20161268 Ver 1_Transmittal Letter and RCW BA_20160509

4'����T oF ��'
.n
w� ' � �y
? - �'lllr�� �
_ �,
Gy�i�a - •� - ��,e'� .
ST9TE50F • �
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
May 6, 2016
Regulatoiy Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW-2007-01386
IVI�. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Ofiice Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
This letter serves to request a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) concurrence on the
effects determination for federally endangered red-cocicaded woodpecker (Picoides bo�°ealis), subject
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 under your puiview, located within the Permit or Action Area
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Transportation Improvement Project
(TIP) U-4751 and R-3300, in New Hanover and Pender Counties, North Carolina. Specifically,
NCDOT proposes to consh•uct the Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County (U-4751)
and the US 17 Hampstead Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties (R-3300). Please reference
the July 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement for any additional information relating to this
project.
By copy of this letter, we request the initiation of formal consultation, pursuant to 50 CFR §
402.14; and additionally request your concurrence within 30 days, pursuant to 50 CFR § 402.12(j),
on the findings made in the 2 May 2016 Biological Assessment for the proposed projects, TIP
Numbers U-4751 and R-3300, attached.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact N1r. Brad Shaver in the
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at [phone], or by e-mail brad.e.shaver cr,usace.arm,y.mil .
Sincerely,
tJm,�� / � � ��'`�� --
Monte Matthews
Lead Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
Printed on � Recycled Pape�

-2-
Copies furnished (electronic):
Mr. Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Tyler Stanton, NCDOT-NES
Mr. Mason Herndon, NCDEQ-DWR
Ms. Anneliese Westphal, NCDOT-Division 3
Printed on � Recycled Paper

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION AND
US HIGHWAY 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS PROJECT
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES,
NORTH CAROLINA
T.I.P NUMBER R-3300 AND U-4751
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section
2 May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
2. PROJECT AREA ................................................................................. 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 5
4. METHOD5 ............................................................................................7
4.1. RCW Survey .................................................................................................7
4.2. Foraging Habitat Analyses ..........................................................................8
4.2.1. Regional SMS foraging habitat standards for the Outer
Coastal Plain of southeastern NC and northeastern
South Carolina (SC) (Carter 2012) ....................................................9
4.2.2. Recovery Standard Guidelines ...........................................................11
4.2.3. Determination of Anticipated Incidental Take at the
ClusterLeve1 ......................................................................................13
4.2.3.a. Cavity Trees .........................................................................13
4.2.3.b. Foraging Habitat .................................................................13
4.2.4 Group Level Analyses ..............................................
4.2.5. RCW Neighborhood Analysis ..................................
4.2.6. Population Level Analysis ........................................
4.2.7. Recovery Unit Level Analysis (Jeopardy Analysis)
..13
..14
...15
...15
5. RESULTS ..............................................................................................16
5.1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker — Picoides borealis .........................................16
5.2. RCW Clusters Impacted .............................................................................16
5.3. Foraging Habitat Analyses ..........................................................................17
5.3.1. Impacts to PVT Cluster 1 ...................................................................17
5.3.2. Impacts to HSGL Cluster 17 ..............................................................21
5.3.3. Impacts to HSGL Cluster 17A ...........................................................25
5.3.4. Impacts to HSGL Cluster EC .............................................................29
5.4. Five Levels of RCW Analysis .....................................................................33

5.4.1. Cluster Level Analyses ......................................................................32
5.4.1.a. Cavity Trees ........................................................................33
5.4.1.b. Foraging Habitat .................................................................35
5.4.2. Group Level Analysis ........................................................................36
5.4.3. Neighborhood Analysis .....................................................................38
5.4.4. Population Level Analysis .................................................................40
5.4.5. Recovery Unit Level Analysis ...........................................................41
6.0. CONSERVATION MEASURES ........................................................ 41
7.0. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 43
8.0. LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................ 44
�

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General ]ocation of the proposed US Hwy. 17 Hainpstead
Bypass project in New Hanover and Pender Counties, North
Carolina................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Location of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) cavity
trees, clusters and 0.5 mile radius foraging habitat partitions in or
near the US Highway 17 Hampstead Bypass project in Pender and
New Hanover Counties, North Carolina ........................................................6
Figure 3. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Private Land
Cluster 1 impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project
(R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina ..............................19
Figure 4. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter
Game Land Cluster 17 impacted by the proposed Hampstead
Bypass project (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North
Carolina..........................................................................................................23
Figure 5. Faraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter
Game Land Cluster 17A impacted by the proposed Hampstead
Bypass project corridar (R-3300) in Ha�npstead, Pender County,
NorthCarolina ...............................................................................................27
Figure 6. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter
Game Land Cluster EC impacted by the proposed Hampstead
Bypass project corridor (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County,
NorthCarolina ...............................................................................................31
Figure 7. Location of NCDOT compensation properties along the proposed
US Highway 17 Hampstead Bypass in Hampstead, Pender County,
NorthCarolina ...............................................................................................37
Figure 8. Red-cockaded woodpecicer (Picoides borealis) (RCW) 0.5 mile
radius foraging partitions within the 1.2 mile radius action area
(neighborhood) of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and US
Highway 17 Hampstead Bypass project impact areas (R-3300 and
U-4751) in Pender and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina ..................39
�

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Location and status of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoidies
borealis) (RCW) cavity trees for Holly Shelter Game Land
(HSGL) Clusters 17, 17A and EC, and Private Land (PVT)
Cluster 1 in Hampstead, Pender County and an unassigned
cluster in New Hanover County, North Carolina ...........................................18
Table 2. Location and status of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoidies
borealis) (RCW) cavity trees for Holly Shelter Game Land
(HSGL) Clusters 17, 17A and EC, and Private Land (PVT) Cluster
1 in Hampstead, Pender County and an unassigned cluster in New
Hanover County, North Carolina ...................................................................20
Table 3. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery
Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.5 mile radius
foraging partition for Private Lands Cluster 1 in Pender County,
NC..................................................................................................................22
Table 4. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Regional
Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal
Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern
South Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging
partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17 in Pender County,
NC..................................................................................................................24
Table 5. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery
Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius
foraging partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17 in
PenderCounty, NC ........................................................................................26
Table 6. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Regional
Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal
Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern South
Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partition
for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17A in Pender County, NC ................28
Table 7. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery
Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius
foraging partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17A in
PenderCounty, NC ........................................................................................30
iv

Table 8. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Regional
Standard for Managed Stability Guidelinesfor the Outer Coastal
Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern
South Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging
partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster ECin Pender County,
NC..................................................................................................................32
Table 9. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery
Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius
foraging partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster EC in
PenderCounty, NC ........................................................................................34
Table 10. Red-cockaded woodpecker project-related habitat removals and
noncontiguous habitat removals using the Regional Standard for
Managed Stability Guidelines (RSMS) far the Outer Coasta] Plain
in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern South
Carolina (Carter 20] 2) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partitions
for Private Land Cluster 1 and Holly Shelter Game Land Clusters 17,
17A and EC in Pender County, NC ...............................................................35
Table l 1. Pre- and post-foraging habitat summary for red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters impacted by the Hampstead Bypass project
(R-3300), Pender County, North Carolina .....................................................36
Table 12. Group-level analysis with pre- and post-project densities for
red-cockaded woodpecker clusters within 1.25 miles of clusters
impacted, but not taken, by the US Highway 70 Hampstead
Bypass project, Pender County, NC ..............................................................38
Table 13. Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters located within the 1.2 mile
radius action area for the Neighborhood Analysis for the US Highway
70 Hampstead Bypass project, Pender County, NC ......................................40
v

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION AND
US HIGHWAY 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS PROJECT
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES,
NORTH CAROLINA
1. INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the
Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County (U-4751) and the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties (R-3300). Several build alternatives were studied
and a Least Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative was chosen in June 2012.
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc. (JCA) was contracted by NCDOT in 2011 and 2012
to conduct 4 foraging habitat analyses (FHAs) for the federally Endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW). Three red-cocicaded woodpecker clusters on the Holly
Shelter Game Lands (HSGL) and one private land (PVT) cluster are located within a 0.5 mile
(mi.) radius of the proposed Hampstead Bypass section of the project. This Biological
Assessinent provides updated cluster and cavity tree status, survey results and current foraging
habitat assessment (FHA) data for PVT Cluster 1 and HSGL Clusters 17, 17A and EC.
2. PROJECT AREA
The proposed project area is located in the Outer Coastal Plain of southeastern North
Carolina (Figure 1). The area has a nearly level topography, ranging in elevation from 35 to 65
feet above mean sea leveL Carolina Bays are proininent landscape features. The predominant
soils in the project area include Kureb and Leon fine sand, Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam and
Murville and Pamlico muck (US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2015).
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Major hydrological features within
the area include the Northeast Cape Fear River, Harrison's and Godfrey Creeks, the Intracoastal
Waterway and unnamed tributaries thereof.

u��..��� �r �, ' .
�cw urvsi a ��, " ..�.� �t' �.,...�,�.+� .n..«,e�
�„„ � �
��: , .
'� `:�...
...k � _ �w, $ w��drm..=
�eime .' ��"..
�,. ., e.i.iu.<�m�pce� � ���� -.
,�,.. .W� �� ,�... i.
� . _' i..a.a wn� ��eM1u.
" y ,....
w.���,..��.a ,e.e�w�.,...� �. ��s �,,, �mm �;��,�, P c9.�. "aoAH. es ,e�a .„e� .�� �h�a �Ho�, o�o. e��, ��y ��.,ommm wo� � va U
Figure 1. General location of the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and US Hwy. 17
Hampstead Bypass project in New Hanover and Pender Counties, North Carolina.
2

Natural communities seldom matched exactly those described in the Guide to NaZural
Communities of No�th Carolina: Fourth Approximation (Schafale 2012), but were categorized as
accurately as possible based on species composition, location and site history.
Historically, the uplands were vegetated with longleaf pine (Pinus palust�is) dominated
communities including Xeric Sandhi]] Scrub (Coastal Fringe subtype), Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill
(Coastal Fringe subtype) and Mesic Pine Savanna, while wetland communities included Wet
Pine Flatwoods, Pond Pine Woodland, High Pocosin and Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
(Schafale 2012).
Xeric Sandhill Scrub (Coastal Fringe subtype) occurred on xeric, excessively drained
coarse sands. The overstory consisted of longleaf pine in varying densities with turkey oak
(Quercus laevis) as the dominant midstory species. Carolina wiregrass (A�istida stricta) was
dominant in the ground cover.
Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill (Coastal Frin eg subtype� occurred on fine sands, with an
overstory consisting of longleaf pine and a mixed scrub oak or xeric hardwood
understory/midstory. The ground cover was dominated by Carolina wiregrass and a diversity of
herbaceous species.
Mesic Pine Savanna (Coastal Plain subtype) was the predominant upland vegetative
community type. It typically had a canopy of longleaf pine, with an understory of sparse scrub
oaks (Quercus spp.), mixed with mesophytic and wetland species. Undisturbed sites had a
ground cover dominated by Carolina wiregrass, Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), clusterspike
false indigo (Amorpha herbacea var. herbacea), vanillaleaf (Carphephorus odo�atissimus) or
occasionally bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and a very diverse assemblage of herbaceous
species.
Wet Pine Flatwoods included seasonally wet, open, grassy longleaf pine or pond pine
(Pinus serotina) communities on coarse sandy spodosols. It naturally had more grasses than
shrubs. The low shrub layer was often dominated by dangleberry (Gaylussacia fi-ondosa),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), staggerbush (Lyonia mariana), coastal azalea (Rhododendron
atlanticum) and switch cane (Arundinaria tecta). The herbaceous layer included Carolina
wiregrass, bracken fern and a diverse assemblage of grasses and herbs.

Pond Pine Woodland had an open to nearly closed canopy of pond pine, sometimes co-
dominant with loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), and occasionally including red maple (Acer
r�ubNum) and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). The shrub layer was tall and very
dense, except when recently burned, and included dangleberry, inkberry, sweet pepperbush,
swamp titi (Cy�illa racemiflora), sweet gallberry (Ilex co�iacea), fetterbush, swamp red bay
(Pe�sea palustris) and sweetbay. Switch cane was also common and could dominate the shrub
layer. Herbs were generally sparse under the woody cover, but occasional netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain-fern (W. virginica) and clumps of sphagnum mosses
(Sphagnum spp.) occurred. This community type was subject to catastrophic fires which can
temporarily suppress the understory and severely thin or eliminate the overstory. Peat soils can
be consumed in such iires and depending on the depth of consumption, a different community
type can become established.
High Pocosin (evergreen subtype) occurred on poorly drained peat deposits and on wet
sands, and generally had a sparse canopy of pond pine with a dense shrub understory which
included fetterbush, inkberry and swamp titi.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp communities occurred along small streams and were
predominantly forested with swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, swamp laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak
(Q. nigra) and swamp chestnut oak (Q. inichauxii). The understory was dominated by red
maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay and swamp red bay and the herbaceous layer was
relatively sparse.
Pine Plantation consisted of planted pines on various soil types, including wet or drained
inineral soils. The overstory was typically loblolly or slash pine (Pinus elliottii), usually with a
dense midstory that developed several years after stand establishment. Sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) was often the dominant midstory species, but other mesic hardwoods and tall shrubs
also occurred. Herbaceous ground cover was often sparse unless burned frequently.
Managed natural loblolly and longleaf forest types occurred on mineral soils on sites that
have had prior anthropogenic disturbance, primarily farming. The dominant overstory species
were loblolly pine and/or longleaf pine, sometimes mixed with hardwoods such as sweet gum,
water oak, other oaks and red maple. The understory/midstory was often tall and dense and
0

consisted of hardwood saplings, pine regeneration and vines. Herbaceous ground cover was
often sparse unless burned frequently.
Frequent fires on the uplands penetrated the edges of wetland communities creating
distinct, diverse ecotones. Carolina Bays were prominent landscape features in the project area.
They were elliptically shaped, wetland depressions unique to the Coastal Plain that often
contained vegetation characteristic of pocosin communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
With the exception of Holly Shelter Game Land (HSGL), much of the project area has
been converted from its natural state. Industrial forestry, agriculture, drainage, fire exclusion,
and commercial and residential developments have altered the natura] landscape in much of the
area. HSGL is a wildlife management area and supports large areas of relatively undisturbed
pine forests that are burned regularly. HSGL also supports approximately 36 RCW groups that
are part of the Coastal NC Primary Core Recovery Population within the Mid-Atlantic Coastal
Plain Recovery Unit Population (USFWS 2003).
3. PROJECT DE5CRIPTION
The NCDOT proposes to construct a 17.5 mi. bypass of the Town of Hampstead in New
Hanover and Pender Counties (Figure 2). Alternatives M1 and E-H were selected as the LEDPA
for the bypass. The project consists of STIP U-4751 and R-3300. For project U-4751, the
NCDOT proposes to extend Military Cutoff Road as a 6-lane divided roadway on new location
from its current terminus at US 17 Business (Market Street) in Wilmington north to an
interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass (John Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). Limited and full
control access is proposed. For project R-3300, NCDOT proposes to construct the US 17
Hampstead Bypass as a freeway mostly on new location. The US 17 Hampstead Bypass will
connect to the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington
Bypass and extend to existing US 17 north of Hampstead. Full control access is proposed for the
US 17 Hampstead Bypass (NCDOT 2014).

