EPA Proposed Rule Response

November 19 , 2012

Wayne Elson Environment Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101

RE: 40 CFR Part 80; RIN 2060

- AR07 ; 77 FR 700 ; 77 FR 462 ; and 77 FR 13009 ;

Dea r Mr. Elson

,
My purpose in communicating with you is that my company is seeking advice / help / direction on insuring EPA and other government officials and decision makers have the opportunity to consider updated, scientifically based information before ruling on proposed rule 77 FR 4620 . We can provide accurate and broad based scientific information concerning the proposed energy crop “Arundo donax ”

, common name “Giant Reed”

. Our information strongly supports expanding the energy crop list (a new pathway) to include Arundo donax

.

Based on the intent ex pressed in Executive Order 13112 concerning “invasive species”
, decision makers

are directed to “consider” the “good” benefits as weighed against the “potential harm” in determin ing if a plant is eligible for use in government funded projects

. M any of the negative comments that
the EPA ha s received has also mention ed the Executive Order and this “weighing” of “good and bad” prior to making a final determination

.

Our Company has spent over 14 years studying Arundo donax. Equally important, we have spen t 14 years studying the impact Arundo donax could have on our Nation’s national security, economic, and domestic
welfare issues as well as the economic welfare of our farmers. In our opinion

, these issues are part of the broader scope of analysis intended by Executive Order 13112.

In readin g the many negative comments and letters submitted to the EPA and other governmental departments about the EPA’s action last February to expand the energy crop list to include Arundo donax, we see no such “broad” viewpoint and/or analysis even though most of these communications actually mention
Executive Order 13112.2

EPA Proposed Rule Response We see a very narrow and one way positi on supported by a reference to “200 scientists. ” Yet, if you remove the negative comments and letters that make reference s to “wetlands”, riparian”, waterways, rivers and streams there would be no significant negative opposition at all to the EPA’s expanded action. We believe this recognition is extremely vital to an honest and intended effort to meet the mandate of Executi ve Order 13112.
These “scientists” have not considered or know of the fact that almost every nursery in the Nation sells an ornamental species of Arundo donax , and has been doing so for decades

. Yet, this distribution has not resulted in any known harm or danger.

Our impression from reading the negative comments and letters that support the negative outlook on Arundo
donax is that most of these “scientists” seem to think that Arundo donax somehow “escaped” from somewhere and made its way to the riparian, wetlands, rivers and streams of where 99% of the “wild” growth Arundo donax is located today. However, this is not the case. Arundo donax was actually planted in these wetlands, riparian areas, and on the banks of rivers and streams as a soil erosion me asure.

The US territories that contain over 99% of the uncontrolled growth of Arundo donax were once owned by Spanish / Mexican intere sts. We believe that in these areas Arundo donax (also known as Spanish Cane and
Carrizo ) were intentionally planted there as soil erosion measure because this was a successful application in Spain and later throughout Europe. However, European rivers are mostly deep banked, have swift currents, and are seldom without water flow all year round and because of their high banks, seldom if ever flood. These features made using Arundo donax as a soil erosion measure safe and practical. Rivers and streams in th e California and other territories where Arundo was planted are unlike the European rivers. They are very shallow in some parts, have low banks, and during part of the hot season become completely void of water flow, then during the rainy season because of their low banks, have annual floodi ng. These ecological
characteristics ma de the use of Arundo donax as a soil erosion measure a disaster!

After these territories / States became part of the United States, the population grew, especially in Southern
Cali fornia, “water” became a big i ssue; water for farming and to quench the thirst of a fast growing population base. The Army Corp of Engineers came up with the answer, “let’s widen the river beds to get more flow”. So the river banks of many streams and rivers feeding Southern Californi a, starting up as high as Sacramento, were bulldozed and widened. At that time, the Army Corp of Engineers knew very little about Arundo donax

. The combination of widening the waterways and annual flooding are the two maj or factors that caused the uncontrolled growth of Arundo donax in these areas. As watersheds and other agencies began funding the “eradication” of Arundo, business entities discovered the lucrative business of bidding on “removal projects” even though the y did not scientifically know how to remove Arundo without it coming back year after year.

Bill Tidwell, now a r etired Orange County manger developed and successfully employed methods that permanently e radicate d inappropriate stands without any regrowth. Mr. Tidwell has served a consultant for our Company for over 13 years. The eradicators were using safe herbicides immediately after cutting down the growth only to see the growth come back. Mr. Tidwell was one of the first people who recognized that herbicid e should not be used until after a cut stalk gave rise to a new “shoot”. It is at this time that the plant is “taking in” its nutrients to continue growing. Applying herbicide at this point results in the plant “drawing in” the herbicide down to its root s and permanently killing the plant roots. Thanks to Mr. Tidwell’s discovery, 95% of the “invasive” growth in the Orange County has been
eradicated

.
Over the past 14 years our Company has worked with Washington State University, the University of Washington, Auburn University, the University of Delaware, North Carolina State University and numerous3

EPA Proposed Rule Response scientific laboratories. We invested in planting Arundo plots at Auburn University and at the agricultural
research center at Prosser, Washington operated by Washington State University. Almost every p rofessor and
scientist that has become familiar with Arundo donax has declared it to be the “miracle” plant. Th e plant
earned this title because of the following attributes:

1. P roduces an amazing range of yield s reaching up to 60 t ons per acre depending upon climate;
2. I s a perennial plant that need only be planted once in a lifetime;
3. I s very drought resistant;
4. Grow s on marginal land rather than compete with food crop farmland;
5. S equesters carbon at a rate 15 times greater than Douglas fir trees ; 6. C an be irrigated with brackish water;

7. Arundo donax h as phytoremediation qualities with respect to air , water, and soil, like no other plant in
the world. This could have great positive impact on America’s brownfields and superfund sites.
8. Arundo contains a unique source of sugars and chemicals;
9. Its ’ fiber is a perfect alternative to fiber from trees and in most cases is a super ior fiber than fiber from

trees , capable of being used in existing facilities and mills without modification.
10. Arundo is a very strong crop once established and history has shown that it is not disturbed by
hurricanes and other such foil weather c onditions.
11. Arundo could be planted at the low point of America ’ s farmlands and actually “ filter ” out the toxins
from the use of fertilizers thereby preventing further pollution of waterways.

When these attributes of Arundo donax are properly translated in regards to the impact on our Nation’s ability to meet the challenges mentioned above, which sum up to national security as these attributes allow us to meet the challenge of energy independence as well as the rejuvenation of our Nation’ s economic welfare, please see a report titled “BIOMASS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR A BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS INDUSTRY: THE
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF A BILLION

- TON ANNUAL SUPPLY”, a report o rganized by the USDA and the DOE; and when the cause and cure of the wild Arundo growth in California and other territories are fully understood, there will be no doubt that Arundo donax is a safe plant and should be on the official energy crop
list!

Currently we have 14 year old test plots at Auburn University that provide documented evidence that Arundo by nature is not invasive , as the invasive weeds and plants that have been used in the many comment letters such as the references to Arundo being “kudzu like”. This is scie ntifically incorrect. Arundo does not seed, and does not spread like Kudzu. Additionally, by the trained personnel, Arundo can be killed in a short 30 day period while it takes up to 10 years to kill Kudzu.

W e have been developing a proposal to the EPA, DOE, DOD, and Homeland security to help fund a project to actually remove the 25 0,000 acres or les s acres thereby eliminating all of this concern about A rundo’s invasiveness. Complete removal could be achieved within five (5) years. If the estimate of 250,000 acres is correct, it is possible that over 5,000,000 tons of biomass could be available and used to jump start several green biotech efforts to produce biofuels, clean coal, and several other products whi ch are currently being produced utilizing fiber from trees and/or that are in need of feed stocks . We have already identified over 30 biotech and biomass users who would economically participate with such a removal effort. Additionally the
concern of the 200 scientists could also be turned into a positive action plan to help with such a removal project. It is estimated that Arundo was planted here in the US over several hundred years ago, yet today there is only 250,000 thousand acres of unwanted growth. These facts alone should indicate that Arundo is4

EPA Proposed Rule Response not in the same category as Kudzu and the other invasive species that are mention in the objection letters submitted by the concerned scientists. The removal project could also create approximately 1,000 jobs and generate approximately $250 million to help finance such a project.

The statement that eradication of Arundo costs $25,00 0 per acre is just not correct. Many watersheds districts and Counties have been victimized by profit seeking business conce rn s taking advantage of the lack of accurate information and science by these funding agencies. It is also sad that these funding agencies have
funded the removal of the same areas over and over for years due to the lack of know

- how and upon occasion, the ill

- intent of business concerns winning bid awards. Our Company has been eradicat ing Arundo between a range of $4 50

- $ 5,00 0 per acre depending upon terrain conditions and whether or not machinery
could be utilized

.

The utilization of Arundo as an energy / biotech feedstock would also be a win win situation for America’s farmers and solve many of the ailments surrounding our farming industry. With a payment to farmers of $20 per ton of growth, America’s farmers could enjoy an income stream of appro ximately $600 to $800 per acre with no annual planting, herbicide, fertilizer, transportation, crop insurance and harvesting costs

. Arundo plantations do not require rotation. Additionally farm er s could use marginal land which may not be capable of produ cing income from other crop use

.
In the 14 years that we have been working with scientists, Universit ies , and laboratories, we have successfully developed “green” and safe solutions for 10 verticals, including biofuel and energy. We have discovered

co mpanies like Rico Reeds that have planted and properly maintained 50 year old Arundo plantation s which
have not moved or escaped from their original planting boundaries

.

The rest of the world , Europe, India and China, has now discovered the “champion of biomass” as stated by
the EU, if we allow for “bad” science to halt or handicap the use of this “miracle” plant with such handicaps
such as un

- necessary bonding requirements , America will fall way behind the “8 ball” in regard s to carbon sequestration, energy independence, and the rejuvenation of America’s industrial and manufacturing
economies. The Administration ’ s goal of establishing a “ green eco nom y ”

, reaching energy independence and job creation will be severability handicapped with the use of Arundo donax.

We request that you lead us in developing the proper plan and way to share our information with the proper decisions makers concerning this vital issue and we remain available to submit evidence of the claims we state
herein

.
Sincerely,

Eulysses B. Lewis, President TreeFree Biomass Solutions, Inc.