20161268 Ver 1_Red-Cockaded WoodPecker Habitat Analysis_20110126

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
FORAGING HABITAT ANALYSIS REPORT
FOR US HIGHWAY 17 BYPASS OF HAMPSTEAD (R-3300),
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Environment Unit
26 January 2011

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
FORAGING HABITAT ANALYSIS REPORT
FOR US HIGHWAY 17 BYPASS OF HAMPSTEAD (R-3300),
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a
United States (US) Highway 17 bypass of the Town of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender
Counties. The project is known as Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) R-3300 and
includes several build alternatives.
Four red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) clusters on the Holly Shelter
Game Lands (HSGL) and 1 private land cluster were located within a 0.5 mile radius of the
proposed Hampstead Bypass corridor. In the interest of time and to allow NCDOT to make
highway alternative decisions prior to submittal of the Biological Assessment for this project,
Dr. J.H. Carter 111 & Associates, Inc. (JCA, Inc.) is supplying a Foraging Habitat Analysis Report
(FHA). The FHA report is brief and only includes methodology, results and discussion and
conclusions per the scope of work.
METHODS
Ground and aerial surveys within a 0.5 mile radius of each R-3300 alignment were
conducted by a NCDOT biologist in January-March 2008. NCDOT found 4 HSGL clusters
(I PL, 17, 17A and EC) and 1 previously unknown private land cluster (PVT 1) located within the
survey area. NCDOT supplied JCA, Inc. with 0.5 mile radius foraging habitat partitions for the
impacted clusters (PVT 1, 1PL, 17, 17A and EC).
Forest stand data (foraging habitat data) were collected by JCA biologists for Clusters
PVT 1, 17 and EC in November and early December 2010. Data were not taken for Cluster 1 PL
and 17A. Cluster 1 PL was not located within the 0.5 mile radius of the proposed project corridor
and the proposed highway corridor only impacted nonforaging habitat (developed area) with the
foraging habitat partition of Cluster 17A.
Plots were placed every 5 chains along transects spaced approximately 5 chains apart for a
total of 152 plots for Cluster PVT 1, 55 plots for Cluster 17 and 93 plots for Cluster EC.
Foraging substrate for the partitions was measured with a 10-factor basal area (BA) prism using
the prism-plot method. Pine BA, the number of pines > 4 inches in diameter at breast height
(dbh) in 2-inch diameter classes and the age of a representative dominant pine were obtained in
each plot. Habitats were divided into 4 types: sparse pine (0 to 40 square feet (sq. ft.) of pine
BA/ acre), moderately dense pine (>40 to 70 sq. ft. of pine BA/ acre), dense pine (70+ sq. ft. of
pine BA/ acre) and unsuitable habitat. Unsuitable foraging habitat consisted of hardwood-pine
drains, bays or pocosins void of pine trees, clearcuts, agricultural lands, permanently cleared
areas, treeless developed areas and road and powerline ROWS.
Pine stands were also assessed by the density and height of the midstory in accordance with
the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) and its designation of quality requirements for RCW
foraging habitat. Determining midstory density was subjective, but followed these basic criteria: a
stand with a sparse hardwood midstory had few or no hardwoods present, a stand with a dense
hardwood midstory had limited visibility and movement through the stand was difficult, and a stand
with a moderately dense hardwood midstory was intermediate. Each habitat type was further
subdivided according to hardwood midstory height. Midstory hardwoods less than 7 feet (ft.) in
height were considered low, hardwoods from 7-15 ft. high were considered moderate and
hardwoods more than 15 ft. high were considered tall.
Impacts were assessed pursuant to Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended, using the Standard for Managed Stability (SMS) and the Recovery Standard
Guidelines (RSG) (USFWS 2003). Foraging habitat was also evaluated pursuant to a
memorandum issued by then USFWS RCW Recovery Coordinator, Ralph Costa, on 4 May 2005.
