19930501 Ver 2_Public Comments_20091207 (7)

Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Trevor Dalton [[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Macon County Airport Authority USACE Permit
Attachments: USACE Airport Permit.pdf
USACE Airport
Permit.pdf (93 K...
Ms. Lori Beckwith;
Please see attached letter, showing the support of the Macon County Economic Development
Commission, in obtaining a permit for the Macon County Airport Extension Project.
Thank you
Trevor Dalton
Macon County
Economic Development Commission
0 - 828-369-2306
F - 828-349-2400
[e-mail]
1
MAC N T Y
07' :
T COMMISSION
ECONOMIC DEV,-6111
C6Ut+
December 7, 2009
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
151 Patton Ave. Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Attn: Lori Beckwith USACE Asheville, NC
Re: Macon County Airport Authority USACE Permit
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
This letter is in support of the Macon County Airport Authority's request for the issuance of a permit that
allows the Airport Authority in cooperation with the NC Department of Transportation, Aviation
Division, and the Federal Aviation Administration to complete a much needed extension of Macon
County's only operational airport This project represents a conscientious and dedicated effort by the
Macon County Airport Authority to make our airport as safe as possible. Several local businesses
including our largest private employers depend on this airport daily. This project will maintain and
actually help improve our local economy. We need your assistance.
There has been an ongoing determination by our volunteer Airport Authority members to address every
possible issue that has been raised during this six year process. The 600 foot airport runway extension
does cross a small stream but the overall impact to the stream and the surrounding area is minimal. The
Authority has done an admirable job in dealing with the archeological aspects of the site. They have
worked with Native American tribes from Cherokee to Oklahoma and performed intensive archeological
studies in order to identify and protect cultural artifacts found on the site. The Authority actually
redesigned and elevated the runway extension in order to protect areas known to have artifacts present.
This project has already taken years and hundreds of man hours on the part of the Airport Authority and
others to get to this point. The project not only makes our one and only airport safer, it will contribute to
our overall economic well being by providing a vital service that allows employers to create and maintain
jobs ; while at the same time having a minimal effect on our environment and natural resources.
I urge you to give favorable consideration to the permit requested by the Macon County Airport Authority
for this important and worthwhile project.
Sincerely,
f
Ed Shatley - Chairman
Macon County Economic Development Commission
5 West Main Street, Franklin, NC 287374 [phone] [phone] fax www.maconede.com

November 25", 2009
US Army Corps of Engineers oev 3 0 2009
ATTN: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Macon County Airport Runway Expansion
Corps Action ID #: 2009-00321
Please accept the following comments on behalf of Ralph Lamar Marshall, a resident of Cowee
Community who lives five and three quarters miles away from Macon County Airport as the crow flies.
I fish, swim, and canoe along the Little Tennessee River below Iotla Creek and presently am engaged in
researching the history of Cherokee.Iotla (Ayoree) Town and mapping the Cherokee Indian Trail system
of the area for the Eastern Band of Cherokees. My profession as a cultural heritage director is to identify,
study, record, publicize, and seek permanent protection for the cultural heritage, historic places, natural
beauty, family farms and communities, and ecosystems including air, water and all native species of this
area.
Impacts to Cultural Resources
Following italicized paragraphs are from your public notice solicitation for comments:
"Various archaeological studies have been performed at the Macon County Aiyyort dating back to1965.
These studies have concluded that Cherokee artifacts and burial sites exist within airport
property. Prior to the current investigation, the most recent archaeological study was performed
by The Chicora Foundation, Inc. (Chicora) during 2000. The Chicora study indicated that the
field west of Iotla Branch (the proposed runway extension area) contains a wide variety of data
sets, including a large number of human burials, the presence of postholes which likely reveal
house patterns, and cultural remains including pottery, cut mica, stone tools, and historic
artifacts.
In response to these findings, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed between the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the FAA, the Macon County Airport Authority, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Off lice (EBCI THPO), and the
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) in order to seek ways to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts from the proposed project. Upon the request of
the EBCI THPO, the runway extension was redesigned to minimize archaeological impacts to
the maximum extent possible.
According to the applicant, the original design included the runway extension, associated runway safety
area, and taxiway continuing on the existing runway gradient. This would have required
excavation into the adjacent hillside to reach the required runway elevation and would have
possibly resulted in disturbing features or artifacts. The redesign adjusted the proposed runway
gradient (or vertical alignment) which includes filling rather than cutting the vertical alignment
and allows the extension to be constructed with approximately 115,000 cubic yards of fill,,thus
minimizing the impact to the existing soil and associated archaeological resources contained
within the proposed runway extension footprint.
1
The scope of work outlined in the MOA includes a data recovery plan that focused on 25 percent
of the proposed runway extension footprint. The goal of the data recovery plan is to describe the
people who were buried at this site, to characterize and explain any skeletal traits, pathologies or
anomalies of the people, and to provide information concerning the lifestyles and histories of the people.
The MOA issued on July 15, 2008, was signed by the FAA, SHPO, the Airport
Authority, and the NC DOT; the EBCI THPO and UKB did not sign the MOA.
The survey work included in the data recovery plan began in February of 2009 without
signatures from the EBCI THPO and the UKB, and later, the EBCI THPO, the UKB, and
members of the public expressed disapproval of the recovery plan. Relevant stakeholders met
again in 2009 to finalize a decision on the archaeological recovery plan. As a result, the Airport
Authority agreed to do 100 percent stripping and mapping of the area included in the footprint of
the project.
The expanded archaeological investigation now includes stripping the entire footprint of the
proposed runway extension area of topsoil. Once this has been completed, all features identified
during the stripping will be mapped, left in place, and covered up with the removed topsoil or the
runway extension fill, depending on the timing. This process will preserve features and or
artifacts found in the footprint and will eliminate potential disturbances from the runway
extension project. Once the project is completed, the features or artifacts identified will be
encapsulated underneath the runway extension. According to the airport's consultant, as a result
of these additional measures, all stakeholders have provided verbal agreement to the
archaeological recovery plan. Currently, there is no new or amended MOA. "
Comments: Airport Authority archaeological recovery plan,
The Eastern Band was and is against the Macon County This is not the same as 100% recovery
including their proposal to do 100 percent stripping and mapping.
and does not satisfy the tribes original request for 100%
federal tribes, there remains a gre at controversy?g recovery. Since there was no MA that 100 % stripping and mapping would satisfy
concerning the question an unknown number of graves that lie in the vicinity of the proposed runway
expansion. Legal controversy still clouds the future of the graves and other pertinent archaeological areas
that were overlooked or disregarded by the Airport Authority, FAA and NC SHPO.
In addition, there is no verbal agreement or MOA that agrees to any plan to encapsulate artifacts under the
runway. A simple call to THPO Russell Townsend of the Eastern Band would verify this serious mistake.
The substitution of a written agreeiiient or MOA with a second-hand the consultant e(TRC) to ctio b the airport'
ors .
consultant is not legal. The Corps does not reveal who au
carry out the responsibilities of the ACPH, FAA, SHPO or Eastern Band? A consultant has no authority
to substitute verbal agreements (which may or may not have been understood by all parties) for an official
MOA or other signed, legal document.
Failure of FAA to Follow FAA Procedure to Secure MOA
Process was not followed by FAA duriChapter 14, PROPERTIES: been agreed on.
According to the FAA Airports Desk Reference, Ptr 14
(2) When the SHPO (or THPO) objects to the finding. If the SHPO (or THPO, when appropriate) SHP
THPO , when
objects to FAA's finding within 30 days of receiving
send the find FAA gwill consult 36 ? c(or tio 800.11(d))
appropriate) to resolve the disagreement or
to the ACHP for its review and comment. The ACHP must respond within 30 days of receiving the
2
documentation. If ACHP does not respond in 30 days after receiving the documentation, FAA has fulfilled
its Section 106 responsibilities.
(a) If ACHP objects to FAA's finding, but FAA and the sponsor alter the undertaking to address ACHP's
concerns, FAA has met its Section 106 responsibilities.
(b) If FAA does not alter its original finding, FAA can proceed with the project but only after sending the
ACHP, the SHPO (or THPO) and the consulting parties documentation on FAA's final decision. This
documentation shows how FAA considered the ACHP's opinion.
(3) To the fullest extent possible draft environmental assessments and impact statements should
summarize the FAA's evidence and documentat on reflecting consultation. See 40 CFR section
containing the supporting g
1502.25.
g. Assessing adverse effects. T7ne responsible FAA official applies the adverse effect criteria in 36 CFR.
Section 800.5 to the historic properties in the project's APE. The official must do this in consultation with
the SHPO (or THPO) and other consulting parties, including Native American tribes and Native
Hawaiian organizations, as appropriate. If FAA finds an undertaking would affect an NRHP-listed or
eligible property, the responsible FAA official must notify the consulting parties.
Furthermore, on reviewing the information that I have received from the Airport Authority, FAA, ACHP,
SHPO, etc., I cannot determine that the FAA has followed their own criteria required in the following
procedures:
(1) Criteria of adverse effect. An undertaking would adversely affect a property if it changes the
characteristics of the historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP. Diminishing
the integrity
cause i these effects. Per 36 property's location, setting,
Sections 800.5(a)(1) and (2), an undertaking causing any of the
could
following would adversely affect a historic property.
(a) Physical destruction or damage to all or part of the property;
(b) Alteration of a property in ways that is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for
treating historic properties (see 36 CFR Part 68). This criterion applies to activities:
(1) involving restoring, rehabilitating, repairing, maintaining, or stabilizing the property;
(2) providing handicap access to the property; or
(3) remediating hazardous materials;
(c) isolating the property from its surrounding settings or altering the characteristics of those settings,
when those characteristics contribute to qualifying the propertyfor the NRHP;
(d) moving a property from its historic location;
(e) introducing visual, audio, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or that
would diminish the integrity of the property's setting when the setting contributes to the property's
historical significance.
(0 neglecting property to a level that destroys the property or allows it to deteriorate; or
(g) approving the transfer, lease, or sale of a property without including contract assurances to preserve
the property's historically significant features.
(2) Results of applying the criteria of adverse effect. After applying the criteria of adverse effect, the
responsible FAA off cial, in consultation with the SHPO (or THPO, when appropriate) makes one of
these determinations.
(a) No Adverse Effect determination. Vie responsible FAA official makes this determination when the
analysis shows the undertaking would not trigger any of the adverse effect criterion noted in Sections
5.g(1)(a)-(g) of this chapter. The official may also determine that imposing certain conditions on the
undertaking would avoid those effects.
(1) SHPO/THPO agrees with the f nding. The responsible FAA official must send documentation on the
determination as described in 36 CFR Section 800.11(e)) (presented here for convenience) to the SHPO
(or THPO, when appropriate). The official must also send the information to consulting parties, unless
the information must remain confidential (see Section S.h of this chapter).
• a description of the undertaking by specifying the Federal undertaking. Include the APE and
photographs, maps, and drawings as necessary;
• a description of steps taken to identify historic properties;
• a description of the affected historic properties, including information on the properties' characteristics
that make them eligible for the NRHP;
• a description of the undertaking's effects on historic properties;
• an explanation of why the criteria of adverse effect did not apply to the undertaking, including any
conditions orfuture actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects; and
• copies of summaries of views that the public and consulting parties provided. "
It is my contention that FAA has not followed these procedures. Because of flawed process by FAA,
Macon Airport Authority and SBPO, a collaborative MOA, which was sought by the Eastern Band of
Cherokees, failed to be reached. For this reason, Executive Order 13175 was not followed.
Furthermore, the Corps should examine the processes that led up to the Request for Permit from the
Corps of Engineers. On an exam.4nation ofthe process, t:16 Corps.can.only agree that the Eastern Band of
Cherokees and the public should have been provided an Environmental Impact Statement. (EIS).
Magnitude and Significance and Significant Impacts Underestimated in EA and FONSI
The magnitude and significance of the project was underestimated and the significant impacts to the
environment, the cultural heritage, and impacts to the community were ignored or underestimated. The
issues and the public controversy raised in the initial EA process should have led the planners into an EIS
which would have addressed the issues that were not addressed in the EA. The Macon County Airport
Authority failed to provide the public and the Eastern Band of Cherokees with an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
That "significant impacts" will occur to this site is without question. The site has been classified as a
Section 4(f) property (DOT definition) which should automatically require an EIS (Environmental Impact
Study) under NEPA. The proposed EA is insufficient to fulfill NEPA requirements.
The EA Should Have Mandated an EIS rather than a FONSI
4
An EIS is required if the proposed action to "affect'Ithe environment, it must have a causal relat onshiphwith
ThEIS e EIS contains a full da full and fair discussion
human environment". For an action rovide the environment: direct, indirect, or cumulative. ternatives. An
of the proposed
of environmental impacts of proposed
action, reasonable alternatives, and the probable environmental impacts that would avoid or minimize the
adverse impacts of the proposed action.
a Town (AyorPreservation The loss op ct
Charlestown, SC to Fort Loudon Tu, Trading Path: Violation of National
The EA fails to address the significance of the history associated with te contain potential historical tourism was not linae tfact hat terminate on the1Tenness esRiverj in Tennessee at
Trading Path from Charles Town, South Carolina,
site Trading Path was not evaluated or
Trading Path) were not addressed nraddressed.
the Town of Chota and Fort Loudon, d impact to that
Measures to identify and preserve this ? s is a viol
ation discussed anywhere in the EA, nor was the ?h significant
that a road or a trail FaOhundredNSI. old mu t
of the National Historic Preservation A specifies alify for
the be protected until it is studied and deemed EA fa led to dgsclose wh her the newurunway a tension nal enouh to qualify or not to Register of Historic Places. Specifically, he
would impact the Trading Path from Charles
not want the airport extension. The distu bance to 00 graves
way
-The Eastern Band of the Cherokees
located in the area of the proposed runway violates their belie d that, ata mf site is Sacred. Should the run
recovery of artifacts and
be built against their protests, they have requeste Authority has refused to
human burials be required before approval of this project. Macon County Airport istorical consider their request. The question burials violation s serious concern that should be investigatedhand ha lenged
archaeological, sacred, cultural and b ficant. The Eastern Band of
in this EA and FONSI. The issue is significant and the impacts highly significant.
and FAA. I have a special
Cherokees have refused to sign the MOA put forth by Macon County Airport an
interest in the Cherokee town of Iotla well the well-being 1Ayoree) which could put the own'ss In the
latter 1700s there were a hunded warriors living in Iotl
population at that time to about eight to nine hundred persons. A lot of those people are buried there now.
This fact alone should prove ththis project and the Band of he Cherokees Insurrounding this project are extremely
di Members f the Eastern Band of
significant to the public and Eastern
Cherokee Indians and a ent of other concerned citizens are outraged that the Airport Authority, the
and the ate archaeologist would allow artifacts and human burials to be
Federal Aviation Adrmmstratio
put at risk.
Those against the project, including Cherokee Principal Chief Michell Hicks, said 100 percent of the
artifacts should be excavated before it is paved over. Failure to do so could erase the archaeological
record. Chief Hicks said there could be some protests corning to Franklin. Airport Authority Chairman oney the
Authority Milles Gregory said it would cost $2 has ll ontracedtotal
wih TRC Env?onmental of Chape Hil fort or $535 000
doesn't have. The Airport Authority
to recover the 25 percent. Chief Hicks said the tribe is unwilling to pay the difference to do a complete
excavation, saying it is the responsibility of the county and Airport Authority to do the right thing. This
proves that significance is not the issue in the Airport Authority's claim of insignificance. Money is. The
fact that the Airport Authority does not have the money to fulfill its obligation to recover 100% of the
archaeological site should not enter into the argument that their actions will or will not cause a significant
impact to the environment or a significant archeological site.
The following letter is challenges the significance issue as well:
February 27, 2009
NC Department of Administration
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
CHICORA FOUNDATION, INC.
P.O. 80x 8664
861 ARBUTUS DRIVE
COLUMBIA. S.C. 29202
803-787-6910
RE: SCH #: 09EO0000216, Macon County Airport EA/FONSI
"To whom it may concern: of no si ficant impact on the
This letter is to advise you that we do not concur with the finding Statement should be required.
above referenced project and believe that an Environmental Impact
of a National Register of Historic
First, the proposed runway extension involves a physical taking
Places property and I feel that an insufficient effort has been expended to demonstrate that there is no
feasible and prudent alternative. situated
the Second, I make reference to the project's t fries been det rmin d eligisite for inclus on on the National
path of this proposed undertaking. This si o inion that it cance
that Register of Historic Places. Thii n arcbological e is of such of a N t onal H storic gnLandmark.lAs u h I belie e that the
meets the standard for designana that the proposed
destruction of the site by this project creates an adverse effect of such magnitude
data recovery is inadequate and insufficient.
Briefly, the data recovery plan provides for inadequate recovery of cultural remains. The data exi
site (whic
also recovery plan ignores the presence of human remains s 70 °A?rticle 3st on
Unmarked Human Burial and Human
violation of North Carolina General Statutes Chap
Skeletal Remains Protection Act). Further, the belief that remains not recovered will be "protected by
the runway fill is contradicted by research conducted by the National Park Service and the Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterway Experiment Station.
Third, I wish to point out that the resulting Memorandum of Agreement regarding mitigation of
the Cherokee
archaeological site 31MA77 has not Cherokee Ind snst The OA for this project has therefore
Nation, or the United Keetoowah Band o resp
and made absolutely no effort to be inclusive and ensure that Native American patrimony
osed to the cs to being
preserved. In fact, it is my understanding that thenecrated b d thare very much opp
e construct on. Fourth, I do not believe
by the
disturbed and the graves of their ancestors being
for the
need
it will
roject- that the document provides adequate economic he need for the ext nsion and the amount of revenThere
appears to be considerable disagreement over
reasonably generate. In addition, the arguments regarding safety are clearly inflated. The airport as a ently
unsafe
aimed good safety record at its current usage -rate and if the facility
airport. Siince the fa it ryas still operatogit with would the
seem reasonable that the county would have closed thrp
ment is s uerious. Combined, the document fails to clearly
county's full economic support, then the argu p ation lan for the ls to propose an aequate
accepta justify the need for the facility, toithe archaeologicalresourc sait ignoreslthellwishes of the Native
extraordinary damage to done
American community, and d it fails to demonstrate that any serious effort was made to identify alternatives.
question the appropriateness of the county commencing with archaeological data
Finally, I et been approved (that this is occurring is
recovery/mitigation plans when the EA/FONSI has not y earl s es of data recovery as I
documented by several newspaper articles and a photograph showing the y g
write this letter). This action in advance of a full and complete environmental review implies that the
county does not intend to seriously consider the public's input. It further suggests that the county believes
that by initiating construction activities, it can make public comment moot. Again, I encourage you to
require that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for this proposed undertaking."
Michael Trinkley, PH.D., RPA Director
I agree with Dr. Trinkley's observations, comments and conclusions. At the Macon County Commission
meeting on March 9`h, Pilot Michael Wyrick testified that although the runway is purportedly needed for
safety reasons, none of the documented 21 accidents at the airport have been due to inadequate runway
length. According to data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the accident that
resulted in fatalities in 1995 was caused by sun glare.
Failure to Provide the Latest and Best Science: Failure to Consult With USFWS
The final EA fails to provide the latest and best science. The final EA contains NO reports by the US Fish
and. Wildlife Service after the documents dated 2002. Since that time, new species have been listed in
Iotla Creek and the Little Tennessee River. I have grave concerns for the various T&E species including
the spotfin chub in lotla Creek and the smoky dace (Clinostomus sp.) an undescribed species endemic to
the greater Little Tennessee watershed, which surely is in the headwaters of lotla Creek.
USFWS Not Notified Until 4-4-09
The US Fish and Wildlife Service was not notified until March 4, 2009, after the EA and FONSI were
submitted to the state. According to conversations with USFWS, the data used in the EA is well out-of-
date. New species have been found since the old surveys were done.
Furthermore, I contacted the USFWS and their office stated flatly that they have not been consulted with
and that they are concerned and intend to address the failure of the Macon County Airport Authority to
consult with them since 2002 and produced and published an EA and came to the conclusion that the
finding was of no significant impact. The EA is flawed, the public was cheated of their right to comment
on the EA using the "best scientific information available." This violates NEPA because NEPA requires
conformance to a "Best Scientific Information Available" standard. The public cannot make logical
comments on an EA that is technically and legally deficient. Much more science was available by malting,
one phone call to USFWS in Asheville. Each agency must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species in the wild, or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If an agency determines that a proposed action may adversely affect
such a species, it must formally consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or NMFS. Macon County
Airport Authority violated the Endangered Species Act and well as NEPA by failing to consult with
USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
NEPA establishes a process that outlines federal agency responsibilities and guides public involvement.
NEPA applies to "major federal actions". The term "major" applies to the significance of the impact on
the environment. NEPA is the process of assessing the impacts of actions on the physical, biological, and
human environment. NEPA provides for notification by federal agencies that an action will be proposed.
It provides for public involvement in the decision making process. And, NEPA provides a strict timeline
for and documentation of the federal decision making process. The timeline followed by Macon County
Airport Authority should be compared to the timeline set forth in NEPA.
The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA state that environmental information must be available to
public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken. Additionally, the
information must be of high quality because accuracy is essential to implementing NEPA. Additionally,
the CEQ regulations state:
Agencies are to ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and
analyses in environmental impact statements. They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make
7
explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the
statement. An agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix.
OMB's "Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies" implementing the Information Quality Act further
emphasize the need for high quality information in NEPA analyses and documents. Needless to say, this
was not done in the EA process conducted by the Macon County Airport Authority.
Furthermore, according to CEQ Task Force: Most agencies develop an EIS when potentially significant
impacts might exist, or when the project is controversial or high profile. Agencies cited both situations as
key considerations when deciding whether to develop an EA or EIS. The majority of agencies interviewed
use internal agency guidance for EA development.
Most agencies that the task force interviewed stated that if the proposed action has not been implemented
in 5 years from the date that the FONSI was signed, a reevaluation of the project is necessary to ensure
that no significant changes have occurred in the:
• Environment;
• Original proposed action;
• Level of public controversy; and
• State of science and technology.
Additionally, agencies evaluate whether new environmental circumstances or information are relevant to
the proposed action and its impacts; if so, a supplemental EA is completed. Courts have required
preparation of a supplemental EA under the same circumstances as those required for a supplemental EIS.
CEQ guidance should clarify when it is appropriate to complete an EA and when a supplemental EA is
necessary. Obviously, these important procedures were ignored in the EA and FONSI that we have in our
handstoday.
Macon County Authority Failed to Coordinate and Comply With Other Laws
According to CEQ, there are several laws that are closely associated with environmental analysis under
NEPA and, therefore, obligate agencies to comply with them as an integral part of the NEPA process. The
need to synchronize the analyses is important for the NEPA process to be an effective tool. Includes the
Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
commonly called the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. Agencies attempt to conduct compliance
analyses concurrently, but they often perform them sequentially.
For example, integrating the NEPA process with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries), is a long-standing concern. CEQ and various agencies have worked with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries to better integrate the requirements of Section 7 consultation into
NEPA requirements. The efforts focus on addressing Endangered Species- Act requirements earlier in the
NEPA process, which can expedite informal and formal consultation which typically occurs toward the
end of the NEPA process. Because the Macon County Airport Authority dragged the EA/NEPA process
out for so many years, they caused a "de facto failure."
Under provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, a Federal agency that carries out,
permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes activities that may affect a listed species must consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species.
According to NEPA, formal consultation should be initiated prior to or at the tine of release of the DEIS
or EA. At the time the Final EIS is issued, section 7 consultation should be completed. The Record of
Decision for an EIS should address the results of section 7 consultation. The action agency should initiate
8
informal consultation prior to public scoping required for major construction activities as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
When conducting section 7 consultation, the USFWS uses the best scientific and commercial information
available. This information may include the results of studies or surveys conducted by the Federal action
agency or the designated non-Federal representative, information contained in past biological opinions
and biological assessments, status reports and listing rules, including critical habitat designations,
recovery plans, and published and unpublished studies done on the species. However, at times even the
best information available may not provide a sufficient basis to predict effects to a species. When this is
the case, the Services should work with the action agency and applicant, if appropriate, to develop
sufficient information to adequately evaluate the effects of the proposed action and its potential to
jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat. If it is not possible
to develop such information, the Services should use the information that is available and provide the
benefit of the doubt to the species when evaluating the potential for jeopardy and adverse modification.
To summarize this issue, a deficient EA process has resulted in both a deficient EA, FONSI and deficient
comments from the public. The data in the EA is very out of date. The public was not given adequate
information to make accurate comments because of the failure of the Macon County Airport Authority to
provide data that a simple phone call to the US Fish and Wildlife Service would have supplied to them.
On 3-13-09, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing a letter to be sent to the FAA/NCDOT
Aviation Division explaining their concerns with the project and what appears to be "an inadequate EA
and premature FONSI." This is the opinion of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
It appears that the Macon County Airport (or W K Dickson & Co.) cut and pasted this EA together using
1991 data, updated SOME of it to 2002 and some FAA regulatory stuff to 2004. It is evident that the
Macon County Airport authority is attempting to utilize old data in their EA and in so doing, neglecting
obligation to provide an accurate and current EA. Many examples of old data dominate the document. For
example, page A-1, "the year 2000 saw xxx number of...." Charts and information were produced in
1991 and updated in 2002. The data in Table A-3, page A-12 is out of date and does not make sense
except in a historical context. We cannot make accurate and intelligent decisions and comments when we
are using out of date data. Another example is Table C-1 on page C-2 which provides Macon County
population levels from 1991-2003. This data is seven years old. This pattern seems to pervade the entire
EA.
Cumulative and Potential Impacts Not Addressed
The cumulative and potential impacts to the community were ignored because the proposed extension of
the airport would open the door for a series of expansions, hangar increase, runoff, an industrial park that
would develop and be a direct result of airport expansion. This particular airport expansion would not
necessitate the use of eminent domain but it would open the door for eminent domain in the future.
Eminent domain has been used in North Carolina to take private property for airports. This fact was not
revealed in the EA.
The impacts to the ability of the school children to learn with the increase of jet noise within a few
thousand feet of the runway nor the increase in threats to their safety were not sufficiently addressed.
The impacts to the Little Tennessee River which is a major tourist attraction for fishers, canoeing,
swimming, wading, and use as a biological classroom were not addressed.
Every citizen in the Iotla Valley vicinity must be made aware of the potential threats to their homes and
family farms. The expansion of the airway runway will set the stage for the implementation of "eminent
9
domain" and forced selling of adjacent property as the airport brings in more jet traffic and larger planes.
Airports never shrink in size, they only grow larger, louder and increase pollution in any community
unlucky enough to have one. The quality of life for all nearby families is diminished in a multitude of
ways. Private property values plunge because families don't want to live near jet traffic. The noise is
horrid, jet exhaust fumes not only stink but they are health hazards. Local creeks and rivers get all the
runoff and pollution from fuels and chemicals. All of the public who breathes the air, wades Iotla Creek
or fishes and swims in the Little Tennessee River will be impacted with poisons in the water. The quality
of life will be ruined in Iotla Valley forever.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, the Corps must deny the permit application. If the Corps continues to consider the
application, a public hearing is necessary to fully ventilate the serious deficiencies in the proposed
development plan.
Thank you,
Lamar Marshall
744 Mica City Road
Franklin, NC, 28734
828-507-2554

