20210573 Ver 2_Cannon Attachments 2023_20230614

DAVEYIn
Resource Group
June 13, 2023
TO: US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Resources
69 Darlington Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28403 Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Stanley Martin Homes Cannon Tract; Brunswick County, NC
NWP 29 Application
Action ID# SAW-2020-01466
DWR Project # 20210573
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Stanley Martin Homes, Davey Resource Group is submitting a Pre -Construction
Notification form and associated attachments for the Stanley Martin Homes Cannon Tract, located
off Old Town Creek Road NE in Leland, NC. The purpose of the project is to construct a residential
subdivision within the tract to serve the housing needs of Brunswick County.
The project proposes to permanently impact 0.13 acre of jurisdictional wetlands and 295 LF of
intermittent stream for road crossings to provide access throughout the site. Additionally, temporary
impacts to 228 LF of intermittent stream are needed to install two bottomless culverts. The applicant
proposes to purchase 0.2 acre of wetland credit from the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
and 234 LF of stream credit (stream impacts due to culverts) from the NC Division of Mitigation
Services to compensate for these impacts. Note that this application was submitted in 2021 and was
ultimately denied by NCDWR because the geotechnical report for the bottomless culverts had not
yet been prepared. That report is now included in this application.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the application, please do not hesitate to call.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Environmental Scientist
Encl.
Cc: Robert Bennett, Stanley Martin Homes
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403

Stanley Martin Homes
Cannon Tract
PCN Attachments
Table of Contents
1.0 AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
2.0 SITE MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Topographic Map
Figure 3. Soils Map
Figure 4. 2016 Aerial Photograph
3.0 SITE PLAN DRAWINGS (SHEETS 1— 9)
Sheet 1.Overall Site Plan Showing Proposed Impacts
Sheet 2-4. Close Up Views
Sheets 5-9. Detail Drawings of Individual Impacts
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION
USACE and DWR Approved Wetland Map
DWR Stream Documentation
5.0 RARE SPECIES INFORMATION
NC Natural Heritage Program Letter
USFWS IPaC Species List
USFWS NLAA Determination Letter
RCW SLOPES
6.0 LCFUMB & NCDMS CREDIT RESERVATION LETTERS
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR BOTTOMLESS CULVERTS

1.0 AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM

4� LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY company
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I/we, the undersigned, hereby authorize Land Management Group to act as our agent in the
preparation and representation of information related to the Section 404 401 permit application
for Stanley Martin Homes; Cannon Tract located in Brunswick County, NC. All questions
regarding this project should be directed to Land Management Group,
Sincerely,
Applicant
Print Name
Date
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403

2.0 SITE MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Topographic Map
Figure 3. Soils Map
Figure 4. 2016 Aerial Photograph

GaM Club
aowe,
a, .•.fir,
9ek^.
®i
Avv�Ba�
e arx
'F
74
�
draw Jackson Hwy _--_--_, � _• .. A}T, r, —-- -
87,
3
` \
o-
1`
s
n
m
Site
c`c
y�
SO
F
e -Cape F—Nal'IM
Brunswick F—I
0
1
97
Inn■bOW
I
Francn
:17
y
4
��!
Fun stun Rd Sf Qi9
�
z
dS
F
V
Y
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garm in, USGs, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, EsT•i
China (Hong Kong),Esii'Ikorea,
Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIs
User Community
N
0 0.5 1 2
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Miles
Map Source: World Street Map
Scale applies to 11X17" print.
Stanley Martin Homes
4LMG
Cannon Tract
Figure 1.
Brunswick County, NC
LAND mANACEMEyNCGROUP
a OWETY rompany
Vicinity Map
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LM G21.087
Wilmington, INC 28403
[phone]

ALI—
-. �.Su•— .� f
-
WI+- —A -..
Site
..••- _ .4�. T
!ILi.—
..fir.- �aW�ti
_ }�'.
.., 1■
f ■
•
Si JamE
gj
i
* T
.1L 1
• 1
i
4 i
■
,1 a'
ry
N
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: Topographic Mosaic for Brunswick County
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
Scale applies to 11 X17" print.
Stanley Martin Homes
4LMG
Cannon Tract
Brunswick County, NC
LANDMANAGEMENtGROUP
rompany
Figure 2.
Topographic Map
LMG21.087
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
40
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

Mu
PINECLIFF
LU
Site
N
0 300 600 1,200
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Feet
Map Source: WebSoil GIS Data
Scale applies to 11 V T print.
Stanley Martin Homes
4LMG
Cannon Tract
Figure 3.
Brunswick County, NC
LANOMANAGEMENTGROUP
. awky#- rompany
Soils Ma p
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LMG21.087
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2016 GIS World Imagery
Stanley Martin Homes
Cannon Tract
Brunswick County, NC
LMG21.087
L M G
LAND MANAGEMENT'GROUP
a h91EYA rompany
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
300 600 1,200
Feet
Scale applies to 11 X17" print.
Figure 4.
2016 Aerial Photograph of Site

3.0 SITE PLAN DRAWINGS (SHEETS 1— 9)
Sheet 1.Overall Site Plan Showing Proposed Impacts
Sheet 2-4. Close Up Views
Sheets 5-9. Detail Drawings of Individual Impacts

lS9BZ "0"N 'ONYUI __ _ r � 3A1>JO 3NI130NVA3 LOOt � � � } i ""
Vd 330IAN3SeN91S34 N3AONVH nva all 'datla f �aaNMo $ < $ H g '••" ^� 61
S3WOH N118VIIV A3-INH12 ..._
¢ $ W U -
g
A ti
Cl)
Z
zUO
O Z0
<_€
a Q ZQ
(l . ` a E
z3 m
s w 0 w: Q Q J p
$ '� �\ N v �' j FQ- FW- F= ak
0 —u Im
J
E N oo v Q o W
W �wa
N n m a o f z TEE a
Q o WMH
o r�Z yIt
W �! E�� Q
Ln
W !
i
••�•\ X�
C), 3
' I
co
ui
Lu
i
Z
(Cf)/�
Nv�
U
�\ ! p 3 .=-
�`
a 0
o
�,'... �.'v• Ill d
66
W 3 � i r �
K
Ln
J J
W O N
J in V) i0 CL
N OJ E
U Eel
I loll
o
E O E
N V (O aO N w N ! ! \ \ \ pcs
16
ULL LL
(6 U U U U U U gg
C.Q C.Q C.Q C.Q LO OO
E E E E E E o N N Q��m"$
CU
O b b b b b ) q¢zg� a
(n (n (n (n (n (n F- F� a � �' o, ��� k --- 4 d

m rvs:
VdS301A213S�NOIS30 N3�ONVH
OOS 002 OOl 0
1.SS° l9*&F on 'ONVl37 _ 8 § N n�i�iii g
3A1>JO 3NnmNVA3 2001 i ]IDV�lI
011 'a V3 f L3NN0 O1 9 gg �-"' `d °i,NONNVO ? Fr N
S3WOH N118VIIV A3-INV1S ......Mj,.,°
�EEEEEEEGEEEWEoSE�E�EEEIE�EEE"EEEIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE�E""E�EEEEE@EE@EEEEEEEEE�3GEEEEEEE�IEEEIEEEE"@EE'E6EeE���E��€EEEE��E�
s2
0
oz �
4
o
i sz s
x
_
oz �
z
a
__----- —
---------------- _______—___-------
------- ---- ----- ---------------------------- —_--- ?-00 ---
__________________ wv se era as
---------------------------------
— msaa