Figure 2. Location of red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) cavity trees, clusters and 0.5 mile radius foraging habitat partitions within, or near, the Military Cutoff Road Extension and US Highway 17
Hampstead Bypass project impact areas (R-3300 and U-4751) in Pender and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina.

4. METHODS
4.1. RCW Survey
RCW surveys were originally done by NCDOT biologists in January and March 2008.
Surveys were conducted on the ground and by helicopter (Robinson (R)-44) within al] of the
proposed 1,000 foot corridors and within a 0.5 mile radius of the corridors (NCDOT 2008).
JCA biologists conducted surveys for RCW caviry trees using an R-44 helicopter and on
foot (ground) within the LEDPA (M1+E+H) 1,000 foot wide study corridor and within a 0.5
mile radius (approximately 19,423 acres) in February and March 2015. To ensure 100 percent
visual coverage, transects were flown in a grid system (northeast/southwest and
northwest/southeast) and spaced 300-500 ft. apart depending on stand density. A Trimble GeoXT
2008 series GPS unit was used to track flight lines and RCW cavity tree coordinates were obtained
during the aerial survey and plotted on aerial photographs.
Potential RCW nesting habitat was defined as pine or pine-hardwood stands > 60 years of
age (USFWS 2003). Cominercial and residential areas were checked by vehicle and large
forested tracts with potentially suitable habitat were surveyed on foot using parallel transects.
Habitats not suitable for RCWs were ground checked in order to obtain accurate
descriptions and classifications of natural communities and habitat conditions.
Forested habitat was delineated on aerial maps during surveys and stands were divided
into 4 categories: 0-30 year old pine (future potential RCW habitat), 30-60 year old pine
(foraging habitat), 60+ year old pine (potential nesting habitat) and non-faraging habitat. Stand
data taken during aerial surveys were based on general habitat notes and were subject �o a degree
of subjectivity (NCDOT 2015). Areas that contained suitable RCW habitat were surveyed on
foot.
The activity status of all known RCW cavity trees within known clusters PVT 1, HSGL
17, 17A and EC was updated in February and March 2015. Newly found RCW cavity trees were
flagged and their locations were documented using a TrimbleOO GeoXT 2008 GPS unit and
plotted on an aerial photograph.

4.2. Foraging Habitat Analyses
This report includes a reevaluation of existing foraging habitat data for 4 known RCW
clusters. Data were collected in November 2010 and April 2012 and 2 reports were submitted to
NCDOT in January 2011 (JCA 2011) and August 2012 (JCA 2012), respectively.
Impacts were assessed pursuant to Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended, using the "Regional Standard for Managed Stability (RSMS) Guidelines for the Outer
Coastal Plain in Southeastern North Carolina and Northeastern South Carolina" (Carter 2012)
approved by the USFWS in 2013 (G. Jordan, pers. comm., 16 January 2013), and the Recovery
Standard Guidelines (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 guidance 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 basal
area (BA) and/or acreage required by the SMS.
In 2012, FHAs were analyzed using the modified SMS guidelines (using pine stems > 8
inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (JCA 2006) and the RSMS guidelines in the
"Memorandum to the Addendum Red-cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat Analyses Report,
US Highway ]7, Hampstead Bypass Project, Pender County, North Carolina," dated 19
December 2012.
The modified SMS guidelines (JCA 2006) were originally approved by the USFWS in
the "Red-cockaded Woodpecker Alternatives Analysis, NC Highway 133 Connector, Brunswick
County, North Carolina" (TIP R-3324) (NCDOT 2006). The guidelines required that foraging
habitat have a minimum of 3,000 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 (JCA 2006, NCDOT 2012).
The RSMS guidelines (Carter 2012) were originally approved by the USFWS in the
"Addendum Red-cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat Analyses Report, US Highway 17,
Hampstead Bypass Project, Pender County, North Carolina" (NCDOT 2012). The RSMS
guidelines divided habitats into 8 vegetative community stands, which were further subdivided
based on pine density. The proposed RSMS guidelines also required a minimum of 3,000 ft.2 of
pine BA on at least 75 acres of good quality suitable foraging habitat as defined (USFWS 2003,
Carter 2012).

Plots were placed every 5 chains (1 chain = 66 ft.) along transects spaced approximately
5 chains apart within each 0.5 mi. radius foraging habitat partition. The number of plots ranged
from 52 (HSGL 17A) to 152 (PVT 1). Foraging substrate for the partitions was measured with a
10-factor 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.
Pine stands were 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 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.
4.2.1. RSMS foraging habitat standards for the Outer Coastal Plain of
southeastern NC and northeastern South Carolina (SC) (Carter 2012):
The RSMS Guidelines require a minimum of 3,000 square feet (ft.�) of pine BA on at
least 75 acres of good quality suitable foraging habitat as defined (USFWS 2003, Carter 2012) or
inodified below. The minimum (dbh) of pines varies from 4 to 10 inches dba depending on
vegetative community type. Because the minimum pine BA requirements also vary among
community types, the minimum area necessary to achieve 3000 ft.� of pine BA will usually
exceed 75 acres.
The following Standard for Managed Stability (SMS) guidelines (USFWS 2003) are
applicable in southeastern NC and northeastern SC with the changes in bold below.
(1) Pine stands must be at least 30 years of age or older.
(2) Average BA of pines > 8 inches dbh should be between 30 and 70 ft.Z/acre, except in
pocosins and bays where pine BA can be as low as 20 ft.2/acre in stems > 4 inches
dbh and managed pine stands and plantations were pine BA should be between 40 and 70
ft.2/acre .

(3) Average BA of pines < 8 inches dbh should be less than 20 ft.�/acre (except in High
Pocosin).
(4) No hardwood midstory exists, or if a hardwood midstory is present, it must be sparse and
less than 7 ft. in height, except in Pond Pine Woodland, pocosins and bays where
there is no hardwood midstory height or density limitation.
(5) Total stand BA, including overstory hardwoods, should be less than 80 ft.�/acre.
(6) Overstory hardwood BA must be < 10 ft.�/acre.
(7) All land counted as foraging habitat must be within 200 ft. of another foraging stand or
the cluster.
Habitats were divided into 8 vegetative community types: Xeric Sandhill Scrub (Coastal
Fringe subtype), Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill (Coastal Fringe subtype), Mesic Pine Savanna
(Coastal Fringe subtype), Wet Pine Flatwoods/ Wet Pine Savanna, Pond Pine Woodland, High
Pocosin, Old Field and Managed Natural Loblolly and Longleaf Pine Forests and pine
plantations (in part Schafale 2012) (Carter 2012). Non-foraging or unsuitable habitat was also
evaluated. Non-foraging habitat consisted of hardwood drains, bays or pocosins devoid of pine
trees, clearcuts, agricultural lands, permanently cleared areas, treeless developed areas and road
and powerline rights-of-way.
Stands in Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna, Wet Pine
Flatwoods/ Wet Pine Savanna and Pond Pine Woodland communities required > 30 ft.�/ac. (8
inch dbh minimum) of pine BA.
Stands in High Pocosin required > 20 ft.�/acre (4 inch dbh minimum) of pine BA. Pine
Plantations and Old Field/Managed Natural Loblolly and Longleaf stands required pine BA > 40
ft.�/ac. (10 inch dbh minimum).
Pine stands that met the RSMS 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 (except in Pond Pine Woodland
and High Pocosin communities).
"Potentially suitable habitat" was described as stands that met most requirements, but
exceeded the maximum limits for pine BA 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 �noderate 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 available for the cluster was first evaluated using a 0.25 mi. radius
foraging habitat partition. If the minimum SMS requirements were not met within the 0.25 mi.
radius partition, a 0.5 mi. radius partition was used.
4.2.2. Recovery Standard Guidelines:
The RSG requires a minimum of 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat in areas with
high site productivity and 200-300 acres of good quality foraging habitat in areas of low
productivity. The RSG has not been inodified yet to account for RCW habitat found in the Outer
Coastal Plain of Southeastern NC and Northeastern SC. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
impacted clusters can meet the RSG as described in the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
The RSG defines good qualiry foraging habitat as follows (USFWS 2003):
1. 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 ft.Z / acre.
2. The BA for pines from 10-14 inches dbh should be from 0-40 ft.Z / acre.
3. The BA of pines < 10 inches dbh should be below 10 ft.2 / acre and below 20
stems / acre.
4. The minimum BA for categories 1 and 2 above should be 40 ft.Z / acre.
5. Native herbaceous ground cover should tota140 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 mi. of the center of the cluster.
9. Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 ft. of non-foraging habitat.
Classification of suitable, potentially suitable and future potential habitat was the same as
the classification used for the SMS analysis.
�

To determine the foraging habitat acreage requirements, the site indices associated with
the soils in each partition were evaluated. These data provided the total number of acres that
must be managed to meet the RSG for good quality foraging habitat per cluster (USFWS 2003).
Soil types present in each partition were determined using soil survey data provided by the
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resolirces Conservation Service (USDA-
NRCS) web soil survey (USDA-NRCS 2015). Soils were analyzed based on a recommendation
submitted to the USFWS to amend the site index parameters in the RCW Recovery Plan
(USFWS 2003) to include 3 categories of site productivity (Recommendations for revision of
site index criteria for RCW foraging habitat guidelines, Dr. J.H. Carter III, 2008, unpublished).
Soils with a high site index (> 75 for the dominant pine species) would require 120-150 acres of
suitable or potentially suitable habitat, soils with a medium site index (51-75 for the dominant
pine species) would require 150-200 acres of suitable or potentially suitable habitat and soils
with a low site index (< 50 for the daminant pine species) would require 200-300 acres of
suitable or potentially suitable foraging habitat. In partitions where there was a combination of
high, medium and/or low productivity soils, the amount of habitat needed for the RCW group
was based on the percent of soil productivity types present. For example, the percent of low
productivity soils present was multiplied by the mean number of acres required to be managed,
i.e., 250 acres. These totals were then added together to obtain the total number of acres that
would need to be managed for that particular partition.
Foraging habitat removals from the impacted foraging partitions were based on the
impact area design provided by NCDOT (Apri12015). To calculate the impact area, biologists
created and overlaid a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer of the existing road corridor
and the 300 — 350 ft. wide project design corridor onto an aerial photograph. JCA biologists
calculated foraging habitat removals using ArcGISTM software.
RCW foraging habitat separated by more than 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.
12

4.2.3. Determination of Anticipated Incidental Take at the Cluster Level
4.2.3.a. Cavity Trees
Clusters were considered to be "talcen" by cavity tree loss if cavity trees were removed,
less than 4 suitable cavities remained and there was an insufficient number of suitable trees for
artificial cavities to replace the lost cavities.
4.2.3.b. Foraging Habitat
Foraging habitat was analyzed as described above and was assessed according to the
RSMS Guidelines (Carter 2012) and RSG as defined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
Incidental Take was considered if the ilnpacted cluster partition did not meet the minimum
requirements of 3,000 ft.2 of pine BA on 75 acres of good quality foraging habitat post-project.
4.2.4 Group Level Analyses
The "Incidental Take" of a RCW group can, in turn, indirectly affect surrounding RCW
groups. The distribution and density of RCW clusters on the landscape is a key factor in the
overall stability and health of a RCW population. Reducing cluster density causes populations to
be more vulnerable to demographic stochasticity (Crowder et al. 1998, Walters et al. 2002). This
potential impact is captured under the group and neighborhood level analyses as "takes" under
the definition of harm.
Retaining sufficient foraging habitat alone does not ensure the persistence of an RCW
group. The continued occupation of a cluster not only depends on the amount of foraging
habitat, but also depends on the density of active clusters around it (Hooper and Lennartz 1995).
Research has shown that the more aggregated RCW clusters are, the higher the probability of
persistence, even with substantial foraging habitat loss (Crowder et al. 1998, Letcher et al. 1998).
RCW groups in moderately dense to dense populations have been shown to be less sensitive (i.e.,
in group size and productivity) to drastic loss in habitat relative to sparser populations with
seemingly more available foraging habitat (Hooper and Lennartz 1995). Therefore, when active
RCW clusters are to be "taken" for a project, it is necessary to assess the impact of that loss on
the deinographic stability of neighboring RCW groups. This is done by examining the density of
active RCW clusters on the landscape.
13

