20071921 Ver 1_Application_20071127

ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
111 MacKenan Drive
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA, 27511
[phone]
FAX [phone]

WE ARE SENDING YOU
^ Shop Drawings
^ Copy of Letter
^ Attached via
^ Prints
^ Change order
U Plans
^ Diskette
_ the following items:
^ Samples ^ Specifications
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION

\ ~v. c 1~ s i ~'~

.f,
t"'~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~OC~
_,
~YFTt1~AlU8 p.,'9~ ~~T;?~'r.;H,',!~; r4 3RAP~'C;ri
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval ^ Approved as submitted
For your use ^ Approved as noted
^ As requested ^ Returned for corrections
^ For review and comment ^
^ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS:
-, ~,~
~-~~ w,.n_ ~ Y~ ~...., ~ L.~r-a.~ J wSL~ __r..,....ti,~ cr=b~ ~": o.~.RS ~ ~v~-o f' vim' a~
COPY TO: `~~~, SIGNED: ~ ~~ ~,,,~,;,,,,
C~C~~'~CG°~ 0~ ~QQ~~~~~~pd
DATE `, ,~ v~ JOB NO. pt~S l ~
ATTENTION ~_
PHONE# ~S _c~~

RE: Lx p
->~~ 1'S ., ~. Inc. ~c.1
S
J O.~ ~ L

i~ I~. ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~'

F~

^ Resubmit
^ Submit
^ Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
/f enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.

WITHERS ~~,~~" RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
November 27, 2007
NC-Division of Water Quality
Attn: Ms. Lia Myott
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: BSP Atlantic
Request for Buffer Compliance -Express Review Program
W&R Project Number - 02050518
DWQ Exp#~ 07-0566
Dear Ms. Myott:
~++~, ~.~; ~~, ~ f ~ p ! ~v~ r-- ,f~J,
8.~ A~ ~~1 ~ A ._- d J
t~~;rh~; - ~'yg7~:k C?~F1Lf7Y
~CAAIL~?g,~tn ,Ttk'?p,~~uar~ BRANCH
On behalf of BSP Atlantic, LLC we are requesting authorization form the NC-DWQ to
impact the Neuse Riparian Buffers for the construction of a bridge.
The subject property is approximately 47 acres in size and is located and is located
due west of the intersection of Interstate 44o and Capital Blvd (US 4oi)
(Latitude:35.8i65oo8 °N, Longitude:78.610oo24°W) in Raleigh, Wake County, North
Carolina. The site is bounded on the south by Crabtree Creek and is located in the
Neuse River Basin. The water quality classification for the stream features on site is
C-NSW. The Hydrologic Unit Code is o3o2o2oi and the Stream Index Number is 27-
33-(l0).
Project History
Wetlands were delineated by Withers & Ravenel during April, 2006. A site meeting
was conducted with the NC-DWQ on February i5, 2007 (DWQ EXP# 07-0566) to verify
stream origin points. A copy of the NC-DWQ letter is attached. In addition, pre -
application meetings were held with DWQ on 1/29/07 and 2/15/07 to discuss
avoidance and minimization issues (see below).
Proposed Impacts
The proposed permanent impacts consist of 8,562 SF (Z1: 3,711 and Z2: 4,851) of
riparian buffer for the construction of a bridge needed to access the proposed
development. No wetlands or streams will be impacted as a result of this project.
The impacts are summarized on the overall map as well as the PCN form.
Avoidance and Minimization
Prior to site plan development, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland
delineation be conducted so that impacts to wetlands and `waters' could be
minimized. The City of Raleigh is requiring a collector street connection between
isi MacKenan Drive i Cary, NC 27511 i tel: [phone] i fax: [phone] i www.withersravenel.com
7040 Wrightsville Avenue i Suite 101 i Wilmington, NC 28403 i tel: [phone] i fax: [phone]
1027 Sabbath Home Rd, SW i Supply, NC 28462 i tel: [phone] i fax: [phone]

Meadow Wood Boulevard and Ratchford Drive. The original site plans called for two
creek crossings at the confluence of Crabtree Creek and an un-named tributary. We
examined crossing further to the east, to minimize impacts, however, horizontal and
vertical design standards limited the crossing location to the existing stub road and
right-of-way. We also looked at crossing further to the west, but this alignment
would impact existing buildings, not owned by the applicant. As a compromise and
in order to minimize impacts, the applicant proposes to shift approximately 40o feet
of the existing right-of-way to the west, and will span the entire creek crossing using
abridge, avoiding impacts to stream channels altogether. Although, there are
parallel impacts to the riparian buffer, as stated above, these impacts could not be
avoided, due to the fact that there is an existing building just west of the alignment.
Although two other points of ingress and egress are located in the northern portion
of the property via Meadow Wood Boulevard and Mellowfield Drive, at build-out, the
proposed development will consist of 1,20o residential condominium/townhome
units. Based on the traffic study conducted by Ramey Kemp, if the connection at the
southern end of the property is not constructed, it will lead to operational concerns
at some intersections, as well as cause significant increases in delays and queues at
the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Meadow Wood Boulevard. These delays
could also affect the emergency response time if an accident were to occur within or
adjacent to the proposed development. A copy of the Traffic analysis is included
with the attachments, for your review.
Stormwater Management Plan
The proposed impervious for this project is expected to be greater than 24%,
therefore, constructed wetlands will be utilized to treat stormwater before it exits the
site. The stormwater management plans have been submitted to the City of Raleigh
for preliminary approval. We will forward the approval letter, along with a set of the
construction drawings and calculations, under separate cover. During construction
the applicant will utilize sediment basins to prevent sediment from entering
jurisdictional stream channels or wetlands.
Mitigation
Because there are parallel impacts to the riparian buffer, the applicant proposes
payment to the NCEEP to satisfy mitigation requirements. A copy of their acceptance
letter is included with the attachments.