1548E 'ON'OM/� — $ N nni�n�i�
3NIl39NVA3 ZM
V d 'S3JIAU.9 OIS34 213AON VH �n 'daV3 r '"""" _ o
-Lov l NONNVO Jc.
S3WOH NIIHVIN.l3lNVIS
a
of ,
Ln
01
rL
�S \
\l
2\
�LA
��^�^��1^�■��1,!����L1����1^� �1�ME
Rill,^^^^���!�11J
'�1���������F,��FE�S
^�^!!�����11^�^ ����II
�i�l11lL�Bl�L��F'��1�L'c�P�����G�Fae�C'�F121Efir�PLiL7,aP♦111
#����L EA������1A
I���^�*!i�1
///�

ld SA-)IA8 SM IS3O 2IMIONVH J
ODE Ou COL O
�."• � �`z y �� �,, � % as
4, Y r z N
� a
T&Z '0'N 'ONVE 1 $ IT
�n....3A160 3Nn3JNVA3 L001 .... 10VN1 W0 1MOS31NOH NI-L6V V A-97NVIS
,
i
�
1
1
_
r
1

O
x1
O m�
W
Al
s
10i
is?
V i

N
06
00
�
F
�w
W a
gig„
w
-
_
N
ro U
Q Q
UQ�w
Lm�e
_a
_<
o
� O U
uj
U �
v
LU
a�
m�
e=

�N
Jo ti=
E a LU
ate_
i 0� \ E J
cy" Ln
zIt
,
� a
0 \ 0 m

4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM INFORMATION
USACE and DWR Approved Wetland Map
NCDWR Stream Documentation

a fir, is
_
•
47
LL
�" �^�q �
� �
a 00 U
N c
+iy �`
s
f
p
N
O N
CO N
I
M
A
N N
-
•
y ♦
_� a
L,
A �] ✓ � 4
k-
Y N N
..
N
•
Z
L c
0 N
O <0 O N
£
•
N � C
N O_ LL1
N
CD
Z
_
1
d Y
VJ
U o
N
M
d
00
Z
Z
:.. z
._. _,
A
N
�G91yj•
O
m E
N
U Z N
f0 O
r T N
In
O] O
N 7
U U O o
a
�
wY aim
U
CL
a
O
m
fro
L
J
C J
a
ppff L
N
O
O
p
pj
O
p
I,
�
m
U ai
o
a
O
�
O C
N
O
O N d
M m
O
fn
N m
m
m
N
z
�a
{ Yr NLofd
00
fd
Ln fd
N
£ m
o
Iv7
i �
cyiO
O
O
LL
U
U
N
N
U
o D¢
Z m m
-a
"a
Y
Y "a N
Q d
N
a
V)
N
N C
_
a°
O
x
o
N
'ram o Q
o
o
N
N
o m
O °z
o °
a D
z
z
z in
0
Q U
- JLi
_
w�
M

DocuSign Envelope ID: 520489BD-C6AE-41AB-8CEA-OC416FC4OD2
ROY COOPER
Governor
DIONNE DELLFGATT[
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Land Management Group
Attn: Paul Farley
3805 Wrightsville Ave; Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 6, 2021
Subject: Stream Determination # 2021-001
Cannon Tract - Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Farley:
On March 31, 2021, at your request, Tyler Benson and Robb Mairs, NC Division of Water
Resource (NCDWR) staff, conducted an on -site determination to determine the
ephemeral/intermittent (E/I) points of two separate streams at the proposed Cannon Tract
project location. The enclosed map dated April 5, 2021 depicts the E/I point and whether a
feature has been determined to be a stream or not. This drawing has been signed and is valid
for 5 years.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or other affected parties that dispute a determination made by DWR or a
delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the Director. An appeal
request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this letter or from
the date the affected party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified
of this letter. A request for determination by the Director shall be referred to the
Director in writing c/o Paul Wojoski, DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days. The
owner/future owners should notify the Division (including any other local, state and federal
agencies) of this determination concerning any future correspondence regarding the subject
property. This project may require a Section 404/401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to Tyler Benson of the DWR at
910.796.7215 and Gary Beecher of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 910.251.4487.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
�iIH i_Ai�r;L
Wilmington Regional Office 1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wilmington. North Carolina 28405
fJ�1}Jr1 �
napanmem at enr+ranmemel oallty 910.796.7215

DocuSign Envelope ID: 520489BD-C6AE-41AB-8CEA-OC416FC40D2F
Page 2 of 2
Please contact Tyler Benson at 910.796.7215 or tyler.bensononcdenr.gov if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely, DocuSigned by:
El�(tr �jc �n sain
06DCAE2DD754468...
Tyler Benson
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDWR
Enclosures
Cc: Gary Beecher, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Paul Wojoski, 401 Wetlands and Buffers Unit
WiRO

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: March 31, 2021
Project/Site: Cannon Tract
Latitude: 34.182507
Robb Mairs (Cert. No. 915-1116)
Evaluator: Tyler Benson (Cert. No. 1109-1020)
County: Brunswick
Longitude:-78.104569
Total Points:
Stream De ircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30` Score: 19.75 Points
E hemeral Intermittent Perennial
p
e. Quad Name: "
g� S3"
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
�/ 1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
V 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
�/ No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
V 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.25 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
V/
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75- OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Amphipod
Sketch: Tadpole
Crayfish

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: March 31, 2021
Project/Site: Cannon Tract
Latitude:
Tyler Benson (Cert. No. 1109-1020)
Evaluator: Robb Mairs (Cert. No. 915-1116)
County: Brunswick
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Det ircle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or erennial if>_ 30* Score: 21.25 Points
EphemeralIntermittent Perennial
P
e. . quad Name: "S4"
9
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
`/ 1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
\/ No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
�/ 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
V 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
�/ Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
�/ 0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
EACW = 071 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Amphipods
Sketch: Crayfish
2x Tadpoles
Fishing Spider

5.0 RARE SPECIES INFORMATION
NC Natural Heritage Program Letter
USFWS IPaC Species List
USFWS NLAA Determination Letter
RCW SLOPES

Roy Cooper, Governor
9" 0 INC DEPARTMENT OF
""i ■
WMk.M 1 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■-000
June 9. 2023
Kim Williams
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Cannon Tract
Dear Kim Williams:
13. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-22257
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 1N. JON S STREET, RALEIGI I_ NC 27603 - 16Sl MAOL SERVICE CENTER. PAL EIGH. rkc 276�0
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAK 919.707.9421

■
\
CO
CO
s\s\
/ 2 / \
\ 0
4//z
\Z
U�z
\
\
O
\
E
/
CO
/
COcn
s /
\ \
\�
■
■
E
z
/ E
& E
t/
\�
\
\ E
\ m
Z
E
=a
E
\
0
o_
} 0
±®
\
0 \
\ / D-
E \ )
oe3
I
\
\
2.e
\
\
CO
4
\
\
_
Za2
ƒ /
/ §
\ \
\ �
\ \
j /
ƒ
\ /
\ \
0
\g3\
©zws
t » 3 G}
e/©o=
E>p}e
\ / \ & }
G o .= z = 2
9 - : > s
} Co0C
4 / \ 3 2
O a \ G » ±
2\/j
\
\o
%gƒ0
s :
\`//
s\y\
�0
2 > y ±
c:
22 :
2 ®®�:
U
3 z -0
\ z } 0 /
�/C\\
O e \\/CO
y=
,/ 0 0
���\
u \\\%
/ 22./ƒ
\ \\\\
?
®\0
e /3\/y
y CO .2 2 e :
e n
j {
\ ( 0 CLco
Z :/%E
\ 20
( u
4
\
e c o s z
co co LLJ
/ / o \ } / 9
x x /,J
s
§
\
/