10
US Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
November 23, 2009
A Non-profit Environmental Law Flan
NOV 2 5 2009
RE: Macon County Airport Runway Expansion
Corps Action ID #: 2009-00321 m ...
Please accept the following comments on behalf of Wild South, a regional conservation
organization with members throughout the Southeast, and WildLaw.
The members of the undersigned organizations are very familiar with the project area for the
Macon County Airport runway expansion. Each of the undersigned organizations include
members who reside in the project area and many more who recreate in these areas and
appreciate them for their scenic beauty, hiking, wildlife viewing, spiritual renewal, and other
cultural and educational activities.
A review of the materials included in the public notice for this project dated October 29, 2009, is
deficient in several respects, expressed in more detail below. As a preliminary matter, it appears
from the application and public notice that the project applicant intends to discharge of dredged
or fill materials in waters of the United States, but there is no indication or application for a
subsequent 404 (b) (1) permit. Please clear up this inconsistency.
Further, the content of the application and pubic notice make clear that the Macon County
Airport Authority has acted in bad faith and clear violation of federal law and regulation on at
least 4 separate occasions.' While the public notice attempts to minimize the impact of these
shocking actions by using the term "unauthorized" to describe the nefarious history of the
Airport Authority on this site, the public will not be fooled. As noted in the public notice,
wetlands were illegally filled, culverts were illegally placed, and purported "mitigation" was
completely ineffective. Nothing in the Macon County Airport Authority's history suggests they
are capable of, or likely to, successfully implement the proposed mitigation, and the Corps
should weigh this heavily as they make their decision on this application.
1 See C.O.E. Public Notice, pp. 3-4.
14 Melrose Avenue
Asheville, NC 28804
828-280-2785
www.wildlaw.org
No permit may be issued under § 404 because the Airport Authority's proposed mitigation plan,
as a matter of law, fails to adequately compensate for the stream impacts associated with the
proposed construction. Furthermore, no permit may be issued under § 404 because the proposed
activities will likely cause violations of North Carolina water quality standards. These are
serious deficiencies, and the Corps cannot approve the permit application.
Further the Co s cannot issue a ---
alternative. The Corps cannot issue a permit for culverting streams if there is a "practicable
alternative ... which would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 CFR
230.10(a). Because an airport runway is not a water-dependent activity, no permit maybe issued
unless the Airport Authority clearly demonstrates that there is no practicable alternative. See 40
CFR 230.10(a)(3). Among the alternatives that must be considered are "a reduction in size,
configuration or density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs." 15A NCAC 2H
.0506(f).
The Airport Authority asserts that the project's purpose is to lengthen the existing runway to
provide and enhanced facility for distressed aircrafts in emergency situations. However, in
public meetings and in statements to the press, the main thrust of the proponents of the runway
expansion (the Airport Authority) has been tied to safety for existing fmg aircraft. In short, it is clear
that the Airport Authority wants larger aircraft and bets to be a
Whether or not this is a valid reason to create the level of impacts to an already impaired and
impacted area should be a larger question in this permitting process. Said issue, however, has
neither been raised nor adequately addressed to this point. The airport at its current usage also
appears to have a relatively good safety record. Demonstration of need for the improvements,
expansions of capacity, etc., have not been adequately described in detail. We urge the Corps to
require a more plausible and detailed description of purpose and need at this juncture.
Even uncritically accepting the Airport Authority's articulation of the project's purpose, there
were no alternatives to the proposed extension included with the application. Because there was
no analysis of practicable alternatives, the proposed stream impacts associated with golf course
construction must not be permitted.
is m deauate.
No permit maybe issued under 404 if of theewaters of the United Stags.' 4material will "cause 0 CFR 232.10(c). or
contribute to significant degradation
Instead of undertaking actual "mitigation!' as the term is customarily defined--providing on-site efforts to ameliorate the impacts from the proposed action(s)-the Airport Authority seeks to
purchase their way out of mitigation. From the mitigation plan as submitted, no actual
improvements, mitigation, or other attempts will be made to make up for the very real impacts
from the proposed construction. The listed on-site mitigation measures are simply remedial steps
to make up for past sins, and should in no way be imputed to the mitigation measures needed for
the proposed project. The fact that there was no exploration of some different ways to mitigate
the impacts to this project demonstrates once again the deficiency in the alternatives analysis of
14 Melrose Avenue - Asheville, NC 28804 • 828-280-2785 - www•wildla„v.org 2
this project. Especially in light of the Airport Authority's poor history of mitigation compliance
and illegal fill and culverting activities, this discussion is particularly warranted and the Corps
should require such.
The proposed mitigation plan is inadequate under State law.
Additionally, the mitigation plan submitted by the Airport Authority fails to meet North
Carolina's requirements for § 401 certification. The Department of Water Quality of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DWQ") may issue a § 401
certification if, among other things, the activity "provides for replacement of [unavoidable losses
of] existing uses through mitigation ...." 15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6) and (h). DWQ's
mitigation requirements are generally the same as the Corps',
The Corps must deny the Airaort Authority's permit application because the proposed activities
will result in the violation of State water aualtty standards.
The Corps cannot approve the Airport Authority's permit application because the act of
culverfmg existing streams will likely result in the violation of State water quality standards. 40
CFR 230.10(b) ("[n]o discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it: [c]auses or
contributes ... to violations of any applicable State water quality standard"). Moreover, the
Corps cannot approve the permit because the North Carolina DWQ cannot certify that the proposed activities will comply with State water quality standards. See 33 USCA §1331 (a)(1).
Culverting is a source of pollution that will result in those streams being rendered unsuitable for
trout habitat and propagation and for secondary recreation. Pollution is the "man-made or man-
induced alteration of the chemical, physical, [or] biological ... integrity of the water." 33 USCA
§ 1362(19). Culverting alters the water's physical integrity by replacing the natural substrate
with man-made materials and alters the water's biological integrity by making the culverted
portion of the stream unsuitable as habitat for some species. Long culverts are not only
unsuitable for fish habitat and propagation, but also create an impassable barrier, affecting the
suitability of upstream and downstream habitat as well. And of course, a culverted stream
precludes secondary recreation-Le., fishing. Additionally, replacing the natural substrate of the
stream prevents normal agitation of the water, lowering the dissolved oxygen content of the
water in the culvert and downstream, further contributing to its unsuitability for aquatic species.
As a result, long culverts cause violations of water quality standards in stream segments above
and below the culvert, as well as in the culverted segment itself. Because of these violations, the
Corps cannot issue the permit. See 40 CFR 230.10(b).
The CWA requires the Corps to consider the environmental impacts of any action it authorizes,
regardless of how major or minor the action. Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Andrews, 758 F.2d
508, 513 (10th Cir. 1985). Under Corps regulations, when issuing a Section 404 permit, "the
Corps must look not only at the direct effects of a discharge but also at the indirect effects." Fox
Bay Partners v. United States Corps of Engineers, 831 F. Supp. 605, 609 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
However, when a CWA Section 404 permit is required as part of a larger activity, the scope of
the environmental analysis may encompass the entire project.
14 Melrose Avenue • Asheville, NC 28804 • 828-280-2785 - www.wUdlaw.org
Corps regulations state that the scope of its analysis should "address the impacts of the specific
activity requiring a [Corps] permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district
engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal review." 33 C.F.R. Part
325, App. B, § 7(b)(1). According to this regulation, the Corps has the requisite "control and
responsibility" in cases where "the environmental consequences of the larger project are
essentially products of the Corps permit action." 33 C.F.R. Part 325, App. B, § 7(b)(2).
Here the Corps must give proper consideration to effects and alternatives other than the ones
noted and proposed by the Airport Authority; presently they have given no consideration at all to
any alternatives consideration, nor apparently has the Airport Authority. Such an analysis is
clearly reasonable under NEPA. Whether such an alternative is practicable under the FWPCA
wetlands regulations is another matter that requires the Corps to take evidence and make findings
on the record, and the Airport Authority will bear the burden of proving that such an alternative
is not practicable. If a dredge or fill permit application does not concern a water-dependent
project, as is the case here, the Corps assumes that practicable alternatives exist unless the
applicant "clearly demonstrated otherwise." 40 C.F.R.§ 230.10(6)(3). This presumption of
practicable alternatives "is very strong." Buttrey v. United States, 690 F.2d 1170,1180 (5th Cir.
1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 927, 103 S.Ct. 2087, 77 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983)(emphasis in original).
This presumption "creates an incentive for developers to avoid choosing wetlands when they
could choose an alternative upland site." Bersani v. Environmental Protection Agency, 850 F.2d
36, 44 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089,109 S.D. 1556,103 L.Ed.2d 859 (1989).
Impacts to Cultural Resources
While there is discussion of the significant and irreversible impacts to cultural resources in both
the project application and the public notice, the analysis is merely cursory, lacks the required
level of detail, and glosses over the true impacts to cultural resources this project will entail.. As
a result, the project as proposed will impact cultural resources to such a degree that no level of
mitigation can justify the proposed impacts on the historic Iotla valley and community.
As a preliminary matter, the permit application and public notice fail to address the significance
of the history associated with Iotla Town (Ayoree). The loss of potential historical tourism was
not evaluated. The fact that Iotla Town site contains a major significant Trading Path from
Charles Town, South Carolina, that terminates on the Tennessee River in Tennessee at the Town
of Chota and Fort Loudon, and the impact to that Trading path was not evaluated or addressed.
Measures to identify and preserve disturbance, 00 graves located iTrading trePath) were not addre
a of the proposed ssed
or analyzed adequately. The
runway violates Cherokee beliefs that the site is Sacred.
Also not properly analyzed in the cultural impacts section of the application (and prior NHI'A
and other negotiations) is a 100% recovery of artifacts and human burials as mitigation for this
project. Macon County Airport Authority has apparently refused to consider their request. The
issue and the impacts are both significant. The Eastern Band of Cherokee have also refused to
sign the MOA put forth by Macon County Airport and FAA.. This fact alone demonstrates that
this project and the issues surrounding this project are extremely significant to the public and
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. Members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and a
14 Melrose Avenue - Asheville, NC 28804 • 828-280-2785 - www.wildlaw.org 4
contingent of other concerned citizens are outraged that the Airport Authority, the Federal
Aviation Administration and the state archaeologist would allow artifacts and human burials to
be put at risk. The Airport Authority has contracted with TRC Environmental of Chapel Hill for
$535,000 to recover the 25 percent. The fact that the Airport Authority may claim it does not
have the money to fulfill its obligation to recover 100% of the archaeological site should not
entitle them to willfully destroy and impact an invaluable cultural site such as Iotla valley.
Impacts to EndanBred Species
The brief mention in the public notice of potential impacts to endangered species is insufficient
and incomplete. As a preliminary matter, the Appalachian Elktoe mussel, and endangered
species, is located near to the project area. Further, one of the few and most important refugia
for this imperiled mussel is the main stem of the Little Tennessee River near Franklin, directly
downstream of this project area. The mussel is highly susceptible to increased pollution and
runoff from industrial sources and other development. No adequate consideration of this reality
appears to exist in either the permit application or public notice. Other species that warrant
careful consideration of impacts include the spotfin chub and the smoky dace. No timely,
current, or relevant discussion of impacts to any species are provided in the application or public
notice.
Further, the final critical habitat designation for this species appears to have happened after the
original round of informal "consultation" with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For no
further interaction to have occurred since that time (before 2002) demonstrates the inadequacy of
consideration of impacts from this project. It also appears that the FWS has not been contacted
about this project since early 2002, nearly a decade ago. Setting aside the implications of this
level of stale data for NEPA purposes, the best and most up-to-date scientific data clearly were
not utilized in the development of the project proposal. That same level of deficient information
applies to the development and application for this permit from the Corps. Accordingly, and at a
bare minimum, additional data and information must be collected before any reasonable
informed decision can be made for this project application.
Balance of Interests Evaluation
The Iotla Valley is a rural, scenic, and tranquil place. The residents chose to live here because of
such characteristics. A high-tech jetport with large planes landing, greatly increased footprint of
the existing airport, and a future industrial park are clearly out of keeping and character for this
area. Many residents are vocally opposed to the project, yet the project application and the
public notice fail to register this very real sentiment.
The economic impact to those residents living in the valley will likely be negligible. None of the
neighboring residents to the airport are likely to avail themselves of the benefits of an airport that
can handle the landing of private jets. Residents of Highlands, NC or other upscale properties in
the Macon County vicinity might, but their homes, lives, and peace of mind will not be
impacted; the residents of lotla valley will be. Their quality of life, scenic and aesthetic values
and experiences will be irretrievably altered should this runway expansion take place. For there
to be no real analysis or even mention of this in the permit application or the Public Notice is
14 Melrose Avenue - Asheville, NC 28804 • 828-280-2785 - www.wildlaw.org 5
unfortunate, and improper. Such an analysis is contemplated by the Corps' own regulations, and
even reference in the public notice. Until such time as these issues are adequately addressed, the
Corps should deny the permit of the Macon County Airport Authority.
Auest for Public Hearing
Because of the listed issues with the proposed runway expansion, a public hearing is clearly
warranted in this case. Many local residents who will be adversely impacted by the size and
scope of this construction will be best served by addressing the Corps' decision-makers directly
in this forum, and would serve as an effective palliative for a constituency who has felt their
concerns have been ignored for too long. It would also give concerned citizens a chance to
expand and provide additional detail on their concerns over likely impacts to endangered species
in the area. This issue has proved controversial over a number of years, and numerous press
accounts have been published outlining the varying problems the public has with the Airport
Authority's proposal. Finally, a public hearing would provide the corps a better picture of the
horror of the impacts to cultural resources merely touched upon in these comments. For all these
reasons, and because it is just good public policy, the Corps should grant a public hearing on this
highly controversial permit application.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Corps must deny the permit application. If the Corps continues to
consider the application, a public hearing is necessary to fully ventilate the serious deficiencies
in the proposed development plan.
Stephen H. Novak