For the group density analyses, clusters having > 4.7 active clusters within 1.25 miles
were considered healthy and were given a"dense" designation. Clusters with 2.6 to 4.6 active
clusters within 1.25 miles were considered to have "moderate" density. Clusters with < 2.5
active clusters within 1.25 miles were considered "sparse," and therefore more vulnerable to
abandonment because of a lack of emigration/ immigration (Conner and Rudolph 1991).
A 1.25 mile radius buffer was drawn around the cluster center for every active cluster
within 0.5 mile of the proposed bypass that was affected, but not "taken", at the cluster level
(some foraging habitat removed). For each cluster analyzed, the number of active clusters within
1.25 miles of its cluster center was calculated and included in the cluster density totals. These
totals did not include the subject cluster if it was expected to be "taken" by the bypass project.
However, "talcen" clusters were included in the pre-project density totals of their neighboring
clusters.
Clusters with > 4.7 active groups within 1.25 miles post-project were considered to be
unaffected by the project. Clusters whose densities were reduced from "dense" or "moderate" to
"sparse" were considered to be affected and therefore vulnerable to abandonment as a result of
the proposed project(s). Clusters that were "sparse" pre-project were generally considered to be
"talcen," particularly if project-related habitat removals caused the subject cluster to become
more isolated and thus more vulnerable to abandonment.
4.2.5. RCW Neighborhood Analysis
Guidance set forth by the USFWS (i.e., Endangered Species Consultation Handbook
1998) states that "when determining an action area, it must include the project site and all the
areas surrounding the activity up to where the effects will no longer be felt by the listed species."
The intent of the "neighborhood analysis" is to account for the potential negative impacts of a
project on RCW demography through habitat loss ar fragmentation at the neighborhood level.
When demographic data are available, the average dispersal distance far each population
is typically used to define the RCW neighborhood/Action Area surrounding a project site or
project corridor (USFWS 2005). The median dispersal distance was determined to be 1.2 mi. for
females (J.R. Walters, pers. comm.). Therefore, the RCW neighborhood for this report was
14

defined as a].2 mi. buffer around the proposed US Hwy. l7 project impact area in Pender
County.
As with the group-level analyses, if the post-project analysis showed that less than 2.5
RCW groups would remain post-project within a 1.25-mi. radius of the subject cluster, it was
considered "taken" at the neighborhood level.
4.2.6. Population Level Analysis
Per USFWS guidance (USFWS 2006b), all projects are to be analyzed at the population
level, regardless of whether or not there is an Incidental Take at the partition ]evel. Calculating
whether a population's recovery goal can be met sometime in the future, based on project-related
impacts today, requires knowledge, or estimates, of the percent of 1) inactive clusters, 2) solitary
bird groups and 3) captured clusters, at the time when the overall habitat-based population goal
would likely be achieved (USFWS 2005).
4.2.7. Recovery Unit Level Analysis (Jeopardy Analysis)
The jeopardy analysis occurs at the Recovery Unit level (USFWS 2003a, USFWS
2006b). According to the USFWS Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998), when
determining jeopardy, the USFWS is to analyze the impact of the action in question on the
species as a whole. To facilitate this analysis, Recovery Units can be identified in a species'
Recovery Plan that will provide a smaller-scale definition of Jeopardy. According to the 2003
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003):
"Given that actions that appreciably impair or preclude the capability of such a recovery unit
from providing the survival and recovery functions identified for it in a recovery plan may
therefore represent jeopardy to the species, the Consultation Handbook indicates the jeopardy
standard may be applied to individual recovery units identified as necessary for survival and
recovery of the species in an approved final recovery plan."
Each Recovery Unit described in a species' Recovery Plan has a defined role in the
downlisting, delisting and `recovery' of the species. If an action is determined to jeopardize the
ability of that Recovery Unit to serve the function described for it in the species' Recovery Plan,
that action could be found to jeopardize the recovery of the species.
15

The HSGL is part of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit. This Recovery Unit
includes the Coastal NC and Francis Marion National Forest Primary Core Populations, which
are 2 of the 13 designated Primary Core Populations listed in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
It also includes one Essential Support Population (Northeast NC/Southeast Virginia).
The Recovery Unit is discussed in Section 5.4.6.; however, the jeopardy analysis will be
conducted by the USFWS. This analysis will be based upon information provided in this
Biological Assessment for the other 4levels of analyses.
5. RESULTS
5.1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker — Picoides borealis
The RCW is a small black and white woodpecker with horizontal bars on its back,
spotted flanks and a white belly. The cap and chin stripe are black and the male has a small,
difficult to see, red spot on each side of the black cap. It is most easily identified by the large
white cheek patches that distinguish it from similar species (USFWS 2003).
The RCW is endemic to mature, fire-maintained pine forests in the southeastern United
States, where it was historically common. Prime nesting habitat for RCWs includes open,
mature southern pine forests dominated by longleaf, loblolly, pond, slash or other southern pine
species greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid- or understory development. Pine
flatwoods and pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent fires, serve as
ideal nesting and foraging habitat for RCWs. Potential foraging habitat is defined as open pine
or pine/ hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (USFWS 2003). Logging, fire exclusion and
conversion of forestlands for agricultural and other uses have destroyed most of this species'
habitat (USFWS 2003).
5.2. RCW Clusters Impacted
No new RCW cavity trees were found during ground and aerial surveys in February and
March 2015. JCA updated known cluster and cavity tree activity and status in February 2015
within the RCW survey area. There are 3 known active clusters on HSGL and one active cluster
on private land adjacent to HSGL in Pender County, and one relic unassigned cavity tree in New
Hanover County on NCDOT property (Figure 2).
16

Active Cluster HSGL 17 contained 10 trees, active cluster 17A contained 7 trees and
active cluster HSGL EC contained 9 trees with cavities in various stages of completion and
suitability (Figure 2, Table 1). Active Cluster PVT 1 contained 7 trees with cavities in various
stages of completion and suitability (Figure 2, Table 1). A site visit was conducted on 2 March
2015 and 3 unbanded adults were seen foraging within the PVT l partition.
5.3. Foraging Habitat Analyses
None of these clusters have adequate foraging habitat to meet the SMS requirements
within their 0.25 mile radius foraging partitions, therefare analyses far the 0.25 mile partition
were not provided. Pine stand age, hardwood midstory density and height were updated for all
clusters in 2015. The RSMS (Carter 2012) and RSG (USFWS 2003) data analyses for the
impacted 0.5 mile radius partitions follow.
5.3.1. Impacts to PVT Cluster 1
RSMS, 0.50 mile radius partition for PVT 1
The pre-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 5,233.09 ft.� ofpine BA on 114.21
acres of suitable habitat and 3,013.75 ft.� of pine BA on 278.30 acres of future potential habitat
(includes pine stems >4 and/or > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure 3; Table 2). This partition
meets the RSMS requirements pre-project (Carter 2012). The RSMS pine density totals have
been corrected since the 2012 FHA report. Midstory density and height was also updated.
The project impact area will remove 65.24 ft.2 of pine BA on 5.63 acres of future
potential habitat on the southeastern edge of the 0.5 ini. radius foraging partition (Table 2).
The post-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 5,233.09 ft.� of pine BA on 114.21
acres of suitable habitat and 2,948.51 ft.� of pine BA on 272.67 acres of future potential habitat
(includes pine stems > 4 and/or > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure 3; Table 2). This partition
will meet the RSMS requirements post-project (Carter 2012).
RSG, 0.50 mile radius partition for PVT 1
PVT Cluster 1 had 392.51 forested acres within its foraging habitat partition. Soil indices
showed that 33.2% of the partition was located on medium productivity soils and 66.8% was
located on low productivity soils (USDA 2015). A minimum of 225.10 acres should be managed
in order to meet the RSG (USFWS 2003).
17

U�1 �
�I �
�l �
I� �
N
�
� �
�I �
Y �
� �
C/� �
� �
� y
��1 �
FLI 0
� �
�i--I �
� �
� �
5.-� N
�1--� Qr
1-r'+ �
' �
� �
U cYj�
� �
U �
� �
�J �
�\
� �
'� i..i
� � v�i
� �r` N
`� V
U �� �
� � �
� � �
C) � CC
� � U�1
�1
x � �
��z
��
� �' �
Sa �
���
� �
�
'�' W �
O � �
U � �
�.�z
o �
��.
� � i�r
� � �
i-+
� � �
� r^f U
`�U�
� � �
o ,� o
� � CC
� x c�V
N
�
H
�
� o
� � �
V � � �
U O � R � �
N Y
CD V � � � J N 'GT
d� N [3 r/�i � `" O .�+
� � y � � .� j 00 T
U �' `° � `° N
^J 'd R
G � U
.ro " a �d A � � �
U
"d � � cd fY
N V � �
-� � 3
0
N
l� O -� M l� W .-. vl �n O� M N 7 7 O m �O �O Q� O.-• M Rt Q� Q� V� M l� � Vt [� O� o0
<t i� �D 00 _-, V O M N C , d' O� .-, O� � — f� rl V l� � V O l� V O� N vl N V f� I� V
pq O� — O l� O N �O �n O V l� vl oo L� 01 ,-• V �!1 x O� d' vl O� V � W 1� O l� m iG N W --�
C � N O� vl l� O� vl � 1� V O o� d' vl �C M �O �n G� oC N [� .-. �J �n O [� O 7 �n [� O�
[� O �/t .-. �O �O O� 7 7 M O� �n 7 O� N [� �O Ol vi O N �^v Q� O Kt O� o0 7 V1 [� �D [� oo (�
L d' — V W vl � O M O — N r+� 7 O \J f� W N f� N.-� 7 \: � a' 1� �G <Y ^ �O N Vi Q� I�
L N L� .� M <'I' M Vl �p lD N l� N 00 V M l� �O 01 .- � OC � lG �--� l� �O � � 01 01 O O� N l�
o -- o M c� V oo O c� O o� � m �o m m o� �o �n V m m cc o v� c� �c �c -- -- c� o� c� o
M
z M M N M N M N -� � � � O O M N M M M M 7 M M l� l� [� [� [� lC f� [�
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q�. Q� Q�. Q�. Q�. Q�. Q�. V
7 v V Y' V' V v <t 7 � v rt v tl' V �f Y' v v V V V � V V V m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
o� m 1� 01 m --� o � o� o m O o vl m �D w cv -- �o t� m �D m t� v� t� �n m �c v o 0 0
� V -- �o -- t� N V -- � --� rn�n -- --� x oo �n � m o �n o N o �o m t� �n m �n oo t�n
,� -� O N � [� 7 ^ -� 7 �O t� 7 m O O` N N N O --+ �G � � �O ^ t� N Vl N O Vi � O
� N I� V' V t� oo vi oo �D ^ Ol O �O 1� V N Vl m,--� V 01 oG .-. V1 m �G O� N � O� N O o0
C O l� �D O� M l� O O� l� .--. N vt ,--� O �--� Gl d' vl vl O �' m V M m O� cC oC r �D o0 7'
Vl O V N V l� a �C V N �/1 N �C l� N �O 1� L: I� f� M M O O�. 7 �/l N M M �C M W
�C V V V � Vl V M \D V O V N �C M O� O 1� O� Vl N �/1 vl f� f� O V1 oC M
� �
cC vl M m �D m O� oC 1� oC vl [� �D 01 O �D l� O ^ oo O �O �O O� M N V �O N �G N M O �n O�
[z] ^ -� x N N O� d' M �C 1� vi d' V O� i� Q� N M �G i� x � � V V nN 1� Vl �G �G �O O �G
N N N N � N N N N N N N N N M � N N N M M M --� �--� �--� �--� �--� N -- �
� v v v v v v v v v v� v v v v v v� v������ ������� o
N N N N f�l N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
� y .�' � �' ,�'. �' Y .T. .- � "' '_ �' T �' T � �' � �' �' � � .>' � .>' ..�', � r � � � � �'
y i > > > i > i i � > r/�i vi > > > > R ' v' > > �,C i > > ` > > i .> > i � >
cd R U [C c� R cd R .n ['3 � �' R cJ [6 c� � R ] R tO y Cd R C� R C� C� �; C� C� C� ] R
VJ U U V V U U U U � � U V U U U.a U V V U U U U U U U CJ .� U
C� !3
�
� b b zb � �
a� a� v v a� �- y
v e) i.A hU h�9 LA h9 ,�—y iA
'O 'D � . > > � � 'CJ 'tJ �C _ m �p ctl �G .� �d
d N N N � (d LB �a O O i- � N N m G !a R '- !a N ia itl id iC � � ^cJ� �cJ� �cJ� � � ~cJ' roaJ
� t9 �° � ��� 5n � a, r.�r� on F a� F� v c 5° P� E�'� � "=n c � � ti'° � cu
_=`—° 0 3 0 0 0�-. � 3�" = o �`o o � o=� o 0 0 0.'�'� ^ td o 0 0"=° o=
C O C C G' i¢ id G O C G C � C G r- ... � ... C ❑ G G' � C C � G �
� °� °� p a� a� F ;9 e� °� �¢ fa °� m m a� � m a�
� ,� .. b .. _ Y � �.
_ � .� a
� � v � � � �
nn
�� � � � � � � � � � � � �
� o � o ti ? a� � � a> � ) � > a� m � m � m � � a� m a> � m � a> m o a� �
� .� ._ .� ,D . .� > ._ ... .. 7 > _ C > ... > .p > > > _ > _ > > ._ > ...,
Q �°-' ��� G Q�� Q ��� c d Q� ^ Q �' ¢ c� Q¢ Q c Q c Q Q� 4�
yN M Qi� ,-�. N N N N N N �' Vi' �D OC G1 � _.. .� N M 7 vl �G l� �C .�.. . i. � ,-m�. 7 Vl �G [� ,_,
i������ c� � � � �� � �� m ro b b b � b b b, � Z
� r `� °' °' °' °' °' °' °' °' °' a. a. a. a a a a
i � Q U *
� W
a ,� ,..� ¢
� � � � � �
� x � x >
�,
�
w
�
z
�
�
6�
Y
in
5
N
c
b
0
u
�
�
0
�
N
7
0
3
z
c
�
�
3
U
�
'O
O
�
�
�
a�
c
.7
�
*
�

REGIONAL STANDARD FOR MANAGED STABILITY (RSMS) GUIDELINES
nd A Sparse longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habi
nd B Sparse loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
nd D Moderately dense loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
HABITAT SUITABILITY USING RSMS GUIDELINES
��
D n
D _�
� A► B D
B A
q D
B D
D B B
B B
A q
A A
o '4 A► �
A
A B B p`
B B � � �
,,��� D o
D A B
A B -[�vi 9
A �
A '�`
D
B
B A A A B
B
D B B '4
B B
B B B A
Habitat Suitabilitv
- Suitable Habitat
- Potentially Suitable Habitat
- Future Potential Habitat
��I Non-foraging Habitat
rHSGL 1 PL�
A p
D
B
B
A
B
B A
A B A B ,�
;�r
D g B B �
B g
O RCW cavity trees
� 0.5 mile radius RCW foraging partition
Non-foraging habitat (open areas, clearcuts, roads)
� Project removals
Figure 3. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Private Land Cluster 1 impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
19
B I
1 �7A
D -
B
B
A