CO
N
M
M
M
M
n
n
n
N
M
N N N
+ CO
n
n
n
n
n
M
M
N
n
n
n n n
N N M
O CO
CJ
M
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
000
CO
aJ
U
°
N N N
0
CO +
O7
CO
U
aJ
co
O
a
O+
N
O O
+++
j
CO
C
Q
0 N
Q 0
CO CO CO
W
n
O
a
Ln
_
�
a
CO
ro
c
CO
L L
aJ
C
W
>
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N N
io
+ +
a
>
o a
a
a
a
J
a
a
a
T
= T J
N N N
0
U
J
N
N N
+ O O
c-
QM
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
+u
U U
C �
T
T
u
uuI
W
X
LLx W
Qa)
O
+Ln
M
O
0O O N
N
0
CO CO N
�o N N
OQO
a)
L2
O
O
MO
CC)N
0
o
a) c9
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
c9
N
c9
c T
CO O
O
O
—
O
CD
O
O O
CC, Z
Q
000
O
N
N
N
N
UD
O
O
N
O
O
O
o Z
O
O
N
O
N
o�
aJ
N
CO
fo
Q
O
2
o�
a
Q
v
z
a)
CO
N
E
a)
O�
o+
c U
u
_
v
U W
a
>
x
N
U
U
O
Q i
C
CO
LL LL
O
Q v
L
—
E
o n
� �°
cn
O
O
E
o Q
O
cn
CO
O
>
CO
c c�
a)
D
O
u
W
Z
cn
> > cn
CO
CO
ECO
E
cO
_
COo
COo
Ln
Ln
i
i
—
CO
co� u
-- O
_
E
a
CO
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
D D
Q Q E
N
W
}
a
a)
O
O
a) O
Q O
a)
Q
a
Q
a n
Q=
a n
Q—
a+
Q
O
-0
u
E
CO
cn cn
cn cn
O
(Dv
E E>
v
CC3
c c
D E
D a)
D a)
<n
D c
<n ro
D c
<n CO
D.
cn
M- cn
cn
c
C
O
+-+
� a
n
a
n c
c
-
O
-
CO ClO
O
CO co
CO
T
o
��.a�.aa.aa.a
0
U
O
O�
�.a
O�
�.a
O
o
D o
c c
Co `°
c c
CO
D
O°
o
O
>
>
>
a
a a�
E E
O O 0
o o a
-0
o
��"�"
x
x
o
Q
Co
z
O
o
CO
��10
N
N
0
M O M
E
u
co
Ln
�
M
M
M
O)
C9
C9
CO
m
m
M
M
N
N O
O
E Q
O�
M
N
CO
N
N
N
N
N N
O
CO
> a
aJ
U
O
O
>
C
CO
C C C
CO CO CO
�
N
CO
O
+
>>
c
c
c
c
c
c
a
a a a
Q
U
E 0 3
c
a)
a
c
O,n
o
D co
E
CO
E
D CO
E
D coD
E
coo
E
D N
E._
N
o
D
0 0 0
D D D
� O O
E
o
-
E
-
E
-
E
-
E
E
E
E Q
Q
cn
cn cn�
�Z�\
a c W
x
CO
O CO
O CO
O CO
O CO
O CO
O N
N
CO
CO CO CO
ro
— N L-
W
0
om
C)ZuZuZuZuZuZuQ�
Q�
>
> > >
ZtoTU
r
M
N
a

/
\
k
3
2
E
z
z
_
/
_
/
\}
\\
3§
s
0)
k
E
3/
co
o =
»_
z %
\3
\ \
\
0)
e
O
: \
v
4 2 / CO
\/
2
e
e s a(f)
a e
»±
3y
_
2
0
/?
/
2
g
E
\
® /
� \
/
/
e
% s
2 \
\ d
% /
2 2
^
-
^
«
CO/
CO
E
/\
\
co CO
/
%
3
E G
«a
/
\
Ou
E
e
E\Z
CO\/
a)
©
®ƒ22
`
\\
E3°\k
u
\
/ \
® /
0 {
z�
0
o >
4-
o w
3
_
C
\
§
Z / /
/ \
0
/ Z
/
COz
\
\
\
\ \
3 \
7
E
» m
E
§
o
\
\
\
\
/
\
CO\
k
\ \
H
\
> w
°
»
/
2 %
� j
\ \
\
/ CO
\©
s
s
3
2
\ / CO
» `
e
-0 m
»
a
/ � /
>
% / /
/ {
u°
a CO CO
-
�
E
o
E w z e
-
e//
/
/ CO
2/\
g y
m m o
\\
© 4
/
= \ /
/ % \
\ \
\®
±
CO
± °
/
CC3 -0
\
4
4 \
\
E
\
\ \ ^
\ -0 C
\ \
\ \
/
o y
/
= e
/ / 3
\
__
>
2g
�
CO
ece/2/e\
Z s 2
x
x z e s
2 z z
\/
s
§
/

/
®
k
�
a®�
[/
a
,ao+
y
.
BOO
a
° .
dS
�
k
[
.
#
�
{
�
}
%
?
f
}
A 4m,#v,(Pu ll
!
.
�
s
§
\
/

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0091723
Project Name: Cannon Tract
e x
hSai k 4YYFJiYJft
+cfln7i�
i�
June 09, 2023
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

06/09/2023
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186. php.

06/09/2023
3
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds

06/09/2023
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

06/09/2023
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0091723
Project Name: Cannon Tract
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: Residential development
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/034.180997950000005,-78.10169086864349,14z
k"
3
k
�
+S`
Counties: Brunswick County, North Carolina

06/09/2023 3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 14 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesi, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME
STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Endangered
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
BIRDS
NAME
STATUS
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
Threatened
Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except
those areas where listed as endangered.
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039
Red Knot Calidris canutus ru fa
Threatened
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614

06/09/2023
4
REPTILES
NAME
STATUS
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Similarity of
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Appearance
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/776
(Threatened)
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas
Threatened
Population: North Atlantic DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii
Endangered
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5523
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea
Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1493
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta
Threatened
Population: Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1110
SNAILS
NAME
STATUS
Magnificent Ramshorn Planorbella magni fica Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical Endangered
habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6216
INSECTS
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME
Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3281
Rough -leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2747
STATUS
Candidate
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered

06/09/2023
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

06/09/2023
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treat. Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Breeds May 1 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental Sep 30
USA and Alaska.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6177
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Breeds Mar 1 to Jul
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation 15
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental Aug 25
USA and Alaska.

06/09/2023
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental 31
USA and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to Jul
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental 31
USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental Sep 10
USA and Alaska.
Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Breeds Mar 10 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental Jun 30
USA and Alaska.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8938
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental Aug 31
USA and Alaska.
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12

06/09/2023 3
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bachman's Sparrow
BCC Rangewide ---� ---- —�-- —+++ Jill INA 6r1 No ----
(CON)
Brown-hNuthatch eaded----
BCC -BCR
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide —
- — — —
- — — -
— —+++ — — — -
(CON)
Prothonotary
BWarbler
CC Rangewide(CON)
Red-headed Red-headed ---I — — — — — — — — —III —��+IIII IIII IIII—�— —-----
Woodpecker

06/09/2023
4
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Swallow-tailed Kite
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding_,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list

