SELC to the EPD

To learn more about SELC (Southern Environmental Law Center) visit http://www.southernenvironment.org/

GA/EPD – Miocene Holdings Meeting Summary

I have now been given permission to publish these minutes. My thanks to Mr. Lewis of the EPD.

GA EPD – Miocene Holdings Meeting Summary
EPD Tradeport Offices Atlanta, GA – 6/11/29

Attendees:

Clay Burdette – EPD – Program Manager for the Water Withdrawal Permitting Programs (WWPP)
Bill Noell – EPD – Program Manger for Industrial Permitting Unit of Wastewater Regulatory Program (WRP)
Jane Hendricks – EPD - Program Manger for Wastewater Regulatory Program
Dr. Elizabeth Booth – EPD - Program Manager for the Watershed Planning and Monitoring Program
Ade Oke – EPD – Program Manager for the Surface Water Unit of the WWPP
Cliff Lewis – EPD – Assistant Branch Chief Watershed Protection Branch (St Marys Basin)
Michael Farmar – Miocene – applicant
Michael DeMell – Ecologist for Environmental Services Inc (on behalf of Miocene)
Dr. Stuart Stevens – Coastal Environmental Consulting Services (on behalf of Miocene)
Emmett Noblitt – Miocene
Chris Stovall – Miocene Engineer from the firm of Thomas & Hutton

1. Intro of attendees

2. Stovall and Farmar speak to the product in general, process and choice of business location
- Location chosen because of the Tannin rich swamp, but also looked at a number of other locations in other states. The site chosen was attractive because of the property location; size of property for potential future uses (i.e. blueberries or other crop production), and the existing building(s) there were right size for the operation. Additionally, “the St Marys is user ‘un-friendly’ at that location meaning little fishing, kayaking, other recreational uses, and general traffic there.”
- Product claim is that it enhances plant response and soil response. Process originated in ore leaching but this has been found to be more efficient and economically viable to get the tannins.
- Process equates to a water softener – pull H20, run through a filter that acts as an anti-ion magnet to grab tannins, mix with KLC solution, and discharge water
- Applied for 350,000 gallons per day (gpd) withdrawal but that ½ to ¾ of what they expect to actually withdraw for a number of years, as they are only beginning to grow the market for this product. When asked what they expect to actually withdraw, Mr. Farmar replied 20% of 350,000 gpd. He stated that he hopes that he would have a market for the product within about 7 years that would support his withdrawing of 350,000 gpd. In other words, he said he hoped to work up to that volume as business grows.
- Dr. Booth asked how much of the tannins they could pull out with their process. Mr. Farmar replied it is 50% efficient down to 20%.
- Mr. Farmar stated that understands that if there is no river flow then they aren’t in business.

3. Mr. Stovall presented his flow data (mostly verbally), 7Q10 data, etc.
- Upon listening to Mr. Stovall’s data explanations, Clay Burdette stated stated that the methodology (linear interpoloation) Mr. Stovall used in the 7Q10 analysis different than EPD’s methodology. Mr. Stovall also conveyed support for a single number to be used as a monthly 7Q10 number, but Mr. Burdette replied that monthly 7Q10 numbers would be a set of 12 numbers and not just one number.
- Mr. Farmar stated that he is fully prepared to take the business risk of being down for one year. That is to say that he may not be able to pump for one full year at a time. EPD explained that he needs to be prepared to not pump for longer than that because his one year idea comes from flow data results that EPD can’t reproduce at this time.
- The flow and low-flow calculation discrepancies between EPD and Miocene partially center on the fact that Miocene used a linear interpolation methodology to come up with results and EPD does not use that. Further, Clay Burdette suggested Mr. Stovall go back and recalculate their information using flow information from the Moniac gage. At this time, EPD supports Miocene using this gage as it is established and accessible and EPD believes it is representative of Miocene’s site. Basically, if the Moniac gage is reading 2 cfs, then you cannot “interpolate” that there is a site-specific flow of 5 cfs (or more), which it appears that Miocene is doing in their calculations. Mr. Stovall and Mr. Noblitt stated that there is a tributary that enters the water source just North of their proposed site and claim that flow from that tributary contributes to their calculations.