According to the guidelines presented in the memorandum, an incidental take is assumed for the
group/cluster if the post-project foraging habitat totals are below the minimum pine BA and/or
acreage required by the SMS.
The SMS requires a minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. of pine BA in stems > 10 inches dbh on at
least 75 acres of good quality foraging habitat as defined below (USFWS 2003).
1. Pine stands must be at least 30 years of age or older.
2. Average BA of pines > 10 inches dbh should be between 40 and 70 sq. ft. /acre.
) 2
3. Average BA of pines < 10 inches dbh should be less than 20 sq. ft. /acre.
4. No hardwood midstory exists, or if a hardwood midstory is present, it must be sparse
and less than 7 ft. in height.
5. Total stand BA, including overstory hardwoods, should be less than 80 sq. ft. /acre.
Additionally, all land counted as foraging habitat must be within 200 ft. of another
foraging stand and the cluster and all stands counted as foraging habitat should be within 0.25
mile of the cluster (USFWS 2003).
USFWS guidance since the Recovery Plan has established the following clarification of
the total stand BA requirement:
• Overstory hardwood BA must be <10 sq. ft. / acre.
• Total stand BA can exceed 80 sq. ft. / acre if the maximum limits for overstory
hardwood. BA and pines <10 inches dbh are not exceeded, and the BA in pines 10-14
inches dbh is 40-70 sq. ft. /acre (in other words, the excess BA is comprised of pines
>14 inches dbh.) (R. Costa, USFWS, pers. comm.).
Foraging habitat was also analyzed using a minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. of pine BA in stems
>8 inches dbh on good quality foraging habitat because of site conditions that resulted in slow
growth and a paucity of pines > 10 inches dbh (see results).
Foraging habitat available for the cluster was first evaluated using a 0.25 mile radius
foraging partition. If the minimum SMS requirements were not met within the 0.25 mile radius
partition, a 0.5 mile radius partition was used.
The RSG requires a minimum of 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat in areas with
high site productivity as defined above or 200-300 acres of good quality foraging habitat in areas
of low productivity.
The RSG defines good quality foraging habitat as follows (USFWS 2003):
I. There should be a minimum of 18 pine stems >14 inches dbh per acre that are
> 60 years old. The minimum BA for these pines should be 20 sq. ft. / acre.
2. The BA for pines from 10-14 inches dbh should be from 0-40 sq. ft. / acre.
3. The BA of pines <10 inches dbh should be below 10 sq. ft. / acre and below 20
stems / acre.
4. The minimum BA for categories I and 2 above should be 40 sq. ft. / acre.
5. Native herbaceous ground cover should total 40 percent (%) or more.
6. No hardwood midstory exists, or if present, is sparse and less than 7 ft. in
height.
7. Canopy hardwoods are absent or less than 10% of the number of canopy
trees in longleaf forests and less than 30% of the number of canopy trees in loblolly
and shortleaf forests.
8. All habitat is within 0.5 mile of the center of the cluster.
9. Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 ft. of non-foraging habitat.
Pine stands that met the SMS and RSG overstory guidelines and had a sparse hardwood
midstory, a moderately dense hardwood midstory that was low in height or a dense hardwood
midstory that was low in height were considered "suitable" foraging habitat. Dense pine stands
with a BA of> 70 ft'` /acre were counted as suitable only if the majority of the pines were >14
inches dbh (USFWS pers. comm.).
"Potentially suitable habitat" was described as stands that met most requirements, but
exceeded the maximum limits of pines in certain dbh classes, hardwood midstory density/ height
and/or overstory hardwood density. These stands have the necessary pine BA and could meet the
SMS with midstory removal, prescribed burning and/or thinning. Stands with suitable overstory
characteristics containing a moderately dense or dense midstory that was moderate or tall in
height were in this potentially suitable category.