06/09/2023
5
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical

06/09/2023 6
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

06/09/2023
7
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Private Entity
Name:
Kim Williams
Address:
3805 Wrightsville Avenue; Suite 15
City:
Wilmington
State:
NC
Zip:
28403
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
9104520001
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Army Corps of Engineers
Name: Gary Beecher
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project code: 2023-0091723
Project Name: Cannon Tract
Federal Nexus: yes
Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Army Corps of Engineers
Subject: Technical assistance for 'Cannon Tract'
Dear Kim Williams:
e x
hSai k 4YYFJiYJft
+cfln7i�
i�
June 09, 2023
This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on June 09, 2023, for
'Cannon Tract' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code
2023-0091723 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please
carefully review this letter. Your Endangered Species Act (Act) requirements are not
complete.
Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC
The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species' determination keys in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into
the IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately
represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-eared Bat
Rangewide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter.
Determination for the Northern Long -Eared Bat
Based upon your IPaC submission and a standing analysis, your project is not reasonably certain
to cause incidental take of the northern long-eared bat. Unless the Service advises you within 15
days of the date of this letter that your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter
verifies that the Action is not likely to result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166
Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA -protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area:
• American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Similarity of Appearance (Threatened)
• Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
• Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
• Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered
• Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered
• Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
• Magnificent Ramshorn Planorbella magni fica Proposed Endangered
• Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
• Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
• Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened
• Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
• Rough -leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
• Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Proposed Endangered
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above. Note that if a new species is listed that may be affected by the
identified action before it is complete, additional review is recommended to ensure compliance
with the Endangered Species Act.
Next Step
Consultation with the Service is necessary. The project has a federal nexus (e.g., Federal funds,
permit, etc.), but you are not the federal action agency or its designated (in writing) non-federal
representative. Therefore, the ESA consultation status is incomplete and no project activities
should occur until consultation between the Service and the Federal action agency (or designated
non-federal representative), is completed.
As the federal agency or designated non-federal representative deems appropriate, they should
submit their determination of effects to the Service by doing the following.
1. Log into IPaC using an agency email account and click on My Projects, click "Search by
record locator" to find this Project using 699-127529166. (Alternatively, the originator of
the project in IPaC can add the agency representative to the project by using the Add
Member button on the project home page.)
2. Review the answers to the Northern Long-eared Bat Range -wide Determination Key to
ensure that they are accurate.
3. Click on Review/Finalize to convert the `not likely to adversely affect' consistency letter to
a concurrence letter. Download the concurrence letter for your files if needed.

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166
3
If no changes occur with the Project or there are no updates on listed species, no further
consultation/coordination for this project is required for the northern long-eared bat. However,
the Service recommends that project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope,
timing, duration, or location of the Project changes (includes any project changes or
amendments); 2) new information reveals the Project may impact (positively or negatively)
federally listed species or designated critical habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical
habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional coordination with the
Service should take place before project implements any changes which are final or commits
additional resources.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office and reference Project Code 2023-0091723 associated
with this Project.

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166 4
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Cannon Tract
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Cannon Tract':
Residential development
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/(a)34.180997950000005,-78.10169086864349,14z
0`0
Y"
'O

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166
DETERMINATION KEY RESULT
Based on the answers provided, the proposed Action is consistent with a determination of "may
affect, but not likely to adversely affect" for the Endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis).
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
1. Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of
the northern long-eared bat or any other listed species?
Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to
research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering,
harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed
species?
No
2. Your project overlaps with an area where northern long-eared bats may be present year-
round. Time -of -year restrictions may not be appropriate for your project due to bats being
active all year.
Do you understand that your project may impact bats at any time during the year and time -
of -year restrictions may not apply to your project?
Yes
3. Do you have post -white nose syndrome occurrence data that indicates that northern long-
eared bats (NLEB) are likely to be present in the action area?
Bat occurrence data may include identification of NLEBs in hibernacula, capture of
NLEBs, tracking of NLEBs to roost trees, or confirmed acoustic detections. With this
question, we are looking for data that, for some reason, may have not yet been made
available to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
No
4. Does any component of the action involve construction or operation of wind turbines?
Note: For federal actions, answer `yes' if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part
of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No
5. Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a
Federal agency in whole or in part?
Yes

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166 6
6. Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in
whole or in part?
No
7. Are you an employee of the federal action agency or have you been officially designated in
writing by the agency as its designated non-federal representative for the purposes of
Endangered Species Act Section 7 informal consultation per 50 CFR § 402.08?
Note: This key may be used for federal actions and for non-federal actions to facilitate section 7 consultation and
to help determine whether an incidental take permit may be needed, respectively. This question is for information
purposes only.
No
8. Is the lead federal action agency the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)? Is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funding or authorizing the proposed action,
in whole or in part?
No
9. Is the lead federal action agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)?
No
10. Have you determined that your proposed action will have no effect on the northern long-
eared bat? Remember to consider the effects of any activities that would not occur but for
the proposed action.
If you think that the northern long-eared bat may be affected by your project or if you
would like assistance in deciding, answer "No" below and continue through the key. If you
have determined that the northern long-eared bat does not occur in your project's action
area and/or that your project will have no effects whatsoever on the species despite the
potential for it to occur in the action area, you may make a "no effect" determination for
the northern long-eared bat.
Note: Federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representatives) must consult with USFWS on federal
agency actions that may affect listed species [50 CFR 402.14(a)]. Consultation is not required for actions that will
not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, this determination key will not provide a consistency or
verification letter for actions that will not affect listed species. If you believe that the northern long-eared bat may
be affected by your project or if you would like assistance in deciding, please answer "No" and continue through
the key. Remember that this key addresses only effects to the northern long-eared bat. Consultation with USFWS
would be required if your action may affect another listed species or critical habitat. The definition of Effects of
the Action can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/northern-long-eared-bat-assisted-determination-key
selected -definitions
No

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166
11. Your project overlaps with an area where northern long-eared bats may be present year-
round.
Is suitable northern long-eared bat habitat present within 1000 feet of project activities?
Yes
12. Will the action cause effects to a bridge?
No
13. Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel?
No
14. Does the action include the intentional exclusion of northern long-eared bats from a
building or structure?
Note: Exclusion is conducted to deny bats' entry or reentry into a building. To be effective and to avoid harming
bats, it should be done according to established standards. If your action includes bat exclusion and you are
unsure whether northern long-eared bats are present, answer "Yes." Answer "No" if there are no signs of bat use
in the building/structure. If unsure, contact your local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Ecological Services Field
Office to help assess whether northern long-eared bats may be present. Contact a Nuisance Wildlife Control
Operator (NWCO) for help in how to exclude bats from a structure safely without causing harm to the bats (to
find a NWCO certified in bat standards, search the Internet using the search term "National Wildlife Control
Operators Association bats"). Also see the White -Nose Syndrome Response Team's guide for bat control in
structures
No
15. Does the action involve removal, modification, or maintenance of a human -made structure
(barn, house, or other building) known or suspected to contain roosting bats?
No
16. Will the action cause construction of one or more new roads open to the public?
For federal actions, answer `yes' when the construction or operation of these facilities is
either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a
federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.).
Yes
17. Will any new road go through any area of contiguous forest that is greater than or equal to
10 acres in total extent?
Note: "Contiguous forest" of 10 acres or more may includes areas where multiple forest patches are separated by
less than 1,000 feet of non -forest if the forested patches, added together, comprise at least 10 acres.
Yes

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166 8
18. For every 1,000 feet of new road that crosses between contiguous forest patches, will there
be at least one place where bats could cross the road corridor by flying less than 33 feet
(10 meters) between trees whose tops are at least 66 feet (20 meters) higher than the road
surface?
No
19. Will the proposed action result in the cutting or other means of knocking down, bringing
down, or trimming of any trees suitable for northern long-eared bat roosting?
Note: Suitable northern long-eared bat roost trees are live trees and/or snags >_3 inches dbh that have exfoliating
bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities.
Yes

