20080868 Ver 2_EPA Comments_20090413

?,?ttao sr,???
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 7)
V44 ,R011-7/
APR 3 -1009
The Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
108 Army Pentagon
Room 3E446
Washington, DC. 20310-0108
Dear Secretary Woodley:
C?{?:9 15 ?nj FFICE OF
LL, --- - - WATER
APR 13 W

In accordance with the provisions of the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department
of the Army under Section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), I am requesting your
review of a decision by Colonel Jefferson M. Ryscavage, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps), Wilmington District (the District), to issue a Section 404 permit to the Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan Phosphate Division (PCS or the Applicant) to expand an
existing phosphate mining operation (Action ID: AID 200110096) in Beaufort County,
North Carolina (NC). The 15,100 acre project area is located adjacent to the Pamlico
River which is part of the nationally significant Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex.
The project area contains 6,293 acres of wetlands and 115,843 linear feet of streams that
support the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary and collectively constitute aquatic resources of
national importance (ARNI). The proposed mine advance involves mining and mining
related activities within approximately 11,454 acres, resulting in direct adverse impacts to
approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of streams. In addition to
our concerns regarding the magnitude of the project's adverse impacts to the site's
important aquatic resources, we believe there is compelling evidence that additional
avoidance, minimization, and compensation are practicable under the CWA Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines). After a thorough review of the available information,
I have determined this case warrants elevation to you in accordance with the criteria
under Part IV of the MOA, Elevation of Individual Permit Decisions.
This referral meets the criteria in Part IV of the 1992 EPA/Army Section 404(q)
MOA. EPA finds that the proposed discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States and associated direct and indirect impacts will result in substantial and
unacceptable impacts to an aquatic resource of national importance. I want to emphasize,
however, our conclusions regarding the current mining proposal do not mean EPA is
opposed to additional mining at the site. We believe that a modified mining proposal
consistent with the regulations and the CWA could proceed and I am interested in
working with you and the mining company to identify an acceptable alternative.
However, we do not believe, as currently proposed, the permit complies with the
requirements of the Guidelines.
Internet Address (URL) • http:/A~.epa.gov
Recyckxt/Recydable .Primed with vegetable oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 50% Postconsumer content)
Substantial and Unacceptable Impacts to an AR1vI
The 15,100 acre project area is composed of three tracts identified as the NCPC,
Bonnerton and South of NC Highway 33 (S33) tracts. There are wetlands on all three
tracts that perform important ecological functions that support the Albemarle Pamlico
Estuary such as temporary storage of surface water, nutrient cycling, organic carbon
export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and
animal habitatf Similarly, thrre are streams on all three tracts that perform important
ecological functions that support the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary such as the transport of
water, nutrients and sediment downstream, pollutant processing and removal, and
maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. We recognize that not all
of the approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of streams that would
be impacted by the proposed project perform all of these respective functions to the same
degree (because of their position in the landscape and/or their level of prior disturbance);
however, the loss of this entire suite of wetland and stream functions on this scale raises
serious ecological concerns.
The proposed permit would represent the single largest wetland impact ever
authorized under the CWA in NC and would result in a significant loss of wetlands,
streams and other waters of the United States within the nationally significant Albemarle
Pamlico Estuary Complex. EPA is particularly concerned with the proposed project's:
• Direct impacts to a 271 acre nonriverine hardwood wetland forest on the
Bonnerton tract that has been designated as a Nationally Significant Natural
Heritage Area by the NC Natural Heritage Program, and
• Indirect impacts to the site's ten tidal creeks, four of which have been designated
as Primary Nursery Areas by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, associated
with the 70 percent reduction in the drainage basins for these creeks.
Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area: The NC Natural Heritage Program
designates areas in the state which it has determined to be important for conservation of
the state's biodiversity as Significant Natural Heritage Areas. These areas can be
classified as significant by the Natural Heritage Program at the county, regional, state or
national level. The fact that the Bonnerton tract's Significant Natural Heritage Area has
been classified as nationally significant means the Natural Heritage Program has
determined it to be one of the five best examples of this community type in the Nation.
This wet hardwood forest community type found on the Bonnerton tract is considered to
be among the most threatened and endangered of NC's natural communities. The
proposed project would directly impact approximately 97 acres of this ecologically
valuable and rare wetland system and would allow mining through the middle of the
Significant Natural Heritage Area, bisecting it into two separate and smaller pieces, an
eastern and a western piece. This large reduction in size and the fragmentation of the
Significant Natural Heritage Area into two separate pieces would undermine some of the
key ecological characteristics which make it ecologically valuable and "nationally
significant." Although the NC Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) CWA Section
401 Water Quality Certification requires the mined out area between the eastern and
2
western pieces to be restored after mining, we believe it will be extremely difficult, based
on the current state of the science, to restore this area to its prior condition after mining
and this will have a significant detrimental impact to the integrity of this rare and
threatened biological community.
Tidal Creeks/Primary Nursery Areas: EPA also has strong concerns with the
proposed project's indirect impacts to the project area's ten tidal creeks, four of which
have been classified by the NC Wildlife Resource Commission as Primary Nursery
Areas. Although the proposed project would not directly impact the perennial reaches of
the four Primary Nursery Areas, the headwater drainages of the project site's tidal creeks
(including those designated as Primary Nursery Areas) would be reduced by
approximately 70 percent. Our concerns regarding the proposed drainage basin
reductions are amplified on the NCPC tract since its watersheds have already lost
approximately 1,268 acres of wetlands as part of the Applicant's existing mining permit
issued by the District in 1997.
Eliminating the headwater streams and wetlands and significantly reducing the
drainage areas of the project site's Primary Nursery Areas and other tidal creeks would:
• Reduce flow from ground water and increase variability in surface water flows to
the tidal creeks, thereby increasing the frequency and magnitude of short-term
salinity fluctuations;
• Reduce filtration of nutrients and other contaminants previously accomplished by
the site's streams and wetlands, increasing sedimentation and turbidity in tidal
creeks;
• Reduce productivity of native fish and shellfish in the downstream estuary by
disrupting the estuarine food web (caused by a reduction of organic materials
critical for biological activity in the surface water drainage); and
• Shift downstream estuarine productivity from the benthic community which is
dominated by sensitive submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrate
species to tolerant phytoplankton species. This would exacerbate ongoing
environmental stress and create an open niche for problematic invasive plant and
animal species to colonize and degrade the estuary.
We believe the disruption of these processes and functions in the drainage basin will
significantly impact the site's tidal creeks and impair the ability of these systems to
function as Primary Nursery Areas.
In summary, EPA believes the impacts to ecological functions at the scale
associated with this project, as described above, would cause or contribute to significant
degradation [40 CFR 230.10(c)] of the Nation's waters.
Alternatives Analysis
A key provision of the Guidelines requires evaluation of practicable alternatives
which satisfy the project's primary purpose. The Guidelines provide that "no discharge
-of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem" [40
3
CFR 230.10(a)]. An alternative is practicable if "it is available and capable of being done
after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes." [40 CFR 230. 1 0(a)(2)].
The proposed project's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluated
eleven alternative mining alignments and a "No-Action" alternative. During the review
process, EPA Region 4 has consistently expressed concerns regarding the economic
analysis conducted in support of the District's alternatives review. The Guidelines also
require selection of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
I understand, however, the "LEDPA" identified by the District in the FEIS has since
been replaced with a less-damaging alternative required by the NCDWQ's CWA Section
401 Water Quality Certification. Our review indicates that the new "LEDPA" may still
not be the least damaging alternative, as required by the Guidelines.
Minimizing and Compensating for Adverse Impacts
The Guidelines require that adverse environmental impacts associated with the
proposed discharge of fill material to waters of the United States first be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable and then minimized to the extent appropriate and
practicable. For unavoidable impacts which remain, compensatory mitigation is required
to offset wetland and other aquatic resource losses. In addition to the need to further
avoid impacts to the site's high value aquatic resources, we also believe that additional
measures can be taken to minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided aquatic
resources by improving the quality of the reclamation area (i.e., re-using top soil and re-
vegetating with target plant species). Further, we recommend that all avoided aquatic
resources be provided permanent protection from future mining with appropriate binding
real estate instruments such as conservation easements.
We also have concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed compensatory
mitigation to offset authorized impacts to mature forested wetlands. In light of the very
unique and rare qualities of the Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area, it is not
clear that its attributes could be replaced by compensatory mitigation, raising concerns
regarding significant degradation [40 CFR 230.10(c)]. Additionally, for impacts to other
mature forested wetlands, not located in the Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area,
we continue to have concerns that the proposed compensatory mitigation will not
adequately offset impacts to these systems. Even if proposed efforts to replace mature
forested wetlands with immature restored or created wetlands are successful, the
replacement wetlands will not provide the same level of physical, chemical, and
biological processes and functions as the impacted forested wetland systems for a very
long time (e.g., 60 to 80 years). The current plan requires 2:1 compensation ratios for
these impacts. We continue to believe that compensation ratios of 3:1 would better
address the temporal losses associated with the replacement of this wetland type.
EPA/FWS/NMFS Recommended Alternative
Although the formal permit elevation process was initiated with the District's
February 24, 2009, Notice of Intent (NOI) letter, EPA has continued to coordinate with
4
the District and the Applicant in an effort to resolve our concerns regarding the proposed
project. To this end, on March 24, 2009, representatives from EPA, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) met with the
District and the Applicant to discuss our continued concerns with the proposed project.
At that meeting EPA and the Services presented a potential alternative plan for mining
the site that would address the concerns raised by the agencies by avoiding and
minimizing impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, consistent with the Guidelines. The
EPA/FWS/NMFS proposal would provide:
• Additional avoidance designed to reduce the direct and indirect impacts of the
mining project on the site's Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area as well
as the site's tidal creeks, including those identified as Primary Nursery Areas;
• Measures to ensure that avoided aquatic resources are provided permanent
protections from future mining with appropriate binding real estate instruments
such as conservation easements;
• Measures to be taken to minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided
aquatic resources by improving the quality of the reclamation areas (i.e., re-using
top soil and re-vegetating with target plant species); and
• Measures to be taken to improve the monitoring and adaptive management of
both the mining and mitigation sites.
EPA believes that this alternative, if practicable, would also address the primary
concerns of those who are challenging the NCDWQ's CWA Section 401 certification of
the project, and threatening potential litigation. The Applicant expressed a desire to
review the new alternative and noted that its evaluation could take a month or longer.
We believe that we cannot conclude that this alternative proposal, or a modified version
of it, is not practicable until we have heard back from the Applicant.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, we believe that the permit, as proposed, would fail to comply with
the Guidelines for the following reasons:
1. There are less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives that meet the
project purpose [40 CFR 230.10(a)];
2. The project's direct and indirect impacts to high value wetland and stream
systems including areas designated as Nationally Significant Natural Heritage
Areas and Primary Nursery Areas would cause or contribute to significant
degradation of the Nation's waters [40 CFR 230.10(c)]; and
3. All appropriate and practicable steps have not been taken to minimize and
compensate for the project's adverse impacts to waters of the United States [40
CFR 230.10(d)].
I request, therefore, that your office coordinate with the District to: 1) in
coordination with the Applicant, withdraw the NOI letter and initiate further analysis of
the new proposed alternative to determine whether such alternative, or a modification of
it, would be practicable, and thus the "LEDPA"; or 2) revise the proposed permit
consistent with the following: a) revise its alternatives analysis for the proposed project to
5
address inconsistencies that bias identification of the LEDPA, b) in development of the
LEDPA, avoid direct impacts to the Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area and
indirect impacts to the site's tidal creeks, including those identified as Primary Nursery
Areas, to the maximum extent practicable, c) incorporate all appropriate and practicable
measures to minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided aquatic resources by
improving the quality of the reclamation areas (i.e., re-using top soil and re-vegetating
with target plant species), d) ensure that all avoided aquatic resources are provided
permanent protection from future mining with the appropriate binding real estate
instruments such as conservation easements, e) revise the compensatory mitigation plan
to effectively offset impacts to mature forested wetlands and f) include measures to
ensure effective monitoring and adaptive management of both the mining and mitigation
sites.
EPA has attempted to reach resolution of our concerns with the District and the
Applicant. We believe your support for continuation of these discussions would provide
the opportunity for successful resolution, and obviate the need to complete this elevation.
I appreciate your personal attention to this important matter.
My request for your review of the District's permit decision is based on
information provided to EPA in the District's NOI letter. I am concerned that we
continue to receive a significant amount of new information regarding the project from
the District even as recently as this afternoon. We look forward to working with you in
the context of this elevation to consider this new information.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact
me or have your staff contact Palmer Hough of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael H. Shapiro
Acting Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
Cc: Colonel Jefferson M. Ryscavage, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg
District
Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel, South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Sam Hamilton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dee Freeman, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality
A. Stanley Meiburg, EPA
James D. Giattina, EPA
6
Enclosure
Detailed Comments on Proposed
PCS Phosphate Mine Expansion
Section 404 Permit
1. Introduction
This referral meets the criteria in Part IV of the 1992 EPA/Army Section 404(q) Memorandum
of Agreement (1992 MOA). EPA finds that the proposed discharge would result in substantial
and unacceptable impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the Albemarle
Pamlico River estuary system, aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI). On February
24, 2009, the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (the
Corps) issued a Notice of Intent to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Phosphate Division (PCS or the Applicant) to expand an
existing phosphate mining operation (Action ID: AID 200110096). Pursuant to the Corps'
authority under CWA Section 404, this permit would authorize the discharge of dredged and fill
material to waters of the United States associated with a mine advance into the approximately
15,100 acre project area surrounding PCS's current mining operation adjacent to the Pamlico
River, north of Aurora, Beaufort County, North Carolina (NC).
The proposed mine advance will involve mining and mining related activities within
approximately 11,454 acres, resulting in direct adverse impacts to approximately 3,953 acres of
wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of stream. The mining and mining related impacts would take
place in three tracts identified as the NCPC, Bonnerton and South of NC Highway 33 (S33)
tracts (see Figure 1).
EPA is very concerned with the magnitude of the direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and
other waters which support the nationally significant Albemarle Pamlico Estuary System. Of
particular concern are portions of a nonriverine wetland hardwood forest that have been
designated as a Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area by the NC Natural Heritage
Program and would be directly impacted by the proposed project. The project would also result
in the loss of approximately 70 percent of the watersheds of the project area streams which drain
to estuaries of the Pamlico River resulting in indirect impacts to these important estuary systems.
EPA also has specific concerns regarding the proposed project's indirect impacts to these estuary
systems, four of which have been designated as Primary Nursery Areas by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Based on EPA's review of the economic analysis included in the project's Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), we continue to believe that there are less environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives for mining the project site that would avoid and minimize impacts to
important wetland and stream resources. In addition to the need to further avoid impacts to the
site's high value aquatic resources, we also believe that additional measures can be taken to
minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided aquatic resources by improving the quality
of the reclamation area (i.e., re-using top soil and re-vegetating with target plant species).
Further, all avoided aquatic resources should be provided permanent protection from future
Figure 1 illustrates the PCS project boundary. Mining and mining related impacts would take place in three
tracts identified as the NCPC, Bonnerton and South of NC Highway 33 (S33) tracts.
mining with appropriate binding real estate instruments such as conservation easements. We
also have concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed compensatory mitigation to offset
authorized impacts to mature forested wetlands. Finally, we believe that additional measures are
necessary to improve the monitoring and adaptive management of both the mining and
mitigation sites.
Based on our review of the proposed project, we believe it fails to comply with the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (the Guidelines) for the following reasons:
1. There are less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives that meet the project
purpose [40 CFR 230.10(a)];
2. The project's direct and indirect impacts to high value wetland and stream systems
including areas designated as Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Areas and Primary
Nursery Areas would cause or contribute to significant degradation of the Nation's waters
[40 CFR 230.10(c)]; and
3. All appropriate and practicable steps have not been taken to minimize and compensate
for the project's adverse impacts to waters of the United States [40 CFR 230.10(d)].
II. Project History
In August 1997, the Corps issued PCS a permit to impact approximately 1,268 acres of wetlands
in order to mine phosphate next to its phosphate processing plant on the Hickory Point peninsula
adjacent to the Pamlico River and South Creek in Beaufort County, NC. On November 2, 2000,
PCS applied for a permit from the Corps to continue its phosphate mining operation into a 3,608-
acre tract, known as the NCPC tract, situated east of PCS's current mining operation. The Corps
issued a public notice describing this application on October 4, 2001. The requested
authorization would impact 2,408 acres of wetlands and other waters of the United States,
including wetlands that were "avoided" as part of the 1997 permit negotiations because of their
high ecological value. In response to this pubic notice, EPA submitted comment letters on
October 25, 2001 and November 20, 2001, pursuant to paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of Part IV of the
1992 MOA, stating that we determined that the project, as proposed, will result in substantial and
unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance. We also stressed the need to
avoid and minimize impacts to these valuable aquatic resources and highlighted the need to
explore less environmentally damaging alternatives for mining the project site.
Based on the comments received in response to the October 2001 public notice, the Corps
prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and established an interdisciplinary team
(Review Team).1 The Review Team's role was to identify major issues to be addressed in the
EIS and assist with the identification of potentially less environmentally damaging alternatives.
EPA was an active participant in the Review Team which met over twenty times during the
development of the project's EIS.
On October 20, 2006, the Corps released the Draft EIS (DEIS) and, via public notice, requested
comments on both the DEIS as well as the proposed action. The DEIS examined mining impacts
' The Review Team was comprised of representatives from state and federal regulatory and commenting agencies,
environmental advocacy groups, the Applicant and the Applicant's consultant, CZR Incorporated.
3
on the NCPC Tract and two additional sites known as the Bonnerton tract (2,806 acres) and the
S33 tract (8,686 acres). Nine alternative mining alignments and a "No-Action" alternative were
identified for further study in the DEIS. The Applicant's Preferred alternative (AP) was to mine
solely on the NCPC tract. An additional Expanded Applicant-Preferred alternative (EAP)
proposed mining on all three tracts (NCPC, Bonnerton, and S33) and was also considered
practicable by PCS.
Following release of the DEIS, EPA provided a memorandum and two formal comment letters to
the Corps. EPA's January 17, 2007 memorandum, prepared by Dr. Adam Daigneault, an EPA
economist, provided recommendations for improving the presentation of the DEIS's economic
analysis. EPA's February 9, 2007, letter from its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Program Office provided additional comments regarding the DEIS's economic analysis and
raised additional concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIS. Specifically, EPA identified
significant environmental concerns that were the basis for rating the AP alternative as "EO-2,
Environmental Objections, Insufficient Information". The focus of EPA's concern was that, of
all the alternatives considered, the AP and the EAP alternative were the most environmentally
damaging. The AP alternative would impact approximately 2,408 acres of wetlands and 38,558
linear feet of stream on the NCPC tract, and the EAP alternative would impact approximately
5,667 acres of wetlands and 89,150 linear feet of stream across all three tracts (see Table 1).
EPA further concluded that the economic modeling conducted by PCS to determine the fiscal
viability of each of the nine mining alternatives failed to demonstrate why the less
environmentally damaging Alternatives SCR and SJA were not feasible. EPA's February 9 and
March 6, 2007, letters from its Region 4 Water Management Division reiterated concerns
regarding the proposed project's direct and indirect adverse impacts on wetlands and other
aquatic resources of national importance, the need to avoid and minimize these impacts and the
availability of less environmentally damaging alternatives.
Table 1: Wetland and stream impacts for the ten alternatives evaluated in the DEIS
Total Total Wetlands % Wetlands Total Streams % Streams
Alternative Area Wetlands Impacted Impacted Streams Impacted Impacted
acres acres acres % linear feet linear feet %
AP 3412 2500 2408* 96% 55528 38558 69%
EAPA 13961 6404 5667* 88% 115843 89150 77%
EAPB 13961 6404 5667* 88% 115843 89150 77%
No Action 5745 1691 0 0% 43209 0 0%
S33AP 7743 1691 1130 67% 43209 33486 77%
DL1B 9033 6404 2285 36% 115843 13854 12%
SCRA 10659 6404 3506 55% 115843 14360 12%
SCRB 10659 6404 3506 55% 115843 14360 12%
SJAA 12891 6404 5031 79% 115843 2508 2%
SJAB 12891 6404 5031 79% 115843 2508 2%
During the DEIS comment period, the Applicant proposed changes regarding how the cost of
mine development activities are averaged, specifically the cost of mine relocation to S33 which
is located south of NC Highway 33. The Applicant argued that this change was necessary to
facilitate comparison of alternatives to the Applicant's original request for a 15 year mining plan
in the NCPC tract (AP alternative) which is located, along with the Bonnerton tract, north of NC
Highway 33. After evaluating the PCS proposal, the Corps incorporated the Applicant's
4
argument into the alternatives analysis identifying only those alternatives that provide at least 15
years of mining in the two tracts north of Highway 33 (i.e., NCPC and Bonnerton) as practicable.
Then the Corps developed an additional alternative (Alternative L), fully contained within the
project boundary, which provides 15 years of mining north of Highway 33. PCS, on its own
initiative, submitted a separate additional alternative (Alternative M). Alternatives L and M
were evaluated in a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) filed on November 16, 2007. The Corps'
stated intent for this document was neither to respond to comments received on the DEIS nor to
correct any information presented in the DEIS. Hence, the Corps did not address EPA's earlier
concerns and requests for additional information, intending instead to address these issues in the
FEIS.
On December 28, 2007, EPA provided comments in response to the SDEIS. We reiterated our
concerns regarding the proposed project's adverse impacts to aquatic resources of national
importance. Consistent with our rating of the AP alternative in the DEIS, EPA rated Alternative
L as "EO-2, Environmental Objections, Insufficient Information" because of the magnitude of
impacts on wetland resources. We also raised significant concerns regarding the Corps' decision
to change a key aspect of the DEIS's economic analysis, specifically introduction of the criterion
that only those alternatives that provide at least 15 years of mining in the two tracts north of
Highway 33 (i.e., NCPC and Bonnerton) are practicable. This change creates inconsistencies in
the FEIS's economic analysis that bias it in favor of the more extractive and environmentally
damaging alternatives, by eliminating numerous alternatives in the SDEIS that had been
determined to be practicable in the DEIS, alternatives that are much less environmentally
damaging than the proposed project.
EPA believes the modification made to the economic analysis in the SDEIS was not appropriate
and that the alternatives excluded from the SDEIS were indeed practicable. In an effort to
illustrate this point, EPA requested that our National Center for Environmental Economics
review the economic analysis included in the SDEIS. EPA's review of the economic analysis
included in the SDEIS (discussed below) concluded that there are less environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives to the proposed project. EPA met with the Corps on numerous occasions
to share the results of its review and discuss our concerns regarding the modifications to the
economic analysis in the SDEIS.
The project's FEIS was published on May 23, 2008. The FEIS identified Alterative L, which
was introduced in the SDEIS, as the Applicant's proposal. Alternative L would impact
approximately 4,115 acres of wetlands and 29,288 linear feet of stream. Although the FEIS
acknowledges EPA's concerns with the changes that were made to the economic analysis in the
SDEIS, the analysis was nevertheless carried forward in the FEIS.
On July 23, 2008, EPA provided comments on the FEIS. In this letter, we reiterate our
continued concerns regarding the project's direct and indirect impacts to aquatic resources of
national importance and the continued need to avoid and minimize impacts to these high value
aquatic resources. EPA concluded that the proposed project "would have significant and long-
term, direct and cumulative impacts to biocommunities in various waters of the United States
which support the nationally significant Albemarle Pamlico Estuary System." The letter notes
EPA's continued belief that, based on our review of the economic analysis included in the FEIS,
that there are less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives for mining the project site.
EPA indicated that our remaining concerns regarding the project could be successfully resolved
with greater evaluation of Alternative S33 and further modifications to Alternative L.
On January 15, 2009, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issued its CWA
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. In doing so it concluded that additional steps needed to
be taken to avoid and minimize impacts to high value aquatic resources at the project site.
NCDWQ did not issue its certification for Alternative L. Among a number of changes, it
required additional avoidance of impacts to high value aquatic resources; specifically it protected
a portion of the site's Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area from mining and required
that this avoided area be protected by a conservation easement. The project certified by
NCDWQ, identified as Modified Alternative L, would impact approximately 3,953 acres of
wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of stream. Thus, although the FEIS concludes that Alternative L
is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), NCDWQ's certification
of a project that further reduces aquatic resource impacts demonstrates that less environmentally
damaging practicable alternatives to the project proposed in the FEIS (Alternative L) in fact
exist. Although the NCDWQ's Modified Alternative L includes some additional measures
designed to avoid and minimize impacts to important aquatic resources, we continue to believe
that additional measures are necessary and practicable. Finally, on March 12, 2009, four
environmental groups filed a petition challenging NCDWQ's certification citing, among other
concerns, that the certification, which allows impacts to nearly 4,000 acres of wetlands, would
result in violations of state water quality standards.
On February 24, 2009, the Corps sent EPA a Notice of Intent to issue a CWA Section 404 permit
to PCS for the project certified by NCDWQ, Modified Alternative L. On March 17, 2009, EPA
notified the Corps that, pursuant to Part IV, paragraph 3(d)(2) of the 1992 MOA, it was
requesting review of the proposed permit by the Acting Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office
of Water, and recommending that he request review of the permit by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works.
Although the formal permit elevation process was initiated with the Corps' February 24, 2009,
letter, EPA has continued to coordinate with the Corps and the Applicant in an effort to resolve
our concerns regarding the proposed project. To this end, on March 24, 2009, representatives
from EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) met with the Corps and the Applicant to discuss our continued concerns with the
proposed project. At that meeting, EPA, FWS and NMFS presented a potential alternative plan
for mining the site that would address the concerns raised by the agencies by avoiding and
minimizing impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, consistent with the Guidelines. EPA, FWS and
NMFS also noted that we had consulted with the environmental groups who are challenging the
NCDWQ's CWA Section 401 certification of the project and had attempted to address many of
the environmental groups' concerns in the alternative put forward at the March 24, 2009,
meeting.
As discussed in more detail below, the EPA/FWS/NMFS proposal would provide:
6
• Additional avoidance designed to reduce the direct and indirect impacts of the mining
project on the site's Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area as well as the site's
tidal creeks, including those identified as Primary Nursery Areas;
• Measures to ensure that avoided aquatic resources are provided permanent protection
from future mining with appropriate binding real estate instruments such as conservation
easements;
• Measures to be taken to minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided aquatic
resources by improving the quality of the reclamation areas (i.e., re-using top soil and re-
vegetating with target plant species); and
• Measures to be taken to improve the monitoring and adaptive management of both the
mining and mitigation sites.
During the March 24, 2009, meeting, the Applicant requested more details regarding the
agencies' proposal so that it could conduct a more thorough evaluation. The agencies agreed to
provide the Corps and the Applicant with the Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages
for the proposed new mining boundaries on the NCPC and Bonnerton tracts (the mining
boundary on the South of 33 tract remained the same as Modified Alternative L).
EPA/FWS/NMFS also agreed to provide additional language describing the proposed
reclamation provisions and monitoring provisions presented at the meeting. This information
was provided to the Corps and the Applicant on March 30, 2009. The Applicant expressed a
desire to review the new alternative and noted that its evaluation could take a month or longer.
We believe that we cannot conclude that this alternative proposal, or a modified version of it, is
not practicable until we have heard back from the Applicant.
While we remain hopeful that there are opportunities to resolve our concerns with the proposal,
discussions with the Corps and the Applicant have not yielded such a result. As we continue to
have outstanding concerns, the timeframes outlined in our 1992 MOA dictate that we must share
these concerns with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works by April 6, 2009.
III. Aquatic Resources of National Importance
The 15,100 acre project area is located adjacent to the Pamlico River which is part of the
nationally significant Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex (see Figure 2). The project area
contains 6,293 acres of wetlands and 115,843 linear feet of streams that support the Albemarle
Pamlico Estuary and collectively constitute aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI).
The Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex is the largest lagoonal estuary and second largest
estuarine complex in the United States and is itself an ARNI. The fringe marshes, creeks, and
beds of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex provide
essential nursery habitat for most commercial and recreational fish and shellfish in the North
Carolina coastal area (Street et al., 2005) and important habitat for waterfowl2, shorebirds and
other migratory birds. The importance of wetlands to coastal fish is not unique to North
Carolina. Over 95 percent of the finfish and shellfish species commercially harvested in the
United States are wetland-dependent (Feierabend and Zelazny, 1987). More than 70 percent of
z See FWS waterfowl survey website: http://www.fws.gov/birddata/databases/mwi/mwidb.html
7
the commercially or recreationally valuable fish species of the Atlantic seaboard rely on the
Albemarle-Pamlico system for some portion of their life cycle and more than 90 percent of the
fish caught in NC depend on the estuary as a nursery habitat.3 Further, the Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuary Complex was designated as estuaries of "national significance" in 1987 and joined
EPA's National Estuary Program. Since 2002, EPA has awarded over $7.7 million to the
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) for wetlands, streams and shellfish area
restoration projects, watershed assessment and mapping, and a multitude of other projects. In
addition, during 2003-2008, the APNEP used its annual funding from EPA to secure an
additional $84 million in leveraged resources from both public and private funders. The
resources have been used to help address the priority problems facing the Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuary.