All stands on sites managed for pine dominance that did not fall into the suitable or
potentially suitable categories were classified as "future potential habitat." These stands will
require time and management to meet the SMS requirements.
Foraging habitat removals from the affected foraging partitions were based on the study
area design provided by NCDOT (August 2010). To calculate the clearing limits, biologists
created and overlaid a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer of the existing road corridor
and the project design onto an aerial photograph. JCA biologists calculated foraging habitat
removals using ArcGISTM software.
RC W foraging habitat separated by more than 61 m (200 ft.) from other foraging habitat
was considered non-contiguous and was not counted as available habitat (USFWS 2003).
Habitat made non-contiguous by project impacts was subtracted from post-project totals.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
HSGL Clusters 17 and EC were confirmed as active during morning and evening roost
checks in November 2010. Cluster PVT I contained cavity trees that were possibly active, but
no RCWs were seen roosting there during site visits.
The proposed Hampstead Bypass minimization alternative corridor (R-3300) removes
foraging habitat from only Clusters PVT I, 17 and EC (Figure 1). None of these clusters meet
pre-project SMS requirements for the 0.25 mile radius foraging partition. SMS and RSG data
analysis results for each cluster's 0.5 mile radius partition follow.
Foraging Habitat Analyses
Private Land Cluster 1: Cluster PVT I has 429.2 forested acres within its foraging habitat
partition. Soil indices showed that 64.2% of the partition was located on low productivity soils
and 35.8% was located on medium productivity soils (MRCS 1990). A minimum of 223 acres
should be managed in order to meet the RSG (USFWS 2003).
The pre-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 4,060.56 sq. ft. of pine BA on 428.54
acres of future potential habitat (includes >8 inch dbh pine stems) (Figure 2 and Table 1). There
was no suitable habitat or potentially suitable habitat. The highway corridor will remove 64.74
sq. ft. of pine BA on 6.91 acres of future potential habitat (Figure 2 and Table 1). The post-
project SMS foraging habitat totals were 3,995.82 sq. ft. of pine BA on 421.63 acres of future
potential habitat (Figure 2 and Table 1). This partition does not meet the SMS requirements pre-
project due to the lack of suitable and/ or potentially suitable pine BA or acreage.
The highway corridor will remove 6.91 acres of future potential foraging habitat on the
edge of the 0.5 mile radius foraging habitat partition. Additionally, no RCWs were seen roosting
at the cluster. For these reasons, no incidental take of RCWs will occur.
The pre-project RS foraging habitat totals were 4,060.56 sq. ft. of pine BA on 428.54
acres of future potential habitat (Figure 2 and Table 2). There was no suitable or potentially
suitable habitat. The highway corridor will remove 64.74 sq. ft. of pine BA on 6.91 acres of
future potential habitat. The post-project RS foraging habitat totals were 3,995.82 sq. ft. of pine
BA on 421.63 acres of future potential habitat.
5
a)
U '
Q
_E
N
C
O
m
Q
(4
L
m
= C
CD O
( m
oU
o
mZ
a)
c
M
O
LU
o
a)
c ?
? C
a)
N ?
a)
.? f0
CL
U E
(U
U
CD
vo
M
M
f'
L L
O0
0
O +?
_U U
a O
v L
Y to
U N
a) m
Q C.
O Cc
O
3 ?
m ?
? a
c? E
U
02
U .O
? a)
O N
O
0 0-
0
c Q
0
a)
f4 L
J .p
a)
O
m
47
Ol
U-
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
r
O
O
E
O
LL
Stand ID
u J I A - Upland longleaf pine (LL)
S ridge - unburned
C - Carolina Bay/upland ridge
transition (LL and pond
pine (PP)) - unburned
D - Carolina Bay - unburned (PP)
G - Loblolly pine plantation
Pine Density
Sparse
Moderate
Dense
Midstory Density
l? Sparse
® Moderate
® Dense
Mistory Height
YM?
,?'° Low
Moderate
Ta I I
Non-Foraging
- Habitat
Proposed Hampstead
Bypass Project Corridor
(R-3300)
Figure 2. Foraging habitat analysis for red-cockaded woodpecker Cluster PVT 1 impacted by the proposed
Hampstead Bypass project corridor (R-3300), Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
Co
L F'
3 _
a. L
a 5
? c
C ?
Ci
G G
ftr
G
rn
7
ry
G
G
C
7
J