Attorney for Wild South and WildLaw. .
,6?4
Tracy Davids-
Wild South Executive Director
14 Melrose Avenue - Asheville, NC 28804 • 828-280-2785 • www.wildlaw.org 6
Franklin, NC 11-21-2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC, 28801 NOV 2 4 2009
Dear Lori Beckwith
I, and others are extreamly concerned about the proposal
for airport runway extension at the Macon County.Airport in
Iotla Valley north of Franklin, NC.
This runway extension , In my judgement, would cover and/or
greatly disturb an area that has been determined to be a site
that dates back, by carbon dateing, as one being the oldest,
many centries old.and known historical indian location and many
artifact recovered from the area to be in the preposed, "covered
area", for runway extension.
Once this history and resting grounds is covered, it will
be gone forever. The Proud Cherokee Indians possible ancestors
will be gone and this great history lost forever.
This extension of the runway has been one that will do great
wonders for Macon County, If ?, a talked about road system gets
here and no one has been able to say when how. No one cane tell
us who truly needs this project, To many of us, this is simply
a way to put in something for the big money concerns to use.
In the ,future necessary things for more ,"improvements" and
expansions will be necessary and expected to be paid for by
higher taxes, if it be from local,state, or federal.
Are the land owners around the airport to be forced to sell
their homes and lands if and when any future airport needs
exist?.
A new school is in its very early stage of construction and
when completed will combine young children from two older schools
in the area, and this is located near this airport and if and
when this airport needs assitional lands or expands for
enlargement in other areas, it will create move airplains in
this area.
It is being said that this project will bring in much for
the area, Many rummars and feel this expansion of its runway
will only assist the many private plane owners who fly into
this small airport then rent a car and go to another location
to a casino and resturants. For a local person to rent a vehicle
at the airport would have to travel a few miles to get a rental
and several miles back to their home locations.
For these reasons, I would like to see a public hearing ,
truely open to the public, and consideration. By your agency.
Sincerely,
John A. Earnshaw
k240 Belmont Dr., Franklin, NC 28734 828-349-0424
536 Meadows Road
Franklin, NC 28734
November 21, 2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
NOV 2 4 2009
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
Corps Action ID#2009-00321, Macon Co. Airport.
I am against the extension for the airport being planned for Macon Co. NC, and most of the citizens in
Macon Co. are. I would also like to have a public hearing.
I feel it is unfair for a few people to be able to overpower the vast majority of citizens of Macon Co and
the Iowa Valley, to force an unwanted project that will benefit so few and destroy so much. There is no
reason to add 600 more feet to the runway. They may claim it is a safety issue, but it is not. The only
accident recorded at Iowa Valley was ruled "pilot error." They claim it would boost the economy;
Maybe it would for a privileged few, but for the property owners and many others in Macon Co. it
would be a disaster. There would be pollution from noise, for the environment, and congestion. If it
was something wanted by the majority of citizens, then why would the airport authority be so secretive
with their dealings and meetings? Once our beautiful valley is destroyed, it will be gone forever and
no-one willwant to live there. With the surrounding mountains, the airport could never become a big
industrialized airport, but whoever is behind this destruction has more in mind--we just don't know
what it is. Creating jobs is not it! Just adding 600 foot would only be the first step. Next would be.
wider roads, water, sewer, buildings, and whatever else could be done. The. Andrews/Murphy airport.
can provide enough whatever space is needed for Macon Co. I say there are better ways to improve
Macon Co. All this construction is also destruction. Once a go-ahead is given, it will escalate: in. to-no
telling what.
We have a beautiful river that contains species of life found either nowhere else. on earth or is
threatened, please don't destroy that. We have beautiful mountains that are the envy of others, please
don't destroy them. We have wonderful fresh air, please let's keep it that way.
But ty main concern is what -we are about to do to a :place thatis unique to the whole eastern United
States. To destroy something of antiquity makes me ashamed to be part of the human race. This is not
-.;o, soli-ucti`on, it isdestruction. Tbonative vi]lage :that has-been uncovered should be of more value to
or.take of> :at:the:l?lacxrrc Co Airport:. L:beg you;
our'community than all the planes that could land
please do not destroy a one-of-a kind. unique, part of ourpast just for the sake of a few-of.thc rich and..
.powerful. If this property has.:Iain.un isturbod,for 4,000•yem.., £;say `
Judie-Whitus
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue Room 208 NOV 2 4 2009
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RE: Macon County Airport Authority Permit
I am contacting this office to urge you to deny permission to the Macon
County Airport Authority on the proposed runway extension project based
on the following:
1. The uncertainty of the future impact on the biodiversity of the Little
Tennessee River Basin. Protecting this site is critical for preserving the
ecological health of the southern Appalachians.
2. The probable violations to Clean Water Act, Endangered Species
Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
3. The negative impact on the quality of life, to those living, working
and going to school, in proximity to the site.
4. The unethical treatment of sites that are held sacred to the
indigenous people of this area. For many, these lands are a
connection, not only to their heritage, but to their spirituality.
As a citizen of our planet, I believe that our history has shown,
repeatedly, that when expansion, pushed by commerce, is sought as
being more important than the dignities of people past, present and future
and the dignity of the earth, that the benefits are for only a few and the
sorrows are for many.
I thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.
Respectfully, Tom Devan
??? 14v-t'?..

