Appendix D I-85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I-85

Appendix D I‐85 Widening (MM 80 to 96) Biological Assessment, I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB, Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report; Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties; Interstate 85 Widening from Mile Marker 80 to 96, and FWS Correspondence regarding I‐85 Project Submittal Form for NLEB

Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

Biological Assessment Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) proposes to widen approximately 16 miles of Interstate 85 (I-85) in the counties of Cherokee and Spartanburg, South Carolina; please see Appendix A for a Site Location Map. The project also proposes to improve interchanges within the project limits. The project originates at approximate Mile Marker (MM) 80, just east of S-57 (Gossett Road), in Spartanburg County, and terminates at approximate MM 96, just west of the Broad River, in Cherokee County. The proposed project would involve the following:

widen the existing four-lane interstate facility to a minimum of six lanes, three in each direction; improve the I-85 interchange with SC 110 (Battleground Road); improve the I-85 interchange with S-39 (Green River Road); improve the I-85 interchange with SC 105 (Hyatt Street); improve the I-85 interchange with S-82 (Pleasant School Road); improve the I-85 interchange with and SC 18 (Shelby Highway); and replace the existing I-85 overpass bridge on S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive).

The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is the federal regulatory tool that serves to administer permits, implement recovery plans, and monitor federally protected (endangered and threatened) species. The ESA is administered and regulated by the USFWS and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS).

Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]) are protected under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term “endangered species” is defined as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”, and the term “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532).

The term “Proposed” (P) is defined as “any species proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.” “Candidate” (C) species are taxons under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing but development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. “At-Risk Species” (ARS) is an informal term that refers to those species which may be in need of concentrated conservation actions, and have been petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered. The USFWS designations P, C, and ARS do not provide federal protection and require no Section 7 consultation under the ESA. Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

Because of the federal nexus of the project, consultation with the USFWS is required under Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 USC 1531-1534), for proposed projects that “may affect” federally endangered and threatened species. This Biological Assessment (BA) analyzes potential impacts to federally endangered and threatened species associated with the proposed project, and is intended to initiate informal consultation, as needed.

The following list (Table 1) of federally protected [endangered (E) and threatened (T)] species for Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties was obtained from the USFWS protected species database (updated April 29, 2015). Additional information regarding state protection status was obtained from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory (updated June 11, 2014). Table 1 also includes five At-Risk Species and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The Carolina heelsplitter is not currently listed as a threatened or endangered species by USFWS in Spartanburg or Cherokee County; however, the species is listed as endangered elsewhere in South Carolina.

TABLE 1 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES IN CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA

Protected Species County Protection Common Name Scientific Name Listed Federal State Crustacean Species Broad River spiny crayfish Cambarus spicatus Spartanburg ARS - Fish Species Cherokee & American eel Anguilla rostrata ARS - Spartanburg Mammal Species Cherokee & Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T - Spartanburg Cherokee & Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorthinus rafinesquii ARS Spartanburg Cherokee & Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus ARS - Spartanburg Mollusk Species Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Statewide E,CH E Plant Species Cherokee & Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T - Spartanburg Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Cherokee ARS - T = Threatened, E = Endangered, CH = Critical Habitat, ARS = At Risk Species

2 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

State and/or federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their respective habitats are briefly described below:

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – Federal Threatened The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat with a body length of 3 to 3.7 inches and a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. Their fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny to pale-brown on the underside. The species is distinguished by its long ears, which when pushed forward extend at least 4 millimeters past its nose. During the winter months, the northern long- eared bat can be found hibernating in caves and mines. They use areas in various sized caves or mines with constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live trees and dead trees. Individuals of the species have also been found rarely roosting in structures, like barns and sheds. Overall, the northern long-eared bat is not considered to be a long-distance migrant (typically 40 to 50 miles) although known migratory distances vary greatly between 5 and 168 miles.

Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Federal/State Endangered The Carolina heelsplitter is a federally and state listed endangered mussel with an ovate, trapezoid shaped shell. The surface of this species is yellowish, greenish, or brownish with greenish, blackish rays. The inner shell ranges from iridescent to mottled pale orange. The average size of the Carolina heelsplitter is 78 millimeters (mm). The Carolina heelsplitter is found in small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds over a variety of substrates usually near stable, well-shaded stream banks. Most individuals are found in undercuts and along shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots, a buried log, or rocks. The Carolina heelsplitter requires waterways with well oxygenated clean water. Six populations of this mussel are presently known to exist, four of which occur within South Carolina.

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) – Federal Threatened Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing spicey-smelling, evergreen perennial herb that spreads via rhizomes. Leaves are heart-shaped, alternate, leathery, lacking teeth, and 1.6 to 2.4 inches in length and width. Each leaf is supported by a long, thin stem. The solitary flowers are fleshy, firm, grow at the end of short stalks, and often under forest litter and leaves near the base of the leaf stems. The flowers are jug-shaped, less than one-half inch long, and range in color from brown to greenish or purple. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early June; fruiting begins in late May. Adults are rhizomatous and seedling growth has been observed in clumps of mature plants. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is typically found along bluffs and north-facing slopes, boggy areas along streams, and adjacent hillsides and ravines with acidic, sandy loam soils in deciduous forests. Individuals are typically found on Pacolet or Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam. This species is also commonly associated with mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).

3 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

Terrestrial Plant Communities

Based on field reviews of the Project Study Area (PSA), eight terrestrial habitat community/land use types are present within the PSA, including Maintained and Disturbed Roadside, Agricultural Fields, Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Successional Forest, Pine Forest, Commercial and Residential Development, and Maintained Lawn. A brief summary of the terrestrial habitat communities found within the PSA follows:

Maintained and Disturbed Roadside Maintained and disturbed roadside is the dominant community type throughout the PSA, and occurs immediately alongside the I-85 and other existing roadways. This community type comprises approximately 50-percent of the PSA. Most of the disturbed roadway edges are comprised of herbaceous species and a few shrubs, including various grasses such as common fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and bluegrass (Poa sp.).

Agricultural Fields Agricultural Fields include fields maintained for the production of crops or hay and comprises approximately 10-percent of the PSA. Agricultural fields are located sporadically along I-85, primarily between Battleground Road and Green River Road.

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest is the dominant forested community type located throughout much of the PSA, and comprises approximately 10-percent of the PSA. Dominant vegetation consists of pine and hardwood tree species, including sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water oak (Quercus nigra), and American holly (Ilex opaca).

Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest are located throughout the potions of the PSA, primarily within the floodplain of large streams, creeks, and rivers. Dominant vegetation consists of hardwood tree species, including red maple, water oak, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum. A sparse shrub layer consisting of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) was also present. Groundcover vegetation was sparse but may also include a more diverse array of herbaceous and shrub species.

Successional Forest Successional Forests are located throughout portions of the PSA and include areas that have been logged within the past five years and are in the primary stages of forest succession. This community type makes up a small portion of the PSA, and is primarily located along I-85 in the eastern portion of the PSA. Dominant vegetation consists of many of the same species as mentioned above in the mixed pine/hardwood forest description, but may also include a more diverse array of herbaceous and shrub species.