Please feel free to call if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
WITHERS ~ RAVENEL, INC.

Todd Preuninger
Attachments -
1) PCN Form
2) Site plans
3) Agent Authorization
4) USGS Quadrangle Map
5) Wake County Soil Survey Map
6) NC-DWQ Buffer Letter
7) EEP Acceptance Letter
8) TIA Study

~ .3~0 3 ~ -~-
Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~.S~Q o ~l - l a12
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Watet Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
NA
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), c ,c ~ ~ ~~f? j ' ~~
':! r ° '`~ ~. is ~-= o~ t +
t= ... ~--~ ~/ .
II. Applicant Information ~'~ -~~ ~
f~ I) V ~ '7
1. Owner/Applicant Information ,
nkhif~. - 4~AI f:k QUALI fY
Name: BSP Atlantic LLC -Attn: Ed Hallberg ,~-r~nt~us~.t!'~u~'^F'~"'~~~~~a~N
Mailing Address: 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone Number: 919-854-5551 Fax Number: 919-854-7913
E-mail Address: ehallberg,(a~broadstreetpartners.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Todd Preunin~er
Company Affiliation: Withers and Ravenel
Mailing Address: 111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Telephone Number: 469-3340 Fax Number: 238-2099
E-mail Address: tpreuning_er(a~withersravenel.com
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such .*_hat the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: BSP Atlantic
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1715525453
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): BSP Atlantic
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The subiect pro~erty is
approximately 47 acres in size and is located and is located due west of the intersection of
Interstate 440 and Capital Blvd (US 401) (Latitude:35.8165008 °N
Longitude:78.6100024°W) in Raleigh, Wake County North Carolina.
S. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum)::35.8165008 °N 78.6100024° °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Crabtree Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is currently wooded and is surrounded by
residential housing as well as commercial ventures.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
proposed project consists of the construction of residential housing_(i.e. apartments). Typical
earth moving equipment such as excavators will be used to install the infrastructure.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The proposed project is intended to meet the
growing demand for housing in this area.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Wetlands were delineated by Withers & Ravenel during April, 2006. A
site meeting was conducted with the NC-DWO on February 15, 2007 (DWQ EXP# 07-0566, to
verify stream origin points. A copy of the NC-DWO letter is attached. In addition, pre -
applicationmeetings were held with DWO on 1!29/07 and 2/15/07 to discuss avoidance and
minimization issues (see below
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional impacts will be needed to complete this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed permanent impacts
consist of 8,562 SF (Z1: 3,711 and Z2: 4,851) of riparian buffer. No wetlands or streams will
be im acp ted by the as a result of this project.
Page 3 of 9

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
( es/no (linear feet)
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total Wetland Impact (acres) NA
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts inclr,tde, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.}, excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) NA
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred~in~, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres
NA NA NA NA NA
Total Open Water Impact (acres) NA
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Page 4 of 9

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Prior to site plan development,
the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that impacts to
wetlands and `waters' could be minimized. 'The City of Ralei is requiring a collector street
connection between Meadow Wood Boulevard and Ratchford Drive. The original site plans
called for two creek crossings at the confluence of Crabtree Creek and an un-named tributary
We examined crossing further to the east, to minimize impacts, however, horizontal and vertical
design standards limited the crossing location to the existing stub road and ri t-of-wad
also looked at crossing further to the west, but this alignment would impact existing buildings,
not owned by the applicant. As a compromise and in order to minimize impacts, the applicant
proposes to shift approximately 400 feet of the existing ri t-of-way to the west, and will span
the entire creek crossing using a bridge, avoiding impacts to stream channels alto e
Although, there are parallel impacts to the riparian buffer, as stated above, these impacts could
not be avoided, due to the fact that there is an existing building just west of the alignment.
Although two other points of ingress and egress are located in the northern portion of the
property via Meadwood Boulevard and Mellowfield Drive, at build-out, the proposed
development will consist of 1,200 residential condominium/townhome units. Based on the
traffic study, conducted b~Ramey Kemp, if the connection at the southern end of the property is
not constructed, it will lead to operational concerns at some intersections. as well as cause
significant increases in delays and queues at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Meadowood
Boulevard. These delays could also affect the emergency response time if an accident were to
occur within or adjacent to the proposed development. A copy of the Traffic analysis is included
with the attachments, for your review.
Page 5 of 9

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: r.,ducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The applicant proposes payment to the NC-EEP to satisfy mitigation requirements.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 9,350
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Page 6 of 9

Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact I I Required
Zone ,~~,___ ~ ,~ Multiplier ,,,~:~:__~:__
1 3,711 3 (2 for Catawba) See below
2 4,851 1.5
Total 8,562 See below
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Mitigation will be required for the parallel buffer impacts in the amount of:
ZI :2,021x3 = 6,063SF and ZZ 2,191 X1.5 = 3,287
Page 7 of 9

3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. The applicant proposes payment to EEP to
satis mitigation requirements.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed impervious for this project is
expected to be greater than 24%, therefore, constructed wetlands will be utilized to treat
stormwater before it exits the site. The Stormwater mans e~plans have been submitted to
the City of Ralei for preliminary approval. We will forward the approval letter, alon with a
set of the construction drawings and calculations, when we receive it. During construction the
applicant will utilize sediment basins to prevent sediment from entering_jurisdictional stream
channels or wetlands.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Sanitary Sewer
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: A
majority of the adjacent parcels have already been developed. If any additional development
occurs on the a~acent parcels, the owners will be required to comply with the NPDES Phase II
rules, the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules, therefore, we do not believe that this project will have a
negative impact on downstream water quality
Page 8 of 9

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
NA
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

