Landfill Still Faces Scrutiny Despite State Wildlife Sign-Off
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.
Landfill Still Faces Scrutiny Despite State Wildlife Sign-Off
By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]
Knox Horner
Last week, SCN published an article titled “Could Endangered Species Lawsuit Impact Roberta?” examining whether a recent lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could have implications for the proposed Roberta II landfill development in northern Scott County. The lawsuit, filed by a conservation nonprofit, alleges violations of the Endangered Species Act and raised broader questions about how similar legal challenges might influence permitting decisions for projects that affect sensitive waterways throughout the region.
Those are tangible concerns. The National Park Service has previously questioned the potential impacts of issuing an Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit (ARAP) for Roberta II, noting that the surrounding river system supports at least 13 federally listed aquatic species and represents some of the most critical remaining populations in the Cumberland River system. Tourism agencies, including the McCreary County Tourist Commission, along with local governments and environmental advocates, have echoed those worries, citing potential downstream effects on wildlife habitat, recreation, and regional tourism assets.
Following publication of the article, SCN was contacted by Knox Horner, who has become the public face of the Roberta II project. Horner pointed out that the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has already conducted a formal review of the proposal. The project would involve approximately 1,573 feet of stream impacts, 1.01 acres of wetland or pond fill, and roughly 642 linear feet of stream relocation along Bear Creek in North Oneida.
Oneida Mayor Lori Phillips-Jones, who serves as Chair of the Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC), emphasized that TWRA’s review represents only one step in a much larger regulatory process. “TWRA has a list of animals and species that they have to check to see if that area effects them,” Phillips-Jones told SCN. She cautioned against assuming that such a review guarantees final approval, adding, “It doesn’t mean it will pass thefederal Fish and Wildlife people or anyone on the federal level.”
In its letter, TWRA recommended several protective measures, including conducting in-stream construction during periods of low flow, minimizing the use of heavy equipment in waterways, limiting channel and bank modifications to what is strictly necessary, and implementing erosion and sediment control best management practices. TWRA also noted that mitigation requirements set by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would apply, along with – as Phillips-Jones attests – any guidance issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding federally listed species.
On behalf of her organization, Cumberland Clear President Jennifer Shockley expressed concerns about the scope of that review, echoing the position of the SMEC chair. “Note that the landfill’s endangered species review is based largely on database searches and agency form letters, rather than on-site biological studies,” Shockley said told SCN. “While those tools identify several federally and state-protected species that could occur in the area, no field surveys were conducted to confirm whether sensitive habitats or species are actually present.”
“The TWRA letter,” Shockley said, “acknowledges potential impacts to streams and wetlands but assumes that standard construction practices will reduce harm.” However, she went on to explain that the TWRA review that Horner submitted does not evaluate whether endangered species could be affected, nor does it make a formal determination that impacts would be avoided.
“Because the project involves more than 1,500 feet of stream disturbance and over an acre of wetland impacts,” Shockley said, “we believe site-specific analysis must be completed before concluding that protected species will not be harmed. In our opinion, relying on the absence of designated critical habitat and general best-management practices may not fully address state and federal endangered species requirements.”
While TWRA ultimately stated it has no additional species-related objections at this stage, a multitude of questions remain about whether further federal review or site-specific analysis will be required before Roberta II moves forward.