4 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

Pine Forest Pine Forests consists of areas planted for the production of pine trees. Dominant vegetation in pine forests is loblolly pine. Opportunistic tree species such as red maple and sweetgum were also present in low densities in the understory. A sparse shrub layer consisting of Chinese privet and ryegrass was also present. Groundcover vegetation was sparse but may also include a more diverse array of herbaceous and shrub species.

Commercial and Residential Development Commercial and residential development comprises a small portion of the PSA. Small areas of commercial development are found primarily within the I-85 interchanges with Battleground Road, Green River Road, Hyatt Street, Pleasant School Road, and Shelby Highway. Dominant vegetation within the commercial and residential development includes a variety of ornamental and native shrub and tree species, and maintained grasses.

Maintained Lawns Maintained lawns are found sporadically throughout the PSA adjacent to residential and commercial development. Most of the maintained lawns are comprised of herbaceous species, including various grasses such as common fescue, ryegrass, and bluegrass.

Methodology

Environmental scientists performed literature and field reviews to determine the likelihood of protected species within the PSA and the potential for project-related impacts. The list of protected species known to occur in the Counties of Spartanburg and Cherokee was reviewed, and field reviews were conducted within the PSA in October 2014 and May 2015. Areas that matched the descriptions of preferred habitat for protected species were classified as protected species habitat and were surveyed for the presence of protected species.

The SCDNR South Carolina Heritage Trust (SCHT) Geographic Database of Rare and Endangered Species was also reviewed to determine the presence of known populations of protected species within the vicinity of the project.

At-Risk Species (ARS) do not receive legal protection from the ESA; therefore, surveys for these species were not conducted during field reviews. In the event additional species are listed as federally threatened or endangered prior to the construction of the project, surveys for added species will be performed in accordance with USFWS survey protocols.

Results

Information obtained from the SCDNR-SCHT database indicates that there are no threatened or endangered species known to be present within the PSA as of January 17, 2006. Furthermore,

5 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114 according to the database, no threatened or endangered species are located within a one mile radius of the project.

Potential habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf was identified in multiple locations within the project study area, including north-facing hillsides and ravines with acidic, sandy loam soils in deciduous forests. Pedestrian transects were conducted within areas of potential habitat and individuals of Hexastylis were further evaluated to determine species. A variety of Hexastylis species were identified, including H. sorriei, H. minor, and H. heterophylla. Individuals of H. sorriei and H. minor were denoted by exhibiting wider calyx tubes than H. naniflora, ranging from 10 to 20 millimeters (mm). Individuals of H. heterophylla were identified by their comparatively wider lobes (8-17 mm), and typically wider calyx tubes than H. naniflora. No individuals of Hexastylis reviewed during field surveys exhibited calyx tubes less than 8mm in width; therefore, it was determined that dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not found within the project study area. Additionally, populations of the associated species Kalmia latifolia were not found within the project study area.

Potential habitat for the Northern long-eared bat exists throughout the project study area. Existing bridges and culverts which measure a minimum of five feet in diameter and 200 feet in length were surveyed in August 2015. No evidence of bats were found during this field review and the findings were provided to the USFWS, along with a Project Submittal Form for informal consultation with the USFWS. This form lists the avoidance and minimization measures that SCDOT will implement to avoid impacts to the northern long-eared bat.1 SCDOT commits to performing acoustic or mist netting surveys for the Northern Long Eared Bat prior to construction during the survey window (May 15 through August 15) or to only perform clearing of trees greater than 3 inches in diameter between November 15 and March 31. If a survey is completed, SCDOT will consult with USFWS on the results of this survey and will follow any USFWS regulations/requirements resulting from that consultation.

Potential habitat for Carolina heelsplitter was identified within 12 tributaries. A freshwater mussel survey was conducted by Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. in October 2014. An associated report entitled Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report; Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties; Interstate 85 Widening from Mile Marker 80 to 96 was completed in June 2015 (Appendix B). The report documented that neither the Carolina heelsplitter nor suitable habitat was observed within the 12 streams surveyed. Additionally, there has been no recent or historical documentation of the Carolina heelsplitter within the Broad River basin.

1 Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana and Northern Long-eared Bat Project Submittal Form, June 23, 2015.

6 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

Biological Conclusions

Based on the literature and field reviews, it is determined that the project will have a biological conclusion of ‘no effect’ on Carolina heelsplitter and dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Based upon implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures, USFWS has confirmed a conclusion of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the northern long-eared bat.

At-Risk Species (ARS) do not currently receive legal protection from the ESA; therefore, a biological conclusion for these species is not provided. In the event additional species are listed as federally threatened or endangered prior to the construction of the project, SCDOT will consult with USFWS on the results of the surveys performed, if necessary, and will follow any USFWS regulations/requirements resulting from that consultation.

09 / 01 / 2015 SCDOT Authorized Agent’s Signature Date

7 Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

APPENDIX A

SITE LOCATION AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAPS

¤£221

Chesnee ¤£221

£18 £11 ³ 150£ 110£ ¨¦§85

£11 C S h p e VU96 a r r o t k a B 221 e ¤£ n r e 95 o b VU u C a r o d g u 85 R C n ¨¦§ £ o t 329 i y £18 v u e

n r t y

VU90 ¤£29

110£ 85 ¨¦§ 105£ VU87

Gaffney

Pa 150£ co le ¤£29 ¤£221 t R i ve £ r VU83 105 329£ ¨¦§85 £18 110£ VU80

Miles T h 78 i VU Cowpens c 0 0.625 1.25 2.5 3.75 5 29 S C ¤£ ke p h t ty a e r r C PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND Legend t o a r k e n INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT e e b k e u FROM MILE MARKER 80 TO MILE MARKER 96 Project Study Area (1,760 acres) £ r C 150 g o CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA ¤£29 C u 83 Exit Location/Number o n SCDOT PIN 27114 UV t u y n PRODUCED FOR: Major Creeks/Rivers t y --- SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FIGURE 1 Municipality SOURCE: DRAWN BY: MTD SITE LOCATION MAP TIGER 2010 ROAD, QA/QC BY: JBS County Boundary COUNTY, AND MUNICIPALITY DATA DATE: MAY 2015 2 - 2 e r u g i F e e S 4,000

³ d a

o FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE t

D 3,000 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL Feet 2,000 QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 85 § ¨ ¦ CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND 500

SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT d

PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY COUNTY[SPARTANBURG (2012)] 0

u B

Island Creek

v o i

R c

e l

a P

k e e r C

e e k o r e h C

h c n a r B e g id r B le o P 85

§ ¨ ¦

v o

a D Figure 2-1 Figure Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography Road sett Gos Legend 3 - 2 e r u g i F e e S

³ 4,000 FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 3,000

e MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL v ri D e p lo S y n n u S Feet 2,000 QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND 85 § ¨ ¦ 500

SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

d a

PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY COUNTY[SPARTANBURG (2012) AND CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] 0

a s

o n

R o

r n

e a b C b e W

ek Cre

ketty

Thic

le y

itt t

L n

y h t

C n

g r

t r

p S

t l u

n d r

a g d

l t

t a B £ 110 £ 110 Figure 2-2 Figure

M 85 § ¨ ¦

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography County Boundary Legend 1 - 2 e r u g i F e e S 4 - 2 e r u g i F e e S