=-
WITHERS ~~` RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Site Access/Agent Authorization Form
Project Name: BSP Atlantic
S~P~Ar-r ~'q'-~T ~ G, , L L C
Property Owner/Contract Purchaser: __^___~_~______ D
Address: ~o Ed Hallbe
• ~~ ~ a --rtz-~ N ~ -r~ 52-o n-A ~ S ; ~ 3 O ~
Phone: A1A-85L~_§j~l_
Fax: Qi4_85~Q13
Email: ehaUbergQbroadstree~artners,.com
I hereby grant Withers and Ravenel, iNC permission to conduct environmental
studies on the property described above. In addition, I authorize Withers and
Ravenel to act on my behalf as my agent when conducting site meetings and/or
correspondence (i.e. permit applications etc.) with the USACE and the NC -Division
of Water Quality, if necessary.
Property Owner: _Ed_Hallberg
~int Name)
(Signature}
Date• t' v 3~ i ~ ~
Local Address: 540o Trinity Rd
Suite 307
Raleigh, NC 27607

} y ~~' ~ 3 -ra.,.~ ar: ~;~~ t` ;hrin: 9 ~e ` ,~•/>•'0~.~! , •z ~:~~ ~ fr
'~ ~! ; r
r f";
4 r' r
f- `~."
_ ~r
i
-^ •j J ~..'.,. ~ , -sf ~i .•~ ~` .. 4.. )i?'-i• is •.'~ ~%, _~~,.I-~-- ,i 7Y,~'~-~.~~ ~ ~•~•-~r
.` ~ .- .. t ~ ~ ' ~Si'~, ~- -ter' Y •~ ' ~ '~ ~ ~1~ ~ 'td_•: , T r RS4" jG)
M1 . { ~ 1
1'~ .~
` - ~* ,.-- ~
~ _ ~ Qa
~ ~ ~' ,\ I ~ ~ . ~.- ~ j' '-' 11 ~ +~' ~„~:, _'~ '3 ~-~"~- d
f'{;f i ~ ~ ~ 1, ~, - :~'~ ~1~1: 1 ~ i+ ~ ~ •,f l~ Sr.'f~~ ~~ ~i r ` ~~,i~~~ +~F~-
err 1~ 'P ~ r`.` ~ ~'N "~y ~ .a '" S •_.~ f. ~•~ _' ~s „[ CT.~ ,~ a, ~;jf~
~+i ~ .+j, ~, i ~ =~ l ~ %'d°`i ~~ ~.jJ`F.~,y~ f ~~.. ~ s • fir,) '~'
r !: (
\\~a'A'i ~'..•~ ~rr. t• .. .` ~ ~~_ -'h ~~ , j !r• ! - ~~,(ro-~- ~~, • ~: ~ it • _
~t.~• nl L~nlea ~ ~ S ~ I 7 ` ~ ~';7 ., )'-~ ~ i _~ s ~ ~,,~, ~ ~ ~ • 7~ r..-1 . .3rta ~ ~+ ~
y~ -~` '~~ ~~ - ~ - .r Site Boundary •~. _ ~or~t r-, ~ ' ~ ~i ~ - ~~"
~'~~Park ~~ ~ • i- p `'~' p- V/. ` .~.c;,l,frf r ,~ '
t~n~A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `-stir. _ iI~ _ -_ _ Z.~~Yyr ~ "a~,k .r~' ~ M '~ -,
r.y° .j
" l i p J l • ~ k '~
re~'~ i 1'''~~~ tip, Q ~ _ . ~ {!_ ~~tt'• ~+ .~ 5 ~ ~~.-~ \~~r,/ , • ~ ..; . ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I ~ +.,~• r r -
~''. r` :MUD s~~ °`. I'~ '.5~. {~, ~~~~~~' ,_ ~ ;'' `l ~ j ~ ••;~, ,,
T • E~ .r" ! `~ ~ ~ _ a' #~- ~1 '- , , ~ :111 °~• t •-
.y .. ~ yt Y \ , ~y .~ T -
„^` ~ ~!~ov.. •b ~ ,,~'~~ :~ ~, _ r k>r ~ ~ u•, 1 " '` .~'~ '' ~;~ ;,~ , I r~ LANDING szfirP ' • S
-~ : ~~/ s '~ ~( ry '~V" -~.i- .i, i its ,•- ~,~~ L/ .'f'-- '..j ,_'~`~~'. .,
-`! rr 4441"F ,1~''~ t~`~~ ~\ .\, ~ .~i' ~ "-. Y 1 = 1 ~ 1. ` _, -~
~~ J; ~ 4". ' ,~F/_. T:' ~I/+r'nrn$e11 • ../i~.-_.~~ ~l C~\' ~i,~) 1 ~ t~~~ ~ .O~ ~~,'~
i. ~,. ~. r cam.:' i/ -• ~ ;,.(''j~''.~~ (.!LPG uI ~ r, -. , ~ .
WITHERS `. RAVENEL ti •.~~ _ . • ~•, ._ .•y~' ./7 '~,
fN~~INE _Ri i vL4NNfN '.l'+•~k V~)RS - ~~ ~ -: '_1 I•'~ _ 1.1.•-'`~~-. ~`l. ~-i ~r .`~..1
111 MacKerran Drive Cary, North Carolina t ` , ~~ ~ ' ~ ~-~, ~~ .. _
\. ~t~ _~
telephorte: 919.469.3340 vrww wAhersravenet.com ! ;~ ' 1 ,.,, h~ ~ ~ti~r `~ ~ ~-
_ 'y
'.000 1,000 0 2.000 Feet . I ~~ >l r~•i -- ~ \ , ~. ~~ ~ a ~~"