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which trees will be removed - round up
to the nearest tenth of an acre. For this question, include the entire area where tree removal
will take place, even if some live or dead trees will be left standing.
100
In what extent of the area (in acres) will trees be cut, knocked down, or trimmed during the
inactive (hibernation) season for northern long-eared bat? Note: Inactive Season dates for spring
staging/fall swarming areas can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/inactive-season-dates-swarming-and-
staging-areas
0
In what extent of the area (in acres) will trees be cut, knocked down, or trimmed during the
active (non -hibernation) season for northern long-eared bat? Note: Inactive Season dates for
spring staging/fall swarming areas can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/inactive-season-dates-
swarming-and-staging-areas
100
Will all potential northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roost trees (trees >_3 inches diameter at
breast height, dbh) be cut, knocked, or brought down from any portion of the action area
greater than or equal to 0.1 acre? If all NLEB roost trees will be removed from multiple
areas, select `Yes' if the cumulative extent of those areas meets or exceeds 0.1 acre.
Yes
Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which all potential NLEB roost trees will
be removed. If all NLEB roost trees will be removed from multiple areas, entire the total
extent of those areas. Round up to the nearest tenth of an acre.
100
For the area from which all potential northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roost trees will be
removed, on how many acres (round to the nearest tenth of an acre) will trees be allowed
to regrow? Enter `0' if the entire area from which all potential NLEB roost trees are
removed will be developed or otherwise converted to non -forest for the foreseeable future.
0
Will any snags (standing dead trees) >_3 inches dbh be left standing in the area(s) in which
all northern long-eared bat roost trees will be cut, knocked down, or otherwise brought
down?
No
Will all project activities by completed by April 1, 2024?
No

06/09/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 699-127529166 10
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Private Entity
Name:
Kim Williams
Address:
3805 Wrightsville Avenue; Suite 15
City:
Wilmington
State:
NC
Zip:
28403
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
9104520001
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Army Corps of Engineers
Name: Gary Beecher
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
Appendix B — Red -cockaded Woodpecker Effects Determination Key
Stanley Martin Homes Cannon Tract; Brunswick Co.
ORM2 No.:
USFWS Reference No. (if applicable):
Date 2021
US Army Corps
of Engineers
1) Is the action areal located within the RCW consultation area (see Appendix A and project -specific
results from a project -specific IPaC or internal USACE GIS review)?
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................... go to 2
b) No...................................................................................................................................... No effectZ
2) Is the action areal located in the northeastern coastal plain (see Appendix A)?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................... go to 3
b) No (the project is located in piedmont, sandhills, or southeastern coastal plain) .................go to 4
3) Is the action areal located in a forested area with pine trees present in northeast North Carolina (e.g.,
high pocosin, Atlantic white cedar, nonriverine swamp forests, pond pine woodland, coastal fringe
evergreen forest, wet successional pine/pine-hardwood forest, or pine plantation or uplands)? If yes,
are the pine trees greater than 30 years of age (if stand age is not readily determined, refer to Table
1 for a description of the minimum dbh of 30-year-old pines associated with each community type).
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, choose Yes below. If the answer to one or both
questions is no, then choose No below.
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................... go to 8
b) No...................................................................................................................................... No effectZ
4) Is the action area' located within suitable RCW foraging or nesting habitat (pine or pine/hardwood
stands in which 50% or more of the dominant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are 30
years of age or older or >_8-inches dbh')?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................... go to 5
b) No...................................................................................................................................... No effectZ
5) Will any activity in the action area' remove trees equal to or greater than 8 inches dbh; or will any
activity occur within 200 feet of known RCW cavity trees? If unable to determine the location of a
cavity tree with confidence, contact the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
a) Yes (to one or both)............................................................................................................... go to 6
b) No............................................................................................................................................ NLAA'
12

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
6) Is the action areal located in suitable RCW nesting habitat (in the sandhills and piedmont: pine or
pine/hardwood stands that contain pines 60 years in age or older or >_10 inches dbh; in the
southeastern coastal plain: pine or pine/hardwood stands that contain pines >_8 inches dbh, including
but not limited to pine flatwoods, pocosin, pine savannah, upland pine/hardwood)?
a) Yes........................................................................................................................................... go to 9
b) No............................................................................................................................................goto7
7) Does suitable nesting habitat occur within 0.5 miles of suitable foraging habitat that would be
impacted by any activity in the action areal?
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................... go to 9
b) No............................................................................................................................................ NLAA3
8) Refer to Table 1 in the SLOPES for the northeastern North Carolina habitat type in the action areal.
Are pine trees with a dbh equal to or greater than that shown in Table 1 proposed to be removed in
the action areal, or is the action areal within 200 feet of a cavity tree? If the answer to either of these
questions is yes, choose Yes below. If unable to determine the location of a cavity tree with
confidence, then contact the USFWS Raleigh Field Office.
a) Yes......................................................................................................................................... go to 9
b) No............................................................................................................................................ NLAA3
9) Contact the appropriate USACE representative for a pre -application meeting to determine if a survey
is necessary (for a list of USACE representatives please see the contact list at http://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/FO/PM List.pdf). Note that project -specific information, such as a delineation of
waters of the U.S., project plans, and details concerning certain activities on disturbances that would
occur in the action areal (e.g. percussive activities, forest management, or similar disturbances), may
be needed for the USACE to determine the action area(s)l of the project. If a survey is required and
agreed to by the applicant, all suitable RCW nesting habitat within 0.5 miles of the action areal should
be surveyed according to USFWS protocol for the presence of RCW cavity trees'. If the applicant is
unwilling or unable to conduct the survey, standard consultation with the USFWS should begin. Such
surveys are conducted by running line transects through stands and visually inspecting all medium-
sized and large pines for evidence of cavity excavation by RCWs. Transects must be spaced so that all
trees are inspected and are run north -south.
Was a survey performed?
a) Yes, a survey was performed, and RCW cavity trees were observed .................................... go to 10
b) Yes, the survey was submitted to the USFWS for concurrence, and the USFWS concurred with the
results (no RCW cavity trees were observed).......................................................................... NLAA3
c) No, the USACE determined that a survey was not required and the USFWS
concurred................................................................................................................................. NLAA3
d) No, a survey was not performed....................................................................Consultation required'
10) Does the project involve activities or disturbances in the action areal (e.g., percussive activities, forest
management, or similar disturbances) within the 200-foot cavity tree buffer, and/or cause removal or
damage to RCW cavity trees (e.g., via root compaction, soil compaction)? If yes to either or both then
consultation is required.
a) Yes.................................................................................................................Consultation required'
b) No......................................................................................................................................... go to 11
13