³ 4,000 FIGURE 2-3 FIGURE 3,000 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL

a Feet o 2,000 ol R ho c JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: tt S MTD DRAWN BY: rra Sa FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 85 § ¨ ¦ --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND 500 SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY [CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] 0

e r G

oad er R Riv en Gre d oa R ia on ed ac

n no

Figure 2-3 Figure

a C 85 § ¨ ¦

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography 2 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Legend 5 - 2 e r u g i F e e S

³ 4,000

ue en

v 2-4 FIGURE A ge ed l 3,000

R MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL

h W Feet 2,000 QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 85 CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND § ¨ ¦ 500 SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY [CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED 0

e e

r C

e l

o C £ 105

eet t Str Hyat

treet

Hyatt S

L s

m e L Figure 2-4 Figure

oad k R ree cy C Nan

§ ¨ ¦

e r C y t t e k c i h T

k e

e C r l a C r y

d l O

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography 3 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Legend 6 - 2 e r u g i F e e S 4,000 18 ³ £ e

v i

w FIGURE 2-5 FIGURE

e Lake h t t Whelchel 3,000 a AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL M Feet 2,000 QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE:

DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: h

a e FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 n r

a B --- 85 L § ¨ ¦ t r e

a c 1,000

h INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

k n c e

L d i

CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA

PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND

v o

500 r

r SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT C

PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY [CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] 0

h C

£ 150

n £

i 150 r

i l

i d

o a B o R ce en id ov Pr Figure 2-5 Figure 11 £

d var ule r Bo ake yd B Flo

y a w h ig H e e n s e h C 85 § ¨ ¦

eet Str

ord

Buf 11 £

e r I n e k e C e r

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography 4 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Legend er 7 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Riv ad Bro ³ 4,000 FIGURE 2-6 FIGURE 3,000

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL

f Feet

2,000 a G QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND 500 18 £ SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY [CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] 0 85 § ¨ ¦

£ 329

h S 18 £ Figure 2-6 Figure

eek

y e Cr a ke

hero

w C

a n

R a

l r

e c

c S

n t

n e

i s

v a

o e

P P

Lake Whelchel Lake

e h 18 £

85 C

§ ¨ ¦

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography o

N 5 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Legend ³ 4,000 FIGURE 2-7 FIGURE 3,000 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY MAP PHOTOGRAPHY AERIAL Feet 2,000 QA/QC BY: JBSQA/QC BY: 85 DATE: MAY 2015 MAY DATE: DRAWN BY: MTD DRAWN BY: § ¨ ¦ FROM FROM MILE MARKERMARKERMILE 80TO 96 --- 1,000 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CHEROKEE AND SPARTANBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED INTERSTATE 85 (I-85) WIDENING AND 500 SOUTHOF CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

PRODUCED FOR: PRODUCED SOURCE: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY [CHEROKEE COUNTY (2007)] 0 k e

ay e hw r rg Hig

bu C s

Black e

n a

k C

o l

a f f

Figure 2-7 Figure

r B 85 § ¨ ¦

Project StudyProject Area (1,760 acres) (NHD) Dataset Flowlines National Hydrography 6 - 2 e r u g i F e e S Legend Biological Assessment Proposed Interstate 85 (I-85) Widening & Interchange Improvements Project From Mile Marker 80 to Mile Marker 96 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT PIN 27114

APPENDIX B

PROTECTED AQUATIC SPECIES SURVEY REPORT

This page intentionally left blank Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat

Project Submittal Form for FHWA, FRA, and Transportation Agencies Updated June 23, 2015

In order to use the programmatic informal consultation to fulfill Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, transportation agencies must use this form to submit project-level information for all may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determinations to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field office prior to project commencement. For more information, see the Standard Operating Procedure for Site Specific Project(s) Submission in the User’s Guide.

In submitting this form, the transportation agency ensures that the proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA. Upon submittal of this form, the appropriate Service field office may review the site-specific information provided and request additional information. If the applying transportation agency is not notified within 14 calendar days of emailing the Project Submittal Form to the Service field office, it may proceed under the range-wide programmatic informal consultation.

Further instructions on completing the form can be found by hovering your cursor over each text box.

1. Date:

2. Lead Agency: This refers to the Federal governmental lead action agency initiating consultation; select FHWA or FRA as appropriate

3. Requesting Agency:

a. Name:

b. Title:

c. Phone:

d. Email:

4. Consultation Code1:

5. Project Name(s):

1 Available through IPaC System Official Species List: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

6. Project Description: Please attach additional documentation or explanatory text if necessary

7. Other species from Official Species List:

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable habitat – see additional information attached

May Affect – see additional information provided for those species (either attached or forthcoming

8. For Ibat/NLEB, if Applicable, Explain Your No Effect Determination

No effect – project(s) are outside the species’ range (form complete)

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable summer habitat (form complete)

No effect from maintenance, alteration, or demolition of bridge(s)/structure(s) – results of inspection surveys indicate no signs of bats. (form complete)

No effect – other (see Section 2.2 of the User’s Guide – form complete)

Otherwise, please continue below.

9. Affected Resource/Habitat Type

Trees

Bridge

Other Non-Tree Roosting Structure (e.g., building)

Other (please explain):

10. For Tree Removal Projects:

a. Please verify that no documented roosts or foraging habitat will be impacted and that project is within 100 feet of existing road surface:

b. Please verify that all tree removal will occur during the inactive season2:

c. Timing of clearing:

d. Amount of clearing:

11. For Bridge/Structure Work Projects:

a. Proposed work:

b. Timing of work:

c. Evidence of bat activity on bridge/structure:

d. If applicable, verify that superstructure work will not bother roosting bats in any way:

e. If applicable, verify that bridge/structure work will occur only in the winter months:

2 Coordinate with local Service field office for appropriate dates.

12. Please confirm the following:

Proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA (see Section 2.0).

All applicable AMMs will be implemented, including3:

Tree Removal AMM 1: Dust Control AMM 1: Tree Removal AMM 2: Water Control AMM 1: Tree Removal AMM 3: Water Control AMM 2: Tree Removal AMM 4: Water Control AMM 3: Bridge AMM 1: Water Control AMM 4: Bridge AMM 2: Water Control AMM 5: Bridge AMM 3: Water Control AMM 6: Bridge AMM 4: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 1: Structure AMM 1: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 2: Structure AMM 2: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 3: Structure AMM 3: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 4: Structure AMM 4: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 5: Lighting AMM 1: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 6: Lighting AMM 2:

3 See AMMs Fact Sheet (Appendix B) for more information on the following AMMs.

FHWA and FRA Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Project Submittal Form; Bridge/Structure Inspections I-85 Widening from MM 80 to MM 96 Cherokee/Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT Project ID # 027114 August 2015

APPENDIX A

Figures Cherokee County Spartanburg County

Client: Figure 4

¨¦§85

B13 " Project: Figure 3 B12" "B11 I - 85 Widening C10! "B9 B10" !C9 From MM 80 to 96 !C8 Cherokee/Spartanburg Figure 2 Counties, SC !C7"B8 "B7 SCDOT Project ID # P027114 "B6 Title:

B5 " Bat Screening !C6 !C5 Location Map "B4 !C4

Source: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA "B3 B2!C3 C2 " Notes: B1 ! "!C1 ¨¦§85 Screenings for bats were conducted by STV Incorporated on August 11 and 12, 2015. All bridges within the project study area as well as pipes and culverts at least 60 inches high and 200 feet long were inspected.

