331DEIS, $ $ 87 $ 158 $ 157 $ 154 $ 152 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251
Mitigation Costs FhPC Update 7 4;02 - - - - - 3l1 `. 1 3% I In ''- 1.Fco 1 `9f 1.14'_ - - - - - - - -
IlifigationCosts- Bonn Update C 24/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
alitidationCosts _ Update "4r02 - - - - - - - 1 2 2dG 313 - - -
Total Op Cost/cmreenliate ton-DEIS $ 19.93 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 22.03 $ 21.10 $ 21.71 $ 21.61 $ 22.42 $ 21.83 $ 22.04 $ 22.72 $ 21.87 $ 22.51 $ 23.36 $ 23.95 $ 23.20 $ 27.42 $ 29.53 $ 28.19 $ 27.65
r.,ta CPCs.t -nc ntta,_ ., .,a-r/06 19.,3 Ic94 3 04J 03 °_1.10 ^_175 1.30 ' a- 991 - ".41 00 - %.4; 4 __
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
DL1 B cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
NCPC ONE DRAGLINE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE B (DL1B) - TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Total/Avg.
Effectioa Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 57,241 51,185 56,131 59,173 55,838 58,858 54,420 51,489 56,760 41,320 35,971 36,597 44,840 23,077 14 446
Total Mined Area(acresl 266 245 277 301 272 274 246 254 283 244 220 233 282 185 - -
PumpedOre11000tons l 15,860 15,238 15,890 16,095 14,429 14,251 14,167 13,918 14,237 13,156 12,231 12,421 13,494 8,571 4e.
Total Concentrate 111000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,236 168
Change in Prestri) Inventoi,, lanes, -21 7 -31 25 20 -4 19 -39 -55 12 18 -15 -30 -142 -315

Production Costs (SOOD?
Operating Labor $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 10,183 $ 9,456 $ 9,456 $ 10,033 $ 4,695 8 ID
r1aintenance Labor $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,144 $ 3,816 $ 3,816 $ 4,127 $ 2,342 8 '1 164
Operating Supplies $ 11,854 $ 11,297 $ 12,331 $ 13,141 $ 12,102 $ 12,748 $ 12,598 $ 12,221 $ 12,089 $ 8,505 $ 7,812 $ 7,829 $ 8,634 $ 4,571 [. ;.3.%4
Flocculant $ 983 $ 1,030 $ 998 $ 1,058 $ 911 $ 843 $ 836 $ 761 $ 832 $ 765 $ 707 $ 677 $ 804 $ 487 8 --
Reagents,Fuel,Lime $ 7,846 $ 7,336 $ 7,855 $ 8,046 $ 7,297 $ 7,287 $ 7,195 $ 7,217 $ 7,313 $ 6,819 $ 6,366 $ 6,521 $ 6,863 $ 4,443 8 -
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 392 5 "_0.394
I laintenance Supplies $ 20,512 $ 19,427 $ 20,733 $ 21,377 $ 20,022 $ 20,481 $ 20,038 $ 19,869 $ 20,277 $ 17,236 $ 15,943 $ 15,454 $ 16,347 $ 9,210 8 - 7.813
Electric Po,,er $ 20,908 $ 19,928 $ 21,467 $ 21,986 $ 20,428 $ 20,952 $ 20,977 $ 21,463 $ 21,606 $ 17,700 $ 16,208 $ 13,794 $ 13,230 $ 8,121 8 41 ^_.G31
Contract 6,laintenance $ 3,071 $ 2,785 $ 7,063 $ 3,253 $ 2,996 $ 3,094 $ 6,930 $ 2,827 $ 2,994 $ 2,447 $ 6,173 $ 2,195 $ 2,482 $ 1,403 8 '1
Contract Operations $ 13,653 $ 16,117 $ 13,755 $ 14,502 $ 14,205 $ 13,731 $ 14,269 $ 14,030 $ 13,819 $ 13,268 $ 12,126 $ 12,799 $ 15,243 $ 8,520 8 449.94%
Other Ex Dense $ 1,325 $ 1,266 $ 1,345 $ 1,364 $ 1,275 $ 1,322 $ 1,295 $ 1,287 $ 1,307 $ 1,043 $ 949 $ 944 $ 1,023 $ 466 8 27904
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total DirectCash Costs $ 96,208 $ 95,242 $ 101,603 $ 101,382 $ 95,891 $ 97,113 $ 100,792 $ 95,731 $ 96,293 $ 82,715 $ 80,162 $ 74,091 $ 79,392 $ 44,652 8 - 1831
i a. iced r a $ 6.07 $ 6.25 $ 6.39 $ 6.30 $ 6.65 $ 6.81 $ 7.11 $ 6.88 $ 6.37 $ 6.29 $ 6.55 $ 5.97 $ 5.88 $ 5.21 [ 6.'11
i a meet r a e_ tm? $ 19.24 $ 19.05 $ 20.32 $ 20.28 $ 19.18 $ 19.42 $ 20.16 $ 19.15 $ 18.15 $ 16.54 $ 16.03 $ 14.82 $ 15.88 $ 13.80 8 16.44
Allocated Overhead $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 19,802 $ 19,360 $ 19,360 $ 19,733 $ 10,346 8 611.92^
Total Cash Costs $ 116,483 $ 115,517 $ 121,877 $ 121,907 $ 116,416 $ 117,638 $ 121,317 $ 116,006 $ 116,567 $ 102,518 $ 99,522 $ 93,450 $ 99,125 $ 54,998 8 3A57`^
i a! Cash C gore ton $ 7.34 $ 7.58 $ 7.67 $ 7.57 $ 8.07 $ 8.25 $ 8.56 $ 8.34 $ 7.64 $ 7.79 $ 8.14 $ 7.52 $ 7.35 $ 6.42 8 --
ia; Cash C ntrate too $ 23.30 $ 23.10 $ 24.38 $ 24.38 $ 23.28 $ 23.53 $ 24.26 $ 23.20 $ 21.75 $ 20.50 $ 19.90 $ 18.69 $ 19.82 $ 16.99 8 -
Depreciation $ 17,684 $ 16,723 $ 17,731 $ 18,352 $ 17,040 $ 17,243 $ 16,936 $ 16,634 $ 16,987 $ 15,193 $ 14,246 $ 13,796 $ 14,430 $ 8,623 8 4JG.02D
Depletion $ 748 $ 759 $ 729 $ 688 $ 693 $ 703 $ 700 $ 687 $ 702 $ 741 $ 732 $ 738 $ 760 $ 498 8 =4.963
Changein Piesffip In entorl $ 1,785 $ (595) $ 2,566 $ (2,057) $ (1,694) $ 359 $ (1,587) $ 3,270 $ 4,567 $ (993) $ (1,486) $ 1,228 $ 2,545 $ 11,848 5
f - F(_ Alt EDe elopment lNriteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4123
UCPCAltE etlands r I tidation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FdDevelohmentLandWriteoff - g - S - R - g - S - g - g - R - g - S - R - g - S - 1400
r lifigation Costs W-F- Update C 24/02 - - S - - - - - S - - - S - - - - 10.131
Eonnerton Development and Land Vriteoff '..444 :1 L' 77-
Eonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
f4ifidationCosts-Eonn Update C '4/02 6.01C _ 6.01G 5 x._13 172
Eevelopment Vriteoff 4 `"'T 4 4 4 4 ?i 4e- 4 4 4 "' -_ - - - - x0.427
S'd Receding Face d, Ji teoff 1.436 $ 2.304 $ 2.304 8 2.409 $ 3.039 $ 3.039 $ 3.039 $ 4.198 8 4.198 $ 543 $ - 8 - $ - $ - _?
fdifidation Costs S"' Update 4102 e3 S X03 S ?3 5 _03 S 60'_ 'n _n ,- - - - - 17.024
Plant l mpro?ements[let All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - 321
Total Operating Costs $ 143,194 $ 139,766 $ 150,265 $ 146,358 $ 140,553 $ 144,041 $ 145,463 $ 145,853 $ 148,079 $ 127,339 $ 122,986 $ 119,184 $ 126,832 $ 82,422 $ 4,207,821
i a; eerat ) rpe I e $ 9.03 $ 9.17 $ 9.46 $ 9.09 $ 9.74 $ 10.11 $ 10.27 $ 10.48 $ 10.40 $ 9.68 $ 10.06 $ 9.60 $ 9.40 $ 9.62 $ 9.29
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 28.64 $ 27.95 $ 30.05 $ 29.27 $ 28.11 $ 28.81 $ 29.09 $ 29.17 $ 29.62 $ 25.47 $ 24.60 $ 23.84 $ 25.37 $ 25.47 $ 25.01