4. Mr. Stovall’s explanation and rationale for the three proposed intakes and three discharge points
- Regarding intakes, Mr. Stovall stated that withdrawal point C (out of A, B, and C) would be the main withdrawal and discharge point. Mr. Farmar pointed out that the reason for the three proposed withdrawal points was that no business goes into business without building in fail safes. Hence, withdrawal points A and B would serve as options in the event point C goes down in operation for some reason. He stated that these three points would not be used simultaneously. On the three discharge points, Mr. Stovall stated that the Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) made it a condition of their 404 permit that each withdrawal point has to have a discharge point associated with it and the discharge point must be within 100 ft of the associated intake (ACE 404 permit was produced and copies made by EPD).
- Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Noblitt if they had spoken with the GA Dept of Agriculture (DOA) about their operation and product and wanted to know of their thoughts and or support for the project. Mr. Noblitt replied that they had considered talking to the DOA, but at this time they have not.
- Mr. Lewis asked if they had already installed any infrastructure for this process on site, including storage recovery tanks, filter units, or pipe on the property. Mr. Noblitt and Stovall replied that no infrastructure has been installed and that all that is there is what existed when the property was purchased. Mr. Lewis further asked if any type of irrigation of trees, crops or other irrigation was currently or has been performed since Mr. Farmar purchased the property, to which all replied no.
- Mr. Stovall mentioned that GA EPD produces Ag water use permits that withdraw from St. Marys and have are basically 100% consumptive in their use and that Miocene has considered going the route of applying for an agricultural water use permit for this project. At that point, Mr. Burdette explained that this endeavor may not be allowed under an Ag Permit and that route would require further investigation. Miocene stated that they may be interested in that in the future for potential crop production.
-
5. Regarding water chemistry
- Mr. Stovall stated that they would be adding potassium chloride to the stream from the process but that this would not harm the stream.
- Dr. Liz Booth stated she has questions and concerns about changing the calcium levels and the potential to leave metals toxic, which result in hard water. She stated that EPD needs more data from Miocene on that.
- Mr. Lewis asked if they had considered the high mercury content of the streams at that location and that area in general – specifically, what the tanning content of mercury may do their product. Mr. Noblitt replied that their tests show that the mercury does not remain contained in the product and that most of the mercury goes back via discharge.
- Jane Hendricks stated that according to something she read, Miocene reps have referenced this type of operation going on in Europe. Ms. Hendricks asked if Miocene would turn over to EPD any data they had received from that operation for our review. Mr. Farmar replied that they have talked to a consultant that is familiar with that operation in Europe but not only was Miocene unable to receive data on the operation they were denied information related to the location of the operation.
- Ms. Hendricks stated that she needs more information from Miocene on their anti-degradation analysis. If Miocene cannot produce an acceptable analysis then land application of the water would have to become a consideration again if the company was to proceed with the operation.

Action Items from Meeting

1. Miocene recalculate flows and 7Q10 information using the Moniac gage and discuss their results with EPD engineers. EPD suggests this may provide Miocene with more realistic results of what low-flow they would have to cease pumping and also how many months of the year they would not be able to pump during dry periods.
2. EPD’s Dr. Liz Booth and Jane Hendricks will pool their water quality data needs and will be sending a letter to Miocene soon conveying what further information is necessary.
3. EPD will site visit the location.

________________________________________________________

Of note:

"Upon listening to Mr. Stovall’s data explanations, Clay Burdette stated stated that the methodology (linear interpoloation) Mr. Stovall used in the 7Q10 analysis different than EPD’s methodology. Mr. Stovall also conveyed support for a single number to be used as a monthly 7Q10 number, but Mr. Burdette replied that monthly 7Q10 numbers would be a set of 12 numbers and not just one number."

