19930501 Ver 2_Emails_20100121 (2)

Mcmillan, Ian
From: Julie Ball [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Mcmillan, Ian
Cc: Eric Rysdon
Subject: Macon County Airport Runway Extension Project
Attachments: 20100106125240668.pdf
Ian,
Thank you for returning my call today. I have attached the Post Public Notice letter from Lori Beckwith as we discussed
earlier. I will forward you and Dave McHenry from WRC any information I receive from EEP regarding specifics
on available mitigation in Macon County for this HUC.
Also, you mentioned that a letter from DWQ would be sent out following your review of the USACE letter. You also
mentioned, that currently the only information needed for the 401 certification includes additional mitigation info from EEP.
Please let me know if there is anything else.
I have also included Eric Rysdon's contact information as I am getting ready to go out on leave. Please feel free to email
me and continue to send correspondence to my mailing address. In the meantime, if you have any immediate questions
or concerns, please contact Eric at the information below.
Thanks again for all your assistance on this project.
Julie Ball
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
864-963-7674
864-387-0504 cell
Eric Rysdon's contact information:
Eric Rysdon, PE
Technical Manager
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
704-334-5348 x118
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
January 6, 2010
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2009-00321
Macon County Airport Authority
Attn: Mr. Miles Gregory
5 West Main Street
Franklin, North Carolina 28734
Dear Mr. Gregory:
I refer to your revised application of October 26, 2009, for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to impact waters of the United States in order to extend Runway 7, the associated
taxiway, and the Runway Safety Area, and for impacts associated with past projects at the
Macon County Airport near Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina. In total, cumulative,
permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. would be 5.72 acres of freshwater wetlands and 809
linear feet of stream. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with comments received in
response to the Public Notice dated October 29, 2009, and to request that you submit additional
information necessary for this office to continue the review of your permit request.
In response to our Public Notice of October 29, 2009, we received 37 comment letters and e-
mails from area property owners, area organizations, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
(EBCI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). All written comments received by this office have been attached to this
letter.
Many of the continents from area property owners and organizations were similar. Concerns
expressed by the commentors related to potential adverse impacts to the following resources:
impacts to water quality of lotla Creek and the Little Tennessee River; impacts to federally listed
threatened and/or endangered species and critical habitat; impacts to archaeological resources;
future development in the area (e.g., a future industrial park); potential increases to property
taxes; impacts to air quality; noise pollution; impacts to aesthetics; an increase in traffic; safety
concerns for area residents and schools in close proximity to the airport; concern that the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Action
(NINA) were not complied with (e.g., significance of impacts not acknowledged/analyzed, the
Environmental Assessment (EA) signed on December 23, 2008, contained outdated information,
concern that human remains/graves will not be protected, adverse impacts to the Trading Path
were not evaluated or addressed, the EBCI and other Tribes did not sign the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), and all Federally recognized Native American tribes that attach religious and
cultural significance to site 31MA77 were not invited to consult); requested that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared; questioned the stated needs for the extension
(i.e., safety and economic development); concerned that consultation with the USFWS had not
been conducted properly; concerned about the proposed impacts to wetlands; concerned that the
entire process had not been open to the public, and; requested a public hearing.
Letters and e-mails that were written in support of the proposed project noted the following:
the need for the expansion in order to contribute to overall economic well being and
improvement of the local economy; acknowledgement that the Airport Authority had redesigned
and elevated the proposed runway extension to protect areas known to have artifacts present;
noted that several local businesses depend on this airport; noted that the airport had existed in
this location for nearly 40 years, and; emphasized that the primary need for the extension is to
address safety.
As background, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified itself as lead
federal agency for this proposed project. While it seems reasonable that FAA serve as the lead
federal agency for this proposed project for NEPA purposes due to a number of determining
factors listed in 40 CFR Part 1501.5 (c), the USACE has no record of being notified of, or of
being given the opportunity to be a participating agency. Further, in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 1501.6, the lead agency shall request the participation of each cooperating agency in the
NEPA process at the earliest possible time and use the environmental analysis and proposals of
cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent
possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency.
By letter dated March 15, 2007, the applicant requested that the USACE attend a pre-
application meeting to discuss potential impacts to waters of the U.S. at the airport. During the
subsequent site meeting on May 30, 2007, the USACE discovered unauthorized impacts to
waters of the U.S. and requested that the airport's consultant (WK Dickson) delineate waters of
the U.S. on the property and provide information concerning the unauthorized work. A
jurisdictional delineation was submitted in 2008 and was subsequently revised in 2009. The
USACE received a complete jurisdictional delineation and application for the proposed project in
October 2009. As such, the draft EA distributed for comment in 2007 contained no valid
jurisdictional delineation/determination for waters of the U.S. on the property, nor was this EA
sent to the USACE for comment. If you have records to the contrary, please submit them with
your response.