° N¢matl¢-p8q?Vf

SOTE TOURT
ROANOkE APP

OMATTO% ?
o
S .BEDFORD
MONTObM?+R" "; CMPEE L

-sx
PETERS
L L
L PRINCE EDWA,?R+D yF
'? t}M
? '0 61
Y

66

?.. KL
FLOYD FRAN Q?
-
V t+' DINVNDDIE URR L
•. ...? } a ?, a
LGTbEWNENBURG SUSSEX ISL?CVN<?fAF-.`?'3a"I
'
'S ?'7-'
_e.
PITTSYLVANK N
yR?
ACH
T'om' BRUNNMCK `
ROA.TRICKMAR) SMLLE ,- EMPORI,SOUTHWPTOA HE K
" HEN D E.?f` MF VREENJ NLEE SUFF LHO
?

SURRY STtft? R GHAMCL ELL GATES CUR

tZE1Q ?NQRTHAMPTON
C
DE

H
YJ

I V MLLE HALIFAX HERTFOR[S PER PASQU
CJ
?pAI?
yp?nrtick SwnA

FORSVTH
GUILFORD 0 ANGE .
... ,
CfYt7WAN t,?
UFRANNLIN BERTIE '..ih? AJI-de SomA
1";ie°y
NASH
r'1

Y
, BE ??, -
7 REly
1
MARTIN, 01H I NGTON
VWU{E
{
?yVVgg,,RRy.,-ke S.-i
yi troiMn S«nxl
?
(
l VALSON ?