I Iifidation Costs - W- F(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4914
[Iaijation Costs - EonnIDElSI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,834 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 2,107 8 14.10%
11itidation Costs ' 31DEIS1 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 33 $ $ $ $
I Iitgation Costs [I CPC Update? 4,02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.131
f;lifi;lation Costs - Bonn Update C 24/02 6.016 6.010 ,..,1°?
11itidation Costs _ Update "402 - -N ?0 - - - - - 1n.9-4
TotalOp Cost/cm?eeliate ton--EIS $ 28.59 $ 27.90 $ 30.00 $ 29.22 $ 28.06 $ 28.76 $ 29.04 $ 29.12 $ 29.57 $ 24.98 $ 24.05 $ 23.28 $ 24.81 $ 24.91 $ 24.88
-7 0? - '2.11 361 .17 'SA% -4.60 34 7 4
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
DL1 B cost model update
2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
pqM
~~~o R/
MFR
UP1 N P AREA
G-5 C C
0 HUDDLES CUT
G-314 Y~AF o o e ~YEAF~'0 ° 0
G~ EAR 0 e EAR 0/ HUDDY GUT
a R-1 ~r
0
a
Y AR'-1' A Y AR'-1'
G-6 0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000 •
A 4 s:
Feet Y _I
r ) r~
A
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD_1927 ~ YEAR 30
R STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLINA, FIPS 3200 FEET R-3 ,
',I 'F YEAR 4 r
AR ; ~ ~ ~
R-2 YEAR 3
YEAR 29 YEAR 2 ,
YEAR 30 YEAR 0 1
q
i ' %'y
Y YEAR 1
YEAR 2 Ep?R 3 $ UT5
~ i i YEAR 2
Rec cle Lake Y

o °o ~ ~ vino ~ / ~ o 0 ~ o UT3 0
o i ~rir~ ~r m ~ ~~~R~ o
i e, UT2 J'~~
I i~~~ I
R-4 ~ EAR ~O
a YEA 5 5
, TOOLEY CREEK
,
i I i EAR
ri ®
I. ~ YEAR 6 A A2
YEAR 31

I I YEAR

R-5W ~ ~ DRINKWATER CREEK
YEAR 6 I ~ ~ JACOBS CREEK
YEAR, 32 YEAR 5 R5 ~
R-5 ~O~
. ;
~
I I UT1 C0~
YE UT6 Y AR 2 ~ ~ ~ ~
I I ~ SIBYL
CREEK _ YEAR CAD
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o ~ ~ 0
Reclamation 0 \ ~ o . 0 0 o
Project U st Cr ~ ;
R-6
06 R-8
33
P
R-7
t~ C~
~ CD
, . , CD
e
Drell a g
.
Lake ~ . - y 33 f--- - ` , AURORA
r.~~ a~•
t} .
o 0 0
0 n 0 0

YEAR 14 .
YEAR 13 . ~ ' .
YEAR 12 YE 15
YEAR 10 YEAR 11 306
• YEAR 9
EAR 8
B roomfiel
• d ~ a®
®a
~i
1 ' '
~ ~ ~
Y A~ 1S i ~I~ YEAR 15 $AR~116YEAR 17I'~~ ~ I I'~~
~ 1 YEAR 18 Y Ah~ 21
~ I 1 I YEAR 19 YEAR 20
~ YEAR 16 11 ~1
~r ~ ~l , ~ ~ _ C O O O
O RJ

~ ~ YEAR 21
I YEAR 22
Y~AR 3
~ ~ ~ / /
- ~ C
~ ~ ~ ASS
~ ~I YEAR 23 RUI'1 ~ ~
~ ~ G ~ YEAR 2d YEAR 25 ~q~26 4j
i . _ ~ J rJ ~ G~ee~ R~
YEAR 24 h
J ~ ~ !~w YEAR 26 / ~
i I~AR 8 YEAR 27 ~ O
O O RJ
RJ
306 /
/s `rr /
~ ' /
1 /
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O La RJ
Legend DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
MINE PERMIT 7-1 D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -5 D YEAR 2 O YEAR 9 D YEAR 16 D YEAR 23 O YEAR 30 O YEAR 3 ~ YEAR 36 YEAR 43 Phosphate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PROJECT BOUNDARY PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
L ~ D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 = Roure sae Re~ocnnoN D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 RELOCATED RAILROAD ~ YEAR -2 ~ YEAR 5 ~ YEAR 12 ~ YEAR 19 ~ YEAR 26 ~ YEAR 33 ~ YEAR 4 CREEK YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
SCRB - NCPC, S33 and Bonnerton
YEAR 39 YEAR 46 Sequence B
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3066.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG .ooo YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000' s33 streams Feb. 7, 2006
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
D YEAR 0 D YEAR 7 D YEAR 14 D YEAR 21 D YEAR 28 D YEAR 35 D YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG
DWG : E610-3066-06
11

PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPA -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioa Stripping volume (1000 bc,, 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,476 36,414 37,011 37,000 35,997 41,374 45,588 46,381 40,937 39,987 40,789 39,540 38,772 37,512 36,790 35,081 36,730
Total Mined Area (acres) 183 181 171 178 176 178 175 177 184 201 203 188 182 180 170 176 183 178 177 177
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,754 11,689 12,118 11,626 12,291 12,567 12,049 12,356 12,139 11,965 12,061 12,224 11,715 12,000 11,378
Total Concentrate (1000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi., laciest 6 7 -1 -36 -7 23 -9 45 -7 -7 -67 10 -38 -17 -2 4 -2 -5 35 -11
Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,635 $ 9,587 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010
P,1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 3,751 $ 4,089 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714
Operating SUpplies $ 7,537 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,485 $ 7,492 $ 6,288 $ 6,285 $ 7,931 $ 8,440 $ 9,057 $ 9,165 $ 6,667 $ 8,266 $ 6,408 $ 6,335 $ 8,214 $ 7,745 $ 7,731 $ 6,193 $ 6,787
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 654 $ 638 $ 701 $ 705 $ 792 $ 836 $ 696 $ 752 $ 694 $ 665 $ 712 $ 624 $ 528 $ 605 $ 532
Reagents,FuellLime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,085 $ 6,053 $ 6,163 $ 5,816 $ 6,028 $ 6,133 $ 5,971 $ 6,132 $ 6,144 $ 6,119 $ 6,108 $ 6,367 $ 6,292 $ 6,301 $ 6,102
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 %Iaintenance Supplies $ 13,996 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 14,024 $ 13,814 $ 14,142 $ 14,169 $ 14,117 $ 14,496 $ 15,398 $ 15,718 $ 14,755 $ 14,963 $ 14,747 $ 14,880 $ 15,074 $ 14,335 $ 14,122 $ 14,262 $ 14,492
Electric Polder $ 10,685 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,314 $ 8,981 $ 9,480 $ 9,491 $ 9,259 $ 9,684 $ 10,519 $ 10,700 $ 10,026 $ 9,962 $ 10,263 $ 10,623 $ 10,490 $ 10,226 $ 10,081 $ 10,473 $ 10,632
Contract r1aintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,325 $ 2,042 $ 6,051 $ 2,357 $ 2,427 $ 2,610 $ 6,682 $ 2,154 $ 2,523 $ 2,165 $ 6,159 $ 2,553 $ 2,401 $ 2,370 $ 6,048 $ 2,115
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 10,992 $ 11,198 $ 11,668 $ 11,000 $ 14,653 $ 13,627 $ 12,827 $ 12,865 $ 13,522 $ 12,794 $ 11,311 $ 13,575 $ 11,059 $ 11,010 $ 11,189 $ 11,190
Other Ex rense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 944 $ 940 $ 630 $ 681 $ 754 $ 761 $ 986 $ 677 $ 991 $ 987 $ 675 $ 633 $ 620 $ 905 $ 865
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,649 $ 65,677 $ 67,952 $ 64,392 $ 63,661 $ 64,163 $ 68,624 $ 64,889 $ 71,184 $ 73,065 $ 77,104 $ 68,999 $ 71,078 $ 69,085 $ 71,070 $ 71,684 $ 66,123 $ 65,485 $ 69,305 $ 66,045
r a ,ectra r ;rc;4 I F $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.43 $ 5.46 $ 5.46 $ 5.87 $ 5.35 $ 6.12 $ 5.94 $ 6.14 $ 5.73 $ 5.75 $ 5.69 $ 5.94 $ 5.94 $ 5.41 $ 5.59 $ 5.78 $ 5.80
r a! i?PCtra r et_tmr $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.88 $ 12.73 $ 12.83 $ 13.72 $ 12.98 $ 14.24 $ 14.61 $ 15.42 $ 13.80 $ 14.22 $ 13.82 $ 14.21 $ 14.34 $ 13.22 $ 13.10 $ 13.86 $ 13.21
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,407 $ 19,529 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129
Total Cash Costs $ 84,527 $ 84,555 $ 86,830 $ 83,270 $ 82,539 $ 83,292 $ 87,753 $ 83,767 $ 90,713 $ 92,594 $ 96,633 $ 88,778 $ 90,607 $ 88,865 $ 90,477 $ 91,213 $ 85,001 $ 84,363 $ 88,434 $ 85,174
r al Cash C . d o,e to,r $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.02 $ 7.08 $ 7.09 $ 7.51 $ 6.91 $ 7.80 $ 7.53 $ 7.69 $ 7.37 $ 7.33 $ 7.32 $ 7.56 $ 7.56 $ 6.95 $ 7.20 $ 7.37 $ 7.49
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.65 $ 16.51 $ 16.66 $ 17.55 $ 16.75 $ 18.14 $ 18.52 $ 19.33 $ 17.76 $ 18.12 $ 17.77 $ 18.10 $ 18.24 $ 17.00 $ 16.87 $ 17.69 $ 17.03
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,371 $ 12,136 $ 12,117 $ 12,053 $ 12,335 $ 12,224 $ 12,874 $ 13,081 $ 12,347 $ 12,610 $ 12,584 $ 12,538 $ 12,654 $ 12,846 $ 12,544 $ 12,359 $ 12,118
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 790 $ 789 $ 788 $ 792 $ 802 $ 804 $ 766 $ 802 $ 798 $ 777 $ 789 $ 851 $ 802 $ 836 $ 788
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 2,976 $ 552 $ (1,908) $ 790 $ (3,782) $ 544 $ 603 $ 5,634 $ (836) $ 3,207 $ 1,449 $ 160 $ (343) $ 194 $ 401 $ (2,943) $ 877
[,I(- PC AItE Development Writeoff $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 7,337 $ 7,337 $ 5,504 $ 1,137 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
b1CPCAftEWetlands h4itigation 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 421 $ 87 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PICPCDe velommentlLandWriteoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 155 $ 524 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620
r,i nlation Costs HCF(-Update 0 '4;02 - - - - - 1361 'c 44;1 -.4J9 40'', 1 x.409 64A, 4A'-,, 1 -.4J9 `4n, '. _.409 S409 4n'-,, 1 4c9 4AJ '. _.409
Eonnerton Development and Land Writeoff
Eonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
Iditidation Costs - BonnUpdate 4;05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Development Writeoff
Receding Face Writeoff
f4itigation Costs _'"Update J4102
Plant Improvements [let All Costs
Total Operating Costs $ 99,562 $ 99,621 $ 102,368 $ 107,307 $ 103,901 $ 101,723 $ 107,704 $ 99,137 $ 110,302 $ 112,902 $ 122,180 $ 107,084 $ 113,256 $ 109,726 $ 109,981 $ 110,342 $ 104,920 $ 104,139 $ 104,716 $ 104,985
r a 0ge,at ) r npe I $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.68 $ 9.05 $ 8.91 $ 8.65 $ 9.21 $ 8.18 $ 9.49 $ 9.19 $ 9.72 $ 8.89 $ 9.17 $ 9.04 $ 9.19 $ 9.15 $ 8.58 $ 8.89 $ 8.73 $ 9.23
T,- i0ge,at i vice,r atea,n $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 20.47 $ 21.46 $ 20.78 $ 20.34 $ 21.54 $ 19.83 $ 22.06 $ 22.58 $ 24.44 $ 21.42 $ 22.65 $ 21.95 $ 22.00 $ 22.07 $ 20.98 $ 20.83 $ 20.94 $ 21.00

Nlitidation Costs - PICPC IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 777 $ 2,628 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110
tllitidation Costs- Bonnerton (DEIST
Nlitidation Costs-S (DEIST
1,1 niigation Costs HCF( Update '4,0E ? - - ., - ? - - 1361 ? 44;1 409 4J9 c x.409 40C ? 4.409 -.4J9 b `4nJ _.4c9 5,409 b 4409 ? 4c9 4AJ _.409
Mitigation Costs - Bonn Update? 4102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IliticlationCosts S',' Update 0'14102 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Op Cost/cmreeo,ate too -DEIS $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 20.47 $ 21.46 $ 20.78 $ 20.23 $ 21.15 $ 19.37 $ 21.60 $ 22.12 $ 23.96 $ 20.96 $ 22.19 $ 21.49 $ 21.54 $ 21.61 $ 20.52 $ 20.37 $ 20.46 $ 20.54
rata; Gp eow a?rt- d108 19.91 S 1991 OII -1 46 S -0 .I2 20'4 S 2104 S I_ '.06
S - _4.4a 214J ° 19` - 20 94 t ^1.00 - - 00 _0 92
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPA -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year32 Year33
Effectioa Stripping volume (1000 bc,, 36,430 39,843 35,015 30,996 32,712 37,553 40,406 45,519 50,439 41,171 40,517 39,478 40,981 39,784 40,108 37,933 37,234 40,067 46,214 50,927
Total Mined Area (acres) 181 204 235 224 218 240 270 297 285 270 232 216 216 201 206 196 188 198 234 253
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,584 12,392 12,685 12,210 12,218 12,629 13,279 13,860 13,094 12,323 12,772 12,858 13,004 12,508 12,703 12,645 12,648 13,081 13,869 15,312
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi., laciest -19 33 -13 -27 -57 20 -26 -9 25 29 13 74 56 7 21 -6 23 -20 -10 -35
Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,456 $ 10,033 $ 10,033 $ 10,502 $ 9,925 $ 9,943 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,744
haintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 4,024 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,816 $ 4,127 $ 4,127 $ 4,256 $ 3,945 $ 4,045 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,157
Operating SUpplies $ 7,828 $ 7,125 $ 6,846 $ 7,927 $ 8,301 $ 8,083 $ 8,245 $ 8,813 $ 9,873 $ 9,024 $ 8,410 $ 9,920 $ 9,888 $ 9,745 $ 9,969 $ 9,809 $ 9,895 $ 10,558 $ 10,058 $ 10,655
Flocculant $ 519 $ 587 $ 708 $ 718 $ 700 $ 689 $ 774 $ 857 $ 744 $ 702 $ 692 $ 685 $ 707 $ 716 $ 709 $ 714 $ 718 $ 762 $ 800 $ 973
Readents,FuellLime $ 6,273 $ 6,585 $ 6,665 $ 6,347 $ 6,347 $ 6,634 $ 6,884 $ 6,933 $ 6,788 $ 6,357 $ 6,757 $ 6,894 $ 6,903 $ 6,527 $ 6,627 $ 6,586 $ 6,557 $ 6,721 $ 7,142 $ 7,563
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
Maintenance Supplies $ 13,977 $ 15,101 $ 14,819 $ 14,094 $ 14,324 $ 15,448 $ 16,013 $ 16,706 $ 17,087 $ 15,811 $ 16,253 $ 16,225 $ 16,262 $ 15,997 $ 16,309 $ 16,152 $ 16,140 $ 16,595 $ 18,062 $ 19,193
Electric Polder $ 9,898 $ 10,788 $ 11,164 $ 10,296 $ 10,784 $ 12,218 $ 12,923 $ 13,493 $ 13,682 $ 12,672 $ 13,853 $ 13,865 $ 13,866 $ 13,459 $ 14,550 $ 14,478 $ 14,498 $ 15,575 $ 17,542 $ 18,748
Contract 6aintenance $ 2,298 $ 2,273 $ 6,107 $ 2,242 $ 2,291 $ 2,250 $ 6,394 $ 2,552 $ 2,709 $ 2,373 $ 6,300 $ 2,570 $ 2,599 $ 2,533 $ 6,556 $ 2,480 $ 2,469 $ 2,547 $ 6,542 $ 2,776
ContractOperations $ 12,665 $ 12,840 $ 11,770 $ 11,977 $ 11,909 $ 11,818 $ 13,499 $ 13,769 $ 13,649 $ 12,117 $ 13,224 $ 12,964 $ 12,959 $ 12,806 $ 12,855 $ 13,260 $ 12,682 $ 12,775 $ 13,325 $ 13,523
Other Ex rense $ 607 $ 971 $ 977 $ 636 $ 637 $ 976 $ 987 $ 1,033 $ 1,048 $ 955 $ 1,118 $ 850 $ 857 $ 834 $ 839 $ 823 $ 814 $ 823 $ 1,190 $ 1,273
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 66,796 $ 70,487 $ 72,386 $ 66,968 $ 68,025 $ 71,994 $ 80,486 $ 78,923 $ 80,944 $ 74,488 $ 81,201 $ 78,256 $ 78,324 $ 76,898 $ 82,696 $ 78,585 $ 78,056 $ 80,637 $ 89,539 $ 90,213
r a ,ectra r ;rc;0 I F $ 5.77 $ 5.69 $ 6 $ 5.48 $ 5.57 $ 5.70 $ 6.06 $ 5.69 $ 6.18 $ 6.04 $ 6.36 $ 6.09 $ 6.02 $ 6.15 $ 6.51 $ 6.21 $ 6.17 $ 6.16 $ 6.46 $ 5.89
r a! i?PCtra r ate n $ 13.36 $ 14.10 $ 14 $ 13.39 $ 13.61 $ 14.40 $ 16.10 $ 15.78 $ 16.19 $ 14.90 $ 16.24 $ 15.65 $ 15.66 $ 15.38 $ 16.54 $ 15.72 $ 15.61 $ 16.13 $ 17.91 $ 18.04
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 19,502 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,360 $ 19,733 $ 19,733 $ 19,984 $ 19,611 $ 19,660 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 20,044
Total Cash Costs $ 85,675 $ 89,989 $ 91,515 $ 85,847 $ 86,904 $ 91,354 $ 100,218 $ 98,655 $ 100,928 $ 94,099 $ 100,862 $ 97,785 $ 97,853 $ 96,427 $ 102,226 $ 98,114 $ 97,585 $ 100,166 $ 109,319 $ 110,257
r a( Cash C . d o,e to,r $ 7.40 $ 7.26 $ 7 $ 7.03 $ 7.11 $ 7.23 $ 7.55 $ 7.12 $ 7.71 $ 7.64 $ 7.90 $ 7.61 $ 7.53 $ 7.71 $ 8.05 $ 7.76 $ 7.72 $ 7.66 $ 7.88 $ 7.20
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 17.13 $ 18.00 $ 18 $ 17.17 $ 17.38 $ 18.27 $ 20.04 $ 19.73 $ 20.19 $ 18.82 $ 20.17 $ 19.56 $ 19.57 $ 19.29 $ 20.45 $ 19.62 $ 19.52 $ 20.03 $ 21.86 $ 22.05
Depreciation $ 12,300 $ 12,959 $ 13,058 $ 12,485 $ 12,679 $ 13,511 $ 14,124 $ 14,690 $ 14,842 $ 13,605 $ 13,882 $ 14,065 $ 14,165 $ 13,621 $ 14,006 $ 13,830 $ 13,789 $ 14,413 $ 15,443 $ 16,480
Depletion $ 797 $ 835 $ 741 $ 730 $ 737 $ 737 $ 732 $ 768 $ 761 $ 756 $ 740 $ 703 $ 705 $ 711 $ 717 $ 709 $ 709 $ 704 $ 691 $ 743
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ 1,574 $ (2,744) $ 1,086 $ 2,264 $ 4,746 $ (1,709) $ 2,210 $ 767 $ (2,065) $ (2,411) $ (1,083) $ (6,187) $ (4,649) $ (595) $ (1,737) $ 507 $ (1,881) $ 1,633 $ 806 $ 2,883
[I(- PC Alt E Development Writeoff $ 2,954 $ 4,609
PICPC Alt E Wetlands h4iti4ation 226 $ 353
PICPC Develo mment,Tand Writeoff 370 $ 160
fditiclation Costs HCF(-Update 0 '4;02 E 3^_31 S 1.,?5 :; - 5 - S - 3 - S - S - 5 - S - 3 - 'd - a - h - 'a - a - h - - - -
Elonnerton Ceaelo ) Atent a nd Land Vriteoff - 1'b t 112 1 123 1130 1.1£ 1 123 C 112 T 1123 i 1133 __
Eionnerton Re edina Face Writeoff - - - - - - - - - - -
litidationCosts-BonnUpdate -,7- --_ '.4"'_ - - - - - - - - -
'DevelopmentVriteoff - Oc x.74 S 74 S 4 S v4 g `74 x`74 S ?74 S 4 S 3.574
936 Receding Face Writeoff S - S - 8 - S - 8 - 8 129 S 564 8 630 S 630 S 678 8 783
f litigation Costs _' Update J4102 - - S - - - S - - - - - 3G- - 1 5_ 1 1I S 1 S 1f_'I 57'I 1.`_21 S 1I 1 S 1 3_ 1
Plant l mpro?ements`let All Costs $ - $ 11 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 107,128 $ 108,348 $ 113,354 $ 108,281 $ 112,021 $ 110,846 $ 124,239 $ 121,835 $ 121,420 $ 113,003 $ 120,307 $ 111,482 $ 113,190 $ 115,280 $ 120,455 $ 118,837 $ 115,947 $ 122,661 $ 132,052 $ 136,260
r a 0ge,at ) r rpe I $ 9.25 $ 8.74 $ 8.94 $ 8.87 $ 9.17 $ 8.78 $ 9.36 $ 8.79 $ 9.27 $ 9.17 $ 9.42 $ 8.67 $ 8.70 $ 9.22 $ 9.48 $ 9.40 $ 9.17 $ 9.38 $ 9.52 $ 8.90
Tr i0ge,at i aces atea,n $ 21.43 $ 21.67 $ 22.67 $ 21.66 $ 22.40 $ 22.17 $ 24.85 $ 24.37 $ 24.28 $ 22.60 $ 24.06 $ 22.30 $ 22.64 $ 23.06 $ 24.09 $ 23.77 $ 23.19 $ 24.53 $ 26.41 $ 27.25

I libation Costs-PICPC IDEISI $ 1,858 $ 803
Plitidation Co sts-Bonnerton(DEI3 $ $ 331 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 1,251
1 4iticrotion Costs-S3'(DEISI $ $ 402 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706
Illitigation Costs IIC FC Update '4;02 E 3.231 S I.,?S
IlitigationCosts - Bonn Update? 4102 6?7 77, 77, '4 - - e - - - - - - -
I litigation Costs ', ? Update 0'1 4102 - - - - - - S - - - 5c - 1.21 I I I ` 1 1 r9l I FJ'I 1 11 1 -21 _1 1 `9_1
Total Op Cost/cr nceli atetoo-LEIS $ 21.15 $ 21.48 $ 22.10 $ 21.08 $ 21.83 $ 21.60 $ 24.28 $ 23.79 $ 23.71 $ 22.03 $ 23.72 $ 22.13 $ 22.47 $ 22.89 $ 23.93 $ 23.60 $ 23.03 $ 24.37 $ 26.25 $ 27.09
I-ta,OpC-cc c.,ca?r ,,, d108 3 2143 S -1 ST 3 _67 5 ,1.6 6 S 1.40 3 2'_.1- S _426 S 4_'T 'd 4'2 it _'cco :, 24.06 a _'.64 :, -4.09 S -- 3,19 : _4`2' ^ 141 ---
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPA -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year34 Year35 Year36 Year37 Year38 Year39 Year40 Year 41 Year42 Year43 Year44 Year45 Year46 Year47 Year48 Year49 Total/Avg.
Effectiaa Stn ping Volume (1000 bc,, 45,652 44,396 49,380 49,909 57,311 58,991 57,659 57,185 58,406 55,087 57,525 49,876 56,778 56,569 54,738 18,877
Total r1ined Area (acres) 228 237 256 282 303 292 271 264 277 288 282 247 271 285 267 138 1236'
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 14,638 14,886 15,635 16,305 16,344 15,394 15,502 15,700 15,810 14,580 14,153 13,945 14,419 13,973 13,610 7,590 - -
Total Concentrate(1000tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,940 5,060 5,000 5,000 4,944 5,056 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,754 7777 4
(-hange in Prestrip Inventoi., )acres) -3 -25 57 -6 -38 4 58 38 -32 -30 -56 -21 -5 -26 -80 -152 ,;15

Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 4,007 S b4S ° 1-
I aintenance Labor $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 1,951 S ]_? 054
Operating Supplies $ 10,247 $ 11,779 $ 11,330 $ 11,381 $ 12,239 $ 12,771 $ 12,617 $ 12,526 $ 12,148 $ 11,737 $ 11,885 $ 11,365 $ 12,087 $ 12,054 $ 12,130 $ 5,298 S b13404
Flocculant $ 995 $ 878 $ 884 $ 940 $ 1,023 $ 1,003 $ 955 $ 918 $ 948 $ 916 $ 804 $ 811 $ 840 $ 827 $ 771 $ 411 41 r'l
Readents,FuellLime $ 7,049 $ 7,653 $ 8,101 $ 8,448 $ 8,283 $ 7,665 $ 7,760 $ 7,929 $ 7,923 $ 7,356 $ 7,350 $ 7,170 $ 7,348 $ 7,173 $ 7,052 $ 3,935 S 314960
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 599 $ 613 $ 606 $ 606 $ 599 $ 613 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 334 S 3S fi?1
Maintenance Supplies $ 18,567 $ 18,561 $ 19,869 $ 20,318 $ 21,187 $ 20,856 $ 20,765 $ 20,839 $ 20,988 $ 20,056 $ 20,233 $ 19,398 $ 20,384 $ 20,200 $ 20,040 $ 9,108 S 971.4%
Electric Polder $ 18,951 $ 19,180 $ 20,632 $ 22,037 $ 22,393 $ 21,312 $ 21,261 $ 21,458 $ 22,314 $ 21,043 $ 21,412 $ 20,848 $ 21,805 $ 21,479 $ 21,675 $ 11,292 S 1 £
Contract I laintena nce $ 2,537 $ 2,871 $ 6,860 $ 2,949 $ 3,166 $ 3,163 $ 7,114 $ 3,140 $ 3,128 $ 2,955 $ 6,993 $ 2,758 $ 2,989 $ 2,967 $ 6,903 $ 1,278 S 196919
Contract Operations $ 14,085 $ 13,166 $ 13,547 $ 14,624 $ 14,017 $ 14,404 $ 13,697 $ 14,444 $ 13,754 $ 14,369 $ 13,810 $ 14,281 $ 13,694 $ 13,842 $ 14,156 $ 7,050 5 711.56
Other Ex pense $ 1,218 $ 900 $ 1,283 $ 1,284 $ 1,384 $ 1,328 $ 1,356 $ 1,340 $ 1,352 $ 1,285 $ 1,327 $ 1,258 $ 1,339 $ 1,317 $ 1,304 $ 490 S 3164
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 88,529 $ 89,270 $ 98,563 $ 98,038 $ 99,742 $ 99,163 $ 102,179 $ 99,249 $ 98,605 $ 95,781 $ 99,871 $ 93,946 $ 96,542 $ 95,916 $ 100,087 $ 45,155 S 4411 Ti0
r a ,-ctra r ;rc;0 I F $ 6.05 $ 6.00 $ 6.30 $ 6.01 $ 6.10 $ 6.44 $ 6.59 $ 6.32 $ 6.24 $ 6.57 $ 7.06 $ 6.74 $ 6.70 $ 6.86 $ 7.35 $ 5.95 S -
r a! i?PCtra r ate n $ 17.71 $ 17.85 $ 19.71 $ 19.61 $ 20.19 $ 19.60 $ 20.44 $ 19.85 $ 19.95 $ 18.94 $ 19.97 $ 18.79 $ 19.31 $ 19.18 $ 20.02 $ 16.40 1x.58
Allocated Overhead $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 8,257 5 1.03591.
Total Cash Costs $ 108,309 $ 108,799 $ 118,838 $ 118,313 $ 120,016 $ 119,689 $ 122,705 $ 119,774 $ 118,880 $ 116,055 $ 120,146 $ 114,221 $ 116,816 $ 116,191 $ 120,362 $ 53,411 b.4'- 6£.
r a(CashC , . do,eto,r $ 7.40 $ 7.31 $ 7.60 $ 7.26 $ 7.34 $ 7.77 $ 7.92 $ 7.63 $ 7.52 $ 7.96 $ 8.49 $ 8.19 $ 8.10 $ 8.32 $ 8.84 $ 7.04 5 Zb4
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 21.66 $ 21.76 $ 23.77 $ 23.66 $ 24.29 $ 23.65 $ 24.54 $ 23.95 $ 24.05 $ 22.95 $ 24.03 $ 22.84 $ 23.36 $ 23.24 $ 24.07 $ 19.39 S P)
Depreciation $ 15,688 $ 16,415 $ 17,392 $ 18,192 $ 18,503 $ 17,905 $ 17,869 $ 17,969 $ 17,988 $ 16,969 $ 17,098 $ 16,489 $ 17,182 $ 16,893 $ 16,712 $ 8,252 S %94 r'J
Depletion $ 742 $ 722 $ 717 $ 711 $ 684 $ 705 $ 725 $ 720 $ 718 $ 706 $ 704 $ 701 $ 699 $ 695 $ 689 $ 378 S 41.633
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ 251 $ 2,074 $ (4,775) $ 496 $ 3,153 $ (333) $ (4,867) $ (3,185) $ 2,663 $ 2,502 $ 4,689 $ 1,736 $ 393 $ 2,205 $ 6,664 $ 12,658 S ^_54
[I(- PC Alt E De elo pment Writeoff 34.153
U:,PCAltE etlands I litigation
f F- Development Land Writeoff -
I liticlation Costs `CF(-Update 0 '4;05 h - - - 2n ?66
Eionnerton Development and Land Writeoff 10.103
Eionnerton Receding Face Writeoff -
14itigation Costs-Bonn Update 4;05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49312
De velopment,Vriteoff x.`74 S 74 S 4 S `74 S l 361 ?`v4 S 74 S '-0 S `.E15 ' -514 ?. 74 S 74 S 4 S `74 1369
SEC Receding Face Writeoff 783 S 848 S 878 S 1 037 S 1 025 S 1.050 S 1 037 S 1.248 S 2412 S 2467 S 2.884 S 2884 S 2884 S 2884 S 2884 S 1.588
I litigation (-osts _S:> Update ? _4.10 I;' l I 1^1 g 1 I T-I ? 110, 11 1340 I T-I ? 1 1304 1 528 `; 1 3-1 '., I T-I ? I 1^1 8 1 "-I I T-I ? "_i0 °.? l
Plant l mprovements`let All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 11 450
Total Operating Costs $ 130,889 $ 133,973 $ 138,164 $ 143,865 $ 148,435 $ 144,192 $ 142,584 $ 141,641 $ 147,717 $ 143,872 $ 150,635 $ 141,145 $ 143,090 $ 143,983 $ 152,426 $ 79,105 $ 6,708,515
7a 0ge,at ( r rpe I $ 8.94 $ 9.00 $ 8.84 $ 8.82 $ 9.08 $ 9.37 $ 9.20 $ 9.02 $ 9.34 $ 9.87 $ 10.64 $ 10.12 $ 9.92 $ 10.30 $ 11.20 $ 10.42 $ 9.20
( i0ge,at i Cst, c, ace,( area-n $ 26.18 $ 26.79 $ 27.63 $ 28.77 $ 30.05 $ 28.50 $ 28.52 $ 28.33 $ 29.88 $ 28.45 $ 30.13 $ 28.23 $ 28.62 $ 28.80 $ 30.49 $ 28.72 $ 24.15

I lit iation Costs - PICPC I DEIS) 46494
hlitidation Costs- Bonnerton (DEIST 24 3r7
(litigation Costs 3 3(DEISI $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 697 $ 714 $ 706 $ 706 $ 698 $ 714 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 389 177_'6
Illitigation Costs `CF( Update0 '4,0E 'E - - b - 'E - - b - - - b - - - - - ., - - - .,
I litigation Costs - Bonn Update? 4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4<I;S I.'
I litigation Costs Update A'1 4103 15^_1 I ?1 I _1 1 2l S I ?0' 1540 1 21 -'1 1504 F 1 v9 ' 1.5-1 1. 21 I I I ` 1 1 1
( a; O) Co. aLe tc„ - $ 26.01 $ 26.63 $ 27.47 $ 28.61 $ 29.88 $ 28.33 $ 28.35 $ 28.17 $ 29.72 $ 28.29 $ 29.96 $ 28.07 $ 28.45 $ 28.63 $ 30.32 $ 28.56 $ 23.87
I,-ta,OpC-cc car 3 4108 ^6.13 - - -3.46 ; :0.1: -F Fn 11 _J.49 S 2416
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPB - TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioa Stripping volume (1000 bc,, 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,476 36,414 37,011 37,000 35,997 41,374 45,588 46,381 40,937 39,987 40,789 39,540 38,772 37,512 36,790 35,081 36,730
Total Mined Area )acres) 183 181 171 178 176 178 175 177 184 201 203 188 182 180 170 176 183 178 177 177
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,754 11,689 12,118 11,626 12,291 12,567 12,049 12,356 12,139 11,965 12,061 12,224 11,715 12,000 11,378
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi., laciest 6 7 -1 -36 -7 23 -9 45 -7 -7 -67 10 -38 -17 -2 4 -2 -5 35 -11
Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,635 $ 9,587 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010
P,1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 3,751 $ 4,089 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714
Operating SUpplies $ 7,537 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,485 $ 7,492 $ 6,288 $ 6,285 $ 7,931 $ 8,440 $ 9,057 $ 9,165 $ 6,667 $ 8,266 $ 6,408 $ 6,335 $ 8,214 $ 7,745 $ 7,731 $ 6,193 $ 6,787
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 654 $ 638 $ 701 $ 705 $ 792 $ 836 $ 696 $ 752 $ 694 $ 665 $ 712 $ 624 $ 528 $ 605 $ 532
Readents,FuellLime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,085 $ 6,053 $ 6,163 $ 5,816 $ 6,028 $ 6,133 $ 5,971 $ 6,132 $ 6,144 $ 6,119 $ 6,108 $ 6,367 $ 6,292 $ 6,301 $ 6,102
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 %Iaintenance Supplies $ 13,996 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 14,024 $ 13,814 $ 14,142 $ 14,169 $ 14,117 $ 14,496 $ 15,398 $ 15,718 $ 14,755 $ 14,963 $ 14,747 $ 14,880 $ 15,074 $ 14,335 $ 14,122 $ 14,262 $ 14,492
Electric Polder $ 10,685 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,314 $ 8,981 $ 9,480 $ 9,491 $ 9,259 $ 9,684 $ 10,519 $ 10,700 $ 10,026 $ 9,962 $ 10,263 $ 10,623 $ 10,490 $ 10,226 $ 10,081 $ 10,473 $ 10,632
Contract r1aintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,325 $ 2,042 $ 6,051 $ 2,357 $ 2,427 $ 2,610 $ 6,682 $ 2,154 $ 2,523 $ 2,165 $ 6,159 $ 2,553 $ 2,401 $ 2,370 $ 6,048 $ 2,115
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 10,992 $ 11,198 $ 11,668 $ 11,000 $ 14,653 $ 13,627 $ 12,827 $ 12,865 $ 13,522 $ 12,794 $ 11,311 $ 13,575 $ 11,059 $ 11,010 $ 11,189 $ 11,190
Other Ex rense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 944 $ 940 $ 630 $ 681 $ 754 $ 761 $ 986 $ 677 $ 991 $ 987 $ 675 $ 633 $ 620 $ 905 $ 865
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,649 $ 65,677 $ 67,952 $ 64,392 $ 63,661 $ 64,163 $ 68,624 $ 64,889 $ 71,184 $ 73,065 $ 77,104 $ 68,999 $ 71,078 $ 69,085 $ 71,070 $ 71,684 $ 66,123 $ 65,485 $ 69,305 $ 66,045
r a ,ectra r ;rc;4 I F $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.43 $ 5.46 $ 5.46 $ 5.87 $ 5.35 $ 6.12 $ 5.94 $ 6.14 $ 5.73 $ 5.75 $ 5.69 $ 5.94 $ 5.94 $ 5.41 $ 5.59 $ 5.78 $ 5.80
r a! i?PCtra r 5t_tmr $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.88 $ 12.73 $ 12.83 $ 13.72 $ 12.98 $ 14.24 $ 14.61 $ 15.42 $ 13.80 $ 14.22 $ 13.82 $ 14.21 $ 14.34 $ 13.22 $ 13.10 $ 13.86 $ 13.21
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,407 $ 19,529 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129
Total Cash Costs $ 84,527 $ 84,555 $ 86,830 $ 83,270 $ 82,539 $ 83,292 $ 87,753 $ 83,767 $ 90,713 $ 92,594 $ 96,633 $ 88,778 $ 90,607 $ 88,865 $ 90,477 $ 91,213 $ 85,001 $ 84,363 $ 88,434 $ 85,174
r al Cash C . d o,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.02 $ 7.08 $ 7.09 $ 7.51 $ 6.91 $ 7.80 $ 7.53 $ 7.69 $ 7.37 $ 7.33 $ 7.32 $ 7.56 $ 7.56 $ 6.95 $ 7.20 $ 7.37 $ 7.49
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.65 $ 16.51 $ 16.66 $ 17.55 $ 16.75 $ 18.14 $ 18.52 $ 19.33 $ 17.76 $ 18.12 $ 17.77 $ 18.10 $ 18.24 $ 17.00 $ 16.87 $ 17.69 $ 17.03
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,371 $ 12,136 $ 12,117 $ 12,053 $ 12,335 $ 12,224 $ 12,874 $ 13,081 $ 12,347 $ 12,610 $ 12,584 $ 12,538 $ 12,654 $ 12,846 $ 12,544 $ 12,359 $ 12,118
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 790 $ 789 $ 788 $ 792 $ 802 $ 804 $ 766 $ 802 $ 798 $ 777 $ 789 $ 851 $ 802 $ 836 $ 788
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 2,976 $ 552 $ (1,908) $ 790 $ (3,782) $ 544 $ 603 $ 5,634 $ (836) $ 3,207 $ 1,449 $ 160 $ (343) $ 194 $ 401 $ (2,943) $ 877
[,I(- PC AItE Development Writeoff $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 1,768 $ 7,337 $ 7,337 $ 5,504 $ 1,137 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
idCPCAftEWetlands h4iti4ation 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 561 $ 421 $ 87 $ (0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PICPCDe velommentlLandWriteoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 155 $ 524 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620
r,iitidation Costs HCF(-Update 0 '4;03 - - - - - 1361 'c 44;1 -.4J9 40'', 1 x.409 64A, 4A'-,, 1 -.4J9 `40J '. _.409 S409 4n'-,, 1 4s9 40J '. s.409
Eonnerton Development and Land Writeoff
Eonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
f litigation Costs - Donn Updates 4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S3iDevelopment Writeoff
33 Receding) Face Writeoff
flitication Costs ;±'Update 0-W 4103
Pla nt I m prooements [let All Costs
Total Opemtinc Costs $ 99,562 $ 99,621 $ 102,368 $ 107,307 $ 103,901 $ 101,723 $ 107,704 $ 99,137 $ 110,302 $ 112,902 $ 122,180 $ 107,084 $ 113,256 $ 109,726 $ 109,981 $ 110,342 $ 104,920 $ 104,139 $ 104,716 $ 104,985
r a 0pe,at ) r urge I - $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.68 $ 9.05 $ 8.91 $ 8.65 $ 9.21 $ 8.18 $ 9.49 $ 9.19 $ 9.72 $ 8.89 $ 9.17 $ 9.04 $ 9.19 $ 9.15 $ 8.58 $ 8.89 $ 8.73 $ 9.23
T -'al 0ge,at ) r nc- 5t_ tmr $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 20.47 $ 21.46 $ 20.78 $ 20.34 $ 21.54 $ 19.83 $ 22.06 $ 22.58 $ 24.44 $ 21.42 $ 22.65 $ 21.95 $ 22.00 $ 22.07 $ 20.98 $ 20.63 $ 20.94 $ 21.00