..?2
r? is r.
r:,i
3 r?,t

s ti,
w ?-•
?O Q
L.? ? Oo
coo
4?.
? V
V n,?
d ?
Lr) ?.
1

"r
w,
V
v
c)Q
0

Richard Melvin
P.O. Box 546
Highlands, North Carolina 28.741
3 Zpp9
November 20, 2009 x01 2
Ms. Lori Beckwith
Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
This is to oppose the extension of the Macon County Airport, which is large enough for a
small county, beside the damage to Cherokee cultural resources at the site.
Yo truly,
A
Richard Melvin
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: OLGA PADER [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:53 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Re: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corps Action ID #: 2009-00321
Dear Ms. Beckwith,
I thank you sincerely on behalf of the concerned people of Macon County for your help in
granting us this extension. Your willingness to hear us has restored some of our faith in
this process and in the ways of our government. We appreciate your true service to our
community, heritage, and environment as a worthy representative of the Corps of
Engineers' mission.
Olga Pader
- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Loretta A SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "OLGA PADER" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corps Action ID #:
2009-00321
Ms. Pader,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension
Project (Corps Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for
comments is December 7, 2009..
As I wrote previously, we must have written comments, but people can email
their comments to me (vs. commenting by letter) if they'd like. I again
urge
you to copy all comments to Cyndi Karoly at the N.C. Division of Water
Quality.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: OLGA PADER (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:54 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corps Action ID #:
2009-00321
Ms. Beckwith,
I hereby respectfully request an extension of the public comment period on
the above application submitted by the Macon County Airport Authority. The
first and only real public notice of the comment period appeared in The
Macon
County News on November 5th stating that this period had opened the previous
week on October 29th and that people could submit their comments until
November 30th. When this issue of the News appeared, a week had already
passed. The article also stated that no mention had been made at the
Authority's meeting on October 27th that the comment period would open two
days later and no notice was found in any media in Macon County. The article
further said that your office had notified involved agencies and that a
public notice was posted at the Franklin Post Office. On November 12th, I
went to the post office looking for the notice and could not find it; the
1
postal clerks that I asked had no idea of what such notice was. I have been
in contact with The Franklin Press, the other newspaper in Franklin, and was
informed that they were not aware of the comment period having opened.
So you can better understand my frustration with this situation and the
reason for my request, I would like you to give you a very brief summary of
the Macon County Airport Authority's pattern of not informing the public or
of disseminating deadline information strictly by adhering to legal
requirements and not to a policy of making sure that citizens know when
decisions will be made that will greatly impact their lives. I am an
involved
citizen living about a mile from the Airport as the crow flies and have
followed this project since the first archaeological work in the summer of
2001. The conclusion of the Chicora study was that the site had so many
valuable findings that the project should not continue. At the beginning of
this year, 2009, the Authority announced that work on the project extension
was slated to begin. When I and other citizens, questioned how this had come
to pass, we were told that a "public meeting" had been held in June 2007
announcing that the runway extension project would begin again. That public
meeting had been announced in a legal notice, about 2 inches of newspaper
space, in April 2007 and that was the only information published to let
people know this project was starting again. Since then, many meetings of
all
types have been held by the Airport Authority with various agencies,
politicians, and other parties to which none of us neighbors and citizens of
Macon County have been invited. It would take pages for me to list all the
instances in which the public has been denied participation in this process
but you may find information in the local press dating back to 2001 that
will
show the accuracy of my statements.
At the Authority's June meeting, when the permit application with your
agency
was discussed, I asked to be informed of the comment period so I and other
interested persons could submit our comments. I was informed then by Eric
Rysdon, project engineer, that the required notices would be posted and the
public informed in keeping with regulations. His answer was seconded by
Milles Gregory, Airport Authority chairman, and Joe Collins, Airport
Authority attorney. I know that your office, as the regulatory agency,
follows the required guidelines in informing the public even though in this
instance, and for unknown and unexplained reasons, the Franklin Post Office
had not posted your notice. My frustration stems from the Authority's
failure
to fulfill an ethical obligation to let the people of Macon County who have
been intensely involved with this project know when important deadlines for
their input are published. I work for a living and have all the
responsibilities of daily life that most of us do and so my time is limited.
Other people who are deeply concerned about this project and have
participated in the process have similar conditions that prevent us from
keeping up with notices from the many government agencies that oversee the
airport runway extension. However, as soon as we find out from media that we
can easily access, i.e., the local press, we become involved and make time
to
express our concerns.
The other factor that has reduced the available time of this comment period,
apart from those stated above, is that the Thanksgiving holidays will be
next
week and many people already have activities or travel plans that will
prevent them from submitting their comments in a timely manner. For these
reasons, I plead with your agency to grant us a one week extension to submit
our comments on this project, one that will result in radical and
irreversible impacts to our community and way of life.
Respectfully submitted, Olga IF. Pader
2
Beckwith Loretta A SAW
From: Jim Rogers [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 8:27 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period on Macon County Airport Extension
Thank you very much. I am reviewing the application now.
James C. Rogers, P.E.
Principal
Creek & Rogers Global Consulting, LLC
138 Westmeath Drive
Moore,, SC 29369 USA
864.706.3309 c., 864.278.0494 o.
[e-mail]
--Original Message-----
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:16 PM
To: Jim Rogers
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period on Macon County Airport Extension
Mr. Rogers,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs.
commenting by letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps o•f Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
--=--Original Message-----
From: Jim Rogers [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:58 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Extension of Comment Period on Macon County Airport Extension
Good afternoon Ms. Beckwith:
As a landowner with property immediately adjacent to the Macon County Airport (west end of
the airport property), I hereby request that the comment period on the application from
the Macon County Airport Authority to the Corps of Engineers for authorization to impact
the waters of North Carolina be extended to the maximum allowed in order that considered
review time be given to those affected by the extension and to those who have the best
interests of water and environment quality in the Iotla Valley in mind.
Respectfully,
Jim Rogers
1
James C. Rogers, P.E.
Principal
Creek & Rogers Global Consulting, LLC
138 Westmeath Drive
Moore, SC 29369 USA
864.706.3309 c., 864.278.0494 o.
[e-mail]
2
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:16 PM
To: 'Jim Rogers'
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period on Macon County Airport Extension
Mr. Rogers,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field office
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rogers [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:58 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Extension of Comment Period on Macon County Airport Extension
Good afternoon Ms. Beckwith:
As a landowner with property immediately adjacent to the Macon County Airport (west end of
the airport property), I hereby request that the comment period on the application from
the Macon County Airport Authority to the Corps of Engineers for authorization to impact
the waters of North Carolina be extended to the maximum allowed in order that considered
review time be given to those affected by the extension and to those who have the best
interests of water and environment quality in the Iotla Valley in mind.
Respectfully,
Jim Rogers
James C. Rogers, P.E.
Principal
Creek & Rogers Global Consulting, LLC
138 Westmeath Drive
Moore, SC 29369 USA
864.706.3309 c., 864.278.0494 o.
[e-mail]
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:15 PM
To: 'Katharine Brown'
Subject: RE: Please note this request
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Brown [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:52 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Please note this-request
I requests for a one-week extension of the Airport Authority application to the Corps of
Engineers
Katharine Brown
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 6:11 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Corps Action id#2009-00321 Macon Co. Airport,
Dear Ms Beckwith:
This e-mail is to the US Corps of Engineers asking you to extend the request of commitment
period. This information was not made public until Nov. 5, 2009. With the deadline being
Nov. 30th and Thanksgiving comes this mo. This gives people very little time to get the
information out. The only place I found this was in the Macon Co..News, which I did not
pick up until a few days later, and the same thing has happened to a lot of people. So,
Please try to extend this comment period. Corps Action ID#2009-00321 for the Macon Co
Airport, Macon Co. NC.
Thank you for your time.
Judie Whitus
596 Meadows Rd.
Franklin, NC 23734
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 200911:11 AM
To: 'Jim Pader'
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corpsl Acation ID#: 2009-00321
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Pader [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009.10:32 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corpsl Acation ID#: 2009-00321
Ms. Beckwith:
Due to late public notification by the Macon County Airport Authority and the
intervening Thanksgiving Holiday season, the citizens of Iola Valley, those most affected
by the subject proposal, have had insufficient time to consider and discuss the
consequences of this proposal. That the airport property is adjacent to Iola elementary
school, which is currently in a stage of expansion, and rerouting of a creek that
presently runs through the airport, are only two of several issues that need
consideration. The heritage of the ancient Indian village site that the airport now
occupies, the historical agricultural vitality of Iola valley, and the many generations of
settlers whose descendants still reside here with their unique mountain culture, are all
at stake. Please give us another week beyond the closing date for the citizens of Macon
County to decide on these monumental issues.
Sincerely,
James B. Pader
262 Mine Valley Trail
Franklin, NC 28734
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Macon County Airport Application
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
--Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Macon County Airport Application
As an interested person and an alderman for the Town of Franklin, I believe there is
enough interest from various groups to extend for one week the Macon County Airport
Authority application to the Corps of Engineers.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Bob Scott
Alderman, Town of Franklin
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: 'Larry Miller'
Subject: RE: Macon Co Airport
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Miller [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:20 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Macon Co Airport
Please grant a one week extention to the Macon co airport authorty application to the
corps of engineers to give more time . The macon co airport authority board is being very
unfair with the people of Macon Co giving out-many untruths, giving out FALSE statements
to the people and in general pushing their own little plan to benift the FAT CATS for a
runway ext that is NOT NEEDED tearing a very important history site to pieces and messing
up a beautiful creek badly. Thanks
Larry C. Miller
347 Willow Pond Rd
Franklin, NC 28734
828-369-6924
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW rmnnmwm?
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: 'William McLarney'
Subject: RE: lotla Valley
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: William McLarney [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:51 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Iotla Valley
Dear Ms. Beckwith,
I wish to add my name to the list of those requesting an extension to the
comment period re the Macon County Airport expansion in the Iotla Valley.
Thank you.
Dr.
William 0. McLarney
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE:
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:05 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject:
I am requesting that you extend the public comment period for the run way extension for
the airport.
Thanks,
Paul Chew 702 Coweeta Gap Rd
Otto, NC 28763
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Macon County airport extension
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:21 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Macon County airport extension
Dear Ms. Beckwith,
My name is Nancy Scott and I would like to add my voice to those asking for an extension
of the Airport Authority application to the Corps of Engineers.
Many of us are concerned for various reasons (safety, unnecessary expense, need for
heritage preservation, conservation of the valley) about the prospects of this proposed
extension of the runway.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy Scott
86 Summit Drive
Franklin, NC 28734
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:12 AM
To: 'gmoller
Subject: RE: Macon County Airport Authority
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: gmoller [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:32 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Macon County Airport Authority
As a citizen of Macon County, I request that your organization extend the comment period
for one week beyond November 30, 2009. This opportunity was not publicized in a timely
manner and people in our community were not given the required time allotment to respond
to the Airport Authority issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Gayle Moller
375 T and E Ln.
Franklin, NC 28734
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 200911:13 AM
To: 'james pader'
Subject: RE: macon county airport
Good morning,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
While we must have written comments, you can email your comments to me (vs. commenting by
letter) if you'd like.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: james pader [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:43 AM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: macon county airport
please grant a one-week extension to the comment period regarding the construction of a
runway extension at the Macon County Airport.
Thank you
James Pader
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:08 AM
To: 'OLGA PADER'
Subject: RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corps Action ID #: 2009-00321
Ms. Pader,
We've extended the comment period for the Macon County Airport Extension Project (Corps
Action ID # 2009-00321) by 1 week. The revised deadline for comments is December 7, 2009.
As I wrote previously, we must have written comments, but people can email their comments
to me (vs. commenting by letter) if they'd like. I again urge you to copy all comments to
Cyndi Karoly at the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
Thank you,
Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
-----Original Message-----
From: OLGA PADER [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:54 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Subject: Request for Extension of Comment Period, Corps Action ID #: 2009-00321
Ms. Beckwith,
I hereby respectfully request an extension of the public comment period on the above
application submitted by the Macon County Airport Authority. The first and only real
public notice of the comment period appeared in The Macon County News on November 5th
stating that this period had opened the previous week on October 29th and that people
could submit their comments until November 30th. When this issue of the News appeared, a
week had already passed. The article also stated that no mention had been made at the,
Authority's meeting on October 27th that the comment period would open two days later and
no notice was found in any media in Macon County. The article further said that your
office had notified involved agencies and that a public notice was posted at the Franklin
Post Office. On November 12th, I went to the post office looking for the notice and could
not find it; the postal clerks that I asked had no idea of what such notice was. I have
been in contact with The Franklin Press, the other newspaper in Franklin, and was informed
that they were not aware of the comment period having opened.
So you can better understand my frustration with this situation and the reason for my
request, I would like you to give you a very brief summary of the Macon County Airport
Authority's pattern of not informing the public or of disseminating deadline information
strictly by adhering to legal requirements and not to a policy of making sure that
citizens know when decisions will be made that will greatly impact their lives. I am an
involved citizen living about a mile from the Airport as the crow flies and have followed
this project since the first archaeological work in the summer of 2001. The conclusion of
the Chicora study was that the site had so many valuable findings that the project should
not continue. At the beginning of this year, 2009, the Authority announced that work on
the project extension was slated to begin. When I and other citizens, questioned how this
had come to pass, we were told that a "public meeting" had been held in June 2007
announcing that the runway extension project would begin again. That public meeting had
been announced in a legal notice, about 2 inches of newspaper space, in April 2007 and
that was the only information published to let people know this project was starting
again. Since then, many meetings of all types have been held by the Airport Authority with
various agencies, politicians, and other parties to which none of us neighbors and
citizens of Macon County have been invited. It would take pages for me to list all the
instances in which the public has been denied participation in this process but you may
find information in the local press dating back to 2001 that will show the accuracy of my
statements.
At the Authority's June meeting, when the permit application with your agency was
discussed, I asked to be informed of the comment period so I and other interested persons
could submit our comments. I was informed then by Eric Rysdon, project engineer, that the
required notices would be posted and the public informed in keeping with regulations. His
answer was seconded by Milles Gregory, Airport Authority chairman, and Joe Collins,
Airport Authority attorney. I know that your office, as the regulatory agency, follows the
required guidelines in informing the public even though in this instance, and for unknown
and unexplained reasons, the Franklin Post Office had not posted your notice. My
frustration stems from the Authority's failure to fulfill an ethical obligation to let the
people of Macon County who have been intensely involved with this project know when
important deadlines for their input are published. I work for a living and have all the
responsibilities of daily life that most of us do and so my time is limited. Other people
who are deeply concerned about this project and have participated in the process have
similar conditions that prevent us from keeping up with notices from the many government
agencies that oversee the airport runway extension. However, as soon as we find out from
media that we can easily access, i.e., the local press, we become involved and make time
to express our concerns.
The other factor that has reduced the available time of this comment period, apart from
those stated above, is that the Thanksgiving holidays will be next week and many people
already have activities or travel plans that will prevent them from submitting their
comments in a timely manner. For these reasons, I plead with your agency to grant us a one
week extension to submit our comments on this project, one that will result in radical and
irreversible impacts to our community and way of life.
Respectfully submitted, Olga IF. Pader
^ ,^
-L owK Co r1 c a-,,v% A) n r^ aof 'D ? %
V_ ?? 11NL ? r 1 / Y? I 1 ?
2?.t-a,{ r rh act ra alu-z 1.aae;--l
ca o ter' r-s?f .s I &x •
61 4t cs. ?? ? r. OL" o r e.?t s i
t s r w? ee e s s (aiv-d cbcdot rove 'o(e f?Fh 0, F, El
`t'o ZC? c?"rM t/ 7 ' ?.e• raw ma C." .
aj? t`s V
06 r? wQi,.`s h e lf, s re -rr,'2.val?& o-
C,d
40'enh^,iss icrl
tffy
y

a De C,. 0w
64 Y?....j-s ..
F, C'• T
0 009
C r /??' O O D?
,WP /V
-r-7 WMIL
e200r USPS f.,r MWVe0
T,