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
11) Has a foraging habitat analysis (FHA)' been conducted to determine whether enough foraging habitat
would remain for each RCW group post -project? For information on how to conduct an FHA', refer to
the "Procedures for Determining Foraging Habitat Availability" and the Private Land Guidelines.'
a) Yes, the FHA' has been submitted to the USFWS for concurrence' and the USFWS concurred that
adequate amounts of foraging habitat would remain post -project ...................................... NLAA3
b) Yes, and review of the FHA' by the USACE along with concurrence from USFWS determined
inadequate amounts of foraging habitat would remain post -project Consultation required'
c) No, an FHA' has not been conducted..........................................................Consultation required'
'Action Area means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved
in the action. Please contact the appropriate USACE representative for any questions as to the action area for the Federal action.
For a list of USACE representatives, please see the contact list at: http://saw-reg.usace.army.miI/FO/PMList.pdf.
'No effect — The proposed project would result in no effect to this species and/or its federally designated critical habitat (if
applicable). Further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh and Asheville Ecological Services field offices is not necessary for the
project as described.
3NLAA—The proposed project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect this species and/or its designated critical habitat (if
applicable). NLAA determinations for projects made pursuant to this key require no further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh
and Asheville Ecological Services field offices, therefore, consultation is considered complete for this species. For General Permits,
submittal of a Pre -Construction Notification to the USACE will be required for all NLAA determinations.
4Follow link to USFWS RCW Recovery Plan, Appendix 4 for additional information on nesting and foraging habitats, and survey
protocol (https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/files/RecoveryPlan/survey protocol.pdf)
-'Consultation required — Contact the USACE to begin this consultation process. For a list of USACE representatives please see the
contact list at http://saw-reg.usace.army.miI/FO/PMList.pdf. Further consultation with the USFWS Raleigh and Asheville
Ecological Services field offices is necessary to discern if the activity would result in a "no effect," "not likely to adversely affect,"
or "likely to adversely affect" determination.
6Follow links for additional information on conducting FHA (https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/matrix.html) and for
determining foraging habitat availability(https://www.fws.gov/ncsandhills/files/fha data collection procedures.pdf).
'Follow link for additional information regarding determination for adequate amount of foraging habitat
(https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/files/RecoveryPlan/private lands guidelines.pdf).
8 FHA —When an FHA is conducted, the USACE must provide the FHA to USFWS for review and concurrence
Additional Information The tract has been managed for timber production for many years. Most trees within uplands
were removed from the site in 2020. Remaining vegetation consists of a sparse canopy of young loblolly pines with 2"
— 6" DBH and a developing shrub layer of magnolia bay, loblolly bay, titi, and fetterbush. The wetlands in the northern
part of the site contain a sparse canopy of loblolly pines and black gum and a shrub layer of magnolia bay, red bay, titi,
gallberry, and fetterbush. Interior wetlands are mostly pocosin in nature and these areas support a dense shrub layer
of titi, gallberry, and bays. Two streams run through the site. Shrubby vegetation is present directly adjacent to the
channels. It is our opinion that the site does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red -cockaded
woodpecker.
14

6.0 LCFUMB & NCDMS CREDIT RESERVATION LETTERS

LOWER CAPE FEAR UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
STATEMENT OF CREDIT AVAILIBILITY
June 12, 2023
TO: Mr. Robert Bennett (Stanley Martin Homes) FROM: Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
4006 St. James Drive c/o Land Management Group
St. James, NC 28461 3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
Project: Cannon Tract (Brunswick County, NC)
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Pursuant to the recent credit request submitted on your behalf, the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation
Bank (LCFUMB) is providing confirmation of acceptance to supply mitigation credits for proposed non -
riparian wetland impacts associated with the Cannon Tract (Brunswick County, NC). This acceptance is
conditional upon receipt of payment as outlined below. Please refer to the table below depicting the type
and quantity of credits requested and reserved for your project.
Mitigation Type I Credits Reserved I Fee Per Unit Fee
Stream 0 $646.12 $0.00
Non -Riparian Wetland I 0.2 I $70,919.17 1 $14,187.83
Riparian (Riverine) Wetland I 0.0 I $70,919.17 $0.00
Total Fee $14,187.83
Based upon receipt of your email transmitted on June 12, 2023, LCFUMB will reserve 0.2 non -riparian wetland
credits for a period of up to 90 days from the date of this letter. Note that requests to reserve credits
beyond 90 days will require a deposit. Please contact us if you need a reservation to extend beyond the 90-
day period.
Upon request for receipt of credit transfer, LCFUMB will issue an invoice in the amount of $14,187.83.
Upon receipt of payment, LCFUMB will provide an executed Transfer of Credit Certificate. Note that all
payments must be made with certified funds. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the credit
types and amounts requested are consistent with the compensatory mitigation requirements of the permit(s)
issued. LCFUMB and/or its agents are not responsible for determining the applicant's mitigation
requirements. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at
[phone] or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Land Management Group (agent for LCFUMB)
U
Christian Preziosi
Principal Consultant

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Robert Bennett
Stanley Martin Homes
4006 St. James Drive
St. James, NC 28461
Project: Stanley Martin Homes Cannon Tract
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 13, 2023
Expiration of Acceptance: 12/13/2023
County: Brunswick
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
8-di it HUC
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Cape Fear
03030005
Warm Stream
295
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].
Sincerely,
FOR James. B Stanfill
Deputy Director
cc: Kim Williams, agent
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
h(h�TH :.AROI iRA IV
o �nmmmenni w�a 919,707,8976

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR BOTTOMLESS CULVERTS

0
ECS Southeast,, LLP
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Cannon Tract - Culverts
Old Town Creek Road NE
Leland, Brunswick County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22:32822
February 27, 2023
.e-

E
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
"Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
February 27, 2023
Mr. Greg A. Wayne, PLS
Hanover Design Services, PA
1123 Floral Parkway
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
ECS Project No. 22:32822
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Cannon Tract - Culverts
Old Town Creek Road NE
Leland, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wayne:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analyses for the above -referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with
our agreed to scope of work. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of
the project along with the results of the field exploration conducted and our design and construction
recommendations.
It has been our pleasure to be of service during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate
the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase, and we would like to
provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify subsurface conditions
assumed for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this
report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS Southeast, LLP
Freddie Wescott
Senior Project Manager
[e-mail]
,'V 1L
t4�
Winslow Gains, PE
Principal Engineer
WGoinstfflecslimited. cam
6714 Netherlands Drive, Wilmington, NC 28405 T: 910-686-9114 www.ecslimited-com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mrd-Atlanft, LLC ECS Midwest, LLC ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Southwest, LLP
Nj.; E_iigineeirng No. F - I U 7 6 • NC Geoiogy No. C-S53 • 5G -_+igineesrrnp No 3439

Cannon Tract - Culverts
ECS Project No. 22:32822
TABLE OF CONTENTS
February 27, 2023
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................3
2.1 Project Location/Current Site Use/Past Site Use...................................................................3
2.2 Proposed Construction...........................................................................................................3
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...........................................................................................................4
3.1 Subsurface characterization...................................................................................................4
3.2 Groundwater Observations....................................................................................................4
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................5
4.1 Foundations............................................................................................................................5
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................6
5.1 Subgrade Preparation............................................................................................................6
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing.................................................................................................6
5.1.2 Subgrade Observation..................................................................................................6
5.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering..........................................................................................6
5.2 Earthwork Operations............................................................................................................6
5.2.1 Structural Fill.................................................................................................................6
5.3 Foundation and Slab Observations........................................................................................7
5.4 Utility Installations.................................................................................................................8
6.0 CLOSING.............................................................................................................................9
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Drawings & Reports
• Site Location Diagram
• Exploration Location Diagram
Appendix B — Field Operations
• Reference Notes for CPT Testing
• Cone Penetration Test Sounding Logs (S-1 and S-2)
Appendix C—Supplemental Report Documents
• GBA Document

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost
impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are
summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading
the entire geotechnical report.
• The geotechnical exploration performed for the site included two (2) electronic cone penetration
test (CPT) soundings drilled to termination depths of approximately 25 feet.
• The proposed culverts can be supported by shallow foundations with an allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf.
• Groundwater was encountered in the soundings at depths ranging from approximately 2.4 feet
to 3.6 feet below existing grade.
• Due to the near surface loose SANDS (SM, SP) encountered in the soundings and hand auger
borings, in -place densification may be needed prior to construction of foundations.
Please note this Executive Summary is an important part of this report and should be considered a
"summary" only. The subsequent sections of this report constitute our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations in their entirety.