Nlitciation Costs-PI(- PC IDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 777 $ 2,628 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110 $ 3,110
1litigation Costs - Donn DE S)
Mitigation Costs-833 (DEIST
f litigation Costs PI:,PC Updates '4/Oo - - - - - 1.3`1 4071 40.,' _400 5.409 .%.401 _.4?0 `409 .409 _.4..9 5.409 `_.400 _409 40' s.409
f1itgation Costs - Donn Update? 4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I lifidation Costs Std Update 0' 4103 S S
T -al Op Co. ape tc„ $ 19.91 $ 19.92 $ 20.47 $ 21.46 $ 20.78 $ 20.23 $ 21.15 $ 19.37 $ 21.60 $ 22.12 $ 23.96 $ 20.96 $ 22.19 $ 21.49 $ 21.54 $ 21.61 $ 20.52 $ 20.37 $ 20.46 $ 20.54
r-ta;GpC-ccoa'r -)108 19.91 S 1991 ` 047 146 S -073 -034 S 2104 S 19 '.06 S - 2_4.44 - -114- ° 19` - 094 t -1.00
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPB - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year32 Year33
Effectioa Stripping volume 11000 bc,, 36,552 38,393 38,665 40,482 40,003 40,122 39,419 36,812 38,356 44,277 48,960 45,902 45,390 44,735 49,607 54,112 59,522 58,976 56,944 60,308
Total Mined Area )acres) 181 201 216 218 208 201 203 190 188 219 250 234 234 247 269 296 301 279 259 277
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,584 12,347 12,927 13,003 12,712 12,608 12,699 12,575 12,847 13,400 14,785 14,928 14,807 15,253 16,092 16,475 15,713 15,560 15,210 16,291
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi., acres -16 43 28 59 38 -6 9 1 7 -5 -24 -57 -26 -3 23 -34 32 29 57 25
Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 9,655 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,744 $ 10,744 $ 10,120 $ 9,587 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660
haintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 4,028 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,157 $ 4,157 $ 4,185 $ 4,089 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389
Operating SUpplles $ 7,859 $ 7,037 $ 8,325 $ 9,883 $ 9,905 $ 9,822 $ 9,993 $ 9,670 $ 10,224 $ 9,668 $ 10,245 $ 10,548 $ 11,864 $ 11,901 $ 11,408 $ 11,826 $ 12,894 $ 12,834 $ 12,361 $ 13,008
Flocculant $ 519 $ 584 $ 679 $ 701 $ 713 $ 715 $ 709 $ 714 $ 742 $ 774 $ 896 $ 994 $ 948 $ 854 $ 935 $ 962 $ 1,035 $ 991 $ 896 $ 970
Readents,FuellLime $ 6,273 $ 6,572 $ 6,969 $ 6,936 $ 6,678 $ 6,574 $ 6,617 $ 6,554 $ 6,589 $ 6,922 $ 7,467 $ 7,240 $ 7,338 $ 7,944 $ 8,300 $ 8,503 $ 7,858 $ 7,722 $ 7,713 $ 8,139
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
Maintenance Supplies $ 13,995 $ 14,928 $ 16,049 $ 16,042 $ 15,848 $ 15,792 $ 15,915 $ 15,827 $ 16,188 $ 17,648 $ 18,710 $ 18,612 $ 18,553 $ 18,894 $ 20,310 $ 20,950 $ 21,150 $ 21,007 $ 20,608 $ 21,442
Electric Polder $ 9,905 $ 10,768 $ 12,926 $ 12,491 $ 12,373 $ 12,253 $ 12,722 $ 13,770 $ 14,293 $ 16,875 $ 18,196 $ 18,923 $ 18,918 $ 19,656 $ 21,846 $ 22,498 $ 21,740 $ 21,392 $ 20,930 $ 22,195
Contract 6aintenance $ 2,304 $ 2,232 $ 6,262 $ 2,597 $ 2,549 $ 2,529 $ 6,528 $ 2,428 $ 2,500 $ 2,456 $ 6,679 $ 2,589 $ 2,873 $ 2,948 $ 6,925 $ 3,094 $ 3,222 $ 3,176 $ 7,104 $ 3,278
ContractOperations $ 12,665 $ 12,824 $ 13,151 $ 12,977 $ 12,878 $ 12,811 $ 12,829 $ 13,202 $ 12,681 $ 13,179 $ 13,492 $ 14,150 $ 13,138 $ 13,266 $ 14,496 $ 13,952 $ 14,502 $ 13,778 $ 13,583 $ 14,581
Other Ex rense $ 607 $ 948 $ 1,156 $ 861 $ 841 $ 837 $ 833 $ 814 $ 816 $ 1,166 $ 1,239 $ 1,179 $ 917 $ 932 $ 1,290 $ 1,341 $ 1,355 $ 1,358 $ 1,349 $ 1,367
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 66,859 $ 70,183 $ 80,395 $ 76,769 $ 76,067 $ 75,614 $ 80,430 $ 77,261 $ 78,314 $ 83,566 $ 92,431 $ 89,742 $ 89,462 $ 90,676 $ 101,567 $ 99,183 $ 100,411 $ 98,914 $ 101,198 $ 101,634
r a ,ectma m ;rc;0 I F $ 5.77 $ 5.68 $ 6 $ 5.90 $ 5.98 $ 6.00 $ 6.33 $ 6.14 $ 6.10 $ 6.24 $ 6.25 $ 6.01 $ 6.04 $ 5.94 $ 6.31 $ 6.02 $ 6.39 $ 6.36 $ 6.65 $ 6.24
r a! i?ectra m ate n $ 13.37 $ 14.04 $ 16 $ 15.35 $ 15.21 $ 15.12 $ 16.09 $ 15.45 $ 15.66 $ 16.71 $ 18.49 $ 17.95 $ 17.89 $ 18.14 $ 20.31 $ 19.84 $ 20.08 $ 19.78 $ 20.24 $ 20.33
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 19,533 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 20,044 $ 20,044 $ 19,793 $ 19,529 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526
Total Cash Costs $ 85,738 $ 89,716 $ 100,175 $ 96,298 $ 95,596 $ 95,143 $ 99,959 $ 96,790 $ 97,843 $ 103,346 $ 112,475 $ 109,786 $ 109,255 $ 110,205 $ 121,842 $ 119,457 $ 120,936 $ 119,440 $ 121,724 $ 122,160
r a) Cash C . d o,e to,r $ 7.40 $ 7.27 $ 8 $ 7.41 $ 7.52 $ 7.55 $ 7.87 $ 7.70 $ 7.62 $ 7.71 $ 7.61 $ 7.35 $ 7.38 $ 7.23 $ 7.57 $ 7.25 $ 7.70 $ 7.68 $ 8.00 $ 7.50
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 17.15 $ 17.94 $ 20 $ 19.26 $ 19.12 $ 19.03 $ 19.99 $ 19.36 $ 19.57 $ 20.67 $ 22.50 $ 21.96 $ 21.85 $ 22.04 $ 24.37 $ 23.89 $ 24.19 $ 23.89 $ 24.34 $ 24.43
Depreciation $ 12,314 $ 12,804 $ 13,722 $ 13,905 $ 13,587 $ 13,444 $ 13,599 $ 13,504 $ 13,827 $ 14,937 $ 16,109 $ 15,860 $ 16,148 $ 16,801 $ 17,999 $ 18,531 $ 18,232 $ 17,944 $ 17,647 $ 18,524
Depletion $ 797 $ 832 $ 707 $ 705 $ 712 $ 717 $ 711 $ 705 $ 715 $ 680 $ 717 $ 744 $ 731 $ 720 $ 716 $ 704 $ 685 $ 720 $ 711 $ 725
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ 1,321 $ (3,586) $ (2,339) $ (4,910) $ (3,140) $ 489 $ (784) $ (42) $ (605) $ 383 $ 2,043 $ 4,727 $ 2,200 $ 258 $ (1,907) $ 2,816 $ (2,693) $ (2,394) $ (4,794) $ (2,083)
[I(- PC Alt E Development Writeoff $ 2,954 $ 4,609
PICPC Alt E Wetlands h4itigation 226 $ 353
PICPC Develo mment,Tand Writeoff 370 $ 160
fditiclation Costs HCF(-Update 0 '4;02 E 3^_31 S 1.,?5 :; - 5 - S - 3 - S - S - 5 - S - 3 - 'd - a - h - 'a - a - h - - - -
Eionnerton Develo ) Atent a nd Land Writeoff
Eionnerton Receding Face Writeoff
f litigation Costs - Bonn Updates 4,02 I' I' I' " - - - - - - -
Development Nriteoff
363
_'? Receding Face ,Writeoff - - - - - 'I^_6 S s51 16 S ?1E S E6C a 76' - 1.011 1.011 1.011 C I A] I I1 1 ^.335
f litigation Costs S'' Update 0-W-4,02 - 13 1 1 5 1x31 1P_l I `_ I S 1 x31 1 5 1 _1 S IP_1 1 5'1 1631 :, _1 S 1 1 5 1631 :. 1 5'1 S 1 °.1 S 1 5_1 :, 1 1 5 1.521
Plantlmxooements Plet All Costs - $ 2 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operatinc Costs $ 106,951 $ 106,843 $ 117,168 $ 110,902 $ 111,659 $ 114,822 $ 118,940 $ 116,476 $ 117,299 $ 124,912 $ 137,014 $ 136,785 $ 134,067 $ 133,744 $ 144,565 $ 147,423 $ 143,075 $ 141,624 $ 141,402 $ 146,564
r a; Tpe,at ) m urge I - $ 9.23 $ 8.65 $ 9.06 $ 8.53 $ 8.78 $ 9.11 $ 9.37 $ 9.26 $ 9.13 $ 9.32 $ 9.27 $ 9.16 $ 9.05 $ 8.77 $ 8.98 $ 8.95 $ 9.11 $ 9.10 $ 9.30 $ 9.00
r a; ?ge,at ) m nce,r e _ tmr $ 21.39 $ 21.37 $ 23.43 $ 22.18 $ 22.33 $ 22.96 $ 23.79 $ 23.30 $ 23.46 $ 24.98 $ 27.40 $ 27.36 $ 26.81 $ 26.75 $ 28.91 $ 29.48 $ 28.61 $ 28.32 $ 28.28 $ 29.31

Iliticlation Co sts-PICPCIDEISI $ 1,858 $ 803
Mitigation Costs - Bonn DE S)
I liticlation (-.osts-S',?IDEISI $ $ 80 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706
(litigation Costs IRF Updates 4103 J6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f1i0gationCosts-E1onn Update? 4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IlitaiationCosts L3 Update 4r0 - S 1-3 S 1 1 F. 15_1 S I I G 11 F. 1-_I 8 I-LI S I'=1 S 1.'.'51 Itr_1 15_1 S 1X51 S 1 E. 1'?_I @ I!r_I S I;'=1 S 1X51 h 1 E. 1b_1
Tr a; Op Co. ape tc„ $ 21.12 $ 21.23 $ 23.27 $ 22.02 $ 22.17 $ 22.80 $ 23.62 $ 23.13 $ 23.30 $ 24.62 $ 27.24 $ 27.19 $ 26.65 $ 26.59 $ 28.75 $ 29.32 $ 28.45 $ 26.16 $ 28.12 $ 29.15
r-ta; Op Cs., „a:e -)158 a 21"9 @I _13% li 4' 'a _I_ SG 11 '_'178 ? '.46 _452 _' 40 - SI __1 Dc _- ,91 9.43 - PI 21
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
EXPANDED APPLICANT PREFERRED SEQUENCE EAPB -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year34 Year35 Year36 Year37 Year38 Year39 Year40 Year 41 Year42 Year43 Year44 Year45 Year46 Year47 Year48 Year49 Total/Avg.
Effectiaa Stn pins volume l1 0 bc,, 56,024 57,867 53,275 51,631 58,310 54,883 55,460 36,131 32,056 35,343 37,777 39,956 44,755 47,133 39,570 13,949
Total r1ined Area acres) 273 297 261 249 288 278 255 236 227 216 238 265 296 285 273 141 12362
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 14,820 14,387 13,993 14,313 14,168 13,713 13,659 12,826 12,263 12,146 12,580 13,211 13,905 13,137 12,375 6,846 - -
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 4,949 5,051 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,754 77 74
Change in Prestrip Inventoi., )acres) -19 -67 -27 4 -29 -83 30 -14 -13 -10 29 -23 -10 -39 -5 -141 ,;15

Production Costs iSOnn1
Operating Labor $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,659 $ 9,645 $ 8,385 $ 9,456 $ 9,456 $ 9,456 $ 10,033 $ 10,033 $ 9,199 $ 3,053 S b44-1
Maintenance Labor $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,401 $ 4,031 $ 3,741 $ 3,816 $ 3,816 $ 3,816 $ 4,127 $ 4,127 $ 3,769 $ 1,707 5
Operating SUpplles $ 11,794 $ 11,883 $ 11,601 $ 11,700 $ 12,121 $ 11,900 $ 12,887 $ 7,098 $ 8,208 $ 7,426 $ 8,135 $ 8,177 $ 8,783 $ 8,904 $ 8,450 $ 3,382 S b1-' 64
Flocculant $ 910 $ 875 $ 779 $ 836 $ 837 $ 804 $ 744 $ 709 $ 719 $ 702 $ 684 $ 764 $ 862 $ 751 $ 700 $ 394 S 41 `31
Readents,FuellLime $ 7,487 $ 7,324 $ 7,300 $ 7,263 $ 7,281 $ 7,053 $ 7,113 $ 6,735 $ 6,383 $ 6,297 $ 6,613 $ 6,870 $ 6,943 $ 6,812 $ 6,397 $ 3,508 S 2749F9
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 600 $ 612 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 334 S 3C fi71
Maintenance Supplies $ 20,250 $ 20,313 $ 19,870 $ 19,816 $ 20,462 $ 19,900 $ 20,533 $ 15,962 $ 15,383 $ 15,634 $ 15,784 $ 15,925 $ 16,662 $ 16,456 $ 15,512 $ 7,054
Electric Polder $ 21,279 $ 21,489 $ 21,093 $ 21,319 $ 21,731 $ 21,216 $ 21,878 $ 17,297 $ 16,014 $ 15,723 $ 14,026 $ 12,679 $ 13,540 $ 13,366 $ 12,538 $ 6,232 S --'I
Contractllaintenance $ 2,971 $ 3,026 $ 6,888 $ 2,836 $ 3,039 $ 2,908 $ 7,033 $ 2,123 $ 2,307 $ 2,122 $ 6,249 $ 2,373 $ 2,535 $ 2,495 $ 6,273 $ 1,052 S 196.196
ContractOperations $ 13,716 $ 14,454 $ 13,595 $ 14,300 $ 13,867 $ 14,264 $ 13,570 $ 13,164 $ 11,500 $ 12,079 $ 12,300 $ 12,077 $ 13,761 $ 13,654 $ 12,102 $ 6,215 5 711291
Other Ex rense $ 1,308 $ 1,321 $ 1,295 $ 1,283 $ 1,339 $ 1,284 $ 1,313 $ 996 $ 645 $ 919 $ 983 $ 983 $ 1,032 $ 1,013 $ 965 $ 316 S -'.Sb4
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 95,773 $ 96,736 $ 98,484 $ 95,411 $ 96,733 $ 95,386 $ 101,737 $ 78,364 $ 73,891 $ 74,781 $ 78,654 $ 73,725 $ 78,883 $ 78,218 $ 76,510 $ 33,248 S 44-2.440
r a ,-ctra r ;rc;0 I F $ 6.46 $ 6.72 $ 7.04 $ 6.67 $ 6.83 $ 6.96 $ 7.45 $ 6.11 $ 6.03 $ 6.16 $ 6.25 $ 5.58 $ 5.67 $ 5.95 $ 6.18 $ 4.86 S -
r a! i?PCtr a r et_ tmr $ 19.15 $ 19.55 $ 19.50 $ 19.08 $ 19.35 $ 19.08 $ 20.35 $ 15.67 $ 14.78 $ 14.96 $ 15.73 $ 14.75 $ 15.78 $ 15.64 $ 15.30 $ 12.07 14.97
Allocated Overhead $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,573 $ 19,529 $ 18,878 $ 19,360 $ 19,360 $ 19,360 $ 19,733 $ 19,733 $ 19,012 $ 7,753 5 1.066300
Total Cash Costs $ 116,047 $ 117,010 $ 118,759 $ 115,685 $ 117,008 $ 115,661 $ 122,309 $ 97,893 $ 92,769 $ 94,140 $ 98,013 $ 93,085 $ 98,616 $ 97,950 $ 95,522 $ 41,001 --02741
r a) Cash C . d o,e ton $ 7.83 $ 8.13 $ 8.49 $ 8.08 $ 8.26 $ 8.43 $ 8.95 $ 7.63 $ 7.56 $ 7.75 $ 7.79 $ 7.05 $ 7.09 $ 7.46 $ 7.72 $ 5.99 5 - -
r a; Cash C-ot c- rtrate too $ 23.21 $ 23.64 $ 23.51 $ 23.14 $ 23.40 $ 23.13 $ 24.46 $ 19.58 $ 18.55 $ 18.83 $ 19.60 $ 18.62 $ 19.72 $ 19.59 $ 19.10 $ 14.89 S 19 -
Depreciation $ 17,203 $ 17,130 $ 16,807 $ 16,786 $ 17,120 $ 16,592 $ 16,993 $ 14,644 $ 14,022 $ 13,970 $ 14,116 $ 13,997 $ 14,684 $ 14,453 $ 13,446 $ 6,520 S %96996
Depletion $ 712 $ 696 $ 709 $ 694 $ 699 $ 688 $ 690 $ 740 $ 733 $ 733 $ 741 $ 733 $ 771 $ 757 $ 759 $ 423 S 41.67-
Chanclein Prestrip Inventor, $ 1,554 $ 5,625 $ 2,271 $ (333) $ 2,391 $ 6,939 $ (2,477) $ 1,144 $ 1,058 $ 809 $ (2,405) $ 1,910 $ 851 $ 3,297 $ 388 $ 11,754 S ^_24
H(- PC Alt E De elo pment Writeoff 34.153
U:,PCAltE etlands I litigation
H(F 0 Development Land Writeoff -
Iliticlation Costs HCF(-Update 0 '4;03 h - - - 2n ?66
Elonnerton Ceaelopmentand Land Vriteoff 152 C 0 47 c 41r -47' ? 47? c 47r, 0 4 47r, c 1'GC 21.147
Eionnerton Re edina Face Writeoff - - - - - - - - - - -
flitidationCosts - Donn Updates 4/02 Y Y li - ;I 2`1 C 4'1 T' -" T T- - - -
Development Nriteoff ^1l C 169 94.471
'_3 Receding Face Vriteoff _? - 17 74? 74`_ 745 132
f litication Costs S' Update 0', 4103 11 S I'06 S I 1 ^I 1P-l 1`-1 S 146 :; 77
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.,521
Plant Improvements filet All Costs 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 18 $ 1 430
Total Operatinc Costs $ 142,754 $ 148,033 $ 146,272 $ 140,481 $ 144,866 $ 147,529 $ 145,191 $ 122,638 $ 116,829 $ 117,899 $ 118,712 $ 117,972 $ 123,168 $ 124,704 $ 118,361 $ 64,241 $ 6,727,740
r a Tpe,at ) r urge I - $ 9.63 $ 10.29 $ 10.45 $ 9.81 $ 10.22 $ 10.76 $ 10.63 $ 9.56 $ 9.53 $ 9.71 $ 9.44 $ 8.93 $ 8.86 $ 9.49 $ 9.56 $ 9.38 $ 9.23
r a 0g-,at r r nc- et_ tmr $ 28.55 $ 29.91 $ 28.96 $ 28.10 $ 28.97 $ 29.51 $ 29.04 $ 24.53 $ 23.37 $ 23.58 $ 23.74 $ 23.59 $ 24.63 $ 24.94 $ 23.67 $ 23.33 $ 24.22

I litigation C( sts- PICPC IDEIS) 46 4
Ilitiaation (-osts - Donn DE C) $ 127 $ 2,763 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 2,909 $ 1,602 24.4b7
I liticlation Costs 3? DEISI $ 706 $ 698 $ 713 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 675 $ 36 177.'6
f4itigation Costs IR F( Updates '4/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.0„6G - 77, 77,
f1itigation Costs-Donn Update? 4/02 - - - - - - 1 S 421 '17' 41-1 15
f4ifidation Costs 23 Update 0' 4102 I. -l a 1 -06 S I 1 _l S 1I S 1.521 1 4=5 S - - °U1
Tr a; Op Co. ape tc„ $ 28.39 $ 29.75 $ 28.80 $ 27.93 $ 28.81 $ 29.34 $ 28.86 $ 23.98 $ 22.79 $ 23.01 $ 23.17 $ 23.02 $ 24.06 $ 24.37 $ 23.10 $ 22.76 $ 23.94
r,-ta;Op Cs., a'r d108 - _991 '?g. 110 f - -3.61 29.04 f 1 - - 3.7a _46'494 - -4"2 11 PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
EAPB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
ALT L - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMAR)
March 2008
DIED- RIPTIKII
Production Statistics Year -6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year s Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17
E6ective Shipping\/alume 11000111, 34,048 35,094 35,441 37,354 36,284 36,185 38,030 39,984 40,781 42,837 43,101 38,478 37,892 36,518 39,601 38,914 40,380 42,973 48,300 49,800 33,913 38,425 38,652 40,912
Total rlined - 183 181 171 178 176 175 182 182 182 185 184 175 173 195 220 222 223 249 302 286 275 242 217 219
Pumped Ore,,. 1000 tons 11,594 11,883 11,789 11,857 11,678 11,812 12,119 12,150 12,036 12,162 12,263 11,802 11,780 12,229 12,547 12,242 12,263 12,938 14,004 13,193 12,435 12,681 12,887 13,117
Total Concentrate 1000 tons 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000
Lhange in Pieship lmrent- ?aaes? 6 7 -1 -63 -10 -11 -45 -63 1 -22 5 29 2 -22
0 51
0 103
0 78
0 65
0 14
0 3
0 -87
0 -37
0 67
0 55
0

Production C-t isnnni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,962 $ 9,456 $ 9,825 $ 9,925 $ 9,925 $ 10,502 $ 10,502 $ 8,385 $ 9,803 $ 9,587 $ 9,587
h4aintenan?e Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,024 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,052 $ 3,816 $ 3,945 $ 3,945 $ 3,945 $ 4,256 $ 4,256 $ 3,741 $ 4,037 $ 4,089 $ 4,089
Operating Supplies $ 7,528 $ 7,539 $ 7,273 $ 7,381 $ 6,829 $ 6,652 $ 8,286 $ 6,402 $ 6,633 $ 6,920 $ 6,747 $ 6,302 $ 6,603 $ 7,524 $ 7,946 $ 8,840 $ 9,207 $ 10,260 $ 11,211 $ 9,633 $ 8,656 $ 7,988 $ 9,784 $ 10,080
Flocculent $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 614 $ 643 $ 682 $ 711 $ 690 $ 748 $ 728 $ 541 $ 595 $ 575 $ 680 $ 717 $ 677 $ 740 $ 872 $ 760 $ 700 $ 706 $ 683 $ 709
Reegent,/F-I Lime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,101 $ 6,175 $ 6,154 $ 6,087 $ 6,060 $ 6,045 $ 6,188 $ 6,308 $ 6,208 $ 6,520 $ 6,612 $ 6,359 $ 6,413 $ 6,730 $ 6,984 $ 6,833 $ 6,434 $ 6,624 $ 6,926 $ 6,885
Sulhiric acid $ 606 $ 976 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 976 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 976 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
h4aintenan?e Supplies $ 13,983 $ 14,183 $ 13,851 $ 13,981 $ 13,816 $ 14,208 $ 14,281 $ 14,270 $ 14,603 $ 14,957 $ 14,945 $ 14,371 $ 14,546 $ 14,265 $ 15,516 $ 15,650 $ 15,885 $ 17,169 $ 18,055 $ 17,074 $ 14,628 $ 15,682 $ 16,176 $ 16,571
Electric Pmrer
Lont'I't Maintenance
Connect Operations
Other E=p-- $ 10,677
$ 2,275
$ 11,065
$ 617 $ 10,404
$ 2,333
$ 11,043
$ 624 $ 9,445
$ 6,314
$ 10,943
$ 619 $ 9,246
$ 2,377
$ 11,008
$ 622 $ 9,325
$ 2,015
$ 11,186
$ 898 $ 9,885
$ 2,043
$ 11,673
$ 901 $ 9,534
$ 6,377
$ 14,142
$ 629 $ 9,593
$ 2,115
$ 12,622
$ 924 $ 9,851
$ 2,160
$ 13,305
$ 979 $ 9,793
$ 2,245
$ 13,663
$ 1,001 $ 10,050
$ 6,253
$ 19,185
$ 1,007 $ 9,638
$ 2,144
$ 14,415
$ 945 $ 10,881
$ 2,089
$ 13,431
$ 939 $ 10,533
$ 2,350
$ 12,555
$ 621 $ 11,715
$ 6,295
$ 11,621
$ 991 $ 11,948
$ 2,312
$ 12,142
$ 980 $ 12,692
$ 2,340
$ 12,155
$ 981 $ 14,606
$ 2,567
$ 11,913
$ 1,034 $ 14,942
$ 6,808
$ 13,815
$ 1,075 $ 13,989
$ 2,678
$ 13,664
$ 1,015 $ 11,883
$ 2,302
$ 11,887
$ 645 $ 13,294
$ 2,215
$ 13,282
$ 1,017 $ 13,898
$ 6,546
$ 12,968
$ 863 $ 14,174
$ 2,654
$ 12,885
$ 868
Ple,talln,atedGaa
Totel Direct Caih L-t, $ .
$ 65,628 $ -
$ 65,661 $ -
$ 67,964 $ -
$ 64,169 $ -
$ 63,114 $ .
$ 65,510 $ -
$ 72,818 $ -
$ 66,942 $ .
$ 69,159 $ -
$ 70,251 $ -
$ 79,983 $ -
$ 67,996 $ -
$ 68,623 $ .
$ 68,565 $ -
$ 75,254 $ -
$ 73,425 $ .
$ 74,827 $ -
$ 78,494 $ -
$ 89,127 $ -
$ 81,010 $ -
$ 70,069 $ .
$ 75,264 $ -
$ 82,127 $ -
$ 79,308
a, ?,re.. Cacn Co,rt/pumlrea ore ton
a, eve", Cacn Coc::torser,:ra;e;or, $ 5.66
$ 13.13 $ 5.52
$ 13.13 $ 6.76
$ 13.59 $ 541
$ 12.83 $ 5.40
$ 12.62 $ 5.50
$ 13.10 $ 6.01
$ 14.56 $ 5.51
$ 13.39 $ 5.75
$ 13.83 $ 5.78
$ 14.05 $ 6.52
$ 16.00 $ 5.76
$ 13.60 $ 5.83
$ 13.72 $ 5.22
$ 12.77 $ 6.00
$ 15.05 $ 6.00
$ 14.69 $ 6.10
$ 14.87 $ 6.14
$ 15.90 $ 6.36
$ 17.83 $ 6.14
$ 16.20 $ 4.83
$ 12.00 $ 5.94
$ 15.05 $ 6.37
$ 1843 $ 6.05
$ 15.86
allocated O,rerhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,502 $ 19,780 $ 18,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,128 $ 18,129 $ 19,251 $ 19,360 $ 19,611 $ 19,611 $ 18,611 $ 19,984 $ 19,984 $ 18,878 $ 19,598 $ 19,528 $ 19,529
Tote)Ga,h Casts
o;a? Casfi C., "',-pea or $ 84,507
$ 7.29 $ 84,540
$ 7.11 $ 86,842
$ 7.37 $ 83,047
$ 7.00 $ 82,243
$ 7.04 $ 84,639
$ 7.11 $ 91,697
$ 7.57 $ 86,444
$ 7.11 $ 88,939
$ 7.39 $ 90,031
$ 7.40 $ 99,763
$ 8.14 $ 87,125
$ 7.38 $ 87,752
$ 7.45 $ 87,816
$ 6.61 $ 94,613
$ 7.54 $ 93,036
$ 7.60 $ 94,437
$ 7.70 $ 99,105
$ 7.66 $ 109,110
$ 7.79 $ 100,994
$ 7.66 $ 88,947
$ 5.96 $ 94,862
$ 7.48 $ 101,656
$ 7.89 $ 98,837
$ 7.54
Total Cash C.At' erxrare ton $ 16.80 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.61 $ 16.45 $ 16.83 $ 18.34 $ 17.29 $ 17.79 $ 18.01 $ 18.95 $ 17.43 $ 17.55 $ 16.17 $ 18.92 $ 18.61 $ 18.89 $ 19.82 $ 21.82 $ 20.20 $ 14.82 $ 18.87 $ 20.33 $ 19.77
Depreciation
Depletion $ 12,433
$ 767 $ 12,522
$ 817 $ 12,326
$ 814 $ 12,345
$ 791 $ 11,883
$ 777 $ 12,154
$ 794 $ 12,447
$ 788 $ 12,310
$ 798 $ 12,296
$ 777 $ 12,332
$ 792 $ 12,600
$ 811 $ 12,348
$ 817 $ 12,516
$ 821 $ 12,753
$ 836 $ 13,453
$ 758 $ 13,400
$ 733 $ 13,642
$ 740 $ 14,560
$ 736 $ 15,413
$ 770 $ 14,896
$ 755 $ 13,056
$ 756 $ 13,531
$ 752 $ 14,058
$ 705 $ 14,295
$ 706
Ghe,ge in P'-t'ip Imrent"
IICPC -It -E DevelapmentWriteaff $ (496)
$ 1,830 $ (603)
$ 1,830 $ 68
$ 1,830 $ 5,285
$ 7,752 $ 802
$ 7,752 $ 896
$ 6,283 $ 3,743
$ 194 $ 5,240
$ - $ (108)
$ - $ 1,864
$ - $ (400)
$ - $ (2,382)
$ - $ (208)
$ - $ 1,876
$ 6,328 $ (4,278)
$ 385 $ (8,583)
$ - $ (6,541)
$ $ (5,431)
$ - $ (1,183)
$ - $ (218)
$ - $ 7,258
$ - $ 3,125
$ - $ (5,573)
$ - $ (4,624)
$ -
IICPLaIt -E Wetland, Mitigation
II.P -It1-D,, Ip tL,,d NrA-ff
h4igeto,.,osts ILPil IdateB31^_4108 $ 581
-
- $ 581
S -
- $ 581
S -
- $ 581
S -
- $ 581
3 -
- $ 471
S 317
140 $ 15
S 1.763
S 386 $ -
3 7.6^_9
S 3914 $ -
3 1.6^_9
S 3984 $ -
S 1.6_9
S 3£01 $ -
3 78^_9
S 3.934 $ -
3 1.6"_9
S 3984 $ -
3 1.6_°9
S 3.901 $ 474
3 336
S -I- $ 29
S 396
S 845 $ -
3 -
S - $
3 -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
- $ -
3 -
- $ -
3 -
- $ -
3 -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
-
Bon,erta, Deg-relopinent and Lnd V it-ff
Bonnert,nRecedingF,-Iliteaff

Miig,,ti- -t, B,,,,, Jpd,te 3'4108
S33Deve1apmentWiiteoff
S33 R-di,g Face I I,Aeoff
14ig[,Cori, S )dt 031^_4/08
Plentlmpim-rement, Met all Gom

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

S
-
S -
-
$
-
$ 1.001

S
-
S 4.111
-
$ -
-
$ - S 1.368

S
-
S 5;51
-
$ -
-
$ - S 1 368
-

S 3751
-
$
-
$ - S 1368
-

S 3151
-
$ -
-
$ - S 1368
-

5.;31
-
$ -
-
$ - S 1368
-

S 5.751
-
$ -
-
$ - S 1.368
-

S 5.;51
-
$ -
-
$ - S 894
-

3.;61
1411
$
246
$ 7 S -
-

S -
S 4.078
$ -
S ;]1
$ 19 -
-

-
S 4,078
$ -
S -11
$ 19
Tote)Operating Gom $ 99,621 $ 98,686 $ 102,462 $ 109,801 $ 104,139 $ 106,323 $ 114,472 $ 110,525 $ 107,637 $ 110,751 $ 118,508 $ 103,640 $ 106,613 $ 111,137 $ 111,425 $ 105,704 $ 106,398 $ 116,088 $ 131,229 $ 123,545 $ 117,135 $ 118,589 $ 115,654 $ 114,021
Total Ope,arlng Cosopumpxi ore ton
otal 0ne,- C0sUmn!erh,are inn $ 8.59
$ 19.92 $ 8.38
$ 19.94 $ 8.69
$ 20.49 $ 9.26
$ 21.96 $ 8.92
$ 20.83 $ 8.93
$ 21.26 $ 945
$ 22.89 $ 9.10
$ 22.11 $ 8.94
$ 21.53 $ 9.11
$ 22.15 $ 9.66
$ 23.70 $ 8.78
$ 29.73 $ 9.05
$ 21.32 $ 9.06
$ 22.23 $ 8.88
$ 22.28 $ 8.63
$ 21.14 $ 8.92
$ 21.88 $ 8.97
$ 23.22 $ 9.37
$ 28.25 $ 9.36
$ 24.71 $ 9.42
$ 23.43 $ 9.35
$ 23.72 $ 8.97
$ 23.13 $ 8.69
$ 22.80

r1itigetio, Costs -IICPC ?SDEIS $ $ $ $ $ $ 427 $ 2,196 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 414 $ 487 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
hitigaton Costs -Bonn SDEISI $ $ 2,253 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 2,008 $ $
t1itigetio, Costs-S33 ?SDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 117 $ 338 $ 338

hlige[o, .,o,t, II P, )date i3/^_4108 S -
S a S v a
- - 740 S
- -
3.B 6 S
3904 S
1964 S
39]4 S
:3.901 S
3K4 S
3.9]4 S
111 S
&15 S
- S
-
-
- S
-
-
-
- -
64ige[o,.,o,ts-Bon, pd,te 3'4108 S - S - S - S - S - S - S - S - S - - - - - - S 41 S ..;?I S 5751 S ,.-51 5.-51 S 5-51 S ,,.151 3;61 S - -
h4ig,[o,.,osts 33 Nate c3l^4108 246 S 311 S 711

I C.At t- E:, S 19.92 S
o,. 011 Cca'.o e'ea. 03,/P? IS 199_ S 19.911 S 2049 S 21.96 1 S 20.83 S 21.20 S
1; .:4 c 1049 S _196 S ^c.83 S 21^_6 S 22.57 1 S
°2.89 S 21.77 S
11 S 21.20 S
21.5-,3 S 21.82 S
^_^_.15 S 23.37 S
a.-_ S 2040 1 S
_.-a S 20.99 S
^_131 S 21.H S
11 a S 21.82 1 S
=18 S 20.60 S
21.14 S 21.34 S
2188 S 22.68 S
_111 S 25.71 S
6_? S 24.17 1 S
'_4.71 S 22.811 S
^_343 S 23.34 1 S
_a.-_ S 23.06 1 S 22 3737
_313 S ^_80
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
L cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
ALT L - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMARI
March 2008
DESCRIPTIOPI
Production Statistics Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Year 31 Year 32 Year 33 Year 34 Year 35 Year 36 Year 37 TtAAVg.
EH t e St,ippi ILI '1 10111, 39,805 40,470 39,005 35,880 37,807 41,831 48,295 44,754 48,554 49,889 59,421 56,190 54,253 54,989 54,781 56,694 54,021 55,642 54,084 32,510 I. _ -
Total h4ined - 207 202 202 191 188 256 267 245 248 219 264 267 278 302 286 275 254 254 258 230 9.83
Pumped Ore,,. 1000 tong 12,751 12,740 12,739 12,559 12,861 16,559 15,908 14,933 14,653 14,258 16,001 15,781 15,864 16,360 15,107 14,375 13,980 14,364 13,880 11,205 581150
Total Concentrate 1000 tons 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 3,846 ?18.816
Lhange in Pie,dip lm rent- ?--, 37 -11 0 -3 37 -65 -88 -57 -67 88 1 -7 23 -49 -7 -23 8 -24 19 -253 -315
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Production C-t isnnni 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Operating Labor $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,218 $ 5,471 S 432 .3-2
rbinte,,,- Labor $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,304 $ 2,611 S 1-6.9.6
Operating Supplies $ 9,828 $ 10,170 $ 10,172 $ 9,649 $ 10,346 $ 11,242 $ 12,290 $ 11,769 $ 11,843 $ 11,717 $ 13,579 $ 12,293 $ 12,152 $ 12,023 $ 11,693 $ 12,270 $ 12,224 $ 13,025 $ 12,259 $ 7,547 S 419.318
Flocculent $ 717 $ 721 $ 712 $ 714 $ 740 $ 883 $ 905 $ 914 $ 877 $ 951 $ 1,027 $ 912 $ 993 $ 1,067 $ 937 $ 898 $ 810 $ 824 $ 763 $ 678 S 33.^_00
Reagent,/F-I Lime $ 6,694 $ 6,651 $ 6,638 $ 6,545 $ 6,607 $ 8,109 $ 8,228 $ 7,574 $ 7,415 $ 6,931 $ 7,803 $ 7,995 $ 7,867 $ 8,146 $ 7,712 $ 7,245 $ 7,176 $ 7,313 $ 7,204 $ 5,710 S 99 _
SLAiric acid $ 606 $ 978 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 978 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 978 $ 606 $ 466 S -
rbintenanLeSLpplies $ 16,153 $ 16,438 $ 16,300 $ 15,787 $ 16,531 $ 18,456 $ 19,430 $ 18,562 $ 18,683 $ 18,995 $ 21,382 $ 20,889 $ 20,811 $ 21,076 $ 20,359 $ 20,235 $ 19,958 $ 20,676 $ 20,142 $ 13,571 S -3,.110
El-U, Pmrer
Londact Maintenance
Gont,-t Operations
Other E=pen,e $ 13,686
$ 2,553
$ 12,873
$ 840 $ 14,407
$ 2,580
$ 12,819
$ 841 $ 14,917
$ 6,519
$ 14,732
$ 831 $ 14,670
$ 2,376
$ 13,533
$ 809 $ 16,002
$ 2,551
$ 13,179
$ 816 $ 19,093
$ 2,833
$ 13,355
$ 920 $ 19,884
$ 7,083
$ 13,468
$ 976 $ 19,110
$ 2,890
$ 13,247
$ 893 $ 18,933
$ 2,974
$ 13,279
$ 919 $ 19,460
$ 2,699
$ 15,372
$ 1,225 $ 22,298
$ 7,204
$ 14,452
$ 1,342 $ 22,427
$ 3,067
$ 14,475
$ 1,338 $ 22,587
$ 3,017
$ 14,267
$ 1,334 $ 23,045
$ 3,100
$ 14,833
$ 1,327 $ 21,807
$ 6,990
$ 14,348
$ 1,299 $ 21,196
$ 3,031
$ 13,740
$ 1,284 $ 20,710
$ 2,962
$ 14,347
$ 1,270 $ 21,893
$ 3,050
$ 14,029
$ 1,318 $ 21,947
$ 6,951
$ 13,502
$ 1,277 $ 16,864
$ 1,968
$ 10,228
$ 723 S 656.035
S 156.^06
S 580.848
S 42 .3-9
PI-t-1l-?tedGaa
Total Di-t -1, L-t, $ .
$ 77,626 $ -
$ 78,909 $ -
$ 85,104 $ -
$ 78,366 $ -
$ 80,054 $ .
$ 89,174 $ -
$ 97,175 $ -
$ 89,869 $ .
$ 89,834 $ -
$ 94,003 $ -
$ 105,741 $ -
$ 99,451 $ -
$ 99,083 $ .
$ 100,674 $ -
$ 101,203 $ -
$ 98,553 $ .
$ 96,113 $ -
$ 98,782 $ -
$ 100,172 $ -
$ 65,838 -
S 5---
a,?;ie;:CashGort/pumlrea ore ton
a,?ve", Cac;; Coc::torcer,:r?;e;or, $ 6.09
$ 15.53 $ 6.19
$ 15.78 $ 6.68
$ 17.02 $ 6.24
$ 15.67 $ 6.22
$ 16.01 $ 5.73
$ 17.83 $ 6.11
$ 1943 $ 6.02
$ 17.97 $ 6.13
$ 17.97 $ 6.59
$ 18.80 $ 6.61
$ 21.15 $ 6.30
$ 19.89 $ 6.25
$ 19.82 $ 6.15
$ 20.13 $ 6.70
$ 20.24 $ 6.72
$ 19.31 $ 6.88
$ 19.22 $ 6.88
$ 19.76 $ 7.22
$ 20.03 $ 5.88
$ 17.12 S 6.1=
S 16_-
allocated 0-rerhead $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 18,606 $ 11,440 S 855.0'_5
Total Gash Casts
o;a?Casfi Cam/pumpeti or $ 97,155
$ 7.62 $ 98,438
$ 7.73 $ 104,632
$ 8.21 $ 97,895
$ 7.79 $ 99,583
$ 7.74 $ 108,703
$ 6.99 $ 116,968
$ 7.35 $ 109,662
$ 7.34 $ 106,627
$ 7.48 $ 114,529
$ 8.03 $ 126,267
$ 7.89 $ 119,726
$ 7.59 $ 119,358
$ 7.52 $ 120,949
$ 7.39 $ 121,477
$ 8.04 $ 117,079
$ 8.14 $ 116,638
$ 8.34 $ 119,307
$ 8.31 $ 118,782
$ 8.56 $ 77,278
$ 6.90 S 4.415A34
S 59
Total Cash Cwt/mniertrare ton $ 19.43 $ 19.69 $ 20.93 $ 19.58 $ 19.92 $ 21.74 $ 23.39 $ 21.93 $ 21.93 $ 22.91 $ 26.25 $ 23.95 $ 23.87 $ 24.19 $ 24.30 $ 23.42 $ 23.33 $ 23.86 $ 23.76 $ 20.09 S 1-
Depreciation
Depletion $ 13,841
$ 714 $ 13,984
$ 713 $ 14,036
$ 714 $ 13,662
$ 704 $ 13,984
$ 715 $ 16,710
$ 713 $ 17,368
$ 715 $ 18,469
$ 718 $ 16,380
$ 717 $ 16,254
$ 730 $ 18,158
$ 769 $ 17,998
$ 710 $ 17,961
$ 727 $ 18,334
$ 692 $ 17,592
$ 685 $ 17,193
$ 703 $ 16,756
$ 703 $ 17,243
$ 697 $ 16,881
$ 691 $ 12,314
$ 543 S 636.-86
S 3^.681
Change in Pie,dip lm rent"
IICPC -It -E Desselapment 1 1ritea0 $ (3,056)
$ $ 926
$ - $ (36)
$ - $ 209
$ - $ (3,115)
$ - $ 5,435
$ $ 7,339
$ - $ 4,787
$ - $ 5,594
$ $ (7,354)
$ - $ (123)
$ - $ 545
$ - $ (1,903)
$ - $ 4,085
$ $ 618
$ - $ 1,928
$ - $ (629)
$ $ 2,009
$ - $ (1,563)
$ - $ 21,103
$ - S ^6.318
1833
IICPL -It -E Wetland, (,9itigatian
II.P It-1A De Ip tL?,d Nrit-ff
04ig t -o,t, II P'. pdate 03t., A8 $
-
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
- $
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
- $
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
- $
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
3 -
- $
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- $ -
S -
- 3.893
13.835
Bonnertan De-relopinenf and Lnd V it-ff
Bonnertan Receding Faye I liteaff
tlitigationCo,fs - Bonn Update W'4108
33D-I,pneLt Vrit-ff
S33 Reding Face l1,iit-ff
IIiga[o-.,o,f, S3a I.dafe 31^_1!09
Plantlnpim-rement, rlet all Gom -
-
-
4.0-8

-11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4. A-8
$ 149
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
5 3C-8
$ 661
-11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 10-8
$ 761
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 769
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
5 40-8
$ 807
-11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.!-8
$ 910
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 1.167
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 1.767
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 1.767
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
5 10-8
$ 1.923
-11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 10-8
$ 2192
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 2192
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
5 40-8
$ 2192
-11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.!-8
$ 2192
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.C-8
$ 2709
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 2709
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
S 4.0-8
$ 2709
S -11
$ 19 -
-
-
5 10-8
$ 2709
-11
$ 19 -
-
-
s 3.13-
$ 2094
S 51-
$ 15 10.1 W
-
4488
S 9A 95
S 3
S 15-14
S 113
Total Operating Gom $ 113,463 $ 119,017 $ 124,804 $ 118,029 $ 116,736 $ 137,177 $ 148,108 $ 137,601 $ 138,883 $ 130,724 $ 151,702 $ 145,979 $ 143,142 $ 151,059 $ 147,372 $ 144,420 $ 140,985 $ 146,773 $ 142,308 $ 117,019 $ 5383.404