PM-

^o
E
`T?`
JOHN ON GREENE
F
River Basins Pan i-Sanxl i
t-LCII+` CRA N a
PASQUOTANK

CHOWAN ONE
-11-\
F

ROANOKE e s«nxl
N ON
S
eo
S« x
„e
.s`
TAR-PAMLICO
NEUSE Vir
ini
g
910
MITE OAK S 1Y
N
th C
li
a
C APNEP Study Area - or
aro
n
0 10 20 40 60 80
Miles

Figure 2 illustrates the boundary of the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program. The
Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system was designated as estuaries of national significance in 1987
and joined EPA's National Estuary Program.
As discussed earlier, the project site consists of three distinct tracts, NCPC, Bonnerton and S33.
The NCPC tract is adjacent to the Pamlico River and South Creek. Seventy-one percent of this
tract is designated as wetlands and it contains eight tidal creeks, including three inland Primary
3 See Association of National Estuary Programs website:
http://www.nationalestuaries.or:/publications/factcards/albemarle htm
8
Nursery Areas (Tooley Creek, Jacobs Creek, and Jacks Creek). The Bonnerton tract is adjacent
to the Pamlico River, Durham Creek, and Porter Creek. Seventy-six percent of this tract is
designated as wetlands and it contains the headwater drainage to one tidal creek designated as an
inland Primary Nursery Area (Porter Creek). The Bonnerton tract also contains an
approximately 271 acre nonriverine hardwood forested wetland that has been designated as a
Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area. The S33 tract is farther inland than either the
NCPC or Bonnerton tracts and contains the headwaters of three creeks that drain into South
Creek, one of which is a tidal creek. Approximately 20 percent of the S33 tract is delineated as
wetland.
The Bonnerton and NCPC tracts include tidally influenced forested wetlands, creeks and salt
marsh designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council for federally managed fishery species.
A subset of the areas designated as EFH is recognized by the NC Wildlife Resource Commission
as inland Primary Nursery Areas and this state designation also makes these areas federally
designated Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), the subset of EFH that warrants the
highest protection under.the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The Primary Nursery Areas within the project area are Tooley Creek, Jacobs Creek, Jacks Creek
and Porter Creek.
The FEIS classifies the site's wetlands into ten categories: brackish marsh complex, bottomland
hardwood forest, herbaceous assemblage, shrub-scrub assemblage, hardwood forest, mixed pine-
hardwood forest, pine forest, pocosin-bay forest, sand ridge forest, and pine plantation. All of
the site's wetlands perform important ecological functions that support the Albemarle Pamlico
Estuary such as temporary storage of surface water, nutrient cycling, organic carbon export,
pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat.
The FEIS classifies the site's stream resources into intermittent streams, perennial streams and
pubic trust areas (i.e., navigable/canoeable creeks in coastal counties). All of the site's stream
resources perform important ecological functions that support the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary
such as the transport of water, nutrients and sediment downstream, pollutant processing and
removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. Of particular
ecological importance are the wetland areas on the Bonnerton tract designated as a Nationally
Significant Natural Heritage Area and the tidal creeks on the NCPC and Bonnerton tracts, four of
which have been identified as Primary Nursery Areas.
Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area
The Bonnerton tract contains an approximately 271 acre wetland area that has been designated
by the NC Natural Heritage Program as a Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area. The
Natural Heritage Program designates areas in the state which it has determined to be important
for conservation of the state's biodiversity as Significant Natural Heritage Areas. These areas
can be classified as significant by the Natural Heritage Program at the county, regional, state or
national level. The fact that the Bonnerton tract's Significant Natural Heritage Area has been
classified as nationally significant means the Natural Heritage Program has determined it to be
one of the five best examples of this community type in the nation. The 271 acre nonriverine
Wet Hardwood Forest (WHF) community type found on the Bonnerton tract is considered to be
among the most threatened and endangered of NC's natural communities.
Nonriverine WHF communities are dominated by some of the same trees as wetland bottomland
hardwood forests, and especially by several oak species, including swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda) and water oak
(Quercus nigra). The nonriverine WHF is habitat for many species, including black bear (Ursus
americanus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) . The multi-layered structure characteristic
of mature WHFs supports high densities and diversities of neotropical migrant birds such as
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypsis swainsond), worm-
eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), hooded
warbler (Wilsonia citrina) and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta pusilla)
Some of the indicators of quality in a WHF are canopy maturity, canopy age structure, extent,
and connection to other natural communities. Historically nonriverine WHFs naturally occurred
in large patches and it is believed that some aspects of their ecosystem function are dependent on
this large extent. The Natural Heritage Program also finds that the rate of loss of this community
type is greater than all other community types in the state.
Tidal Creeks/Primary Nursery Areas
There are ten tidal creeks on the project site: Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek,
Tooley Creek, Huddy Gut, Huddles Cut, Sibyl Creek, Whitehurst Creek, Porter Creek, and
Bailey Creek. All ten of these tidal creeks perform similarly critical biological support functions
and have thus been a focus of concern throughout our review of the proposed project. Four of
these tidal creeks (Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Tooley Creek and Porter Creek) have been
specifically designated as Primary Nursery Areas by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
Primary Nursery Areas are defined as those areas inhabited by the embryonic, larval or juvenile
life stages of marine or estuarine fish or crustacean species due to favorable physical, chemical
or biological factors. The purpose of inland Primary Nursery Areas are to establish and protect
those fragile inland waters which support embryonic, larval or juvenile populations of these
species. The critical input to and function of Primary Nursery Areas are not contained just
within the public trust waters but also includes the headwater drainages. Wetlands that surround
or serve as headwaters for estuarine creeks are essential for the creeks to serve as Primary
Nursery Areas.
Estuarine waters occur along three sides of the proposed mining site and support a wide range of
fishery resources, including commercially or recreationally important species such as striped
bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus),
summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus), shrimp (Pennaeidae) and oysters (Crassostrea virginica). The estuary also provides
important habitat for anadromous fish, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
breviorostrum). Nursery areas located in the creeks and embayments of the estuarine system,
such as those found on the project site, are important to over 75 species of fish and shellfish .4
a See Association of National Estuary Programs website:
http•//www nationalestuaries.orgpublications/factcards/albemarle.htm
10
IV. Substantial and Unacceptable Impacts
40 CFR 230.10(c): Significant Degradation
EPA believes that compliance with requirements of Section 230.10(c) of the Guidelines has not
been demonstrated. Section 230.10(c) requires that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall
be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United
States. The Guidelines explicitly require evaluation of all direct, secondary, (i.e., indirect), and
cumulative impacts reasonably associated with the proposed discharge in determining
compliance with Section 230.10(c). In accordance with the Guidelines, determining significant
degradation requires specific consideration of effects on such functions and values as wildlife
habitat, aquatic system diversity, stability and productivity, recreation, aesthetic and economic
values.
Of the 15,100 acre project area, the proposed mine advance would impact approximately 11,454
total acres and result in direct impacts to approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands, 19 acres of open
waters and 25,727 linear feet of streams. This would represent the single largest wetland impact
ever authorized under the Clean Water Act in NC and would result in a significant loss of
wetlands, streams and other waters of the United States within the nationally significant
Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex.
As previously noted, all of the site's wetlands perform important ecological functions that
support the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary such as temporary storage of surface water, nutrient
cycling, organic carbon export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically
diverse plant and animal habitat. Also as previously noted, all of the site's stream resources
perform important ecological functions that support the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary such as the
transport of water, nutrients and sediment downstream, pollutant processing and removal, and
maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. We recognize that not all of the
approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of streams that would be impacted
by the proposed project perform all of these respective functions to the same degree (because of
their position in the landscape and/or their level of prior disturbance), however, the complete loss
of this entire suite of wetland and stream functions on this scale raises serious ecological
concerns.
The habitat functions provided by wetlands and streams that would be lost are particularly
important in light of the ecological and economic value of the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary's
commercial and recreational fishery/shellfish resources. Also, the state has designated the entire
Tar-Pamlico River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters because of problems associated with
excessive levels of nutrients in the river such as harmful algal blooms, low oxygen levels,
increased fish kills, and other symptoms of stress and diseases in the aquatic biota. The state
developed a strategy to reduce nutrient inputs from around the basin to the estuary that is
yielding improvements to water quality. Nonetheless, we are very concerned that loss of the
water quality enhancement functions provided by the approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands and
25,727 linear feet of streams that would be completely eliminated by the proposed project could
11
exacerbate existing water quality problems in the Tar-Pamlico River and hamper the state's
ongoing efforts to improve the river's water quality.
Direct Impacts to Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area
EPA is concerned with the proposed project's direct impacts to the wetland area on the
Bonnerton tract that has been designated by the NC Natural Heritage Program as a Nationally
Significant Natural Heritage Area. As previously noted, the 271 acre nonriverine WHF found on
the Bonnerton tract is an extremely unique and rare community type, one that has experienced a
rate of loss higher than all other community types in the state. The fact that the Bonnerton tract's
Significant Natural Heritage Area has been classified as nationally significant means the Natural
Heritage Program has determined it to be one of the five best examples of this community type
in the Nation.
As previously noted, some of the indicators of quality in a nonriverine WHF are canopy
maturity, canopy age structure, extent, and connection to other natural communities.
Historically, nonriverine WHFs naturally occurred in large patches and it is believed that some
aspects of their ecosystem function are dependent on this large extent. The proposed project
would directly impact approximately 97 acres5 of this ecologically valuable and rare wetland
system and would allow mining through the middle of the 271 acre area, bisecting it into two
separate and smaller pieces, an eastern and a western piece. This large reduction in size and the
fragmentation of the tract into two separate pieces would undermine some of the key ecological
characteristics which make it ecologically valuable and "nationally significant." Although the
NCDWQ's CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification requires the mined out area between
the eastern and western pieces to be restored after mining, we believe it will be extremely
difficult, based on the current state of the science, to restore this area to its prior condition after
mining and this will have a significant detrimental impact to the integrity of this rare and
threatened biological community. In addition to reducing the size of the area and fragmenting it
into two pieces, the large scale disturbances associated with allowing phosphate mining through
the middle of the area (land clearing, groundwater extraction, pit excavation, road and support
infrastructure construction, etc.) will further lower the ecological value of the remaining eastern
and western pieces of the area.
Given the unique and valuable nature of this nationally significant resource, it is EPA's
determination that the direct impacts of mining the 271 acre Significant Natural Heritage Area on
the Bonnerton tract does not comply with Subparts C-F of the Guidelines, specifically Subpart C
- Impacts on physical characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem, Subpart D - Impacts on the
biological characteristic of the aquatic ecosystem, Subpart E - Impacts to special aquatic sites
and Subpart F - Effects on human use characteristics (SNHA designation).
Indirect Impacts to Tidal Creeks/Primary Nursery Areas
EPA is also concerned with the proposed project's indirect impacts to the project area's ten tidal
creeks, four of which have been classified by the NC Wildlife Resource Commission as Primary
Nursery Areas. Although the proposed project would not directly impact the perennial reaches
5 Based on the February 24, 2009, Notice of Intent letter from the Wilmington District Corps, page 6.
12
of the four Primary Nursery Areas, the headwater drainages of the project site's tidal creeks,
including those designated as Primary Nursery Areas, would be reduced by approximately 70
percent. Our concerns regarding the proposed drainage basin reductions are amplified on the
NCPC tract since its watersheds have already lost approximately 1,268 acres of wetlands as part
of the Applicant's 1997 mining permit.
Eliminating the headwater streams and wetlands and significantly reducing the drainage areas of
the project site's Primary Nursery Areas and other tidal creeks would-
• Reduce flow from ground water and increase variability in surface water flows to the
tidal creeks, thereby increasing the frequency and magnitude of short-term salinity
fluctuations;
• Reduce filtration of nutrients and other contaminants previously accomplished by the
site's streams and wetlands, increasing sedimentation and turbidity in tidal creeks;
• Reduce productivity of native fish and shellfish in the downstream estuary by disrupting
the estuarine food web (caused by a reduction of organic materials critical for biological
activity in the surface water drainage); and
• Shift downstream estuarine productivity from the benthic community which is dominated
by sensitive submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrate species to tolerant
phytoplankton species. This would exacerbate ongoing environmental stress and create
an open niche for problematic invasive plant and animal species to colonize and degrade
the estuary.
We believe the disruption of these processes and functions in the drainage basin will
significantly impact the site's tidal creeks and impair the ability of these systems to function as
Primary Nursery Areas.
Estuarine animals exist in a community assemblage and the influence of a factor, such as
salinity, on one species may be extended either directly or indirectly to affect other species. The
cumulative effects of even small changes in an estuary may have a total systemic effect on the
marine resources and the economic activities that depend on them. We believe the potential
effect of Drainage Basin Reduction (DBR) on the production of marine fisheries resources is
significant.
Besides its effect on fish production, DBR will likely result in increased sedimentation and
turbidity, which are significant contributors to declines in populations of aquatic organisms. The
direct effects of sedimentation and turbidity at various trophic levels are mortality, reduced