Table 2. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using theRegional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal
Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern South Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partition for Private Lands Cluster 1 in Pender County, NC.
Rcmovals Removals Removals
Forestcd Stand 4.0-7.9 inches 8.0-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 8.0+ inches 4.0+ inches Overstory Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat
Potentially Potentially Suitable Future Future
Stand Habitat Age dba dba dba dba dbh Hardwoods pin� Midstory Midstory Suitable Habitat Habitat Potential Habitat Potential Habitat
Dcnsity
(acres) (years) �g• Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Densiry Height
Stems� BA Stcros BA Stems BA Stems BA Stems BA Avg. BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 100.53 59 74.66 12.56 10.21 5.55 0.55 0.68 10.77 6.23 N/A N/A 0.00 Sparse Sparse Low 22.47 139.99
Sparse Moderate 6.37 39.69
> 8 inches Sparse Tall 0.96 5.98
dbh Modcratc Low 15.98 99.56 0.82 5.11
Moderate Moderatc 20.62 128.46 0.50 3.12
Moderate Tall 5.81 36.20
Dcnsc Low 25.62 159.61 0.12 0.75
Dense Moderate 2.70 16.82
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.53 626.31 1.44 8.98
B 177.77 41 60.60 10.43 5.77 3.00 0.00 0.00 5.77 3.00 6637 13.43 2.40 Sparse Sparse Moderate 0.98 13.16 0.03 0.40
Moderate Low 12.86 172.71
> 4 inches Moderate Moderate 11.02 148.00 1.87 25.11
dbh Moderate Tall 2.17 29.14
Dense Low 23.82 319.90
Dense Moderate 65.08 874.02 2.29 30.75
Dense Tall 61.84 830.51
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 177.77 2,387.44 4.19 56.26
D 114.21 49 143.45 24.82 36.16 19.65 1.10 136 37.26 21.00 180.71 45.82 1.40 Moderate Sparse Low 2.70 123.71
Sparse Moderate 3.44 157.62
Moderate Low 3.31 151.66
> 4 inches Moderate Moderate 1.07 49.03
dbh Dense Low 1.66 76.06
Dense Moderate 71.44 3,273.38
Dense Tall 30.59 1,401.63
Subtotal 114.21 5,233.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 392.51 114.21 5,233.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 278.30 3,013.75 5.63 65.24
Unsuitable faraging habitat characteristics according to the proposed regional SMS guidelines (Carter 2012).
�Average stems and BA are calculated per acre.
'"S&P = Suitable and potentially suitab]e habitat
Stand A 59 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand B 41 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand D 49 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
20
AcreaEe Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project l 14.21 0.00 278.30 392.51 114.21
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 5.63 5.63 0.00
Total Post-Project 114.21 0.00 272.67 386.88 114.21
BA
Total Pre-Project 5,233.09 0.00 3,013.75 8,246.84 5,233.09
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 65.24 65.24 0.00
Total Post-Project 5,233.09 0.00 2,948.51 8,181.60 5,233.09

The pre-project regional RSG foraging habitat totals were 1,757.88 ft.� of pine BA on
392.51 acres of future potential habitat (Table 3). This partition does not meet the RSG
requirements pre-project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable
habitat.
The project impact area will remove 9.39 ft.Z of pine BA on 5.63 acres of future potential
habitat on the southeastern edge of the 0.5 mi. radius foraging partition (Table 3).
The post-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 1,748.49 ft.� of pine BA on 386.88 acres
of future potential habitat (Table 3). This partition does not meet the RSG requirements pre- or
post-project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable habitat, but has
sufficient manageable pine habitat to meet the RSG in the future (USFWS 2003).
5.3.2. Impacts to HSGL Cluster 17
RSMS, 0.50 mile radius partition for HSGL 17
The pre-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 1,169.75 ft.� of pine BA on 19.44
acres of suitable habitat, 1,655.67 ft.� of pine BA on 32.21 acres of potentially suitable habitat
and 497.93 ft.� of pine BA on 38.43 acres of future potential habitat (includes pine stems >4
and/or > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure 4; Table 4). This partition does not meet the
RSMS requirements pre-project due to insufficient pine BA and acreage of suitable and/or
potentially suitable habitat.
The project will remove approximately 74.31 ft.� of pine BA on 1.46 acres of suitable
habitat, 338.37 ft.� of pine BA on 7.13 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 11.92 ft.� of pine
BA on 0.91 acre of future potential habitat. The project impact area ranges between 300 and 350
ft. wide, making the habitat on the southeastern side of the highway noncontiguous. This will
result in the loss of 358.38 ft.� of pine BA on 6.79 acres of suitable habitat, 531.78 ft.� of pine
BA on 15.74 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 112.54 ft.� of pine BA on 8.67 acres of
future potential habitat (Figure 4; Table 4).
The post-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 737.06 ft.� of pine BA on 11.19 acres
of suitable habitat, 785.52 ft.� of pine BA on 9.34 acres of potentially suitable habitat, 373.47 ft.�
of pine BA on 28.85 acres of future potential habitat and 1,002.70 ft.2 of pine BA on 31.20 acres
of noncontiguous habitat (includes pine stems > 4 and/ar > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure
21

Table 3. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using theRecovery Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.5 mile radius
foraging partition for Private Lands Cluster 1 in Pender County, NC.
Removals Removals Removals
10.0-13.9 Potentially Potentially Suitable Future Future
Forested Stand 4.0-9.9 inches inches 14.0+ inches 10+ inches Overstory Pine Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Habitat Potential Habitat Potential Habitat
Stand Habitat Age dba dba dba dbh Hardwoods Density >_ Midstory Midstory
(acres) (years) �g• Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 10 in. dbh Density Height
Stems' BA Stems BA Stems BA Stems BA Avg. BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 100.53 59 81.39 15.52 3.48 2.59 0.55 0.68 4.03 3.27 0.00 Sparse Sparse Low 22.47 73.48
Sparse Moderate 6.37 20.83
Sparse Tall 0.96 3.14
Modcratc Low 15.98 52.25 0.82 2.68
Modcrate Modcratc 20.62 67.43 0.50 1.64
Moderate Tall 5.81 19.00
Dcnsc Low 25.62 83.78 0.12 0.39
Densc Modcrate 2.70 8.83
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.53 328.74 1.44 4.71
B 177.77 41 64.88 1231 1.49 1.12 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.12 2.40 Sparse Sparse Moderate 0.98 1.10 0.03 0.03
Moderate Low 12.86 14.40
Moderate Moderate 11.02 1234 1.87 2.09
Moderate Tall 2.17 2.43
Dense Low 23.82 26.68
Dense Moderate 65.08 72.89 2.29 2.56
Dense Tall 61.84 69.26
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 177.77 199.10 4.19 4.68
D 114.21 49 166.70 35.00 12.91 9.42 1.10 1.36 14.01 10.77 1.40 Sparse Sparsc Low 2.70 29.08
Sparse Moderate 3.44 37.05
Moderate Low 3.31 35.65
Moderate Moderate 1.07 11.52
Dense Low 1.66 17.88
Dense Moderate 71.44 769.41
Dense Tall 30.59 329.45
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114.21 1,230.04 0.00 0.00
Total 392.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 392.51 1,757.88 5.63 9.39
Unsuitable faraging habitat characterisrics according to the RSG (USFWS 2003).
�Average stems and BA are calculated per acre.
'"S&P = Suitable and potentially suitab]e habitat
Stand A 59 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scntb, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand B 41 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand D 49 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
22
Acreage Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 392.51 392.51 0.00
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 5.63 5.63 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 386.88 386.88 0.00
BA
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 1,757.88 1,757.88 0.00
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 9.39 939 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 1,748.49 1,748.49 0.00

REGIONAL STANDARD FOR MANAGED STABILITY (RSMS) GUIDELINES
HABITAT SUITABILITY USING REGIONAL RSMS GUIDELINES
Stand A Sparse longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat)
Stand B Sparse loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
Stand C Moderately dense longleaf pine(Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat)
Stand D Moderately dense loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
Stand E Dense longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat)
Stand G Mixed pine residential/disturbed habitat
O RCW cavity trees
••�•-•�� NCDOT property
j_ j Holly Shelter Game Land boundary
� 0.5 mile radius RCW foraging partition
Non-foraging habitat (open areas, clearcuts, roads)
� Project removals
� Noncontiguous habitat
Figure 4. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17 impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
23

Table 4. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Regional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC)
and Northeastern South Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius faraging parrition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17 in Pender County, NC.
Removals Noncontiguous Removals Noncontiguous Removals Noncontiguous
Suitable Habitat Potentially Future
4.0-7.9 inches 8.0-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 8.0+ inches 4.0+ inches Suitable Habitat potentially Potentially potential Habitat Future Future
Forested Stand Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat
dba dba dba dbfl dbh Pine Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Potential Habitat Potentia] Habitat
Stand Habitat Age p�� Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Density Midstory Midstory
(acres) (years) � Density I�Ieight
Stems BA Stems BA Stcros BA Stems BA Stems BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 31.94 68 36.83 6.20 1139 6.81 3.81 6.80 ]5.19 13.61 N/A N/A Sparse Sparse Low 9.21 ]2535 4.10 55.80
Sparse Moderate 0.91 ]239
> 8 inches Moderate Low 4.08 55.53
dbh Moderate Moderate 1.62 22.05
Moderate Tall 3.08 41.92 3.05 41.51
Dense Low 10.15 ]38.14
Dense Tall 2.89 3933 0.78 ]0.62
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.94 434.71 0.78 10.62 7.15 97.31
B 6.49 41 9.36 2.53 5.43 4.99 2.04 2.51 7.46 7.50 16.82 10.02 Sparse Dense Moderate 0.75 7.52
Dense Tall 5.74 57.51 0.13 1.30 1.52 15.23
> 4 in. dUh Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.49 65.03 0.13 1.30 1.52 15.23
- __
C 39.25 62 39.56 7.28 56.61 34.14 7.13 10.02 63.74 44.16 N/A N/A Moderate Sparse Low ��� 4.65 20534 030 13.25
Sparse Tall 1.83 80.81 1.23 5432
> 8 inches Moderate Low 4.68 206.67
dbh Moderate Moderate 1.89 83.46 0.99 43.72
Moderate Tall 8.67 382.87 1.59 70.21 5.42 23935
Dense Low 0.84 37.09
Dense Moderate 8.51 375.80 2.23 98.48 3.52 155.44
Dense Tall 8.18 361.23 1.77 78.16 2.50 110.40
Subtotal 12.00 529.91 1.23 54.32 0.30 13.25 27.25 1,203.36 6.58 290.57 11.44 505.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D 6.72 47 29.79 7.09 43.91 29.05 11.40 17.04 5530 46.09 85.09 53.18 Moderate Sparsc Low 2.23 118.59 0.23 12.23 2.00 106.36
Moderate Tall 0.08 4.25 0.08 4.25
> 4 inchcs Dense Tall 4.41 234.52 4.41 234.52
dbh Subtotal 6.72 357.36 0.23 12.23 6.49 345.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E 1.88 6] 0.00 0.00 99.25 60.19 19.50 26.72 118.75 86.9] N/A N/A Dense Sparse Tall 121 105.16 � 0.55 47.80
Moderate Tall 0.67 58.23 0.50 a3.46
> 8 in. dbh Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 163.39 0.55 47.80 0.50 43.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
- r ........ _
G 3.80 47 117.00 22.06 105.03 65.19 14.66 19.21 119.69 84.40 N/A N/A Dense Sparsc Low 134 113.10 1.34 113.10
Dense Moderate 0.56 47.26 0.56 47.26
> 8 inches Dense Tall 1.90 16036 1.90 16036
dbh Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 320.72 0.00 0.00 3.80 320.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 90.08 18.72 887.27 1.46 66.55 6.79 358.38 32.93 1,687.47 7.13 338.37 15.74 548.65 38.43 499.74 0.91 ll.92 8.67 ll2.54
Unsuitable foraging habitat charactciisrics aceording to Regional SMS guidelines (Carter 2012).
�Average stems and BA are calculated per acre.
�S&P = Suitable and potentially suitable habitat
Stand A 68 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habita
Stand B 4] year o]d sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 62 year old moderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flarivoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 47 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
Stand E 61 year old dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand G 47 year old dense mixed pine, residential/disturbed habita
24
Acreaee Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
TotalPre-Project 18.72 32.93 38.43 90.08 51.65
Total Removals 1.46 7.13 0.91 9.50 8.59
TotalNoncontiguous 6.79 ]5.74 8.67 31.20 22.53
Total Post-Project 10.47 ]0.06 28.85 4938 20.53
BA
Total Pre-Project 887.27 1,687.47 499.74 3,074.48 2,574.74
Total Removals 66.55 33837 l 1.92 416.84 404.92
Total Noncontiguous 35838 548.65 1]2.54 1,019.57 907.03
Total Post-Project 46234 800.45 375.28 1,638.07 1,262.79

4; Table 4). This partition will not meet the RSMS requirements post-project due to insufficient
pine BA and acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable habitat (Carter 2012).
RSG, 0.50 mile radius partition for HSGL 17
HSGL Cluster 17 had 90.08 forested acres within its foraging habitat partition. Soil
indices showed that 83.1 % of the partition was ]ocated on medium productivity soils and 16.9%
was located on low productivity soils (USDA 2015). A minimum of 187.71 acres should be
managed in order to meet the RSG (USFWS 2003).
The pre-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 2,271.45 ft.2 of pine BA on 90.08 acres
of future potential habitat (Table 5). This partition does not meet the RSG requirements pre-
project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable habitat.
The project will remove approximately 299.20 ft.� of pine BA on 9.50 acres of future
potential habitat. The project impact area ranges between 300 and 350 ft. wide, making the
habitat on the southeastern side of the highway noncontiguous. This will result in the loss of
977.75 ft.� of pine BA on 31.20 acres of future potential habitat (Table 4).
The post-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 994.50 ft.2 of pine BA on 49.38 acres
of future potential habitat and 977.75 ft.� of pine BA on 31.20 acres of noncontiguous habitat
(Table 5). This partition does not meet the RSG requirements post-project due to insufficient
acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable habitat (USFWS 2003).
Within the HSGL 17 foraging habitat partition, approximately 28.65 forested acres are
located on HSGL. HSGL can only count habitat located on State and federal properties towards
its Recovery Goals. Because NCDOT purchased property adjacent to HSGL, pursuant to their
project, an additional 15.31 acres of forested habitat was added to the HSGL 17 foraging
partition post-project, a total of 43.96 acres.
5.3.3. Impacts to HSGL Cluster 17A
RSMS, 0.50 mile radius partition for HSGL 17A
The pre- and post-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 3,463.32 ft.� of pine BA on
83.22 acres of suitable habitat, 311.99 ft.� of pine BA on 6.47 acres of potentially suitable habitat
and 1,495.18 ft.� of pine BA on 84.26 acres of future potential habitat (includes pine stems > 4
and/ar > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure 5; Table 6). The bypass impact area does not
25