HAKE COUNTY, NORTi; C RvLlNA - SHEET I~dUMBtR 49

f LT URE
DFVELOPMEM
MELLOW F/ELD,~DRlVE~
0
~~~ .~
~K
,g~~' , ~
~ Q ~~
~~ ~
M~
-+ N
\~
W[iIAND

IMPACT AREA
!~ `PRUPUSEU
sr~ CONSTRUCTED
a"; Acr
t~
I ~
~% ,
1
1 %'
~ ~~~ i,
~~~' = 51
~~. ~ ~ _,

.%
BSP ATLANTIC
~z
I ..
GRAPHIC SCALE
30D D li0 300 600
1 inch ~ 300 k.
~- 1 ~ /r
~ `
~~ Rf 1, ~~~.
~,,~ ~
,f~` ~~
jt NOTES.
i
1
~' 1. PIN: 1715525453 47.01 AC
2.fWEfUND DETERMINED BY WRHERS MID RAYANEL, INC APRIL 20D6
3. (ACCORDING TO f.E.MA PAN0. 372017150DJ AND
DATED MAY 2, 2D06 PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES
_..---~---~-~ CIE NTIHIN A DESIGNATED fL00D hNZARD ZONE.
4. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY LOCATION PR041DED
FROM RILEY SURVEYING, PA. DAZED MARCH 13, 20D7
i i
~~,
~~
~o
7P~in
OVERALL PROJECT IMPACT
WITHERS ~ RAVENEL II~
INNINtIIt 1 -IANNtIt I tYNMt~Ott
~M1 Gs:i
ZXQ o~- 19Z t

,. j
~' ~ ' ~ f
1 ,
,-_ . - ,~ ,
~ ~
~ ~ J•
__~- ~ ,
~ ~ ~i ~ ~ 2° E ~ ~
i i~ ti l~ ~ y
ON 2' I ~
20.0
I ~ I 30.0' !ZONE2 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS SUMMARY
I I~ i ~~
i ~ ZONEt ~ \ rl -" SEE MEETS I-3 DETAILED IMIPACTs
• ~!
~'Of ~ STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS:
-- - --- ~ . - ~-1 3 ~ - .
1 I N
~ ~ 1 ~ RETAININ ~ ZbNF1 > ~'' ° Z
1
~ ~ 1 ~ WALL G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '_
~ ~ 1 ~~~~ ~. ~ _ -~ ~.~ BUFFER IMPACT:
~; ~ °~" „ -
/ ~ ``- ~ _ [~I • '± ` ~ Z 8 ~'~-~,-- ZONE 1 IMPACT AREA 3,711 SF (0.085 AC)
/~ 1 , ~ ~ 5,, _ _- _ _ .~ -, ~ _ ~ ~ _ ® ZONE 2 IMPACT AREA 4,851 SF (0.111 AC)
_ ~
/ i //~ 2' CLASS ul ~~~ ~• _ ~ TOTAL IMPACTS 8,562 SF (0.197 AC.)
/~
•~
// RIP-RAP ~~ = /~
~//_ ~ ~ / /
~ - ~ ~~ .~ 1.
~/. / /,~
/~
,~ , .~
~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ NOTES:
~~ ~ \
f "F Z ~ ~~ 2 '` ~ 1, ~ ~p ~ 1. PIN: 1715525453 47.01 AC
/ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~'',// O,L •O, ~ 2. WETLAND DETERMINED BY WITHERS AND RAVANEL, INC APRIL 2006
/ , r ~ ~ • \ ~j / ~. 3. ACCORDING TO F.E.M.A. PANEL 3720171500) AND
'' f / , / I ~ DATED MAY 2, 2006 PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES
~' c~ •
/ / c ~ ~ ~ ; ~ / % ~ ~p ~ ~ LIE WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD ZONE.
,~ / /,_ ~r ' • / / / 1 O,L . p, ~ 4. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY LOCATION PROVIDED
/ / ~ ~-,. %~. ~(. / ~ ~ / ~ _ FROM RILEY SURVEYING, P.A. DATED MARCH 13, 2007
/ ,~' ,'
~~ ~~'.~ ~
~. ,
~ ~ _
r.,% i; ,
,.- ~ . ~ ~
/ '~ ~ '~ ~,
F 2'%CIASS II ~; ~~~'''l
~ I RIP-RAP `~;_ •°; ~I!
.~ ,,
/~ ~ ,.- _ I
~~/ /~~ / / ` ~` ~ - ..~ ~_Ar~ I \ ,ICI ~ Iii
~/-~ ___ ~
/ ~ ~~ `~
,.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
J,..-
r ~J ,~.
too. /, , ~..: Daie Br ~„~m~ acs
WITHER8 ~ RAVENEL "''°'"°
~'~ ~ °'"""' °'~ •~ BSP ATLANTIC IMPACT AREA ZONE 1 AND 2 2
,.. <~~~~a,~ ,~,w
uusnu i n~rrw i snrtrots
RALEIGH WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~~~,,~ n",.~,,.,,~~ ::~~ .•,~~., ,,<:~,~ ~~,~,.~~
~\