physiologic functions and avoidance. Sedimentation can clog the gills of fish, reducing
respiratory abilities. This stress may reduce tolerance levels to disease and toxicants and to
changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations and salinity, compromising the health of local
fisheries resources. Decreases in primary production are associated with increases in
sedimentation and turbidity and produce negative cumulative effects through depleted food
availability to zooplankton, insects, freshwater mollusks and fish. Decreases in available food at
various trophic levels also results in depressed rates of growth, reproduction and recruitment.
These effects lead to alterations in community density, diversity and structure.
Mining will directly affect the rate at which water is routed through the watershed. DBR will
reduce contiguous sheet flow and as the mine expansion progresses there is an ever increasing
13
trend of diverting surface water drainage which once promoted estuarine productivity into
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) channels, pipes and outfalls. This
redirection of surface flows contributes to estuarine degradation because it removes natural
watershed drainage patterns that 1) promote infiltration and trapping of sediments and other
pollutants, and 2) provide a beneficial diffuse source of water to the estuary and subsequently
decreases the buffering capacity of the system. These changes will likely increase the amount of
sediment, nutrients and toxics entering the system. Nitrogen and phosphorus can accelerate
eutrophication resulting in algal blooms, reduced water clarity, shifts in algal and fish
populations and fish kills. Currently South Creek, which is stressed with water quality problems
including algal blooms and increases in suspended solids, is designated as a Nutrient Sensitive
Water (NSW) by the state, as is the entire Tar-Pamlico River Basin. We believe the reduction of
the South Creek's buffering capacity associated with the large scale removal of wetlands and
streams from the watersheds draining to the creek will likely exacerbate its existing water quality
problems by removing the system's nutrient uptake capability. Hypoxic conditions caused by
excess nutrients can result in reduced commercial and recreational fisheries production.
EPA believes the proposed mining operations will negatively impact estuarine trophic structure
through disruption of substrate inputs crucial to primary producers; reduction of energy sources
that fuel estuarine productivity; and degradation of the nutrient sequestration capacity of the
estuarine system. Estuary productivity is dependent on the complex interactions among the
various components of the aquatic food web; with epiphytes (attached to wetland macrophytes)
and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) forming the foundation of the estuarine food web.
SAV populations have recently declined by as much as 50 percent, possibly because of
anthropogenic impacts. As a result, detritus supplied by wetland macrophytes has become more
important as an epiphytic substrate. While phytoplankton are also important for productivity, the
role of wetland plants and SAV detritus is of greater importance to the overall stability of
shallow aquatic food webs. It is our belief that the proposed mining operations will negatively
impact both types of epiphytic substrates.
Also of importance to estuarine food webs is the gradual and episodic release of Dissolved
Organic Matter (DOM) from the contributing basins and wetlands immediately adjacent to the
Albemarle Pamlico Estuary Complex. This energy source fuels bacterial communities that,
through mineralization, provide inorganic nitrogen, phosphorous and carbon, supporting
productivity. In addition, DOM supported bacteria are an important component of the
"microbial loop." This part of aquatic food web links DOM (of autochthonous and/or
allochthonous origin) to higher trophic levels, via bacteria-protist-metazoan-zooplankton
interactions. The impacts associated with the proposed project would decrease the quantity and
quality of allochthonous DOM supplied to the estuary because of the close proximity of PCS's
proposed mining operations.
Most of the drainage basin wetlands that would be subjected to impacts are wet forests, including
bottomland hardwood forests. These areas are subjected to repeated periods of inundation and
desiccation. This is important from a biogeochemical perspective as it allows for the
accumulation of particulate organic matter and its subsequent processing (dissolution and
mineralization). This leads to episodic exports of dissolved organic materials to the estuary.
Wetlands impacted by the proposed project also retain nutrient loads carried by high flow events,
which are later sequestered into forest biomass. Wet forests are also important for denitrification
14
and these areas also provide refugia and nursery habitat for aquatic organisms during high flow
periods.
The Applicant provided a December 2007 report prepared for PCS by Entrix, on Potential
Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks - An Assessment. EPA believes that, while the
report clarifies currently known characteristics of the South Creek tributaries, it does not support
the conclusion that current and future DBRs from mining activities would have no significant
effect on downstream ecosystems. Data collected by NC Wildlife Resource Commission in
November 2006 to determine species present in Jacks, Jacobs and South Creeks does not support
that fish production originates from downstream estuarine environments. The Applicant's report
does not address freshwater species nor did it establish a connection between biota and previous
mining impacts in the area including watershed reduction and ground water draw down. The
report used "baseline" data for Jacks Creek collected after the watershed had already been
reduced by almost 20 percent. Small reductions in watershed area may have large biotic impacts
and, therefore, it is problematic using these data as a baseline to determine DBR impacts. The
Applicant's report also makes a troubling extrapolation that since past smaller DBRs did not
adversely impact the tidal creeks, the much larger DBRs associated with the proposed project
(i.e., 70 to 80 percent DBRs) also would not adversely impact the tidal creeks. However, data do
not exist to draw this conclusion.
The Entrix report and the Corps' February 24, 2009, Notice of Intent letter both present the
success of the PA II man-made marsh on the PCS project area to hypothesize that the DBRs will
not cause significant loss of habitat value and nursery functions of the tidal creeks. The West
(2000) study evaluating PA II is frequently cited in these discussions and is used by the Entrix
report to argue broad scale functional equivalency of PA lI to local tidal creeks. EPA does not
believe it is valid to use the West study to make these inferences. The study's objective was to
assess how well PA Il could provide suitable habitat for fish, benthic and plant species and not to
evaluate the effects of DBR on these populations. The data were collected from the lower
reaches of the stream channel and did not fully assess the upper channel's biota. These results
support the potential for species repopulation in the lower reaches of the creeks but do not
support the proposition that DBR will not impact the upper channel's biota. The report does not
provide data on the functional equivalence of factors, such as stream substrate, biogeochemical
processes, wetland plants, etc. and in fact, there was no evidence of accretion of natural sediment
structure (woody detrital covering, large peat component, etc) or organic carbon in the 10 years
of the study. EPA believes the data presented do not overcome the large body of scientific
information showing that mining through the headwaters of estuarine streams and their riverine
habitat will have a significant negative impact on the functioning and structure of the creeks
impacted by the proposed mining activities. There is, however, a large amount of scientific data
supporting the importance of headwater streams and wetlands on downstream water quality
(Meyer and Wallace, 2001; Gomi et al., 2002; Alexander et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2007; and
Wipfli et al., 2007).
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the proposed project would eliminate critical ecological functions provided by
approximately 3,953 acres of wetlands and 25,727 linear feet of streams within the nationally
15
significant Albemarle Pamlico Estuary. Wetland functions include temporary storage of surface
water, nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of
biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. Stream functions include transport of water,
nutrients and sediment downstream, pollutant processing and removal, and maintenance of
biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. Of particular concern are the proposed projects:
• Direct impacts to portions of a nonriverine hardwood wetland forest that has been
designated as a Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area by the NC Natural Heritage
Program, and
• Indirect impacts to the site's tidal creeks, four of which have been designated as Primary
Nursery Areas by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, associated with the 70 percent
reduction in the drainage basins for these creeks.
EPA believes that impacts to these ecological functions at the scale associated with this project
would cause or contribute to significant degradation [40 CFR 230.10(c)] of the Nation's waters.
Further, as discussed below, we do not believe the proposed compensatory mitigation would
reduce these adverse impacts to an acceptable level.
V. Alternatives Analysis
40 CFR 230.10(a): Alternatives Analysis
A key provision of the Guidelines is the practicable alternatives test which provides that "no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem" [40 CFR
230.10(a)]. An alternative is practicable if "it is available and capable of being done after taking
into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes."6
[40 CFR 230. 1 0(a)(2)].
The FEIS evaluated eleven alternative mining alignments and a "No-Action" alternative. A
central component of the FEIS's alternatives analysis was the evaluation of each alternative to
determine if it was practicable in light of its costs. Though the Guidelines do not consider cost in
terms of economics, here, the evaluation looked at the alternatives in terms of their economic
viability. Throughout our review of the DEIS, SDEIS, and FEIS, EPA has consistently cited
concerns regarding the economic analysis. The concerns became heightened after aspects of the
economic analysis were modified in the SDEIS and FEIS, changes that we believe
inappropriately bias the economic analysis in favor of more extractive and more environmentally
damaging mining alternatives and effectively obscure identification of the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEPDA) as required by the Guidelines.
FEIS Economic Analysis
Our primary concern with the FEIS's economic analysis is its inconsistent treatment of the
practicability of mining the southern portion of the S33 tract. The development of the long-term
6 The CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines use the term "basic purpose" and "overall project purposes"
interchangeably. For a detailed discussion of this issue see EPA's Final Determination Pursuant to Section 404(c) of
the CWA Concerning the Two Forks Water Supply Impoundments Jefferson and Douglas Counties, Colorado.
16
alternatives that have been evaluated in the DEIS, SDEIS, and FEIS relied on an assumption that
mining in the southern portion of S33 would become practicable while the FEIS's economic
analysis relies on a contradictory assumption regarding those same mining costs. Although not
currently practicable from a cost standpoint, mining the southern portion of S33 was included in
the mine alternatives evaluated in the FEIS because mining these areas would become
practicable. Specifically, the FEIS states that "[t]he applicant has also indicated that it believes
the market will eventually become favorable; a reasonable position based on [U.S. Geological
Survey] USGS information regarding the rate of depletion of domestic production capacity and
the applicant's future shift to higher margin products. The Corps has determined that it is
therefore appropriate to include this area [the lower portion of S33] in the evaluation" (FEIS at 2-
26). Similarly, the FEIS states that the Applicant has indicated that while it does not find the
cost associated with mining the southern portions of S33 practicable now, "it expects they will
become practicable at some point in the future" (FEIS at 2-29). Thus, mining alternatives that
include mining in the southern portion of S33 were included for evaluation throughout the EIS
process based on the expectation affirmed by the Applicant, agreed to by the Corps, and
supported by USGS information that changes in market conditions and product shifts would
make mining these areas practicable.
Perplexingly, the FEIS reverses this fundamental assumption for the alternatives when it
eliminates all alternatives that provide less than 15 years of mining in the NCPC and Bonnerton
tracts, leaving only the AP, EAP, SJAA, M and L alternatives for consideration. To be
practicable, the FEIS states that an alternative must "provide the applicant with the certainty of
practicable costs for at least 15 years" (FEIS at 2-29). According to the FEIS, the SCRA, SCRB
and SJAB alternatives do not experience "high cost" (presumably this means impracticable
costs) "until at or after 15 years" (FEIS at 2-30). If the assumption, discussed above, that the
southern portions of S33 will become practicable were consistently applied, there would be no
basis for the determination that these alternatives are impracticable since they all provide at least
15 years of practicable mining costs. However, the FEIS rejects these alternatives when it
concludes that "SCRA, SCRB and SJAB are not practicable due to the required commitment to
the higher mining costs within the initial 10-12 years of the plan without the expectation of fully
recovering these development costs" (FEIS at 2-30). This determination contradicts the
fundamental assumption used to include the southern portion of S33 in each of the mining
alternatives: The southern portion of S33 was included specifically because the Applicant, the
Corps and USGS expect that those predicted higher costs will be practicable in the future and the
Applicant will fully recover the development costs associated with opening S33 to mining. EPA
believes it is inappropriate that the FEIS assumes that mining S33 is practicable for the proposed
alternatives yet this same assumption does not apply to its economic analysis.
Practicable Alternatives
EPA was very concerned when these inconsistencies first appeared in the SDEIS. EPA stated
that such inconsistencies were not appropriate and that the alternatives excluded from the SDEIS
were indeed practicable. In an effort to illustrate this point, EPA requested that our National
Center for Environmental Economics review the economic analysis included in the SDEIS. EPA
met with the Corps on numerous occasions to share the results of its review and discuss our
concerns regarding the modifications to the economic analysis in the SDEIS. Despite these
17
efforts, no substantive changes were made to the economic analysis included in the FEIS. EPA's
review of the economic analysis included in the SDEIS and the FEIS concludes that there are
less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives to the proposed project (See Appendix 1).
EPA's review of the FEIS's cost practicability analysis used expected cost and value data from
the FEIS to calculate the expected profit per year for every year of every alternative. EPA then
calculated the Net Present Value (NPV) of the stream of annual profits for each alternative. This
allows for the comparison of projects of differing lengths in equal terms (current year dollars).
An alternative with a positive NPV will add positive value to the Applicant if undertaken and
therefore demonstrates at least a minimum level of cost practicability.
A NPV analysis assumes that a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollar today due to the
time value of money and investment risk (among other things). The amount that the value of a
future dollar is discounted is given by the discount rate. The NPV of an alternative is the value
of the stream of future profits in today's dollars.
T profit,
NPV=Z
(1+r)`
where t (t=1 .... T) indexes the years of an alternative and r is the
discount rate. Following White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) guidance we have used a 3% and 7% discount rate
Our NPV analysis utilized the:
• 1991 to 2007 USGS adjusted price per ton estimates from Table 2-7 on page 6-12 of
Volume 1 of the FEIS
• Cost per ton estimates for each year for each alternative from Table 2-6 on page 6-11 of
the FEIS
• Expected tons extracted from each alternative for each year from the tables in Appendix
D of the FEIS.
As the first step in the NPV procedure, a time trend was regressed on 1991 to 2007 USGS