Table 5. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cocicaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius
foraging partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17 in Pender County, NC.
Removals Removals Reinovals Noncontiguous Habitat
Suitable Habitat Potenrially Future
4.0-9.9 inches 10-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 10.0+ inches Suitable Habitat Potenrially potential Habitat Future Future
Forested Stand dba dba dba dbh Pine Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Potential Habitat Potential Habitat
Stand Habitat Age Density >_ Midstory Midstory
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
(acres) (years) � 10 in. dbh Density Height
Stems BA Stems BA Steins BA Stems BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 31.94 68 42.49 8.69 5.73 a.32 3.81 6.80 9.53 11.12 Sparse Sparse Low 9.21 102.42 �4.10 45.59
Sparse Moderate 0.91 10.12
Moderate Low 4.08 45.37
Moderate Moderate 1.62 18.01
Moderate Tall 3.08 34.25 3.05 33.92
Dense Low 10.15 112.87
Dense Tall 2.89 32.14 0.78 8.67
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.94 355.18 0.78 8.67 7.15 79.51
B 6.49 41 93(i 2.53 5.43 4.99 2.04 2.51 7.46 7.50 Sparse Dense Moderate 0.75 731
Dense Tall 5.74 55.91 O.13 0.98 1.52 11.40
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.49 63.22 013 0.98 1.52 ll.40
C 39.25 62 68.67 20.08 27.50 21.33 7.13 10.02 34.63 31.35 Sparse Sparse Low 4.65 145.78 0.30 9.41
Sparse Ta11 1.83 5737 1.23 38.56
Moderate Low 4.68 146.72
Moderate Moderate 1.89 59.25 0.99 31.04
Moderate Tall 8.67 271.80 1.59 49.85 5.42 169.92
Dense Low 0.8a 2633
Dense Moderate 8.51 266.79 2.23 69.91 3.52 110.35
Dense Tall 818 256.44 1.77 55.49 2.50 78.38
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.25 1230.48 7.81 244.85 ll.74 368.06
D 6.72 47 47.90 15.06 25.80 21.08 11.40 17.04 37.19 38.12 Sparse Sparse Low 2.23 85.01 0.23 8.77 2.00 76.24
Moderate Tall 0.08 3.05 0.08 3.05
Dense Tall 4.41 168.11 4.41 168.11
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.72 256.17 0.23 8.77 6.49 247.40
E 1.88 61 49.05 21.58 50.19 38.60 19.50 26.72 69.70 65.32 Moderate Sparse Tall 1.21 79.04 0.55 35.93
Moderate Tall 0.67 43.76 0.50 32.66
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 122.80 0.55 35.93 0.50 32.66
■
G 3.80 47 166.05 43.64 55.98 43.61 14.66 19.21 70.63 C2.82 Moderate Sparse Low 134 84.18 134 84.18
Dense Moderate 0.56 35.18 0.56 35.18
Dense Tall 1.90 11936 1.90 11936
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 238.72 0.00 0.00 3.80 238.72
Total 90.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.08 2,266.57 9.50 299.20 31.20 977.75
Unsuitable foraging habitat characteristics according to the RSG (USFWS 2003).
�Average stems and BA are calculated per acre.
�S&P = Suitable and potentially suitable habitat
Stand A 68 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand B 41 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 62 year old moderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandl�ill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 47 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
Stand E 61 year old dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand G 47 year old dense mixed pine, residential/disturbed habitat
26
Acrcage Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 90.08 90.08 0.00
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 9.50 9.50 0.00
Total Noncontiguous 0.00 0.00 31.20 31.20 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 49.38 49.38 0.00
BA
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 2,266.57 2,266.57 0.00
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 299.20 299.20 0.00
Total Nonconriguous 0.00 0.00 977.75 977.75 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 989.62 989.62 0.00

REGIONAL STANDARD FOR MANAGED STABILITY (RSMS) GUIDELINES
Habitat Suitability
� Suitable Habitat
- Potentially Suitable Habitat
- Future Potential Habitat
�� Pine Plantation < 15 years old
Non-foraging Habitat
B
0
HABITAT SUITABILITY USING RSMS GUIDELINES
1PL
{: B
o �
�� C
0
C
•� B
D � - p
C
1JUL:)
A �
B C
P�9 °
B
B
B
B
BA B
tand A Sparse longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat)
tand B Sparse loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
tand C Moderately dense longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habita
tand D Moderately dense loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin)
A
�
��
A
c
D
D
�,
O RCW cavity trees
� 0.5 mile radius RCW foraging partition
Non-foraging habitat (open areas, clearcuts, roads)
� Project removals
�' � D A B C
C p
� C � O �� C C
_,����� xX,�.�
x ���X�, h � A
B B
C � � � X ��Yx
•�> ,��,��,
Cn n`•.; `` ; `x ; `�
B
A C Co
B <x o
A � C
B A
A p` � C
o B o 0
A D C °C
o Co� C A o C E
C '°'� E
o �
D C A oo A
o C C C � C
o C
A A C
C
❑�
C � /
AC C j
c
A E C / ',
A A �C
�.� .
A C C �C p
C
A A B � C C
C
C C C � C C D
/, C q C
' p` C C
�B � E
C
D D
Figure 5. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17A near the proposed Hampstead Bypass project corridor (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
2�

Table 6. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Regional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal Plain in
Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern Souih Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17A in Pender County, NC.
4.0-7.9 inches 8.0-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 8.0+ inches 4.0+ inches Suitable Habitat Potentially Future
Forested Stand Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Potential Habitat
Stand Habitat Age dba dba dba dba dbh P�ne Midstory Midstory
(acres) (years) `��g' Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Density Density Height
Stems� BA Stems BA Stems BA Ste���s BA Stems BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 21.74 67 55.58 11.54 22.29 15.97 3.34 4.56 25.63 20.52 N/A N/A Sparse Sparse Low 8.93 183.24
> 8 inches Moderate Low 3.91 80.23
dbh Moderate Tall 4.06 83.31
Dense Low 4.84 99.32
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.74 446.10
�
B 62.52 32 24.95 6.74 12.60 6.70 2.11 3.34 14.71 10.04 39.66 16.78 Sparse Dense Low 20.98 352.04
> 4 inches Dense Moderate 41.54 697.04
dbh Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.52 1,049.08
C 51.34 86 23.60 5.74 1.45 43.54 3.44 4.68 77.89 48.22 N/A N/A Moderate Sparse Low 4.57 220.37
> 8 inches Sparse Tall 2.97 143.21
dbh Moderate Low 19.99 963.92
Moderate Tall 6.08 293.18
Dense Low 17.34 836.13
Dense Moderate 0.39 18.81
Subtotal 44.87 2,163.63 6.47 311.99 0.00 0.00
D 38.35 52 99.76 18.83 0.61 14.06 0.63 1.00 22.32 15.06 122.08 33.89 Moderate Moderate Tall 1.50 50.84
> 4 inches Dense Low 10.19 345.34
dbh Dense Moderate 26.66 903.51
Subtotal 38.35 1,299.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 173.95 83.22 3,463.32 6.47 311.99 84.26 1,495.18
Unsuitable foraging habitat characteristics according to the proposed Regional SMS foraging habitat guidelines (Carter 2012)
iAverage stems and BA are calculated per acre.
�S&P = Suitable and potcntially suitable habitat
Stand A 67 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savam�a habitat
Stand B 32 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 86 year old moderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 52 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
2g
Acreage Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project 8322 6.47 8426 173.95 89.69
Total Reinovals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Post-Project 8322 6.47 84.26 173.95 89.69
BA
Total Pre-Project 3,46332 311.99 1,495.18 5,270.49 3,775.31
Total Rcmovals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Post-Project 3,46332 311.99 1,495.18 5,270.49 3,775.31

currently impact forested habitat. Unless there is a design change, this cluster will not be
impacted. This partition meets the RSMS requirements pre-project (Carter 2012).
RSG, 0.50 mile radius partiNon for HSGL 17A
HSGL Cluster 17A had 170.80 forested acres within its foraging habitat partition. Soil
indices showed that 50% of the partition was located on medium productivity soils and 50% was
located on low productivity soils (USDA 2015). A minimum of 212.50 acres should be managed
in order to meet the RSG (USFWS 2003).
The pre- and post-project regional RSG foraging habitat totals were 3,034.98 ft.� of pine
BA on 173.95 acres of future potential habitat (Table 7). This partition does not meet the RSG
requirements post-project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable
habitat (USFWS 2003). Unless there is a design change, this cluster will not be impacted.
5.3.4. Impacts �o HSGL Cluster EC
RSMS, 0.50 mile radius partition for HSGL EC
The pre-project RSMS foraging habitat totals were 5,103.93ft.2 of pine BA on 87.40
acres of suitable habitat, 992.41 ft.� of pine BA on 17.18 acres of potentially suitable habitat and
1,825.88 ft.� of pine BA on 125.01 acres of future potential habitat (includes pine stems > 4
and/or > 8 inches dbh as appropriate) (Figure 6; Table 8). This partition meets the RSMS
requirements pre-project, assuming potentially suitable habitat is made suitable (USFWS 2003)
(Carter 2012).
The project will remove 310.69 ft.� ofpine BA on 3.50 acres of suitable habitat, 112.68
ft.� of pine BA on 2.37 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 33.87 ft.� of pine BA on 1.86
acres of future potential habitat. The project impact area ranges between 300 and 350 ft. wide,
making the habitat on the southeastern side of the highway noncontiguous. This will result in the
loss of 1,173.48 ft.� of pine BA on 13.88 acres of suitable habitat, 62.73 ft.� of pine BA on 1.38
acres of potentially suitable habitat and 246.39 ft.� of pine BA on 18.63 acres of future potential
habitat (Figure 6; Table 8).
The post-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 3,619.76 ft.� of pine BA on 70.02 acres
of suitable habitat, 817.00 ft.� of pine BA on 13.43 acres of potentially suitable habitat,
1,545.62ft.� of pine BA on 104.52 acres of future potential habitat and ],482.60 ft.� of pine BA
on 33.89 acres of noncontiguous habitat (Figure 6; Table 8). This partition will meet the RSMS
29

Table 7. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging
partition for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster 17A in Pender County, NC.
Suitable Habitat Potentially Future
4.0-9.9 inches 10.0-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 10.0+ inches Pine Suitable Habitat Potential Habitat
Forested Stand Hardwood
dba dba dba dbh Density Hardwood
Stand Habitat Age > 10 in. Midsto Densit Midstory
(acres) (years) �'�g' Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. - �' y Height
Stems� BA Stems BA Stems BA Stems BA dbh Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 21.74 67 60.73 13.81 14.14 13.70 3.34 4.56 20.48 18.26 Sparse Sparse Low 8.93 163.06
Moderate Low 3.91 7 ] .40
Moderate Tall 4.06 74.14
Dense Low 4.84 88.38
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.74 396.98
� � �� � i�� �
B 62.52 32 32.49 10.06 5.05 3.38 2.11 3.34 7.16 6.72 Sparse Dense Low 20.98 140.99
Dense Moderate 41.54 279.15
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.52 420.14
�. � � �
C 51.34 86 60.58 22.01 37.47 27.27 3.44 4.68 4091 31.95 Sparse Sparse Low 4.57 146.01
Sparse Tall 2.97 94.89
Moderate Low 19.99 638.68
Moderate Tall 6.08 194.26
Dense Low 1734 554.01
Dense Moderate 0.39 12.46
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.34 1,640.31
_ - - -i,= -
D 38.35 52 107.68 22.32 13.76 10.57 0.63 1.00 14.39 15.06 Sparse Moderate Tall 1.50 22.59
Dense Low 10.19 153.46
Dense Moderate 26.66 40].50
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.35 577.55
Total 173.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.95 3,034.98
Unsuitable foraging habitat characteristics according to tl�e RSG (USFWS 2003).
� Average stems and BA are calculated per acre.
'S&P = Suitable and potentially suitable habitat
Stand A 67 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand B 32 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 86 year old inoderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scnib Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flarivoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 52 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
30
Acreage Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 173.95 173.95 0.00
Total Removals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 ] 73.95 173.95 0.00
BA
Total Pre-Project 0.00 0.00 3,034.98 3,034.98 0.00
Total Rcmovals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Post-Project 0.00 0.00 3,034.98 3,034.98 0.00

REGIONAL STANDARD FOR MANAGED STABILITY (RSMS) GUIDELINES
D A
RSMS HABITAT SUITABILITY
B
B
D
C �
C q
� o A
C C A EE
D A
B B A ,q
� B A` A C C �
�=y , � .
� , Q� A C �
C C
B B A C � o ° C � F
B ° o A �
D
a' q C C C /, D
�; _ A B
� A
U(! G J B o � C A` ��� �
D �� C ° A / C C
C ° � C E
° q C ° ,qo E D
o ,Q� E ; B
C oo '°` %` A
D A i
� � o � � � A �'��//A A �
� � C / s
A A /
C / � �
Habitat Suitability ' �
- Suitable Habitat C A
- Potentially Suitable Habitat C C �
- Future Potential Habitat C G p
Non-foraging Habitat � � , � C �
E G
Stand A Sparse longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat) o RCW cavity trees N
Stand B Sparse loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin) � 0.5 mile radius RCW foraging partition
Stand C Moderately dense longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat)
Stand D Moderately dense loblolly and pond pine bay/pocosin (High Pocosin) Q Noncontiguous habitat w v c E
Stand E Dense longleaf pine (Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat) Non-foraging habitat (open areas, clearcuts, roads)
Stand F Dense Pond Pine Woodland � Project removals ° °
S
Figure 6. Foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster EC impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass project corridor (R-3300) in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
31