Macon County Airport Authority Application
Corps Action ID#: 2009-00321
Public Notice Comment
Yesterday, just as the end of this public comment period is just a few days away, The Macon
County News (12/3/09) had a front-page article announcing that the NC Department of
Transportation had awarded a $2.2 million grant to the Macon County (MC) Airport for its
planned runway extension. I was dismayed, as were other people in the community, as this notice
reaffirms the flow of money into a project that will economically benefit a few and cause harm to
our beloved Iotla Valley and the people who actually live here. The Airport Authority will pay
TRC Environmental $535,000 for the archaeological survey and other work done until now. The
cost of just this part of the extension project is estimated at $3.5 million. The Airport Authority
(AA) previously received a $712,800 federal grant specifically for the runway extension with
$335,000 local matching funds committed. Adding just these known costs and income sources
leaves approximately a $3 million burden that will surely be paid by citizens through taxation, be
it federal, state, or local. The people promoting the runway extension and airport expansion surely
foresee a flow of money that will benefit their special interests and not the people of the Valley or
Macon County in general. I give this prologue before addressing the impact issues so that the
Corps can gain some understanding of the reasons why citizens are hopeless and apathetic and do
not think that the needs and welfare of this community will tilt the balance away from the profits
that will accrue to a few, such as the Cherokee casino operation, wealthy tourists who fly their
own planes, and MC businesses and political interests who wield nearly total control over the
operation and direction of this county and its people.
Statements made in my comments can be verified in articles appearing in the local press (The
Macon County News, The Franklin Press, and The Smoky Mountain News), the only sources
readily available to me as a regular citizen. Quotations preceding my comments are taken from
the Public Notice. Although I believe the project covered in this application is only the first step
to much greater expansion that will have detrimental probable and cumulative impacts in all the
factors listed in the Public Notice, I will limit my comments to those factors with which I have
knowledge or experience. I restate, though, that the negative impacts of this project and future
already proposed additions will irreversibly change our community of Iotla Valley and the lives
of all who actually live here.
1. "The permit application also includes impacts from various unauthorized activities performed
in waters of the U. S. within the last eighteen years as part of airport activities ... In order to bring
the Airport into regulatory compliance, previously unauthorized wetland and stream impacts, as
well as the unsuccessful compensatory mitigation, have been included in this permit application."
The Corps here acknowledges that airport activities have illegally impacted wetlands and
streams and that the mitigation efforts have been unsuccessful. The Corps does not state,
however, if it or other government have imposed fines or taken any other steps over the
course of eighteen years to redress these impacts and to hold the AA responsible for these
damages and for the related costs that will now fall upon citizens to pay as they will be
hidden under current project costs. In addition, this finding makes it clear that the AA has
failed to follow regulatory requirements in the past and that agencies have not fulfilled
their role as watchdogs for the environment and the people. With this secret and extended
negative track record, the AA will require close and expert supervision in meeting the
requirements of this application to the letter of the law and the Corps and other involved
agencies must commit to providing the supervision needed if this application is approved.
2. Fish and wildlife values. A letter from Brian P. Cole, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville Office, dated 3/19/09, states that their office had not been
contacted since March 4, 2002, about the subject project and prior to the Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact being issued. All necessary permits,
including those from the Corps of Engineers, TVA, and NC Division of Water Quality,
had yet to be issued. The letter states their concerns for the lack of coordination and
because of "...the expected stream and wetland impacts... and because multiple
federally threatened and endangered species and federally designated critical habitat
(downstream of the project area) could be affected. Further, the letter refers to scoping
comments requested by the AA on March 5, 2001 on the runway extension, "the
construction of the new terminal facilities and parking and the relocation of Burningtown
Road" for which they provided minimal information. The letter recommended that "the
FONSI be rescinded and that the EA be revised to include secondary and cumulative
impacts before being sent out to all of the appropriate agencies for review". The public
does not know if this recommendation with its significance for listed species, their
habitat, and modification of the habitat of endangered mussel species has been followed.
I support the Fish and Wildlife Service request for a revision of the EA and that the
implementation and results of this review be made public.
3. Safety. "...stated project purpose is to bring the Macon County Airport into compliance with
(NC Division of Aviation and FAA) safety standards... require having at least 5,000 feet of
available runway and the appropriate runway safety area in order to improve the overall safety of
the airport". The safety concerns involved in this application and discussed by the AA and
other government officials and agencies have been restricted to aircraft, personnel and
passengers. The reality of the airport's location, surrounding area, buildings, homes, and
people who inhabit Iotla Valley has been totally ignored. Iotla School (Parcel #0106972,
MC Esrimap) is located approximately 850 feet from the Airport northern boundary. This
school is scheduled to be rebuilt, possibly southward closer to the Airport (Parcel
#0116869) with an expected enrollment of 400 children, plus staff. The Drake Cottage
for Children lies on a straight path from the end of the runway extension, less than a mile
away, and the Moody Home is on Iotla Church Road, probably less than two miles away.
A mobile home park, housing many families, sits on a hill about a mile in the direct path
of aircraft landings and takeoffs. There are two communities with large number of houses
surrounding the Airport, one on Haughton Williams Road and the other on Willow Pond
Road. In addition, many more scattered houses populate this area and hills, some going
back to the 1800's. Three major airplane accidents this year happened during takeoff and
landing, when most air accidents occur: the US Airways flight landing on the Hudson
River, the Continental crash in Buffalo, NY, in which 49 people died, and the Turkish
Airline crash in Amsterdam when a plane crashed one mile short of the runway, killing 9
people and injuring 80. Another factor influencing safety concerns is the geographical
setting of the Airport in the hole of a donut formed by hills. I drive by the Airport twice a
day five days a week and see it fogged in regularly, even when there is no fog closer to
NC28. There is a great difference between communities growing around an airport and an
airport expanding, intruding, and creating grave safety hazards for established residents.
Dire predictions are inappropriate. All permitting agencies must surely understand that
probability alone indicates that more flights and larger aircraft will definitely increase the
possibilities of accidents that could result in loss of property, environmental damage and
destruction, and human injuries and death. If such a catastrophe were to happen (yes, God
forbid), Macon County, the Airport Authority, and other government and regulatory
agencies will have to bear its financial and moral burden. I urge the Corps and other
agencies to study area maps and conduct an on-the-ground review of the communities
surrounding the Airport.
4. "...a separation distance of 10,000 feet (for airports that serve turbine-powered aircraft)
between an airport's Air Operation Area (AOA) and hazardous wildlife attractants in order to
avoid potential aircraft collisions with wildlife." Again, there has not been a thorough study
of the area surrounding the Airport. If there had been, regulatory agencies would know
that there is a large corn field right across Airport Road, extending the whole length of
the runway and more. Migratory Canadian geese feed on this field at least twice every
year in the fall and spring migrations; I have seen their huge flocks flying and feeding for
the past nine years that I have lived in this community. Birds don't recognize fences or
other boundaries. The US Airways Hudson River accident was caused when the plane's
engines were disabled after striking a flock of geese. The physical conditions of the
Airport and surrounding areas must be studied from all angles, not just with concern for
the safety of those flying and using the aircraft.
5. Historic Properties/Cultural Resources: Work on the runway extension was stopped
when The Chicora Foundation, the archaeological organization conducting the work in
2000 found the remains of an intact Cherokee Middle Town, including artifacts and 390
ancestral burials, under the ground. The local press has published extensively on the
findings which the Corps can easily access. I will just state some of the findings reported
by Tasha Benyshek, senior archaeologist with TRC, in the 3/26/09 issue of The Macon
County News and 5/8/09 issue of The Franklin Press: "house sites have been discovered
in every area that has been examined... many Middle Qualla artifacts, circa 1600 AD...a
spearhead, circa 2000 BC...work on a dig that is so intact ...It's a slice of time we hardly
ever get...It's pretty unusual ... two pairs of palisaded villages dating back to 1100 AD, an
unexpected find..." It is inconceivable that the Cherokee tribes, the NC State Historic
Preservation Office, and other relevant agencies have gone along with extending the
paving over of such an incredible slice of history. Equally as disturbing but practically
totally ignored in the Corps' Public Notice and other agencies' review has been the fact
that the proposed airport runway extension, airport expansion, and eventual construction
of an industrial park in Iotla Valley will destroy more than 200 years of the cultural,
historical and social heritage of Iotla and Burningtown since originally settled. Kaolin,
the essential ingredient to make fine Wedgewood porcelain, was first found in Iotla
Valley in the mid 1740s. William Bartram walked through the valley or close by in 1776
and wrote about it in his famous Travels. The oldest gravestones that can still be read at
Iotla Methodist Church Cemetery (less than half a mile from the proposed extension) date
to 1882 which means that Iotla was home to families, many of whose descendants still
live here, since the early 19a' century. The family that owns the cow pasture adjacent to
and straight west of the extension and the hay fields across from it has been here since
1879 and still farm on their lands. Mine symbols for mica and other minerals can still be
seen on topo maps and mine remnants are all around the airport and throughout the area.
The irreversible damages to historical properties and cultural resources must be given
significant weight in the permitting review.
6. Aesthetics Economics Conservation: As described above, Iotla Valley is a beautiful,
pristine (except for the Airport), and serene farming and residential community whose
appearance and character will be permanently disfigured by the continued expansion of
the Airport as the runway extension is just the first step in plans acknowledged by Macon
County and Airport Authority officials. Families still raise cattle, hay, and crops in fields
surrounding the airport and throughout the Valley. Loss of property values must also be
considered as homes and land lose value as noise, air pollution, possibility of leaks, and
so on make this area less desirable to live in.
7. Considerations of Property Ownership: Only two roads provide access to the MC
Airport from NC28 (Airport Road and Iotla Church Road), both of which are 2-lane,
narrow, winding country roads with houses, pastures, and other structures built close to
the roads. Widening these roads will be a necessity as the Airport continues to expand
leading to the possibility of people having to give up part of their properties through
eminent domain. Property rights, a key issue for many residents, must be considered in
granting this permit.
8. The needs and welfare of the people: In the entire Memorandum of Agreement between the
involved government agencies and Indian tribes (Federal Aviation Administration, Macon
County Airport Authority, NC State Historic Preservation Office, Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Advisory
Council Historic Preservation, and NC Department of Transportation), Iotla Valley is mentioned
once in the description of the airport tract. The Valley residents, people whose homes are close
to the airport and who live, work and play here, are not mentioned even once. These live
human beings must now be taken into account when the possible impacts of the proposed project
and future ramifications are reviewed.
The communities of lotla Valley and Bumingtown, the people of lotla Valley and Burningtown,
who will suffer most from the impacts of the present project and future airport expansion have not
been considered by any of the agencies and people in all the years that this project has been
tossed around. When the Finding of No Significant Impact in the Environmental Assessment for
the project was issued, to whom and to what would there be "No significant impact"? There will
be many probable, cumulative, destructive, and irreversible impacts in all factors studied by the
permit application. The Little T, considered one of most pristine rivers in the nation, will be
degraded by silt and damages to Iotla Creek and Branch. There will be damages to native flora
and fauna from increased lighting, pollution, oil spills, fuel dumping, and so on. Farmers, horse
owners and cattle raisers will suffer monetary damages and have their ways of life ruined. We
who live here and were never consulted will surely feel the impacts. The damaging impacts on
our daily lives, on our old timers being able to pass their remaining years in the place they grew
up in and love, the future of our children and their safety, the economic burden we will bear are
too valuable and priceless not to be considered and given full weight.
For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the Corps of Engineers (and the NC Division of Water
Quality) to deny this permit as no possible mitigation could reverse all the damaging impacts
detailed above. Olga F. Pader
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: William McLarney [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:06 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Macon County Airport
1120 Meadows Rd.
Franklin, North Carolina 28734
December 4, 2009
Loretta A. Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
Thank you for the extended opportunity to comment on the issues
surrounding proposed runway extension and associated work at the Macon County Airport.
My principal objections are in the area of cumulative impacts. Some years
back, the citizens of Macon County rallied around a variety of issues - economic,
esthetic and environmental - to defeat a proposal which would have created an industrial
park around the airport. In my view; the present proposal is essentially a way of
reaching the same goal in stepwise fashion. What was true at the time of the earlier
proposal is even truer now; the vision of "development" which drives airport expansion
proposals extends well beyond airport concerns. In all its ambition, it is a vision whose
time has passed. Turning the Iotla Valley into a commercial/industrial center will, at
most, benefit a very small subset of the populace while Iotla Valley residents and the
rest of us pay the price. I would predict that even in purely economic terms the project,
if built, would never justify the cost to the county.
If you lived here and were able to read the local press regularly, and
otherwise take the pulse of the community, I think you would detect a tide which is
running strongly toward protecting what is left of our rural environment. To quote a
front page article in the November 18 Franklin Press "As the planning board solicits
feedback for Macon's long-range growth plan, the public has made it clear that they value
the county's rural heritage and would like to see its natural beauty protected." A
proposal which leads to more pavement, more noise and less open space runs counter to the
expressed wishes of the people - and if implemented it will continue to bring more of the
same, well beyond the immediate impacts of airport expansion.
I could echo the comments others.will surely make about safety, history,
our Cherokee heritage, etc. but will limit the rest of my remarks to the environmental
aspect. As the director since 1989 of the Upper Little Tennessee Watershed Biomonitoring
Program, I am well aware of the condition of Iotla Creek as it passes the airport - it is
by far the least healthy of all the major tributaries to the Little Tennessee between
Franklin and Fontana. While promised mitigation measures may be effective, construction
of the airport project will inevitably increase the sediment load carried by Iotla Creek,
no matter how meticulously erosion control measures are followed. And when construction
is done we will be left with a significantly larger paved area - one which will continue
to grow if my forecast of development leading to more development is correct.
1
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Jim Pader [e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:07 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Comment on Macon Cty Airport
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
The 600 foot extension of Macon County Airport is primarily to accommodate jet
aircraft and satisfy their insurance requirements when they use this facility.
Macon County Airport is physically located less than 1000 feet from Iotla Elementary
School, which at the present time, is being enlarged to accept the students from two other
schools, and will be more than twice its present size. The new school building, because of
its larger size, will be closer to the airport than it is now. Also, near the end of the
runway, is the Drake School for boys, and the Baptist School for girls.
As anyone who has flown by jet or lives near a large airport knows, jet aircraft
make a considerable amount of noise - especially on take-off. A Cornell environmental
psychologist, Gary Evans has found that this noise impairs children's reading ability and
long-term memory. In a study published in Psychological Science (Vol. 13, No. 5 Sept.
2002) he said, "Noise exposure is consistently linked to reading deficits and may
interfere with speech perception and long-term memory in primary school children." He
also stated that this latest study is further evidence that exposure to chronic noise can
have serious health, learning and motivational effects on children and adults.
As for elementary school teachers, their job is already difficult trying to keep the
attention of elementary school children. They don't need the high noise distraction
created by jet aircraft taking off a thousand feet away.
Do we have enough foresight to recognize the serious potential of this situation and
stop further accommodation of jet aircraft at Macon County Airport? Or will we wait until
the damage is done to our children's future and then cry for solutions?
Stop the extension of Macon County Airport and save our children's future.
Sincerely,
James B. Pader
262 Mine Valley Trail
Franklin, NC 28734
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828-554-6852 Fax [phone]
TO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
ATTN: Lori Beckwith
Biologist / Regulatory Specialist
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
PROJECT(S): Comments regarding Public notice # 2009-00321, application made
by Mr. Miles Gregory, Chairman of the Macon County Airport Authority, seeking
authorization to impact waters of the U.S. to extend Runway 7, associated taxiway,
and the Runway Safety Area at the Macon County Airport, Macon County, North
Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI
THPO) is in receipt of the notification to act as a consulting party for the above-
referenced project and would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