adjusted price per ton estimates to predict expected future prices per ton for the next 50+ years.
Next, estimated cost per ton for each alternative for each year was subtracted from the estimated
expected price per ton to give expected profit per ton per year for each alternative (i.e., price per
ton - cost per ton = profit per ton). Then, expected profit per ton per year for each alternative
was multiplied by the number of expected tons mined per year for each alternative to get total
expected profit per year for each alternative (i.e., profit per ton * number of tons per year = total
annual expected profits). Finally, using both a 3% and 7% discount rate, annual total profits for
each year for each alternative are discounted back to their 2008 value. The NPV of each
alternative is then the sum of its discounted annual total profits.
The results of the NPV analysis, presented in Table 2, highlight that contrary to the conclusions
drawn in the FEIS, many of the alternatives evaluated in the FEIS are indeed economically
viable and should not have been eliminated from further consideration. According to the FEIS,
18
an alternative is reasonable if it provides "the applicant with the certainty of practicable costs for
at least 15 years" (FEIS at 2-29). Assuming this criterion is appropriate for use in a practicability
determination made under the Guidelines, only the "No Action" and the S33AP and DLIB
alternatives should have been eliminated from further consideration since they are the only three
alternatives that do not provide at least 15 years of economically viable mining. If the 15 year
criterion is not relevant for purposes of evaluating alternatives under the Guidelines and is not
used, even the S33AP and DLIB options have a positive net present value and would be a better
use of the land for the Applicant than letting it remain unused.
A number of the alternatives that are economically viable, based on the NPV analysis, involve
far fewer impacts to aquatic resources than the FEIS's Alternative L or the proposed project
(Modified Alternative L). EPA finds that the inconsistencies in the FEIS's economic analysis
coupled with the results of the NPV evaluation strongly indicate that the proposed project is not
the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
Table 2. Net Present Value evaluation for the twelve alternatives evaluated in the FEIS
PCS Phosphate Mine Economics Evaluation
NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
Mine Alternatives 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate # Years of Profitable Minin
AP $364,300,909.71 $277,903,276.63 15
EAPA $524,097,625.97 $352,411,515.70 35
EAPB $480,656,851.35 $328,416,387.22 27
SCRA $322,546,488.93 $253,026,944.10 19
SCRB $293,339,783.09 $231,303,419.79 15
ALT L $358,954,836.17 $271,764,925.74 23
ALT M $445,195,180.08 $321,454,432.72 26
SJAA $346,132,934.40 $266,988,898.53 23
SJAB $353,940,971.53 $247,989,896.39 20
S33AP $121,250,674.62 $122,320,107.39 12
No Action ($15,417,603.86) $7,000,403.73 5
DLIB $211,886,850.05 $154,818,541.01 10
VI. Minimizing and Compensating for Adverse Impacts
40 CFR 230.10(d): Minimizing and Compensating for Adverse Impacts
The Guidelines require that adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed
discharge of fill material to waters of the United States first be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable and then minimized to the extent appropriate and practicable. For unavoidable
impacts which remain, compensatory mitigation is required to offset wetland and other aquatic
resource losses. EPA and other agencies, most notably the FWS, have recommended additional
measures that should be taken to minimize the impact of the mining project on avoided aquatic
resources by improving the quality of the reclamation area.
EPA recommends that a topsoil cover be added to the reclaimed areas utilizing, to the extent
appropriate and practicable, the topsoil removed prior to site mining. Reuse of on-site topsoil
19
takes advantage of the soil structure, organic matter, nutrients, and seed sources available in that
material (i.e., the A Horizon) which is removed as mining operations advance. According to
FWS, there is support for such an approach in the published literature (Farmer and Blue, 1978;
Schuman and Power, 1981) and addition of topsoil to phosphate reclamation sites in Florida has
yielded better environmental results than traditional methods. Adding approximately one foot of
topsoil on average (no less than six inches) would allow the site to recover at a greatly
accelerated pace in contrast to not having topsoil and would make the reclaimed area suitable for
a broader array of tree species. While EPA recognizes that adequate amounts of topsoil will
likely not be available to re-cover the entire reclamation area because of losses during removal
and site preparation, reasonable targets for the percent of the reclamation site amended with
topsoil should be established.
EPA also recommend that upland portions of the reclamation area be replanted, to the extent
appropriate and practicable, in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and wetland areas be replanted in
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and/or Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) if
Atlantic white cedar is shown to do well on the reclamation sites. All three of these species will
grow on low fertility sites and longleaf pine and bald cypress are long lived species that despite
slow growth rates can be expected to live long enough to eventually establish moderate stand
coverage even on sterile sites. These species will also produce decay resistant litter that over the
very long term will rebuild soil. All of these species provide wildlife habitat and all occur
naturally in monotypic stands. Reasonable targets for the percent of the reclamation site
replanted with these species should be established. It should be noted that these improvements
would be in addition to the already agreed-upon 3-foot site cap needed to address the cadmium
risk assessment recommendations. Finally, we recommend that all avoided aquatic resources be
provided permanent protection from future mining with appropriate binding real estate
instruments such as conservation easements.
EPA appreciates the work that the Applicant has put into the proposed compensatory mitigation
plan and the steps taken to address concerns raised by EPA during the review of the DEIS,
SDEIS and FEIS. However, we continue to have a number of concerns regarding the
compensatory mitigation and whether it can effectively offset the proposed impacts. We have
previously described our concerns regarding the project's direct impacts to the Nationally
Significant Natural Heritage Area. As previously noted, this area was designated by the NC
Natural Heritage Program as "nationally significant" which means that it is one of the five best
examples of this community type in the nation. In light of the very unique and rare qualities of
this area, it is not clear that its attributes could be replaced by compensatory mitigation, raising
concerns regarding significant degradation [40 CFR 230.10(c)].
Additionally, for impacts to other mature forested wetlands, not located in the Nationally
Significant Natural Heritage Area, we continue to have concerns that the proposed compensatory
mitigation will not adequately offset impacts to these systems. Plant communities drive many
physical, chemical, and biological processes within wetlands such as 1) sedimentation, and,
because of adsorption, nutrient retention; 2) transpiration through hydrological demand; 3)
nutrient (inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous) cycling; 4) denitrification, by providing the soil
conditions for the appropriate microbial communities; and 5) flood mitigation because mature
communities are stable sources of hydraulic roughness. Even if proposed efforts to replace
mature forested wetlands with immature restored or created wetlands are successful, the
20
replacement wetlands will not provide the same level of physical, chemical, and biological
processes and functions as the impacted forested wetland systems for a very long time (e.g., 60
to 80 years). Offsets for impacts to mature forested wetlands through the proposed
compensatory mitigation are not adequate to maintain wetland functions within the watershed.
The current plan requires 2:1 compensation ratios for these impacts. EPA believes that impacts
to mature forested wetlands should be offset at compensation ratios of 3:1 to better address the
temporal losses associated with the replacement of this wetland type.
VII. EPA/FWS/NMFS Recommended Alternative
Although the formal permit elevation process was initiated with the Corps' February 24, 2009,
letter, EPA has continued to coordinate with the Corps and the Applicant in an effort to resolve
our concerns regarding the proposed project. To this end, on March 24, 2009, representatives
from EPA, FWS and NMFS met with the Corps and the Applicant to discuss our continued
concerns with the proposed project. At that meeting, EPA, FWS and NMFS presented a
potential alternative plan for mining the site that would address the concerns raised by the
agencies by avoiding and minimizing impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, consistent with the
Guidelines.
Key Components of the EPA/FWS/NMFS Alternative
The EPA/FWS/NMFS proposal includes four key components:
1) Additional Aquatic Resource Avoidance: The alternative reduces impacts to wetlands
from the approximately 3,953 acres of im?acts associated with the proposed project down
to approximately 2,787 acres of impacts. As previously discussed, EPA has significant
concerns regarding the proposed project's direct and indirect adverse impacts to the site's
high value aquatic resources, specifically the site's Nationally Significant Natural
Heritage Area as well as the site's estuaries, including those identified as Primary
Nursery Areas. The additional avoidance was designed to reduce the project's direct and
indirect impacts to these resources down to an acceptable level and avoid causing or
contributing to significant degradation [40 CFR 230.10(c)]. It should be noted that this
alternative which would allow impacts to approximately 2,787 acres of wetlands
continues to be extraordinarily large, and would represent the single largest wetland fill
authorized to date in the state of NC, amplifying the need to pay very close attention to
the execution, monitoring and adaptive management of the project's compensatory
mitigation so that the Nation's waters are not significantly degraded.
2) Protection of Avoided Aquatic Resources: The alternative provides permanent protection
from mining to the site's avoided areas through the use of appropriate binding real estate
instruments such as conservation easements. We are open to discussion regarding
compensatory mitigation credit for the permanent protection of these avoided areas. We
also note that many of the aquatic resource areas avoided under this alternative provide
restoration and enhancement opportunities. We are open to discuss the Applicant's
This alternative would also involve approximately 7.4 acres of impacts to other waters of the United States.
21
recommendations regarding the appropriate level of compensation credit for the
preservation, enhancement, and/or restoration of avoided aquatic resources.
3) Improvements to Site Reclamation: The alternative includes additional measures,
consistent with 40 CFR 230.10(d), to minimize the impact of the mining project on
avoided aquatic resources by improving the quality of the reclamation areas.
Specifically, these measures include the reuse of topsoil from mined areas to re-cover
reclaimed areas to the extent appropriate and practicable and the replanting of reclaimed
areas with target tree species (longleaf pine, bald cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar)
that are expected to improve soil quality and habitat over the long-term (see also Section
VI).
4) Improvements to Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan: The alternative includes
additional measures to improve the monitoring and adaptive management of both the
mining and mitigation sites. While the footprint of the mining alternative does not extend
into the Primary Nursery Areas, we are concerned that the extensive mining of wetlands
and streams that serve as the headwaters of these creeks may impair the function of these
Primary Nursery Areas. Accordingly, a monitoring program coupled with an adaptive
management process is proposed to gauge the impacts to the Primary Nursery Areas from
the mining so that appropriate adjustments can be made to mine operations. The
monitoring provisions also require the establishment of an independent panel of scientists
and engineers to annually evaluate whether direct and indirect impacts from mining and
benefits from the compensatory mitigation are in accordance with expectations at the
time of permitting.
Development of the EPA/FWS/NMFS Alternative
In the development of this alternative, we assumed that pursuant to evaluation of alternatives
under the Guidelines, the basic project purpose, in this instance, is to continue mining at the
Applicant's existing mining operation. Practicable alternatives are those which could meet this
basic purpose and are available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics.
The FEIS argues that 15 years represents an adequate planning horizon for this phosphate mining
project and that an alternative is reasonable if it provides "the applicant with the certainty of
practicable costs for at least 15 years" (FEIS at 2-29). From the standpoint of logistics, it would
seem appropriate to limit the evaluation of alternatives pursuant to the Guidelines to those which
provide at least 15 years of economically viable mining. Based on EPA's NPV analysis (see
Table 2), the AP, EAPA, EAPB, SCRA, SCRB, ALT L, ALT M, SJAA, and SJAB alternatives
would be considered practicable. Of these the SCRA and SCRB alternatives, which involve the
same level of aquatic resource impacts, would be considered the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives.
EPA/FWS/NMFS, however, continue to be concerned that the level of impacts associated with
the SCRA and SCRB alternatives would allow an unacceptable level of 1) direct impacts to the
site's Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area and 2) indirect impacts to the site's tidal
22
creeks, including those identified as Primary Nursery Areas. Thus, the agencies developed a
mining alternative, within the boundaries of the existing array of alternatives evaluated in the
FEIS, that attempts to maximize protection of these ecologically valuable areas while continuing
to ensure 15 years of economically viable mining. While we do not have precise economic data
for the mining boundary proposed, since it was not specifically evaluated in the FEIS, our
proposed boundary was developed based on comparing it to the economic data generated for
those alternative mine plans that involved both greater and lesser mining impacts on each of the
three tracts. Based on our best professional judgment, we estimate that our proposed alternative
maximizes protections for high value aquatic resources, to a greater extent than either the SCRA
or SCRB alternatives, while continuing to provide at least 15 years of economically viable
mining, making it the apparent LEDPA.
GIS coverages illustrating our proposed mining boundaries for the NCPC and Bonnerton tracts
have been provided to the Corps and the Applicant so that a detailed economic analysis can be
developed. Our alternative does not alter the proposed mining boundary on the S33 tract; it
continues to be the boundary associated with the Modified L Alternative.
EPA believes that this alternative, if practicable, would also address the primary concerns of
those who are challenging the NCDWQ's CWA Section 401 certification of the project, and
threatening litigation. The Applicant expressed a desire to review the new alternative and noted
that its evaluation could take a month or longer. We believe that we cannot conclude that this
alternative proposal, or a modified version of it, is not practicable until we have heard back from
the Applicant.
VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, we believe that the permit, as proposed, would fail to comply with the Guidelines
for the following reasons:
1. There are less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives that meet the project
purpose [40 CFR 230.10(a)];
2. The project's direct and indirect impacts to high value wetland and stream systems
including areas designated as Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Areas and Primary
Nursery Areas would cause or contribute to significant degradation of the Nation's waters
[40 CFR 230.10(c)]; and
3. All appropriate and practicable steps have not been taken to minimize and compensate
for the project's adverse impacts to waters of the United States [40 CFR 230.10(d)].
Therefore, EPA requests that the ASA (Civil Works) direct the Wilmington District to do the
following: 1) in coordination with the Applicant, withdraw the NOI letter and initiate further
analysis of the new proposed alternative to determine whether such alternative or a modification
of it, would be practicable, and thus the "LEDPA"; or 2) revise the proposed permit consistent