~ ,1123 ~ ~ I 1 I
_1
1 ,~ 1 I
1 "1 1 ~ 1 ,2p E2 I __ 11
~°N 1 , I
~_ _ (~ ~ = "1 'I ~ ! I TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS SUMMARY
1 1" ~ J I 120.0' \ SEE SHEETS I-J DETAILED IMPACTS
-I 1 _ ~/ I I 30. ' I ~ IZONE2 ~
_I 1 ,2~ i ~ ZONE I~ I
- -~ ,~ I
~ ~/
/ ~ 1 __ ~ ~ RETAINING .~. ~mNE I N o O ~~
. BUFFER PARALLEL IMPACT:
/ ~ 1_ - ~_, -WALL 1 ~~ ~ I N
~ _ _ ~ •~~~ ~ - _ _ - - - - - _ '" _ ~ ZONE 1 IMPACT AREA 20,21 SF (0.046 AC)
_- - ~ I
/ 1 ~~ ~ -~\~~~ • ~ ~ L - o w '-D~P ` ~ ® ZONE 2 IMPACT AREA
Sg~-c--"-'- ® 2,191 SF (0.050 AC)
~~ 2 1 _ ~'~~ S S N - _ _ _ _ -L - TOTAL IMPACTS 4,212 SF (0.097 AC.)
i _
.~ ___
' _ .' .
F
i~
~ RIP-RAP ~ . ~`
/ -
..
.//
~.
. ,
~~
- --
., _ / .
_ .
__ , P _ _
/.Q~
~~~:~ ~.%. ~ ,i '~~ - _ - - NOTES:
1
~~. ~.
~•.
a .y _,.~. , ,5
/ '~ _ r --~ ~ ~ / 1. PIN: 1715525453 47.01 AC
~ ~~ ~ ~ 2. WETLAND DETERMINED BY WITHERS AND RAVANEL, INC APRIL 2006
\ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~i / 3. ACCORDING TO F.E.MA PANEL 3720171500) AND
v' +c f ~ / ~ / / ~ DATED MAY 2, 2006 PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES
f ~ ~~, ~12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Oc~ / / ~ LIE WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD ZONE.
. ~ 4. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY LOCATION PROVIDED
/ ~ i ~ / 'L
• " -~ ~~ ! ~ FROM RILEY SURVEYING, PA DATED MARCH 13, 2007
~ . ~ 1 ~O .~
C~'~ / / o
_ ~ ~_ ~
/ ~ ~ ~~~
. 4 11 ~~ ~-~''~~~~
a ~ -
_ ~ y _
~'.. d 1 w .' } ^ ~ ~ \\
p ) ~ \
r i
N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ , y~,'
o (~~
f'.7 `~_"
q ////}\ ~~~ \
g / _ 1 ~ r
~ ~ , ,o~ . ~ ~-~ ~
;; _ _ 1 !
~ / / ~~ -
a
b
~ / ~ - - - \
s ~ N
a
°. Dale B °.•~.., say
°°-°~ ~ ~ WITHERS ~ RAVENEL '~"'~
s ~~~ , w BSP ATLANTIC PARALLEL ZONE 1 AND 2 IMPACT fprypq ~ ~IANMtb I fYlYltOlf
RALEIGH WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ~-~..M.~c.a.~rs., N.>is.,-.=3w a.,wu~<orc ...»~,,.+~~
z.xp o~~-~~zl

F ~NATF
`pcp,- .-...., 9QG
>i 1[
~.y_ ";`
Withers and Ravenel
Attn: Mr. Todd Preuninger
] ] l MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property
Highwoods Tract
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 15, 2007
`$;_
{//t `°`
;~f; ~,f
ff ' ' l~!~~f,~Q EXP# 06-0949v2
`- ' < Wake County
. ,,. .
,;' }' ,
y i-;.~,
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233)-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
On February l 5, 2007, at your request, an on-site determination was conducted to review one stream feature
located on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The feature is
labeled as "A" on the attached map, initialed by Lia Myott on February l5, 2007. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) has determined that the following:
• Feature "A" is not sabject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ that a surface water exists and that
it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly, DWQ 40] Oversight/Express Review
Permitting Unit, 232 ] Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the
affected party (including downstream and adjacent Landowners) is notified of this decision. This determination is
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules of the stream features listed above and does not
approve any activity within the buffers or address features that were not observed during the site visit. Nor does
this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any
questions, please contact Lia Myott at 919.733.9502.
Sincerely,
~~.~ Alan W. Klimek, P.E. `~
;!
l
AW K/cbk/lem
Attachments: NRCS Soil Survey Map, USGS Topo Quad Map
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
N"o°~e hCarolina
401 Oversight /Express Review Permitting Unit JVatut'~!!J
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet: http://h2o.encstate.nc.us/ncwctlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/] 0% Post Consumer Paper

/j Fr ~_~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ s . - . ~ 1 ~ R 1 rr _-..7 ~
~ 1~ c r•. fi~ay~• r', '7„
` c.I rC . ~. - - ~ `~ '~ r ~t7,e i .a~ ~^ ~ ~ , ~ z I ~~`t' ~. i +!}r .~_ ~ t ~ ~ ~~ j
{rte
T y ^
L.~ r ,~ 1, r : - ~ , •f a . ~ t ~ .ii - e , f, ~ ` ~ -? ~ { ~ 1r i j . '' ! •~(, f ~~ '~! '~ C•
j ! h• ~ ~
T~y`:~1~i* ,~ ~~I' ~ =.~ ~_,a. ;r~ ~- ,~ c <* ~ ! +~,~~ti ! ,• ~ ~ ~w ~rr ~ ,~~ ` ra_
1 i, ':_ ^-'~y~ / i ;.; ~Y a,',K"r ~~v,T~s-i' 4 _ ~'' fir: ~• ~ y?~•t ~ ~ I i~~ : '"' !1+ ~~ ..
~w~`L.Yw-LtLi .>~ r ,.s.,l~C r x ~!. r'~y-u~ ` .. - ~ ~- ~ - _; yx{i. s-. ~` g ~y~? `a~ ! .. ~ ._ (~3~