z_ a m i• _ i
- ?
m
?J 77 ^J T - n

_ _ r C

W Y
y ? ? ?
N L
N
C
T
n J ?
N
W L i L
J1 J '? '
'
?

?'
x c J
?
W '/I
L V

-
L
G
L LJ - _

'JI

O V f N
t?
-
I J ?
L
i T
J. C
.I+
J tJ
A y
T v
J v
T

I'J i
i IJ W ?
rr rt
_
- IJ
fJ ?
T pp V _
_
IJ - T T
Y
W i J F -

IJ
ya

_
{.
?
y
v,
a

r
- S

!

bo
IN
O

?
?
m
x
tJ
r

? n
s
Jt v
C ?

y 1 rn r
C [= C d G. r C. d

?- y L - _ i
%v r r r, ? c r ep 7 L
- 0 0

'- p p 0 0 ?

L z

a
? CO C CO _. i.
p
O O p
8 6 ?
? 'L"
O O C ,^? O D
= 8 $ 8 8

:7 H.
? Op
? 7' i
= p
O O S 8 "
'
O O O O 'r,
- 8 Q
8 Q
8 o
8 f
Ti.

OO O p - -
O p
O O p
S p
G
p _
? -

Y
N
PC
(
b
-
.? - L N
1D _
Y J - i IJ
f? X Z x ?Z i ?l -
?! -- '« - -

y

i f
y 7,
L Z
_ '1' Y
01
.? J '? V V
V
Q
Jt j L- 1' 1»
7?
f J J-- J ?? ?l
?
y- 1 i ?1 LAM L

Tr -

/ v tJ W
?
.?
T 0 -. J J X L
y fJ
4? ?' ? ? ?
.. /t i _ r ? i
X
-
r Of x ..,
P O 4 - 1 J -- ,?, -- J

? N
W
x
t
W
'I
r (A - L vi
1 v

7
O

J 8 O? `l i N J? 1. O I ? -,1 y -

b
r
n
V.
fr r
'S
w
Q G
- f
ti
(-) Cl.
r
C O
? T
Q
T
2
ti
r
MC
's
C.7
J
N
tic
P'
y
0
(fq
A
c
a;
C
Z,
r
i?
C
?.J
!:J
f
IV
7
f;
c
i
t
rill
C
r•
r'^
1
fi^
tic

G G C G
C ^. y
= 3 o m
G: W N G
•T w _
C -
G
G G
r?
O ?
G
G
G
ti
'
0 0 li c o
m n, z d m ir. ?
7 T•1 T x ?

O
rq
? _
?
R n

U
C C G
S ? O
? O „ C
7

o - c o s

i 4- r

1

N
W i

J I
.f J

/ G FD
rJ

P Ji _ J W ^ ?
G I

A
pp
_ J '
00 =
- , 7c -Z
r
? 2 n

N -

A
L
N rJ
IJ
i- tJ
y
a
?
rJ ? - ? r
?
.
f
'
T w L - .rr
x s - rr W

rJ L N .+ ^ W

?
p
O N a W ? ? ?

O
iv - r,
- r:

f;
i
J - T
v i x C.
PJ A A A
4- LA

77-

N
v.

?
?
VI
a
?
oo
Ic
? CC
C
W ' v S ..•.

- r, fJG

L G. r L E. F-
m r L ti ? r ? r• b r. ? F ? X
r. _
I
y

W G.
- - c. T L C-
r ry
d N r
? W r A - l R ?r N W ?
L -
_
J ly
r 4 r L ry
O fr i f

.
n
N r ?_
C
i4
. ?3 .
ry
? G
r

N
O O O O O ?'
O O p
C p
O p
S ?

?
f. r
?
et

? C C O O _? ?fi.
O Q
S Q
8 Q
S r"
O O

O C CC C + :n C
O Q
G Q
G G ? C
r

r
'
C e Oe ? ?_
- Y
V' r
pp
C p
O O O S !

1

0 0o O e o >
O O S C
O p
S `r V%
C = •? I J

,r, o 0 o C O -
O p
G p
O C
8 p
S ''

O O O O O 'r• ?y
p p
S p
O p
O p
S
7 f'
I V

- Y

O
O
O
O
O
C., _
?
p
O p
O p
S p
S i
J.
y
00
- _ -
J-
N _ _

I J pp
Cll v I J +I .. - J? L •C - L I J .^ -• JO 'JI J- 1'.

L cr,

e 'l, J, A ? / - V J 00 j?' IJ V ? I'J V ... .G - r w ? W r'J ? J W
C = ^
.. `- +• L
X I_J V h0
I J L ^F IJ - - 'J'J'
T ? X
- r 3G W
V
Ji ? I ?•
.n ? -
+, X r? 'JI y
T ? I. J

?O O N W r_ p L 'tr 'J,
O 'Jr - .- W vl ? W T ? ?t
- G.