Table 8. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using theRegional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines for the Outer Coastal Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern
South Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partition forHolly Shelter Game Land Cluster EC in Pender Counry, NC.
Removals Noncontiguous Removals Noncontiguous Removals Noncontiguous
Potential ly Future
Forested Stand 4.0-7.9 inches 8.0-13.9 inches 14.0+ inches 8.0+ inches IIardwood IIardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat Potentially Suitable Potentially Suitabl Potential Habitat Future Future
Stand Habitat Age dba dba dba dbh 4.0+ inches dbh Pine Midstory Midstory Habitat Habitat Potential Habitat Potential Habitat
Density
(acres) (years) �g� Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Density Height
Stems� BA Stems BA Stems BA Ste�ns BA Stems BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 75.77 60 39.14 8.27 22.11 13.01 3.73 5.20 25.84 18.21 N/A N/A Sparse Sparse Low 10.16 185.01
> 8 inches Moderatc Low 12.62 229.81
dbh Moderate Moderate 4.58 83.40 0.70 12.75 0.42 7.65
Dcnsc Low 5.3) 98.15
Dense Moderate 13.53 246.38 0.97 17.66 7.65 139.31
Dense Tall 29.49 537.01 0.19 3.46 0.41 7.47
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.77 1,379.76 1.86 33.87 8.48 154.43
__ �� -
B 49.24 62 11.08 2.04 8.55 6.02 0.82 1.00 936 7.02 20.44 9.06 Sparse Dense Low 6.47 58.62
> 4 inchcs Dense Moderate 34.60 313.48 10.15 91.96
dbh Dense Tall 8.17 74.02
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.24 446.12 0.00 0.00 1015 91.96
- . . - i, - i - ri -
C 69.05 75 15.28 3.28 51.27 34.70 7.94 10.76 59.21 45.46 N/A N/A Moderate Sparse Low 22.05 1,002.39
> 8 inches Moderatc Low 34.65 1,575.19
dbh Moderate Moderate 2.42 110.01 0.11 5.00
Densc Low 1.59 72.28
Dense Moderate 3.48 158.20 2.11 9592 1.38 62.73
Densc Tall 4.86 220.94
Subtotal 58.29 2,649.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.76 489.15 2.22 100.92 1.38 62.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D 17.66 56 18.46 3.40 26.77 17.57 15.28 23.38 42.05 40.96 60.51 4435 Moderate Dense Moderate 7.78 562.73 1 J8 7894
> 4 inches Dense Tall 9.88 714.62 1.61 I 16.45 2.55 1 13.09
dbh Subtotal 17.66 1,277.35 1.61 116.45 4.33 192.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
,:- v � �� v_ �
E 6.42 69 44.15 7.15 84.40 58.35 13.26 20.04 97.66 78.39 N/A N/A Dense Sparse Low 2.27 177.95
> 8 inches Modcrate Low 0.55 43.11
dbh Dense Moderate 2.42 189.70
Dense Tall 118 92.50 0.15 11.76
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.42 503.26 0.15 11.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
u' - • r
F ] 1.45 44 27.69 5.09 45.74 33.81 37.01 63.87 82.75 97.67 ll 0.44 ] 02.77 Dense Dense � Tal l I 1.45 l, U6.72 1.89 19424 9.55 981.45
> 4 in. Subtotal ll.45 1,176.72 1.89 194.24 9.55 981.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 229.59 87.40 5,103.93 3.50 310.69 13.88 1,173.48 1718 992.41 2.37 112.68 1.38 62.73 125.01 1,825.88 1.86 33.87 18.63 246.39
Unsuitable foraging habitat characteristics according to Regional SMS guidelines (Carter 2012).
�Average stems and BA are calculated per acre
�S&P = Suitable and potentially suitable habital
Stand A 60 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habita
Stand B 62 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 75 year old moderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 56 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
Stand E 69 year old dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand F 44 year old dense Pond Pine Woodland
32
Acrea�e Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&PZ
Total Pre-Project 87.40 17.18 125.01 229.59 104.58
Total Reinovals 3.50 2.37 1.86 7.73 5.87
Total Noncontiguous 13.88 138 18.63 33.89 15.26
Total Post-Project 70A2 L3.43 L04.52 187.97 83.45
BA
TotalPre-Project S,L03.93 992.4] 1,825.88 7,922.22 6,096.34
Total Removals 310.69 112.68 33.87 457.24 423.37
TotalNoncontiguous 1,173.48 62.73 246.39 1,482.60 1,236.21
Tota1 Post-Project 3,619J6 817.00 1,545.62 5,982.38 4,436.76

requirements post-project, assuming potentially suitable habitat is made suitable (USFWS 2003)
(Carter 2012).
RSG, 0.50 mile radius partition for HSGL EC
HSGL Cluster EC had 139.63 forested acres within its foraging habitat partition. Soil
indices showed that 71.0% of the partition was ]ocated on medium productivity soils and 29.0%
was located on low productivity soils (USDA 2015). A minimum of 196.75 acres should be
managed in order to meet the RSG (USFWS 2003).
The pre-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 198.58 ft.2 of pine BA on 2.82 acres of
suitable habitat, 253.52 ft.� of pine BA on 3.60 acres of potentia]]y suitable habitat and 5,674.66
ft.� of pine BA on 223.17 acres of future potential habitat (Table 9). This partition does not meet
the RSG requirements pre-project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially
suitable habitat.
The project will remove 10.56 ft.� of pine BA on 0.15 acre of potentially suitable habitat
and 263.28 ft.� of pine BA on 7.58 acres of future potential habitat. The project impact area
ranges between 300 and 350 ft. wide, making the habitat on the southeastern side of the highway
noncontiguous. This will result in the loss of 1,271.21 ft.� of pine BA on 33.89 acres of future
potential habitat (Table 8).
The post-project RSG foraging habitat totals were 198.58 ft.� of pine BA on 2.82 acres of
suitable habitat, 242.96 ft.� of pine BA on 3.45 acres of potentially suitable habitat, 3,873.84 ft.�
of pine BA on 183.32 acres of future potential habitat and 1,271.21 ft.� of pine BA on 33.89
acres of noncontiguous habitat (Table 9). This partition does not meet the RSG requirements
pre- or post-project due to insufficient acreage of suitable and/or potentially suitable habitat
(USFWS 2003).
5.4. FIVE LEVELS OF RCW ANALYSIS
5.4.1. Cluster Level Analyses
5.4.1.a. Cavity Trees
No RCW cavity trees will be directly impacted by the bypass and all cavity trees will be
greater than 200 ft. from the impact area (Figure 2). No clusters will be "taken" by cavity tree
loss.
33

Table 9. Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) pre- and post-project red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat totals using the Recovery Standard Guidelines (USFWS 2003) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partition
for Holly Shelter Game Land Cluster EC in Pender County, NC.
Removals Removals Removals Noncontiguous
Potentially Future
10.0-13.9 Pine Suitable Habitat Potentially Suitable Potential Habitat Future Future
Forested Stand 4.0-9.9 inches inches 14A+ inches Hardwood Hardwood Suitable Habitat Suitable Habitat
Stand Habitat Age dba dba dbh ] 0.0+ inches dbh Density Midstory Midstory Habitat Potential Habitat Potential Habitat
>_ 10 in.
(acres) (years) �g� Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. dbh Density Height
Stems� BA Stems BA Stems BA Stems BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA Acres BA
A 75.77 60 50.46 13.25 10.79 8.03 3.73 5.20 14.52 13.23 Sparse Sparse Low 10.16 134.42
Moderate Low 12.62 166.96
Moderate Moderate 4.58 60.59 0.70 9.26 0.42 5.56
Dense Low 539 71.31
Dense Moderate l 3.53 179.00 0.97 12.83 7.65 ] Ol .21
Dense Tall 29.49 390.15 0.19 2.51 0.41 5.42
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.77 1,002.43 1.86 24.60 8.48 112.19
B 49.24 62 13.34 3.03 6.29 5.03 0.82 1.00 7.10 6.03 Sparse Dcnsc Low 6.47 39.01
Dense Moderate 34.60 208.64 10.15 61.20
Dense Tall 8.17 49.27
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.24 296.92 0.00 0.00 10.15 61.20
e �
C 69.05 75 30.92 10.17 35.63 27.82 7.94 10.76 43.56 38.58 Sparse Sparse Low 22.05 850.69
Moderate Low 34.65 1,336.80
Moderate Moderate 2.42 9336 0.11 4.24
Dense Low 1.59 6134
Dense Moderate 3.48 134.26 2.11 138 53.24
Dense Tall 4.86 187.50
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.05 2,663.95 2.22 4.24 1.38 53.24
�
D 17.66 56 27.89 7.55 17.33 13.42 15.28 23.38 32.61 36.81 Sparse Dense Moderate 7.78 286.38 1.78 65.52
Dense Tall 9.88 363.68 1.61 59.26 2.55 93.87
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.66 650.06 1.61 59.26 4.33 159.39
E 6.42 69 62.27 15.12 66.29 50.38 13.26 20.04 79.55 70.42 Dense Sparse Low 2.27 159.85
Moderate Low 0.55 38.73
Dense Moderate 2.42 170.42
Dense Tall ].18 83.10 0.15 10.56
Subtotal 2.82 198.58 0.00 0.00 3.60 253.52 0.15 10.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
- .�_ ;
F 11.45 44 39.01 10.07 34.42 28.83 37.01 63.87 71.43 92.69 Dense Dense Tall 11.45 1,06130 1.89 175.18 9.55 885.19
Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.45 1,061.30 1.89 175.18 9.55 88519
Total 229.59 2.82 198.58 0.00 0.00 3.60 253.52 015 10.56 223.17 5,674.66 7.58 263.28 33.89 1,271.21
Uns�titable foraging habitat characteristics according to the RSG (USFWS).
�Average sYems and BA are calculated per acre.
�S&P = Suitable and potentially suitable habitat
Stand A 60 year old sparse Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
SYand B 62 year old sparse High Pocosin
Stand C 75 year old moderately dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pinc Savanna and Wet Pine Flatwoods/Wet Pine Savanna habitat
Stand D 56 year old moderately dense High Pocosin
Stand E 69 year old dense Xeric Sandhill Scrub, Pine-Scrub Oak Sandhill, Mesic Pine Savanna and Wet Pinc Flatwoods/Wct Pinc Savanna habitat
Stand F 44 year old dense Pond Pine Woodland
34
Acreage Suitable Potential Future Total-All Total-S&P�
Total Pre-Project 2.82 3.60 223.17 229.59 6.42
Total Removals 0.00 0.15 7.58 7.73 0.15
Total Noncontiguous 0.00 0.00 33.89 33.89 0.00
Total Post-Project 2.82 3.45 181.70 ] 87.97 6.27
BA
Total Pre-Project 198.58 253.52 5,674.66 6,126.76 452.10
Total Removals 0.00 10.56 263.28 273.84 10.56
Total Noncontiguous 0.00 0.00 1,271.21 1,271.21 0.00
Total Post-Project 198.58 242.96 4,140.17 4,581.71 441.54

5.4.1.b. Foraging Habitat
The proposed Hampstead Bypass project will remove approximately 14.46 acres of
suitable and potentially suitable habitat and 8.40 acres of future potential habitat from 3 active
RCW cluster partitions (PVT 1, HSGL 17 and EC) (Table 10). The project impact area ranges
between 300 and 350 ft. wide, making the habitat on the southeastern side of the highway
noncontiguous. This will result in the loss of 37.79 acres of suitable and potentially suitable
habitat and 27.30 acres of future potential habitat (Table 10). There were no pine-forested
habitat removals within the HSGL 17A foraging partition.
Table 10. Red-cockaded woodpecker project-related habitat removals and noncontiguous habitat
removals using the Regional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines (RSMS) for
the Outer Coastal Plain in Southeastern North Carolina (NC) and Northeastern South
Carolina (Carter 2012) within the 0.50 mile radius foraging partitions for Private Land
Cluster 1 and Holly Shelter Game Land Clusters 17, 17A and EC in Pender County,
NC.
RSMS Pro'ect Removals RSMS Nonconfi uous Habitat Removals
Suitable and Suitable and
Potentially Suitable Future Potential Potentially Suitable Future Potential
Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat
Cluster Acres Av . BA Acres Av . BA Acres Av . BA Acres Av . BA
PVT l 0.00 0.00 5.63 6524 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HSGL 17 8.59 40�4.92 0.91 11.92 22.53 907.03 8.67 112.54
HSGL 17A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HSGL EC 7.73 457.24 1.86 33.87 15.26 1,236.21 18.63 246.39
TOTAL 14.46 836.05 8.40 111.03 37.79 2126.37 27.30 358.93
Guidance issued by the USFWS (2005) defines the SMS as the "take" standard. The
RSG, previously considered the management standard for Recovery Populations (USFWS 2003),
is now considered the "desired future condition of RCW foraging habitat" (USFWS 2005) or as
the management standard for populations on State and federal ]and or certain other properties.
One HSGL cluster (HSGL 17) is considered "taken" by the project according to the RSMS
Guidelines (Table 4). Potentially suitable habitat was counted towards the available foraging
habitat because improving this habitat can be accomplished over the short-term through pine
thinning and hardwood midstory removal/suppression. Future potential habitat was not included
35

because this habitat will take years, perhaps decades to become suitable. Clusters PVT 1 and
HSGL 17A meet the RSMS pre- and post-project with suitable foraging habitat alone (Tables 2
and 6).
Because HSGL is part of the NC Coastal Plain Primary Core Population, the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) is required to manage RCW habitat according to the RSG
(USFWS 2003). Using the RSG in its strictest sense, none of the RCW partitions will meet the
requirements pre- or post-project (Tables 3, 5, 7 and 9). However, the NCWRC should not rely
on private lands to provide habitat for RCWs located on HSGL (USFWS 2003). All project-
related habitat removals are located on private property. NCDOT has purchased 3 properties
south of and adjacent to, HSGL which will provide additional protected, manageable habitat for
the HSGL Clusters 17 and 17A foraging partitions (Figure 7).
Table 11. Pre- and post-foraging habitat summary for red-cockaded woodpecker clusters
impacted by the Hampstead Bypass project (R-3300), Pender County, North Carolina.
Pre-Project Post-Project
Meets RSMS*, Meets RSMS, 0.50 Cluster-Level
Cluster Meets Meets Tal�e
0.50 mile radius RSG** mile radius RSG (�'es/No)
partition* partition
PVT 1 Yes* No Yes No No
HSGL 17 No No No No Yes
HSGL 17A Yes No Yes No No
HSGL EC Yes No Yes No No
*RSMS = Regional Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines **RSG = Recovery Standard Guidelines
5.4.2. Group Level Analysis
The Group Level Analysis evaluates density effects to clusters directly impacted by the
Hampstead Bypass project, but not "taken" at the cluster level or where habitat removals outside
cluster partition boundaries affect habitat contiguity (USFWS 2005). No RCW clusters had
group-level takes (Table 12). Only Clusters PVT 1, HSGL 17A and HSGL EC were evaluated
since they were not taken at cluster level.
36