C~
~ ~~~ .
,,;~ty-7 ,fir/ 1.-_~1 /~:. - tti. '~~ ` °4'S~' i ``n~4, ;(~N :~'~ it _
, - *~~ /` j 4 ~ • ~ rr f. ~~hirT{1 \ XI x '~. L. f %(((/J~~rf ~.
O ~ _ r ~ • rf ' . / ~t ~ ~ \\ ~. 111{ ~ 1• _-
I
{'z ~ •. ~~\ r1`~., f~ ~ ter. .k:~[ + ~~fl=y " tfyr~ '+:-~:..~ ~_.
~? ~; ` ; ,j-~ ; • ~ _.~ .. ~ y ,. a : ~_. R~ f ~~'^ ,L//~'Y Y _ ~ _rq 5 ~,r/I t 1 ~ ~ - '~ ~ ~''~
.~ ~~_~ ~~ ~ % ~~tir~ ~ ~~ .._ ~,r f ~ ~!'~) ~ Ire ~t. , _' ,,/ ~'~J/,:
`~~^ ~ I ~ ~~ Site Boundary :. .-~~~I I: Y ~ i r:.,.
~'v, ~~ ~' 1 ~r fit.+l. ~~
~G ~ r t; S ~_f ~~
M/.r. f - 1 r ~ ~ '`• 1 rr 1 ~'_ rj~Y .~ • ~~•~ ~: * ~~ ~"`~+ I ~ 1t , ~ ~ ' 7 I - _
E ~~'_~' el :rA ~"+~ `Yy;~ x -,.J fns ~,~.t, ~,` /, i ~ yr
~ R~ ~ f ~r °~f 1 • ~ i1.
.. s ~,;~ ~' ~~ : ' >'}y~~ ~• ~ r, A a y ~ , r f`i I:~NPlH:J bTkli' -
;r4.- ~ 11t t -., ~•, }: - f '-ti.~ ~ ~ ~` ',~ ~ ~, , ~ ~ ~ ' r, ~ may. ~ '. '
_ " G5 ~~,' r'.1> ` ~ r lj ~Y Sv oP ~I ,f^~ ~ ~ X rr r r .• a ~ ~'~..
~/1'IWr ki1L M. _ ~~"" ~ ,~ r YDFlI] ' ~K'
~ _~ .al ~~'~~ fir'-}~.~ Y "+~ w. ';~
VkF~~`H ~~'~. I~~V C.Re~~t~, I~~ } :{•~C.~ .'~~~"YVV~` .``'~YN ~`)r3~' ~`'Z' ~~ ., } -
..~ l„ ~ RAI+ ~l4 ~~ ,.[ ~4r ~j.' ~ S.cyR rt-?yti,, ~ t{~j•.... 6F -+
~. ENGINEERS PIANNEF,S SUR VEYDRS __ •-~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~'•r -~''- ~ ~~T~L ~-~- ~~ r
717 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina s2 _ _ ,, ' j' r ~.~-+`~. '~ - ~ J .~ ` ,__ - _
r ~ ,.
telephone: [phone] www.wdhersravenel.com _~ ~ C t ~ ~ ~_~ ~ s ~ ~ i ~ `~ _~ '
,.
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet £ '~` ~'~ ~ ' - '`' : ~~ ~.-/"\ ~ r * ~1ot?
~roiect fi'-2055& -ais1USG5 mr,c I~lo~~ 'it, 2005q '-
~ y4 F:, r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~ , f~,
. `~,

+.,~ to - r i
~ ,~ , ~:
., ;-- c ,.
G ~ .._.,~_... _, _....
~'r`aK~ LOvfti i ~~, (~~Cin ~ ~ ~ ~:;=1r{ti~~iff4r`; - ~~-;~~ ~ +'~?vlVlBc;i _?~ - -----
-~~\ ~/ CeD/ _.. - J , _ LcD_ _ (loina s
J ~ CeC2 ~\ ~\~' !~ Cec2 / ~ CeD 1 __ ~ C~g3 ~ ..' LoC o APC~
CeD 1 / ,,^\ . .. CeC2 ~ - CeC2 ~, 1
1;M\~ ~ LoB Wo .
I ^ ; CeC2 -da WwE LoC
' CeD/ CeC2 ~I,'~ ~,~ \\` Ce82 Me .
~c , / Ce82 y' / \~~~ ! ~ LoC ~ - .
~, • u ! ~ \ ~ !f WwE .,,~~ CeC LoC ~ \
,p \ j :j ~ ~~ ~ r CeB2 a
~ ~ ~/ CeE
-~ ,
i
CeC[ ~ CeC2 •,v .~ ,~- AgC2 ~ CeC?
`ApD
i
\ CeC /~ itia ASC2 LoC . f~, ~~\ ~ 1
~' W~ ~ ~ //` A C2 ` '. ~' p% .... ~ . \ \ CeB2 ~ ~ CeC2
~~ ~-. ~''~~ 1 S _ ~' Cm V` Ip ~ `~ .
WkE \ A C
^ ~ ` . \~eG i~~,oG ~ati~J~.' ~wkE ~ ~`~ \~,F. Ge~~ y,
~ ~ / ~ \r ~•i U /;~ CeC2 ~~
~ ~•~. ~ Ma } ~~'~ ~ I kaC ~ (,.• ~ J ~ CeC2 CeC ~~ CeB2 ~i~~~ `i~ L
~~
1 Fab ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ ~~ .:- \ ~ ~!'
~ i AfA \' fa82 o WkE h ``•~~ ~i% Me //%////~~~\~~~~~~ Ma \\ ~e
Me ~ G Cm ~ : • j~f ' ~ `),\~ CeB2 ApC2
t . 'Cm
' ~ ~ ~ CeC2 \~~ ~ m ~
ADC2 Ma LdC2 ' ~
U ',I ~~~' D1 AfA _ .~~~ '~' W Cei
1 ~ \° F i ~ ~~ `•`.~o y CeC2
=~ CeC1 ,` Fa62 3 ~ ~~ CeB2 v<~ (
' CeB2 , m ® ~~\ FaB2
1 ~ ~ Fa82 ~~ Cm ~ r ~1 ~~~
APC2 ~ / (G ~~~~ '
~~ h. --~. ~ APD i• t...
APC2 i~~ ~t~ j '~ _ `1 + ~ Cp ~ i'~ `~~\ w
ApC r i j~ ~°r5 ' , ~ / .: - ~ AfA i `~ i \ `t';''kt...
/i
AP62 / MOB2 m // i . - ~~ /~i ~~ ~ ~ \~
i
~~. ! ~~ ~s ~ Fab / / Au _
.~ ~~ cp ~
1
1~aT' ,f ~/ Ma ~' ~ j~ AfA GeC2 `
~ {~- / / C
/~~~ ~ / ~,iv~j~ CeC2 a Cm ~ p WmE
~ , cec2 ceez ~ ° .~
6 ly
/, CeB2 ~ ~. ,a LoE ! 9. \y~x
!rs Cm ~,i i.G~' CeC2 ~ 9 ~; m ..,
,l r .
Ap62 ! :. ADC2 f'~ CeD ~'~ ~ ~G Au ,•.
ApC2 APC2 j '~ CeC2 ~~ ~~ ~ `,
~ ~--•-•-" -~ CeC2 /` • +~:
AP82 Me % ~ ~a
~~ . 9p CeB2 ~ Me ~. ~ , YYn
6? ~ Ma ~ CeB2 ~ Uli. WkC WkE
~; ApC2 CeB2 APC2 ~
1. ~ .
+ ~ LIUNS PARK /' ~ ~ F
CeC2 ~~'' J ~ ~ / • 3 CiC3 G1- - • ~~w ~ ,e
Ma ~~~ ~
/,• ~ _ ~/~ AoC2 ~ ADB2 ~ ~~ CIE3 AP62 Ce82
,~ ApC2 r?~`' ~ n coax .,

~~\ `
~ \
---
`: I'-0"
':\
STA. 22+111.04
(ALONG EXT NDED ~)
FILL FGCE A
END ZSENT 1
N
.
-- - _
-_-.--
I
I o
in
r' ,
,1 I i
m
1
i 20', O"
I Y
"
u ~ i2
0
SANITA'
~
~
~ SEWEP
\
N
~
WI
_ .+,
~I
~,
1 \ a N
mi

~ V

}

1
o

' r

H
~
;
I

N
~~
~
f1
~~
0 ~ y
<
3
0
a I UI
' I ~ V
v

N

P ~ ~
¢

Q
J I 1
`°
:~

%o
u ~
~
o+ ~ ~?
i ~
~, ,_
'
N
N o
~ T ~

x i
' N

'
t0 ~
I __ _
~ , N
~ -
\
- ~ W
O
__
~
__ I N
: a'
56'-1' a I_-
- ,,. ,
.~
{ 2"-4" ',
I ,7,
-: ~1

'~

~

~ ~ ,
~',
~ DENT ] I •~
~.
~'~ 23+00 ~'~
S l9° 38'1113"E '•,
• is
"-~' STA. 22+67.131 &
m ,~, , --I --- - .~~
'

PLAN
STA. 22+11.04
it
v
m
a
D
i
a
c
m HP ]2 x 53
STEEL PILES -
`~ 1TYP.1
t _
c
o
a
m
m
m
L
3
U
f
d
D
O
7
V
:LASS II
RIP RAP
STA. 22+67,13
I~ BENT llll
~~
I
2'-0"CLASS II
RIP RAP ITENTATIVEI
r
.~f~, (SLOPE I%z:1 TYP.I
"
E WALL ~ S '~i"_