Total 0"'tng I--"'mpxi ore ton
iota!0pe-,- C0sUmn!eM-are inn $ 8.90
$ 22.69 $ 9.34
$ 23.80 $ 9.80
$ 24.96 $ 940
$ 23.61 $ 9.08
$ 23.35 $ 8.82
$ 27.44 $ 9.31
$ 29.62 $ 9.21
$ 27.52 $ 848
$ 27.78 $ 9.17
$ 26.44 $ 9.48
$ 30.34 $ 9.25
$ 29.20 $ 9.02
$ 28.63 $ 9.23
$ 30.21 $ 9.76
$ 29.47 $ 10.05
$ 28.88 $ 10.08
$ 28.20 $ 10.22
$ 29.35 $ 10.25
$ 28.46 $ 1044
$ 30.43 $ 9.28
S 24.60

rlitigation Costs -IICPC ?SDEIS $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $
rlitigadoncon,-BoLn?.SDEIS:, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ^.6e^
t1itiga0on ,t, S33 ?SDEISI $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 280 S -464

01 ig t -t, II P:, i t to 03/^_4108 S - - - S - - - - - S - - - S - - - - - S - - - S -
9 c3^_
04tg t o,t,-8 pd fe A3 '4M8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4^_488
IIiga[o-.,-t, !.i Idafe !3:"_4.'39 - II S -II - II S -11 S - II -11 S - II S -11 S - II S -II - II S -11 S - II -11 S - II S -11 S - II S -II - II S :i1- ` 15.-14

T tat Op CwUconcentraLe ton-SOEfS
ol oo Cairo e r-e o.-031_/08 S
S 22621 5
11 -$ 5 2373 S
380 S 24.89 S
14.3 5 23.53 I S
13 6 1 S 23.27 S
1_335 S 27.36 S
2-14 5 29.55 I S
_.6^ S 27.45 S
_-.,_ S 27.70 S
8 S 26.07 S
11314 S 30.27 S
3]34 S 29.121 S
_? S 28.55 S
^_863 S 30.14 S 29.40 I S
3!^_1 S 94- S 28.81 S
1888 S 28.121 5
18^_ S 29.28 I S
^9 35 S 28.39 S
'846 S 30.35 I S
311 S 24.41
-4.60
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
L cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
ALT M - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioe Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 34,948 35,094 35,441 37,525 36,331 35,390 35,878 37,436 42,201 45,793 43,009 43,735 39,280 39,117 38,643 37,392 36,344 38,786 37,363 37,563
Total Mined Area(acresl 183 181 171 178 176 176 179 176 192 189 197 192 171 179 181 176 177 195 228 220
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,789 11,857 11,642 11,775 12,122 11,585 11,992 12,182 12,133 12,431 11,975 12,111 12,121 11,958 11,540 12,057 12,654 12,195
Total Concentrate i 11000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi,, lanes, 6 7 -1 -31 -7 0 -13 -30 21 47 -30 -38 -22 -4 7 16 -34 20 22 81
Production Costs (S-nnn
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 10,658 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 9,010 $ 8,962 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,962 $ 8,962 $ 9,456 $ 9,925
r1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,024 $ 4,163 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 3,714 $ 4,052 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,052 $ 4,052 $ 3,816 $ 3,945
Operating Supplies $ 7,528 $ 7,539 $ 7,273 $ 7,424 $ 7,472 $ 6,648 $ 6,629 $ 8,160 $ 6,691 $ 7,474 $ 8,178 $ 6,894 $ 6,722 $ 8,139 $ 6,391 $ 6,682 $ 7,557 $ 8,241 $ 7,776 $ 8,563
Flocculent $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 612 $ 652 $ 644 $ 663 $ 676 $ 732 $ 767 $ 800 $ 664 $ 693 $ 588 $ 563 $ 573 $ 547 $ 728 $ 714
Reagents/FuelTime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,088 $ 6,101 $ 6,252 $ 5,916 $ 6,001 $ 6,049 $ 5,980 $ 6,115 $ 6,127 $ 6,160 $ 6,391 $ 6,360 $ 6,111 $ 6,518 $ 6,581 $ 6,331
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 13,993 $ 14,183 $ 13,851 $ 14,007 $ 13,786 $ 14,186 $ 14,430 $ 14,057 $ 14,585 $ 15,299 $ 14,664 $ 15,484 $ 14,742 $ 14,648 $ 14,252 $ 14,763 $ 14,606 $ 14,897 $ 15,084 $ 15,316
Electric Po,,er $ 10,677 $ 10,404 $ 9,445 $ 9,256 $ 8,970 $ 9,819 $ 9,890 $ 9,235 $ 9,682 $ 10,058 $ 9,367 $ 10,116 $ 9,854 $ 9,349 $ 9,789 $ 11,065 $ 10,066 $ 10,772 $ 11,575 $ 11,793
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,385 $ 2,315 $ 2,008 $ 6,068 $ 2,322 $ 2,161 $ 2,339 $ 6,437 $ 2,329 $ 2,187 $ 2,508 $ 6,101 $ 2,119 $ 2,453 $ 2,528 $ 6,195 $ 2,251
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 10,991 $ 11,185 $ 13,875 $ 10,993 $ 13,220 $ 12,882 $ 13,589 $ 16,181 $ 11,133 $ 13,728 $ 11,732 $ 12,232 $ 13,791 $ 12,559 $ 11,705 $ 12,126
Other Ex Dense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 907 $ 916 $ 616 $ 986 $ 1,014 $ 730 $ 1,024 $ 942 $ 630 $ 964 $ 956 $ 605 $ 630 $ 969 $ 947
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 65,628 $ 65,661 $ 67,964 $ 64,257 $ 63,585 $ 64,837 $ 72,031 $ 64,696 $ 68,219 $ 71,274 $ 73,995 $ 73,822 $ 65,700 $ 69,474 $ 69,538 $ 68,068 $ 69,382 $ 70,311 $ 74,492 $ 72,516
T- a. iced C a r aror4 J $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.42 $ 5.46 $ 5.51 $ 5.94 $ 5.58 $ 5.69 $ 5.85 $ 6.10 $ 5.94 $ 5.49 $ 5.74 $ 5.74 $ 5.69 $ 6.01 $ 4.89 $ 5.89 $ 5.95
T -al i?Petra C-ot ae- n $ 13.13 $ 13.13 $ 13.59 $ 12.85 $ 12.72 $ 12.97 $ 14.41 $ 12.94 $ 13.64 $ 14.25 $ 14.80 $ 14.76 $ 13.14 $ 13.89 $ 13.91 $ 13.61 $ 13.88 $ 11.80 $ 14.90 $ 14.50
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,502 $ 20,010 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 19,129 $ 19,251 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,251 $ 19,251 $ 19,360 $ 19,611
Total Cash Costs $ 84,507 $ 84,540 $ 86,842 $ 83,136 $ 82,464 $ 83,966 $ 91,160 $ 83,574 $ 87,721 $ 91,284 $ 93,524 $ 93,602 $ 84,829 $ 88,725 $ 88,667 $ 87,198 $ 88,633 $ 89,563 $ 93,851 $ 92,127
T a! Cash C-st 9 o,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.01 $ 7.08 $ 7.13 $ 7.52 $ 7.21 $ 7.31 $ 7.49 $ 7.71 $ 7.53 $ 7.08 $ 7.33 $ 7.31 $ 7.29 $ 7.68 $ 6.09 $ 7.42 $ 7.55
T -'a! Cash C ntrate too $ 16.90 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.63 $ 16.49 $ 16.79 $ 18.23 $ 16.71 $ 17.54 $ 18.26 $ 18.70 $ 18.72 $ 16.97 $ 17.75 $ 17.73 $ 17.44 $ 17.73 $ 14.70 $ 18.77 $ 18.43
Depreciation $ 12,433 $ 12,522 $ 12,326 $ 12,364 $ 12,122 $ 12,078 $ 12,283 $ 12,060 $ 12,395 $ 12,763 $ 12,319 $ 12,558 $ 12,292 $ 12,421 $ 12,582 $ 12,694 $ 12,154 $ 12,940 $ 13,335 $ 13,217
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 791 $ 800 $ 765 $ 777 $ 796 $ 802 $ 797 $ 783 $ 802 $ 838 $ 829 $ 799 $ 819 $ 748 $ 730
Changein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 68 $ 2,554 $ 551 $ (22) $ 1,077 $ 2,505 $ (1,772) $ (3,947) $ 2,520 $ 3,171 $ 1,876 $ 318 $ (599) $ (1,328) $ 2,855 $ (1,634) $ (1,814) $ (6,758)
NC PC AIt E Development Writeoff $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 9,308 $ 9,308 $ 7,858 $ 665 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 262 $ 1,275 $ 138 $ -
NCPCAItEWetlandshlitidation $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 480 $ 41 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 83 $ 405 $ 44 $ -
H( PC AI61F DevelopmenVLand Nriteoff - g - g - ? - g - R 19, 1? 1.144 g i22o R 123 g 1232 g 122 ? 123 g 123 R 123 ? 123 g 122 R 1.05 g 35F g - ? -
Llitigation Costs W-F - UpdateC^_4/02 - - - - - _? ?cI -
Bonnerton Development and Land Nriteoff
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
ClitigationCosts - Bonn Update C '4/02
Development Nriteoff
Receding Face Writeoff
r,iitigationCosts- S"' Update 410'
Plantlmpro?ementsPletAllCosts

a

-

-

-

-

-

$

$ -
-

-
-
-
-

$

$
-

-
-
-
-

$

$ 1.368
-
_.7g1
-
-
-
-
Total OperatingCosts $ 99,569 $ 99,633 $ 102,409 $ 108,720 $ 105,788 $ 105,931 $ 110,682 $ 103,920 $ 104,136 $ 105,911 $ 114,180 $ 115,144 $ 104,795 $ 107,281 $ 106,503 $ 104,407 $ 109,067 $ 104,810 $ 112,872 $ 106,434
r a (Dne,at ) rpe I e $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.17 $ 9.09 $ 9.00 $ 9.13 $ 8.97 $ 8.68 $ 8.69 $ 9.41 $ 9.26 $ 8.75 $ 8.86 $ 8.79 $ 8.73 $ 9.45 $ 8.69 $ 8.92 $ 8.73
Total Ope,atmo Cost/coneennate ton $ 19.91 $ 19.93 $ 20.48 $ 21.74 $ 21.16 $ 21.19 $ 22.14 $ 20.78 $ 20.83 $ 21.18 $ 22.84 $ 23.03 $ 20.96 $ 21.46 $ 21.30 $ 20.88 $ 21.81 $ 20.96 $ 22.57 $ 21.29

11itiiation Costs - W- F(- ISDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ 298 $ 1,779 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,915 $ 1,636 $ 551 $ $
Nlitidation Costs - Bonn ISDEIS) $ $ 2,833 $ 3,070
Miticiation Costs - SSiISDEISI $ $ $
I litigation Costs MTPC Update? 4;02 1.A", S - -
Iliti;lationCosts - Fenn Update C 24/02 - - S - - S - - - S - - S - S - - S - - - - - °51
alitigation Costs _ 2Update "4r02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TT a; O, Co. aye tr,,, TEIS $ 19.91 $ 19.93 $ 20.46 $ 21.74 $ 21.16 $ 21.13 $ 21.79 $ 20.41 $ 20.45 $ 20.81 $ 22.46 $ 22.66 $ 20.59 $ 21.06 $ 20.93 $ 20.51 $ 21.49 $ 20.93 $ 22.06 $ 20.75
,.,taCp Cs.,?a., a,_., v.r/06 19.91 S Ia J3 S 045 '174 S 1.16 ^_1 1J S 14 S - 7"? °_1.12 ' '.'A -0 116 14e I CO ? ^_13,1 CS8 ? - 'I^_9
-0 22 i PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
M cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
ALT M - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year32 Year33
Effectioe Stripping Volume 11000 bcvl 39,800 43,320 48,849 46,067 35,123 38,502 38,988 40,865 39,499 40,231 38,772 36,138 37,263 44,236 47,098 45,274 47,680 50,750 60,513 55,115
Total `lined Area(acresl 228 264 297 285 271 234 217 218 205 203 200 190 196 265 259 247 243 223 270 264
Pumped Ore 11000 tons 12,354 13,180 13,906 13,115 12,329 12,813 12,886 13,104 12,683 12,783 12,692 12,562 13,184 15,971 15,624 14,897 14,577 14,484 16,187 15,531
Total Concentrate 711000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi,, lanes, 58 33 7 -42 -53 -28 64 51 36 -19 0 10 5 -58 -86 -62 -67 79 -3 1
Production Costs (S000r
Operating Labor $ 9,925 $ 9,925 $ 10,502 $ 10,502 $ 8,385 $ 9,921 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191
Maintenance Labor $ 3,945 $ 3,945 $ 4,256 $ 4,256 $ 3,741 $ 4,044 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260
Operating Supplies $ 9,125 $ 10,256 $ 10,979 $ 9,107 $ 8,970 $ 8,097 $ 9,768 $ 10,033 $ 9,783 $ 10,103 $ 10,156 $ 9,757 $ 10,193 $ 11,743 $ 12,031 $ 11,757 $ 11,712 $ 11,837 $ 13,735 $ 12,186
Flocculent $ 675 $ 768 $ 864 $ 747 $ 700 $ 698 $ 687 $ 711 $ 719 $ 720 $ 711 $ 713 $ 759 $ 915 $ 884 $ 914 $ 883 $ 987 $ 1,002 $ 906
Reagents/FuelTime $ 6,471 $ 6,825 $ 6,941 $ 6,800 $ 6,366 $ 6,764 $ 6,911 $ 6,966 $ 6,642 $ 6,672 $ 6,612 $ 6,546 $ 6,783 $ 8,285 $ 8,106 $ 7,537 $ 7,339 $ 6,971 $ 7,988 $ 7,865
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 15,772 $ 17,039 $ 17,628 $ 16,548 $ 14,813 $ 15,998 $ 16,192 $ 16,486 $ 16,115 $ 16,392 $ 16,354 $ 15,962 $ 16,602 $ 19,014 $ 19,091 $ 18,604 $ 18,552 $ 19,363 $ 21,620 $ 20,757
Electric Po,,er $ 12,718 $ 14,758 $ 14,789 $ 13,684 $ 11,978 $ 13,671 $ 13,885 $ 14,142 $ 13,597 $ 14,426 $ 14,863 $ 14,688 $ 15,276 $ 19,612 $ 19,544 $ 19,061 $ 18,775 $ 19,684 $ 22,640 $ 22,116
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,332 $ 2,538 $ 6,706 $ 2,583 $ 2,367 $ 2,245 $ 6,544 $ 2,628 $ 2,535 $ 2,567 $ 6,525 $ 2,410 $ 2,524 $ 2,964 $ 7,003 $ 2,910 $ 2,931 $ 2,781 $ 7,264 $ 3,037
Contract Operations $ 12,198 $ 12,067 $ 13,767 $ 13,646 $ 11,939 $ 13,242 $ 12,965 $ 12,977 $ 12,850 $ 12,828 $ 14,709 $ 13,519 $ 13,264 $ 13,452 $ 13,386 $ 13,266 $ 13,234 $ 15,408 $ 14,513 $ 14,450
Other Ex Dense $ 968 $ 1,024 $ 1,052 $ 953 $ 651 $ 1,059 $ 861 $ 867 $ 836 $ 840 $ 829 $ 809 $ 820 $ 947 $ 959 $ 892 $ 911 $ 1,240 $ 1,355 $ 1,332
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 74,736 $ 79,750 $ 88,090 $ 79,430 $ 70,516 $ 76,345 $ 82,095 $ 79,092 $ 77,358 $ 78,830 $ 85,041 $ 78,686 $ 80,503 $ 91,214 $ 95,916 $ 89,852 $ 89,246 $ 94,925 $ 106,771 $ 98,707
Tr a. iced r a r aror4 J e $ 6.05 $ 6.05 $ 6.33 $ 6.06 $ 4.84 $ 5.96 $ 6.37 $ 6.04 $ 6.10 $ 6.17 $ 6.70 $ 6.26 $ 6.11 $ 5.71 $ 6.14 $ 6.03 $ 6.12 $ 6.55 $ 6.60 $ 6.36
T -al i?ectra C-ot se_tmr $ 14.95 $ 15.95 $ 17.62 $ 15.89 $ 11.95 $ 15.27 $ 16.42 $ 15.82 $ 15.47 $ 15.77 $ 17.01 $ 15.74 $ 16.10 $ 18.24 $ 19.18 $ 17.97 $ 17.85 $ 18.98 $ 21.35 $ 19.74
Allocated Overhead $ 19,611 $ 19,611 $ 19,984 $ 19,984 $ 18,878 $ 19,651 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275
Total Cash Costs $ 94,346 $ 99,361 $ 108,073 $ 99,414 $ 89,394 $ 95,996 $ 101,624 $ 98,621 $ 96,887 $ 98,359 $ 104,570 $ 98,215 $ 100,032 $ 110,743 $ 115,709 $ 109,646 $ 109,040 $ 115,451 $ 127,297 $ 118,981
r a! Cash C-st 9 ote ton $ 7.64 $ 7.54 $ 7.77 $ 7.58 $ 5.99 $ 7.49 $ 7.89 $ 7.53 $ 7.64 $ 7.69 $ 8.24 $ 7.82 $ 7.59 $ 6.93 $ 7.41 $ 7.36 $ 7.48 $ 7.97 $ 7.86 $ 7.66
r a; Cash C ntrate too $ 18.87 $ 19.87 $ 21.61 $ 19.88 $ 14.77 $ 19.20 $ 20.32 $ 19.72 $ 19.38 $ 19.67 $ 20.91 $ 19.64 $ 20.01 $ 22.15 $ 23.14 $ 21.93 $ 21.81 $ 23.09 $ 25.46 $ 23.80
Depreciation $ 13,661 $ 14,720 $ 15,286 $ 14,510 $ 13,104 $ 13,704 $ 14,047 $ 14,266 $ 13,752 $ 13,986 $ 13,978 $ 13,685 $ 14,151 $ 17,187 $ 17,083 $ 16,429 $ 16,226 $ 16,366 $ 18,445 $ 17,760
Depletion $ 740 $ 732 $ 771 $ 762 $ 756 $ 742 $ 705 $ 705 $ 716 $ 716 $ 711 $ 704 $ 716 $ 718 $ 716 $ 716 $ 720 $ 735 $ 756 $ 712
Change in Prestrip Inventor/ $ (4,861) $ (2,765) $ (608) $ 3,537 $ 4,416 $ 2,328 $ (5,365) $ (4,291) $ (3,034) $ 1,548 $ (19) $ (870) $ (448) $ 4,804 $ 7,173 $ 5,169 $ 5,570 $ (6,570) $ 251 $ (75)
f`C PC Alt E Development Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
GICPCAltEWetlandsh4itidation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U PC Alt 1 A De,elopmeneLand Nriteoff
-
g
-
g
-
?
-
g
-
R
-
?
-
g
-
R
-
g
-
g
-
?
-
g
-
R
-
?
-
g
-
R
-
g
-
g
-
?
-
rIifigationCosts II_F Update0 4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eionnerton Development and Land Nriteoff
Bonnenon Receding Face Writeoff
flitigationCosts - Honn Update C '4/02
'Development,,Mteoff
a_' Receding Face Writeoff
frlitigation Costs S"' Update 4102
Plant lmpro?ements[let All Costs
Y

$ 1.2:4
-
1
-
-
-
- S
;I
;I

$

$ 1 ;£
-
`-1
-
-
-
- S
b

$

$ 1 62
-
1
-
-
-
- F
Y
£S

$

$ 1 52
-
.7`1
-
-
-
-
„
S

$

$ 1 '63
-
7`11
-
-
-
- S
b

$

$ ,1,p;
-
__-
^.12
-
_?
10 ?
;I

$

$ -
-
-
4072
-
-111
19 S
5

S
$
S
$ -
-
-
4° S
-
711
19 S

$

5
$ -
-
-
4A 2
-
711
19 ?
;,

$
S
$ -
-
-
4072
150
711
19 S

3
$
S
$ -
-
-
4072
658
711
19 F

8

S
$ -
-
-
4.A 2
759
-111
19 ?
;.

$
S
$ -
-
-
42 2
768
711
19
;..

S
$

$ -
-
-
4A 2
816
711
19

8

S
$ -
-
-
4.c72
920
-111
19

$

S
$ -
-
-
4072
1.171
711
19

S

$

$ -
-
-
4C 2
1.781
711
19

$

S
$ -
-
-
4A 2
1.781
711
19

S

$
S
$ -
-
-
4° 2
1.848
711
19

8

S
$ -
-
-
4.078
2.225
-111
19
Total Operating Costs $ 111,005 $ 119,166 $ 130,640 $ 125,340 $ 114,789 $ 118,653 $ 115,819 $ 114,109 $ 113,128 $ 119,567 $ 124,705 $ 117,302 $ 120,025 $ 139,076 $ 146,411 $ 137,939 $ 138,145 $ 132,569 $ 153,406 $ 144,411
Tani! ?getat ) rpe I e $ 8.99 $ 9.04 $ 9.39 $ 9.56 $ 9.31 $ 9.26 $ 8.99 $ 8.71 $ 8.92 $ 9.35 $ 9.83 $ 9.34 $ 9.10 $ 8.71 $ 9.37 $ 9.26 $ 9.48 $ 9.15 $ 9.48 $ 9.30
Total Operating Coct,concentiate ton $ 22.20 $ 23.83 $ 26.13 $ 25.07 $ 22.96 $ 23.73 $ 23.16 $ 22.82 $ 22.63 $ 23.91 $ 24.94 $ 23.46 $ 24.01 $ 27.82 $ 29.28 $ 27.59 $ 27.63 $ 26.51 $ 30.68 $ 28.88

I lineation Costs - W- F(- ISDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
`litigation C( sts - Honn ISDEIS) $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 3,070 $ 1,428 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Miticiation Costs-S22ISDEISI $ $ $ $ $ $ 181 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338
I litigation Costs [CPC Update? 4,02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Iliti;lationCosts - Fenn Update C 24/02 §,741 S §1 S 1 E 7`1 S - c1 ^_.r E - S - - S - S - - - - - - - - - -
flitidation Costs _J2 Update - - - - 711 -11 S. 711 S 711 711 S. 711 S 711 8 711 S. 711 ;11 8 711 S 711 -11 S. 711
r a; 4p Co. aye tc„ TEIS $ 21.66 $ 23.30 $ 25.59 $ 24.53 $ 22.68 $ 23.44 $ 23.09 $ 22.75 $ 22.55 $ 23.84 $ 24.87 $ 23.39 $ 23.93 $ 27.74 $ 29.21 $ 27.51 $ 27.55 $ 26.44 $ 30.67 $ 28.81
r.,taC,C-cta,c,..a,_ ,21),3 '--0 0 I' x.07 x"'96 - ^_x.16 ? 391 -4.94 "46 '40'I -9 _i - - C5l ? -10 61 ?? 12
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
M cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
ALT M - TOTAL - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year34 Year35 Year36 Year37 Year38 Year39 Year40 Year 41 Total/Avg.
Effectiae Stilling volume l1 00 bcdl 54,260 55,182 54,020 57,127 53,531 55,724 55,287 24,772 ?
Total Mined Area(acresl 282 305 280 276 250 255 264 176 10`54
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 16,059 16,208 14,833 14,347 14,066 14,283 13,917 8,540 626.7^2
Total Concentrate 71000 tonsi 5,000 4,950 5,050 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,902 - -
Change in Prestrip Inventoip lanes, 14 -51 -1 -24 12 -25 13 -199 ti,17

Production Costs (S000r
Operating Labor $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,218 $ 4,126 S 466 ^56
hla intena nce Labor $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,304 $ 1,970 S 1'- 1
Operating Supplies $ 12,214 $ 11,974 $ 11,532 $ 12,264 $ 12,214 $ 12,976 $ 12,329 $ 5,767 S 4
Flocculent $ 1,012 $ 1,056 $ 922 $ 874 $ 829 $ 805 $ 773 $ 524 S --_
Reagents/Fuel,Lime $ 7,939 $ 8,117 $ 7,556 $ 7,274 $ 7,175 $ 7,306 $ 7,220 $ 4,333 S 146
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 600 $ 612 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 352 S '4-
1 laintenance Supplies $ 20,885 $ 21,014 $ 20,075 $ 20,255 $ 19,876 $ 20,521 $ 20,114 $ 10,433 S -
Electric Po,,er $ 22,780 $ 22,943 $ 21,427 $ 21,204 $ 20,752 $ 21,831 $ 22,047 $ 13,021 b 691 09,
Contract 6,laintenance $ 3,031 $ 3,098 $ 6,930 $ 3,027 $ 2,918 $ 3,024 $ 6,966 $ 1,518 S 169°3]
Contract Operations $ 14,308 $ 14,856 $ 14,285 $ 13,749 $ 14,305 $ 14,038 $ 13,562 $ 7,743 S x_0 ° 06
Other Ex Dense $ 1,335 $ 1,325 $ 1,284 $ 1,288 $ 1,272 $ 1,321 $ 1,284 $ 548 S 44797
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 99,560 $ 100,433 $ 100,073 $ 96,589 $ 95,996 $ 98,475 $ 100,423 $ 50,335 S 3.514.439
Tr a. uect r a r ??or3 J $ 6.20 $ 6.20 $ 6.75 $ 6.73 $ 6.82 $ 6.89 $ 7.22 $ 5.89 S C, 0,
r a1 i7-ct a r ae_tn $ 19.91 $ 20.29 $ 19.82 $ 19.32 $ 19.20 $ 19.70 $ 20.08 $ 17.34 S 1 o.03
Allocated Overhead $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 18,609 $ 8,628 5
Total Cash Costs $ 119,835 $ 120,708 $ 120,348 $ 117,115 $ 116,521 $ 119,001 $ 119,033 $ 58,963 S 4%43199
r a! Cash C gore ton $ 7.46 $ 7.45 $ 8.11 $ 8.16 $ 8.28 $ 8.33 $ 8.55 $ 6.90 S --
r a; Cash C ntrate too $ 23.97 $ 24.38 $ 23.83 $ 23.42 $ 23.30 $ 23.80 $ 23.81 $ 20.32 S '19.94
Depreciation $ 18,087 $ 18,256 $ 17,330 $ 17,215 $ 16,777 $ 17,220 $ 16,986 $ 9,348 S x82.44
Depletion $ 729 $ 678 $ 699 $ 701 $ 707 $ 693 $ 693 $ 410 S - 6 9'
Change in Piestup In entorl $ (1,135) $ 4,277 $ 88 $ 1,999 $ (982) $ 2,085 $ (1,065) $ 16,629 S
fL,PCAltEDe elopmentl,diteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - x133
UCPCAlt E etlands[litigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U F(-'Alt 1ADevelopmenttLand Nriteoff - 8 - 3 - R - 8 - 3 - R - S - 3`-
11itiaationCosts PI 9PC UpdateC ^_4/OS - - - - - - - - 4'.464
Eionnerton Developmentand Land Nriteoff
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
flitigationCosts - Noon Update c '4/OS
Development Nriteoff
S'd Receding Face dVriteoff
[litigation Costs S"' Update 4105
Plant mprovements[let All Costs

$ -
-
-
4C 6
2.225
711
19

$

S
$ -
-
-
4 0 2
2.203
704
19

$

S
$ -
-
-
4 11.1
2.247
%13
19

S

$
5
$ -
-
-
4 A72
2.763
-111
19

$

S
$ -
-
-
4075
2.763
.11
19

S

$

$ -
-
-
40-"
2.763
711
19

-

$
S
$ -
-
-
4 J72
2.763
-111
19

S

$
S
$ -
-
-
_-
1 U4
412
11

S 10.103
-
4 458
_'n I

15714
413
Total Operating Costs $ 144,550 $ 150,883 $ 145,568 $ 144,603 $ 140,595 $ 146,570 $ 143,218 $ 89,745 $ 5,774,128
r a ?nerat ) rpe I e $ 9.00 $ 9.31 $ 9.81 $ 10.08 $ 10.00 $ 10.26 $ 10.29 $ 10.51 $ 9.21
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 28.91 $ 30.48 $ 28.83 $ 28.92 $ 28.12 $ 29.31 $ 28.64 $ 30.92 $ 24.27

[litigation Costs W- F(- ISDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 503
11itication Costs Fenn ISDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ _ x82
[1iticlation Costs ' 21SDEISI $ 338 $ 334 $ 341 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 196 S -.484
[ litigation Costs [d2 PC Update c '4/02 - - - - - - - - 4^_A64
I litigation Costs - Bonn Update C 24/05 - - S - - 8 - - - S - 1 x58
[litigation Costs _d2Update "4/0S 711 C 704 ?IS 711 71'I 711 711 41- 1`714
r a; 4p Co. ae tc„ -EIS $ 28.84 $ 30.40 $ 28.75 $ 28.85 $ 28.04 $ 29.24 $ 28.57 $ 30.85 $ 24.06
r.,ta Cp Cs.,ta., a,_ ., 21/06 3.91 -O4' ? 'S.1 _`J,1 ,264 ? '4.2.
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
M cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE - AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
NO ACTION PLAN - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
February 2006
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year? Year8 Year9
Effective Stri>>ingVOlume(1000bc) 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,476 36,347 32,897 38,533 41,414 39,702 37,756 42,567 44,070 52,237 52,668 55,802 57,074
Total Mined Area (acres) 183 181 171 178 176 181 196 205 194 188 209 247 266 258 266 249
Pumped Ore (1000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,916 12,235 12,826 12,621 12,722 13,623 15,436 16,021 15,430 16,026 15,069
Total Concentrate (1000 tons) 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 5,000
Change in Prestip Inventory (acres) 6 7 -1 -79 21 10 10 6 -4 25 -34 -37 -36 5 -5 14
Production Costs 000
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 9,334 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660
Maintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,807 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389
Operating Supplies $ 7,537 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,485 $ 5,845 $ 5,759 $ 7,168 $ 8,568 $ 8,726 $ 8,656 $ 9,242 $ 9,942 $ 11,547 $ 11,909 $ 12,608 $ 13,199
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 645 $ 612 $ 716 $ 715 $ 726 $ 781 $ 863 $ 974 $ 937 $ 998 $ 971
Reagents lFuel'Lime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,211 $ 6,497 $ 6,737 $ 6,575 $ 6,548 $ 7,096 $ 8,090 $ 8,079 $ 7,755 $ 7,903 $ 7,407
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
MaintenanceSu>>Iles $ 13,996 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 14,024 $ 13,316 $ 13,521 $ 15,124 $ 16,317 $ 16,087 $ 16,174 $ 17,588 $ 18,790 $ 19,982 $ 19,996 $ 20,743 $ 20,756
Electric Power $ 10,685 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,314 $ 8,744 $ 9,265 $ 10,678 $ 12,892 $ 12,862 $ 14,318 $ 17,245 $ 19,554 $ 20,481 $ 20,596 $ 21,451 $ 21,446
Contract Maintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,014 $ 1,982 $ 7,319 $ 2,328 $ 2,246 $ 2,198 $ 6,431 $ 2,626 $ 2,936 $ 2,904 $ 7,046 $ 3,081
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 12,041 $ 11,157 $ 12,808 $ 14,080 $ 12,926 $ 15,403 $ 13,074 $ 13,958 $ 15,077 $ 13,568 $ 13,651 $ 19,566
Other Expense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 747 $ 1,097 $ 1,187 $ 1,136 $ 1,109 $ 1,173 $ 1,223 $ 1,295 $ 1,287 $ 1,327 $ 1,296
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 65,649 $ 65,677 $ 67,952 $ 64,392 $ 62,614 $ 62,617 $ 75,051 $ 77,703 $ 76,151 $ 80,012 $ 87,509 $ 89,925 $ 96,428 $ 95,008 $ 101,784 $ 104,376
Total Direct Cash Cost1p a ped ore ton $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.43 $ 5.37 $ 5.25 $ 6.13 $ 6.06 $ 6.03 $ 6.29 $ 6.42 $ 5.83 $ 6.02 $ 6.16 $ 6.35 $ 6.93
Total Direct Cash Cost/concentrate ton $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.88 $ 12.52 $ 12.52 $ 15.01 $ 15.54 $ 15.23 $ 16.00 $ 17.50 $ 17.99 $ 19.29 $ 19.00 $ 20.36 $ 20.88
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,305 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526
Total Cash Costs $ 84,527 $ 84,555 $ 86,830 $ 83,270 $ 81,743 $ 81,746 $ 94,356 $ 97,483 $ 95,930 $ 99,792 $ 107,289 $ 109,705 $ 116,702 $ 115,283 $ 122,059 $ 124,902
Total Cash Cost/nimpedoie ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.02 $ 7.01 $ 6.86 $ 7.71 $ 7.60 $ 7.60 $ 7.84 $ 7.88 $ 7.11 $ 7.28 $ 7.47 $ 7.62 $ 8.29
Total Cash Cost/concentiate ton $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.65 $ 16.35 $ 16.35 $ 18.87 $ 19.50 $ 19.19 $ 19.96 $ 21.46 $ 21.94 $ 23.34 $ 23.06 $ 24.41 $ 24.98
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,371 $ 11,961 $ 11,842 $ 12,629 $ 13,582 $ 13,338 $ 13,511 $ 15,111 $ 16,824 $ 17,658 $ 17,290 $ 17,817 $ 17,454
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 804 $ 791 $ 707 $ 707 $ 719 $ 709 $ 708 $ 728 $ 728 $ 756 $ 737
Change in Prestip Inventor $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 6,567 $ (1,754) $ (819) $ (831) $ (476) $ 313 $ (2,046) $ 2,879 $ 3,113 $ 3,017 $ (420) $ 434 $ (1,206)
NCPC Alt-E Development Writeoff $ 1,823 $ 1,823 $ 1,823 $ 7,705 $ 7,705 $ 7,705 $ 5,598
NCPCAlt-E Wetlands Mitigation $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 420
NCPC Development Land Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Mitigation Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $
Bonnedon Development and Land Writeoff
Bonnedon Receding Face Writeoff
Mitigation Costs
S33 Development Writeoff $ $ 1,872 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848
S33 Receding Face Writeoff $ $ - $ - $ - $ 325 $ 1,140 $ 1,140 $ 1,140 $ 1,140 $ 1,393 $ 2,069
Mitigation Costs $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant Im iovements Net All Costs $ - $ 5 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 99,635 $ 99,693 $ 102,441 $ 111,283 $ 101,010 $ 101,857 $ 114,842 $ 118,163 $ 117,155 $ 119,168 $ 133,995 $ 138,357 $ 146,111 $ 140,887 $ 149,326 $ 150,824
Total O)elatin Cost1p a ped oie ton $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.39 $ 8.67 $ 8.55 $ 9.39 $ 9.21 $ 9.28 $ 9.37 $ 9.84 $ 8.96 $ 9.12 $ 9.13 $ 9.32 $ 10.01
TotalO)eiatin Cost/concentiateton $ 19.93 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 22.26 $ 20.20 $ 20.37 $ 22.97 $ 23.63 $ 23.43 $ 23.83 $ 26.80 $ 27.67 $ 29.22 $ 28.18 $ 29.87 $ 30.16
Total Operating Cost/P205 ton $ 80.00 $ 78.36 $ 80.79 $ 89.11 $ 82.30 $ 83.01 $ 91.37 $ 97.61 $ 97.90 $ 100.36 $ 112.42 $ 116.00 $ 124.38 $ 121.35 $ 132.22 $ 132.47
PCS Phosphate FEIS
From DEIS Appendix D
No Action cost model
PCS PHOSPHATE - AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
NO ACTION PLAN - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
February 2006
DESCRIPTION
Production Statistics Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Total/Avg.
Effective Stri>>ing Volume (1000 bc) 58,913 56,183 56,750 48,899 37,385 21,844 953,097
Total Mined Area (acres) 284 266 286 256 177 123 4,740
Pumped Ore (1000 tons) 15,244 14,587 14,428 12,914 10,165 7,075 287,129
Total Concentrate (1000 tons) 5,000, 5,000, 5,000, 4,578, 3,648, 2,383 105,609
Change in Prestip Inventory (acres) 2 -11 -2 -124 -19 -67 -314

Production Costs 000
Operating Labor $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 10,599 $ 10,163 $ 6,170 $ 218,625
Maintenance Labor $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,028 $ 3,639 $ 2,473 $ 86,850
Operating Supplies $ 12,679 $ 12,141 $ 11,777 $ 10,100 $ 8,353 $ 5,438 $ 203,492
Flocculant $ 998 $ 904 $ 876 $ 742 $ 568 $ 406 $ 16,430
Reagents F IellLlme $ 7,592 $ 7,342 $ 7,328 $ 6,676 $ 5,215 $ 3,574 $ 147,483
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 555 $ 442 $ 289 $ 12,802
MaintenanceSu>>Iles $ 20,838 $ 20,070 $ 20,111 $ 17,871 $ 14,053 $ 9,083 $ 366,478
Electric Power $ 21,344 $ 20,601 $ 20,681 $ 18,962 $ 15,772 $ 10,961 $ 337,702
Contract Maintenance $ 3,149 $ 3,012 $ 6,997 $ 2,565 $ 1,893 $ 1,223 $ 75,256
Contract Operations $ 14,326 $ 15,398 $ 13,851 $ 14,048 $ 13,261 $ 9,187 $ 291,441
Other Expense $ 1,332 $ 1,274 $ 1,321 $ 1,208 $ 1,051 $ 613 $ 22,776
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 98,914 $ 97,396 $ 98,999 $ 87,353 $ 74,409 $ 49,418 $ 1,779,336
Total Direct Cash Cost1p a ped ore ton $ 6.49 $ 6.68 $ 6.86 $ 6.76 $ 7.32 $ 6.98 $ 6.20
Total Direct Cash Cost/concentrate ton $ 19.78 $ 19.48 $ 19.80 $ 19.08 $ 20.40 $ 20.74 $ 16.85
Allocated Overhead $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 19,929 $ 19,582 $ 12,573 $ 426,735
Total Cash Costs $ 119,439 $ 117,921 $ 119,273 $ 107,281 $ 93,991 $ 61,991 $ 2,206,070
Total Cash Cost/nimped ore ton $ 7.84 $ 8.08 $ 8.27 $ 8.31 $ 9.25 $ 8.76 $ 7.68
Total Cash Cost/concentiate ton $ 23.89 $ 23.58 $ 23.85 $ 23.44 $ 25.76 $ 26.02 $ 20.89
Depreciation $ 17,816 $ 17,130 $ 16,961 $ 15,117 $ 12,149 $ 7,985 $ 315,830
Depletion $ 699 $ 707 $ 705 $ 637 $ 502 $ 337 $ 15,646
Change in Prestip Inventor $ (155) $ 878 $ 176 $ 10,383 $ 1,598 $ 5,588 $ 26,210
NCPC Alt-E Development Writeoff $ 34,183
NCPC Alt-E Wetlands Mitigation $ 3,893
NCPC Development Land Writeoff $ -
Mitigation Costs $
Bonnedon Development and Land Writeoff $
Bonnedon Receding Face Writeoff $
Mitigation Costs $ -
S33 Development Writeoff $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,848 $ 6,269 $ 4,996 $ 3,263 $ 98,573
S33 Receding Face Writeoff $ 2,153 $ 3,274 $ 3,274 $ 3,588 $ 6,999 $ 4,571 $ 32,206
Mitigation Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant Im iovements Net All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 14 $ 287
Total Operating Costs $ 146,819 $ 146,777 $ 147,256 $ 143,295 $ 120,255 $ 83,749 $ 2,732,898
Total O)elatin Cost1pu pedweton $ 9.63 $ 10.06 $ 10.21 $ 11.10 $ 11.83 $ 11.84 $ 9.52
TotalO)eiatin Cost/concentiateton $ 29.36 $ 29.36 $ 29.45 $ 31.30 $ 32.96 $ 35.15 $ 25.88
Total Operating Cost/P205 ton $ 127.89 $ 125.90 $ 126.31 $ 133.73 $ 141.98 $ 152.51 $ 108.32
PCS Phosphate FEIS
From DEIS Appendix D
No Action cost model
2,630,000 2,640,000 2,650,000 2,660,000 2,670,000 2,680,000
-
- r`~ ~
T
pqM
~~~o R/
f ~ MFR
\ UP1
G-5 NCPC AREA
~ ~
o -14 o G3 HUDDLES CUT ° °
--e~ o e _ ° °
o ~ HUDDY GUT
a R-1 th
0 ~
a~ a~ a
G_g
0 2 500 5 000 7 500 10 000 > ~