proposed section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) activity. The
EBCI THPO accepts the invitation to act as a consulting party on the above referenced
section 106 undertaking as mandated under §36CFR800.
The project's location is within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee Middle Towns,
specifically the prehistoric and historic village of Iotla. This site has been determined of
national cultural, historical, and archeological importance and has thus been deemed a
4(f) project.
Our concerns have been the intermittent communications between the Federal Aviation
Authority (FAA), the Macon County Airport Authority (Authority) and other pertinent
stakeholders and consulting parties, and the failure of the Authority to follow the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the NHPA procedures.
For example, the FAA and the Authority failed to consult thoroughly with the Cherokee
Nation in Oklahoma throughout the consultation process. Furthermore, the EBCI THPO
is concerned that as yet unknown consequences have resulted from the break down of
procedures associated with the NEPA and the NHPA consultation processes.
DATE: 3 - December - 09
As my own research and that of several Federal and State agencies shows,
the Little Tennessee River below Franklin remains a source of pride as the healthiest
major river in the Blue Ridge - home to both important recreational fisheries and a suite
of threatened and endangered species. In that context, Iotla Creek constitutes one of its
largest problems. Surely we do not want to contribute to aggravating that problem by
adding to its sediment load and exacerbating "flashy" flows by increasing impervious
surface in its watershed.
These are not objections which can be resolved through mitigation. The
Corps would best serve the public by refusing to permit the proposed activities.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. William 0. McLarney
2
Additionally, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seem to be one of the
stakeholders which left out of the consultation process, and we feel the USACE should
scrutinize this proposed permit application very carefully in determining whether or not
to issue said permit.
Specifically, the breakdown in communication is exemplified by the construction of a
security fence at the Macon County Airport as found on page 3, paragraph two of the
public notice. According to the information provided here "... in 2006, 183.5 linear feet
of culverts were installed in waters of the U.S. on airport property during the upgrade of
the security fence." From the standpoint of the NHPA, this is considered a federal
undertaking, separate from the proposed extension of runway. However, this office was
never notified of this federal undertaking until it was partially completed. While
members of the EBCI THPO met with the Authority to discuss a draft MOA for the
runway extension, large earth moving equipment could be seen working on installing said
fence. Prior to June, 2006, no notification of ground disturbing activities had been
received from the FAA. On June 12, 20061 wrote W. Parks Preston inquiring whether
the construction of said fence was a federal undertaking, and Mr. Preston answered by
forwarding unto this office the plans for the project, but no indication whether the project
had been halted, or whether or not to consult. No indication either was ever forwarded
from the Authority of halting work to consult, and said fence has since been completed as
evidenced in the permit application. Installation of said fence could have significantly
damaged cultural resources present within the area of disturbance.
According to page 6, paragraph five, "Once this [data recovery] has been completed, all
features identified during the stripping will be mapped, left in place, and covered up with
the removed topsoil or the runway extension fill ... This process will preserve features
and or artifacts found in the footprint and will eliminate potential disturbances from the
runway extension project." The reburying of artifacts is in violation of the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA), currently in effect, and singed by the FAA, Authority and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT). According to Stipulation VII,
Curation, of the MOA,
A. The FAA and the Authority shall ensure that all materials and
records from data recovery at archeological site 31MA77, are
curated at an appropriate museum or research facility in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. All records, drawings, images,
notes and other documentation related to archaeological
investigations at 31MA77 remains the property of FAA, and shall
be maintained at the same approved facility as the artifact
collections. All such items shall be subject to maintenance and
second-party loan procedures, for research and public education
purposes, of the curational facility. All records of such
transactions shall be shared with the State Archaeologist, the UKB
THPO, and the EBCI THPO.
B. Costs of permanent storage and maintenance of archaeological
collections from these data recovery efforts at 31MA77 shall be
borne by the Macon County Airport Authority.
What is more, the recovered artifacts are used for analysis, and future studies, and
reburying would be counterintuitive to archeological excavation in the first place.
Likewise, this MOA was developed with out consultation with the USACE, and the
USACE was not asked to be a signatory, yet the project requires an USACE permit.
Additionally, such statements as "According to the airport's consultant, as a result of
these additional measures, all stakeholders have provided verbal agreement to the
archaeological recovery plan," as found on page 6, paragraph five undermines the
proposition of reburying all artifacts recovered during the data recovery phase at site
31MA77. The expansion of the data recovery plans by the Authority and the FAA went a
long way to address the tribe's concerns, however, it is a misinterpretation to assume this
satisfied tribal concerns about archeology. The EBCI is still not 100 percent satisfied
with the data recovery scheme, and especially concerned that the Authority ensure that
the roughly 100 burials will not be impacted or disturbed during the construction phase.
The EBCI THPO would also like to comment on the "Evaluation" portion as found on
page 7, paragraph 2. According to the information provided here,
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity on the public interest ... The benefit
which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
The EBCI THPO has for years argued throughout the consultation process that the use of
10 year old data is insufficient in constructing NEPA documents such as Environmental
Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In my statements to the
FAA in 2009 regarding the EA for the proposed project at the Macon County Airport I
stated, "Much of the data included in the EA dates to 2000 / 2001. Is this common when
it comes to the construction of an EAT' On April 15, 2009, the FAA responded, "This is
not common. The EA process was put delayed due to the 7-8 year consultation process
for the MOA. Macon County and their consultant reviewed the EA to ensure the data
was current prior to their submittal to NCDOT." Much of the data included in the final
EA remains the same nearly 10 year old data. I must submit to the USACE that it is the
opinion of the EBC1 THPO that it is not appropriate to use such outdated data in
constructing an EA for a project which will impact such an important archeological and
cultural site.
Moreover, 31MA77, the culturally and historically important Cherokee town of Iotla, is a
site of national value determined to be a 4(f) site. Neither the Authority nor the FAA has
argued successfully how the benefit of the runway extension out ways the extensive
damage to this archeologically and culturally significant site. Further, the EBCI THPO
United States Department of the. Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 3, 2009
Ms. Lori Beckwith
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
Subject: Macon County Airport Runway and Runway Safety Area Extension Project, located on
Airport Road, north of Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina (Action
ID 2009-00321)
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice (PN) of an application for an individual
permit submitted by Macon County Airport Authority, represented by W. K. Dickson & Co.,
Inc., for the subject project. Information for this report is based on a review of the Individual
Permit Application (IPA) and the public notice issued by the Corps. This report is submitted in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act; Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - According to the information provided, the applicant is proposing to
extend Runway 7, the associated taxiway, and Runway Safety Area. The runway, taxiway, and
safety area will be extended about 600 feet to the west resulting in impacts to about 749 linear
feet (If) of lotla Branch and 0.17 acre of wetlands. To comply with FAA's recommendation
regarding wildlife attractants, the applicant is also proposing to remove wildlife attractants such
as wetlands around the facility. About 3.74 acres of wetlands will be filled/impacted from this
portion of the project. The IPA also includes impacts from past unauthorized activities that have
taken place on the airport property. Mitigation and remediation activities are proposed for past
impacts.
Federally Listed Species - On March 9, 2009, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for an Environmental Assessment
feels that moving ahead with archeological data recovery efforts with out in depth
consultation with all the stakeholders, including the USACE, has greatly damaged the
character of the archeological and cultural component of the landscape, and the site. If
the USACE had been invited to become involved at an earlier date, the use of such
outdated data exemplifying the need to expand the runway, and the cultural component of
the site would have been better addressed.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
T er B. Howe
Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
that had been prepared for the subject project. On March 16, 2009, we contacted Ms. Jennifer
Fuller of the NCDOT to request that the FONSI be rescinded because the US Fish and Wildlife
Service had not been contacted and no coordination efforts had been made to obtain the USFWS
concurrence with the FONSI issued for the project. On April 1, 2009, in a meeting with W.K.
Dickson staff members, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and NCDOT, we discussed our
concerns that the proposed project potentially could adversely affect downstream water quality,
thereby adversely affecting federally designated critical habitat and two federally endangered
species (Appalachian elktoe and spotfm chub) that occur downstream of the project site. As a
result of that meeting, an agreement was reached to begin formal consultation with NCDOT and
the applicant for the potential impacts that the subject project could have on the federally
endangered species that occur downstream of the project site. On December 3, 2009, we issued
a concurrence with the FONSI because a final plan was developed that we believe will protect
the federally listed species from potential adverse affects of the proposed project. The applicant
has agreed to install two underground storm-water retention cells that will aid in controlling
storm-water runoff from the additional impervious surface that will be created by the project.
Also, a monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the storm-water retention cells are
working as proposed, and to monitor the effects of the project on downstream water quality. The
monitoring plan consists of. 1) installing crest gauges at locations both upstream and
downstream of the project site; 2) installing bank pins and photograph monitoring sites at two
locations downstream of the project site; 3) conducting cross-sectional surveys at the same
location as the bank pins. Crest gauges and bank pins will be monitored, and photos will be
taken, at the monitoring sites within 24 hours after 1-inch storm events over the duration of one
year, or a minimum of three storm events. Cross-sectional surveys will be conducted on a
quarterly basis. Monitoring reports should be sent to this office and Mr. Tompkins of our staff
has agreed to assist in obtaining cross-sectional data whenever feasible. Mr. Tompkins will also
work with W.K. Dickson and airport staff to locate the monitoring sites and aid in implementing
the monitoring plan.
If the underground retention cells and the monitoring plan are implemented, we believe the
proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect federally designated critical
habitat or the federally endangered spotfin chub and/or Appalachian elktoe. Therefore, the
requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be fulfilled. However, if
downstream streambank destabilization is observed, this office must be notified immediately so
that we can visit the site and assess the problem area(s). If a determination is made that the
storm-water control mechanisms are not functioning as proposed or if the piped streams are
creating excess downstream flows resulting in streambank destabilization, section 7 consultation
must be re-initiated and immediate coordination with this office must take place to develop a
plan to remedy the problem(s).
Mitigation - We are pleased that the applicant is providing mitigation for both past and
currently proposed impacts to wetlands and stream channels. The applicant is proposing to
purchase mitigation credits from the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
to offset the impacts of past and current construction activities. However, we do not believe that
the proposed mitigation ratios will provide adequate mitigation credits for the proposed impacts.
2
Though a 2:1 ratio for mitigation is proposed for impacts to wetlands 1, 2, and 3; a 1:1 mitigation
ratio is proposed for impacts to the alder bog, wetland F/G, G, GA, GB, and the 1993 wetland
mitigation sites. We are particularly concerned that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is proposed to offset
the impacts to the 1.38 acres alder bog. As you are aware Appalachian bogs are rapidly
decreasing in the southern Appalachians. Mountain bogs are widely accepted as among the
rarest and most imperiled habitat types in the Southeastern United States (Noss et al. 1995 and
references therein; Richardson and Gibbons 1993 and references therein). It is estimated that
this habitat type has been reduced by some 80-90% (Noss et al. 1995; Weakley and Schafale
1994). Further, according to the guidelines set forth in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
Section 230.45, wetlands (and bogs) are considered special aquatic sites.' Section 230.45(b) of
40 CFR covers the possible loss of values that can occur from the discharge of fill material into
special aquatic sites, such as the wetlands found on the project site. The regulation states that the
discharge of fill material can adversely impact wetlands by reducing nutrient exchange and the
productivity of the wetland system leading to a degradation of water quality; can change wetland
habitat value for fish, wildlife, and wetland plants; and can modify the capacity of wetlands to
retain and store floodwaters. For these reasons, we recommend that the Corps require a 2:1
mitigation ratio be used for calculating the amount of mitigation credits necessary to off-set all
impacts to bogs and wetlands.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-00-246.
References
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States:
a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Biological Service, Biological Report 28, Washington, D.C. 58pp.
Weakley, A.S. and Schafale, M.P. 1994. Non-alluvial wetlands of the southern Blue Ridge
diversity in a threatened ecosystem. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 77, 359-383.
140 CFR Section 230.3 (q-1) - Special aquatic sites are geographic areas, large or small, possessing special
ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted
ecological values. These areas are generally recognized as significantly influencing or positively contributing to the
general overall environmental health or vitality of the entire ecosystem of a region.
3
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
December 2, 2009
Ms. Loretta Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401 Unit
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
SUBJECT: Macon County Airport Authority Individual 404 Permit Application
Macon County
Action ID SAW-2009-00321, DWQ No. 93-0501v2
Dear Ms. Beckwith and Ms. Karoly:
The Macon County Airport Authority requested an Individual 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality
Certification to fill 809 feet of streams and 5.72 acres of wetlands in the Iotla Creek watershed. Most of
the stream impact involves a culvert in lotla Branch for a runway extension. The impacts would be
mitigated by purchasing 1,419 feet of stream and 7.42 acres of wetland credits from the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (Commission) are familiar with the fish and wildlife resources in the region and have visited
the project area on several occasions. Comments from the Commission on this regulatory action are
provided under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Macon County Airport Page 2 December 2, 2009
Iotla Branch and Iotla Creek support a cool water fish assemblage, but habitat is poor due to agricultural
activities in the watersheds. However, the Little Tennessee River downstream supports several rare
species and it is designated critical habitat for the federally-listed Applachian elktoe and little-wing pearly
mussels and spotfm chub. The elktoe and spotfm populations there have declined appreciably in recent
years.
The Commission offers the following comments and recommendations on this project:
1. It is particularly important that stream sedimentation be minimized during construction because
there are rare species in the watershed. Much of the earthwork for the runway extension has been
completed, so implementation of some best management practices is no longer possible.
Nevertheless, we do ask that any exposed soils in proximity to streams be covered with fiber
matting and seeded immediately after any additional grading occurs. We also recommend that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be contacted regarding the possible need to avoid in-water
construction during certain times of the year to protect spotfm chub or other listed species. There
is no need to avoid construction during the trout spawning seasons.
2. The project will add impervious cover and increase stormwater run-off that can exacerbate
channel erosion in Iotla Creek. Consequently, we support the implementation of the proposed
stormwater detention units and the stream stability monitoring requested by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. We ask that the Division of Water Quality carefully evaluate the project's
stormwater impacts and require management practices accordingly.
3. Although fish resources in Iotla Branch are common, it is nonetheless important that the culvert
not prevent recolonization upstream of the airport should populations become extirpated in the
future. The nearly 880-foot long culvert and channel relocation may constitute a blockage to fish
movements; however, this is not a certainty. Slope and velocity in the culvert may not be
limiting, but the lack of light could cause fish to avoid passing upstream. Physical obstructions
such as perched culverts injunction boxes and rip rap covering on the stream bed above the
culvert need to be avoided. We request that the inverts of the inflow and outflow culverts in
junction boxes be matched so that hydraulic drops are avoided. To maintain sufficient water
depth for fish, all base flow needs to be routed in a single pipe where double pipes are planned.
Also, the stream bed of the relocated channel must not be covered with rip rap as this could cause
subsurface stream flow and impede fish movements. To avoid this potential entirely, we
recommend that the relocated channel be constructed using natural techniques instead of a rip rap
armoring.
4. We are pleased that the cumulative impacts of the past and current airport improvement projects
and ongoing maintenance activities will be addressed with compensatory mitigation. However,
we are concerned that wetland mitigation may be delayed, perhaps for an extended period,
because credits from EEP are not yet available in this HUC. This project will require a
DUA& H&U:& /
cAa4,e? A4-"
-to
Z? svk xm&v
to tzZ&
?e? fez
Ctl2 %u&C A•`zu G2c? ? f G/Ae,? we 2a
Gvu?P?n?a,u-?(- fkue, 0.?4_ lrm+.?.? eu?
opti aAlIL dl,? dbk",&?7
eum-4, inv fP? c9-4La, I? al+?ce
fie, (8maia- G/e awe %? ?ru?
la?v?
7
l/