fJ^,
Cluster 17: Cluster 17 has 95.0 forested acres v? ithin its foraging habitat partition. Soil indices
showed that 16.21/0 of the partition was located on low productivity soils and 83.8% was located
on medium productivity soils (NRCS 1990). A minimum of' 187.0 acres should be managed in
order to meet the RSG (U SI. WS 2003).
The pre-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 2 >3.16 sq. ft. of pine BA on 4.89 acres
of suitable habitat. 2602.40 sq. ft. of pine BA on 48.85 acres ofpotcntially suitable habitat and
1413.81 sq. ft. ofpine BA on 41.25 acres of future potential habitat (includes >8 inch dbh pine
stems) (Figure 3 and Table 3). This partition does not meet the SMS requirements pre-project
due to insufficient pine BA and suitable and /or potentially suitable acreage.
The highway corridor will remove 362.89 sq. ft. of pine BA on 7.18 acres of potentially
suitable habitat and 107.14 sq. ft. of pine BA on 2.23 acres of future potential habitat. The
proposed highway corridor is greater than 200 ft. w ide. making the remaining habitat on the
southeastern side of the corridor non-contiguous habitat. The highway corridor will remove
155.50 sq, tt. of pine BA on 3.36 acres of non-contiguous. suitable habitat. 1374.06 sq. ft. of pine
BA on 24.54 acres of non-contiguous. potentially suitable habitat, and 172.15 sq. ft. of pine BA
on 3.53 acres of non-contiguous future potential habitat (Figure 3 and fable 3). The post-project
SMS foragino habitat totals were 77.67 sq. ft. of pine BA on 1.54 acres of suitable habitat,
865.45 sq. ft. of pine BA on 17.13 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 1134.51 sq. ft. of pine
BA on 35.49 acres of future potential habitat (Fi('ure 3 and "Fable 3). This partition will not meet
the SMS requirements post-project. The additional acreage made available if the highway
corridor is narrowed to less than 200 ft. will not provide sufficient acreage or pine BA to meet
SMS requirements post-project.
'The pre-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 4249.37 sq. ft. ofpine BA on 95.0 acres
of future potential habitat (Figure 3 and Table 4). There was no suitable habitat. The highway
corridor will remove 470.04 sq. ft. of pine BA on 9.41 acres of future potential habitat and
1,701.71 sq. ft. of pine BA on 31.42 acres of non-contiguous, future potential habitat. The post-
project RSG foraging habitat totals were 2077.6 sq. ft. of pine BA on 54.15 acres of future
potential habitat.
10
N Stand ID
W Z? F A - Upland longleaf pine (LL)
ridge-unburned
S B - Upland LL pine ridge -
burned
C - Carolina Bay/upland pine ridge
transition (LL and Pond Pine (PP))
E - Carolina Bay burned (PP)
G - Loblolly Pine (LOB) plantation
E I - Residential Loblolly Pine (LOB)
J - Residential Pond Pine (PP)
Pine Density
Sparse
Moderate
Dense
Midstorv Densitv
Sparse
® Moderate
® Dense
Mistory Height
? Low
Moderate
0 Tall
Non-Foraging
Habitat
Proposed Hampstead
Bypass Project Corrid
(R-3300)

9
0 125250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Figure 3. Foraging habitat analysis for red-cockaded woodpecker Cluster #17 located on Holly Shelter Game
Lands and impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project corridor (F-3300), Hampstead,
Pender County, North Carolina. 11

-r1
s
O
O
.j
N
JC
V:
J
J:
J
ff?
rl
f.
J
L
:[l
L
L
C
J
J
r
C3
y11
:r1
r

y
1
J
?J
L
Q ?
J ry
}L_
J.
V CJ
y
L
; 7
VJ
L
r
C ?
CS
C L
O v
O
r?
J V
.O
,O
i -
:J
L '-
ff?
L
F-
_
O O C C O G 'V
a:
a
O ?
? S
O S 8
O O D ? v
O N1 S
O C
G

e o o = o o c -
o y'
v
m
:f 8 -
c _ S
o e S -
e .? .V 8
c 8
o r
ri

a°
i

0
e
7

-

y

O -

a L ?
0 C;

O
? =
y Z
O

S
CC 10
5 -

46
T -'
Y
W V
v

L
v

L
t ?
L
7 .S.

O
O V

?

T

v
C
L T

-
C
T
m P
c
o
-

t s
a
R

-

C G
h _
-
y

? A
L L o

O P
C n _ a
O
? 1 n? n ? n

ti
`J
..J
'J
'J
'J
l
n
J
G.
.c
r.
.c
s
L
J
i
G

l
J
G rT
N x ? ? K h J h
+
. i N
? ._ - - ? d .
- i0 r r n - ._ I r r I R ?• I-.

c O
a
o
U a

_ - w d ci e - ci

C
d ?

p ?r?1
-_- = d a O r r = d C p:

? G F ?
h--
t` .. r- m r r 1 nl r O r H - 1 n r l ; - V.
- T

1 - V N r0
T - -_ S r i rh'1 n _ x=_ n r l _ r'i r l = n . ?. v _ 7 P r M Y

o = 8 8 S 8 8 H 8 ?
J _ d C d C a a O

O
U
z `' - 8 8 H 8 8 8 8
d d d d e d d
?_ S 8 8 8 8 S 8
. .c e d d d d e d j

?
E
5
S 8 8 8 8 8 8 g
- d d e d d d m
- ? 8 8 8 H 8 8 8 S
- d d d o d d d -
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a
C G a d d C a L.'
"_ ? - 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S
?
J
r -
ifl
= d d o a d d d
=
C
o
a
U m ,,
= 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 C
?
Z ,I7 ,f C a C C C C d
-

a 8 ci 8 8 $ 8 8 S
r, o o d e e o a c

E L
z ?
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ?
f d c e d d c d
0
8 8 8 8 S 8 8 °o
- d d o d o d 0
L
S
8
8
8
8
8
8
$
d o o d d d o ?
m d v