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of foundations for the
proposed new bottomless culverts located off Old Town Creek Road NE in Leland, NC. The
recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Mr. Greg A
Wayne, PLS of Hanover Design Services, PA.
Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 22:27029, dated January 18, 2023, as
authorized by Mr. Greg A. Wayne, PL on February 15, 2023, which includes our Terms and Conditions of
Service.
This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration programs, review of existing
site conditions, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the
project.
The report includes the following items.
• A brief review and description of our field test procedures and the results of testing conducted;
• A review of surface topographical features and site conditions;
• A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties;
• Foundation recommendations;
• Allowable bearing pressure;
• Site development recommendations;
• Suitability of soils for use as fill material;
• Compaction recommendations;
• Site vicinity map;
• Exploration location plan; and
• CPT sounding logs.

Cannon Tract - Culverts
ECS Project No. 22:32822
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE/PAST SITE USE
February 27, 2023
Page 3
The proposed site is located off Old Town Creek Road in Leland, Brunswick County, North Carolina. The
site is bounded on the south by Old Town Creek Rd NE and residential development, and on all other sides
by undeveloped land. Figure 2.1.1 below shows an image of where the site is located.
Figure 2.1.1 Site Location
The site currently consists of a cleared site with current construction. Based on our site visit and
approximate elevations from Google Earth, the site is relatively level with typical elevations on site ranging
from approximate 62 to 66 feet.
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ECS understands the project consists of the construction of two new bottomless culverts for the proposed
residential development.

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 4
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the Reference Notes
for Cone Penetration Soundings. Our scope of work included performing two (2) CPT soundings. Our
approximate CPT sounding locations are shown on the Exploration Location Diagram in Appendix A.
3.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The
following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil. Please refer to the CPT sounding logs
in Appendix B.
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain is
composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean. Soils in this area
generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the ocean or rivers. These
deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of the region to more than 10,000
feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to
those underlying the Piedmont and Mountain Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined
groundwater movement within the overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients.
Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or
other surface water bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with
seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.
Table 3.1.1 Subsurface Stratigraphy
Approximate Stratum Description Ranges of
Depth Range N*-Values(1) blows
per foot (bpf)
0 N/A Minimal amounts of topsoil were encountered on- N/A
(Surface cover) site. Deeper topsoil or organic laden soils are most
likely present in wet, poorly drained areas and
potentially unexplored areas of the site.
0 to 10 1 Very Loose to Very Dense, Silty, Gravely, and Clean 2 to 71
SAND (SM, SP), and Soft to Stiff, Sandy SILT (ML).
10 to 25 11 Very Loose to Dense, Silty and Clean SAND (SM, SP), 3 to 49
Soft to Very Stiff, Clayey and Sandy SILT (ML), and Silty
and Lean CLAY (CL).
Notes: (1) Equivalent Corrected Standard Penetration Test Resistances
3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Water levels were measured in our CPT soundings and are shown in Appendix B. Groundwater depths
measured at the time of drilling ranged from 2.4 to 3.6 feet below the ground surface. Variations in the
long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff,
construction activities, and other factors.

Cannon Tract - Culverts
ECS Project No. 22:32822
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 FOUNDATIONS
February 27, 2023
Page 5
Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as recommended in this report and in -place
densification is performed by the design/build contractor, the proposed structures can be supported by
shallow foundations including column footings and continuous wall footings. We recommend the
foundation design use the following parameters:
Table 4.1.1 Foundation Design
Design Parameter Footing
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure' 2,000 psf
Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Stratum I or Approved
structural fill
Minimum Width 18 inches
Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below 12 inches
slab or finished grade)
Estimated Total Settlement 1 inch
Estimated Differential Settlement Less than 0.5 inches
Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the
surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.
Potential Undercuts: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable
for support of the proposed structure. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing
elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. Any undercut should be backfilled with
approved structural fill up to the original design bottom of footing elevation; the original footing shall be
constructed on top of the approved structural fill.

Cannon Tract - Culverts
ECS Project No. 22:32822
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing
February 27, 2023
Page 6
The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing fill, and any
soft or unsuitable materials from the 10-foot expanded building and 5-foot expanded pavement limits.
Borings and soundings performed in "undisturbed" areas of the site contained an observed minimal
amount of topsoil. Deeper topsoil or organic laden soils may be present in wet, low-lying, and poorly
drained areas. ECS should be retained to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been
removed prior to the placement of structural fill or construction of structures.
5.1.2 Subgrade Observation
Prior to fill placement or other construction on subgrades, the subgrades should be evaluated by an ECS
field technician. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly probed to identify any localized yielding
materials.
Where proofrolling identifies areas that are unstable or "pumping" subgrade those areas should be
repaired prior to the placement of any subsequent Structural Fill or other construction materials.
Methods of stabilization include undercutting and moisture conditioning. The situation should be
discussed with ECS to determine the appropriate procedure. Test pits may be excavated to explore the
shallow subsurface materials to help in determining the cause of the observed unstable materials, and to
assist in the evaluation of appropriate remedial actions to stabilize the subgrade.
Due to the near surface loose SANDS (SM, SP) encountered in the soundings and hand auger borings, in -
place densification may be needed prior to construction of foundations.
5.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering
Temporary Dewatering: Temporary dewatering operations can be managed by the use of conventional
submersible pumps directly in the excavation or temporary trenches to direct the flow of water and to
remove water from the excavation. If temporary sump pits are used, we recommend they be established
at an elevation 3 to 5 feet below the bottom of the excavation subgrade or bottom of footing. A perforated
55-gallon drum or other temporary structure could be used to house the pump. We recommend
continuous dewatering of the excavations using pumps during construction.
If dewater operations are performed at the site, ECS recommends that the dewatering operations be
performed in accordance with Local, State and Federal Government regulatory requirements for surface
water discharges. ECS would be pleased to be consulted by the client on those requirements, if requested.
5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS
5.2.1 Structural Fill
Prior to placement of structural fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on -site and/or off -
site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will typically include Atterberg limits,

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 7
natural moisture content, grain -size distribution, and moisture -density relationships (i.e., Proctors) for
compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet
project specifications. Alternatively, Proctor data from other accredited laboratories can be submitted if
the test results are within the last 90 days.
Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist of
inorganic soils with the following engineering properties and compaction requirements.
STRUCTURAL FILL INDEX PROPERTIES
Subject
Building and Pavement Areas
Max. Particle Size
Fines Content
Max. organic content
Property
LL < 40, PI<20
4 inches
Max. 20 %
5% by dry weight
STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
Subject
Compaction Standard
Required Compaction
(Upper 1 foot)
Required Compaction
(Depths greater than 1 foot)
Dry Unit Weight
Moisture Content
Loose Thickness
Requirement
Standard Proctor, ASTM D698
98% of Max. Dry Density
95% of Max. Dry Density
>100 pcf
-2 to +2 % points of the soil's
optimum value
8 inches prior to compaction
On -Site Borrow Suitability: Significant natural deposits of possible fill material are present on the site.
The on -site sands (SP, SM) with fines contents less than 20 percent should meet the recommendations
for re -use as structural fill.
Fill Placement: Fill materials should not be placed on frozen soils, on frost -heaved soils, and/or on
excessively wet soils. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement,
and frozen or frost -heaved soils should be removed prior to placement of structural fill or other fill soils
and aggregates. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture
conditioned.
5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS
Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing
bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation
concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation
bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if
rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3-inch thick "mud mat" of "lean"
concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 8
Footing Subgrade Observations: A majority of the soils encountered on site at the foundation bearing
elevation are anticipated to be adequate for support of the proposed structure. It is important to have
ECS observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils
are what was anticipated.
5.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally not suitable for
support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrades should be observed and probed for stability by ECS. Any loose
or unsuitable materials encountered should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted Structural
Fill, or pipe stone bedding material.
Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material (AASHTO #57 stone) should be at least 6 inches thick,
but not less than that specified by the civil engineer's project drawings and specifications. We recommend
that the bedding materials be placed up to the springline of the pipe. Fill placed for support of the utilities,
as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for structural fill and fill placement.
Excavation Safety: Excavations and slopes should be constructed and maintained in accordance with
OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing, constructing, and
maintaining stable temporary excavations and slopes. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in
29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety
procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench
excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing
this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site
safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Cannon Tract - Culverts February 27, 2023
ECS Project No. 22:32822 Page 9
6.0 CLOSING
ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the
project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals
in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region.
No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in
this report.
The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by Mr. Greg A. Wayne,
PLS of Hanover Design Services, PA. If any of this information is inaccurate or changes, either because of
our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should
be contacted so we can review our recommendations and provide additional or alternate
recommendations that reflect the proposed construction.
We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those
plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.
Field observations and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an
extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to apply our
expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide consultation and
recommendation should issues arise.
ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in
this report.

