by Leslie Lytle, Messenger Staff Writer

“We are an endangered species” said Jumpoff resident Jan Brown, expressing concerns about the Tennessee Division of Mining and Geological Resources’ (DMGR) methods of assessing Jumpoff Creek and plans for protecting the watershed. The Nov. 21 public hearing at the Princess Theater in South Pittsburg began with an informational video explaining how a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, if granted, would protect the creek by regulating Tinsley Sand and Gravels’ discharge of pollutants at the 79.4 acre sand-plant site on South Pittsburg Mountain Road. But the comments that followed shed a harsh, unflattering light on the potential impact to the vast 774 acre watershed and the people who live there.

Jumpoff resident Katherine Zammit called attention to the project’s dramatic increase in size and inconsistencies in the permitting process. The stormwater plan was based on a 10-acre footprint. Zammit also complained her well, although registered, was not shown on the map Tinsley submitted. Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment representative Adam Hughes observed that not only was the data listing only 15 wells incomplete; also incomplete was the data on species diversity, since sampling was only done in the winter.

Jumpoff Creek has been classified “exceptional waters” due to the high level of biological diversity. Jumpoff resident Paige Schneider said the watershed sheltered 18 known protected species and perhaps more. Jumpoff Creek had not been sampled to determine baseline information on water quality to serve as a gauge for possible increase in pollutants, Schneider stressed, and the projected life of the Tinsley project was unknown, making it difficult to quantify long-term effects.

If the permit is granted, Jumpoff Creek will be monitored by the field office based on the quarry discharge cycle, explained Dennis Conger from the DMGR, responding to questions from virtual participants. The level of pollutants in the discharge would be measured, and the amount would need to be below allowed levels. However, so long as pollutant levels in the discharged effluent were acceptable, the Tinsley operators could discharge pollutants as frequently as they chose. A Jumpoff resident participating in person observed that since the Air Quality hearing in October, Tinsley had increased the hours of operation fourfold, from 60 days a year to 250 days per year, a 416 percent increase in operating time, in a revised application.

Conger pointed out Tinsley planned to use harvested rainwater for dust suppression and cleaning, then to store the wastewater from these operation in two retention ponds and recycle it, minimizing discharge. Resident Shari Lydy insisted that without liners, the wastewater detention ponds invited seepage into the ground water threatening the existence of endangered species and the only water source of many residents. Asked what the operators would do if there was no rain, Conger replied, “It’s up to them. Some plants sit idle until there is enough water to operate.”

Tinsley will perform all the required discharge sampling if the permit is granted. Several students from the University of the South questioned the “trustworthiness” of Tinsley, observing he had been cited for unlawfully beginning operations at a quarry in Grundy County and for inadequately compensating employees.

“All the benefits flow downhill,” said Jumpoff resident Em Turner Chitty. The area’s water and police and fire protection came from Sewanee or Franklin County. Jumpoff residents would not benefit from the tax dollars generated by the sand plant. Chitty also noted that although the business promised 14 jobs, wages would be below median income, and there was no guarantee the jobs would go to Jumpoff residents.

One of the final commenters asked if the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation had ever “stopped” a proposed industrial operation. “I’d love for this to be an unprecedented opportunity for being the benchmark for preventing the destruction of a pristine area,” he said.

The comments continued for over an hour and a half. Only one person spoke in favor of the proposed sand plant.

The DMGR did not address specific questions during the live hearing session at the Princess Theater but promised to respond via email to those who provided contact information.