20071841 Ver 1_Notice of Withdrawal_20080320

max„
OFWATfiR
CERTIFIED MAIL
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr_, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
March 20, 2008
DWQ Project # 07-1841
Buncombe County
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED - 7002 0460 0001 9899 7439
David N. Edwards, Jr.
Asheville Regional Airport Authority
61 Terminal Drive
Suite 1
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject Property: Asheville Regional Airport Expansion
Fletcher, NC
RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE
Dear Mr. Edwards:
On October 29, 2007, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application
submitted in regards to your request to perform filling activities within 1746 linear feet of
streams and 0.209 acres of wetlands. The Division of Water Quality requested
additional information in the form of an Additional Information Request mailed January
23, 2008. A response was received from you on February 22, 2008. The DWQ has
determined that your application and additional information are insuffient in order to
make an agency determination. Therefore, we are returning your application as
incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506. In order for your project to be
reviewed in the future, you must submit a complete application along with the
appropriate processing fee, including, but not limited to:
• This office determined that your submitted Impact Justification was insufficient.
In your response, you quoted the application, the suitability of disposing of fly ash
as structural fill was referenced. As disposing of a waste product is not a reason
to fill a Waters of the State, the alternatives were reviewed without consideration
of these statements.
Your minimization statement regarding the "minimization of impacts to
downstream aquatic resources" does not address the steps taken to minimize
impacts on-site.
NorthCarolina
Naw,rally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, N.C. 28778 Phone[phone]
Internet: www.ncwatergualiit om Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Asheville Regional Airport Expansion
Page 3 of 3
March, 20, 2008
• Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 refer to the project not having direct access to I-26.
The proposed preferred alternative does not have direct access to 1-26 either.
Vehicular traffic will have to enter Airport Road in order to access 1-26. Should
additional construction be required to provide such vehicular access to 1-26, it
must be reflected in the project plans and any impacts associated with this
access be considered collectively with the requested impacts. Additionally, if no
new vehicular access to 1-26 be proposed, and the existing Airport Road access
be utilized, this argument against Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, can be removed
from the alternatives analysis.
• Alternative 3 indicates that there would be impacts to waters related to this
alternative, but no supporting data was submitted (Including, but not limited to,
amount of impacts compared to Alternative 7.) Additionally, this is the only
alternative which states that direct access to the existing terminal to be
necessary for the project. If direct access to the terminal is not integral to
Alternative 7, then this argument cannot be used for alternative 3.
• Alternative 4 states that "it does not enough land area adjacent to both airstrip
and interstate." As neither your Purpose and Need nor your Avoidance and
Minimization dictate how much adjacent land to both the airstrip and interstate is
required, this argument is invalid.
• Alternative 5, with the fly ash disposal and direct access to both the airstrip and
interstate arguments removed (access to the airstrip can always be created
through a paving expansion of taxiways and service aprons), is an alternative
which should be explored.
• Alternative 6 re-states the "no negative effect" to downstream water quality, yet
on-site observations conducted by the Division and the US Army Corps of
Engineers on March 12, 2008 revealed that fly ash and sediment have already
been discharged to streams and wetlands on-site.
• In your response to the "clean fill" requirement of the State, you have not
provided a compelling argument as to why this material must be filled over the
stream and wetland. Additionally, you have not provided the requested
monitoring plan which would show how the ash placed to the side of the stream
and wetland will not violate Water Quality Standards. Lastly, you have not
addressed how subsurface water moving below the fill layer would not pick up
pollutants and discharge then to downstream systems.
• You have failed to provide an adequate stormwater management and treatment
plan for the existing impervious surfaces.
Asheville Regional Airport Expansion
Page 3 of 3
March, 20, 2008
As you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for this activity,
any work within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code. Please call Mr. Kevin Barnett at 828-296-4657 if you
have any questions this matter.
Sincerely,
r
Roger C. Edwards, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection
Division of Water Quality
CK
cc: Ron Johnson and Craig Wyant, CWS
550 East Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Permitting Unit
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
David McHenry, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 07-1841.AshevilleRegionalAirportExpansion.returned