??0?? 3 0 2p09 ? ? a ,mob l?Z Sri

_C_O
`__

Macon County Airport Page 3 December 2, 2009
considerable amount of wetland mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that mitigation be
required concurrent with or within a specified period following impacts. Moreover, consideration
should be given to delaying wetland filling near the airport terminal until credits become
available. This should be possible as filling of these areas is not related to the current runway
expansion project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit action. Please contact me at (828)
452-0422 extension 24 if there are any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Cc: K. Barnett, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Asheville
B. Tompkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
[phone]; FAX [phone]
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
December 3, 2009
Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Jefferson Ryscavage
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the
public notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council or NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and
no further action is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to
authorization of the proposed work.
NOTICE NO.
2009-00321
APPLICANT
NOTICE DATE
DUE DATE
Macon County Airport
Authority
2009-0479 Republic Services of South
Carolina, LLC
2009-02177 City of Raleigh
2009-20226 NC DOT
October 29, 2009
November 30, 2009
November 3, 2009 December 3, 2009
December 3, 2009 January 4, 2010
December 3, 2009 January 4, 2010
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or
critical habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our
Protected Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Miles M. Croom
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: NEIL HOPPE [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Public Notice Corps Action ID 2009-00321
I am writing to you in regards to the Macon County Airport runway extension project. I
operate the Fixed Base operation at this airport, servicing aircraft utilizing this
facility. There appears to be several areas of concern, and I would like to address them.
1.) Environment & Ecological Impact
To the best of my knowledge the Macon County Airport Authority, Miles Gregory,
Chairman, and their engineering consulting firm, W.K.Dickson, has
met with representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers to assure that all
environmental issues have been, and will continue to be addressed
in a manner satisfactory to the Army Corps of Engineers and all applicable
regulations. Our airport is located in the beautiful Iotla Valley in Macon
County, North Carolina, and those of us that live & work here would not wish to do
any harm to our area, environment, and natural beauty that we
enjoy. By working with the Army Corps of Engineers, we hope to have the best of both
worlds - a thriving airport serving our community, while
protecting & conserving our environment. I do not pretend to be an expert in this
area- but I have the utmost confidence that with proper planning
and cooperation between the Macon County Airport Authority and the Corps of Engineers
we can achieve the necessary balance between
progress, growth, and environmental protection.
2.) Historic Properties
It is well known that Iotla Valley was occupied by Native Americans dating back
nearly 1,000 years. The archeological study on the property
confirms this, evidenced by finds unearthed by the archeologists over the past
several months. I spoke with the archeologist upon completion
of their project and was told that their findings included evidence of posts (now
decomposed) that comprised a wooden fence surrounding what
was a village, broken shards of pottery (which they retrieved), and many burial
sites. They meticulously mapped their findings of what had
existed many years ago- but no longer exist due to time and decomposure. The Cherokee
tribe had specified that if any burial sites were
discovered on the property, they were to be left undisturbed, and that the runway be
paved over them. The Macon County Airport Authority
agreed to these terms. In short, the archeological study discovered what had existed
many years ago, but in fact, no longer exists (with the
exception of the burial sites, on which agreement has been accomplished with the
Cherokee tribe). Iotla Valley had been settled & farmed
over the past 100+ years, plowed and planted by farmers many times over the years.
The Macon County Airport has existed in this valley for
nearly forty years, on property sold to Macon County by families that owned the
property for generations (and still own a large portion of it).
3.) Safety, Property Ownership, Needs and Welfare of the People
a.) Safety: Air traffic has increased into this airport, with a trend towards more
jet/turbine powered airplanes. The primary need for the
runway extension of 600 feet centers on safety. A runway length of 5,000 feet
is considered as standard for accommodating the type of
jet/turbine aircraft (Cessna Citation, Learjet, KingAir) utilizing the Macon
County Airport. As an analogy, I would cite highway construction.
Highways are improved, widened, and safely constructed as traffic demands, for
the safety of motorists (private, commercial, large & small)
as a function of public safety and economic benefit for the cities they serve,
The same logic applies to airports.
b.) Property Ownership (Public & Private): The property for the Macon County Airport
was acquired by Macon County in the late 1960's from
existing property owners for the purpose of constructing an airport to serve
Macon County. Over the years, improvements have been made;
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
From: Larry Miller [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW; [e-mail]
Cc: saveiotlavalley
Subject: Public comments Macon airport
I wish to give my comments regards Macon Co airport runway extention I have grave
environmental concerns for Iotla creek which runs thru the airport, it feeds into the
Little Tenn. river and is one of the most beautiful waterways in the county.
The property that is being disturbed is Historic property which once held the largest
Cherokee settlement in the area, it contains GRAVES and parts of living quarters and
artifacts of a once great nation.
I have concerns for safety by allowing larger planes to land and takeoff as Itola school
is 649ft from northern boundery of airport and a mobil home park is within 1/2 mile west.
The needs and welfare of the people in the area and the county are not being protected.
The airport auth board has not been fair or truthful with the public.
I strongly urge this permit be denied, or a public hearing be held before it is voted on.
Thank You!
Larry C. Miller
347 Willow Pond Rd
Franklin, NC 28734
Ph: 828-369-6924
the runway lengthened, a taxiway added. And in more recent years a weather
sensing system (AWOS) & a GPS Approach system, and a new
modern Terminal facility. All of these improvements add to the efficiency &
safety of the airport operation.
Private property owners in the Iotla Valley have long had a peaceful &
cooperative co-existance with the airport, some of whom bought their
property because of the airport's proximity to their homesites. Surely anyone
that purchased property and/or homesites in the Iotla Valley over
the past forty years knew of the airport's existance at the time. And the
runway extension of 600 feet does not infringe upon their properties.
Unfortunately, a few private property owners object to the runway extension
project based on historical structures (that no longer exist),
environmental issues (that are worked out with appropriate governmental
agencies), and Native American burial sites (resolved with the
Cherokee Tribe).
c.) Welfare of the People: The North Carolina D.O.T. estimates that the Macon County
Airport is responsible for bringing 9 million dollars per
year into the local economy of Macon County. People that fly into this airport
rent cars, dine in restaurants, stay in hotels, buy property, build
homes, and shop in our local businesses. The overall impact & benefit of the
Macon County Airport affects ALL of Macon County, not just a few
individuals that voice objections for their own personal reasons. The airport
is a viable economic engine, benefitting the vast majority of Macon
County residents.
Some critics of my position on this issue will claim that I have ulterior/self serving
reasons for doing so. I can assure you that is not the case. I have been in the aviation
operational profession for more than fifty years. Safety-Safety-Safety is the underlying
reason for my stance. From a businessman's position, the added runway length would have
minimal, if any impact on our business revenue. Safety of aircraft operation is my utmost
concern.
So long as the environmental, ecological, historical, and public benefit issues are
resolved, the improved safety level will serve Macon County well.
Regards,
Neil Hoppe
Franklin, NC
2
678 Middle Burningtown Road
Franklin, NC 28734
November 30, 2009
D EC - 1 2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
We are writing to share our displeasure with the Macon County Airport extension. The
average person needing air transportation "travel" to large airports. This airport is
designed for the elite, well-to-do person--a few local, but not necessarily a resident of
our fine county. The larger population of our county will NEVER use this facility and
those of us living within the airstrip, already are disturbed by the sounds of engines
taking off and landing. We like the rural element of our area and to expand this
runway, will allow larger, louder, and more frequent travel for those who do use it. If a
larger airport is needed, then build it away from Franklin, where there are no mountains
to navigate around.
Driving to town, we are appalled by the land disturbance to locate Indian artifacts, in
order to EXTEND the runway. They might as well dig up a cemetery! The time, money
and energy spent to extend this runway are horrendous. Furthermore, the impact on
our wetlands and possible detriment to water quality are sure to be negative. Those
issues will be a problem for us later, after everyone else has done the damage and
gone HOME. THIS IS OUR HOME! We want and need our air and land to remain free
from contaminants, pollutants and accidents created by a few who have the means and
power to influence.
I implore you and your team of experts to deny the proposed work. Our property
within 3 miles of the airport has been in our family since 1959. I will gladly attend a
public hearing to support the denial of the airport extension. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Glade W. Haas Joyce E: Haas
TO: USACF
FROM: Deborah Boots
RE: Corps Action ID# 2009-00321
MACON County Airport Authority runway extension
These are followup comments to a previous postcard where I did
not have access to October 29th Public Notice. I have been a
resident of Macon County for 4 years, living within ten miles
of the airport.
I question the legitimate need for runway extension. The airport
is situated in the center of a small valley surrounded by hills,
homes, and a proposed school. If within legal operation at this
time, no reason to upsize. If they have been operating illeg-
ally, then why weren't they closed down?
I question past behavior and violations on water issues per
enclosure. Obviously the Authority did not seek proper permits
and these illegalities should be scrutinized, not glazed over.
No wetlands should be filled. Filling 3.74 acres of wetlands to
detract "hazardous " wildlife is ? shameful. We need wildlife
far more than an airport strip.
The Airport Authority has been unresponsive to citizen questions,
(see enclosure) and in some instances, disrespectful to concerns.
For that and other reasons[being lack of open information on this
project), a public hearing would allow experts to s oak and citi-
zens t) ask questions and state concerns. I most ligently
request a public hearing in Franklin in the spring as a nec-
essary step in this permitting process.
Thank you,
November 23, 2009
Ms. Deborah Boots
64 McCoy Hill Road
Franklin, NC 28734-8827

r ???,, w ??l.S?'?"? • 05c?.ce• ar?nr. r? i?/?'fa? ?
.0
4
This project also includes filling 3.94
(Wetlands F/G, GA, GB, and G m 2009
recommendation regarding ous wildlife,%
wvro-

of wetlands adjacent to the existing runway
delineation)) in order to comply with FAA's
rac". ts.
wa er+s, cS tlYe`?pl S: ?i?tt? iti?la 'e s as=p r.a Ao k ?iCtiv These actmbds
include the following: (1) fill material was placed in 1.38 acres of freshwater wetlands
previously idenffled as an alder bog (Wetland AB) north of the runway during runway extension
construction in 1991; (2) 60 linear feet of culvert was placed in streams throughout the property
(Pipes #11, #12, and #13) for accessilbilrty of mowing equipment; (3) Sr fyZb Wsw a ncl
Ra onst ctetl; in 1994 in the>easzem# lu ?
niit??oir for?uugacts to vvate?rs`tM- 1i?^T3S 1h,1.993 ?co is"tcuchoir rtaxiway?
Efemcti?oiling anti; (4) in 2006,183.5 linear feet of culverts were installed in waters of the U.S. on
...yi. A1Ja1-
anport property during the upgrade of the security fence. The airport proposes to remove these
culverts and restore the impacted stream channels to their pre-construction conditions.
In order to bring the Macon County Airport into regulatory compliance, previously unauthorized
wetland and stream impacts, as well as the unsuccessful compensatory mitigation, have been
included in this permit application. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the currently proposed
project's impacts to waters of the U.S., the previously unauthorized impacts to waters of the
U.S., and on site, unsuccessful mitigation.
Permanent Impact Table (Cumulative)
kw ss/,O

4

?,, 0 1 1,,?

*Wetland 0 was OA acre larger in 1991.
a?
?? `b
? applicant the In order to raitigafie for cumulative past and proposed impacts to f .S.,
CEEP) In Lieu of
Proposes to Pay into the North Carolina. Ecosystem Enhancement ?O
Pee qM program, in the amounts noted in the table below. Available credits through NCEEP
for this project would be located in the Little Tennessee River Basin (CU# 06010202).
Proposed Mitigation
*The applicant i
authorization by
to mitigate for the nod motioning mitigation areas from the 1993
1.53 credits from EEP.
proposes to remove all culverts that were installed during the 2006
Additionally, the applicant d
perimeter fence installation and restore the stream channels to their pre-co nstrv coon d
ai steam channel would be aioce
As a result, 9-W a -6f 183.5' linear feet of previouslY unP
and the ixnp is frog `the un&rinitted 1815 1f hA ' . - would be initigated V87??
31-11 873'
IQDwA? ieov 3 c z^sg
66 1
? ?G 2?8a1
?
LOX
UAW, 6u+ AQ&
0 ".a. 'id.cl? Cr2- Ica°/?,
Chu ? Aur Le??J Gw d r, ? ?
raauai?-
Ms. Lori Beckwith
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Ave. Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: Corps Action #2009-00321
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
412 Thunder Creek
Franklin, NC 28734
November 28, 2009
NOV 3 0 2009
This is a request for a local (Macon County) hearing on Corps Action #2009-00321. The
proposed runway extension, if approved, will have a major impact on the quality of life in the
northern portion of the county, including noise, air and water pollution as well as increased
traffic due to resulting development in the area.
The voice of Macon County citizens is needed in any decisions impacting this property since the
citizens are indeed the owners. And prior to our ownership, the land was part of the Cherokee
Nation, one of the most sacred parts, since their ancestors are laid to rest here.
Thank you for scheduling a hearing so that wetland concerns and other related issues may be
addressed. Please inform us the date and format for the hearing.
Sincerely,
v
Doug Woodward
Copy to:
U.S. Sen. Pat Hagan
U.S. Sen. Richard Burr
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler
NC Sen. John Snow
NC Rep. Phillip Haire
r` ..
I
K ;
.._,--. Mr Donald Thibaut
Q4
The Humane Society of the United States
Member

se,?vitt
ey.Zound.:
og T7e arch
,,ex-. :at., oz pww,
?atd . has i evealec
fibs ` time penods c
"
scan occupati

ark ;; Army; Corp.
aft _;; p6blk comn
Rem iThi Army
gingers his r.
on
1
0 ' phcatiou ft
6 Auport Autt
peat ,; - their Authorh
c
cm
amuxw ssvn-mm vsn

?t5
W
v
r
,r
V
a
naxoi ssn»sau vsn
0- lg
co v
Ft CD vo .
N `? ' Z C,
p+ CD
rwia R G W 0 `?+ N ??t ??'Jtu
or CL
CO* "m CD
A) 0
A 0 N w A.
y Oq 00 w N ?. ?" ?O ry co Mr .b OMB
• .0 C05 CD n N G O CD w w g BCD F' C?p
w -r
2, El E; q Ft- ?r 0
CD P CD 0 CD PL cm
Aol 0. 'JA E? 00 s-
o p, O O w c ?, tr
P- [ CD co 0' rL
IZ3
CD OQ
CD 0
o o w• C?Dh cn rro p. y o r' oy w A. w tD
•+ ?' p .? " .., cn a I . ?. I ewpe co per? I ?
? 4' CD y I? ?C a o E' con N p' V .
r O wy (n ' r'C 081 :1 rn crF?D O° Kph C]. p i fCD'? CRS Nt O ?.
44. C40 o <o
7. " c?n nib 0 Z? ?0++?'M0 ?w"d°ap
?. N 'p. y C (? C "o ri ° w O
CL ,,. CD ..5' 5 p w ?_h
w, < ?o g•
cn o " 0 ?
cn. ?. ?"O.yy p C O t6.w•
o b CD ?.
M H
R 70
W CD.:!c+., W'.z?G•. W,.??CD.7..y+si-y'?'?,_r`{r.? ..?.v-SC-n fnf ..?u.iJn„P?,..2r..i'C?.T•w. T}:;su''.:.
Z
0
m
N
4
S
2
m
z.
r
z
"D
m
C
4
I H
C't. CS .? 'O (n rC'r (D ?? •rr R"A+?mF E'C? Y. GN A L°F?y
.?D+ I? ' ri n ?'r0 ch yt ,r?i 2 yp . `-' fl, v' tip
r? ! t
,.... ,7." t?..0..? ?.(7' eD
¢? 'h ` + O ry7° , pq ?' fn x,11 p vi .O•+,
P, . "d p 0 5 ww n. w , ? w R_ cD
" C "CS O N.
.cDI ? p?i G:C a 0. 7
?,I? 'cD LSl O pp?? ?I?+ O _w
N =p O
rA CD.
(v ;r 0 0 co 0.,
p o.0 S s N b C?i p. r',r cn
q R
AE o' b O.O p O. O 0?1 ? '. pOq cdu V04 CD
0 b cr -1 to ?e•o B a y E y? o g
C) Lt) -t C, CD
? ?r p F'J
p 6 0 A .?? C{yD C7 ? ro V 0 CD P, ? tJ
Cl)
r., ti tz
O C7' r. Ky ' 1
d O n G a .ter C `t a pq F'y CD rD G
Z CD MC_D p. ? ? g
tT1 O m ¢?' r co
E O. C +
GQ C)
Mr. Milles Gregory, Chairman
Macon County Airport Authority
1241 Airport Road
Franklin, NC 28734
Dear Mr. Gregory:

