The Nolichucky Sand Co. has applied for a permit to dredge sand for a distance of one mile in a new location along the Nolichucky River in Greene County.
Nolichucky Sand Co., located near Birds Bridge, has been dredging an area downstream from the bridge for about five years, said Tom Osborne, area production manager for Vulcan Materials, of Kingsport, which now owns and operates Nolichucky Sand Co.
Authorization for dredging the river to a specific depth - for a distance of one mile - downstream from the bridge was obtained from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Osborne said.
The new permit application is for permission to dredge the river for another mile, this time upstream from the bridge, Osborne said. Approval also is being sought from TVA.
"Everybody has an interest in dredging out the Nolichucky," including Vulcan, Osborne said.
TVA itself has said that accumulated sedimentation, most of which is sand, is the river's biggest problem, and that dredging seems to be the most practical option.
Jennings Thomley, whose home overlooks the river, arranged for a Greeneville Sun reporter and photographer to be shown, by boat, the amount of sand that has accumulated in the river.
"We love our river, and want to do what's best for it, and protect it if we can," Thomley said.
Many Sandbars Visible
He added that he believes that dredging is badly needed, as evidenced by the many sandbars that were visible that day, even though the river was perhaps six to eight inches higher than normal.
Sandbars extended long distances into the river at Cooter Bend and at many other locations upstream from Birds Bridge, but were not nearly as evident downstream from there.
Osborne said Thursday that since Vulcan bought Nolichucky Sand Co. in August 2000, between 100,000 and 200,000 tons of sand have been removed from the permitted area downstream.
He said that Vulcan believes it could remove at least one to two million tons of sand from the river if the new, upstream permit is granted, as is expected.
The more important question, Osborne said, is whether the market for sand in the area will support that volume.
Right now, he said, the primary market for river sand is for use in asphalt paving. The only other use, Obsorne said, is for things such as sand traps on golf courses, or sand on playgrounds, and that market is tiny compared to the asphalt market.
Clint Jones, a TVA fisheries biologist, told the Middle Nolichucky Watershed Alliance in August that TVA is still trying to determine what, if anything, can be done about siltation in the Nolichucky River, but that some approach including dredging looks the most promising.
Jones said in August that it appeared that Vulcan Materials was not interested in dredging the river "at this time."
Vulcan's Osborne said Thursday, however, that, on the contrary, the company is very much interested in obtaining the permit and in dredging.
"We do have an interest in dredging," Osborne said, if the market for river sand will support it.
Osborne said Vulcan is working through the approval process with the various agencies involved, and is at the same time seeking assurances that it will be allowed to dredge with a reasonable expectation of being able to sell the sand at a profit.
The company still has a quantity of sand stockpiled on its five-acre facility near Birds Bridge, that it can sell, he said. In addition, he said, Vulcan believes it can still remove some sand from the already-permitted area downstream from the bridge.
In addition to the required TVA permit, he explained, Vulcan must also obtain a permit from the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) for sedimentation ponds that are required as part of the TVA application, and it must also obtain permission from Greene County to move its dredging barge under Birds Bridge, before it can start on the new permit section.
The sedimentation ponds were not part of the current permit, he said, but the company now is working on that part of the permit application.
Osborne said permission from Greene County's government must be obtained because the County Highway Department has jurisdiction over the bridge.
The county government has an interest, he said, in making sure that nothing is done to undermine the bridge.
Osborne said the dredging permit now in effect requires the company not to dredge within a specified distance of the bridge, and he said that also will be the case for the new permit.
Greene County Road Superintendent J.C. Jones said Thursday that he was contacted about the permit about a week ago, and is working on it.
Jones said he has obtained the original plans for the bridge from the state archives, and has turned them over to an engineering firm, asking for evaluation of Vulcan's application, "and an opinion on it."
Jones said he also plans to seek help from engineers with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), and from County Attorney Roger Woolsey.
'Want The Bridge Protected'
"I want the bridge protected, whatever they do," the county road superintendent said, adding, "We'll try to work something out if we can."
He noted, "I don't want to hold them (Vulcan) up, because the more sand they take out of the river, the more clean water we'll have out there."
Jones said he would personally like to see the entire area that was once Davy
Crockett Lake restored.
Restoring the lake would require a great deal of dredging, creating jobs, he said, as well as eventually restoring a prime recreational asset that has disappeared "over the last 30 years."