~~~;

., -~ ,
_, ,,

SANITARY
SEWER
i
ELEVATION
1 1~ % i
2'-4" ~ 2 ~'; ' ~ ' i
11 1 1,,
O I`r
~ ,~~" ~ BE T 2 71 I'
m ~ ~ ~' '
r I i 1
N N
=~ ' STA. 23+~2.2] I 1,
m ~ ~~ ~ 1
N ~ I
a I
N ~'~
,.-,~ ~
i
-- -~--- -~ 56'1]"
I 1
),/ ', I
L. STA. 23+22.21
i 1~ DENT 21
i
2'-0"CLASS II
RIP RAP
i ISLOPE 11/z:ll
i~
~ ~
i~
i
~ ~
i
i
~ ~
i
i '
,~
i
i
--i i
0 3 0'
nl
!
/~ PLANS PFEPAHEO 8Y:
I ~ ~WIPSON
E
1 ~
,>6
~
I
i SJ,. Izo
CGrY. NC 27518
q 9 sst~s6Ba W°xf
/I
sEACs
1
I
'~ 24+00
FILL ACE tJ
END NT 2
__ _ 11 -
--r--___--__.
~ BEVLS]ONS ~
d

a
0

U
STA. 23+78.29 ~

(FILL FACE A END BENT 21
~ ~
0
z
rr~~
V1

U
~
HP 12x53 ~ ~
STEEL PILES H
(TYP.1 ,,,.1.
(
` 3

x

W
Gevar®Gr:
pffil®GC GNA
lU
O(IrNGY:
WG GOY
GIG~'INU1®W:
BRD7GE
EXIDBIT
S 1.0
Tc ^ RQ rf
'
~
Vx P o l
- I
l
OCTOBER 20W
4'-0" 0
COLUMNS
(TYP,1
91/ie" ~ '
I 55'-1'
I '
167'-3,IFILL FACE T0, FILL FACET '•,
I -EXISTING GROUND
4'-6"`DRILLED
~ SHAFTS fTYP.I

PW6 PAEPlREO Lri
IMlSON
NGCItSfs
ASSOMT6
~o ~ a Grp+
c~~~e
~° asr-0sse ama
daoeaMnp•.oon
SEALS

