20210627 Ver 1_Meeting Request Review Doc Attachment_20210323

1
McHenry, David G
From:Mitchell, Robert K
Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 9:11 AM
To:McHenry, David G
Cc:Barnett, Kevin H
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project
Yes. Just make sure it is included with the application.

Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality

828-296-4650 Office
828-231-1580 Mobile
Email [e-mail]

NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778

From: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:08 AM
To: Mitchell, Robert K <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

Kevin,

I am assuming this will suffice as the pre-application notice for DWR. Please advise. We will be having to turn and burn
on permits for this soon and would really appreciate your help.

Thanks

From: McHenry, David G
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:06 PM
To: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Mitchell, Robert K
<[e-mail]>
2
Cc: White, Jeanette L <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

Hey Cystal and Kevin,

Wanted you to be aware of this federal disaster drainage maintenance project (DF16514.1075010) that we have in the
works and that has blossomed into a big deal. This involves major problems with I-26 near Saluda and where Old
Howard Gap Road has been closed for going on 2 years now this coming february. The latest plans are attached. Per
email train below we found severally federally endangered white irisette in the way and we are desperately trying our
best to avoid them. It looks like there will be at least one and maybe two unavoidable stream impacts. The largest
impact is on sheet 9 (last page in plans) where we are proposing an energy dissipator. NOTE, the loca tion of the
dissipator is not being driven by the plants, though they are close proximity (SEE GREEN SHADED AREA). This entire area
is real steep terrain and those engineer types tell me the pad has to go where shown, near bottom of slope, to avoid
unstable slope above it and to keep the normal draianage in its natural drainage feature (otherwise you can run into
downstream hydraulic trespass issues with landowners and also cause more degradation of stream channels below
where you ontroduce a larger watershed). I have been pushing to avoid the impact and mentioned the need to consider
passage, though this stream is certainly fishless.

Anyway, there are lots of details beyond thois and I will be glad to speak with you all if you have any questions. The 106
evaluation is ongoing and as you see below we are turning and burning as much as we can on Section 7.

Dave

From: McHenry, David G
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:05 PM
To: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>; Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L
<[e-mail]>; Jimmy Terry <[e-mail]>; Adams, Theodore B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

Thanks Rebekah,

If the plan stays, I believe we will have minimum 5’ of cover to depth of bore, so we should be good.

I stopped by the site last week to help the surveyors mark the pipe centerline alignment for visualization
purposes. While there I looked at a couple potential accesses from below (south) including one Kevin looked at before
in mid-October. No plants were seen. I know its late but the plants that in our project area have not ben bit with frost
yet and I actually found some other plants on the property, but fortunately a good bit beyond where we would need to
be or might be needing access.

I am fairly certain we will be good 4D rule compliance-wise too. There’s still much uncertainty about clearing time
though. Hopefully is it works out, we can start clearing early next year, though cant be sure we would avoid the active
season, which I understand has become an earlier than typical occurrence in last few years.

I understand about the emergency action thoughts. Others have asked and I wasn’t sure either.

Hopefully we’ll know very soon whether potential contractors think this is all doable and we get a landowner buy-in on
access. Hopefully. We’ll be in touch soon, hopefully with an informal request.

3
Thanks

Dave

From: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 10:08 AM
To: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Cc: Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L
<[e-mail]>; Jimmy Terry <[e-mail]>; Adams, Theodore B <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your patience, we didn't end up meeting until Friday. To answer your questions:
1. I do think you are on the right track for a MANLAA. While we can't commit until we see the final plans,
we have been able to come to this conclusion on similar projects in the past. As mentioned previously,
we ideally would like to see a 24-36 inch depth on the bore. We will need some more official
documentation once the plan is final - the plans with impact areas and PDE depicted, etc. No land
mines necessary , but orange construction fencing to set some visual boundaries would be great
and we will request that in our correspondence.
2. The only other issue I see right now is finalizing your access plans and making sure to evaluate those
areas for any potential suitable habitat/impact to species. Based on the location, NLEB falls under the
4(d) but we would ask that you consider timing of any tree clearing and avoid the pup season and
active season if possible.
3. We talked about emergency consultation and we just don't think it fits here. Typically, that
consultation occurs immediately after the event - the Nantahala slides on 19/74 are a good
example. Since this happened in early 2019, I think it would be difficult to justify an emergency. I'm
hopeful DOT can avoid the plants, but if not, we can have a more in depth conversation about formal
consultation.
Keep us updated. Thank you,

Rebekah Reid

US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
phone: [phone] x42238
cell: 828-782-0090

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.

4

From: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:50 PM
To: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>
Cc: Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L
<[e-mail]>; Jimmy Terry <[e-mail]>; Adams, Theodore B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

Hey Rebekah,

Sorry for the delay in getting back with you with an update. Glad you reminded me, it has been wildly busy lately.

Hope you don’t mind but I copied Barnett and the project managers so they would have direct knowledge of where we
are section 7-wise as we get close, I hope, to requesting informal consultation.

As you mentioned after talking with Byron, any plant loss would require formal consultation (please correct me if I was
wrong or there is new info). So, we are still working hard at avoiding all plants if it is possible/practical. Below
screenshot is the latest rendition of what we are evaluating, which includes a directional bore section under plants in the
green cross-hatched area. Note, on Oct 14 I was out there again (Kevin and I have been there many days the last couple
months) and noted several mostly small plants also in the green circle area, which we are trying to avoid as
well. Anyway, we are planning to field survey/stake this protential drain line route in on Nov 4 for visualization purposes
to show potentail contractors for their professional input on how practial/possible this will be. If you would like to come
out we sure would love to show you around and discuss the project more. We hope this plan will work due to many
factors, most of which is trying to get this moving again as quickly as possible.