But as far as the current permit goes, Jones said that he primarily seeks assurances that, if Vulcan is allowed to dredge upstream from the bridge, and should the dredging later create a problem, then Vulcan, and not the county government, would be responsible for the cost of repairs.
"If they do dredge, and it creates a problem, I want guarantees that they will take care of it," he said. However, Jones said he will try to work with Vulcan, if possible.
In addition to being required to not dredge within a specified distance from the bridge, Osborne said the company will also be required to stay a specified distance away from the banks of the river, and will only be allowed to dredge to a specific depth, as with the current permit.
Background
Crockett Dam, built in 1913 by a private company, was acquired by TVA in 1948, but was closed in the 1970s because silt had accumulated to the point that it was no longer economically feasible to use the dam to generate electric power.
Crockett Dam was the first hydroelectric dam to be closed by TVA for that reason.
In 2000, and again in 2002, TVA held meetings at the dam to discuss options for correcting the problem.
Options presented in 2002 included: removal of the dam (at a cost estimated at up to $150 million); lowering it and dredging; acquiring more land to lessen TVA's liability in the event of flooding; and "doing nothing."
John Jenkinson, a TVA spokesman at that meeting, said at the time that doing nothing would leave TVA vulnerable to lawsuits in the event of damage from flooding along the river. The land-acquisition option was also seen as very costly.
Those familiar with the situation agree that silt build-up over the years has almost filled the reservoir behind the dam. The reservoir, once about 90 feet deep, is now capable of impounding only about three feet of water, which is not enough for very much serious flood-control help.
TVA's Jones said earlier this year that the environmental impact of removing the dam would be too great to be considered, because the dam keeps the accumulated silt out of Douglas Lake downstream.
In general, he said, water quality below the dam is "pretty good," and supports a large population of smallmouth bass and other game and pan fish.
Removing the dam would also destroy wetlands and other valuable wildlife habitat upstream, he said.
The plan now being considered by TVA is "a hybrid" involving leaving the dam alone and allowing some commercial dredging to remove silt, the TVA fisheries biologist said.
'Silt Has Taken Its Toll'
Clint Jones said he has long enjoyed working as a biologist, and fishing along the Nolichucky for his own pleasure. But, he added, "silt has taken its toll" on the fish in the river.
Jones noted that "sedimentation is the number-one problem" in streams that are being added to the federally-required state list of streams in East Tennessee considered to be "impaired" in some way.
The source of this sedimentation, TVA's Jones said, is runoff from construction sites, and "poor agricultural practices."
Susan Fuhr, manager of TVA's Cherokee-Douglas Watershed office, which includes the Nolichucky River, said Monday that TVA received a request from Vulcan for the additional dredging permit, and for permission to use TVA land, on June 5 of this year.
Sediment Basins Needed
When the application was received, Fuhr said, "We called them, and told them we needed plans for construction of sediment basins" related to the dredging.
Sediment basins are "part of the remediation they're required to do" in order to do the dredging, Fuhr said.
She said the sediment basins are not only required by TVA, but also by TDEC, which regulates water quality.
The basins are intended to allow silt that remains in water pumped out of the river along with the sand that is dredged up to settle out, allowing cleaner water to be returned to the river without as much silt.
Fuhr said that an official from Vulcan called back and said the plans would be forthcoming, but when they had not arrived by Aug. 1, TVA checked again.
Fuhr said that a Vulcan official said at that time that the company would try to have the required plans ready by Aug. 20.
"We don't have them yet," she said Monday.
Fuhr noted that, according to the original permit granted to Nolichucky Sand Co. many years ago, when the company was owned and operated by T.A. Bewley, dredging had to stop each year on Nov. 15 and not resume until after Feb. 15, because that is the time that waterfowl are most active on the river.
She speculated that the required winter stopping of dredging may have something to do with the plans not yet being in hand, since the company would have to stop its dredging operations in November, even with a permit. Thus, she said, the company may not be in an immediate hurry to complete the plans.
Fuhr said that TVA, for its part, is "ready to get the plans and move on."
Osborne said Thursday that Vulcan is also continuing to work through the process, but is seeking additional details and assurances about the requirements that the sedimentation plans must meet before submitting the plans.
Osborne stressed again, though, that Vulcan continues to have an interest in dredging sand from the Nolichucky River.