Legend Drawn By: Checked By: Project Study Area . JLK WSB Bat Screening Locations Approved By: Date: " Bridge MAI 8/21/2015 ! Pipe/Culvert STV Inc. Project No. 4017129 0 1 2 4 Miles Bat Screening Figure 1 - Overview Legend Cherokee County Spartanburg County Project Study Area . Bat Screening Locations Client: " Bridge ! Pipe/Culvert

)"00 I-85 Exit Number

0 0.5 1 2 Project: Miles I - 85 Widening From MM 80 to 96 S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive) Bridge Cherokee/Spartanburg Counties, SC SCDOT Project ID # P027114 4' x 6' Box Culvert Title: "B5 10' x 12' Box Culvert Bat Screening ¨¦§85 Location Map SC 110 (Battleground Rd) Bridge !C6 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar C5 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, ! Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo. )"83 4' x 6' Box Culvert Notes: "B4 )"83 !C4 Screenings for bats were conducted by Pacolet River Bridge STV Incorporated on August 11 and 12, 2015. All bridges within the project study area as well as pipes and culverts at least CSX Railroad Bridge 60 inches high and 200 feet long were inspected. S-57 (Gossett Rd) Bridge "B3 C3 "B2 ! Drawn By: Checked By: !C2 )"80 "B1 JLK WSB )"80 !C1 60" Pipe Approved By: Date: 72" Pipe MAI 8/21/2015 ¨¦§85 72" Pipe STV Inc. Project No. 4017129

Bat Screening Figure 2 Legend

Project Study Area . SC 150 (Boiling Springs Highway) Bridge Bat Screening Locations Client: " Bridge SC 11 (Chesnee Highway) Bridge

! Pipe/Culvert 5' x 5' Box Culvert

)"00 I-85 Exit Number )"92 "B9 )"92 4' x 6' Box Culvert C10! B10" 0 0.5 1 2 Project: Miles !C9 I - 85 Widening From MM 80 to 96 ¨¦§85 Cherokee/Spartanburg 4' x 6' Box Culvert Counties, SC C8 ! SCDOT Project ID # P027114 Thicketty Creek Bridge )"90 "B8 Title: !C7 8' x 8' Box Culvert

"B7 Bat Screening Location Map SC 105 (Hyatt Street) Bridge

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar )"87 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, "B6 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo. )"87 Notes:

Screenings for bats were conducted by STV Incorporated on August 11 and 12, 85 S-39 (Macedonia/Green River Rd) Bridge 2015. All bridges within the project study ¨¦§ area as well as pipes and culverts at least 60 inches high and 200 feet long were inspected.

Drawn By: Checked By: JLK WSB

Approved By: Date: MAI 8/21/2015

STV Inc. Project No. 4017129

Bat Screening Figure 3 Legend Project Study Area . Bat Screening Locations Client: " Bridge ! Pipe/Culvert ¨¦§85 )"00 I-85 Exit Number

Broad River Project: 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I - 85 Widening From MM 80 to 96 Cherokee/Spartanburg Counties, SC SCDOT Project ID # P027114 B13" )"96 )"96 Title: B12"

)"95 Bat Screening )"95 B11" SC 18 (Shelby Highway) Bridge ¨¦§85 Location Map

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Cherokee Creek Bridge Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo. " Notes: S-82 (Pleasant School Rd) Bridge

Screenings for bats were conducted by STV Incorporated on August 11 and 12, 2015. All bridges within the project study area as well as pipes and culverts at least 60 inches high and 200 feet long were inspected.

Drawn By: Checked By: JLK WSB

Approved By: Date: MAI 8/21/2015

STV Inc. Project No. 4017129

Bat Screening Figure 4 FHWA and FRA Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Project Submittal Form; Bridge/Structure Inspections I-85 Widening from MM 80 to MM 96 Cherokee/Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT Project ID # 027114 August 2015

APPENDIX B

Representative Photographs

Photograph 1. View of S-57 (Gossett Road) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B1).

Photograph 2. View of CSX Railroad Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B2).

Photograph 3. View of I-85 Bridge over Pacolet River (Map ID B3).

Photograph 4. View of Dewberry Road Bridge over Pacolet River (Map ID B3).

Photograph 5. View of SC 110 (Battleground Road) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B4).

Photograph 6. View of S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B5).

Photograph 7. View of S-39 (Macedonia/Green River Road) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B6).

Photograph 8. View of I-85 Bridge over Thicketty Creek (Map ID B7).

Photograph 9. View of SC 105 (Hyatt Street) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B8).

Photograph 10. View of SC 11 (Chesnee Highway) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B9).

Photograph 11. View of SC 150 (Boiling Springs Highway) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B10).

Photograph 12. View of S-82 (Pleasant School Road) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B11).

Photograph 13. View of SC 18 (Shelby Highway) Bridge over Cherokee Creek (Map ID B12).

Photograph 14. View of I-85 Bridge over Cherokee Creek (Map ID B12).

Photograph 15. View of Wilcox Avenue Bridge (background) over Cherokee Creek (Map ID B12).

Photograph 16. View of SC 18 (Shelby Highway) Bridge over I-85 (Map ID B13).

Photograph 17. View of 72” RCP on Pole Bridge Branch at I-85 (Map ID C1).

Photograph 18. View of 72” RCP on UT to Pole Bridge Branch at I-85, Vintage Dr, and Conway Black Rd (Map ID C2).

Photograph 19. View of 60” RCP on UT to Pole Bridge Branch at I-85 (Map ID C3).

Photograph 20. View of 4’ x 6’ RCBC on UT to Pacolet River at I-85 and Bud Arthur Bridge Road (Map ID C4).

Photograph 21. View of 10’ x 12’ RCBC on Little Thicketty Creek at I-85 (Map ID C5).

Photograph 22. View of 4’ x 6’ RCBC on UT to Little Thicketty Creek at I-85, Swofford Dr, and Oglesby Ln (Map ID C6).

Photograph 23. View of 4’ x 6’ RCBC on UT to Little Thicketty Creek at I-85 and Lemmons Lane (Map ID C7).

Photograph 24. View of 8’ x 8’ RCBC on Cole Creek at I-85, Peachoid Road, and Windslow Avenue (Map ID C8).

Photograph 25. View of 4’ x 6’ RCBC on UT to Irene Creek at I-85, Peachoid Road, and Windslow Avenue (Map ID C9).