17 z
.
-

w

- O N N Q - u h

6 rl - n ? - rl

d ao N m

C GO m _ Iy
04 -
K
-

P
K h rr ? - K _

M

n
Y ? -
a h n ? ?-
P Y Y - -

?I S 8

O C 8 S

C5 C 259
S8
O C C G
S 'a
'? G O S 8
C 888a
C C C C
i u ?
a.
S o

C L
L
J C
?1 t
?JI
C
7
= L
J
S G J
C L y.
- ? 1
L^ W -
Y ? - N
N - - G Y
2 7
'? 7
'l. 'T VI 1. ? J '.%
('rJ
Cluster EC: Cluster EC has 229.71 forested acres within its foraging habitat partition. Soil
indices showed that 27.9% of the partition was located on low productivity soils and 72.1 19/0 was
located on medium productivity soils (NRCS 1990). A minimum of 196 acres should be
managed in order to meet the RSG (USM'S 2003).
The prc-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 6,414.95 sq. ft. of pine 13A on 124.18
acres of potentially suitable habitat and 2.146.07 sq. ft. of pine BA on 105.50 acres of future
potential habitat (includes >8 inch dbh pine stems) (Figure 4 and Table 5). There was no suitable
habitat. The highway corridor will remove 382.16 sq. ft. of pine BA on 3.74 acres of potentially
suitable habitat and 129.68 sq. ft. of pine BA on 3.98 acres of future potential habitat. The
proposed highway corridor is greater than 200 ft. wide, making the habitat on the southeastern
side of the corridor non-contiguous. The highway corridor will remove 1,263.97 sq. it. of pine
BA on 12.19 acres of non-contiguous, potentially suitable habitat and 414.25 sq. R. ol'pine BA
on 21.68 acres ofnon-contiguous, future potential habitat (1=igurc 4 and Table 5). The post-
project SMS foraging habitat totals were 4,768.81 sq. ft. of pine BA on 108.25 acres of
potentially suitable habitat and 1,602.12 sq. ft. of pine BA on 79.84 acres of future potential
habitat (Figure 4 and Table 5). This partition will meet the SMS requirements post-project.
The pre-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 4.388.52 sq. ft. of pine BA on 101.28 acres of
potentially suitable habitat and 4,172.49 sq. ft. ofpine BA on 128.40 acres of future potential
habitat (Figure 4 and Table 6). The highway corridor clearing will remo\ e 3.79 sq. ft. of pine
BA on 0.09 acre of potentially suitable habitat and 2,143.82 sq. ft. of pine BA on 41.51 acres of
future potential habitat, which includes 1,678.22 sq. ft. of pine BA on 33.88 acres of non-
contiguous, future potential habitat. The post-project IZSG foraging habitat totals were 4,384.73
sq. ft. of pine BA on 101.19 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 2,208.67 sq. 1t. of pine BA
on 86.89 acres of future potential habitat.
Discussion
The proposed I fampstead Bypass (R-3300) project corridor will remove 36.97 acres
(66.5%) ofthe existing potentially suitable habitat for the foraging partition associated with
active RCW Cluster 17 and 15.93 acres (12.8%) of the potentially suitable habitat for the
14
N
S
Pine C
.iNa' QU wana I u
Moderate A- Upland longleaf pine (LL)
Dense ridge - unburned
y Height B - Upland LL pine ridge - burned
C - Carolina Bay/upland pine
Low ridge transition (LL and Pond
pine (PP))
Moderate D - Carolina Bay - unburned (PP)
Tall E - Carolina Bay - burned (PP)
Non-Foraging F - Hardwood/pine drain
Habitat (Loblolly (LOB) and PP)
G - Loblolly Pine (LOB) plantation
Proposed Hampstead H - Uneven - aged upland (LL, LOB)
Bypass Project Corridor K - Hardwood/Pine Drain - logged
(R-3300) (LOB, PP)
&"I
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
Figure 4. Foraging habitat analysis for red-cockaded woodpecker Cluster #EC located on Holly Shelter
Game Lands and impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project corridor (R-3300),
Hampstead, PeAer County, North Carolina.
'JJ
^fJ
v-:
J
0
1J
r.J
:J
oc
r,
rl
3
f
J
C
c?
s.
C
r
'J
G
r
?tJ
?J
L
,o
3
1
'J
:J
L
11
'J
L J
:J
G
w
? J
0
M
I'? f
O •
LL•
L
u
L
f'1
L