In keeping with your request, below are questions from concerned Macon County citizens
regarding the proposed airport extension and expansion and construction of industrial park in
Iotla Valley
Doll Re 44 White Oak St., Apt. 3, Franklin:
1. What size of cargo jets will be landing?
2. How will the fumes from these jets influence our health?
3. What kind of employment opportunities are you offering?
4. If big cargo jets are not coming in, what then is the purpose for the runway extension?
5. You talk about safety - for whom, the airport or-the people? .
Debby Boots, 100 McCoy Hill Road, Franklin
1. How much are we taxpayers putting into the airport? What is the bottom line, red or black?
2. How much did we (Macon County citizens) get per year from airport operation? How much
does Macon County subsidize?
3. What will be the impact on wetlands in and around airport property? News reports show that
the Authority has not gotten all necessary permits. #
4. How will increased noise pollution affect all of north Macon County and residents?
Lucy M. Smarr, 333 Green St., Franklin
1. What is the procedure to get the meeting time for Airport Authority meetings changed to 6:00
or 7:00 PM so more working people can attend?
2. We have submitted a list of close to 175 residents who do not want the proposed extension.
We would like a list of those people who do want the extension.
3, Who will provide 24-hour security to check planes, cargo and contents of increased numbers of
planes with farther reach? What will it cost the public? Research has shown that drug lords and
dealers are looking at using smaller airports to avoid security checks.
4. What is the cost of operation (county funds) and profit of the airport each year?
5. We would like a 5- and 10-year feasibility plan.
Jess Meadows. 258 Meadows Road, Franklin
1. Who really owns the airport? Provide legal proof.
2. If airport is privately owned, why is Macon County providing finances to support a private
enterprise?
3. Why was the airport constructed in its present location and on whose recommendation?
4. Why was this location chosen since better and safer sites were/are located on US441 south of
Franklin?
5. Why are only a few part-time jobs better at the airport, when many full and part-time jobs
would be provided if large retailers located here?
6. Will future expansion require Macon County to subsidize carriers to fly into the airport? This
is done in many airports that are too small to be profitable for airlines.
7. In the initial sale of the airport property, who profited? Was this individual/individuals directly
- or indirectly related to any one connected to the Airport Authority or previous government body,
either by business or personal connection?
8. Why are no answers forthcoming from questions at previous meetings when the Airport
Authority said they would provide answers to the people's questions?
Olga Pader, 262 Mine Valley Trail, Franklin
1. The local press quoted Mr. Gregory that "When everything is complete (archaeological work),
it will all be covered back up and preserved in perpetuity. The site will be left intact ...if another
organization is interested in studying (it) at a later time" Exactly how will the site be left intact if
the structures and all findings are covered and buried under feet of cement? Is the Authority
planning to let future studies take place if it required tearing up the extension and other proposed
new construction?
2. What business enterprises are interested in using expanded airport facilities? Are there actual
plans or just in a preliminary talking stage?
3. What business enterprises are interested in locating in proposed lotla Valley industrial park.
Why is another industrial park needed when present one on US64 is not even half-full?
4. What are the plans for accommodating increased traffic on Airport Road and lotla Church
Road? Are properties going to be taken by eminent domain?
5. What measures will be implemented to reduce noise and air pollution and health damages to
children and staff in nearby lotla School? For other area residents?
6. A letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office (3/19/09) states that
necessary permits, including those from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Division of Water
Quality, and Tennessee Valley Authority, had not been issued and recommended that the
environmental Finding of No Significant Impact be rescinded. Have these permits been obtained
now? How can the Authority be spending all the monies it has so far without knowing with
certainty that the project will be permitted?
Vera Ro ers 1555 Olive Hill Road, Franklin
Miss Rogers is the 94 years young matriarch of a family that settled Iotla Valley in the mid-1800s
and still farms and raises cattle in lands adjacent to the airport. Only one question:
"Why do they want to do it in the first place?"
As you have said to submit the questions in writing to the Authority's secretary, we are
submitting these questions directly to you and will give a copy to Ms. McDowell. You also stated
that you would get an answer to citizens' questions and would provide the answers by mail. We
are sending these questions to the local press so that all interested citizens of Macon County can
participate in this process. We hereby request that the Airport Authority submit the answers to our
questions to the press so people clearly know the precise plans, effects and outcomes of this far-
reaching project. You also have stated that the airport runway extension project has been in the
works for nearly a decade. Therefore, the answers to our questions should be readily available to
be made public by the end of June 2009, which will be one year after the Authority held the
"public" hearing that started this phase of the airport runway extension project.
Sincerely Yours,
Olga F. Pader
save Iotla Valley Citizens Group
262 Mine Valley Trail, Franklin, NC 28734
cc: Teresa McDowell
The Macon County News & Shopping Guide
The Franklin Press
November 28, 2009
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Attn. Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Ave. - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 NoV 3 0 2009
Dear Ms. Beckwith,
Thank you for returning my call and the conversation we had. Enclosed is a
letter to the NC Dept. of Aviation sent in March 09 and a letter for our local
newspapers which was not accepted to be published because of the 800
word length.
I received no answer from the Dept. of Aviation. The Letter to the Editor is
a compilation of news articles and my comments are the same. However,
my thoughts are still the same now as then.
Some of these comments are updated with new information.
I refer to the safety issue. A person who will remain unnamed told me and I
quote: "The new pavement addition will not be used in normal landings".
Duh - What are we building it for? The 25% artifact recovery date proved
wrong. The dig found unknown village structures which have not been
fully disclosed to the public. Up to 10,000 years of history, not just a burial
ground as first reported.
The above statement also references the tidbits #I & 2 in the Letter to the
Editor. In an article in the Macon County News & Shopping Guide, Ms.
McDalrymple reports on the Airport Authority's meeting on Oct. 27th. - no
mention about the comment period. Also, the questions asked about public
updates and the no response by the Authority. See the third paragraph in the
Editor Letter about this consistent media blackout by the Airport Authority.
Ms. Dalrymple reports about the NC Division of Aviation not responding to
Mr. L. Marshall's request for information. They didn't respond to my letter
back in March - nothing new.
In closing, I must add that I'm not against growth, but it must be responsible
growth with no hidden agenda as this project is. Now, they are raising our
taxes for school construction during a severe recession - BAD MOVE. By
the way, the new school is next to the airport - see the first paragraph of the
Letter to the Editor - same agenda - new twist..
Thank you,
?az
4'14f?
Donald R. Thibaut
187 Willow Cove Rd.
Franklin, NC 28734
Enclosures
1. Letter - N C Dept. of Aviation
2. Letter to the Editor
3. Printed article - Macon News & Shopping Guide - Nov. 5, 2009
L' 01-/
NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF AVIATION
Raleigh, NC
Re: Project SCH#:09E00000216
NEPA Funding of No Significant Impact
Gentlemen:
This letter is my expression of disapproval of the Macon County Airport
Extension. I live at 187 Willow Cove Rd. My property is in the West to East
landing pattern. Airplanes go over my house every day, depending on the weather.
By extending the runway towards my home 600 feet the incoming planes will be
closer to the ground in their approach. I am not a pilot but have basic arithmetic
knowledge, and I have spoken to a pilot and he agrees with me on this.
This project is not being implemented for safety as being promoted here, but
to further the agenda of the local politicians.
I have included a picture of a medium size plane that was here last fall.
There was also a larger plane berthed here for several days last fall. A large
military plane did touch and go landings several times one day last fall. Certainly, if
there was a safety issue they wouldn't land here.
Many planes of various sizes land and take off here during the summer
months on a regular schedule. Have the pilots been queried about safety issues?
The larger planes and the increased traffic will create more noise.
One of the political wizards mention that the runway extension is needed for
night landings and take offs. Fact is, this airport is closed at night. The only
landings and take offs at night are illegal and this happens occasionally.
Again, I repeat - we don't need the increased noise from larger aircraft or a
landing pattern that is closer to the ground.
Respectfully
Donald R. Thibaut
March 15, 2009
P. S. I didn't mention the artifact issue or the condition of the soil on the project. It
appears to be black organic muck, not a good paving base. If it has to be removed it
is going to take more that a 25% artifact recovery to prepare the site for
construction.

CLEAR AGENDA???????
The current airport conflict has been on the radar for many years.
Recent exposure was the school board issue which included a huge
water and sewer system for Iotla Valley. Sewer and water for the school
- no - industrial development. You know the answer - voted down, but
some projects started anyhow.
One old idea comes to mind, expansion was needed for larger planes to
land and buses then take the passengers to the Casino on gambling
junkets - remember? Why was the fancy building built there??? For the
nominal transient traffic it handles ???
Now it has come back, one little piece at a time - I'll explain. Do you
know the story about the frog in hot water? You can't put a frog in
boiling water - he'll never get wet - but put him in cold water and heat
it slowly and he'll never know it until too late. That's how it's been
with the political news releases.
As reported in the Macon County News on February 19, Franklin
Mayor and Airport Authority attorney made the following statement:
"A lot of folks who have means (money) may be interested in a
commercial airport, as well as Caterpillar and Drake Enterprises."
That's tidbit #1 ------- maybe #2
As reported in the Franklin Press on February 20, it is reported that:
"The Airport Authority has voted to spend $535,000 in funds from the
NCDOA to have a group called TRC Environmental out of Chapel Hill
recover 25% of the artifacts. in the expansion. area" (approximately 5
acres).
Tidbit #3
"The EBCI wants 100% recovery. Mr. Gregory says a full data
recovery would cost between $2-3 million, funding which is not
available." If you are going to build a house and can't fund the
foundation, how are you going to build the house?
As reported in the Macon County News on Feb.26tkh by Miles Gregory,
Chairman of the Airport Authority, quote: "It's a done deal". Mr.
Gregory continues, "The Macon County Airport Authority's priority is
not to make the "fat cats" in Highlands happy because they have the
most money. The goal of this project is to improve the safety and utility
of the runway by improving the required landing and take off length for
aircraft and by improving the deficient runway safety areas."
Tidbit #4 "It's a done deal" - maybe
Now we have two new words describing the reasons for the project.
"Required" length - what has changed? A lot of planes come and go
each year. Please describe the "deficient areas". First time the word
"Highlands" has entered the equation. Are the "fat cats" there
influencing the situation?
Kudos to the Franklin Press for it's excellent history report. Mr.
McCandless reported: "Backers of the project say the Runway
Expansion is a necessary safety improvement that may provide the dual
benefit of economic development to the county." Again, in the article
the Press listed Rick Barkes of the NCDOA as stating: "If you are
asking, is this going to be a commercial service airport? Then that
would be no. It will be a GAC (General Aviation) airport."
Tidbit #5
Depends on which agency you ask - "What's going on?" - mixed
answers - right?
As reported in the Macon County News on March 5 about residents
mistakenly attending a meeting at the airport -- Mistaken? I doubt it---
The only way we who oppose the project can " get a word in edgewise"
Enough said.? Later in the same meeting, Messrs. Gregory and Collins
are still referring to a plane crash 10 years ago as the main reason for
the projects. Check the facts gentlemen - it was pilot error.
Tidbit #6 - same old rehash!!!
Kudos to the Press on the article, "Protecting the ancient cultural
resources" during this firestorm.
As reported by the Smoky Mountain News on March 11, staff writer
Josh Mitchell quotes Mr. Hoppe - "When I die, my soul will depart my
body. I don't want a hole dug for me." He wants his ashes spread over
the airport property. "It's a beautiful place."
Tidbit #7 - NO COMMENT
No, on second thought. It isn't hard to find new reasons for the project
is it? Continuing in the same article, Mr. Gregory still talking about the
crash 10 years ago -
As reported in the Macon County News article on March 12th "Airport
Authority presents case to Commissioners". This article lists these
possible issues:
1. Fish & Wildlife Agency UCFWS has concerns about the
"finding of no significant impact (FUNSI) report".
2. Corp. of Engineers Office in Asheville says the Airport
Authority submitted on incomplete water quality permit application.
3. Some comments about the lack of public input.
4. Again the crash 10 years ago is presented.
Tidbit #8
Maybe the Authority should have gone to the County Commissioners
first. Sounds like all the homework was not done. Mr. Gregory again
brought the 10 year old crash to the table. -- They just don't get it.
These 8 tidbits are what we frogs are contending with. I suggest that
you go back and read the Letters to the Editors and Rants & Raves in
the Press and other newspapers in the area about what those who are
showing opposition " frogs" and others are saying about the project.
However, a quick update. Go look at the progress of the dig. It started
next to the fence at the Children's Home, then progressed to the fence
along Airport Rd. Notice all the little flags - did they find something?
Finally, some digging is now going on in the path of the runway. Were
they told where to dig? Also notice the soil - black dirt - very
uncommon in this area. Probably an old lake bed, lots of farming, I'm
sure. Good dirt to grow crops in - bad dirt to build on - doesn't
compact well- must be removed to build on. What will we determine to
do then ?
Donald R. Thibaut
Iotla Community

1?
N
1
i H
>, b
79, so
a n
0 noy,: oaoo° V°?vcgibb^
oq '° 14 0 w q : ° O y o T7 "
y q u.oo ro. CL'?'gb ° V "d
0^+ n?
`0 y .?
y a rn .7 W 0 0 0,0 "0
?>, 'o0 Oa,« a? obiar.??''?° oatci h.a>+a°i?'aOa°Ai ??Oo.ao4,) ?°ua?r,O$
d o•?;3 b? .? ena?,q a?? ° o v >?- 0-.0 > u an
y u? m 1y ? y ce 3 ? n y (U .d 0W a
o ? a 0 y a?
?4??1 sow 40 O N O° rn y bA y '? tq .O
a 44 0 3 >,?? ° ao 4 4"a o p? b
° o
• 14 ° S a
o ? y 9 o .q yw
41, ?:° yVa
;4 o o, c°yi•? 3
v? o o b a o a?i o pop ° o
" yU y q°38.E 2.?? cDa obb o o
1 1 w
og?? wyo°3 ?o co , cdNu °v °
a? ° 4 en , y ° w o,• 07 0 c:? a°iy
04 °-babc ?Q°?°°? bawO
.+
>, a ;0,. 'o a ? o ? 40 v° ? q 'So g w 4w
-0 I N .q y ou N ° b w N o 0° •z° p paU? ed y0 0
2,8 0
>8`vy?"?,c o °q a,° ??a?eny lb cWa?
0 PC 0)
_0 o 0.
3 ,w y gqopoCA aa>ic`?c? .0 AcQ?q?O3a°i
O R, b C N y p F, QD yO a O o'0 b p>J
"0 0 bO J4 a' ?' o? doa N c? y obr°n? o¢AU?• ?be a
opw yv,??'lvy}?' o^'?a°o ciQ?Oa"vO°?
cu ca 8.0 co
00 cs,a?b q a a $ c,a o a 1 o 0 o 9z
R, U b S Q, V R, U .? o0D a 4 '?° N f3, f1O . r.9 75 q vai 10
I 1 I w +. "0 4)
a?v0?Ogea,?No4
k.Dyaow?S
O 04 C
43 m a a
o
atii o 0 o po,b p ?
N 0 ?' ?i??? ? 32y ?
.? o 0 O bo O 0 Or .-4
,
a -a a ° i'it?r1 o 4) =1
a
°?a
4) cV g q v co
y O G N ;d N q
o 0 °
Cd ,? 1 w ?+ I I I y +r 1 y y
L, a 0 N ...
a05 °b El n > 70
,q -8 a 0 o y L1 cy A +-
.? q > ? y o cd 4c7 $ 1:5 .q g "I a
a?ig0o3 o
.q 11 a 0 >, t7 y > y s7 ...
! O
w O w .?? 3 ti
v b
0 CE,
NFv, '? vO o to C ° hn 'G A 4
i ?
I c?
g to
c F
?o
0
3 m
3c
a?
y G
? y
0
U '9 b
N
a o 'a
d o a
0,o>a
o"dagi3
cc
>,
u? ob
0
'b w
0 q O
A o a
a?
>?,ao
cE ,C' ? Q
d
cr? ? von
o T
?°C
n4
a• O > a
d bd
qqq? v u.
.
U
y C
00 4.
?^ ?N?oacs, n
JQ CD
Fri v' c to q
?•+? b
y ? C O O 0•
O° O
Z" C, `°
C O
prq ? ?
old C, .0
pccoo
cs.
5a ° ° o
ON w Q. ;;.
cD ? cD ? ? ? Cy
' O cpi
W `d. dQ N
0. 00 CC°3
p
y ?.
a co
LA CD
vi t7. Fp `C
CD. CD,!
M6. DQ 00
ti Vo m ?'• p' Oi Cp P? p fY

" c a o
?
5' o
? n
w
?. o .
0 p b
g
p?
p
O ? ff

z _P, 51 51
14 'IQ O
sr
0
CD g
?

un

OF r
p'
NEl O x O
?o C) ob o -W CA 92.
Er O N
? ,`py (D ? y?y N
?3: OQ 00 00
C 84
co Q, o. ?-- n g
Gr.
? C,
5'
C , y A.?G
?,.
?0 (V
a yay
Col,
CL ?C R' p p
ai Ny``?.°OQ O"
?++ Co p 0 5 p O
C ? p R .?i O
(/') r o G
o
CD
y o
E
CD CD
® ? b G. "pj; . Cy Q. ? O
CD N O p
w o Go E
® ?ID epY? LT'y y??_1
?n CC. cD O .y
F"!

y
A
0
Fd.
0
CO.
r-F...
N
N
a?
j

V
V

h
C
c
TOMMY R. ASHE
3770 Burningtown Rd.
Franklin, NC 28734
[phone]
November 27, 2009
Ms. Lori Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
This letter is in support of the proposed runway extension to the Macon County
Airport in Franklin, North Carolina.
County commissioners, as well as members of the Airport Commission, have
done extensive studies of the pros and cons resulting from the extension and its impact on
the environment. They have gone above and beyond to work with Cherokee tribal
members to recover artifacts in the area to be impacted, and have met their concerns.
The airstrip has been instrumental in attracting industry to the county, will be a
factor in recruiting businesses in the future, and is essential to retaining existing jobs in
the area.
Respectfully yours,
R 0,A9
Tommy R. Ashe
D EC - 1 2009