Due to these circumstances, the information in the application for DA authorization and in the
previously noted EA is inadequate for us to evaluate the proposed project and reasonably
expected direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts under our public interest review and the 404
(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 230). In addition to responding to the
comments detailed in this letter, please describe any off-site alternatives you considered and
explain why these are or are not practicable and clarify the applicant's main purpose for the
project (safety or economic development), and any secondary purpose(s).
2

State Historic Preservation Office
Department of Cultural Resources
Attn: Ms. Linda Hall
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
NC Division of Water Quality
Attn: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
NC Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
Asheville Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Chuck Cranford
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
Mountain Region Coordinator
Attn: Mr. David McHenry
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Attention: Mr. Eric Rysdon
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
Copy furnished w/encl:
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Attn: Ms. Julie Ball
1001 Pinnacle Point Drive
Suite 110
Columbia, South Carolina 29223
5
please cross-reference the agency letters (by agency name and page number of the letter). Please
be advised that until we receive the information requested, we cannot evaluate the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest factors, nor
make a determination of compliance with the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines for the proposed project.
We are forwarding copies of all written comments for your review and consideration. We
request that you respond to this office within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If you fail to
respond within 30 days, we will administratively withdraw your application. We will reopen
your application and continue to process it once you have submitted all of the information we
have requested in this letter. Please contact me at [phone], ext. 226 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
0
Regulatory Specialist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies furnished w/o encl:
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Attn: Mr. Tyler Howe
Post Office Box 455
Cherokee, North Carolina 28719
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Mr. Bryan Tompkins
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early
4617 Mail,Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
4
Y
While the USACE recognizes that the lead federal agency (FAA for this project) is responsible
for documenting compliance with Section 106 of the NBPA and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, to include making determinations of effect, please clarify the procedures between
the FAA and the NCDOT Division of Aviation regarding environmental documentation
processing in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. It is our understanding
that NCDOT is responsible for preparing, coordinating, reviewing and approving any
environmental document required under "appropriate regulations within the National
Environmental Policy Act..." Whenever a proposed project funded under the State Block Grant
Program (SBGP) may have an impact on any historical, cultural, and/or archaeological resource,
the FAA (Atlanta Office) will be responsible for compliance. The FAA will have the signatory
responsibility for all MOAs or Programmatic Agreements in accordance with Section 106 of the
NHPA. While we understand that the MOA, in which the FAA determined that the proposed
project will adversely affect archeological site 31MA77, was received by the Advisory Counsel
on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and that this "... filing of the MOA, and execution of its terms,
completes the requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
ACHP's regulations..." (ACHP letter dated February 3, 2009), we request clarification regarding
procedures relating to the effects determination in the NEPA document/BA previously
referenced in this letter. Specifically, does the MOA between the FAA and NCDOT require that
the FAA's determination for NBPA purposes then become the effect determination for the
NEPA effects determination (i.e., the information in the EA)? If so, the determination of the
FAA is that the proposed project would have an adverse impact to site 31MA77, as opposed to a
significant adverse impact, correct? Also, when a proposed project funded under the SBGP
involves an adverse impact to historic/cultural resources (31MA77), does the FAA typically
issue the FONSI? While we understand that the FAA will issue a FONSI for this proposed
action soon, we also understand that the reason for this second FONSI (in addition to the FONSI
signed by the NCDOT on January 15, 2009) is due to the additional funding for the archaeology
work. Please provide correspondence from the FAA that specifically states their NEPA
determination of effects, to include significance of the effects, to all cultural/historic resources
which would be affected by implementation of the proposed project.
Additionally, please provide specific information as to future plans for the development of
related, but not necessarily similarly funded projects, in the vicinity of the airport, and scheduled
dates for these projects. Please note that if this proposed project, or a modified version of the
proposed project, were authorized by the USACE, the existence of it could not be used as'
justification for future proposals to impact waters of the U.S. on or off the airport property.
While this letter emphasizes comments from the USACE, the EBCI THPO, the USFWS, and
the NCWRC, please respond to all substantive comments from the pubic (area property owners
and organizations), as noted on pages 1 and 2 of this letter. Please respond with additional
information other than what is in the EA, as this information does not fully satisfy our evaluation
requirements. Additionally, please respond to all continents and requests for additional
information detailed in this letter. If you choose to respond to similar comments in one response,