Photograph 26. View of 5’ x 5’ RCBC on Irene Creek at I-85, Peachoid Road, and Windslow Avenue (Map ID C10). FHWA and FRA Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Project Submittal Form; Bridge/Structure Inspections I-85 Widening from MM 80 to MM 96 Cherokee/Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina SCDOT Project ID # 027114 August 2015

APPENDIX C

Bridge/Structure Inspection Forms

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Bridge Inspection Form This form will be completed and submitted to the District Environmental Manager by the Contractor prior to conducting any work below the deck surface either from the underside, from activities above that bore down to the underside, or that could impact expansion joints, from deck removal on bridges, or from structure demolish. Each bridge/structure to be worked on must have a current bridge inspection. Any bridge/structure suspected of providing habitat for any species of bat will be removed from work schedules until such time that the DOT has obtained clearance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, if required. Additional studies may be undertaken by the DOT to determine what species may be utilizing structures prior to allowing any work to proceed. DOT Project # Water Body Date/Time of Inspection

Route: County: Federal Bat Indicators Structure ID: Check all that apply. Presence of one or more indicators is sufficient evidence that bats may be using the structure. Notes: (e.g.,number & species of bats, if known) Visual Sound Droppings Staining

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

All crevices >12” deep & not sealed Possible corridors for netting None/poor Marginal excellent Spaces between walls, ceiling joists All guardrails Evidence of bats using bird Yes No nests, if present? All expansion joints

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

1. Inventories must be completed prior to conducting any work below the deck surface on all bridges that meet the physical characteristics described in the Programmatic Informal Consultation, regardless of whether inventories have been conducted in the past. Due to the transitory nature of bat use, a negative result in one year does not guarantee that bats will not use that structure in subsequent years. 2. Contractors must complete this form no more than seven (7) business days prior to initiating work at each bridge/structure location. Legible copies of this document must be provided to the District Environmental Manager within two (2) business days of completing the inspection. Failure to submit this information will result in that structure being removed from the planned work schedule. 3. Any bridge/structure suspected of providing habitat for any species of bat will be removed from work schedules until such time that the DOT has obtained clearance from the USFWS, if required. Additional studies may be undertaken by the DOT to determine what species may be utilizing each structure identified as supporting bats prior to allowing any work to proceed. 4. Estimates of numbers of bats observed should be place in the Notes column. 5. Any questions should be directed to the District Environmental Manager.

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

APPENDIX C: Bridge/Structure Inspection Form

Areas Inspected (Check all that apply)

Bridges Culverts/Other Structures Summary Info (circle all that apply)

All vertical crevices sealed at the top Human disturbance or traffic and 0.5‐1.25” wide & ≥4” deep Crevices, rough surfaces or under bridge/in culvert or at High Low None

imperfections in concrete the structure

April 17, 2015

Spaces between concrete end walls and the bridge deck Vertical surfaces on concrete I‐ beams

Inspection Conducted By: ______Signature(s): ______

District Environmental Use Only: Date Received by District Environmental Manager: ______

DOT Bat Inspection Form Instructions

129

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Location and Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Background Information ...... 1

2.0 SURVEY PROTOCOLS/METHODOLOGY ...... 2

3.0 RESULTS/DISCUSSION 3.1 Site Conditions and Water Quality ...... 4 3.2 Biological Survey ...... 9 3.3 Summary ...... 9

4.0 QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT 4.1 Qualifications ...... 9

FIGURES Figures 1A-J Project Location Map

TABLE Table 1 Mollusk Summary

APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Protected Species Information Appendix C USFWS Site Condition Data Forms Appendix D USGS Stream Gage Information Appendix E Mollusk Photographs

i Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Location and Purpose

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) proposes improvements along Interstate 85 (I-85) from Exit 80 (S-57, Gossett Road) to Exit 96 (SC 18, Shelby Highway) in Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties, South Carolina. Proposed improvements will seek to reduce congestion, improve traffic operations, increase safety and increase capacity along this 16 mile stretch of interstate. I-85 will be widened to accommodate an additional travel lane in both the northbound and southbound directions. Several overpass bridges may be either be raised to provide a minimum 16-foot clearance or be replaced due to insufficient horizontal and vertical clearances This project may consist of interchange and bridge improvements at the following locations: CSX Railroad overpass at mile marker 80.2, Exit 82: leading to frontage road S-1012 (Buds Drive) and S-1013 (Bud Arthur Bridge Road), Exit 83: SC 110 (Battleground Road) overpass, S-131 (Sunny Slope Drive) overpass at mile marker 84.6, Exit 87: S-39 (Green River Road) overpass, Exit 90: SC 105 (Hyatt Street) overpass, Exit 92: SC 11 (West Floyd Baker Boulevard/Chesnee Highway) overpass, Exit 95: leading to frontage road S-661 (Hampshire Drive) and SC 18, S-82 (Pleasant School Road) overpass at mile marker 95.2, and Exit 96: SC 18 (Shelby Highway) overpass. Interchange improvements, bridge replacements, and/or increasing clearance of bridges over I-85 may require additional right-of-way to complete.

The proposed project is located in one United States Geological Survey (USGS) cataloguing unit: the Upper Broad River watershed cataloguing unit [USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050105].

As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project related impacts, a mussel survey was requested. Edwards-Pitman Environmental Inc. (EPEI) was contracted through Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering to conduct a mussel survey, targeting the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), within the I-85 project corridor.

1.2 Background Information

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System website (IPaC) (USFWS 2015) and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) (SCDNR 2014) did not list any federally protected mollusks for Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties (Appendix B – Protected Speceis Information). However, a mussel survey was conducted within the proposed project corridor for the Carolina heelsplitter at the request of SCDOT. Species’ name, legal status (federal), habitat

1 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015 requirements, species range (historical and present), and element occurrence data for the target species are presented below.

Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) – Federally Endangered and State Endangered The Carolina heelsplitter is a medium-sized mussel with a maximum length of 11.8 centimeters (4.7 inches). The shell is an ovate trapezoid, and the periostracum can vary from yellowish, greenish, or brownish coloration and may have black to green rays. The nacre can also vary from an iridescent white to a pale orange. The Carolina heelsplitter is found in large rivers and streams, but is restricted to cool, clean, shallow, heavily shaded streams with moderate gradient. The Carolina heelsplitter requires stable stream banks and channels, with clean well oxygenated water and little or no fine sediment (LeGrand et. al. 2010).

The Carolina heelsplitter’s historic range included several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Catawba, Pee Dee, Saluda, and Savanna River systems in South Carolina. Currently the Carolina heelsplitter is known from eleven populations in South Carolina, two in the Pee Dee; five in the Catawba; two in the Saluda; and two in the Savannah River Basins (LeGrand et. al. 2010 and pers. comm. Savage). The entire historic range is not known, but evidence indicates that this species was once more widely distributed (USFWS 1996).

Additional resources were used for background information on the distribution, ecology, and identification of freshwater mollusks. These resources included; Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina (Bogan et al. 2004); Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America (Burch 1975); The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998); Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee (Williams et. al., 2008); Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 2002); and NatureServe (2015).

2.0 SURVEY PROTOCOLS/METHODOLOGY

Aquatic surveys were conducted on October 6 through October 10, 2014 by EPEI aquatic ecologists Martin Melville and Ryan Niccoli. The proposed project is located within a rural area of Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina and is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of South Carolina. The elevations throughout the project corridor ranged from 625 feet to 940 feet above mean sea level (msl).