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet � � �� r +`•�„,*� �� _ , : l o . 3'� ' .. • : '� , , .- ;•; t; t.. ` - ��r '
� y�� ''�ii� � R � � ,� �� � � � • � � � � tt� 1 ��! � � �
� Z �E L� . - 'e�'. � t �t"�1�i��'' * I � � . � Y T `r yi • i 1 � � �, • .� ��.,.i , i � ` r 1 - : i �•�. �` � ,n
. .� , .Y;�..�*E �S-.� �r . • i . i��Tt�� �. � - � i,`w,.�. �,�: � �•,� � i,l� ����► �� . + ,��.�'.Ii���t�•!�� � � i � i � L' .�
�• •1•"�.4� .r �� M+•���: • i� ,�� '�s�. t� �. ,� . �� , •�� .� ` �.s� 1 tiT.:v�.'. j• �•\I��•♦ 1"� t, I.. f�It,S•'. .1 rR ♦ 'r�i �� ,7 b1 L77r J � �♦ ' : r ,� t.
♦ i • ,' .. Z r •!J e S'� ♦ � •-i • �. 'r 1 L T i� � (� , v` • .� �� � t � � � � "I
,": �' � � a-'�• �,�1• :' 9 .'��� .•��' ' � +l:�l ��� . 'T�+y � ,t ���!�V��` ��1 ��• . � �1" ���r►" t a�_ V�. � ��R.� ��\ � � } /� �, +�`��� %
w a � .wcl �':''�. ' ` � : � � ,� . ��� � � � ' � ' � ' � � '� �" � • � � � f � � i
�'�� � � � •�� � � � �� ..f ►� ..• .'� • .:_� •.,'• •.• ', . ♦ . '� �'rj` � � ��
j � �'',%N.� � `i�,�•� �' �� �,`1M�! � ��. +` t�! 4 �` �i �� �� �� r� s � � q� ■• � � ��f t��+� � ft �. •.1.� ��, `• ����� ��4�� '.. •!,O • ' • . r,f,+�` �. '��' �'
.
. � . • . t "
. „ , • . %�
j . , . , , , e ' ' ' ' + , V .
- ;�' :.-:,w � �'-� ..�; ; � � , . ���+'�+,�Y�. �•�:���. ,� i���" ;s� . . . -, x • �';,• ,L `r
� � ...► �� -� � , �IS E
r-. ' ♦� �5[� s L . {"�i'P ► 3 • •f , J'.:.� , - .ti� � � - ' . I r. I�_ ��4 �- �
°1 � ♦ v-."..,R t � � � � - • � ' ' � • . . " j - _ + i ,!� �, s ,:� � . •
r ,,i+ • • ~' : '!rf` �'�'�-k' :) .� ; � � O Y � �� ?' � a f � ' i
. - ' • ' % �. 4 '� y�+ � p . y � t' t�'� ;'
� a ..'f� � �► •�i.•.'�M ' .r4� ♦�.i � -1� �.�*,,` I�`J �. . ���,�` �4 4` , .�- � ���c��A . ' . � � ����,��� . �'� � �� �� j
M ��� � • � � ! � � .r �• � :�`3, : ^� s, � � • � �� �•� . - ���i � � ' � ,� ' ' � i
t � R. .�; ';�� r - L _ r `w� - '°!'s ,' 'r ' � • j .�•` . � 1 ' ti . � . • ; , � . . �a�F�'� . �
, '� y�'i., ,.� • p a , . � �� . ` � • � • � :� : . r ♦ . " � •�: f ��' � �
";.11..p".�t�' ,4 .�r��r'� ) L r?`t'� ` ��(.�i*� �_�{. ,'�. ��� _ ,� ! � '+� � ���� '� � ,�•� v���► , • 1 �• . f � 1 . . ' �' •� �- � ' �' 1� �I � , �
.y Y , .� , � { ,� s. �f� j,� ;� �..;r� O '�,• � '�� �1-.� � � � .
j s;�«`�j�]��'1� 1•• ,l},i��+y+i:t yi'b 1' .. � ��{ •;� { w.�,l �.�� .� g� i • ■`'i'. 1. •�..'�' • • , ,-�� r `'� ' � �. -f�y �. .7 ���'�„ti.1�� r � f � �', ,
�. �{ . e . '�s'� � ` , r'. •�
� �}'� • �'�'b.a:l;!]� ��«,� e�yjt,i,.+• ��? ��-f� tirL� /r.��''Y � � �:{ ' � �'.? , � . � �a� ± i L .�1!• Y,• I l r '1 1'y� • ` � � � '
, .��.�. �.ti� �.Y��.j �� (. �� �?� �' ��• c f�;�r. ''. • �� � �.• . � � ��. 7� . . 0 j� �� ' • . _ � �-�1'��� %�� �` � �f +� ��.�!'
■ . ��.�_' 1
, . 4r ` ,� , ..;�, � s'�. r s+' ,. . � , �� � . � :: � `•� _ • •• . `� ��;:�`' ' .t . S, i I ) 1
, .* • '�!�'t y� i�,�,� \ �ti.. � �% ��' 4 � �� • ` • � � +i�����/�. '�, �/ � . i I . .I
��l.' R., 'r ! . • ,�• -,. J' `T '�'{ -��' �r ';+s `�. J � � 1 •' � ;. �. . , t � . � : °� . t _ �+ • �
*�`a ♦�. � �.,►:' ^'r c �i' ri •i�� �T !L�. :'l`..' .�. � � ��- ���''� �4 r' _� , r 7 �� `'���:��:-l�. � ��_. • ;�► � _ . � ��y.- � � 5� . t,� l jC '
k, i : �`. . ,, +E ` � t , +t ,� .'� : s ' ��. ; c Y� ` -`. �' ,� ',�+� -�,� . ;" • .e • ' . . �` i sl ; � �w � , • �' � %� � � -. . � � �, � �! • � ` .
♦ It I. a + C t-• f s� .�. � I: �
e . � : �' � +�� �, }�` �4� �`� i: �,�,� �. .,,� >.,�c ,y. ,�e�+�`� ; ';'_ � •;• � ='•, �` ��f'�� ���� � ` Pensco �: . (t � � � '�
� i.�� • � � --jy f .�• ♦ �:' .�r;�`� ";..,.. ., �% • .��• .;,.� � t ; .� . �� .., ti � �. • j1,:.��` �j s i'���j .
.,.1 s":f.;l�� , r;4�' '♦��,`y�, �'.�.�l�+:'�11 �'' ;F` ..t��'% � ��, .:��� '� �--•i% •�'i �� ���• �i t�` �•r �� '' �'�,`�,� � �_ -� � � '1 '�� , � / '� t � { �7 `, �:i. �,
.
7 �� • `
i s • � " ' ' , _ _
�'� y„'b��' �'. 'i ,.�?� t � � �'j�Y . �' � � ►+ {,�'��} ;` , � -��y � i ;r� �y .,� • � , , y f it�i7 , �,• ;� _� • • r�,� . j�.�� �' s� '� i � _ .-� , . .
S` �1 � � .�
�' 't,�.•�f '`'ti''k ;�y L ei� �i• •�' t{+ �%. . �� '�� .i"-`�; I�ir' � �• �.t ';.. ♦� , � �� i f ; ���"1�, • � ���, � `�� � . ` '---
� / °; /�S "��.�� d�t�,ta.~'�� ��'!♦� � i� •r ��� : �. . � + . � •- `r • �. ' y � ��,�/�r f . _r �� c� .,
� 'r +i .Li�-� '�; � l ��I � l ' r� '� -/'wrg�� 'rl � } ,• � . � � I • �'f �f � � � � ,� � � � � . � ���� „� � �Y 1 � � /' 1.. . t �(GQ' w * . I � i
�,�`, ��' � � i�� l� / , r. �` � f I a �1 . 1'�� � � I,M • . • ��� � �V .�Q' V� � � �
' � .� '�`�,. e �i� ��y .i�+.�'^�t � .��` � � �f� � � � .- � ' • � �� �B�J' _ � � Q' '' � . '�f
r ''��'�� � ��`'. ! � � .� ' .� . • �w • ' �
� ';�• ..' � , v � �'�a►�i� j l�. _ �s r f .' � � `' � � � � � . �_ � r
r ' �. � � . ��''`` Q • •- •
,,� � I . '�� � + � �. �r � _y � j� . ,4 `.� i ��,+(� _ - A_ t
i�i '�, � �� � 7r 'y� • •�.� * �y���E �•• .�! ri� . �i� v. �' � �F1 � ! !A ' -vC � .�.
� � Iy �tr� � e � �� I i"� � V ��� �-�i ir, ��' +'i '�� • i , ~r � '!� • . 14 `, � �1 ��'9 + �
� �� ��i" _ Y � � � �1•it_�y F _ " , , • .� \ �� �` �. ��,���. �., �a �
� ' � � � � � �' � - � L� ��� � � -
r � 1 � � � t 4u � �. ' � _ . , � ,� �. I � ' � .
r � ti' � ' � � � "� ?� � /� � • ► ' A
� , �� � «, �,�r , �� ,�,,�"► , �- Hampstead . �" �` � . .
��a;'r �� � i.. ��" f. .� �. � � � • � �� l' , ` Q' �� �.. '�.� a
�1 ��:�'�°.�* �,'�.�-.��;: �,�..,,�r�t4 =� , , � ti � '�' , �.. - � Commons( ,f �''� +� - ; � _:i •,� �. ; . . �o� .. .�� � r,
,rt r • • v •t . � .� , t ',t �• �� `.7` ' •'� � � • . � Jws *� ,1, • r � � � �(�- � ` � / � ��'J � � � �..� �
' r . . � ^ + t�' /\ '1. � t'�_ I + � . r . r ��� !� �4 f . ' ' �• / • S ,�.: � r.. `! � � ,��' / � �, _ \� � � � •
r�. 'J ,��. �� a �•�L"� I �I r �l . r 1 •� i 1 f 1 �. �_ � �. � �
_I� +` • � .� T��r`� � '' 1.' • �,' . : . � �►. � '�' � `�-�_�
° �� �,"�. • _ � .� i i . •.K' � _•� t � � � � � � � � �' �-�� �
f . • �. � � �' � � �" �•� : • r . � ' ,� j-� � � . � . .. j % � r�` �� " C9 ��, �
�i \ r - ��� r ' a� i�./ �. O �«
t:'- =_:..'��' '� . ,�. ,�f '' , . �`, ��. -t.y'; ; � f ' � f' � i ,.. �i ` . m ;'` f
••..:?�.:►"�` • ' ✓ `� . . �..'�t p �r . � �, , . % ` `�� � �• � '' �-�
A•�s �� � � ' •r •T f a/ � r i�I - rr. i
�^ ���� ; ;�;� • `\ - . -�' , 'v � � i � • �' "� t'.I . 1 � � �s •
� • �"` �� � �� i h .� �' � �i� .�� , � ��y �. � � ,'-ti..
.. �y 1 i 1 -
�
�l
� . r '. -.�_' , • i. � - L . `�* t ' � � I � �' � �a ' ' ; ♦ \ �' �� !� .
�� : �,, :� . , ♦ � � . . , �•�; ` ' '` nl'. ��, + � . � •, • � /� ` 'f t � �` %.'` � �y �� �� � � ' � �\ � ��(_���� : � �•� ,� i '
F � -" - . ti . . �t r ��� �' � . 1 i. . . .1 -� ��` j +r �� .� F /� 1f. � L . 1, � . �r �� ! � � / i
� . • R . �� �. � �+• �� �-�:�• � e t i� /� i � i 3 . � � r � . .I� � �• ( .� } f• / - � f ++zt \ � � 'f'I t � IF
,� � e . � � e�� �t-,�.,`� �. � t .-5��� ��[ ,. �t,' `t `�s � _ / ,f' � . �� . � � � �� � �.
�a �.'�• , w�`� 1. �t .� i • � t •� % � =� ; �i _ ; � r'� a- �� � �' S5 �' �t :
� ��� '�,f • �' � .{ }�t �� �. � • � V e �J r � : f' � > •'�� .i,� � �I • �V � �� • � � �
. . �j,�`'���.��'�} t . ♦ �� . . - � . • ti f ` ' t �'-•. � Ir 4�. � / � �� _ �
' `; ���� r _ './. � � � �'i► � � > >/�.1�e 1 � i�� ` - C�' �� � �,,'�+{ j e� . � �f � � '� � 1`� . I ' QP,C� ..� �� .
� �'a � \
�` R • - . �y ' � � � � ` r• t 'r • • a' . !
�. .� � 1 '9� r •� ,�} � � i � ti � ,
:� V: � ,�}�� � � ,� o,L, �� ., �� � � �`�+, 4�' � � ��' 1 �,,. �.�
� ',;,,,,� � `: �� .� ,�� .d.,� �^!� '� _ ". , �`�` •.� , • � %• . �� a.,,. � .
� �,:�� �:• F : , a�i� •�•r �� . , , �, ,�r "i �,f , � �1 r� . � . / , ,- `� �
i� � • �S; �,, , 'T' • _�� , •?s � �s; �� �� f .�� , � . �, � � ,! _ _ r r � `� ��,� ��' � ' / � Y �cr „�r �� •v
� �r i ! ` �/ _ �� JQ��'
c
.
. �,
..
� _ ,_ , � ,
( �" � �,.=� �<� •,.� � , a� � y�� � '��� � � �� �' � . ��, /
' � � ' ' 1 ,' �/ ,
. . ` �
j) l . 'T
. ' � i ��i '`�' � � .I�.'Y 4 ` . _' ♦ � ���� �\ !�/ �' T �4 _
+ � ' � • . i . 7 �. ,� , � f` � r _ , � ' �..
' �
/
� w • • •'
� J � J� � ` " • 14 Y " y �� .. � �+ . . -- -- ._. _ _ ^1 ��� ,+ f (� 1 �\ ,r_-� �� w �'�
� � !
. _ � �
r y � � _ � _ �- . .-�__ �
� \
��F«� �__.�-� � �. � � y � f .. __ - . � � / ' � ` _ ' _ '
�- �-i S `� ..f✓ � � � \
. � �'
- , . � ' � �# t � f � . � +.' i ! `�- _ .�,.-'Y i': :,� �'F,9Ty �, � � —
P
. � , , 1
- ;�_ . � _� . : � 5�� . . , o,,a � �
� .
, .
. - . . -' . � J )
• �` . � ' . ., f. : •. ; . � g � � �. ." � + � � ' . ' ,, a '� i r G t F�Q ;' '
� � ' ��
� - j '' : �• � � � ,� �� f � / r . Se � • RCW cavity trees
� `-
.�
_ r .K ' . r . ' M♦ , t , � � `i,
' % . ' . : _; ` l . � y� � �� ��` ,� ��,:,'� � �� ri "�' � �� �`�. '• � ; `�'7• �4 � � ��".� FF �+�i ;, � 0.5 mile radius RCW foraging habitat partitions
F. ; ' � { � ,; � � �. `, �a�. � � �. 1 � ` ' ti► �'f• �v��•' . , ��, • 3 � �� - .� � ,�r '� � t� � RCW ImpactArea
� � . - .
1 � �t� � . r • � �
. • , �� � .� . � ; _ �, . _ �
� .
, . . . �,�I� .
'�, . , �' .r'�'�� � + f �,F , •, j� jy f' �`��,r . �.'� i ��L � • �� i i • r �� - � j Holly Shelter Game Land
, �
� � � '' � �
f ,► � � . r .•4... �, y,�,o. r,;�,. �; • .
. • . I ' .
�* �� � . ��' • � i s i. •1 > + �� � , • � p�� ` NCDOT
, � .`y �� �; � ' ' � ` �� �t �" K.� �` • ,� ` S ' . ,�if � i 1 f ^' � � �� ,: Q � t `� - �' compensation properties
' ,' . , / / ,. � e T � v� � +� . � Y k
_ + v
." +�. - �'�•. _ " _ �;i� 1 � ! .i +• � / r *'� Commun'ityyR, gitalGlobe,b eoEye, Ea`tli`st,arGeog,raphics. GNES �;irbus D�, U�DA,tUSGS A��,Getma —_—_ Streets
`'Ir p� �i' r �,r 1� r Ar�' 5,�. �; Source: Esri, Di� G
�> .' , F� � � i► 7_ �� r �' +�_ �' , �''� � � • �'r
�'�•.,
Figure 7. Location of NCDOT compensation properties along the proposed US Hwy 17 Hampstead Bypass in Hampstead, Pender County, North Carolina.
37