Feet ~ _r

COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD_1927
STATE PLANE, NORTH CAROLJNA, FIPS 3200 FEET R-3

R-2
-R
ti
i i ~
~ UT5
i i
Rec cle Lake Y
I ~
° UT3 ~~(i ° °
o N
I I I I I I I tj ~ ° UT2 J'~~
i:?
R-4
TOOLEY CREEK

A; A2
I I I' ~ i ii ~

~ ~i ~
DRINKWATER CREEK
R-5VU
JACOBS CREEK
R-5 O~~
i i i

UT6 UT1 C0~
~ ~
i i ~ i SIBYL CREEK
CAD
Whitehurst Creek JACKS CREEK o °
o Reclamatidn 0 . ~ _ _ _ ° ° °
Project S _ t Cr ° °
R-6

R_ ~ os 8 <
33
' o
R-7 .
C')
~ CD ~
~ ~ . , CD
e
Dred e ~ , , - . 9
Lake -
. ~ , • • AURORA
~ -
o i ° °
o 0 n ° 0
N °
YEAR 5 YEAR 6
YEAR 4 , 8
I YEAR 3
3as e YEAR 2 YARD YA 4
YEAR 1
B roomfiel d
YEAR 7
a \ ~0.
~ ~ i I YEAR 8 v~d
i ~ YEAR 11I , ~ YEAR 10~~
YEAR 12 I ~
'I ~~i YEAR 13 ~i YEAR 9 I EAR'V'1~ I I i
I ~ FEAR 1~ ~i i f
i ~I, Ii Ii ; , 1RAEY 0 1
O O O
RJ
~ ~ I ~I I ~ ~ i tl YEAR 14 ~
~ ~ I I~ , ~ i ,
I YEAR 16 , YEAR 17 YEAR 18 ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~
~ YEAR 15 I I ;
i
I ~ CL I A
Y~~r---- AR i ~C~S
S - _ ~ ~
~I ~ I, ~a Run G
YEAR 19 AR 20YEAR 22
l . _ .I _ YEAR 21 ~ Glee ~Vh
y/~
F-~ J I~ I ~i
I YEAR 20 I ~i iiJ ~ .J ~i iI ~ / w
O
O O RJ
~i YEAR 22 r - ~ ~ EA J i RJ
~ I~ R YEAR 25 r
~ YEAR 23 I ~ '
~ I
~ YEAR 24 I, y,
~ ]SEAR 2,5
1.-...,
SOUTH 33 AREA
O O
O RJ
DRAGLINE MINING SEQUENCE
D YEAR -6 D YEAR 1 D YEAR 8 D YEAR 15 D YEAR 22 D YEAR 29 D YEAR 3 Legend ~ YEAR -5 ~ YEAR 2 ~ YEAR 9 ~ YEAR 16 ~ YEAR 23 ~ YEAR 30 ~ YEAR 3 • MINE PERMIT 7-1 YEAR 36 YEAR 43 Phosphate
YEAR 37 YEAR 44
PCS PHOSPHATE CONTINUATION OF MINING
PERMIT BOUNDARY D YEAR -4 D YEAR 3 D YEAR 10 D YEAR 17 D YEAR 24 D YEAR 31 O YEAR 3 PROJECT BOUNDARY D YEAR -3 D YEAR 4 D YEAR 11 D YEAR 18 D YEAR 25 ~ YEAR 32 ~ YEAR 3 YEAR 38 YEAR 45 NEAR AURORA. N.C.
S33AP - S33
YEAR 39 YEAR 46
RICHLANDS TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
` Roure sos Re~ocanoN D YEAR -2 D YEAR 5 D YEAR 12 D YEAR 19 D YEAR 26 D YEAR 33 D YEAR 4 RELOCATED RAILROAD YEAR 40 YEAR 47 DATE: JANUARY 2006 Proj/pcs/gis/mapfiles/mi neplan/DWG3062.mxd
DRAWN BY: TLK/WJS REVISION No. ITEM DATE
CREEK
YEAR -1 ~ YEAR 6 ~ YEAR 13 ~ YEAR 20 ~ YEAR 27 ~ YEAR 34 ~ YEAR 4 SURFACE PLUG o.ooo ~ YEAR 0 ~ YEAR 7 ~ YEAR 14 ~ YEAR 21 ~ YEAR 28 ~ YEAR 35 ~ YEAR 4 OPER4TING BENCH PLUG YEAR 41 YEAR 48 SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Marston YEAR 42 YEAR 49
DWG : E610-3062-06
PCS Phosphate 2006 DEIS Appendix D

PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
S33AP: APPLICANT PREFERRED BOUNDARY -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIF TIObI
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effective Stripping volume 11000 brv) 34,048 35,093 35,440 37,476 36,347 32,846 38,031 38,992 41,005 39,722 40,393 38,509 37,299 38,938 44,994 49,954 44,895 45,371 49,165 49,036
Total Mined Area lacresl 183 181 171 178 176 181 198 217 218 205 202 201 189 189 225 254 228 236 250 274
Pumped Ore 11000 tonsi 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,916 12,299 12,885 13,041 12,607 12,664 12,692 12,573 12,899 13,562 15,052 14,731 14,878 15,377 16,214
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventory(acres) 6 7 -1 -79 21 -14 33 56 54 35 -8 -11 22 -10 -1 -17 -45 -24 64 -2
Production Costs iSOOL
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 9,334 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,744 $ 10,212 $ 9,587 $ 10,658 $ 11,191
I llaintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,807 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,061 $ 4,157 $ 4,061 $ 4,089 $ 4,163 $ 4,260
Operating Supplies $ 7,537 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,485 $ 5,845 $ 5,752 $ 7,229 $ 8,311 $ 9,953 $ 9,750 $ 9,914 $ 9,824 $ 9,833 $ 10,362 $ 9,827 $ 10,467 $ 10,248 $ 11,885 $ 11,264 $ 11,342
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 645 $ 606 $ 680 $ 705 $ 714 $ 714 $ 711 $ 715 $ 746 $ 780 $ 932 $ 989 $ 927 $ 860 $ 943
Reacients,Fuel/Lime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,211 $ 6,566 $ 6,936 $ 6,945 $ 6,603 $ 6,605 $ 6,611 $ 6,549 $ 6,615 $ 7,005 $ 7,536 $ 7,120 $ 7,470 $ 7,996 $ 8,370
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 llaintenance Supplies $ 13,996 $ 14,185 $ 13,849 $ 14,024 $ 13,316 $ 13,514 $ 14,886 $ 15,879 $ 15,988 $ 15,573 $ 15,800 $ 15,661 $ 15,512 $ 16,518 $ 17,794 $ 18,953 $ 18,255 $ 18,612 $ 19,771 $ 20,262
Electric Po,, er $ 10,685 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,314 $ 8,744 $ 9,261 $ 10,628 $ 12,242 $ 11,898 $ 11,517 $ 12,078 $ 12,197 $ 12,152 $ 14,448 $ 17,172 $ 18,506 $ 18,752 $ 19,086 $ 20,410 $ 21,928
Contract Maintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,014 $ 1,981 $ 6,204 $ 2,260 $ 2,611 $ 2,523 $ 6,548 $ 2,488 $ 2,437 $ 2,580 $ 6,492 $ 2,720 $ 2,501 $ 2,896 $ 6,855 $ 2,924
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 12,041 $ 11,157 $ 11,822 $ 13,157 $ 12,978 $ 12,851 $ 12,824 $ 13,310 $ 12,691 $ 12,694 $ 13,240 $ 14,352 $ 13,271 $ 13,159 $ 13,486 $ 14,544
Other Expense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 618 $ 746 $ 983 $ 1,139 $ 858 $ 836 $ 840 $ 828 $ 816 $ 818 $ 1,175 $ 1,263 $ 1,173 $ 912 $ 1,271 $ 1,273
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DlrectCashCosts $ 65,649 $ 65,677 $ 67,952 $ 64,392 $ 62,614 $ 62,596 $ 72,671 $ 75,484 $ 76,218 $ 74,649 $ 79,603 $ 75,911 $ 74,987 $ 79,063 $ 88,364 $ 90,236 $ 87,189 $ 89,227 $ 97,342 $ 97,643
v Jriec r s r s:pm I.. $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.43 $ 5.37 $ 5.25 $ 5.91 $ 5.86 $ 5.84 $ 5.92 $ 6.29 $ 5.98 $ 5.96 $ 6.13 $ 6.52 $ 5.99 $ 5.92 $ 6.00 $ 6.33 $ 6.02
c L!-c r c r t-co! aP ton $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.88 $ 12.52 $ 12.52 $ 14.53 $ 15.10 $ 15.24 $ 14.93 $ 15.92 $ 15.18 $ 15.00 $ 15.81 $ 17.67 $ 18.05 $ 17.44 $ 17.85 $ 19.47 $ 19.53
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,305 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,780 $ 20,044 $ 19,780 $ 19,529 $ 20,010 $ 20,275
Total Cash Costs $ 84,527 $ 84,555 $ 86,830 $ 83,270 $ 81,743 $ 81,725 $ 91,976 $ 95,264 $ 95,747 $ 94,179 $ 99,132 $ 95,441 $ 94,516 $ 98,593 $ 108,144 $ 110,280 $ 106,969 $ 108,756 $ 117,352 $ 117,917
[al Casl r „ ped -,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.02 $ 7.01 $ 6.86 $ 7.48 $ 7.39 $ 7.34 $ 7.47 $ 7.83 $ 7.52 $ 7.52 $ 7.64 $ 7.97 $ 7.33 $ 7.26 $ 7.31 $ 7.63 $ 7.27
'alCasl r c wrtra_ torn $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.65 $ 16.35 $ 16.34 $ 18.40 $ 19.05 $ 19.15 $ 18.84 $ 19.83 $ 19.09 $ 18.90 $ 19.72 $ 21.63 $ 22.06 $ 21.39 $ 21.75 $ 23.47 $ 23.58
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,371 $ 11,961 $ 11,837 $ 12,741 $ 13,579 $ 13,843 $ 13,342 $ 13,431 $ 13,358 $ 13,245 $ 13,894 $ 15,143 $ 16,332 $ 15,660 $ 16,295 $ 17,190 $ 18,037
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 804 $ 798 $ 705 $ 707 $ 711 $ 715 $ 711 $ 705 $ 712 $ 682 $ 730 $ 747 $ 728 $ 719 $ 715
Change in Prestrip Inventors $ (496) $ (603) $ 70 $ 6,567 $ (1,754) $ 1,173 $ (2,763) $ (4,676) $ (4,488) $ (2,910) $ 707 $ 926 $ (1,807) $ 830 $ 50 $ 1,430 $ 3,791 $ 2,045 $ (5,338) $ 171
[]CPC AITE Development Writeoff $ 1,823 $ 1,823 $ 1,823 $ 7,705 $ 7,705 $ 7,705 $ 5,598
bICPC AITE Wetlands (litigation S 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 579 $ 420
IMCPC DevelopmenVLand Writeoff - R - S - R - S - S - R -
1,,litigation,osts II:PC Update0 '4,.,8
8onneiton Development and Land Writeoff
Bonneiton Receding Face Writeoff
Mitigation Costs - Bonn (D EIS)
„Development Uriteoff - I00 ;JI TO?I 1 ._: rJI I I JJI 1 I I ,.,1 JI 'Al
S33 Receding Face Writeoff S - S - S - S - S - S 127 S 556 S 621 S 621 S 669 S 771 S 771 S 835 S 865 S 1.020
tlitiFation.osts a:O Update 4hS 'a 11 z' IJ_1 :i IP21 a Ib_I ? 21 :i I"1 z' LJ_I ? 1:21 a Ib_1 z' IJ_I :i I"I 'a I'_I ? 1:21
Plant lmprovements[let All Costs $ - $ 5 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 99,635 $ 99,693 $ 102,441 $ 111,283 $ 101,010 $ 103,823 $ 110,201 $ 110,103 $ 111,041 $ 110,554 $ 119,344 $ 116,224 $ 112,512 $ 119,880 $ 129,920 $ 134,775 $ 133,170 $ 133,892 $ 136,020 $ 143,092
c; Opera a r $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.39 $ 8.67 $ 8.71 $ 8.96 $ 8.55 $ 8.51 $ 8.77 $ 9.42 $ 9.16 $ 8.95 $ 9.29 $ 9.58 $ 8.95 $ 9.04 $ 9.00 $ 8.85 $ 8.82
TTL'al 0;-a i r '. '? a -'-n $ 19.93 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 22.26 $ 20.20 $ 20.76 $ 22.04 $ 22.02 $ 22.21 $ 22.11 $ 23.87 $ 23.24 $ 22.50 $ 23.98 $ 25.98 $ 26.96 $ 26.63 $ 26.78 $ 27.20 $ 28.62

Mitigation Costs - H- F(_IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Mitigation Costs - Bonn ( D EIS
Nitiaation Costs-S'3IDEIS, $ $ 193 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706
6,litigation : osts 111R, PC Update C '408 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'11ti-lationCosts-Bonn Update ) 4108
I litigation Costs _',Z Update 416 S. 1 - 1 5 1`11 L'_1 1.' 1 1 =1 13_1 5 `'_1 1:3=1 1.' I 5 ?'_I '1 S. 1.= 1 1:3=1
Total Oh CostA;oncerr tra to torn - DEIS $ 19.93 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 22.26 $ 20.20 $ 20.76 $ 22.00 $ 21.86 $ 22.05 $ 21.95 $ 23.71 $ 23.08 $ 22.34 $ 23.81 $ 25.82 $ 26.79 $ 26.47 $ 26.62 $ 27.04 $ 28.46
?a10/, C.,,. c ntlae„ 32-i03 S 1, J3 1994 0.49 S J26 _0.-0 _076 S 04 0 S ^'1 11 - S '_4 -0 92 _6 ?P_ - - - =h.G_g e 72 °0
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix E
S33AP cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
S33AP: APPLICANT PREFERRED BOUNDARY -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
EESCRIFTION
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Total/Avg.
Effective Stripping volume 00bcyl 55,627 54,434 58,260 56,135 60,698 55,676 57,430 51,977 52,954 57,469 53,866 35,887 14 ', -
Total MlnedArealacres 300 296 277 259 276 279 294 255 258 286 275 214 T.4_'5
Pumped Ore 11000 tonsi 16,502 15,392 15,675 15,350 16,099 14,755 14,385 13,901 14,380 14,085 13,664 11,628 437999
Total Concentrate 11000 tons) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,960 5,040 4,989 5,011 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,236 159 ^3G
Change in Prestrip Inventory(acres) -35 -36 14 39 19 -12 -84 -21 -10 -25 -92 -155 14

Production Costs iSOOL
Operating Labor $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 7,638 S -
IIiintenance Labor $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 3,279 S 130.109
Operating Supplies $ 12,039 $ 11,775 $ 12,712 $ 12,298 $ 12,945 $ 11,850 $ 11,798 $ 11,513 $ 11,710 $ 12,080 $ 11,817 $ 9,107 S -
Flocculant $ 981 $ 1,015 $ 990 $ 898 $ 964 $ 913 $ 853 $ 786 $ 840 $ 830 $ 793 $ 632 5 ^_`.110
Readents,Fuel/Lime $ 8,482 $ 7,686 $ 7,783 $ 7,784 $ 8,038 $ 7,453 $ 7,381 $ 7,217 $ 7,302 $ 7,242 $ 7,046 $ 6,040 S _r.4b0
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 601 $ 611 $ 605 $ 607 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 514 S 19.303
I llaintenance Supplies $ 21,089 $ 20,239 $ 20,941 $ 20,598 $ 21,513 $ 20,284 $ 20,256 $ 19,605 $ 19,874 $ 20,345 $ 19,784 $ 15,548 S 4_G
Electric Po- ei $ 22,446 $ 21,012 $ 21,439 $ 21,037 $ 22,726 $ 21,250 $ 21,509 $ 20,931 $ 21,457 $ 21,628 $ 21,148 $ 17,863 5 =x315
Contra ct M aiMEna n c e $ 3,129 $ 2,986 $ 7,160 $ 3,100 $ 3,274 $ 2,982 $ 7,016 $ 2,821 $ 2,866 $ 3,002 $ 6,881 $ 2,217 S 1161%1
Contract Operations $ 13,986 $ 14,453 $ 13,762 $ 13,580 $ 14,574 $ 13,774 $ 14,426 $ 13,535 $ 14,387 $ 13,847 $ 14,235 $ 11,157 S 41 T.'' '
Other Expense $ 1,369 $ 1,282 $ 1,351 $ 1,330 $ 1,363 $ 1,305 $ 1,307 $ 1,286 $ 1,288 $ 1,328 $ 1,271 $ 901 S 33417
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 99,576 $ 96,505 $ 102,792 $ 97,279 $ 102,046 $ 95,874 $ 100,602 $ 93,752 $ 95,781 $ 96,359 $ 99,031 $ 74,895 %01960
vJriee r s C s:pm I.. $ 6.03 $ 6.27 $ 6.56 $ 6.34 $ 6.34 $ 6.50 $ 6.99 $ 6.74 $ 6.66 $ 6.84 $ 7.25 $ 6.44 S 1.1;
it Lu-c r , t-co! aP ton $ 19.92 $ 19.30 $ 20.56 $ 19.46 $ 20.58 $ 19.02 $ 20.17 $ 18.71 $ 19.16 $ 19.27 $ 19.81 $ 17.68 S 7
Allocated Overhead $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 14,707 5
Total Cash Costs $ 119,851 $ 116,780 $ 123,318 $ 117,805 $ 122,572 $ 116,149 $ 120,877 $ 114,027 $ 116,056 $ 116,633 $ 119,306 $ 89,602 S 2,2.9.,90
[al Casl r „ ped -,e ton $ 7.26 $ 7.59 $ 7.87 $ 7.67 $ 7.61 $ 7.87 $ 8.40 $ 8.20 $ 8.07 $ 8.28 $ 8.73 $ 7.71
'a1 Casl r c -L,a _ torn $ 23.97 $ 23.36 $ 24.66 $ 23.56 $ 24.71 $ 23.04 $ 24.23 $ 22.75 $ 23.21 $ 23.33 $ 23.86 $ 21.15 S ^0.91
Depreciation $ 18,615 $ 17,390 $ 17,947 $ 17,661 $ 18,480 $ 17,165 $ 17,122 $ 16,654 $ 16,881 $ 17,018 $ 16,500 $ 13,279 5 44
Depletion $ 698 $ 685 $ 726 $ 718 $ 724 $ 709 $ 703 $ 705 $ 697 $ 695 $ 692 $ 579 S 231£_
Chamle in Prestrip Inventor, $ 2,911 $ 3,016 $ (1,191) $ (3,222) $ (1,603) $ 1,037 $ 7,019 $ 1,762 $ 826 $ 2,101 $ 7,695 $ 12,935 S 6^10
I G FC Alt E Develo pment Vriteoff 4 173
ICPCAlt E etlands (litigation
IMCPC DevelopmenVLand Writeoff -
6,IniirlationCosts- II:PCUI.,te 4,08 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bonnenon Development and Land Writeoff -
Eonneiton Receding Face Writeoff -
hlitigation Costs - 6onn ( D EIS) -
'Development Vriteoff L I ,a1 ,91 ' I -.7^1 7A A I ;.691 3691 '£ . _T'A
S-''3 Receding Face Vriteoff 1 020 S 1.020 S 1 026 S 1.224 S 2351 S 2389 S 2.786 S 2798 S 2792 S 2792 S 2792 S 2.366 S
tlitigation. osts a:3 Update.,'.?4n79 z IJ_I :i I"I i1 I'-I ? I:- I a 1.?79 i1 L;t4 ° 13 'a 1^; i1 I'T_I :i IP21 a 1F_I ° "3£ 'i ?,_"I
Plantlmprovements Het All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 16 S 4£0
Total Operating Costs $ 148,327 $ 144,123 $ 147,052 $ 139,417 $ 147,713 $ 142,722 $ 153,727 $ 141,190 $ 142,485 $ 144,472 $ 152,216 $ 123,195 $ 4,065,252
T?nil Opera a C $ 8.99 $ 9.36 $ 9.38 $ 9.08 $ 9.18 $ 9.67 $ 10.69 $ 10.16 $ 9.91 $ 10.26 $ 11.14 $ 10.59 $ 9.28
TTL'al Opera a ° r a - ton $ 29.67 $ 28.82 $ 29.41 $ 27.88 $ 29.78 $ 28.32 $ 30.81 $ 28.17 $ 28.50 $ 28.89 $ 30.44 $ 29.08 $ 25.53

6litirlation Costs - H- F(- IDEIS)
hl niirlation Costs - Bonn ( D EIS I
Lhtiaation Costs S' IDEISI $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 700 $ 711 $ 704 $ 707 $ 706 $ 706 $ 706 $ 598 S 17 7
.
6,lniirlation : osts 111R, PC Update C '408 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Inii-lationCosts - Bonn Update ) 4,08
6,l1tiFation, osts _'d Update ., '4163 1^'_I 1.3_1 5 1.=-1 2 1:371 1.563 5 1T'4 8 1 I" 1 I`'_I LE_1 9 Lf 1 2 1 "E' "21
Total OC CostA;once,r tra to ton - DEIS $ 29.50 $ 28.66 $ 29.25 $ 27.72 $ 29.62 $ 28.75 $ 30.65 $ 28.01 $ 28.33 $ 28.73 $ 30.28 $ 28.92 $ 25.40
'al 0,n C.,? ?la c 2-i 03 -a.6; J.41 '9. % - ^.1 ".'1 - - 20.44 - -, I
? -9 02 1 PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix E
S33AP cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
SCRA - TOTAL - SEQUENCEA - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPTIOrl
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioe Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 34,048 35,094 35,441 37,354 36,284 35,185 38,030 39,984 40,781 42,837 43,101 38,478 37,892 37,302 36,995 35,771 35,279 47,434 49,529 41,005
Total Mined Area(acresl 183 181 171 178 176 175 182 182 182 185 184 175 173 195 221 219 232 276 269 218
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,789 11,857 11,678 11,912 12,119 12,150 12,036 12,162 12,263 11,802 11,780 12,229 12,670 12,216 12,409 13,438 13,122 12,964
Total Concentrate 11000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestri) Inventoi,, lanes, 6 7 -1 -63 -10 -11 -45 -63 1 -22 5 29 2 -10
0 1
0 20
0 -38
0 39
0 43 83
0

Production Costs (5000) 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,962 $ 9,010 $ 9,456 $ 9,456 $ 10,502 $ 10,637 $ 10,212
r1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,024 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,052 $ 3,714 $ 3,816 $ 3,816 $ 4,256 $ 4,264 $ 4,061
Operating Supplies $ 7,528 $ 7,539 $ 7,273 $ 7,381 $ 5,829 $ 6,652 $ 8,286 $ 6,402 $ 6,633 $ 6,920 $ 6,747 $ 6,302 $ 6,603 $ 7,722 $ 7,142 $ 7,706 $ 7,667 $ 9,639 $ 9,664 $ 8,523
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 614 $ 643 $ 682 $ 711 $ 690 $ 748 $ 728 $ 541 $ 595 $ 575 $ 684 $ 712 $ 678 $ 792 $ 737 $ 687
Reagents,Fuelffline $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,101 $ 6,175 $ 6,154 $ 6,087 $ 6,060 $ 6,045 $ 6,188 $ 6,308 $ 6,208 $ 6,520 $ 6,661 $ 6,343 $ 6,515 $ 6,853 $ 6,860 $ 6,967
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 13,993 $ 14,183 $ 13,851 $ 13,981 $ 13,816 $ 14,208 $ 14,281 $ 14,270 $ 14,603 $ 14,957 $ 14,945 $ 14,371 $ 14,546 $ 14,383 $ 15,095 $ 14,854 $ 14,571 $ 17,009 $ 17,041 $ 16,546
Electric Po,,er $ 10,677 $ 10,404 $ 9,445 $ 9,246 $ 9,325 $ 9,885 $ 9,534 $ 9,593 $ 9,851 $ 9,793 $ 10,050 $ 9,639 $ 10,881 $ 10,582 $ 11,323 $ 11,000 $ 10,775 $ 14,071 $ 13,395 $ 14,355
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,377 $ 2,015 $ 2,043 $ 6,377 $ 2,115 $ 2,160 $ 2,245 $ 6,253 $ 2,144 $ 2,089 $ 2,387 $ 6,167 $ 2,156 $ 2,135 $ 2,620 $ 6,707 $ 2,320
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 11,186 $ 11,673 $ 14,142 $ 12,622 $ 13,305 $ 13,663 $ 19,185 $ 14,415 $ 13,431 $ 12,555 $ 11,633 $ 12,112 $ 12,796 $ 15,180 $ 13,525 $ 13,165
Other Ex pense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 622 $ 898 $ 901 $ 629 $ 924 $ 979 $ 1,001 $ 1,007 $ 945 $ 939 $ 625 $ 986 $ 947 $ 917 $ 1,053 $ 1,059 $ 1,202
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,628 $ 65,661 $ 67,964 $ 64,169 $ 63,114 $ 65,510 $ 72,818 $ 66,942 $ 69,159 $ 70,251 $ 79,983 $ 67,996 $ 68,623 $ 68,970 $ 73,019 $ 69,708 $ 69,931 $ 82,581 $ 84,494 $ 78,643
T- a iced r a Cot ffn ??or4 J $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.41 $ 5.40 $ 5.50 $ 6.01 $ 5.51 $ 5.75 $ 5.78 $ 6.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.83 $ 5.22 $ 5.76 $ 5.71 $ 5.64 $ 6.15 $ 6.44 $ 6.07
T -al i?eetra C-ot e_tmr $ 13.13 $ 13.13 $ 13.59 $ 12.83 $ 12.62 $ 13.10 $ 14.56 $ 13.39 $ 13.83 $ 14.05 $ 16.00 $ 13.60 $ 13.72 $ 12.77 $ 14.60 $ 13.94 $ 13.99 $ 16.52 $ 16.90 $ 15.73
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,502 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,251 $ 19,129 $ 19,360 $ 19,360 $ 19,984 $ 20,044 $ 19,780
Total Cash Costs $ 84,507 $ 84,540 $ 86,842 $ 83,047 $ 82,243 $ 84,639 $ 91,697 $ 86,444 $ 88,939 $ 90,031 $ 99,763 $ 87,125 $ 87,752 $ 88,222 $ 92,148 $ 89,068 $ 89,291 $ 102,565 $ 104,537 $ 98,423
T a! Cash C-st 9 o,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.00 $ 7.04 $ 7.11 $ 7.57 $ 7.11 $ 7.39 $ 7.40 $ 8.14 $ 7.38 $ 7.45 $ 6.61 $ 7.27 $ 7.29 $ 7.20 $ 7.63 $ 7.97 $ 7.59
T -'a! Cash C ntrate too $ 16.90 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.61 $ 16.45 $ 16.93 $ 18.34 $ 17.29 $ 17.79 $ 18.01 $ 19.95 $ 17.43 $ 17.55 $ 16.17 $ 18.43 $ 17.81 $ 17.86 $ 20.51 $ 20.91 $ 19.68
Depreciation $ 12,433 $ 12,522 $ 12,326 $ 12,345 $ 11,983 $ 12,154 $ 12,447 $ 12,310 $ 12,296 $ 12,332 $ 12,600 $ 12,348 $ 12,516 $ 12,840 $ 13,190 $ 12,871 $ 12,866 $ 14,922 $ 14,657 $ 14,159
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 777 $ 794 $ 788 $ 798 $ 777 $ 792 $ 811 $ 817 $ 821 $ 836 $ 765 $ 731 $ 737 $ 756 $ 752 $ 703
Changein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 68 $ 5,285 $ 802 $ 896 $ 3,743 $ 5,240 $ (108) $ 1,864 $ (400) $ (2,382) $ (208) $ 867 $ (75) $ (1,637) $ 3,178 $ (3,244) $ (3,624) $ (6,915)
NCF AIt E Development Writeoff $ 1,830 $ 1,830 $ 1,830 $ 7,752 $ 7,752 $ 6,283 $ 194 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,328 $ 385 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NCPCAItEWetlands`Iitidation $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 471 $ 15 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 474 $ 29 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;Fd De,elohmentLand Writeoff - g - g - 3 - g - R 347 R 1.7&3 g 1.829 R 1.8 9 g 1.8 9 g 1.829 ? 1.8 9 g 1.8 9 R & ? 396 g - R - g - g - ? -
`lifigation Costs W- F- Update 0_-
-',4/05
-
-
-
-
-
740
3
206
S
X904
S
' 904
S
2.004
0
3.904
5304
S
'.004
S
I-
-
344
S
-
-
-
-
-
Bonnerton Development and Land Vriteoff - 1.641 I -
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff - - - - - - -
C9ifidationCosts-Donn Update C '4105 4.41- :.01° °.A I!? ?.nIC 4 I; -
Development Vriteoff - - - - - ., 4.527
a_' Receding Face Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
fditigationCosts- S"' Update 4105 - S - S - - S - - - S - - - - - - - - - - - 10J 'a =A
Fla nt l mpi o?ements`let All Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 99,621 $ 99,686 $ 102,462 $ 109,801 $ 104,139 $ 106,323 $ 114,472 $ 110,525 $ 107,637 $ 110,751 $ 118,508 $ 103,640 $ 106,613 $ 110,620 $ 113,740 $ 109,285 $ 114,324 $ 123,251 $ 123,882 $ 111,418
r a ?ne,at ) rpe I e $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.26 $ 8.92 $ 8.93 $ 9.45 $ 9.10 $ 8.94 $ 9.11 $ 9.66 $ 8.78 $ 9.05 $ 9.05 $ 8.98 $ 8.95 $ 9.21 $ 9.17 $ 9.44 $ 8.59
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 19.92 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 21.96 $ 20.83 $ 21.26 $ 22.89 $ 22.11 $ 21.53 $ 22.15 $ 23.70 $ 20.73 $ 21.32 $ 22.12 $ 22.75 $ 21.86 $ 22.86 $ 24.65 $ 24.78 $ 22.28