with the following: a) revise its alternatives analysis for the proposed project to address
inconsistencies that bias identification of the LEDPA, b) in development of the LEDPA, avoid
direct impacts to the Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area and indirect impacts to the
site's tidal creeks, including those identified as Primary Nursery Areas, to the maximum extent
23
practicable, c) incorporate all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize the impact of the
mining project on avoided aquatic resources by improving the quality of the reclamation areas
(i.e., re-using top soil and re-vegetating with target plant species), d) ensure that all avoided
aquatic resources are provided permanent protection from future mining with the appropriate
binding real estate instruments such as conservation easements, e) revise the compensatory
mitigation plan to effectively offset impacts to mature forested wetlands and f) include measures
to ensure effective monitoring and adaptive management of both the mining and mitigation sites.
24
Citations
Alexander, R.B., Boyer, E.W., Smith, R.A., Schwartz, G.E., and R.B. Moore. 2007. The role of
headwater streams in downstream water quality. Jounral of the American Water Resources
Association 43(1): 41-59.
Farmer, E.E. and W.G. Blue. 1978. Reclamation of lands mined for phosphate. Pages 585-608
In: F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.). Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American
Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI.
Gomi, T., Sidle, R.C., and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream
linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52(10): 905-916.
Meyer J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: Rediscovering small
streams. In: Ecology: Achievement and Challenge, M.C. Press, N.J. Huntly, and S.Levin
(Editors). Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, pp 295-317.
Meyer, J.L., Strayer, D.L., Wallace, B., Eggert, S.L., Helfman, G.S., and N.E. Leonard. 2007.
The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 43(1): 86-103.
Feierabend, S.J. and J.M. Zelazny. 1987. Status report on our nation's wetlands.
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 50pp.
Schuman, G.E. and J.F. Power. 1981. Topsoil management of mined soils. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 36: 77-78.
Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City. 630 pp.
West, T.L., Clough, L.M., Ambrose Jr, W.G. 2000. Assessment of function in an oligohaline
environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecological Engineering
15: 303-321.
Wipfli, M.S., Richardson, J.S., and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters
and downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down
headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1): 72-85.
25
Appendix 1: EPA's Analysis of the FEIS Economic Evaluation
This appendix contains three sections. The first briefly details the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) primary concerns with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District's (the Corps) Economic Evaluation included in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Section 404 permit to the
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Phosphate Division (PCS or the Applicant) to
expand an existing phosphate mining operation (Action ID: AID 200110096) in Beaufort
County, NC. It should be noted that the Preamble (Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 249,
page 85339, dated December 24, 1980) for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines (the Guidelines) addresses the issue of cost and economics. The
Preamble makes it clear that the cost factor for purposes of practicability is in terms of
what is reasonable in light of overall scope/cost of the proposed project and that it is not
to be construed as an economics factor which would consider such matters as the
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share. However, matters such as
economic viability may be considered in the question of whether or not the project is
available and logistically practicable. The second section describes the alternative
evaluation method suggested by EPA and its results. The final section addresses the
Corps' comments regarding EPA's method from its February 24, 2009, Notice of Intent
(NOI) letter.
1. Concerns Regarding the Corps' FEIS Economic Evaluation
The FEIS evaluated eleven alternative mining alignments and a "No-Action" alternative.
A central component of the FEIS's alternatives analysis was the evaluation of each
alternative to determine if it was reasonable and feasible in light of its costs (i.e.,
economically viable). One of EPA's primary concerns regarding the Corps' FEIS
Economic Evaluation is that the Corps intends to decide economic viability based solely
on cost estimates without any consideration of the revenues the operation will bring in
while incurring the costs. EPA does not contest the validity of the cost estimates
produced by the Marston Cost Model (in fact all cost estimates used in the analysis done
by EPA come directly from the Marston Cost Model), however consideration of expected
costs without considering the accompanying expected revenue provides limited
information on economic viability. For example, one cannot make any judgment on
economic viability if all we know is that costs of an alternative is $1,000,000. However,
we can make an informed decision if we compare the expected costs to expected
revenues (i.e., revenues of less than $1,000,000 would mean the project is clearly not
economically viable while revenues greater than $1,000,000 would suggest the project at
least passes an initial hurdle of practicability under the Guidelines). EPA agrees with the
Corps' assessment that "no or negative cash flow" is not practicable (FEIS Section 2.7.4.
pg 2-22). The expected level of costs that would cause the applicant to break even would
effectively set the upper cost bound for economic viability (i.e., the highest level of costs
a firm could potentially endure).
As is pointed out numerous times in the FEIS, phosphate prices are determined by the
(global and national) market and not influenced by the applicant's production levels.
Comparing costs (which the applicant can control) to expected prices (which the firm
does not control) simply adds context to the cost numbers and allows for better decision
making.
A second major issue with the FEIS Economics Evaluation concerns the Corps' use of a
15 year time frame for alternative evaluation. If a project is expected to last longer than
15 years, then the entire length of the project should be included in the evaluation. No
convincing reason has yet been given as to why a 37 year permit should be awarded
based on evaluation of only the first 15 years of a potential project. Calculating the net
present value (NPV) of each alternatives stream of future profits allows the equal
comparison of different length alternatives. Evaluating only the first 15 years of a 15+
year project ignores the effects of those later years and weights the decision criteria in
favor of those alternatives with the most profitable early years. In many cases, potential
alternatives include higher cost mining areas in later years where they are not subject to
evaluation. Their inclusion as part of the alternatives clearly signals that mining those
areas is in the applicant's plans and therefore should be evaluated as part of the value of
the alternative.
It is also important to note that the cost estimates presented in the FEIS do not account
for any impacts the alternatives may have on recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing,
bird watching, hiking, etc), unique cultural and environmental resources, and other
environmental quality issues (like water quality). Degradation or loss of these types of
resources has real effects on peoples' well being that have been estimated extensively in
the economic literature. These losses may be partially or fully offset by mitigation
undertaken, but they (as well as accounting production costs) should be considered and
quantified when possible when evaluating alternatives.
II. Explanation of EPA's Analysis
The most straight forward and theoretically correct way to evaluate the economic
viability of multiple alternatives of different lengths is to compare the discounted NPV of
each alternative's stream of expected profits. By calculating the NPV of each alternative
it is possible to compare the total value of each project in equal terms (current year
dollars). An alternative with a positive NPV will add positive value to the applicant's
company if undertaken and therefore demonstrates at least a minimum level of economic
viability. EPA's review of the FEIS's Economic Evaluation uses expected cost and value
data from the FEIS to calculate both the total NPV and the expected profit per year for
every year of every alternative.
NPV analysis works by discounting future profits or losses back to the current (or any
assumed baseline) year value and then summing the discounted years values to get the
total current value. Discounting assumes that a dollar in the future is worth less than a
2
dollar today due to the time value of money and investment risk (among other things).
The amount that the value of a future dollar is discounted is given by the discount rate.
Each step used in calculating the NPV of alternatives is described below.
1. Using 1991 to 2007 USGS adjusted price per ton estimates from Table 2-7 on page 6-
12 of Volume 1 of the FEIS (and reproduced on pages 8 and 9 of this appendix),
future value per ton is predicted using an ordinary least squares regression.
Table Al: Predicted Adjusted Price Per Ton
Year Intercept
Coefficient Estimate -0.0063 27.90081
Standard error 0.12767 1.308226
The fitted line predicts that prices will be relatively constant in the future (declining
less than one cent per year). The estimated price intercept and year slope term are
then used to predict the adjusted price per ton out into the future for the years the
alternatives are assumed to be in operation. The estimate is likely conservative based
on the recent increases in prices. The predictions assume that sales from this
operation do not affect the overall market price. A graphic depiction of the historic
prices and fitted line is given in Figure A1.
40
35
30
25 +? 4 t USGS Adjusted 2005
Prices
$ 20 Linear OLS Price
15 Prediction
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Years
Figure Al: Historic and Predicted USGS Adjusted Prices
2. Next, the profit per ton per year for each alternative is computed. Cost per ton
estimates for each year for each alternative from Table 2-6 on page 6-11 of the FEIS
(and reproduced on pages 11 and 12 of this appendix) are subtracted from the value
per ton per year estimates (from step 1) to get estimates of the profit per ton per year
for each year for all alternatives. (Price per ton - cost per ton = profit per ton). Profit
per ton results for all years for all alternatives are presented on pages 15 and 16 of
this appendix.
Then, total profit per year for each alternative is computed. Estimates of expected
concentrated tons extracted from each alternative for each year from the tables in
Appendix D of the FEIS (and reproduced on pages 13 and 14 of this appendix) are
multiplied by the corresponding profit per concentrated ton for each year for each
alternative (from step 2) to get estimates of total profit per year for each year for each
alternative. (Profit per ton in a year * number of tons extracted in that year = total
profit that year). Profit per year estimates for each alternative are presented on pages
17 and 18 of this appendix. The profit per year estimates for each alterative can also
be used to understand the timing of annual profits for each alternative.
4. The net present value of the stream of annual profits over the life of each alternative
is then calculated for each option. NPV is calculated
NPV = y profit,
(l+r)`
where t (t=1 .... 7) indexes the years of an alternative, profit, is profit in year t (from
step 3), and r is the discount rate. Following White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) guidance we have used both a 3% and 7% discount rate. The NPV
results are presented in Table A2.
Table A2. Net Present Value evaluation for the twelve alternatives evaluated in the
FEIS
PCS Phosphate Mine Economics Evaluation
NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
Mine Alternatives 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate # Years of Profitable M
AP $364,300,909.71 $277,903,276.63 15
EAPA $524,097,625.97 $352,411,515.70 35
EAPB $480,656,851.35 $328,416,387.22 27
SCRA $322,546,488.93 $253,026,944.10 19
SCRB $293,339,783.09 $231,303,419.79 15
ALT L $358,954,836.17 $271,764,925.74 23
ALT M $445,195,180.08 $321,454,432.72 26
SJAA $346,132,934.40 $266,988,898.53 23
SJAB $353,940,971.53 $247,989,896.39 20
S33AP $121,250,674.62 $122,320,107.39 12
No Action ($15,417,603.86) $7,000,403.73 5
DL1B $211,886,850.05 $154,818,541.01 10
The results of the NPV analysis, presented in Table A2, highlight that contrary to the
conclusions drawn in the FEIS, many of the alternatives evaluated in the FEIS are indeed
economically viable and should not have been eliminated from further consideration.
4
According to the FEIS, an alternative is reasonable if it provides "the applicant with the
certainty of practicable costs for at least 15 years" (FEIS 2-29). Assuming this criterion
is appropriate for use in determining whether an alternative is available and logistically
practicable under the Guidelines, only the "No Action" and the S33AP and DL 1 B
alternatives should have been eliminated from further consideration since they are the
only three alternatives that do not provide at least 15 years of economically viable
mining. If the 15 year criterion is not relevant for purposes of evaluating alternatives
under the Guidelines and is not used, even the S33AP and DLIB options have a positive
net present value and would be a better use of the land for the applicant than letting it
remain unused. Discounted annual profit estimates for each alternative are presented on
pages 20 through 23 of this appendix.
A number of the alternatives that are economically viable, based on the NPV analysis,
involve far fewer impacts to aquatic resources than the FEIS's Alternative L or the
proposed project (Modified Alternative L). EPA finds that the inconsistencies in the
FEIS's economic analysis coupled with the results of the NPV evaluation strongly
indicate that the proposed project is not the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative.
In order to check the sensitivity of results to the price estimate, the NPV of all
alternatives was also calculated assuming both a 10% increase and decrease in predicted
prices every year. I When predicted prices are assumed to decrease by 10% every year
the S33AP, DL 1 B, and No Action alternatives do have negative NPV's, however all the
other remaining alternatives do have positive NPV's signaling that even with depressed
prices and profits a number of alternatives with fewer impacts to aquatic resources than
the FEIS's Alternative L are still economically viable. If prices are assumed to increase
10% over predicted prices for all years then all alternatives have positive NPV's. The
sensitivity results are presented below in Table A3.
' The 1991 to 2007 USGS adjusted price data used to estimate future prices had a standard deviation of
roughly $2.50 or 10% of the sample's mean value.
5
Table A3. Net Present Value Sensativity to Price Estimation Analysis
PCS Phos phate Mine Economics Evaluation
NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH ALTERNATIVE
10% Decrease in Mean Predicted 10% Increase in Mean Predicted
USGS Prices USGS Prices
Mine Alternatives 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate
AP $199,692,806 $152,096,957 $528,909,013 $403,709,596
EAPA $172,703,927 $161,903,126 $875,491,325 $542,919,905
EAPB $129,263,152 $137,907,998 $832,050,551 $518,924,777
SCRA $41,554,309 $78,150,857 $603,538,668 $427,903,032
SCRB $12,347,604 $56,427,332 $574,331,963 $406,179,507
ALT L $53,061,028 $90,235,035 $664,848,644 $453,294,816
ALT M $125,184,502 $136,707,141 $765,205,858 $506,201,725
SJAA $11,528,380 $79,332,534 $680,737,489 $454,645,263
SJAB $19,334,672 $60,332,773 $688,547,271 $435,647,019
S33AP ($119,099,609) ($38,885,328) $361,600,958 $283,525,543
No Action ($173,111,811) ($114,811,873) $142,276,603 $128,812,681
DUB ($148,326,103 ($10,593,356 $572,099,803 $320,230,438
III. Responses to the Corps NOI letter:
• The Corps: "The Corps has also concluded that comparison of these cost
estimates to an independently generated industry estimate of product value (the
USGS value) is the most appropriate gauge available for determining cost
practicability."
Response: EPA analysis does compare the Marston Cost model estimates to
USGS value estimates. Costs are predicted by the Marston Model and historic
USGS estimates are used to extrapolate future values. EPA analysis then looks at
the difference between expected costs and revenues to give a measure of
economic viability. To our knowledge, the Corps and/or Applicant's analysis
have never directly compared costs to product value.