Nolichucky Sand Co., located near Birds Bridge, has been dredging an area downstream from the bridge for about five years, said Tom Osborne, area production manager for Vulcan Materials, of Kingsport, which now owns and operates Nolichucky Sand Co.
Authorization for dredging the river to a specific depth - for a distance of one mile - downstream from the bridge was obtained from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Osborne said.
The new permit application is for permission to dredge the river for another mile, this time upstream from the bridge, Osborne said. Approval also is being sought from TVA.
"Everybody has an interest in dredging out the Nolichucky," including Vulcan, Osborne said.
TVA itself has said that accumulated sedimentation, most of which is sand, is the river's biggest problem, and that dredging seems to be the most practical option.
Jennings Thomley, whose home overlooks the river, arranged for a Greeneville Sun reporter and photographer to be shown, by boat, the amount of sand that has accumulated in the river.
"We love our river, and want to do what's best for it, and protect it if we can," Thomley said.
Many Sandbars Visible
He added that he believes that dredging is badly needed, as evidenced by the many sandbars that were visible that day, even though the river was perhaps six to eight inches higher than normal.
Sandbars extended long distances into the river at Cooter Bend and at many other locations upstream from Birds Bridge, but were not nearly as evident downstream from there.
Osborne said Thursday that since Vulcan bought Nolichucky Sand Co. in August 2000, between 100,000 and 200,000 tons of sand have been removed from the permitted area downstream.
He said that Vulcan believes it could remove at least one to two million tons of sand from the river if the new, upstream permit is granted, as is expected.
The more important question, Osborne said, is whether the market for sand in the area will support that volume.
Right now, he said, the primary market for river sand is for use in asphalt paving. The only other use, Obsorne said, is for things such as sand traps on golf courses, or sand on playgrounds, and that market is tiny compared to the asphalt market.
Clint Jones, a TVA fisheries biologist, told the Middle Nolichucky Watershed Alliance in August that TVA is still trying to determine what, if anything, can be done about siltation in the Nolichucky River, but that some approach including dredging looks the most promising.
Jones said in August that it appeared that Vulcan Materials was not interested in dredging the river "at this time."
Vulcan's Osborne said Thursday, however, that, on the contrary, the company is very much interested in obtaining the permit and in dredging.
"We do have an interest in dredging," Osborne said, if the market for river sand will support it.
Osborne said Vulcan is working through the approval process with the various agencies involved, and is at the same time seeking assurances that it will be allowed to dredge with a reasonable expectation of being able to sell the sand at a profit.
The company still has a quantity of sand stockpiled on its five-acre facility near Birds Bridge, that it can sell, he said. In addition, he said, Vulcan believes it can still remove some sand from the already-permitted area downstream from the bridge.
In addition to the required TVA permit, he explained, Vulcan must also obtain a permit from the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) for sedimentation ponds that are required as part of the TVA application, and it must also obtain permission from Greene County to move its dredging barge under Birds Bridge, before it can start on the new permit section.
The sedimentation ponds were not part of the current permit, he said, but the company now is working on that part of the permit application.
Osborne said permission from Greene County's government must be obtained because the County Highway Department has jurisdiction over the bridge.
The county government has an interest, he said, in making sure that nothing is done to undermine the bridge.
Osborne said the dredging permit now in effect requires the company not to dredge within a specified distance of the bridge, and he said that also will be the case for the new permit.
Greene County Road Superintendent J.C. Jones said Thursday that he was contacted about the permit about a week ago, and is working on it.
Jones said he has obtained the original plans for the bridge from the state archives, and has turned them over to an engineering firm, asking for evaluation of Vulcan's application, "and an opinion on it."
Jones said he also plans to seek help from engineers with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), and from County Attorney Roger Woolsey.
'Want The Bridge Protected'
"I want the bridge protected, whatever they do," the county road superintendent said, adding, "We'll try to work something out if we can."
He noted, "I don't want to hold them (Vulcan) up, because the more sand they take out of the river, the more clean water we'll have out there."
Jones said he would personally like to see the entire area that was once Davy
Crockett Lake restored.
Restoring the lake would require a great deal of dredging, creating jobs, he said, as well as eventually restoring a prime recreational asset that has disappeared "over the last 30 years."