2 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

Survey Area This survey was conducted using the 2008 final aquatic survey protocol (USFWS 2008) for streams and rivers with water depths that are conducive to wading. The recommended distance for such streams is 900 feet downstream and 300 feet upstream of the road crossings for wadeable streams.

Site Conditions and Water Quality Perennial, intermittent, and dry stream conditions were assessed visually during a preliminary survey performed by EPEI ecologist Lee Williams on October 1 through October 4, 2014 and again during the October 6 through October 10, 2014 survey dates. Perennial streams with stable banks and relatively silt-free substrate were targeted for mussel surveys as instructed by Morgan Wolf, USFWS (Appendix B). Habitat characteristics (i.e., sediment, riparian condition, and water condition, etc.) were assessed through visual inspection and recorded on USFWS Site Conditions Field Data Forms (Appendix C). Water depths and stream widths were directly measured. A sketch was made of the surveyed stream to illustrate important stream characteristics, the locations of protected species, and other pertinent information. Additionally Perennial Stream (PS) 2 and PS 3 were surveyed downstream of the I-85 crossing due to poor habitat conditions upstream of the crossing. PS 26 was surveyed 1200 feet upstream from the confluence of PS 24 (Thicketty Creek) due to intermittent conditions near the I-85 crossing at the time of the survey.

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) were collected using a YSI DO 200 meter. Conductivity was measured using a YSI EC 300 meter. The pH of the water was measured using an Oakton Waterproof pH Testr 1. A LaMotte Model 2020 Turbidimeter provided turbidity measurements. Water quality data were collected in-stream and used to assess potential impacts to habitat quality and determine if the water was within the state water quality standards.

Mollusk Survey The survey was conducted in accordance with the Freshwater Mussel Survey Protocol for the Southeastern Atlantic Slope and Northeastern Gulf drainages in Florida and Georgia (USFWS 2008). The area was surveyed from downstream to upstream in a zigzag pattern. The visibility within the stream allowed for both visual and tactile techniques to be employed. The shoreline, exposed sand bars, and dry portions of the stream were visually searched for relic shells deposited by high flows or animals.

3 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

3.0 RESULTS/DISCUSSION

3.1 Site Conditions and Water Quality

The project area lies within a relatively rural area that was surrounded by residential properties intermixed with some commercial properties. Twelve streams were surveyed within the project corridor: PS 2, PS 3, PS 5, PS 8, PS 9, PS 15, PS 16, PS 24, PS 26, PS 30, PS 41, and PS 43 were surveyed for mussels. Other streams were present within the project corridor; however, these streams were either dry or had intermittent flow at the time of the aquatic surveys (PS 11, PS 13, PS 20, PS 21, PS 28, PS 29, PS 31, PS 36, PS 38, and PS 39) which were not suitable habitat for the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter. No survey was conducted on PS 32 due to stagnant flow and heavy sedimentation which is not suitable habitat conditions for the Carolina heelsplitter. Documentation of site conditions for the streams surveyed can be found in Appendix A – USFWS Site Condition Data Forms and Figures 1A-J – Project Location Map.

PS 2 PS 2 is within the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south within the project area. PS 2 is an impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 3 to 10 feet wetted width with 3 to 5 feet high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 4 feet on October 6, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (25%), silt (15%), fine sand (10%), coarse sand (10%), medium sand (10%), bedrock (15%), and cobble (15%). This section of PS 2 has poor sinuosity and the streambed is primarily dominated by shallow runs and riffles with the exception of the ponded areas downstream. The riparian buffer consists of natural forests (<25 feet wide).

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 2 are as follows: water temperature was 14.6 Celsius (°C); DO was 8.64 mg/L; conductivity was 58.7 µS; specific conductance was 70.3 µS/cm; pH was 8.00 standard units; and turbidity was 4.2 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).

PS 3 PS 3 is within the Broad River drainage that originates from the west and flows east under I-85. PS 3 is an impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 3 to 10 feet wetted width with 1 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 5 feet on October 6, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (40%), silt (10%), clay (5%), fine sand (10%), coarse sand (5%), medium sand (5%), bedrock (10%), and cobble (15%). This section of PS 3 has poor sinuosity and the instream habitat is primarily dominated by shallow runs and riffles with some pools. The riparian buffer consists of natural forests (25 to 75 feet wide).

4 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 3 are as follows: water temperature was 14.4 °C; DO was 7.77 mg/L; conductivity was 76.6 µS; specific conductance was 96.3 µS/cm; pH was 7.80 standard units; and turbidity was 4.8 NTU.

PS 5 PS 5 (Pacolet River) originates from the north and flows south under I-85. This section of PS 5 was approximately 1.75 miles downstream if the PS 5 is a somewhat impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 70 to 100 feet wetted width with 3 to 10 feet high unstable banks. The water depth was approximately 1 to 5 feet on October 8, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (35%), silt (10%), clay (5%), fine sand (5%), coarse sand (10%), medium sand (5%), bedrock (10%), and cobble (20%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 75 to 150 feet wide. This section of PS 5 has moderate sinuosity and the instream habitat is primarily dominated by shallow runs and riffles with some deep pools.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 5 are as follows: water temperature was 21.7°C; DO was 8.32 mg/L; conductivity was 45.9 µS; specific conductance was 49.1 µS/cm; pH was 7.84 standard units; and turbidity was 5.1 NTU.

PS 8 PS 8 is a tributary to the Broad River that originates from the southeast and flows northwest under I-85. PS 8 is an impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 1 to 4-foot wetted width with 1 to 15-foot high unstable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 3 feet on October 9, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (30%), silt (10%), clay (10%), fine sand (20%), coarse sand (10%), medium sand (10%), bedrock (5%), and cobble (5%). PS 8 has poor sinuosity and the instream habitat is primarily dominated by shallow runs and riffles. The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 25 to 75 feet wide that was surrounded with some residential properties on the south side of I-85.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 8 are as follows: water temperature was 18.5 °C; DO was 5.18 mg/L; conductivity was 76.2 µS; specific conductance was 87.1 µS/cm; pH was 6.60 standard units; and turbidity was 4.8 NTU.

PS 9 PS 9 is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south under I-85. PS 9 is an impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 1 to 6-foot wetted width with 2 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 2 feet on October 6, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel 5 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

(30%), clay (20%), fine sand (10%), coarse sand (10%), bedrock (15%), and cobble (15%). This section of PS 9 has poor sinuosity and the instream habitat is primarily dominated by shallow runs and riffles with some shallow pools. The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 25 to 75 feet wide that was some residential and commercial properties.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 9 are as follows: water temperature was 16.3 °C; DO was 7.09 mg/L; conductivity was 63.8 µS; specific conductance was 78.4 µS/cm; pH was 7.68 standard units; and turbidity was 3.7 NTU.

PS 15 PS 15 (Little Thicketty Creek) is a tributary to the Broad River drainage and originates from the north and flows south under I-85. PS 15 is an impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 2 to 10-foot wetted width with 3 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 3 feet on October 9, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (25%), silt (5%), clay (5%), fine sand (20%), coarse sand (20%), medium sand (10%), bedrock (5%), and cobble (10%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 100 to 150 feet wide. This section of PS 15 has moderate sinuosity and the streambed is dominated by shallow runs and riffles.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 15 are as follows: water temperature was 17.3 °C; DO was 8.48 mg/L; conductivity was 38.0 µS; specific conductance was 44.6 µS/cm; pH was 7.16 standard units; and turbidity was 5.3 NTU.