Note, it looks like we may be able to truck get access from the south (top of page) on an existing and used farm road to a
barn and pasture, thereby avoing need to take trucks all the way down the PDE to the bottom for the rock needed for
the dissipator pad.

Note also is a red irregular line on north part of the page that demarks the approximate slope instability area, which
hase several fallen trees in it. So some of the plants are on the verge.

Anyway, that is as far as we are. Do you think we are on right track here for informal, that is per plan below? There will
be clearing within the PDE (with exception of the areas in green cross-hatching), but we would committ to having orange
fence, razor wire, mines, or whatever to stay in bounds. Do you see any other potential issues we need to
consider? And one last question is if we have to do formal, could this be done under emergency consultation
procedures? I believe the damage occurred in Feb 2019 and we admittedly have been slow in developing this work, but
everyone tells me this work is extremely urgent if not still an emergency to some extent in many peoples eyes.

Thanks for help thus far and any other thoughts you can provde.

Dave
5
From: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:01 PM
To: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Cc: Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Hey Dave,

Just checking in on this project. Let me know how it's going.

Rebekah Reid

US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
phone: [phone] x42238
cell: 828-782-0090

6
NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L <[e-mail]>; Ryan Elliott
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

Hey Rebekah,

Sorry I was wrong about the pipe near irisette being above grade. Actually, the plan is to have it and the other drainage
below grade. On sheets 2D-24 and 2D-25 of the attached plans is the profile of the drain line that is shown in plan view
on sheet 8. In the first screen shot below (note that north is down towards the bottom) that drain line is on the left (to
the east). The irisette locations we show are 25 f oot buffers (radii) around a plant, though I believe some points may
represent more than one individual plant in close proximity (few feet)(Ryan, please feel free to chime-in if any data
description needs clarification). The light dashed green line represents the preliminary drainage easement (PDE) which
would account for clearing and disturbance for pipe installation. It is 50 feet wide through the middle portion of the run,
but flares wider near Howard Gap Road and at the terminus at the energy dissipater. So you can roughly see it
intercepts 7 or so of those buffered points that we marked, though may not physically impact them all as currently
shown, The second screen shot below is a blow up of that area, but the red line is not PDE, but rather the
surveyed/study area.

The hydraulics engineers are looking at whether a moderate shift west (to right) in that screen shot is possible and
hopefully we will have something to look at soon. I am planning to go back over there later this week again and survey a
little more in that direction to see if that would be better plant-wise.

Thanks for speaking with me and for helping us figure out next steps here. We’ll be back in touch about any avoidance
(shift west) we may be able to add in on that line given the limitations. And we appreciate you checking with your folks
on what we may need to do if we can’t avoid impacting a few plants. I will be sure to relay to everyone the difficulty in
successfully transplanting this plant.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about the information before we speak again.

Thanks for your time.

Dave

7

From: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:01 PM
To: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>; Mizzi, Janet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Hi Dave,
8

Thanks for your email. Given there are occurrences just a couple miles east of project location, we would
require a survey. For this project, we are OK with an off-season survey. However, please note that we are
making an exception for this project and acceptance of off-season surveys shouldn't be expected by DOT/DOT
consultants for projects in the future. Copy me and/or Janet when you send the project in for review. We'll
make sure whoever is reviewing, if not one of us, knows that we approved an off-season survey.

Thanks and let me know if there are any other questions.

Rebekah Reid

US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
phone: [phone] x42238
cell: 828-782-0090

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Reid, Rebekah N <[e-mail]>; Mizzi, Janet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin H <[e-mail]>; White, Jeanette L <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] White irisette and I-26 Howard Gap Drainage project

This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.

Hey Rebekah and Janet,

I would appreciate your guidance please.

NCDOT has been designing a project without having completed environmental screening work and now needs to
perform it soon. The screen shot below notes the project area, which is generally around a section of I-26 and Howard
Gap Road in Polk County. The project is needed to address major drainage failures under I-26 and slide damage, the
latter I believe is from a storm in Feb 2019. This part of I-26 between Saluda and Coulumbus is where you start dropping
down towards South Carolina. I don’t believe this work will qualify for FEMA coverage, but I believe it will be covered
by federal highway funds.

My questions that I would appreciate help with are these:
1. Being close to irisette records on White Oak Mountain/Skyuka, I assume you all would recommend surveys for
this plant and need them for any concurrence. The drainage work, shown as redlines on cover sheet below,
9
would largely affect existing maintained road shoulders but also involve cutting some new lines through
forested areas that may or may not have ben disturbed in the past. Can you please confirm need for survey? I
anticipate the only other likely T&E species here might be NLEB, which I believe would fall under the 4d rule. I
don’t believe there is much potential for heartleaf in this location based on aspect and conditions.
2. Though we are beyond the survey window, would you all accept irisette surveys in September? I know this plant
is detectable and saw some last week on Skyuka Mountain Road. Flowers were gone and seeds nature, but
plants were large and apparent.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Dave

Dave McHenry
NCDOT Division 14 DEO
828/586-2141 office
828/246-7078 cell

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

10

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.