Send written comments: TDEC meeting on the Noli – March 18

Any many of you know there will be a public hearing in Erwin on March 18th at the Town Hall for TDEC at 5pm to get feedback from the public on the CSX project and the Violations that have been cited. Currently TDEC is requiring zero mitigations for these violations and they contend that the river will repopulate the cobble bars, “naturally in a relatively short period of time.” This is unacceptable, especially considering this is the same organization that issued the Notice of Violations on 12/4/24.

If you can make the public hearing we will be having a straegy session prior to the public hearing. This will be held at Osprey Whitewater at 3pm. Then we will go to the Town Hall at 5 for the hearing.

If you cannot make it, TDEC is taking written Public Comments until March 28th, 2025. Comments can be emailed to water.permits@tn.gov, You must cite the permit number – NRS24.232 and you must cite CSX Transportation in your comments.

I am providing the comments I have sent in below, please adapt and edit them to your needs. TDEC uses AI software and if the comments are the same they will only be counted as a single comment, so please customize and add your thoughts.

Subject: Rebuttal to TDEC’s Assessment of Nolichucky River Restoration Following CSX Rail Restoration Project

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

Thank you for your letter regarding the Nolichucky River and the impact of the CSX rail restoration project (Permit No. NRS24.232). On December 4, 2024, TDEC issued a Notice of Violations to CSX for their unauthorized removal of cobble and fill material from the Nolichucky River. While I appreciate the attention given to the environmental impacts and the ongoing restoration efforts, I have significant concerns about the assumptions made by the Division of Water Resources (TDEC) regarding the natural repopulation of cobble bars removed during the project. Specifically, I seek clarification on the methodology used to conclude that the cobble bars will naturally regenerate in a relatively short time period.

1. Methodology and Scientific Basis for Natural Recolonization:
   The assumption that cobble bars will regenerate naturally in the river within a short period is based on natural processes, but I would appreciate further insight into the studies or data supporting this assertion. Has the Division conducted or reviewed any specific basin studies, particularly regarding the volume of available rock in the Nolichucky River system to replenish the material that was removed? Additionally, can TDEC provide evidence from past river dynamics studies that show how the river has historically restored cobble bars after similar disruptions?
   To substantiate the claim that the cobble bars will naturally regenerate, I believe a more detailed study is required to estimate the potential and timeframe for recovery. This would involve a hydrogeomorphic analysis, including the use of a hydraulic model to simulate depth, velocity, and shear stress over a range of flows. An analysis of the sediment bed composition in the affected areas is also necessary. These elements could be paired to perform a sediment transport capacity analysis, which would provide a clearer understanding of how much material is moved at different discharge intervals. This should be further informed by hydrologic data to create an effective discharge curve, helping to estimate the time and potential for recovery. This analysis should be completed for each area in question to ensure that restoration efforts are based on sound, scientific evidence.
2. Flow and Hydrological Calculations:
   Moving thousands of cubic yards of rock to restore the cobble bars will require significant river flow to transport this material. CSX’s own studies show that during normal “high water events” (from 5,000 cfs to 25,000 cfs), which occur on a 1-2 year interval, the Potential Particle Size Movement is limited to gravel up to 2 inches in diameter and riprap up to 6 inches in diameter. These flows are therefore insufficient to move the cobble stones that were removed, which range from 1 to upwards of 4+ feet in diameter. The natural movement of these larger stones during typical high-water events is not feasible, as they are far too large to be moved by the typical flows seen in the Nolichucky River. Given this limitation, relying on natural transport for the restoration of these cobble bars seems highly unlikely within a reasonable timeframe.
3. Return of Natural River Cobble to Borrow Sites and Recruitment of New Boulders and Cobble:
   Based on observations and studies, the annual recruitment rate for boulders on the Nolichucky River is essentially zero, and the recruitment rate for cobble is extremely low. Rivers that have shown recovery after scalping typically have a steady stream of recruitment, such as those in the Canadian Rockies with an inexhaustible supply of cobble or systems with a constant supply of sand. However, the Nolichucky River does not have a similar supply of boulders and cobble, nor the annual flows necessary to move these materials downstream.
   The key issue is twofold: first, the recruitment of new boulders (and to a lesser extent, cobble), and second, the movement of that material back into the bars. The idea that there is a ready supply of new boulders and cobble entering the reach, and that sufficient flows exist to transport and stack them onto the bars within any reasonable timeframe, is indefensible. This undermines the assumption that the river can self-heal and that the cobble bars will naturally regenerate in a timely manner.
   Therefore, the natural river cobble currently held in stockpiles in Poplar, NC must be moved back to the borrow sites to remediate the impacted areas. This action is necessary to restore the river with materials sourced directly from the river system, which better mimics the natural composition and dynamics of the riverbed. The cobble that was removed is vital to the restoration of the ecosystem, and using the existing stockpile is the most direct way to restore the integrity of the riverbed.
4. Regulatory Requirements for Minimizing Environmental Impacts:
   Regardless of the notion of “rebuilding” or natural recovery, the primary regulatory requirement should be the least environmentally damaging alternative. The assumption that the river will “self-heal” over time does not adequately consider the present-day environmental impacts. The natural process of moving large rocks is often limited to extremely high-water events, which are rare on the Nolichucky River. Additionally, most permitting processes require the preservation of bankfull cross-sectional area and low-flow channel dimensions, not their widening or shallowing. The goal should be to ensure that these dimensions are maintained to prevent further disruption to the river ecosystem, rather than assuming that future events will naturally restore the riverbed.
5. Impact of Prior Work:
   The letter mentions that concerns related to prior work are best addressed through restoration rather than permit conditions for current work. While restoration of the riverbed is certainly an important part of the process, it is crucial to understand how the prior unauthorized removal of cobble bars and any disruption to the river’s natural sediment transport system could impact the long-term health and stability of the river ecosystem. Are there any studies in place to assess the full ecological impacts of this disruption, particularly related to aquatic habitat, water quality, and species that depend on these cobble bars? Is there any teeth to TDEC’s enforcement of the violations that were cited and reported on 12/4/25? How can there be violations with no penalty? This sets a dangerous precedent for all Tennessee waterways, that any for-profit company can heavily impact the waters of Tennessee and while they may be given notice of violations, there will be no penalties. This is an unacceptable oversight practice and there must be compensatory mitigations for these practices.
6. Review and Transparency of the Restoration Plan:
   TDEC notes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is requiring CSX Transportation, Inc. (1590 Marietta Blvd. NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30318) to submit a restoration plan. Could you please clarify what specific parameters TDEC will use to review this plan and whether there will be an opportunity for stakeholders, such as local conservation groups, to provide input on the technical aspects of the restoration plan, particularly regarding cobble bar restoration and stabilization measures? What mechanisms will TDEC put into place to assure that these restorations will be put into place to require remediation work and/or mitigations from CSX?

While we understand that river dynamics are complex and restoration efforts will be ongoing, it is critical to ensure that these actions are based on sound scientific understanding and data. We look forward to receiving more detailed information on the methodology and models used by TDEC to assess the feasibility of natural restoration and how the concerns raised will be addressed in the restoration plan.

Thank you for your time and attention to these questions. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this important conversation, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Organization, if applicable]
[Your Contact Information]