"The flow and low-flow calculation discrepancies between EPD and Miocene partially center on the fact that Miocene used a linear interpolation methodology to come up with results and EPD does not use that."

"Jane Hendricks stated that according to something she read, Miocene reps have referenced this type of operation going on in Europe. Ms. Hendricks asked if Miocene would turn over to EPD any data they had received from that operation for our review. Mr. Farmar replied that they have talked to a consultant that is familiar with that operation in Europe but not only was Miocene unable to receive data on the operation they were denied information related to the location of the operation."

It would appear that Miocene is, thus far, unable to supply accurate information and/or samples of prior application of this method (and its impacts upon water sources). Given the potential risks to the St. Marys River, this seems to be a high-stakes gamble and I am pleased that the SMRMC, the EPD and others are examining this project so closely.

My Response

As was to be expected, the river articles that I've published on this site have resulted in the usual backlash from a local blog and a "community social networking forum." Although the latter is nothing more than a well-known cesspool of rumor, lies and crudity, I would have thought that the former would refrain from branding people as "Chicken Littles" and making assumptions such as:
"Before they even talked to Miocene Holdings, before they have talked to any experts, before they researched the science behind this, they began to wage a war of misinformation, half-truths on blogs and with-in (sic) their own spheres of influence."

While I have not had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Miocene, I have certainly been among the many who are studying all available documents, information, letters, emails, minutes etc. I (and others) have also, on an ongoing basis, been conferring with experts: SELC, the GWC, the GaRN, the GaWF, the EPD, UGA and others who are closely examining Miocene Holdings' proposal.
Thus far Miocene is either unwilling or unable to provide information regarding the operations "in Europe" that utilize the same tannin-extraction process (calling it "a trade secret"). Nor have they been able to furnish the EPD with viable information regarding the proposed project - according to the experts at various agencies, Miocene's analysis of the drainage area, low-flow calculations, methodology, potential low-flow pumping cutoff benchmarks etc. is inaccurate.

A local blog then went on to say "The writer tells folks to watch the end where the videographer mentions the river at one point is only inches deep. This gives most uninformed people the impression that the river is in peril and should be left alone because the volume of water is so low. If you watch the video you will hear that the videographer tell us it is “LOW TIDE” and with the lack of rain the river is unnaturally low."
I merely stated that the video is "interesting." Certainly low tides and times of drought are events that occur periodically - but they must be taken into consideration when examining any project that affects the river.

Apparently there are those who consider the St. Marys River Management Committee and others as alarmists - "Chicken Littles". (See SMRMC Chair Chip Campbell's letter to the EPD below, urging that body to deny Miocene's permit for this project). Blogs, editorials and online forums aside, I maintain that until Miocene provides accurate, detailed and verifiable proof that their undertaking will cause no harm to the river, we are best to err heavily on the side of caution. Fortunately the agencies involved agree.

St. Marys River/Miocene (Continued)

Yesterday, in Atlanta, representatives from Miocene Holdings LLC met with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to discuss the proposed project on the St. Marys River. When the minutes of that meeting have been approved by all concerned I will post them on this site.
What is clear from reading the draft minutes is that there continue to be far more questions than answers - and ongoing concerns about the lack of data/incorrect data from Miocene. I applaud the EPD and all involved agencies, committee and organizations for their vigilance as they examine and evaluate Miocene's proposal.

Meanwhile, this video proves interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD4EapFvHA
Note that, towards the end, the St. Marys River dwindles to a depth of mere inches.

To read the minutes of the June 27 meeting of the St. Marys River Management Committee go to http://www.saintmarysriver.org/docs/minutes/2011/1107.pdf

SMRMC

* This image was created by the very talented Ed Hall and can be found at his blog www.halltoons.blogspot.com My thanks to Mr. Hall for graciously allowing me to include his cartoon in this article.