Ilitidation Costs - W- F(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ 427 $ 2,196 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 414 $ 487 $ $ $ $ $
`litigation Costs - DonnIDEISI $ $ 2,389 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 2,552 $
`! litigation Costs - S 2IDEIS, $ $ $ $ $ $ 54 $ 251
Mitigation Costs FITPC Update? 4;05 - - - - - 740 ;.-n,- S J04 S 'J04 S '.904 „904 304 `. J04 17
0 04` S - - - - -
f4ifigationCosts-Bonn Update C 24/05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4U S 6.01° °.610 S ,.A16 h 4 16
19itidationCosts _ 2Update "4r05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10J " -
7ota1Op Cost/cmreentrate ton-DEIS $ 19.92 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 21.96 $ 20.83 $ 21.20 $ 22.57 $ 21.77 $ 21.20 $ 21.82 $ 23.37 $ 20.40 $ 20.99 $ 21.96 $ 22.27 $ 21.30 $ 22.31 $ 24.10 $ 24.33 $ 22.23
r.,ta Cp C-ota, n. ta,_ ., a1/06 19 J 1994 0 41-1 ' 1 96 0.53 ^_1._i '.09 '.1'I _.15 d To 1 ' 1' - 1.36 43` -4
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SCRA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
SCRA - TOTAL - SEQUENCEA - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year32 Total/Avg.
Effectioa Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 41,057 39,857 41,037 39,895 36,389 39,218 46,317 48,673 47,516 59,351 58,064 53,866 55,068 55,723 57,058 56,242 52,699 52,633 33,279 1.691..69
Total Mined Area(acresl 219 206 207 208 188 206 279 269 246 255 265 249 286 297 273 259 249 260 219 -
PumpedOre11000tons l 13,152 12,714 12,774 12,640 12,540 13,747 16,328 15,858 15,122 15,535 15,745 15,262 16,066 15,632 14,318 13,947 14,237 13,863 10,645 `14-0
Total Concentrate 11000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,649 19_'.6
Change in Presnip Inventoi,, lanes, 65 45 -11 0 20 3 -65 -96 -42 38 42 -7 9 -64 15 34 -55 -19 -201 ti15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Production Costs(5000) 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Operating Labor $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,744 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 5,865 S
r laintenance Labor $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,157 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 2,689 S 1b6. r1
Operating Supplies $ 9,996 $ 9,822 $ 10,008 $ 10,021 $ 9,619 $ 10,595 $ 12,015 $ 12,558 $ 10,962 $ 12,466 $ 12,550 $ 11,665 $ 12,290 $ 11,833 $ 12,356 $ 12,542 $ 12,198 $ 12,154 $ 7,440 S -42
Flocculant $ 712 $ 718 $ 723 $ 706 $ 710 $ 786 $ 949 $ 895 $ 928 $ 924 $ 1,010 $ 999 $ 1,033 $ 1,021 $ 909 $ 794 $ 820 $ 761 $ 645 S "9 -4.
Reagents,Fuel,Lime $ 6,998 $ 6,668 $ 6,664 $ 6,586 $ 6,532 $ 7,112 $ 8,402 $ 8,221 $ 7,640 $ 7,816 $ 7,718 $ 7,424 $ 7,947 $ 7,861 $ 7,192 $ 7,210 $ 7,249 $ 7,204 $ 5,423 S _64
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 442 5 _3.475
flaintenance Supplies $ 16,441 $ 16,044 $ 16,266 $ 15,906 $ 15,891 $ 17,017 $ 19,234 $ 19,407 $ 19,119 $ 20,753 $ 20,640 $ 19,911 $ 20,797 $ 20,496 $ 20,181 $ 20,082 $ 19,994 $ 19,907 $ 13,335 S 6469^4
Electric Po,,er $ 14,062 $ 13,196 $ 13,477 $ 13,517 $ 14,093 $ 16,375 $ 19,374 $ 19,882 $ 19,783 $ 20,500 $ 20,909 $ 20,287 $ 21,562 $ 21,138 $ 20,496 $ 20,765 $ 21,290 $ 21,705 $ 15,930 S 164
Contract[,la intena nce $ 2,631 $ 2,546 $ 6,585 $ 2,516 $ 2,438 $ 2,625 $ 7,037 $ 3,106 $ 2,674 $ 3,194 $ 7,116 $ 2,905 $ 3,073 $ 3,058 $ 7,042 $ 2,993 $ 2,863 $ 2,859 $ 4,867 S 137.861
Contract Operations $ 12,987 $ 12,863 $ 12,869 $ 12,880 $ 13,499 $ 14,647 $ 14,090 $ 13,491 $ 13,447 $ 13,543 $ 14,455 $ 15,343 $ 13,848 $ 14,461 $ 14,220 $ 14,394 $ 13,480 $ 14,085 $ 9,807 S r1 T.0°°
Other Ex Dense $ 870 $ 839 $ 846 $ 838 $ 811 $ 851 $ 973 $ 985 $ 1,242 $ 1,340 $ 1,320 $ 1,313 $ 1,349 $ 1,309 $ 1,298 $ 1,300 $ 1,304 $ 1,288 $ 741 S '33'11
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 78,978 $ 76,977 $ 81,721 $ 77,252 $ 77,876 $ 84,290 $ 96,984 $ 93,455 $ 91,303 $ 97,191 $ 102,371 $ 95,903 $ 97,955 $ 97,234 $ 100,348 $ 96,735 $ 95,255 $ 96,021 $ 67,184 S ,.1_0.19%
r a. iced r a r ??or5 J e $ 6.00 $ 6.05 $ 6.40 $ 6.11 $ 6.21 $ 6.13 $ 5.94 $ 5.89 $ 6.04 $ 6.26 $ 6.50 $ 6.28 $ 6.10 $ 6.22 $ 7.01 $ 6.94 $ 6.69 $ 6.93 $ 6.31 [ -
r a1 meet r a r e _ tmr $ 15.80 $ 15.40 $ 16.34 $ 15.45 $ 15.58 $ 16.86 $ 19.40 $ 18.69 $ 18.26 $ 19.44 $ 20.47 $ 19.18 $ 19.59 $ 19.45 $ 20.07 $ 19.35 $ 19.05 $ 19.20 $ 18.41 [ 16.'11
Allocated Overhead $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 20,044 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 11,696 S -
Total Cash Costs $ 98,507 $ 96,506 $ 101,250 $ 96,781 $ 97,405 $ 103,819 $ 116,777 $ 113,248 $ 111,347 $ 117,717 $ 122,897 $ 116,178 $ 118,230 $ 117,509 $ 120,874 $ 117,260 $ 115,530 $ 116,296 $ 78,879 S -5.3,90
r a! Cash C gore ton $ 7.49 $ 7.59 $ 7.93 $ 7.66 $ 7.77 $ 7.55 $ 7.15 $ 7.14 $ 7.36 $ 7.58 $ 7.81 $ 7.61 $ 7.36 $ 7.52 $ 8.44 $ 8.41 $ 8.11 $ 8.39 $ 7.41 [. %.b4
Tr a; Cash C ntrate too $ 19.70 $ 19.30 $ 20.25 $ 19.36 $ 19.48 $ 20.76 $ 23.36 $ 22.65 $ 22.27 $ 23.54 $ 24.58 $ 23.24 $ 23.65 $ 23.50 $ 24.17 $ 23.45 $ 23.11 $ 23.26 $ 21.61 [. -A A,
Depreciation $ 14,410 $ 13,754 $ 13,856 $ 13,776 $ 13,555 $ 15,003 $ 17,387 $ 17,393 $ 16,614 $ 17,780 $ 17,794 $ 16,985 $ 17,852 $ 17,619 $ 17,028 $ 16,960 $ 16,794 $ 16,694 $ 11,800 S 'b9.169
Depletion $ 708 $ 712 $ 715 $ 713 $ 703 $ 716 $ 720 $ 713 $ 720 $ 733 $ 756 $ 747 $ 715 $ 682 $ 700 $ 707 $ 697 $ 690 $ 515 S
Change in Pieship In entorl $ (5,411) $ (3,730) $ 916 $ 26 $ (1,702) $ (283) $ 5,392 $ 8,050 $ 3,521 $ (3,147) $ (3,495) $ 573 $ (783) $ 5,353 $ (1,280) $ (2,810) $ 4,557 $ 1,587 $ 16,744 5
f - F(_ Alt EDe elopment lNriteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4123
UCPCAltE etlands r1itidation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FdDevelohmentLandWriteoff - S - 3 - R - S - 3 - R - S - 3 - S - 3 - R - S - 3 - R - S - 3 - S - 3 - ; -
rlifigationCosts PI-F- Update C 24/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bonnerton Development and Land V[ teoff Y - ;I - b - Y - b - b - ;I - b - b - ;I - b - Y - ;I - b - Y - - - - - 10.]03
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff I' - ;I - L. - I' - „ - b - ;I - 5 - - ;, - - - ;. - ;.. - - - - - - -
f4itidationCosts-Ponn Update C '4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 173
Development,,Mteoff 4F 4 1 4 4F^i _ 4`C 4 ? 1 1 - 4F^i _ 4F., 4.. 4 1 4 ? 4-°i _ 4`'i 4 ? "'A4 5 .?.
S'd Receding Face dVriteoff - S - S - S 177 S 783 S 906 S 916 S 976 S 976 S 1.121 S 1.483 S 2.396 S 2.492 S 3.056 S 3.056 S 3.056 S 3.960 S 3.960 S 2.8'10
3
r1itigation Costs S"' Update 410' S e3 S X02 S ?3 5 _03 S 60? S 'n _?n?3 qua n In-
inn
^_4
Plant l mpro?ements[let All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 14 S 831
Total Operating Costs $ 113,262 $ 112,291 $ 121,786 $ 116,522 $ 115,792 $ 125,209 $ 146,240 $ 145,429 $ 138,227 $ 139,252 $ 144,484 $ 141,928 $ 143,554 $ 149,267 $ 145,428 $ 140,222 $ 146,587 $ 144,275 $ 114,515 $ 4,744,968
r a; eerat ) rpe l e $ 8.61 $ 8.83 $ 9.53 $ 9.22 $ 9.23 $ 9.11 $ 8.96 $ 9.17 $ 9.14 $ 8.96 $ 9.18 $ 9.30 $ 8.94 $ 9.55 $ 10.16 $ 10.05 $ 10.30 $ 10.41 $ 10.76 $ 9.23
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 22.65 $ 22.46 $ 24.36 $ 23.30 $ 23.16 $ 25.04 $ 29.25 $ 29.09 $ 27.65 $ 27.85 $ 28.90 $ 28.39 $ 28.71 $ 29.85 $ 29.09 $ 28.04 $ 29.32 $ 28.86 $ 31.38 $ 24.50

I Iifidation Costs - W- F(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 17 0,7
[Inijation C( sts - BonnIDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 14.70-
11itidation Costs ' 31DEIS1 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 183 S `.011
I litigation Costs [h PC Update? 4,02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,i 2,_
I litigation Costs - Bonn Update C 24/02 - - - - S - - - S - - S - S - - S - - - - - - - 1;3
10 ,- ?N ?0 10
f litigation Costs _ Update "4x02 -
- - - - - 1-0_4
10
r a14p Co. aye tc„ TEIS $ 22.60 $ 22.41 $ 24.37 $ 23.25 $ 23.11 $ 24.99 $ 29.20 $ 29.04 $ 27.60 $ 27.80 $ 28.85 $ 28.34 $ 28.66 $ 29.80 $ 29.04 $ 27.99 $ 29.27 $ 28.80 $ 31.33 $ 24.35
r.,taCp Cs.,-e c. ,.. a,_., ,., 72 r,),3 ^Al, S ,4 u r SO o :_,.16 ?.04 -9 09 b :? ;- -7 gC 12 ?9 ;I i'I _,.04 "I 24 En
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SCRA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
SCRB - TOTAL - SEQUENCE B - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DE9CRI PTIOM
Production Statistics Yearb Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year -1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year ? Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioe Stn inq Volume 111000 br, 34,048 35,094 35,441 37,354 36,284 35,185 38,030 39,984 40,781 42,837 43,101 38,478 37,892 37,360 42,244 40,351 40,776 39,740 41,366 36,614
Total Mined Area iacresi 183 181 171 178 176 175 182 182 182 185 184 175 173 195 208 219 213 202 216 193
Puns ed Ore 111000 tonsi 11,594 11,893 11,789 11,857 11,678 11,912 12,119 12,150 12,036 12,162 12,263 11,802 11,780 12,229 12,683 13,053 12,992 12,658 12,736 12,566
Total Concentrate i 1000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Gtangein Prestnp Inventory iarxesi 6 7 -1 -63 -10 -11 -45 -63 1 -22 5 29 2 -4 67 71 60 27 -13 -14
Production Casts i>bnn
Oteratin,l Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 10,212 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 8,962 $ 10,339 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587
Maintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 4,024 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 4,061 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,052 $ 4,071 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089
0 eratingSup Ties $ 7,528 $ 7,539 $ 7,273 $ 7,381 $ 5,829 $ 6,652 $ 8,286 $ 6,402 $ 6,633 $ 6,920 $ 6,747 $ 6,302 $ 6,603 $ 7,737 $ 8,709 $ 9,980 $ 9,946 $ 9,846 $ 10,050 $ 9,961
Flaxxtlant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 614 $ 643 $ 682 $ 711 $ 690 $ 748 $ 728 $ 541 $ 595 $ 575 $ 640 $ 701 $ 715 $ 724 $ 711 $ 712
Reaaents,Fuel brie $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,101 $ 6,175 $ 6,154 $ 6,087 $ 6,060 $ 6,045 $ 6,188 $ 6,308 $ 6,208 $ 6,520 $ 6,842 $ 6,973 $ 6,868 $ 6,609 $ 6,638 $ 6,550
,Sulfunc Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
Maintenance St flies $ 13,993 $ 14,183 $ 13,851 $ 13,981 $ 13,816 $ 14,208 $ 14,281 $ 14,270 $ 14,603 $ 14,957 $ 14,945 $ 14,371 $ 14,546 $ 14,391 $ 16,244 $ 16,049 $ 15,991 $ 15,762 $ 16,100 $ 15,921
Electric Paver $ 10,677 $ 10,404 $ 9,445 $ 9,246 $ 9,325 $ 9,885 $ 9,534 $ 9,593 $ 9,851 $ 9,793 $ 10,050 $ 9,639 $ 10,881 $ 10,585 $ 12,702 $ 12,562 $ 12,050 $ 11,851 $ 13,215 $ 13,970
Gontiact Maintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,377 $ 2,015 $ 2,043 $ 6,377 $ 2,115 $ 2,160 $ 2,245 $ 6,253 $ 2,144 $ 2,089 $ 2,390 $ 6,390 $ 2,596 $ 2,605 $ 2,541 $ 6,576 $ 2,419
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 11,186 $ 11,673 $ 14,142 $ 12,622 $ 13,305 $ 13,663 $ 19,185 $ 14,415 $ 13,431 $ 12,555 $ 12,647 $ 12,987 $ 12,934 $ 12,819 $ 12,960 $ 13,546
Other Ex pense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 622 $ 898 $ 901 $ 629 $ 924 $ 979 $ 1,001 $ 1,007 $ 945 $ 939 $ 626 $ 1,121 $ 862 $ 854 $ 836 $ 849 $ 813
Plant Allocated GA_A $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TotalDirectCashCasts $ 65,628 $ 65,661 $ 67,964 $ 64,169 $ 63,114 $ 65,510 $ 72,818 $ 66,942 $ 69,159 $ 70,251 $ 79,983 $ 67,996 $ 68,623 $ 69,000 $ 80,310 $ 76,992 $ 76,245 $ 75,268 $ 81,381 $ 78,174
Tota? ,act Casl? c zm a? I $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.41 $ 5.40 $ 5.50 $ 6.01 $ 5.51 $ 5.75 $ 5.78 $ 6.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.83 $ 5.22 $ 6.33 $ 5.90 $ 5.87 $ 5.95 $ 6.39 $ 6.22
1 :iect C3 ncenta t-n $ 13.13 $ 13.13 $ 13.59 $ 12.83 $ 12.62 $ 13.10 $ 14.56 $ 13.39 $ 13.83 $ 14.05 $ 16.00 $ 13.60 $ 13.72 $ 12.77 $ 16.06 $ 15.40 $ 15.25 $ 15.05 $ 16.28 $ 15.63
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,502 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,780 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,251 $ 19,837 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529
Total Cash Costs $ 84,507 $ 84,540 $ 86,842 $ 83,047 $ 82,243 $ 84,639 $ 91,697 $ 86,444 $ 88,939 $ 90,031 $ 99,763 $ 87,125 $ 87,752 $ 88,251 $ 100,148 $ 96,521 $ 95,774 $ 94,798 $ 100,910 $ 97,704
Total Cash Cosr/pmnred ore (on $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.37 $ 7.00 $ 7.04 $ 7.11 $ 7.57 $ 7.11 $ 7.39 $ 7.40 $ 8.14 $ 7.38 $ 7.45 $ 6.61 $ 7.90 $ 7.39 $ 7.37 $ 7.49 $ 7.92 $ 7.78
Total Cash CosfA;oncenbate t,,n $ 16.90 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.61 $ 16.45 $ 16.93 $ 18.34 $ 17.29 $ 17.79 $ 18.01 $ 19.95 $ 17.43 $ 17.55 $ 16.17 $ 20.03 $ 19.30 $ 19.15 $ 18.96 $ 20.18 $ 19.54
Depreciation $ 12,433 $ 12,522 $ 12,326 $ 12,345 $ 11,983 $ 12,154 $ 12,447 $ 12,310 $ 12,296 $ 12,332 $ 12,600 $ 12,348 $ 12,516 $ 12,847 $ 13,861 $ 14,001 $ 13,731 $ 13,363 $ 13,839 $ 13,488
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 777 $ 794 $ 788 $ 798 $ 777 $ 792 $ 811 $ 817 $ 821 $ 836 $ 735 $ 702 $ 710 $ 714 $ 713 $ 704
Change in Prestn p In, entorv $ (496) $ (603) $ 68 $ 5,285 $ 802 $ 896 $ 3,743 $ 5,240 $ (108) $ 1,864 $ (400) $ (2,382) $ (208) $ 344 $ (5,628) $ (5,894) $ (4,980) $ (2,236) $ 1,116 $ 1,129
H(- PC AII-E De, elo mentWnteoff $ 1,830 $ 1,830 $ 1,830 $ 7,752 $ 7,752 $ 6,283 $ 194 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,328 $ 385 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
idCPC AII-E Wetlands Mitigation $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 581 $ 471 $ 15 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 474 $ 29 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
HCPCDe aelomtentlLandW,iteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 347 $ 1,783 $ 1,829 $ 1,829 $ 1,829 $ 1,829 $ 1,829 $ 1,829 $ 336 $ 396 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1.1iti,lationCosls fICPCUdate0 4.02 - - - - - 40 "06 _Jn4 S -.304 S X904 S ,.904 '.904 ., 904 ° -R - "46 - - - - -
Bonnerton De. elormentand Land Wnteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Bonnerton Recedinq Face V4fiteoff - - - - - - -
MifigationCosts - Bonn Update 4103 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DeaelolmentVNiteoff 1 4", 4",n 4"r 4.",_n 4.-60
Recedinq FaceWnteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 172 $ 759
Mitigation Costs c Update 4'7' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `0: _ Tn? _o.9 o-
Plantlmrovements [let All Costs $ - $ 14 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 99,621 $ 99,686 $ 102,462 $ 109,801 $ 104,139 $ 106,323 $ 114,472 $ 110,525 $ 107,637 $ 110,751 $ 118,508 $ 103,640 $ 106,613 $ 110,134 $ 114,279 $ 110,112 $ 110,016 $ 111,421 $ 121,532 $ 118,566
3Op,ati Ir ,mrred P $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.26 $ 8.92 $ 8.93 $ 9.45 $ 9.10 $ 8.94 $ 9.11 $ 9.66 $ 8.78 $ 9.05 $ 9.01 $ 9.01 $ 8.44 $ 8.47 $ 8.80 $ 9.54 $ 9.44
Total . 0 peiati I r c elltla tan $ 19.92 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 21.96 $ 20.83 $ 21.26 $ 22.89 $ 22.11 $ 21.53 $ 22.15 $ 23.70 $ 20.73 $ 21.32 $ 22.03 $ 22.86 $ 22.02 $ 22.00 $ 22.28 $ 24.31 $ 23.71

Mitigation Costs-P1CPCi DEI3. $ $ $ $ $ $ 427 $ 2,196 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 2,252 $ 414 $ 487 $ $ $ I s $
Mitigation Costs - BonniDEl°, $ $ $ $ $ I s $
Mitigation Costs-833iDEI&i 1841 $ 251 251 251 251 251
fslitigation Costs FICPC Update 4;02 S - S - - - - 740 904 S ,904 S ?104 S _J04 S oJ04 F, 904 P; r17
- 046 - S - S - - -
fvlitigationCosts-BonnUpdate 4'0' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MitiLiation Costs U date 4.,0 .-03 _n,, Sod
Total Or CosiA;oncenVa[e ton-Dt15 is 19.92 $ 19.94 $ 20.49 $ 21.96 $ 20.83 $ 21.20 $ 22.57 $ 21.77 $ 21.20 $ 21.82 $ 23.37 $ 20.40 $ 20.99 $ 21.98 $ 22.75 $ 21.97 $ 21.95 $ 22.23 $ 24.26 $ 23.66
Op C;c at ,., 19.9" 'IJ94 -0.4:1 1.9, 1. T11 '1P - - 1,_- - - C4.1
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SCRB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
SCRB - TOTAL - SEQUENCE B - ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DE9CRI PTIOM
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year23 Year 24 Year25 Year 26 Year27 Year 28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year 32 TotaliAvg.
Effecti eStri loping Volume 11100 br, 37,764 41,918 50,733 48,994 52,083 57,393 52,106 54,717 59,112 56,061 58,891 54,263 51,904 56,023 43,466 34,799 36,463 44,105 28,01E 1691771
Total Mined Area iacresi 187 246 292 245 251 266 251 268 300 273 276 247 254 278 251 218 234 279 20E c'-)-
F unt ed Ore 111000 tonsi 12,771 15,318 16,522 15,213 15,163 15,859 15,409 15,702 16,143 14,522 14,305 14,100 13,977 14,147 13,357 12,188 12,450 13,474 9,636 b14._9;
Total Concentrate i 1000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,649 193.644
Gtangein Prestnp Inventory iarxesi 41 -49 -104 22 -15 -20 -11 -22 29 20 -5 31 -53 -46 5 4 -21 -26 -124 lc

Production Casts i "Ann j
Oteratinq Labor $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 10,238 $ 9,456 $ 9,456 $ 10,033 $ 6,186 S - -
Maintenance Labor $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,139 $ 3,816 $ 3,816 $ 4,127 $ 2,968 S 15693.
O eratingSup Ties $ 10,069 $ 11,333 $ 12,637 $ 11,610 $ 11,092 $ 11,882 $ 11,399 $ 12,058 $ 12,942 $ 12,169 $ 12,656 $ 12,514 $ 12,251 $ 12,011 $ 8,928 $ 7,570 $ 7,831 $ 8,625 $ 5,431 S 361.332
Flaxxtlant $ 729 $ 870 $ 955 $ 893 $ 913 $ 975 $ 1,016 $ 1,012 $ 1,063 $ 915 $ 858 $ 828 $ 767 $ 817 $ 782 $ 711 $ 677 $ 798 $ 549 S 2_).-_4T
Reagents,Fuel,bme $ 6,574 $ 7,992 $ 8,492 $ 7,807 $ 7,659 $ 7,863 $ 7,489 $ 7,686 $ 8,047 $ 7,359 $ 7,285 $ 7,181 $ 7,235 $ 7,283 $ 6,903 $ 6,324 $ 6,546 $ 6,863 $ 4,998 S 364.6.9
SulfuncAciid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 442 S 2'..415
Maintenance St flies $ 16,252 $ 18,284 $ 19,885 $ 19,500 $ 19,463 $ 20,545 $ 19,691 $ 20,410 $ 21,331 $ 20,220 $ 20,442 $ 20,101 $ 19,844 $ 20,350 $ 17,751 $ 15,880 $ 15,341 $ 16,507 $ 10,896 S 64).15'
Electnc Poxei $ 15,269 $ 18,208 $ 20,034 $ 20,060 $ 19,436 $ 20,888 $ 20,203 $ 21,013 $ 21,826 $ 20,448 $ 20,905 $ 21,180 $ 21,556 $ 22,308 $ 18,894 $ 16,491 $ 13,511 $ 13,406 $ 9,428 S -
Contract Maintenance $ 2,475 $ 2,849 $ 7,211 $ 2,785 $ 2,862 $ 3,078 $ 6,866 $ 2,983 $ 3,255 $ 3,052 $ 7,094 $ 2,944 $ 2,823 $ 2,971 $ 6,512 $ 2,156 $ 2,198 $ 2,510 $ 4,833 S 121714
Contract Operations $ 14,456 $ 13,764 $ 13,715 $ 13,439 $ 13,497 $ 13,647 $ 14,323 $ 15,529 $ 14,490 $ 14,223 $ 13,744 $ 14,275 $ 14,031 $ 13,772 $ 13,373 $ 12,101 $ 14,430 $ 13,592 $ 10,404 S 51'936
Other Expense $ 820 $ 913 $ 1,018 $ 1,248 $ 1,265 $ 1,331 $ 1,260 $ 1,336 $ 1,366 $ 1,279 $ 1,323 $ 1,292 $ 1,290 $ 1,302 $ 1,077 $ 922 $ 944 $ 1,021 $ 589 S 0.`_G4
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TolalDlrectCash -osts $ 80,925 $ 88,495 $ 98,858 $ 93,399 $ 92,243 $ 96,264 $ 98,305 $ 98,082 $ 100,974 $ 96,321 $ 100,962 $ 96,969 $ 95,855 $ 96,872 $ 89,202 $ 76,035 $ 75,357 $ 78,088 $ 56,724 S 2.135.1-I
1 Oat Cis p:mml
.t? Di $ 6.34 $ 5.78 $ 5.98 $ 6.14 $ 6.08 $ 6.07 $ 6.38 $ 6.25 $ 6.26 $ 6.63 $ 7.06 $ 6.88 $ 6.86 $ 6.54 $ 6.68 $ 6.24 $ 6.05 $ 5.80 $ 5.89 S 6.10
1 hat Casl? r ncem a ,on $ 16.19 $ 17.70 $ 19.77 $ 18.68 $ 18.45 $ 19.25 $ 19.66 $ 19.62 $ 20.19 $ 19.26 $ 20.19 $ 19.39 $ 19.17 $ 18.49 $ 17.84 $ 15.21 $ 15.07 $ 15.62 $ 15.54 S 16.1)
Allocated Overhead $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 19,823 $ 19,360 $ 19,360 $ 19,733 $ 13,311 S 7;0947
Total Cash Costs $ 100,454 $ 108,024 $ 118,651 $ 113,674 $ 112,518 $ 116,539 $ 118,580 $ 118,356 $ 121,499 $ 116,847 $ 121,488 $ 117,495 $ 116,129 $ 117,146 $ 109,026 $ 95,394 $ 94,717 $ 97,820 $ 70,035 S 2.'96.063
c: rash C t 9 ete (on $ 7.87 $ 7.05 $ 7.18 $ 7.47 $ 7.42 $ 7.35 $ 7.70 $ 7.54 $ 7.53 $ 8.05 $ 8.49 $ 8.33 $ 8.31 $ 7.84 $ 8.16 $ 7.83 $ 7.61 $ 7.26 $ 7.27 S
Total Cash Cost/concendare ron $ 20.09 $ 21.60 $ 23.73 $ 22.73 $ 22.50 $ 23.31 $ 23.72 $ 23.67 $ 24.30 $ 23.37 $ 24.30 $ 23.50 $ 23.23 $ 22.19 $ 21.81 $ 19.08 $ 18.94 $ 19.56 $ 19.19 S '_0.13
Depreciation $ 14,089 $ 16,462 $ 17,824 $ 17,017 $ 16,883 $ 17,699 $ 16,922 $ 17,438 $ 18,328 $ 17,097 $ 17,252 $ 16,908 $ 16,703 $ 17,038 $ 15,694 $ 14,147 $ 13,721 $ 14,422 $ 9,962 S 561.346
Depletion $ 722 $ 709 $ 713 $ 725 $ 722 $ 741 $ 754 $ 734 $ 690 $ 691 $ 706 $ 703 $ 690 $ 698 $ 739 $ 735 $ 734 $ 758 $ 560 S -
Change In Prestnpln?entorv $ (3,443) $ 4,074 $ 8,680 $ (1,842) $ 1,280 $ 1,688 $ 932 $ 1,816 $ (2,441) $ (1,648) $ 428 $ (2,582) $ 4,466 $ 3,849 $ (389) $ (373) $ 1,753 $ 2,185 $ 10,345 S 6
fI,PCAITEC elopment Wnteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4133
H( F:. AITE1 etlatr is Mitigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
tICF: DeaelomtentJLand W,,Meoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 "?-
11itigationCosts IICPCUp latec 4.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BonnertonDeaelonnentand Land Wnteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3118 $ 957 $ 3.957 $ 3.967 $ 2F" S 1 °;-
Bonnerton Re_eliny Face teoff
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MifiaationCosts - Bonn Update 0-',-4,02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 440 S 6n16 S 6013 S c'01 S 4391 S 7
.113
Development VVlileoff 4",_n 46.1 47,_0 S 4 n 4." 4 8 4 8 4", 4",n 4"` 4]60 4J60 4._'6n 4._SO ., - - - - ,491)
3 Receding Face V,Jnteoff $ 877 $ 887 $ 945 $ 945 $ 1.083 $ 1.426 $ 2,286 $ 2,375 $ 2,895 $ 2,895 $ 2.895 $ 3.663 $ 3.663 $ 3.663 $ 777 $ - $ - $ - $
Mitigation Costs c ±U Updatee 4;0' coz T0'_ co,- co: _ `0.9 0'_ cn- = ICs - - - - - 10.034
Flantlm iovements [let All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 6 $ - $ - $ - $ - _,24
Total Operating Costs $ 117,481 $ 134,939 $ 151,596 $ 135,300 $ 137,269 $ 142,876 $ 144,255 $ 145,502 $ 145,753 $ 140,664 $ 147,551 $ 140,969 $ 146,434 $ 147,177 $ 134,721 $ 119,875 $ 120,897 $ 125,158 $ 98,181 $ 4,766,834
e0p elati Ir elp ,tm ped P $ 9.20 $ 8.81 $ 9.18 $ 8.89 $ 9.05 $ 9.01 $ 9.36 $ 9.27 $ 9.03 $ 9.69 $ 10.31 $ 10.00 $ 10.48 $ 10.40 $ 10.09 $ 9.84 $ 9.71 $ 9.29 $ 10.19 $ 9.27
3: 0 pe,ati 1 r c enua tcn $ 23.50 $ 26.99 $ 30.32 $ 27.06 $ 27.45 $ 28.58 $ 28.85 $ 29.10 $ 29.15 $ 28.13 $ 29.51 $ 28.19 $ 29.29 $ 29.44 $ 26.94 $ 23.98 $ 24.18 $ 25.03 $ 26.90 $ 24.62