APPENDIX A — Diagrams & Reports
Site Location Diagram
Exploration Location Diagram

r TV
F+ `"'"�' ' +.f ; e • may z
ar
wry, ---
'W m $ �Ee BSI Q� y'f[`5•�l ..SHE
oil
3�� �� ,.Taw � r ,•,'M
ti �9tpaSm'� Her town' - r
ios
' 1p
��.u;dN-._

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors
J■+ N
W E
-4-� e 1
me L
ry y
h �
a � �
,tt 0 ,
-06
i
Legend
Approximate Sounding Location �, 0 350 700
Feet
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM EWENC7EER
SCALE
CANNON TRACT - CULVERTS AS NOTED
PROJECT NO.
EE22:32822
OLD TOWN CREEK RD NE, LELAND, NC FIGURE
20F2
HANOVER DESIGN SERVICES, PA °2/27/2023

APPENDIX B — Field Operations
Reference Notes for CPT Soundings Logs
Cone Penetration Test Sounding Logs (S-1 and S-2)

REFERENCE NOTES FOR CONE PENETRATION
TEST (CPT) SOUNDINGS
In the CPT sounding procedure (ASTM-D-5778), an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer
is hydraulically advanced through soil to measure point resistance (qr), pore water pressure (u2),
and sleeve friction (fs). These values are recorded continuously as the cone is pushed to the
desired depth. CPT data is corrected for depth and used to estimate soil classifications and
intrinsic soil parameters such as angle of internal friction, preconsolidation pressure, and undrained
shear strength. The graphs below represent one of the accepted methods of CPT soil behavior
classification (Robertson, 1990).
N
]2
ift
Friction Ratio, F, N
1. Sensitive, Fine Grained
2. Organic Soils -Pests
3. Clays; Clay to Silty Clay
4. Clayey Silt to Silty Clay
5. Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
tccc
7
C� 100
U
C
a �
.0
N
C t6 3
O
U
9
2
1
-0A 0 04 0.8 1.2
Pore Pressure Ratio, Bq
6. Clean Sands to Silty Sands
7. Gravelly Sand to Sand
8. Very Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
9. Very Stiff Fine Grained
The following table presents a correlation of corrected cone tip resistance (qt) to soil
consistency or relative density:
SAND
SILT/CLAY
Corrected Cone Tip
Resistance (qt) (tsf)
Relative Density
Corrected Cone Tip
Resistance (qt) (tsf)
Relative Density
<20
Very Loose
<5
Very Soft
20-40
Loose
5-10
Soft
40-120
Medium Dense
10-15
Firm
15-30
Stiff
120-200
Dense
30-45
Very Stiff
>200
Very Dense
45-60
Hard
>60
Very Hard

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:
CONE PENETRATION TESTING (CPT)
ASTM D 5778
In the CPT sounding procedure, an electronically instrumented cone
penetrometer is hydraulically advanced through soil to measure point
resistance (qc), pore water pressure (U2), and sleeve friction (fs). These
values
are recorded
continuously as
the cone is
pushed
to the desired
depth.
CPT data is
corrected for
depth and
used to
estimate soil
classifications and intrinsic soil parameters such as angle of internal
friction, pre -consolidation pressure, and undrained shear strength.
SOUNDING
SDUND[NG
!CS NUMBER
CUSTOMER: Cu—
"OLE 11UWER: e_e
OPERATOR: RPIC
TEST DATE'. WMD1D ID:35:M3
CC Io_DES1371
COMMENT Av�E�9ia>s On
LOCATION: Mi—
COMMENT: FL[er Cn
SBT FR
T. Resislawe 0)SPT FoeMee
[Ro6. I>399i
Infz� oaar'IU
n[deg)
D�f
cPs nATIauoNxn: D.DD.o.Do.D.D
LOCATION: 1.6an
LOCATION: I.Fane
LOCATION: Mavis
S1_Shwa Pme Presss:e
s� n e�� s
1 --Foe prdinetl 4 Gihy davm day T Giln sa to seridy se't "1D Graveln_andmsand
2 CVumic mazenal 5 Clayey sill m silty dl 9 sar - tysend 11 Ve Aff floe waned ••
3 Gays B Sandy silo m dayey silt D S 4 E12 SaM to clayeysaM ••
'SB'S Ro�rtson 1598_ "O�ermisalica�ed or Ccmented;'S6T�GPT CORRELATION. O6G1983
• Involves the direct
push of an
electronically
instrumented cone
penetrometer*
through the soil
• Values are recorded
continuously
• CPT data is corrected
and correlated to soil
parameters
*CPT Penetrometer Size May Vary

ri M C
N
(/I O O 0
N 5
U N N fa
N T ••
faLO
0 N
C
U O_
M 0
m N
N 00
U
yam..
Q
O
Q
7
O
O
L
m
O
E
O
m■■■■■■■■M■■®■■■m■■■
■W■■II
■■�■1�1■■■■■��■■n�
■■■
'
■■I
I�■
Z 0 .-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In t0 N M M O . N M 7 In
.�J . .�i .�i .�i .�i .�i .�i .�i .�i N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
3
L
3
y
y
d
L
Q
L
O
a
C
O
V
�i
w
l
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . -I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
N N N N N N
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . -I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
N N N N N N
.-I N M 7 In D N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
W
N Co
O
J
N
7
N
N
a
O
M
w
N
N p
O
a=.
L
LL
O
0
0
v �
u
m
o +'
N
O
Q
H
O
N
fa
A
O
N
O
a�
N
Q
Jam-.
C

N M p
N
(/I O O 0
N 5
.--
r,j D N
u N N fa
N T ••
faLO
0 N
C
U O_
p
O N
Ln c:
N O
U
Y
Q
O
0)
Q
H
7
O
O
L
m
O
O
■
I�
Z O .-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
3
d
L
3
y
y
d
L
Q
L
O
a
C
O
V
w
l
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . -I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
N N N N N N
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
.-I N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In 10 N M M O . N M 7 In
. . . . . . . . . . N N N N N N
(43) 44da4
O
W
O
N p
. O
O N
'-I L
0
O
e
N m
Ln
O
O
00
0
o ..
1 w
O N
Ln 3
O O
v �
o �-
M O
O kD
N z
O
O
0
v
Q
a
o Ln
N O
In
� M
L N
O M
N
O
N
n
N
N
E
O
J-.
In V
0
O
Q
w N
O Lp
L Ln LL A
O O
O
a�
N
Q
Y
0
a�
C
N
w �
V Q n
O U fo
o C: 0 � m
N M
J...
Na
� U o
L i Vl
CL N
00
o
O N p
N �
a �o
U a`

APPENDIX C — Supplemental Report Documents
GBA Document

r- Geotechnical-Engineering Report --)
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure's location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the sites size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a difrerentproject;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.

This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options
or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'
plans and specifications, and
be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study - e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
&EPA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent