Oneida’s Rolling with New Business Phillips – Jones administration shows growth
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Oneida’s Rolling with New Business
Phillips – Jones administration shows growth

By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]

Niki Stephanie Nicholas, NPS Superintendent at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, signed a letter to TDEC last week regarding the proposed landfill slated for North Scott County. It marks the first time that NPS has publicly addressed the landfill that’s polarized Scott and McCreary since May.
The Roberta II landfill proposal, sited for North Oneida with a Rail-to-Truck Transfer Station in Winfield, remains under harsh criticism as the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) continues evaluating the validity of permit plans for the controversial project. Roberta II has faced months of local opposition, including the creation of the Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC), made up of government bodies, the Transparent Bridge Initiative, and Cumberland Clear, each of whom have publicly decried the creation of a second landfill. Their voices have now been joined by formal scrutiny from the National Park Service (NPS), adding a powerful federal voice to the debate, the absence of which has been questioned by locals since the proposed project broke, via social media, in May.
In a detailed request for information and clarification, the NPS raised significant concerns over the landfill’s Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP) application, which, if approved, would allow Roberta to relocate bodies of water. NPS was particularly concerned with the project’s potential impact on waterways that feed directly into federally protected lands and waters. Bear Creek, located near the site, flows north into the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA), which encompasses roughly 125,000 acres across Northeast Tennessee and Southern Kentucky, and ultimately into the Big South Fork of the Cumberland, a major tributary to the Cumberland River, which meanders from far East Kentucky through Tennessee, including the state capital at Nashville, and northward into the Ohio River.
The Big South Fork is notable as one of the last major free-flowing rivers in the Southeastern United States and for its support of high levels of biodiversity. According to NPS, the river system is home to 13 federally listed aquatic species and protects some of the most critical remaining populations in the entire Cumberland River system. The main stem of the river holds a Tier III stream designation – the strongest water-quality protection status in Tennessee – which suggests any new activity must demonstrate zero degradation to the waterway.
Attorneys representing environmental advocacy groups have already cited many of these long-standing concerns. Both Lisa Helton, legal counsel for SMEC, and Elizabeth Murphy, attorney for Cumberland Clear, have previously questioned the ARAP’s status, as well as the legality of the 2010 landfill permit.
In documents, signed by Park Superintendent Niki Nicholas, NPS cited significant modifications from those 2010 plans, as well, including the controversial relocation of “Stream 10,” the creation of which was previously reported by SCN. Equally noted by the park was that the original proposal was described as a no-discharge facility; however, the new plans appear to incorporate stream buffer zones, implying water could escape the site and affect federal lands downstream.
Before TDEC makes any determination, the Park Service has requested detailed explanations of water monitoring requirements, testing parameters, and the landfill’s engineered safeguards designed to prevent impacts to the NRRA. Until those questions are answered, the fate of Roberta Phase II remains uncertain, but with each passing day the Roberta operation faces mounting pressure from multi-state residents, local governments, tourism bodies, and the federal government to protect one of the region’s most treasured natural – and viable tourism – resources.