L CZ
?n

g
d h
6
8
d
d
$
-
-
y - _ rl ry T
c a°
o m
? ? a 8 ? H H O
8
8 P ?
LL d d = -= T
d
c
d
d
d r
-
z _
8 8 - "? H 8 a 8 8 ? ?
a ,
, -
?
z v
?
s
a
_-
N
s
s
a
s
s
d d _ ??o ri c d d d o - d

42

h r
! 8 a 8 8 8 a 8 8
e e d d d ? d d d
„?
c ?

- 8 d 8 8 8 = _ d 8 8
Z 0-

g - n a a a w a a s
C C d h d C C x
m ? ? •1
o

x
8 = $ 8 8 8 ? ? a 8 8
d - d d d d ei d d c ,.?
r ? P
? -r

'r
r 8 8
?' .r te -' Yi K r L p
P d d C t L .p d d
7 10
s
a
s
8
s
s
s
8
s
n o d e d d d o d d -

- m
S
C y
°
U

_
?
s
a
s
s
a
s
s
s
s _
=
Z (fJ d d d d d d d d d -
H e o d o 0 o d o
L d -
x

E
" y
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
e e d e d d d d d -
b s s s s s a 8 8 8 C
t e d d d o e d d d c
L
a
d
d
e
e
8
a
8
-
as

-
o s a a a s _ a

- i. -" rp ?. VJ t- VJ h VJ Vi h ... :l. H fA

C
? n,
I

!
rC
?
r I
:
L?
ri G

? r n

v _

t
-?r
m r s c °? t
L

d
TJ
E _

G
P
O
J
r?
-Y _
h
K
ri
_
•
R - -
zz 9-

?i oo '?? oc - hm - ? r
LL - N

00 -
0 c of r. ?
_
O
w1 C op
N P y
- - +
-
T p r
OC
- C P `G J
_ ?
ry e[
x
.L`
Is
r s as ss= =

d
L
? a
a
c
J Z
L -
_ G
L L - L
v L ?
v
'7 G C C ? a 5
ro = v c ? m
G L ?j - t
? ? C 9 C 7 ? y

:l
I.
J
r^i
5
I.
C
r
L
ti
L
=4
7L
3
J
J
?l
l
1
J
.J
G
M,
r.
J
J =±
?l ..J
:l
G -_
? J
:J
G N S 8 *? T S O ? S S } ?
O C O O _ p O C -
O Ji ?
'«
c O
a
? m
U ?

p
LL
O pp
O
r
?
S
S
-
P
S
S
N ?
OC
Z o m - _ T m c e e "'

- O S O S S S N
... _ r ® v
- o c _ ? d e o o w ,p

S - ? $ S _ a= n S $ e ? 8 ? ?
:f c e ?? c m e e -- ?i e o _ o r

3

.II O S 8 8 S S S O 8 3
? n? _ O O O OO O O 61 o O C
C
O .c
y n?
`o °
a _ 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S 8
2 G p O O e O O O O -
m
o 8 8 8 8 8 8

a
= a m c c c c c c a
s ^

8
C -
- ?
e 8
m $
O $
e 8
O 8
O 8
e $
O S
-
'
- J M xo"' m 8 8 8 8 8 8

L
S N
? .i
N
- i Y
O
S
S mm
O
S
S
O
S
N
"- h '* r ?? T O O O p O O O -
o S 8 8 S S 8 8 $ 8 z
e e e c m e e a -

O
U o
m
O
2 ?
`n
;? o
e ?
o S
o g
e g
c $
c $
e S
e ? ?
e -
n '? g g ? g g g g g ??
= o o e e o 0 o e e
o

- O O S g c S O o S
x
c e c e O e e o o -

O S
c 8
O 8 8 S m 8 8 $ ??
- O G O O m c O -
a
_
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S p
O
Y
,
T c o O p e e c o e -