PS 16 PS 16 is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south under I-85. PS 16 is a somewhat impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 2 to 6-foot wetted width with 2 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 1-foot on October 7, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (25%), silt (15%), clay (10%), fine sand (20%), medium sand (10%), and coarse sand (20%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 100 to 150 feet wide. This section of PS 16 has poor sinuosity and the streambed is primarily dominated by shallow riffles and runs with a few pools.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 16 are as follows: water temperature was 16.5 °C; DO was 8.13 mg/L; conductivity was 69.4 µS; specific conductance was 72.7 µS/cm; pH was 7.83 standard units; and turbidity was 3.0 NTU.

6 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

PS 24 PS 24 (Thicketty Creek) is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south under I-85. PS 24 is a somewhat impaired perennial stream with approximately 10 to 30-foot wetted width with 3 to 12-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 1 to 5 feet on October 7, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (25%), silt (10%), clay (5%), fine sand (20%), coarse sand (15%), medium sand (5%), boulder (5%), bedrock (5%), and cobble (10%). The riparian buffer consists of a large forest >150 feet wide. This section of PS 24 has moderate sinuosity and the streambed consists of shallow runs and pools with some pools.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 24 are as follows: water temperature was 17.3 °C; DO was 7.76 mg/L; conductivity was 44.2 µS; specific conductance was 51.8 µS/cm; pH was 7.87 standard units; and turbidity was 4.9 NTU.

PS 26 PS 26 is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates east and flows west into PS 24. PS 26 is a somewhat impaired, perennial waterway with approximately 1 to 6-foot wetted width with 1 to 4-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 2 feet on October 7, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (40%), silt (5%), fine sand (15%), coarse sand (10%), medium sand (10%), bedrock (5%), and cobble (15%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 75 to 100 feet wide that has a fence line that parallels the north bank for approximately 150 feet. This section of PS 26 is moderately sinuous, high gradient and the streambed consists of shallow riffles and runs with very few pools.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 26 are as follows: water temperature was 15.4°C; DO was 8.76 mg/L; conductivity was 68.1 µS; specific conductance was 83.8 µS/cm; pH was 7.97 standard units; and turbidity was 2.9 NTU.

PS 30 PS 30 (Cole Creek) is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south under I-85. PS 30 is an impaired perennial waterway with approximately 3 to 10-foot wetted width with 2 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 6 inches to 4 feet on October 8, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (10%), silt (15%), fine sand (25%), medium sand (25%), and coarse sand (25%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 75 to 150 feet. This section of PS 30 has poor sinuosity and the streambed is primarily dominated by shallow riffles and runs.

7 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 30 are as follows: water temperature was 15.5 °C; DO was 8.61 mg/L; conductivity was 31.1 µS; specific conductance was 38.2 µS/cm; pH was 7.41 standard units; and turbidity was 5.3 NTU.

PS 41 PS 41 (Providence Branch) is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates west and flows east under SC 18 (Shelby Highway). PS 41 is an impaired perennial waterway with approximately 10 to 15-foot wetted width with 3 to 6-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 1 to 4 feet on October 9, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (20%), silt (10%), clay (5%), fine sand (20%), medium sand (10%), coarse sand (15%), bedrock (5%), and cobble (15%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 10 to 150 feet that was surrounded by a cleared field and residential properties. This section of PS 41 has moderate sinuosity and the streambed is primarily dominated by shallow riffles and runs with a few shallow pools.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 41 are as follows: water temperature was 16.4 °C; DO was 8.54 mg/L; conductivity was 95.3 µS; specific conductance was 113.9 µS/cm; pH was 7.90 standard units; and turbidity was 3.1 NTU.

PS 43 PS 43 (Cherokee Branch) is a tributary to the Broad River drainage that originates north and flows south under I-85. PS 41 is an impaired perennial waterway with approximately 8 to 20-foot wetted width with 3 to 8-foot high stable banks. The water depth was approximately 1 to 5 feet on October 10, 2014. The substrate consists of gravel (20%), silt (15%), clay (10%), fine sand (25%), coarse sand (20%), medium sand (5%), and cobble (5%). The riparian buffer consists of a forest that varies from 25 to 75 feet wide and is surrounded by residential properties and a sewer line easement. This section of PS 43 has moderate sinuosity and the streambed is primarily dominated by shallow runs and pools with a few riffles.

The water quality data recorded during the survey of PS 43 are as follows: water temperature was 16.1 °C; DO was 7.21 mg/L; conductivity was 121.2 µS; specific conductance was 138.4 µS/cm; pH was 7.50 standard units; and turbidity was 5.8 NTU.

The most pertinent gaging station for the I-85 project is the US Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station on the Thicketty Creek (02153700) at County Road 42, near Gaffney, South Carolina. This gaging station indicated that Thicketty Creek was slightly above the median daily flow value for that site on the dates of the survey (Appendix D – USGS Stream Gage Information) (USGS 2015). 8 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

3.2 Biological Survey

Mollusk Survey Eastern creekshells (Villosa delumbis) were the only mussels collected during the I-85 surveys. Six live and four relict eastern creekshells were collected in PS 24 (Thicketty Creek) and one relict eastern creekshell was collected in PS 43 (Cherokee Branch). The invasive Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) was observed within PS 5, PS 9, PS 15, PS 24, PS 26, PS 41 and PS 43. A summary of the mollusks collected is presented in Table 1 – Mollusk Summary and Appendix E – Mollusk Photographs.

3.3 Summary

The federally protected Carolina heelsplitter was the target species for the proposed project. Generally this species inhabits cool, clean waterways with silt free bottoms and stable stream banks.

The Carolina heelsplitter was not observed within the 12 streams surveyed. No suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter was observed within PS 2, PS 3, PS 5, PS 8, PS 9, PS 15, PS 16, PS 26, PS 30, or PS 41. Potentially suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter was observed within PS 24 and PS 43. However, there has been no recent or historical documentation of the Carolina heelsplitter within the Broad River basin; therefore, the proposed project would have a recommended biological determination of no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter or its appropriate habitat.

4.0 QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT

4.1 Qualifications

Martin Melville and Ryan Niccoli conducted the field surveys. Mr. Melville was the lead ecologist on this survey and has over 14 years of experience conducting aquatic surveys, including fish and mussel surveys, across the southeast. He holds the appropriate state (F-14-02) and federal (TE063179-5) permits for sampling in South Carolina.

Mr. Melville was responsible for the field species identifications, voucher species identifications, and writing the aquatic report. He has approximately 14 years consulting experience, working extensively on aquatic surveys and ecology studies. Mr. Melville has a B.S. in Fisheries Science (2003) and a M.S. in Biology (2006) from Tennessee Technological University.