Table l2. Group-level analysis with pre- and post-project densities for red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters within 1.25 miles of clusters impacted, but not taken, by the US
Highway 70 Hampstead Bypass project, Pender County, NC.
Pre-Project Post-Project
Cluster Group
Number Level Take
# Active (Yes/No)
Clusters Density # Active Clusters Density
within 1.25 Rating** within 1.25 Miles Rating
Miles
PVT 1 6 dense 5 dense No
HSGL 17A 6 dense 5 dense No
HSGL EC 6 dense 5 dense No
**Density rating: > 4.7 active clusters within 1.25 miles = dense
2.6 - 4.6 active clusters within 1.25 miles = moderate
< 2.5 active clusters within ].25 miles = sparse
5.4.3. Neighborhood Analysis
The neighborhood level analysis evaluates indirect group density impacts to clusters
not directly impacted by the proposed Hampstead Bypass, but within a 1.2 mile radius
"Neighborhood". No clusters were considered adversely affected to such an extent that "take" is
likely due to project-related neighborhood level impacts (Figure 8, Table 13). HSGL Clusters
1 PL and 1 PL2 occurred within the 1.2 mile radius Action Area and did not have direct impacts.
38

Figure 8. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) 0.5 mile radius foraging partitions within the 1.2 mile radius action area (neighborhood) of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and US Highway 17
Hampstead Bypass project impact areas (R-3300 and U-4751) in Pender and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina.
39

Table l 3. Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters located within the l.2 mile radius action area for
the Neighborhood Analysis for the US Highway 70 Hampstead Bypass project, Pender
County, NC.
Pre-Project Post-Project
Cluster Neighborhood
Number Level-Take
# Active (Yes/No)
Clusters Density # Active Clusters Density
within 1.25 Rating** within 1.25 Miles Rating
Miles
HSGL 1PL 9 dense g dense No
HSGL 1PL2 8 dense 7 dense No
**Density rating: > 4.7 active clusters within 1.25 miles = dense
2.6 - 4.6 active clusters within 1.25 miles = moderate
< 2.5 active clusters within 1.25 miles = sparse
5.4.4. Population Level Analysis
The population level analysis considers the ability of HSGL to meet its RCW
population goal (38 potential breeding groups [pbgs]) post-project and to meet the RSG
in each managed foraging partition. Each of the properties that make up the NC Coastal
Plain Primary Care Population: Croatan National Forest (CNF), HSGL and Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL), should be managed for maximum population size
(USFWS 2003). This includes providing and managing recruitment sites (clusters) in
order to promote population growth.
During the 2014 breeding season, the NCWRC monitared 38 clusters on HSGL,
which supported 36 pbgs and 22 confirmed nests. Growth of the individual populations
should lead to increased dispersal between properties. Ideally these properties should be
linked by habitat "bridges" in order to facilitate dispersal. There is evidence of dispersal
between 2 of the 3 properties that make up the NC Coastal Plain Primary Core
Population. In 2005, 4 RCWs from Camp Lejeune, 2 males and 2 females, were
identified on the CNF (USFS dispersal data, unpub.) and between 1993 and 2005, 6
RCWs from the CNF were identified on Camp Lejeune (J.R. Walters, pers. comm.).
Growth of the Camp Lejeune and CNF populations could further link these 2 populations
and help pramote recovery of this Primary Core Population. As of 2014, HSGL has not
40

met its Recovery goal of 38 pbgs, and the proposed Hampstead Bypass will result in the
loss of one pbg. It is believed that HSGL has adequate habitat to still reach its population
goal of 38 pbgs in the future. Compensation measures for this project will add habitat to
HSGL Clusters 17 and 17A that will increase the viability of these 2 clusters (see Section
6.0 below).
5.4.5. Recovery Unit Level Analysis
HSGL is part of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit. This Recovery
Unit includes the Coastal NC and Francis Marion National Forest Primary Core
Populations, which are 2 of the 13 designated Primary Core Populations listed in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003). It also includes one Essential Support Population
(Northeast NC/Southeast Virginia).
The Recovery Unit Level Analysis will be conducted by the USFWS during their
review of the Biological Assessment.
Biological Determination May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES
NCDOT purchased 3 properties (Hampstead Commons, IBIS and Pensco) along US
Hwy. 17 north of Hampstead as conservation measures for the Hampstead Bypass project
(Figure 7). These properties are immediately adjacent to HSGL. These acquisitions will protect
existing RCW foraging habitat for HSGL Clusters 17 and 17A and provide additional habitat in
the future. NCDOT is donating approximately 59.8 acres of the Hampstead Commons property,
13.1 acres of the IBIS nursery property and 8.7 acres of the Pensco property to the NCWRC for
inclusion in the HSGL.
Approximately 13.2 acres of suitable RCW habitat and 93 acres of potentially suitable
habitat will be protected within the HSGL 17A partition. Approximately 0.6 acre of suitable
habitat and 5.3 acres of potentially suitable habitat will be protected within the HSGL 17
partition. NCDOT has either already planted or plans to plant longleaf pine seedlings within
cleared areas suitable for planting on the Hampstead Commons and Pensco properties by
NCDOT in December 2015. NCDOT planted longleaf pine seedlings on the IBIS property in
41

winter 2015-2016 and native grasses on all of the properties in 2016 as requested by the
NCWRC.
NCDOT planted longleaf pine seedlings on approximately 7.0 acres of non-foraging
habitat within the HSGL 17A partition. Together with the post-project total of 84.26 acres of
future potential habitat, this cluster will have 91.26 acres of future potential habitat.
Approximately 22.8 acres were planted within the HSGL 17 partition. Together with the post-
project total of 28.85 acres of future potential habitat, Cluster 17 will have 51.65 acres of future
potential habitat.
Table 14. Post-project red-cockaded woodpecicer foraging habitat totals and conservation
measures on 3 properties purchased by NCDOT located within Holly Shelter Game
Land Clusters 17 and 17A, Pender County, North Carolina.
Planted
Pre-NCDOT Conservation Measures Longleaf Post-NCDOT Conservation Measures
Pine
Cluster Habitat Suitability Acres Acres Habitat Suitability Acres
Suitable 0.58 Suitable 0.58
Potentially Suitable 534 Potentially Suitable 5.34
17 F�iture 5.04 Future 27.84
Non-faraging Habitat 27.03 ZZ,gp Non-foraging 423
Habitat
TOTAL 37.99 37.99
Suitable 13.26 Suitable 13.26
Potentially Suitable 9.35 Potentially Suitable 9.35
17A Future 4.90 Fuhire 11.90
Non-foraging Habitat 11.71 7.00 Non-foraging 4.71
Habitat
TOTAL 39.22 39.22
The Hampstead Bypass will remove approximately 14.46 acres of suitable and potentially
suitable habitat within HSGL clusters 17 and EC, all of which is located on private property.
NCDOT will protect 5.9 acres of suitable and potentially suitable habitat within the HSGL 17
partition. NCDOT also will protect 22.8 acres of future potential habitat, resulting in 28.7 acres
of protected habitat that can be managed for RCW habitat.
42

Within the HSGL 17A partition, NCDOT is not taking any RCW habitat, but will be
protecting 22.6 acres of suitable and potentially suitable habitat. An additional 11.9 acres of
future potential habitat (current and to be planted) will also be protected.
The Conservation Measures presented here more than compensate for the amount of
RCW faraging habitat NCDOT will be taking for the Hampstead Bypass. Although, this project
will technically "take" HSGL 17, the protection and management of acquired habitat will
enhance the likelihood that this cluster will remain active into the future.
NCDOT will retain title to a portion of these properties along US Hwy. 17 for future
construction of the Hampstead Bypass. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
NCDOT and NCWRC has been executed and is enclosed with this BA for your reference. After
the plantings are completed, the NCWRC will be responsible for managing RCW management
on the 3 properties as stated in the Draft Holly Shelter Game Land Management Plan (NCWRC
2015) and the USFWS Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
No RCW cavity trees will be removed or unpacted by this project. Cluster HSGL 17
does not meet the RSMS Guidelines (Carter 2012) pre- or post-project, resulting in a project-
related "incidental take." HSGL 17A meets the RSMS guidelines and will not be impacted by
the Hampstead Bypass. Impacted clusters HSGL EC and PVT 1 meet the RSMS Guidelines pre-
and post-project. None of the RCW cluster partitions meet the RSG pre- or post-project. The
conservation measures made by NCDOT more than compensate for the amount of RCW
foraging habitat NCDOT will be taking for the Hampstead Bypass. This project may affect, will
likely adversely affect the RCW.
43

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Carter III, J.H. 2012. Proposed red-cockaded woodpecker SMS foraging habitat standards for
the Outer Coastal Plain in southeastern North Carolina and northeastern South Carolina.
Dr. J.H. Carter III and Associates, Inc. Unpublished Report, Southern Pines, North
Carolina. 6 pp.
Conner, R.N. and D.C. Rudolph. 1991. Farest habitat loss, fragmentation, and red-cocicaded
woodpecker populations. Wilson Bulletin. 103(3): 446-457.
Crowder, L. B., J. A. Priddy, and J. R. Walters. 1998. Demographic isolation of red-cockaded
woodpecker groups: a model analysis, Project Final Report. Duke University, Nicholas
School of the Environment, Beaufort, North Carolina.
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc. 2006. Red-cocicaded woodpecker white paper
modification of foraging habitat guidelines in Wet Pine Flatwoods and pond pine habitats
in southeastern North Carolina and northeastern South Carolina. Unpublished report,
Southern Pines, North Carolina. 6 pp.
. 2008. Recommendations for revision of site index criteria
for RCW foraging habitat guidelines, Dr. J.H. Carter III, unpublished. 2 pp.
. 2011. Red-cocicaded woodpecker foraging habitat
analysis report for US Highway 17 Bypass of Hampstead (R-3300), Pender County,
North Carolina. 21 pp.
. 2012. Summary of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging
habitat analyses from latest design file for US Highway 17 Bypass of Hampstead (R-
3300), Pender County, North Carolina. 4 pp.
Hooper, R.G. and M.R. Lennartz. 1995. Short-tenn response of a high density red-cockaded
woodpecker population to loss of foraging habitat. Pp 283-289 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G.
Hooper and R Costa, (eds). Red-cockaded woodpecker: species recovery, ecology and
management. Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas.
Letcher, B.H., J.A. Priddy, J.R. Walters and L.B. Crowder. 1998. An individual-based, spatially
expicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker, Picoides borealis. Biological Conse�vation 86:1-14.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2006. Red-cockaded woodpecker alternatives
analysis for the NC Highway 133 Connector, Brunswick County, North Carolina (T.I.P.
Nuinber R-3324). Raleigh, North Carolina. 41 pp.
. 2010. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging
habitat assessment for the NC Highway 211 widening project, Brunswick County, North
Carolina (T.I.P. Number R-5021). Raleigh, North Carolina. 17 pp.
44

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2015. Draft Holly Shelter Game Land
Management Plan: 2015-2025. 285 pp.
Schafale, Michael P. 2012. Guide to the natural communities of North Carolina: 4`h
Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 217 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resrouces Conservation Service. 2015.
USDA website (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/a�p/WebSoilSurvey.aspX). Accessed
10 February 2015.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:
Procedures far conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. 315 pp.
. 2003. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery
plan: 2nd revision. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp.
Walters, J.R., S.J. Daniels, J.H. Carter III and P.D. Doerr. 2002. Defining quality of red-
cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fimess. .Iournal of
Wildlife Management 66(4):1064-1082.
45