X ?- u
?+ u g
? p u u
? m u
N u
je u
w 8
g

? s e a 3 a _ 3 3
- s - -
y o y 0 a W2
Vi w Ch 0 'A ? VJ y

v _ o c
IV*
o

?
t
q
-
- O
Q
00
m
L
-
v.
h
E
N
L
y 9
J -

.r

r n

rl ?p
ti O
O
O r

- vai

M
L .f . - R

A O
r' r 06 O r, Q' D

- n
r
10
aTO
O
O .
M! P
P

y q ? O h S _ ? Y

_ C

j
..pp
L
vp
?

vN,
?
N

Mi
- 40 t?
R
h OC
R N
N -
..
...
-
Ji ?
_ _ - - G O O O

C

V C

n 00
L. r? ? M C P
-1 7
M
y
a 00
y ? -
r) r P ?
c
C C O
s.
AI c o o g
0 0 0
? o 0 0 0 ? P O '
o
? M C

o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o c c d
¦ O ?
o. a a O 7 ?
d a

a` z` c a°
A 1

a i o a` z`

R
ql .- ?
TJ C
a
o. ?
u m
E -_ -
L
J - _
L j? ?J 1
L
X A
? G
c _ S 5 -2
A
Z G - 1
9 v a 3 a
_ c
i v r v v r r i r

foraging partition associated with active RCW Cluster F-:C. No suitable or potentially suitable
foraging habitat will be removed born Cluster PVT 1.
Since the proposed highway corridor is currently 300 lt. wide, both CAUsters 17 and EC
will have non-contiguous foraging habitat on the southeastern side of the corridor. if the
highway corridor is narrowed to less than 200 ft.. 27.68 acres ofthc potentially suitable foraging
habitat and 1.621.40 sq. ft. of pine BA would be included in the post-project foraging habitat
totals for Cluster 17. Although a "take" will not be avoided. 43.34 acres of potentially suitable
habitat and 2,684.30 sq. ft. of BA would be available post-project (Table 3). Cluster EC meets
the SMS guidelines regardless of non-contiguous habitat.
Even with the inclusion ofpine stems in the 8.0+ inch dbh class, there is not enough
foraging habitat in Cluster 17 to meet the SMS foraging habitat requirements (USI V`VS 2003) pre
or post-project. With the inclusion ofthe 8.0+ inch dbh class, Cluster F.C meets the SMS
foraging habitat requirements (USFWS 2003) pre- and post-project. Neither partition meets the
RSG requirements (USFVI'S 2003) pre- or post-project.
The low pine BA and low numbers of pine stems >10 inches are a natural condition of
Wet Pine Flatwoods and pocosin habitats in the area and can be attributed to natural site
conditions. Poor growing conditions due to soil wetness and low soil fertility prevent pines on
most sites from reaching 10 inches dbh in <100 years, perhaps never on some sites. Therefore,
pines trees of 8.0+ inches dbh should be counted as available foraging habitat and the lack of
pines >10 inches dbh should not he interpreted as representing poor or insufficient RCW
foraging habitat.
A moderately dense to dense hardwood midstory occurs within the foraging partitions and
the majority of habitat categorized as potentially suitable has an encroaching midstory. Forest
management activities, such as prescribed horning, use of. 'herbicides and/or hand mechanical
clearing, could make these stands suitable habitat. Pine stands that have a high BA and/or a high
number of pines per acre <10 inches dbh could be thinned. Stands which are under 30 years of
age, have a BA of less than 40 sq. ft/acre or too few stems > 10 inches dbh need time to grow in
order to be counted as suitable or potentially suitable habitat.
18
Biological Conclusion - May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (I cluster)
CONCLUSIONS
Dr. J. H. Carter Ill and /Associates. Inc., was contracted by NCDOT to conduct toraging
habitat analyses for 3 RCW clusters near Hampstead. Ponder County in order to assess impacts of
the proposed Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) project corridor. The analyses determined that
impacted RCW Cluster EC will meet the SMS foraging, 'U'uidclines post-project with suitable and
potentially suitable habitat. No RC'W cavity trees "III be removed or impacted. Impacted RC'AV
Cluster 17 will not meet the toragin?-, SMS -uidelines post-project and vtiill result in a project-
related ''take." Impacted Cluster PVT I will not meet SMS guidclincs pre- or post- project. but
since the cluster is not currently active there will be no "take" at [his time.
19
LI ITRA'1'1 RE' CITL1)
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1990.
Soil Sur\ey offender County. North Carolina. l)S1) A. Fayetteville. NC. 150 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc. 200;. Red-cockaded woodpecker recoverN
plan: 2"`1 revision. US Fish and Wildlilc Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.