But as far as the current permit goes, Jones said that he primarily seeks assurances that, if Vulcan is allowed to dredge upstream from the bridge, and should the dredging later create a problem, then Vulcan, and not the county government, would be responsible for the cost of repairs.
"If they do dredge, and it creates a problem, I want guarantees that they will take care of it," he said. However, Jones said he will try to work with Vulcan, if possible.
In addition to being required to not dredge within a specified distance from the bridge, Osborne said the company will also be required to stay a specified distance away from the banks of the river, and will only be allowed to dredge to a specific depth, as with the current permit.
Background
Crockett Dam, built in 1913 by a private company, was acquired by TVA in 1948, but was closed in the 1970s because silt had accumulated to the point that it was no longer economically feasible to use the dam to generate electric power.
Crockett Dam was the first hydroelectric dam to be closed by TVA for that reason.
In 2000, and again in 2002, TVA held meetings at the dam to discuss options for correcting the problem.
Options presented in 2002 included: removal of the dam (at a cost estimated at up to $150 million); lowering it and dredging; acquiring more land to lessen TVA's liability in the event of flooding; and "doing nothing."
John Jenkinson, a TVA spokesman at that meeting, said at the time that doing nothing would leave TVA vulnerable to lawsuits in the event of damage from flooding along the river. The land-acquisition option was also seen as very costly.
Those familiar with the situation agree that silt build-up over the years has almost filled the reservoir behind the dam. The reservoir, once about 90 feet deep, is now capable of impounding only about three feet of water, which is not enough for very much serious flood-control help.
TVA's Jones said earlier this year that the environmental impact of removing the dam would be too great to be considered, because the dam keeps the accumulated silt out of Douglas Lake downstream.
In general, he said, water quality below the dam is "pretty good," and supports a large population of smallmouth bass and other game and pan fish.
Removing the dam would also destroy wetlands and other valuable wildlife habitat upstream, he said.
The plan now being considered by TVA is "a hybrid" involving leaving the dam alone and allowing some commercial dredging to remove silt, the TVA fisheries biologist said.
'Silt Has Taken Its Toll'
Clint Jones said he has long enjoyed working as a biologist, and fishing along the Nolichucky for his own pleasure. But, he added, "silt has taken its toll" on the fish in the river.
Jones noted that "sedimentation is the number-one problem" in streams that are being added to the federally-required state list of streams in East Tennessee considered to be "impaired" in some way.
The source of this sedimentation, TVA's Jones said, is runoff from construction sites, and "poor agricultural practices."
Susan Fuhr, manager of TVA's Cherokee-Douglas Watershed office, which includes the Nolichucky River, said Monday that TVA received a request from Vulcan for the additional dredging permit, and for permission to use TVA land, on June 5 of this year.
Sediment Basins Needed
When the application was received, Fuhr said, "We called them, and told them we needed plans for construction of sediment basins" related to the dredging.
Sediment basins are "part of the remediation they're required to do" in order to do the dredging, Fuhr said.
She said the sediment basins are not only required by TVA, but also by TDEC, which regulates water quality.
The basins are intended to allow silt that remains in water pumped out of the river along with the sand that is dredged up to settle out, allowing cleaner water to be returned to the river without as much silt.
Fuhr said that an official from Vulcan called back and said the plans would be forthcoming, but when they had not arrived by Aug. 1, TVA checked again.
Fuhr said that a Vulcan official said at that time that the company would try to have the required plans ready by Aug. 20.
"We don't have them yet," she said Monday.
Fuhr noted that, according to the original permit granted to Nolichucky Sand Co. many years ago, when the company was owned and operated by T.A. Bewley, dredging had to stop each year on Nov. 15 and not resume until after Feb. 15, because that is the time that waterfowl are most active on the river.
She speculated that the required winter stopping of dredging may have something to do with the plans not yet being in hand, since the company would have to stop its dredging operations in November, even with a permit. Thus, she said, the company may not be in an immediate hurry to complete the plans.
Fuhr said that TVA, for its part, is "ready to get the plans and move on."
Osborne said Thursday that Vulcan is also continuing to work through the process, but is seeking additional details and assurances about the requirements that the sedimentation plans must meet before submitting the plans.
Osborne stressed again, though, that Vulcan continues to have an interest in dredging sand from the Nolichucky River.
For more information and stories, see The Greeneville Sun.