9 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

Mr. Ryan Niccoli was responsible for assisting with field surveys and the initial species identifications. He has over five years of experience conducting wildlife surveys for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Mr. Niccoli has a B.S. in Environmental Studies (2008) and an M.S. in Environmental Sciences (2009) with a concentration in Ecology from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Mr. Williams was responsible for the preliminary survey. He has over 6 years of experience in environmental studies for GDOT as well as over 11 years of experience in the environmental science field. Mr. Williams has a B.S. in Animal Sciences with a Minor in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology from Clemson University and a Master’s in Forest Resources from Clemson University. He is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist and a certified Associate Wildlife Biologist® through The Wildlife Society.

10 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

FIGURES

PS 5 Matchto Figure1B

PS 3 PS 3

PS 2

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1A - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯ Match to Figure 1C PS 9

PS 9

PS 11 PS 8 PS 8

PS 8 Matchto Figure1A

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1B - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯ Matchto Figure1D

PS 13 PS 16

PS 16 PS 15

PS 15

Match to Figure 1B Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1C - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯ Match to Figure 1E Matchto Figure1C

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1D - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯ Matchto Figure1F

PS 20

PS 21

Match to Figure 1D Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1E - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union PS 30

PS 28 ¯ PS 29 Matchto Figure1G

PS 24 Matchto Figure1E PS 26

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1F - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯

PS 32 Matchto Figure1H PS 32

PS 31

PS 30

PS 28 PS 29

PS 30

Matchto Figure1F Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1G - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯

Match to Figure 1G Figure 1H - Project Location Map Location Project - 1H Figure Cherokee and SpartanburgCherokeeand Counties 0 I-85 Widening MM 80-96 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Cowpens, Series, South, Valley7.5' Topographic) Blacksburg Source: (USGS Quadrangles SC Falls, Legend County Boundary County Streams Perennial Area Survey Spartanburg A B C D E Cherokee F G Union H I J Match to Figure 1I ¯ PS 43

PS 36 PS 39

PS 38 Matchto Figure1J Matchto Figure1H PS 41 PS 41

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1I - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union ¯

PS 46 Matchto Figure1I

Source: Blacksburg South, Cowpens, Gaffney, Valley Falls, SC Quadrangles (USGS 7.5' Series, Topographic) Figure 1J - Project Location Map Legend J G H I E F C D I-85 Widening MM 80-96 Survey Area A B Cherokee Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties Perennial Streams County Boundary Spartanburg Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Union

TABLE

Table 1. Mollusk Summary

CONSERVATION STREAM COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Live Relict STATUS PS 2 None None 0 0 None PS 3 None None 0 0 None PS 5 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea >100 >100 None PS 8 None None 0 0 None PS 9 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea 2 9 None PS 15 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea 19 6 None PS 16 None None 0 0 None Eastern creekshell Villosa delumbis 6 4 None PS 24 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea >100 >100 None PS 26 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea 27 6 None PS 30 None None 0 0 None PS 41 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea 39 12 None Eastern creekshell Villosa delumbis 0 1 None PS 43 Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea 4 23 None

Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

APPENDICES

Appendix A

References

REFERENCES

Bogan, A.E., and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina. Revised Second Edition.

Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Mollusca: Pelycypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan.

LeGrand, Jr., H.E., J.T. Finnegan, S.E. McRae, S.P. Hall. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2014. SC Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species Inventory: County. Wildlife Resources Division, Columbia South Carolina; Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/index.html

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Parmalee, P.W., and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule. 50 CFR 17, Federal Register (July 2, 2002), Vol. 67, No. 127, Pages 44502-44522.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Freshwater Mussel Protocol for the Southeastern Atlantic Slope and Northeastern Gulf Drainages in Florida and Georgia.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website; http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

United States Geologic Survey. 2015. USGS Current Water Data for Georgia. http://water.usgs.gov/realtime.html.

Savage, T. June 4, 2015. Personal Communication: Phone Conversation with Tim Savage Concerning the Carolina Heelsplitter Range and Status in South Carolina.

Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin and Tennessee. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Appendix B

Protected Species Information

Ryan Niccoli

From: Martin Melville Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:27 PM To: Ryan Niccoli Subject: FW: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

From: Martin Melville [mailto:mmelville@edwards‐pitman.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:48 PM To: 'Lee Williams' Subject: FW: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Here you go.

Martin

From: Morgan Wolf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:37 PM To: Martin Melville Subject: RE: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Hi Martin, For survey purposes, perennial streams with stable banks and relatively silt‐free substrate should be targeted. Streams with course, shifting sand substrates, and/or large amounts of fine silt are not suitable habitat for freshwater mussels. Take care, Morgan

Morgan K. Wolf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Office: (843) 727‐4707 ext. 219

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

From: Martin Melville [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:25 PM To: 'Morgan Wolf' Subject: RE: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Morgan,

Thanks for the quick response. We are tasked to survey this corridor even though this project is outside their range. What stream characteristics should we look for to determine whether a survey is needed for the Carolina heelsplitter? Also I have attached our federal and state mussel permits for your use.

1 Martin

From: Morgan Wolf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:44 PM To: Martin Melville Subject: RE: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Hi Martin, The project area described is outside of the range of the Carolina heelsplitter, and therefore project activities would not be expected to impact the species. However, for future projects, keep in mind that surveys conducted within the range of the heelsplitter must be completed by a federally permitted entity. A state collection permit is required as well. Six additional freshwater mussels species have been petitioned for listing, with listing decisions expected after 2017. Although not required, surveys of the proposed project area could help compile distribution data for these and other species. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks, Morgan

Morgan K. Wolf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Office: (843) 727‐4707 ext. 219

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

From: Martin Melville [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:16 PM To: 'Morgan Wolf' Subject: RE: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Morgan,

Thanks for sending me this information. Since the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) does not occur within these counties do you think we should focus on headwater perennial streams instead of intermittent streams for this SC DOT project? This project corridor is between mile markers 80 and 96 on Interstate 85 and is within the Upper Broad River Drainage. Do you have any other suggestions for this project pertaining to mussels?

Thanks,

Martin

From: Morgan Wolf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:47 AM To: Martin Melville Subject: FWS county lists for Greenville, Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties

Hi Martin,

2 See attached. Hope these help and let me know if you need anything else. Take care, Morgan

Morgan K. Wolf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Office: (843) 727‐4707 ext. 219

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

Appendix C

USFWS Site Condition Data Forms

Appendix D

USGS Stream Gage Information

Appendix D

Mollusk Photographs

Photograph 1. Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) collected in PS 24.

Photograph 2. Eastern creekshell collected in PS 43.

1 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

Photograph 3. Representative photograph of the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) collected in PS 5, PS 9, PS 15, PS 24, PS 26, PS 41, and PS 43.

2 Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties June 2015

This page intentionally left blank From: Gordon, Siobhan To: Kelly, David P. Subject: FW: 04ES1000-2015-SLI-0574; I-85 Widening Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 1:47:41 PM

NLEB consultation complete

Siobhan O. Gordon

From: Morgan Wolf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 11:19 AM To: Gordon, Siobhan Subject: 04ES1000-2015-SLI-0574; I-85 Widening

Hi Siobhan, The Service has reviewed the project submittal form for the above referenced project, and no additional information is needed. Thanks, Morgan

Morgan K. Wolf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 Office: (843) 727-4707 ext. 219

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