Last night's meeting of the St. Marys River Management Committee during which they discussed the Miocene Holdings proposal (see below):

There are certainly far more questions than answers. The meeting was well-attended with representatives from all four involved counties, Cliff Lewis, (Asst. Branch Chief with the EPD) and members of the St. Marys Earthkeepers.

The EPD has two separate applications from Miocene: a withdrawal application and a discharge application. Miocene had originally projected three withdrawal sites but have now decided upon one - the site near Moniac at the headwaters of the river where the tannins are most highly concentrated. This is of great concern to SMRMC Chair Chip Campbell for it means that the entire river is then affected.

The EPD will be meeting with Miocene reps (one of whom is flying out from California) on Wednesday and should be able to provide more details afterwards.

Apparently Miocene has already installed a withdrawal pipe on the property and photographs of that will be obtained. There is no permit necessary for anyone who wishes to withdraw 100,000 gal per day from the river (or any GA river) for their personal use (a shock to me) and it is not known at this time if Miocene is removing water. One wonders why they even applied for the withdrawal permit: why not simply withdraw 100,000 gal per day - which would enable them to carry on even during periods of drought (a permit would require them to suspend operations during extreme low-flow conditions)?

The only study that Miocene has provided to the EPD thus far is one that describes an operation at "a bog in Washington." Mr. Lewis (EPD) reported that there is a dearth of information from Miocene and that their "numbers" are "questionable."

Mr. Campbell described the project as "tantamount to mining the public waters." Many board members (and visitors) voiced questions and concerns such as:

How could the amount of tannins extracted possibly justify the cost?
What of the mercury extracted (a far more profitable substance)?
Why the discrepancy in the pH levels reported?
What would be the impact on the ecosystem?
Why would they purchase the land prior to permit applications?
What, exactly, are the tannin levels at that point?

(During a previous meeting, Mr. Noblitt (a Miocene representative) said that neither his company nor any other has completed a similar project in the US. He said that his employer has been importing tannins from Europe, but he wouldn’t disclose further details about the source, calling it a “company secret.”)

Bottom line: this appears to be a highly suspect undertaking and I am gratified that the SMRMC is acting with caution - and extreme skepticism.

St. Marys River - Ongoing

The myriad questions surrounding Miocene Holdings LLC's proposal (to construct a facility on the St. Marys River in order to remove 350,000 gallons per day, extract the tannins and then "replace" the water) accumulate faster than they can be answered.

From the St. Marys River Management Committee minutes of June 6, 2011:

"Mr. Stovall said the typically low pH levels of the river would prohibit much aquatic life from living in it and described the river as a "sterile environment." He said that Miocene is currently in the process of gathering more data to respond to questions from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) and also waiting on the results of some water quality data testing."

and this:

"Mr. Barber asked Mr. Stovall to elaborate on his comment about the river being a sterile environment. Mr. Stovall said he meant that "nothing" can live in a 3.8 pH environment. Several committee members expressed disagreement with that statement. (and Miocene plans to discharge (replace) water that has been treated to a regulatory level of pH 7)."

Despite Miocene's claims that the St. Marys River is a "sterile environment" (unfit to support aquatic life) it would appear that it is, in fact, healthy and thriving with 65 species of fish and a dynamic, complex eco-system. Consider this from The University of Georgia Marine Extension Service:

"Dissolved oxygen levels fall to around 3 mg/L in late summer, but return to normal levels once the water temperatures cool down in the fall. Reduced oxygen levels in the summer are common in Georgia's estuaries. Biological oxygen demand and pH levels measured indicated a healthy estuarine system as well." See graph above.

http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/Assets/Documents/CIGreports/StMarys.pdf

Miocene and their "experts" claim that the river's pH level is (on average) 3.8 and yet all verified scientific data indicates a level of 8.3 to 8.7. When there is a discrepancy of this magnitude the decibel level of the alarms bells is almost deafening. On the one hand we have a seven year old company that defies web-searches - and on the other we find a body of research by accredited agencies. Miocene has yet to (to my knowledge) offer any example of existing projects of this nature other than the facilities "in Europe" that they mentioned...but were unable to say where, when or what these facilities were/are.