fitigation Costs tl P-iDE1Si I s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I s 1-03%
Mitigation Costs - BonniDElk i I s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,565 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 3,255 $ 2,376 S 14707
litigation Costs DEIBi I s 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 251 $ 53 $ $ $ I s `.011
Mitigation Costs FICPC Update 4;02 S - S - - - - - - - S - S - - - - - - - S - S - - -
lllgation( osts- BonnUpdate `4.,' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4740 L C...'16 S C01 ,.71, 4?)1 17,
litigation Costs U date 400 - 5C3 coP 7d .-03 503 ? 503 - - 10; - 10.0^4
Total Op Costroncent, ate ton - DEIS Is 23.45 $ 26.94 $ 30.27 $ 27.07 $ 27.40 $ 28.52 $ 28.80 $ 29.05 $ 29.10 $ 28.08 $ 29.46 $ 28.14 $ 29.24 $ 29.50 $ 26.50 $ 23.42 $ 23.63 $ 24.48 $ 26.35 $ 24.46
_;a: Op C6sPcr ra,e,.- c`0 a --e) 1-1 -1 - 2_745 c F, a`_ F, -9.'10 S 115 5 x,1.1 S -)F1 2_'.1) )-0 _9.44 ° =394 ° 24.'1' ' 2_462_
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SCRB cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
STATE JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE A (SJAA) -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year-6 Year-5 Year-4 Year-3 Year-2 Year-1 Year0 Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13
Effectioe Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 34,948 35,095 35,441 37,485 36,268 35,653 38,475 40,458 43,141 46,886 43,906 42,661 40,839 40,066 39,053 38,415 34,817 31,761 36,878 49,522
Total Mined Area(acresl 183 181 171 178 176 174 179 184 188 197 181 175 178 177 183 189 221 221 231 263
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 11,594 11,893 11,790 11,857 11,657 11,831 12,125 12,192 12,283 12,242 12,118 12,116 12,130 11,971 11,699 11,884 12,534 12,284 12,398 13,208
Total Concentrate i1000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi,, lanes, 6 7 -1 -57 -14 -34 -41 -20 -17 -20 -6 11 38 37 -5 24 -23 -40 -11 2
Production Costs (SOOOr
Operating Labor $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 8,385 $ 9,010 $ 9,010 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,212 $ 10,658 $ 10,658 $ 10,033 $ 10,033 $ 9,456 $ 9,010 $ 8,385 $ 8,986 $ 9,010 $ 9,456 $ 10,033
r1aintenance Labor $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,741 $ 3,714 $ 3,714 $ 4,024 $ 4,024 $ 4,061 $ 4,163 $ 4,163 $ 4,127 $ 4,127 $ 3,816 $ 3,714 $ 3,741 $ 3,704 $ 3,714 $ 3,816 $ 4,127
Operating Supplies $ 7,538 $ 7,546 $ 7,267 $ 7,352 $ 5,837 $ 6,395 $ 6,771 $ 7,580 $ 8,337 $ 8,032 $ 7,689 $ 7,313 $ 7,126 $ 7,125 $ 6,632 $ 8,482 $ 6,960 $ 7,116 $ 8,423 $ 9,498
Flocculant $ 589 $ 627 $ 582 $ 587 $ 613 $ 651 $ 682 $ 721 $ 760 $ 788 $ 711 $ 708 $ 612 $ 574 $ 575 $ 534 $ 690 $ 710 $ 674 $ 762
Reagents/FuelTime $ 6,152 $ 6,175 $ 6,205 $ 6,235 $ 6,093 $ 6,128 $ 6,127 $ 6,096 $ 6,063 $ 6,019 $ 6,129 $ 6,132 $ 6,347 $ 6,352 $ 6,241 $ 6,407 $ 6,566 $ 6,394 $ 6,499 $ 6,874
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 13,997 $ 14,185 $ 13,850 $ 13,980 $ 13,967 $ 14,095 $ 14,351 $ 14,974 $ 15,378 $ 15,616 $ 15,404 $ 15,328 $ 15,066 $ 15,055 $ 14,442 $ 14,422 $ 14,428 $ 14,605 $ 15,395 $ 16,641
Electric Po,,er $ 10,686 $ 10,410 $ 9,441 $ 9,202 $ 9,311 $ 9,661 $ 9,968 $ 10,608 $ 11,400 $ 10,718 $ 10,645 $ 11,040 $ 10,983 $ 11,908 $ 10,528 $ 10,071 $ 11,138 $ 11,475 $ 12,581 $ 14,643
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,275 $ 2,333 $ 6,314 $ 2,383 $ 2,040 $ 2,021 $ 6,117 $ 2,177 $ 2,236 $ 2,385 $ 6,339 $ 2,320 $ 2,280 $ 2,250 $ 6,112 $ 2,433 $ 2,031 $ 2,011 $ 6,204 $ 2,423
Contract Operations $ 11,065 $ 11,043 $ 10,943 $ 11,008 $ 11,181 $ 13,904 $ 14,666 $ 13,136 $ 14,053 $ 13,782 $ 17,392 $ 13,561 $ 15,958 $ 16,219 $ 11,249 $ 11,120 $ 11,467 $ 12,130 $ 12,230 $ 13,433
Other Ex pense $ 617 $ 624 $ 619 $ 623 $ 899 $ 902 $ 914 $ 936 $ 997 $ 1,023 $ 991 $ 975 $ 935 $ 934 $ 905 $ 628 $ 931 $ 898 $ 954 $ 1,006
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 65,652 $ 65,676 $ 67,952 $ 64,102 $ 63,270 $ 67,087 $ 73,815 $ 70,445 $ 74,102 $ 73,792 $ 80,727 $ 72,142 $ 74,074 $ 74,296 $ 70,013 $ 66,830 $ 67,507 $ 68,667 $ 76,839 $ 80,046
T- a. iced C a Cot ffn aror4 J $ 5.66 $ 5.52 $ 5.76 $ 5.41 $ 5.43 $ 5.67 $ 6.09 $ 5.78 $ 6.03 $ 6.03 $ 6.66 $ 5.95 $ 6.11 $ 6.21 $ 5.98 $ 5.62 $ 5.39 $ 5.59 $ 6.20 $ 6.06
r a l i?Pet r a C-ot a _ t n $ 13.13 $ 13.14 $ 13.59 $ 12.82 $ 12.65 $ 13.42 $ 14.76 $ 14.09 $ 14.82 $ 14.76 $ 16.15 $ 14.43 $ 14.81 $ 14.86 $ 14.00 $ 13.37 $ 13.50 $ 13.73 $ 15.37 $ 16.01
Allocated Overhead $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 18,878 $ 19,129 $ 19,129 $ 19,502 $ 19,502 $ 19,780 $ 20,010 $ 20,010 $ 19,733 $ 19,733 $ 19,360 $ 19,129 $ 18,878 $ 19,079 $ 19,129 $ 19,360 $ 19,733
Total Cash Costs $ 84,530 $ 84,554 $ 86,830 $ 82,980 $ 82,399 $ 86,216 $ 93,317 $ 89,947 $ 93,882 $ 93,802 $ 100,737 $ 91,875 $ 93,807 $ 93,655 $ 89,142 $ 85,708 $ 86,585 $ 87,796 $ 96,199 $ 99,779
T a! Cash C-st 9 o,e ton $ 7.29 $ 7.11 $ 7.36 $ 7.00 $ 7.07 $ 7.29 $ 7.70 $ 7.38 $ 7.64 $ 7.66 $ 8.31 $ 7.58 $ 7.73 $ 7.82 $ 7.62 $ 7.21 $ 6.91 $ 7.15 $ 7.76 $ 7.55
T -'a! Cash C ntrate too $ 16.91 $ 16.91 $ 17.37 $ 16.60 $ 16.48 $ 17.24 $ 18.66 $ 17.99 $ 18.78 $ 18.76 $ 20.15 $ 18.37 $ 18.76 $ 18.73 $ 17.83 $ 17.14 $ 17.32 $ 17.56 $ 19.24 $ 19.96
Depreciation $ 12,435 $ 12,523 $ 12,325 $ 12,348 $ 11,952 $ 12,075 $ 12,325 $ 12,544 $ 12,753 $ 12,818 $ 12,746 $ 12,861 $ 12,951 $ 13,101 $ 12,479 $ 12,696 $ 12,882 $ 12,612 $ 13,381 $ 14,442
Depletion $ 767 $ 817 $ 814 $ 791 $ 775 $ 789 $ 788 $ 802 $ 796 $ 803 $ 780 $ 803 $ 824 $ 824 $ 805 $ 813 $ 756 $ 735 $ 737 $ 732
Changein Prestrip Inventor, $ (496) $ (603) $ 68 $ 4,733 $ 1,149 $ 2,801 $ 3,411 $ 1,660 $ 1,446 $ 1,644 $ 498 $ (951) $ (3,168) $ (3,065) $ 434 $ (2,040) $ 1,880 $ 3,363 $ 950 $ (205)
NC PC AIt E Development Writeoff $ 1,792 $ 1,792 $ 1,792 $ 7,496 $ 7,495 $ 6,324 $ 60 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 843 $ 2,783 $ 3,329 $ 476 $ - $ - $ -
NCPCAItEWetlandsh4itidation $ 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 569 $ 480 $ 5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 64 $ 211 $ 253 $ 36 $ - $ - $ -
U OFC Develol,menGLand Writeoff - g - g - 1? - g - R 23o ? 1.472 g 1.484 R 1.484 g 1.484 g 1.484 9 1.484 g 1.484 R 1.317 R 9?? g 82F R 23A g - g - 9 -
LlitigationCosts IIOPC Lp,ate z P?Ao
Bonnerton Development and Land to off 04 1 4^3 C 1 4 1.423
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
C9itidationCosts-Bonn Update C '4/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4._39 ;I ',.449 ? 44', F, 5.44'!
' Development Vriteoff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a_' Receding Face Writeoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
r,iitigationCosts- StoUpdate 410' 'a - - - - - - - -
Plantlmpro?ementsPletAllCosts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total OperatingCosts $ 99,596 $ 99,652 $ 102,399 $ 108,917 $ 104,340 $ 109,447 $ 114,749 $ 109,836 $ 113,761 $ 113,951 $ 119,644 $ 109,471 $ 109,297 $ 109,757 $ 108,925 $ 103,473 $ 108,732 $ 111,379 $ 118,138 $ 121,619
r a 5ne,at ) rpe I e $ 8.59 $ 8.38 $ 8.69 $ 9.19 $ 8.95 $ 9.25 $ 9.46 $ 9.01 $ 9.26 $ 9.31 $ 9.87 $ 9.04 $ 9.01 $ 9.17 $ 9.31 $ 8.71 $ 8.67 $ 9.07 $ 9.53 $ 9.21
Total Ope,atmo Cost/coneennate ton $ 19.92 $ 19.93 $ 20.46 $ 21.78 $ 20.67 $ 21.89 $ 22.95 $ 21.97 $ 22.75 $ 22.79 $ 23.93 $ 21.89 $ 21.66 $ 21.95 $ 21.79 $ 20.69 $ 21.75 $ 22.28 $ 23.63 $ 24.32

11itidation Costs - PICP(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ 313 $ 1,985 $ 2,001 $ 2,001 $ 2,091 $ 2,001 $ 2,901 $ 2,091 $ 1,776 $ 1,258 $ 1,113 $ 321 $ $ $
Nlitidation C( sts - BonnIDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,293 $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,954
1llitidation Costs - SSiIDEIS, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
I litigation Costs MCPC Update? '01- 1-en c 545 - - -
0 0
11iti;lationCosts-Bonn Update C 24/02 4-0 2 149 i 441 'x.445
alitigation Costs _ 2Update "4r02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Op Cost/cmreenliate ton-DEIS $ 19.92 $ 19.93 $ 20.46 $ 21.78 $ 20.67 $ 21.85 $ 22.67 $ 21.69 $ 22.47 $ 22.51 $ 23.65 $ 21.61 $ 21.58 $ 21.70 $ 21.61 $ 20.54 $ 21.31 $ 21.78 $ 23.13 $ 23.82
r ?a; Cp Caa ItaL'e -+08 1992 1,33 S 04g 1 - _0.21 _1.£ - - 1£- -- -.i9 -1121.2 195 .-11.79 0 .G9 _1.7- S a
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAA cost model update
PCS PHOSPHATE -AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
STATE JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY SEQUENCE A (SJAA) -TOTAL -ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
March 2008
DESCRIPT10P1
Production Statistics Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year20 Year 21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Year 31 Year32 Year33
Effectioe Stripping volume 11000 bcvl 48,706 49,788 42,558 39,998 40,540 40,424 40,633 39,238 37,125 36,639 45,268 45,087 47,939 44,170 57,943 60,462 58,435 55,744 53,542 55,141
Total Mined Area(acresl 298 286 270 226 219 210 202 202 193 188 264 240 249 228 257 271 280 304 282 276
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 13,943 13,142 12,337 12,712 12,982 13,134 12,746 12,735 12,614 12,854 16,025 15,075 14,721 14,420 15,756 15,991 16,046 16,469 14,950 14,313
Total Concentrate i 11000 tonsi 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Change in Prestrip Inventoi,, )acres, 17 20 87 -5 63 42 -4 15 5 28 -44 -74 -69 -63 21 32 55 -56 -51 -56
Production Costs (S000r
Operating Labor $ 10,502 $ 10,502 $ 9,925 $ 10,008 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 9,587 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,120 $ 10,744 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,191 $ 11,191 $ 11,191
r laintenance Labor $ 4,256 $ 4,256 $ 3,945 $ 4,049 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,089 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,185 $ 4,157 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,260 $ 4,260 $ 4,260
Operating Supplies $ 11,029 $ 9,678 $ 9,175 $ 8,212 $ 9,951 $ 10,002 $ 10,169 $ 10,226 $ 9,980 $ 10,051 $ 11,950 $ 11,769 $ 11,842 $ 10,188 $ 13,392 $ 13,322 $ 13,162 $ 12,172 $ 11,464 $ 11,651
Flocculant $ 868 $ 751 $ 694 $ 681 $ 697 $ 734 $ 721 $ 711 $ 719 $ 738 $ 922 $ 866 $ 893 $ 939 $ 1,032 $ 931 $ 1,005 $ 1,057 $ 939 $ 863
Reagents,FueVLime $ 6,952 $ 6,812 $ 6,388 $ 6,760 $ 6,931 $ 6,922 $ 6,653 $ 6,635 $ 6,572 $ 6,605 $ 8,303 $ 7,823 $ 7,461 $ 7,063 $ 7,635 $ 8,061 $ 7,945 $ 8,234 $ 7,589 $ 7,282
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 607 $ 606
1 laintenance Supplies $ 17,756 $ 16,992 $ 16,073 $ 16,177 $ 16,316 $ 16,387 $ 16,357 $ 16,329 $ 16,221 $ 16,229 $ 19,170 $ 18,691 $ 18,709 $ 18,415 $ 21,048 $ 21,635 $ 21,484 $ 21,258 $ 20,094 $ 19,936
Electric Po,,er $ 14,823 $ 13,978 $ 12,802 $ 13,835 $ 14,012 $ 14,096 $ 14,413 $ 14,924 $ 14,796 $ 14,924 $ 19,721 $ 18,880 $ 19,001 $ 19,244 $ 21,924 $ 22,875 $ 23,052 $ 23,257 $ 21,480 $ 21,080
Contract 6,laintenance $ 2,731 $ 2,661 $ 6,437 $ 2,283 $ 2,578 $ 2,584 $ 6,558 $ 2,524 $ 2,480 $ 2,464 $ 7,005 $ 2,940 $ 2,961 $ 2,510 $ 7,112 $ 3,279 $ 3,212 $ 3,133 $ 6,927 $ 2,913
Contract Operations $ 13,782 $ 13,658 $ 12,121 $ 13,180 $ 12,991 $ 12,897 $ 12,820 $ 12,820 $ 13,548 $ 15,084 $ 13,444 $ 13,200 $ 13,291 $ 14,088 $ 14,374 $ 15,071 $ 13,792 $ 14,848 $ 14,312 $ 13,748
Other Ex pense $ 1,057 $ 1,025 $ 980 $ 1,095 $ 875 $ 861 $ 842 $ 832 $ 815 $ 810 $ 956 $ 914 $ 914 $ 1,154 $ 1,332 $ 1,369 $ 1,375 $ 1,348 $ 1,268 $ 1,291
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total DirectCashCosts $ 84,362 $ 80,919 $ 79,147 $ 76,887 $ 78,633 $ 78,765 $ 82,815 $ 79,283 $ 79,413 $ 81,186 $ 96,381 $ 89,994 $ 89,983 $ 89,109 $ 104,504 $ 103,197 $ 101,681 $ 101,363 $ 100,130 $ 94,821
r a. iced r a r aror4 J e $ 6.05 $ 6.16 $ 6.42 $ 6.05 $ 6.06 $ 6.00 $ 6.50 $ 6.23 $ 6.30 $ 6.32 $ 6.01 $ 5.97 $ 6.11 $ 6.18 $ 6.63 $ 6.45 $ 6.34 $ 6.15 $ 6.70 $ 6.62
T -al i?eetra C-ot e_tmr $ 16.87 $ 16.18 $ 15.83 $ 15.38 $ 15.73 $ 15.75 $ 16.56 $ 15.86 $ 15.88 $ 16.24 $ 19.28 $ 18.00 $ 18.00 $ 17.82 $ 20.90 $ 20.64 $ 20.34 $ 20.29 $ 20.01 $ 18.96
Allocated Overhead $ 19,984 $ 19,984 $ 19,611 $ 19,689 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,529 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 19,793 $ 20,044 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,275 $ 20,275 $ 20,275
Total Cash Costs $ 104,346 $ 100,902 $ 98,757 $ 96,576 $ 98,162 $ 98,294 $ 102,344 $ 98,812 $ 98,942 $ 100,715 $ 116,174 $ 109,787 $ 109,777 $ 109,154 $ 125,030 $ 123,723 $ 122,207 $ 121,638 $ 120,405 $ 115,096
r a! Cash C-st 9 ore ton $ 7.48 $ 7.68 $ 8.01 $ 7.60 $ 7.56 $ 7.48 $ 8.03 $ 7.76 $ 7.84 $ 7.84 $ 7.25 $ 7.28 $ 7.46 $ 7.57 $ 7.94 $ 7.74 $ 7.62 $ 7.39 $ 8.05 $ 8.04
r a; Cash C ntrate too $ 20.87 $ 20.18 $ 19.75 $ 19.32 $ 19.63 $ 19.66 $ 20.47 $ 19.76 $ 19.79 $ 20.14 $ 23.23 $ 21.96 $ 21.96 $ 21.83 $ 25.01 $ 24.74 $ 24.44 $ 24.35 $ 24.06 $ 23.02
Depreciation $ 15,304 $ 14,904 $ 13,773 $ 13,765 $ 14,199 $ 14,225 $ 14,005 $ 14,057 $ 13,808 $ 13,870 $ 17,316 $ 16,558 $ 16,422 $ 15,659 $ 17,864 $ 18,573 $ 18,541 $ 18,517 $ 17,312 $ 16,979
Depletion $ 773 $ 758 $ 756 $ 730 $ 704 $ 706 $ 714 $ 713 $ 702 $ 721 $ 721 $ 718 $ 714 $ 725 $ 771 $ 726 $ 729 $ 697 $ 692 $ 706
Change in Prestrip Inventor) $ (1,437) $ (1,701) $ (7,283) $ 401 $ (5,220) $ (3,517) $ 296 $ (1,234) $ (435) $ (2,339) $ 3,709 $ 6,150 $ 5,739 $ 5,220 $ (1,779) $ (2,664) $ (4,603) $ 4,660 $ 4,232 $ 4,675
p1CeAltEDe-elopmentWriteoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
GICPCAltEWetlandshlitigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FdDe,elohmentrLandWriteoff
rlitigation Costs PI-F- "Iodate C ^_4/05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bonnerton Development and Land Vriteoff 1A ? ;I 1 4 3 1 4 " 464
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff
Y
-
;I
-
b
-
Y
-
„
-
b
-
;I
-
5
-
-
;,
-
-
-
;.
-
;..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
f4itidationCosts-Ponn Update C '4/05 `449 £ 449 S 44'', Y 1 ;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Development Vriteoff - - - 249 S 4 `15 4^1" 415 S 4 15 S 4 19 S 4 `15 ' 4^12 4. 19 S 4 15 S 4 12 415 ° 4^15 4 12 S 4 ^_14 S 4 4.218
aSReceding Face Writeoff - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 157 $ 691 $ 799 $ 807 8 859 $ 970 $ 1.240 8 1.899 $ 1.899 $ 1.973 $ 2.390 $ 2.395 8 2.392
frlitidation Costs e'-Update 4105 799 T99 _s ' 9h1 b 7^9 TUE, '£ ., ., ., -9c, -, _ - ., FA 9
Fla nt l mpi o?ements`let All Costs $ - $ - $ - $ 13 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19
Total Operating Costs $ 125,858 $ 121,736 $ 112,875 $ 117,107 $ 112,882 $ 114,744 $ 122,395 $ 117,542 $ 118,745 $ 118,802 $ 143,764 $ 139,108 $ 138,659 $ 137,034 $ 148,821 $ 147,293 $ 143,883 $ 152,933 $ 150,076 $ 144,885
r a eerat ) rpe I e $ 9.03 $ 9.26 $ 9.15 $ 9.21 $ 8.70 $ 8.74 $ 9.60 $ 9.23 $ 9.41 $ 9.24 $ 8.97 $ 9.23 $ 9.42 $ 9.50 $ 9.45 $ 9.21 $ 8.97 $ 9.29 $ 10.04 $ 10.12
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 25.17 $ 24.35 $ 22.57 $ 23.42 $ 22.58 $ 22.95 $ 24.48 $ 23.51 $ 23.75 $ 23.76 $ 28.75 $ 27.82 $ 27.73 $ 27.41 $ 29.76 $ 29.46 $ 28.78 $ 30.58 $ 30.02 $ 28.98

I litigation Costs - W- F(_ IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
`litigation C( sts - BonnIDEIS) $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 2,954 $ 963 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Miticrotion Costs - SSiIDEIS, $ $ $ $ 299 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 44 $$ 444 $ 444
I litigation Costs `CPC Update? 4,05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I litigation Costs- Bonn Update C 24/05 4,44/ S 449 S 44?1 t 1 T S - - - S - - 5 - - - - - - - - - - -
flitidationCosts Update - 7,C, -9, 7,9 Tor To'' Tor n 71-19
Total Op Cost/cmreenliate ton-DEIs $ 24.67 $ 23.85 $ 22.06 $ 23.21 $ 22.51 $ 22.86 $ 24.41 $ 23.44 $ 23.68 $ 23.69 $ 28.66 $ 27.75 $ 27.66 $ 27.34 $ 29.69 $ 29.39 $ 28.71 $ 30.54 $ 29.92 $ 28.91
FT,_ "a; C,n ea Iaye 4.17 4 -4.45 1 -- 76 - -- - 41 7F 46 72 ) `_
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAA cost model update
DESCRIPTIOrl
Production Statistics Year34 Year35 Year36 Year37 Year38 Total/Avg.
Effectiae Stnl Ling volume 11 00 bcdl 51,742 55,822 57,709 69,390 36,073 I '-)7-
Total Mined Area (acres) 248 256 269 296 197 10.04_
Pumped Ore 11000 tons) 14,967 14,293 13,972 14,982 9,840 - -
Total Concentrate i lent) tonsi 5,000 5,090 5,009 4,923 3,626 22
Change in Prestrip lnventoip )acres) 3 -21 20 -53 -69 <A6

Production Costs (S-nnn
Operating Labor $ 11,191 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 11,660 $ 7,102 S 443.046
r laintenance Labor $ 4,260 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 4,389 $ 2,922 S 1817=8
Operating Supplies $ 11,657 $ 12,952 $ 12,649 $ 12,792 $ 8,224 S 4-6.630
Flocculant $ 834 $ 789 $ 786 $ 863 $ 558 S :5274^_
Reagents/Fuel,Lime $ 7,158 $ 7,298 $ 7,237 $ 7,148 $ 5,075 S
Sulfuric Acid $ 606 $ 606 $ 606 $ 597 $ 440 S 5=.'100
Ilaintenance Supplies $ 19,748 $ 20,426 $ 20,581 $ 20,899 $ 14,182 S
ElectiePo-er $ 20,661 $ 21,779 $ 22,261 $ 22,765 $ 15,719 5 -2714
Contract 6,1aintenance $ 2,847 $ 3,014 $ 7,056 $ 3,146 $ 2,101 193.14
Contract Operations $ 13,465 $ 14,368 $ 14,183 $ 16,160 $ 9,723 S 600.'10
Other Ex pen se $ 1,284 $ 1,325 $ 1,317 $ 1,319 $ 829 S 44 'DC
Plant Allocated GAA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -
Total Direct Cash Costs $ 93,709 $ 98,605 $ 102,726 $ 101,735 $ 66,875 S -
T- a iied r a r aror4 J e $ 6.66 $ 6.94 $ 7.35 $ 7.22 $ 6.80 6.13
r al i?eetra et_tmr $ 18.74 $ 19.72 $ 20.55 $ 20.67 $ 18.44 ; 11 '4
Allocated Overhead $ 20,275 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 20,526 $ 13,177 5 36.004
Total Cash Costs $ 113,984 $ 119,130 $ 123,251 $ 122,261 $ 80,052 S 41
r a! Cash C 9 ore ton $ 8.10 $ 8.39 $ 8.82 $ 8.68 $ 8.14
r a; Cash C m=ate ton $ 22.80 $ 23.83 $ 24.65 $ 24.84 $ 22.08
Depreciation $ 16,536 $ 17,202 $ 17,205 $ 17,487 $ 11,834 S fra0.114
Depletion $ 701 $ 695 $ 695 $ 688 $ 498 S -
Changein PiestupIn entoi $ (289) $ 1,742 $ (1,670) $ 4,420 $ 5,748 -
f- F(- Alt E Deelopment Writeoff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - '4.135
UCPCAltE etlands I litigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
U;FCDeveloLment?LandWriteoff
I litigation Costs PI- F - Update C 24/03 - - - - - 1.227
Eionnerton Development and Land Vriteoff - - - - - 10.'10
Bonnerton Receding Face Writeoff - - - - - -
f4itidationCosts-Ponn Updates '4/03 - - - - - 3704
Development Vriteoff 4 12 S 4'13 S 4 12 41 3 .,- C0.'19a
'8 Receding Face -Vriteoff 2.392 $ 3.057 $ 3.057 8 3.010 $ 2.21-
I Iiti i Iation Costs ,So Update "4103 - ., _ _- 11 -. 1;.091
Fla nt l mpi ovements Plet All Costs $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 14 S 409
Total Operating Costs $ 138,360 $ 146,863 $ 147,575 $ 152,825 $ 104,003 $ 5,515,850
r a 0gerat ) rpe I e $ 9.84 $ 10.34 $ 10.56 $ 10.85 $ 10.57 $ 9.33
Total Operating Cost/coneennate ton $ 27.67 $ 29.37 $ 29.51 $ 31.04 $ 28.68 $ 24.67

I litigation Costs - W- F(- IDEIS) $ $ $ $ $ 13
h4itidation Costs - DonnIDEISI $ $ $ $ $ -6930
11itidation Costs ' SIDEIS, $ 444 $ 444 $ 444 $ 437 $ 322 _ 9.49a
I Iitgation Costs f1TPC Updates
I litigation Costs - Bonn Update C 24/03 - - - - - '_8704
flitidation Costs _ Update "4/03 799 799 -99 ',-A -- 1%.091
r a; 4p Co. aye tr,TEIS $ 27.60 $ 29.30 $ 29.44 $ 30.97 $ 28.61 $ 24.50
r ?a; Cr, Coa ?cr- It e '% F. - „ -1 31.04 3.63 _4.Fi
PCS Phosphate FEIS
Addendum to Appendix D
SJAA cost model update