The Corps: "Finally, the Corps has determined that alternatives that give the
applicant approximately 15 years of operation within the less costly Tracts
(NCPC and Bonnerton) are practicable while alternatives that would require
mining within the S33 Tract within the initial approximately 15 years are not
practicable."
Response: It is still unclear (and unjustified) why the Corps has determined that a
15 year time frame should be used in aspects of the decision making. EPA's NPV
analysis demonstrates that a number of alternatives that do not provide 15 years of
operation in NCPC and Bonnerton and require mining within S33 are
economically viable and practicable, including SCRA and SCRB. Further, if a
project is expected to last longer than 15 years, then the entire length of the
project should be included in the evaluation. For all mining alternatives except
AP, SCRB, S33AP and DLIB, roughly the first 20 years have positive expected
profits. In the case of S33AP the first 12 years have positive expected profits and
in the case of the DLIB the first 10 years have positive profits. Net present value
methods allow comparison of projects of different lengths in equal terms (current
year dollars) and therefore would allow full evaluation of alternatives.
• The Corps: "The NPV arguments presented to the USACE were largely cash
flow analyses (i.e., sales less cost) and should not be confused with final income
statements or profits."
Response: Sales price less cost (on a per unit basis or in terms of totals) equals
profit. EPA only used terms like sales minus costs because the Corps was
resistant to the word profit. Further, two sentences later the Corps states: "Using
this total NPV for each alternative suggests that practically all of the alternatives
can yield profitable results over the period of the life of the mine." This sentence
seems to admit/agree that the NPV analysis looks at profitability which
contradicts the Corps' earlier statement.
The Corps: "The problem with this approach is that it obviously does not allow
consideration of costs on an annual basis. In this case we are considering a private
enterprise, costs extended over very long periods of time, and costs which
fluctuate substantially over the years. Regardless of the analysis used, it is clear
that while many years of mining are likely to be profitable under most of the
alternatives, there are also many consecutive years in which mining is likely not
to be cost effective."
Response: One of the strengths of the EPA approach is that is does allow
consideration of costs on a yearly basis. Annual costs, expected revenues, and
profits are all calculated as part of the analysis. The summed value of annual
discounted profit estimates (the NPV) gives an overall value of an alternative, but
simply looking at the discounted yearly estimates (before summing) shows how
costs and revenues are fluctuating each year.
The timing and sequence of profits is something that should be considered in
evaluation options. As stated earlier, the first 15 to 20 years of all mining
alternatives except the S33AP and DL1B have positive profits (S33AP has
positive profits for the first 12 and DL 1 B has positive profits for the first 10
years).
7
PREDICTED VALUE PER TON: (USGS adjusted price per ton estimates from Table
2-7 on page 6-12 of Volume 1 of the FEIS):
YEAR
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
42 27.6362:
43 27.6299509E
44 27.6236519E
USGS Adjusted 2005 Renumbered Years Linear OLS Price
Prices Prediction
29.16 1 27.894509
28.56 2 27.8882107
26.49 3 27.88191176
26.03 4 27.8756127
24.83 5 27.8693137
26.91 6 27.86301471
28.08 7 27.8567156
29.02 8 27.8504166
34.91 9 27.8441176
26.38 10 27.83781863
29.24 11 27.83151961
29.21 12 27.82522059
27.16 13 27.81892157
26.26 14 27.81262255
25.88 15 27.80632353
24.6 16 27.80002451
30.63 17 27.7937254
18 27.7874264
19 27.7811274
20 27.7748284
21 27.76852941
22 27.76223039
23 27.75593137
24 27.74963235
25 27.74333333
26 27.73703431
27 27.7307352
28 27.72443627
29 27.71813725
30 27.7118382
31 27.70553922
32 27.6992402
33 27.69294118
34 27.68664216
35 27.68034314
36 27.67404412
37 27.6677451
38 27.66144608
39 27.6551470
40 27.64884804
41 27.64254902
8
2035 45 27.6173529
2036 46 27.61105392
2037 47 27.604754
2038 48 27.5984558
2039 49 27.5921568
2040 50 27.5858578
2041 51 27.57955882
2042 52 27.573259
2043 53 27.5669607
2044 54 27.5606617
2045 55 27.5543627
2046 56 27.5480637
2047 57 27.54176471
2048 58 27.5354656
2049 59 27.5291666
2050 60 27.5228676
2051 61 27.5165686
2052 62 27.51026961
2053 63 27.50397059
2054 64 27.49767157
2055 65 27.4913725
2056 66 27.4850735
2057 67 27.47877451
2058 68 27.4724754
2059 69 27.4661764
2060 70 27.4598774
2061 71 27.4535784
2062 72 27.44727941
2063 73 27.44098039
2064 74 27.43468137
2065 75 27.42838235
9
OLS REGRESSION RESULTS: (Using USGS adjusted 2005 prices and Year from
Predicted value per ton pages)
Linear
Year Intercept
Coefficient Estimate -0.0063 27.90081
Standard error 0.12767 1.308226
0.000162 2.578804
0.002434 15
0.016188 99.75342
* Based on the data from 1991 through 2007, 1 have used a
simple trend to predict future USGS Adjusted Prices into the
future through the year 2065. These are likely conservative
estimates since the recent phosphate prices seem to be
rising.
40
35
30
25
$ 20
15
10
5
0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Years
-?- USGS Adjusted 2005
Prices
-? Linear OLS Price
Prediction
10
PREDICTED COST PER TON: (from Table 2-6 on page 6-11 of the FEIS)
YEAR AP EAPA EAPB SCRA SCRB ALT L ALT M SJAA
1 19.83 19.83 19.83 22.11 22.11 22.11 20.78 21.97
2 22.06 22.06 22.06 21.53 21.53 21.53 20.83 22.7
3 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.15 22.15 22.15 21.18 22.7
4 22.44 22.44 22.44 23.7 23.7 23.7 22.84 23.9
5 21.42 21.42 21.42 20.73 20.73 20.73 23.03 21.8
6 22.65 22.65 22.65 21.32 21.32 21.32 20.96 21.8
7 21.95 21.95 21.95 22.12 22.03 22.23 21.46 21.9
8 22 22 22 22.75 22.86 22.28 21.3 21.79
9 22.07 22.07 22.07 21.86 22.02 21.14 20.88 20.69
10 20.98 20.98 20.98 22.86 22 21.88 21.81 21.75
11 20.83 20.83 20.83 24.65 22.28 23.22 20.96 22.2
12 20.94 20.94 20.94 24.78 24.31 26.25 22.57 23.6
13 21 21 21 22.28 23.71 24.71 21.29 24.32
14 21.17 21.43 21.39 22.65 23.5 23.43 22.2 25.17
15 21.96 21.67 21.37 22.46 26.99 23.72 23.83 24.3
16 22.67 23.43 24.36 30.32 23.13 26.13 22.5
17 21.66 22.18 23.3 27.06 22.8 25.07 23.42
18 22.4 22.33 23.16 27.45 22.69 22.96 22.5
19 22.17 22.96 25.04 28.58 23.8 23.73 22.5
20 24.85 23.79 29.25 28.85 24.96 23.16 24.4
21 24.37 23.3 29.09 29.1 23.61 22.82 23.51
22 24.28 23.46 27.65 29.15 23.25 22.63 23.75
23 22.6 24.98 27.85 28.13 27.44 23.91 23.76
24 24.06 27.4 28.9 29.51 29.62 24.94 28.7
25 22.3 27.36 28.39 28.19 27.52 23.46 27.82
26 22.64 26.81 28.71 29.29 27.78 24.01 27.73
27 23.06 26.75 29.85 29.44 26.14 27.82 27.41
28 24.09 28.91 29.09 26.94 30.34 29.28 29.76
29 23.77 29.48 28.04 23.98 29.2 27.59 29.46
30 23.19 28.61 29.32 24.18 28.63 27.63 28.78
31 24.53 28.32 28.86 25.03 30.21 26.51 30.58
32 26.41 28.28 31.38' 26.9 29.47 30.68 30.02
33 27.25 29.31 28.88 28.88 28.9
34 26.18 28.55 28.2 28.91 27.67
35 26.79 29.91 29.35 30.48 29.3
36 27.63 28.96 28.46 28.83 29.51
37 28.77 28.1 30.43 28.92 31.0
38 30.05 28.97 28.12 28.68
39 28.5 29.51 29.31 28.91
40 28.52 29.04 28.64 27.6
41 28.33 24.53 30.92 29.3
42 29.88 23.37 29.4
43 28.45 23.58 30.9
44 30.13 23.74 28.61
45 28.23 23.59
46 28.62 24.63
47 28.8 24.94
48 30.49 23.67
49 28.72 23.33
50
11
EAR SJAB S33AP No Action DU B
1 21.97 22.02 23.63 22.62
2 22.75 22.21 23.43 22.02
3 22.79 22.11 23.83 22.23
4 23.93 23.87 26.8 22.91
5 21.89 23.24 27.67 22.07
6 21.86 22.5 29.22 22.56
7 21.95 23.98 28.18 23.41
8 21.79 25.98 29.87 2
9 20.6 26.96 30.16 23.25
10 22.21 26.63 29.36 27.47
11 22.29 26.78 29.36 29.58
12 23.25 27.2 29.45 28.24
13 23.42 28.62 31.3 27.7
14 23.17 29.67 32.96 28.64
15 23.63 28.82 35.15 27.9
16 25.01 29.41 30.05
17 28.04 27.88 29.27
18 27.36 29.78 28.11
19 27.65 28.32 28.81
20 27.02 30.81 29.0
21 29.22 28.17 29.17
22 29.28 28.5 29.62
23 29 28.89 25.47
24 31.49 30.44 24.6
25 28.73 29.08 23.84
26 28.9 25.37
27 27.84 25.4
28 30.04
29 29.13
30 30.46
31 26.77
32 23.93
33 24.37
34 24.25
35 24.65
36 25.81
37 24.01
38 23.77
39 23.87
40 23.75
41 24.15
42 25.31
43 23.51
44 23.27
45
46
47
48
49
50
12
EXTRACTED CONCENTRATE TONS PER YEAR: (from the tables in Appendix D
of the FEIS)
YEAR AP EAPA EAPB SCRA SCRB ALT L ALT M SJAA
1 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
2 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
3 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
4 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
5 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
6 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
7 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
8 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
9 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
10 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
11 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
12 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
13 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
14 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
15 4431000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
16 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
17 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
18 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
19 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
20 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
21 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
22 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
23 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
24 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
25 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
26 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
27 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
28 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
29 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
30 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
31 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
32 5000000 5000000 3649000 3649000 5000000 5000000 5000000
33 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
34 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
35 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
36 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
37 5000000 5000000 3846000 5000000 5000000
38 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
39 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
40 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000
41 5000000 5000000 2902000 5000000
42 5000000 5000000 5000000
43 5000000 5000000 4923000
44 5000000 5000000 3626000
45 5000000 5000000
46 5000000 5000000
47 5000000 5000000
48 5000000 5000000
49 2754000 2754000
50
13
EAR SJAB S33AP No Action DL1 B
1 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 Total Tons Removed
2 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 P 74431000
3 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 EAPA 242754000
4 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 EAPB 242754000
5 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 CRA 158649000
6 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 CRB 158649000
7 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 LT L 183846000
8 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 LT M 202902000
9 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 JAA 218549000
10 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 JAB 218549000
11 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 33AP 124236000
12 5000000 5000000 5000000 5000000 No Action 70609000
13 5000000 5000000 4578000 5000000 DL113 133236000
14 5000000 5000000 3648000 5000000
15 5000000 5000000 2383000 5000000
16 5000000 5000000 5000000
17 5000000 5000000 5000000
18 5000000 5000000 5000000
19 5000000 5000000 5000000
20 5000000 5000000 5000000
21 5000000 5000000 5000000
22 5000000 5000000 5000000
23 5000000 5000000 5000000
24 5000000 5000000 5000000
25 5000000 4236000 5000000
26 5000000 5000000
27 5000000 3236000
28 5000000
29 5000000
30 5000000
31 5000000
32 5000000
33 5000000
34 5000000
35 5000000
36 5000000
37 5000000
38 5000000
39 5000000
40 5000000
41 5000000
42 5000000
43 5000000
44 3549000
45
46
47
48
49
50
14
PROFIT PER TON: (Expected Price Per Ton - Predicted Cost Per Ton for every year
for every alternative)
t AP EAPA EAPB SCRA SCRB ALT L ALT M
1 7.957426 7.957426 7.957426 5.677426 5.677426 5.677426 7.007426
2 5.721127 5.721127 5.721127 6.251127 6.251127 6.251127 6.951127
3 5.194828 5.194828 5.194828 5.624828 5.624828 5.624828 6.59482
4 5.328529 5.328529 5.328529 4.068529 4.068529 4.068529 4.92852
5 6.34223 6.34223 6.34223 7.03223 7.03223 7.03223 4.73223
6 5.105931 5.105931 5.105931 6.435931 6.435931 6.435931 6.795931
7 5.799632 5.799632 5.799632 5.629632 5.719632 5.519632 6.289632
8 5.743333 5.743333 5.743333 4.993333 4.883333 5.463333 6.443333
9 5.667034 5.667034 5.667034 5.877034 5.717034 6.597034 6.857034
10 6.750735 6.750735 6.750735 4.870735 5.730735 5.850735 5.920735
11 6.894436 6.894436 6.894436 3.074436 5.444436 4.504436 6.764436
12 6.778137 6.778137 6.778137 2.938137 3.408137 1.468137 5.148137
13 6.711838 6.711838 6.711838 5.431838 4.001838 3.001838 6.421838
14 6.535539 6.275539 6.315539 5.055539 4.205539 4.275539 5.505539
15 5.73924 6.02924 6.32924 5.23924 0.70924 3.97924 3.86924
16 5.022941 4.262941 3.332941 -2.62706 4.562941 1.562941
17 6.026642 5.506642 4.386642 0.626642 4.886642 2.616642
18 5.280343 5.350343 4.520343 0.230343 4.990343 4.720343
19 5.504044 4.714044 2.634044 -0.90596 3.874044 3.944044
20 2.817745 3.877745 -1.58225 -1.18225 2.707745 4.507745
21 3.291446 4.361446 -1.42855 -1.43855 4.051446 4.841446
22 3.375147 4.195147 0.005147 -1.49485 4.405147 5.025147
23 5.048848 2.668848 -0.20115 -0.48115 0.208848 3.738848
24 3.582549 0.242549 -1.25745 -1.86745 -1.97745 2.70254
25 5.33625 0.27625 -0.75375 -0.55375 0.11625 4.1762
26 4.989951 0.819951 -1.08005 -1.66005 -0.15005 3.619951
27 4.563652 0.873652 -2.22635 -1.81635 1.483652 -0.19635
28 3.527353 -1.29265 -1.47265 0.677353 -2.72265 -1.66265
29 3.841054 -1.86895 -0.42895 3.631054 -1.58895 0.021054
30 4.414755 -1.00525 -1.71525 3.424755 -1.02525 -0.0252
31 3.068456 -0.72154 -1.26154 2.568456 -2.61154 1.088456
32 1.182157 -0.68784 -3.78784 0.692157 -1.87784 -3.0878
33 0.335858 -1.72414 -1.29414 -1.2941
34 1.399559 -0.97044 -0.62044 -1.3304
35 0.78326 -2.33674 -1.77674 -2.9067
36 -0.06304 -1.39304 -0.89304 -1.2630
37 -1.20934 -0.53934 -2.86934 -1.3593
38 -2.49564 -1.41564 -0.5656
39 -0.95194 -1.96194 -1.76194
40 -0.97824 -1.49824 -1.09824
41 -0.79453 3.005466 -3.38453
42 -2.35083 4.159167
43 -0.92713 3.942868
44 -2.61343 3.776569
45 -0.71973 3.92027
46 -1.11603 2.873971
47 -1.30233 2.557672
48 -2.99863 3.821373
49 -1.23493 4.155074
50
15
EAR SJAA SJAB S33AP No Action DUB
1 5.817426 5.817426 5.767426 4.157426 5.167426
2 5.031127 5.031127 5.571127 4.351127 5.761127
3 4.984828 4.984828 5.664828 3.944828 5.544828
4 3.838529 3.838529 3.898529 0.968529 4.858529
5 5.87223 5.87223 4.52223 0.09223 5.69223
6 5.895931 5.895931 5.255931 -1.46407 5.195931
7 5.799632 5.799632 3.769632 -0.43037 4.339632
8 5.953333 5.953333 1.763333 -2.12667 3.743333
9 7.047034 7.137034 0.777034 -2.42297 4.487034
10 5.980735 5.520735 1.100735 -1.62926 0.260735
11 5.444436 5.434436 0.944436 -1.63556 -1.85556
12 4.088137 4.468137 0.518137 -1.73186 -0.52186
13 3.391838 4.291838 -0.90816 -3.58816 0.011838
14 2.535539 4.535539 -1.96446 -5.25446 -0.93446
15 3.34924 4.06924 -1.12076 -7.45076 -0.25076
16 5.122941 2.682941 -1.71706 -2.35706
17 4.266642 -0.35336 -0.19336 -1.58336
18 5.100343 0.320343 -2.09966 -0.42966
19 5.084044 0.024044 -0.64596 -1.13596
20 3.187745 0.647745 -3.14225 -1.42225
21 4.151446 -1.55855 -0.50855 -1.50855
22 3.905147 -1.62485 -0.84485 -1.96485
23 3.888848 -1.35115 -1.24115 2.178848
24 -1.10745 -3.84745 -2.79745 3.042549
25 -0.18375 -1.09375 -1.44375 3.79625
26 -0.10005 -1.27005 2.259951
27 0.213652 -0.21635 2.153652
28 -2.14265 -2.42265
29 -1.84895 -1.51895
30 -1.17525 -2.85525
31 -2.98154 0.828456
32 -2.42784 3.662157
33 -1.39414 3.215858
34 -0.09044 3.329559
35 -1.79674 2.92326
36 -1.94304 1.756961
37 -3.47934 3.550662
38 -1.12564 3.784363
39 -1.36194 3.678064
40 -0.05824 3.791765
41 -1.76453 3.385466
42 -1.91083 2.219167
43 -3.44713 4.012868
44 -1.09343 4.246569
45
46
47
48
49
50
16
PROFIT PER YEAR: (Profit Per Ton multiplied by Extracted Concentrate Tons Per
Year for every year for every alternative)
?R AP
1 39787132.35
2 28605637.25
3 25974142.16
4 26642647.06
5 31711151.96
6 25529656.86
7 28998161.76
8 28716666.67
9 28335171.57
10 33753676.47
11 34472181.37
12 33890686.27
13 33559191.18
14 32677696.08
15 25430573.31
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
EAPA
39787132.35
28605637.25
25974142.16
26642647.06
31711151.96
25529656.86
28998161.76
28716666.67
28335171.57
33753676.47
34472181.37
33890686.27
33559191.18
31377696.08
30146200.98
25114705.88
30133210.78
26401715.69
27520220.59
14088725.49
16457230.39
16875735.29
25244240.20
17912745.10
26681250.00
24949754.90
22818259.80
17636764.71
19205269.61
22073774.51
15342279.41
5910784.31
1679289.22
6997794.12
3916299.02
-315196.08
-6046691.18
-12478186.27
-4759681.37
-4891176.47
-3972671.57
-11754166.67
-4635661.76
-13067156.86
-3598651.96
-5580147.06
-6511642.16
-14993137.25
-3400987.50
EAPB
39787132.35
28605637.25
25974142.16
26642647.06
31711151.96
25529656.86
28998161.76
28716666.67
28335171.57
33753676.47
34472181.37
33890686.27
33559191.18
31577696.08
31646200.98
21314705.88
27533210.78
26751715.69
23570220.59
19388725.49
21807230.39
20975735.29
13344240.20
1212745.10
1381250.00
4099754.90
4368259.80
-6463235.29
-9344730.39
-5026225.49
-3607720.59
-3439215.69
-8620710.78
-4852205.88
-11683700.98
-6965196.08
-2696691.18
-7078186.27
-9809681.37
-7491176.47
15027328.43
20795833.33
19714338.24
18882843.14
19601348.04
14369852.94
12788357.84
19106862.75
11443072.50
SCRA SCRB ALT L
28387132.35 28387132.35 28387132.3
31255637.25 31255637.25 31255637.2
28124142.16 28124142.16 28124142.1
20342647.06 20342647.06 20342647.0
35161151.96 35161151.96 35161151.9
32179656.86 32179656.86 32179656.8
28148161.76 28598161.76 27598161.7
24966666.67 24416666.67 27316666.6
29385171.57 28585171.57 32985171.5
24353676.47 28653676.47 29253676.4
15372181.37 27222181.37 22522181.3
14690686.27 17040686.27 7340686.2
27159191.18 20009191.18 15009191.1
25277696.08 21027696.08 21377696.0
26196200.98 3546200.98 19896200.9
16664705.88 -13135294.12 22814705.8
21933210.78 3133210.78 24433210.7
22601715.69 1151715.69 24951715.6
13170220.59 -4529779.41 19370220.5
-7911274.51 -5911274.51 13538725.4
-7142769.61 -7192769.61 20257230.3
25735.29 -7474264.71 22025735.2
-1005759.80 -2405759.80 1044240.2
-6287254.90 -9337254.90 -9887254.9
-3768750.00 -2768750.00 581250.0
-5400245.10 -8300245.10 -750245.1
-11131740.20 -9081740.20 7418259.8
-7363235.29 3386764.71 -13613235.2
-2144730.39 18155269.61 -7944730.3
-8576225.49 17123774.51 -5126225.4
-6307720.59 12842279.41 -13057720.5
-13821839.61 2525680.39 -9389215.6
-6470710.7
-3102205.8
-8883700.9
-4465196.0
-11035474.8
17
RALT M
1 35037132.35
2 34755637.25
3 32974142.16
4 24642647.06
5 23661151.96
6 33979656.86
7 31448161.76
8 32216666.67
9 34285171.57
10 29603676.47
11 33822181.37
12 25740686.27
13 32109191.18
14 27527696.08
15 19346200.98
16 7814705.88
17 13083210.78
18 23601715.69
19 19720220.59
20 22538725.49
21 24207230.39
22 25125735.29
23 18694240.20
24 13512745.10
25 20881250.00
26 18099754.90
27 -981740.20
28 -8313235.29
29 105269.61
30 -126225.49
31 5442279.41
32 -15439215.69
33 -6470710.78
34 -6652205.88
35 -14533700.98
36 -6315196.08
37 -6796691.18
38 -2828186.27
39 -8809681.37
40 -5491176.47
41 -9821918.58
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
SJAA
29087132.35
25155637.25
24924142.16
19192647.06
29361151.96
29479656.86
28998161.76
29766666.67
35235171.57
29903676.47
27222181.37
20440686.27
16959191.18
12677696.08
16746200.98
25614705.88
21333210.78
25501715.69
25420220.59
15938725.49
20757230.39
19525735.29
19444240.20
-5537254.90
-918750.00
-500245.10
1068259.80
-10713235.29
-9244730.39
-5876225.49
-14907720.59
-12139215.69
-6970710.78
-452205.88
-8983700.98
-9715196.08
-17396691.18
-5628186.27
-6809681.37
-291176.47
-8822671.57
-9554166.67
-16970232.57
-3964782.16
SJAB
29087132.35
25155637.25
24924142.16
19192647.06
29361151.96
29479656.86
28998161.76
29766666.67
35685171.57
27603676.47
27172181.37
22340686.27
21459191.18
22677696.08
20346200.98
13414705.88
-1766789.22
1601715.69
120220.59
3238725.49
-7792769.61
-8124264.71
-6755759.80
-19237254.90
-5468750.00
-6350245.10
-1081740.20
-12113235.29
-7594730.39
-14276225.49
4142279.41
18310784.31
16079289.22
16647794.12
14616299.02
8784803.92
17753308.82
18921813.73
18390318.63
18958823.53
16927328.43
11095833.33
20064338.24
15071072.06
S33AP
28837132.35
27855637.25
28324142.16
19492647.06
22611151.96
26279656.86
18848161.76
8816666.67
3885171.57
5503676.47
4722181.37
2590686.27
-4540808.82
-9822303.92
-5603799.02
-8585294.12
-966789.22
-10498284.31
-3229779.41
-15711274.51
-2542769.61
-4224264.71
-6205759.80
-13987254.90
-6115725.00
No Action
20787132.35
21755637.25
19724142.16
4842647.06
461151.96
-7320343.14
-2151838.24
-10633333.33
-12114828.43
-8146323.53
-8177818.63
-8659313.73
-16426604.56
-19168272.94
-17755160.61
DUB
25837132.35
28805637.25
27724142.16
24292647.06
28461151.96
25979656.86
21698161.76
18716666.67
22435171.57
1303676.47
-9277818.63
-2609313.73
59191.18
-4672303.92
-1253799.02
-11785294.12
-7916789.22
-2148284.31
-5679779.41
-7111274.51
-7542769.61
-9824264.71
10894240.20
15212745.10
18981250.00
11299754.90
6969217.75
18
DISCOUNTED RATES AND TOTAL NET PRESENT VALUE OF
ALTERNATIVES:
3% Discount 7% Discount
YEAR rate Rate
1 0.97087379 0.93457944 NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH ALT
2 0.94259591 0.87343873 3% 7%
3 0.91514166 0.81629788 AP $364,300,910 $277,903,277
4 0.88848705 0.76289521 EAPA $524,097,626 $352,411,51
5 0.86260878 0.71298618 EAPB $480,656,851 $328,416,38
6 0.83748426 0.66634222 SCRA $322,546,489 $253,026,94
7 0.81309151 0.62274974 SCRB $293,339,783 $231,303,42
8 0.78940923 0.5820091 ALT L $358,954,836 $271,764,92
9 0.76641673 0.54393374 ALT M $445,195,180 $321,454,43
10 0.74409391 0.50834929 SJAA $346,132,934 $266,988,89
11 0.72242128 0.4750928 SJAB $353,940,972 $247,989,89
12 0.70137988 0.44401196 S33AP $121,250,675 $122,320,10
13 0.68095134 0.41496445 No Action ($15,417,604) $7,000,404
14 0.66111781 0.38781724 DL1B $211,886,850 $154,818,541
15 0.64186195 0.36244602
16 0.62316694 0.3387346
17 0.60501645 0.31657439 RANKED NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH ALT
18 0.58739461 0.29586392 3% 7%
19 0.57028603 0.27650833 EAPA $524,097,626 $352,411,516
20 0.55367575 0.258419 EAPB $480,656,851 $328,416,38
21 0.53754928 0.24151309 ALT M $445,195,180 $321,454,43
22 0.5218925 0.22571317 AP $364,300,910 $277,903,277
23 0.50669175 0.21094688 ALT L $358,954,836 $271,764,926
24 0.49193374 0.19714662 SJAB $353,940,972 $247,989,896
25 0.47760557 0.18424918 SJAA $346,132,934 $266,988,899
26 0.46369473 0.17219549 SCRA $322,546,489 $253,026,94
27 0.45018906 0.16093037 SCRB $293,339,783 $231,303,420
28 0.43707675 0.15040221 DL1B $211,886,850 $154,818,541
29 0.42434636 0.14056282 S33AP $121,250,675 $122,320,107
30 0.41198676 0.13136712 No Action -$15,417,604 $7,000,40
31 0.39998715 0.12277301
32 0.38833703 0.11474113
33 0.37702625 0.1072347
34 0.3660449 0.10021934
35 0.3553834 0.09366294
36 0.34503243 0.08753546
37 0.33498294 0.08180884
38 0.32522615 0.07645686
39 0.31575355 0.07145501
40 0.30655684 0.06678038
41 0.297628 0.06241157
42 0.28895922 0.05832857
43 0.28054294 0.05451268
44 0.27237178 0.05094643
45 0.26443862 0.04761349
46 0.25673653 0.04449859
47 0.24925876 0.04158747
48 0.2419988 0.03886679
49 0.23495029 0.0363241
50 0.22810708 0.03394776
19
DISCOUNTED ANNUAL PROFITS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
EARAP -- 3% AP -- 7% EAPA -- 3% EAPA -- 7% EAPB -- 3% EAPB -- 7% SCRA -- 3%
138628283.84 37184235.84 38628283.84 37184235.84 38628283.84 37184235.84 27560322.67
2 26963556.65 24985271.43 26963556.65 24985271.43 26963556.65 24985271.43 29461435.81
3 23770019.55 21202637.1 23770019.55 21202637.1 23770019.55 21202637.1 25737574.12
4 23671646.83 20325547.88 23671646.83 20325547.88 23671646.83 20325547.88 18074178.43
5 27354318.24 22609613.08 27354318.24 22609613.08 27354318.24 22609613.08 30330318.55
6 21380685.7 17011488.33 21380685.7 17011488.33 21380685.7 17011488.33 26949956.01
7 23578159.18 18058597.75 23578159.18 18058597.75 23578159.18 18058597.75 22887031.39
8 22669201.85 16713361.45 22669201.85 16713361.45 22669201.85 16713361.45 19708917.22
9 21716549.6 15412455.92 21716549.6 15412455.92 21716549.6 15412455.92 22521287.17
10 25115905.27 17158657.54 25115905.27 17158657.54 25115905.27 17158657.54 18121422.47
1124903437.27 16377485.05 24903437.27 16377485.05 24903437.27 16377485.05 11105190.89
12 23770245.48 15047870.01 23770245.48 15047870.01 23770245.48 15047870.01 10303751.78
13 22852176.2 13925871.24 22852176.2 13925871.24 22852176.2 13925871.24 18494087.62
14 21603806.73 12672973.94 20744353.58 12168811.52 20876577.14 12246374.97 16711534.97
1516322917.31 9217210.073 19349699.27 10926370.55 20312492.19 11470039.58 16814344.58
16 15650654.39 8507219.796 13282620.03 7220028.324 10384893.76
17 18231088.09 9539402.837 16658045.33 8716309.422 13269953.23
18 15508225.43 7811315.001 15713813.54 7914867.371 13276125.92
19 15694397.26 7609570.319 13441767.45 6517362.404 7510792.772
20 7800585.711 3640794.392 10735067.21 5010415.107 -4380280.881
21 8846572.281 3974636.511 11722460.91 5266731.525 -3839590.631
22 8807319.697 3809075.628 10947078.95 4734499.605 13431.05701
23 12791048.2 5325193.792 6761416.396 2814925.88 -509610.1935
24 8811883.624 3531437.15 596590.2273 239088.5969 -3092912.795
25 12743113.59 4915998.368 659692.6925 254494.1765 -1799975.989
26 11569069.8 4296235.346 1901034.732 705959.3166 -2504065.179
27 10272530.84 3672150.931 1966542.756 702985.6547 -501 1 387.608
28 7708619.854 2652608.432 -2824929.897 -972084.8877 -3218298.975
29 8149686.295 2699546.766 -3965402.349 -1313521.613 -910108.54
30 9094102.831 2899768.122 -2070738.352 -660280.7528 -3533291.349
31 6136714.542 1883617.773 -1443041.859 -442930.7039 -2523007.151
32 2295376.45 678210.058 -1335574.819 -394619.4864 -5367532.2
33 633136.1102 180078.0733 -3250234.231 -924439.3246
34 2561506.846 701314.3408 -1776125.216 -486284.8939
35 1391787.652 366812.0761 -4152193.353 -1094329.772
36 -108752.8673 -27590.83276 -2403218.494 -609701.6217
37 -2025538.369 -494672.7807 -903345.5303 -220613.1724
38 -4058232.511 -954042.9189 -2302011.288 -541175.8845
39 -1502886.271 -340103.0691 -3097441.678 -700950.8579
40 -1499423.606 -326634.6283 -2296471.393 -500263.619
41 -1182378.297 -247940.6738 4472553.718 937879.176
42 -3396474.879 -685603.7458 6009147.863 1212991.242
43 -1300502.162 -252702.3614 5530718.329 1074681.476
44 -3559124.807 -665725.0308 5143153.644 962013.5015
45 -951622.5719 -171344.3746 5183353.499 933288.5639
46 -1432627.581 -248308.6627 3689266.151 639438.1598
47 -1623083.882 -270802.6906 3187610.282 531835.3847
48 -3628321.238 -582735.1135 4623837.874 742622.4172
49 -799063.0068 -123537.8188 2688553.227 415659.3393
50
20
YEAR SCRA -- 7% SCRB -- 3% SCRB -- 7% ALT L -- 3% ALT L -- 7% ALT M -- 3%
1 26530030.24 27560322.67 26530030.24 27560322.67 26530030.24 34016633.35
2 27299884.06 29461435.81 27299884.06 29461435.81 27299884.06 32760521.5
3 22957677.53 25737574.12 22957677.53 25737574.12 22957677.53 30176011.17
4 15519308.04 18074178.43 15519308.04 18074178.43 15519308.04 21894672.74
5 25069415.4 30330318.55 25069415.4 30330318.55 25069415.4 20410317.53
6 21442664.12 26949956.01 21442664.12 26949956.01 21442664.12 28457427.67
7 17529260.47 23252922.57 17809497.86 22439831.06 17186748.12 25570233.38
8 14530827.31 19274742.14 14210722.3 21564028.92 15898548.71 25432134.17
9 15983586.35 21908153.79 15548439.35 25280387.41 17941747.82 26276729.16
10 12380174.19 21321026.3 14566076.15 21767482.65 14871085.73 22027915.52
11 7303212.635 19665883.02 12933062.27 16270503.02 10700126.13 24433863.44
12 6522840.395 11951994.5 7566268.5 5148609.66 3259352.495 18053999.46
13 11270098.77 13625285.54 8303102.969 10220528.84 6228280.73 21864796.76
14 9803126.352 13901784.29 8154903.078 14133175.52 8290639.112 18199050.03
15 9494708.775 2276171.467 1285306.43 12770614.31 7211298.851 12417590.24
16 5644912.444 -8185481.031 -4449378.57 14217370.43 7728130.221 4869866.346
17 6943492.835 1895644.053 991894.2942 14782494.35 7734928.811 7915557.689
18 6687032.119 676511.5836 340751.1134 14656503.24 7382312.322 13863520.52
19 3641675.74 -2583269.903 -1252521.754 11046566.14 5356027.405 11246166.25
20 -2044423.67 -3272929.372 -1527585.664 7496064.047 3498663.941 12479145.83
21 -1725072.336 -3866468.094 -1737147.99 10889259.53 4892386.241 13012579.17
22 5808.794692 -3900762.7 -1687039.944 11495066.08 4971498.429 13112932.83
23 -212161.896 -1218978.641 -507487.5327 529107.8907 220279.2148 9472217.251
24 -1239511.053 -4593310.691 -1840808.244 -4863874.246 -1949238.884 6647375.184
25 -694389.0878 -1322370.42 -510139.9103 277608.2371 107094.8344 9973001.293
26 -929897.867 -3848779.888 -1429264.797 -347884.6962 -129188.8245 8392760.916
27 -1791435.038 -4088500.044 -1461527.785 3339619.377 1193823.275 -441968.6919
28 -1107446.879 1480276.121 509376.9047 -5950028.682 -2047460.707 -3633521.891
29 -301469.3421 7704122.615 2551955.81 -3371317.441 -1116733.671 44670.77515
30 -1126634.019 7054768.371 2249500.892 -2111937.028 -673417.4645 -52003.23067
31 -774417.822 5136746.679 1576685.256 -5222920.38 -1603135.617 2176841.805
32 -1585933.464 980815.2327 289799.4165 -3646180.172 -1077329.196 -5995619.229
33 -2439627.801 -693884.7221 -2439627.801
34 -1135546.641 -310901.0406 -2435006.035
35 -3157119.84 -832073.5428 -5165036.037
36 -1540637.431 -390862.9792 -2178947.418
37 -3696695.777 -902799.3778 -2276775.572
38 -919800.1403
39 -2781688.132
40 -1683357.711
41 -2923277.99
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
21
YEAR ALT M -- 7% SJAA -- 3% SJAA -- 7% SJAB -- 3% SJAB -- 7% S33AP -- 3%
1 32744983.51 28239934.32 27184235.84 28239934.32 27184235.84 27997215.88
2 30356919.6 23711600.77 21971907.81 23711600.77 21971907.81 26256609.72
3 26916722.23 22809120.81 20345524.33 22809120.81 20345524.33 25920602.45
4 18799757.45 17052418.33 14641978.55 17052418.33 14641978.55 17318964.44
5 16870074.34 25327187.6 20934095.56 25327187.6 20934095.56 19504578.31
6 22642080.12 24688748.51 19643540.11 24688748.51 19643540.11 22008798.89
7 19584334.62 23578159.18 18058597.75 23578159.18 18058597.75 15325280.34
8 18750393.32 23498081.54 17324471.01 23498081.54 17324471.01 6959958.083
9 18648861.69 27004825.06 19165598.74 27349712.59 19410368.93 2977660.498
10 15049007.98 22251143.69 15201512.77 20539727.69 14032309.39 4095252.171
11 16068674.73 19665883.02 12933062.27 19629761.96 12909307.63 3411404.295
12 11429172.54 14336686.09 9075909.161 15669307.86 9919531.884 1817055.229
13 13324172.79 11548383.96 7037461.403 14612664.99 8904801.419 -3092069.853
14 10675715.14 8381450.614 4916629.116 14992628.67 8794801.526 -6493700.017
15 7011953.541 10748749.17 6069593.889 13059452.18 7374399.56 -3596865.352
16 2647111.254 15962237.86 8676587.095 8359601.205 4544025.002 -5350071.458
17 4141809.479 12906943.37 6753548.201 -1068936.532 -559320.219 -584923.3752
18 6982896.035 14979570.28 7545037.476 940839.1571 473889.8758 -6166635.595
19 5452805.321 14496796.6 7028902.82 68560.12161 33241.99445 -1841898.068
20 5824434.966 8824885.857 4118869.547 1793203.778 836948.2116 -8698951.763
21 5846362.933 11158034.17 5013142.784 -4188997.66 -1882055.842 -1366863.961
22 5671209.241 10190334.82 4407215.516 -4239992.825 -1833753.502 -2204612.072
23 3943491.706 9852236.062 4101701.868 -3423087.747 -1425106.475 -3144407.285
24 2663992.022 -2723962.493 -1091651.088 -9463454.681 -3792559.781 -6880802.565
25 3847353.138 -438800.1168 -169278.9318 -2611905.457 -1007612.69 -2920904.32
26 3116696.219 -231961.0144 -86139.95128 -2944575.17 -1093483.585
27 -157991.8103 480918.8724 171915.4426 -486987.5975 -174084.8471
28 -1250328.981 -4682506.098 -1611294.291 -5294413.553 -1821857.388
29 14796.99245 -3922967.712 -1299465.331 -3222796.215 -1067536.686
30 -16581.87876 -2420927.098 -771942.8024 -5881615.878 -1875426.586
31 668165.0066 -5962896.599 -1830265.679 1656858.516 508560.0979
32 -1771513.019 -4714107.016 -1392867.298 7110755.673 2101000.042
33 -693884.7221 -2628140.924 -747502.0716 6062314.063 1724257.736
34 -666679.7143 -165527.6569 -45319.7772 6093840.129 1668431.017
35 -1361269.148 -3192658.179 -841439.8366 5194390.009 1369005.523
36 -552803.5747 -3352057.663 -850424.1284 3031042.201 768981.8258
37 -556029.4094 -5827594.703 -1423203.095 5947055.53 1452377.571
38 -216234.237 -1830433.367 -430313.4401 6153868.674 1446702.429
39 -629495.8502 -2150181.04 -486585.8348 5806808.319 1314080.359
40 -366702.8569 -89262.13893 -19444.87565 5811957.046 1266077.459
41 -613001.3691 -2625874.1 -550636.7934 5038046.919 1056461.161
42 -2760764.586 -557280.8894 3206243.39 647204.1031
43 -4760878.87 -925092.9128 5628908.356 1093760.915
44 -1079894.783 -201991.5083 4104934.761 767817.3619
45
46
47
48
49
50
22
YEAR S33AP -- 7% No Action -- 3% No Action -- 7% DU B -- 3% DU B -- 7%
1 26950590.98 20181681.9 19427226.5 25837132.35 24146852.67
2 24330192.38 20506774.68 19002216.14 28805637.25 25159959.17
3 23120937.11 18050384.18 16100775.37 27724142.16 22631158.38
4 14870847.11 4302629.189 3694432.255 24292647.06 18532744.13
5 16121438.85 397793.7323 328794.9747 28461151.96 20292408
6 17511245 -6130672.131 -4877853.725 25979656.86 17311342.33
7 11737687.87 -1749641.403 -1340056.706 21698161.76 13512524.64
8 5131380.272 -8394051.525 -6188696.812 18716666.67 10893270.41
9 2113275.912 -9285007.219 -6589663.969 22435171.57 12203246.84
10 2797790.038 -6061629.767 -4141177.8 1303676.47 662723.011
11 2243474.353 -5907830.173 -3885222.72 -9277818.63 -4407824.796
12 1150295.689 -6073468.423 -3844838.853 -2609313.73 -1158566.5
13 -1884274.226 -11185718.39 -6816456.891 59191.18 24562.23386
14 -3809258.807 -12672486.55 -7433786.727 -4672303.92 -1812000.016
15 -2031074.65 -11396361.97 -6435287.292 -1253799.02 -454434.4641
16 -2908136.15 -11785294.12 -3992086.863
17 -306060.7067 -7916789.22 -2506252.72
18 -3106063.512 -2148284.31 -635599.8104
19 -893060.9211 -5679779.41 -1570506.337
20 -4060091.892 -7111274.51 -1837688.468
21 -614112.1369 -7542769.61 -1821677.571
22 -953472.1573 -9824264.71 -2217465.882
23 -1309085.689 10894240.20 2298106.016
24 -2757540.026 15212745.10 2999141.276
25 -1126817.301 18981250.00 3497279.701
26 11299754.90 1945766.866
27 7315.739412 1121558.772
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
23