I will be attending Monday night's meeting of the St. Marys River Management Committee in Callahan. Cliff Lewis, the Assistant Branch Chief with EPD for the Suwannee, Satilla, St Marys, and Ochlockonee River Basins, will be discussing the Miocene Holdings LLC application. It is to be hoped that real answers will be offered.

River Update

Yesterday I read the minutes of the last meeting of the St. Marys River Management Committee wherein they met with representatives of the company, Miocene Holdings, LLC. Those would be the people who want to suck 350,000 gallons of water per day from our low-flow, slow-moving blackwater river in order to remove the tannins (to augment fertilizer) and then pour it – treated to a pH level of 7 – back into a river with a natural pH range of 3.8 - 4.2.

Let’s review some of the highlights of that portion of the meeting.

The Miocene reps were: Mr. Emmett Noblitt (Miocene representative and facility manager), Dr. Stuart Stevens (coastal ecology consultant) and Mr. Chris Stovall (an engineer with Thomas & Hutton Civil Engineering - Miocene’s firm of choice).Dr. Stevens began his presentation by stating that he thinks the proposed Miocene Holdings project is a “great project” and “will not harm the St. Marys River.” He pronounced that it is an “eco-friendly project” that will allow for more “green farming.” Mmm…sounds nice so far (in a buzz-words, PR, cheerleady sort of way).

The good Dr. then went on to explain that the water will be treated with potassium and chloride and that a trace amount of those chemicals may be returned to the river. (Okay, not so good). He also suggested that putting water with a higher pH back into the river wouldn’t harm the river’s ecological integrity.
Mr. Stovall then chimed in and said the typically low pH levels of the river already prohibit “much aquatic life” from living in it and described the river as a “sterile environment.” Huh? It’s a what?

Mr. Stovall was asked to elaborate on that startling comment. He said he meant that “nothing” could live in a 3.8 pH environment. Several committee members understandably “expressed disagreement” with that statement. (Keep in mind that Miocene plans to discharge (replace) water that has been treated to a regulatory level of pH 7).

“Sterile environment”? Well darn, someone should inform the more than 65 species of fish that have been identified in the supposedly barren St. Marys River. Having just returned from the harbor where I watched two manatees and chatted with a few fishermen and crabbers, I feel somewhat remiss in not filling them in on Mr. Stovall’s pronouncement. (Hopefully they’ll read this article and pass the word on to the alligator that recently wandered in from the river and tried to enter a patio bar at the harbor front. Someone should let these creatures know that they don’t exist).

Back to the meeting.
“Charlton County member Teresa Crawford asked if this type of project has been done anywhere else. Mr. Noblitt responded that it is being done in Europe but not in the United States. Nassau County member Winifred Stephens asked where the project was currently being done in Europe. The Miocene representatives did not know.
Camden County Commissioner Blount questioned whether the company had gotten data from any other sources. Dr. Stevens said there is not much data available for the St. Marys River.”

Is it just me or is this sounding a tad fishy (perhaps a bad choice of words considering the “sterile environment”)? Removal of blackwater river water to extract tannins has been done…somewhere (they just don’t know where but never in this country). As far as “not much data available”, I have no response to that other than “try Google.”

It would seem that this company (speaking of Google, Miocene Holdings, LLC has managed to defy ‘net searches itself. Go ahead and try it) wishes to use the St. Marys River - one of our endangered blackwater rivers - as a science project to benefit a company that would initially hire only five people.

Kudos to the St. Marys River Management Committee for standing against this seemingly ludicrous proposal. I can only hope that the people of Georgia chime in when the time comes for the mandatory EPD “Public Comment Period.”
The minutes can be found here: http://www.saintmarysriver.org/docs/minutes/2011/1106.pdf Attachment A.