RB VL 57 0 NS
79'-0' OUT TO OUT

1'-6' 1'-3%2PARAPET FOR
BARRIER RAIL 3 8AR FETAL RAIL
yy
PJ2EXTENSION ('EXTENSION A
a

U
~F•~
V
a ~ °z
~
~
0
u
m O
T
f
O

C U
n
o O
_U F...I U
c
0
* ~

'+
a
a
m ti

O

m
TYPICAL SECTION
H

m ~

m x

0 ~
m
G
t
3

U msvmtr w~
~~R lY
R1~NR. RN
~RF
Q
ID lNdTPO~
N
N
Q
~,

XBE3Tt
r
O
N
C //~
/ 2.0
~
~~
~ - t ..
p o
q 2 I
DCfOHFR2gl7
16'-10%2 22'-P/2
1'-T'/t' 15'-7' 15'-7' 6'-]d/2'
70'•6'CLEAR ROADWAY WIDTH 5'-6'
SIDEWALK
~ SURYEY~
1%2AIIN. WEARING
SURFACE lTYP.1
ASPHALT
WEARING GRADE ~
SLKlFACE POINT
~ SLOPE SLOPE ~

13 - 3'-0'x 1'-9'PRESTRESSEO CONCRETE CORED SLAB

Date: ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
COMPLIANCE WITH WETLAND 8 BUFFER REGULATIONS
In accordance with Title 15 A NCAC 2H .0500, the following DEED NOTIFICATION shall be
recorded in the County Registry prior to the conveyance of Tots. Said Deed
Notification shall apply to name of subdivision, lot numbers in County, North
Carolina as shown on plans titled {insert subdivision name) prepared by .
(insert name of designer) dated date:
"A portion of this lot has been determined to meet the requirements for designation as a wetland,
stream or protected stream buffer. Any subsequent fill or alteration of this area shall conform to
the requirements of the state rules adopted by the State of North Carolina in force ak the time of
the proposed alteration. The intent of this provision is to prevent additional wetland, stream or
buffer filling or draining, so the property owner should not assume that a future application for
filling or draining would be approved. The property owner shall report the name of the subdivision
in any application pertaining to said rules. This covenant is intended to ensure continued
compliance with all rules adopted by the State of North Carolina and therefore the State of North
Carolina may enforce benefits. This covenant is to run with the land and shall be binding on all
Parties and all persons claiming under them".
~~
Owner's name: ~---l~W L ~1 ~'~-~~.
a~oo -yc-~a.,,,~ ~,~ ti ~ 30,
Address:
City, State, Zip Code: ~~~t~.t~ ~ ~ C~-• ~.""~(o a"~
Phone Number: ~ t ~ '~ gs4' - S-S~ ~

STATE OF North Carolina
=.t~~.~Cf?,~ COUNTY
1, ..~~ ~~:~, , a Notary Public of the'State of North Cartati~t~; , t ~ "5 ~.:~~:~@..
County, hereby certify that owner personally appeared before me this day and executed
by above certification.
Witness my hand and notorial seal, this ~
Notary Public

My commission expires: }~~ ~-t ~
tti~t>> ~ ~~rrttetr
4 • ~4TAq} r
:,.-...
f~ly,~. A~BLi~'' ,G`
r~rr`~, CDU~1~~ ~ 1~'`~\,a'
f`~t~r~~lt ~! I ~ k1ttlEgt~t

~--
E a°~tment
PROGRAM
November 20, 2007
Ed Hallberg
BSP Atlantic, LLC
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 307
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project: BSP Atlantic
~xp off- 1~2~
Expvation of Acceptance: May 20, 2008
County: WAKE
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP} is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of ibis letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 PermiU401 Certification/CAIVIA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permits} 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 to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
foltowin table.
NEUSE Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
03020201 (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri arian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,021 2,191
Credits 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,063 3,287
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. if the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional
mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) ? 16-1921.
Sincerely,
V
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Kazoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Lia Myott, NCDWQ- Wetlands/401 Unit
Todd Preuninger, agent (email)
File
R~.stori~... f ... Pv~o~~ Ort,~ Stag

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

~xp ~7 - t ~ 2t
February 22, 2007
Mr. Ed Hallberg
Broad Street Partners
7300 Ebenezer Church Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Subject: Traffic Assessment
Meadow Wood Boulevard Development
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hallberg:
This letter summarizes the findings of a traffic assessment (TA) prepared by Ramey Kemp &
Associates, Inc. (RKA) for the proposed Meadow Wood Boulevard development in Raleigh,
North Carolina. This letter serves as an addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
report prepared by RKA and submitted in April 2006 for this development. The April 2006
TIA report considered access to the development would be provided via Meadow Wood
Boulevard, Mellow Field Drive, and a connection to an existing roadway that intersects with
US 1 at Yonkers Road. The purpose of this study is to determine impacts to the surrounding
transportation system created by traffic generated by the proposed development with only
access to Atlantic Avenue and no direct connection to US 1.
Based on the site plan and discussions with the site engineer, the site will consist of 1,200
residential condominium / townhome units. For this study, access to the site is proposed via
Meadow Wood Boulevard and one (1) driveway connection to Mellow Field Drive east of
Atlantic Avenue. The connection to US 1 (Capital Boulevard) at Yonkers Road that was
considered in the April 2006 study was not considered in this traffic assessment. This study
assumes a build out year of 2012. Refer to Appendix A for an illustration of a site location
map and site layout.
The study area for this project includes the following intersections:
• Atlantic Avenue at Highwoods Boulevard / Wolfpack Lane
• Atlantic Avenue at Meadow Wood Boulevard
• Atlantic Avenue at Six Forks Road
• Atlantic Avenue at Hodges Road
• US 1 (Capital Boulevard) at Highwoods Boulevard
• US 1 (Capital Boulevard) at Yonkers Road
• US 1 (Capital Boulevard) at Hodges Road

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 2
The study intersections were analyzed ~d~arib~ .tlye. w~ktlay,~ ~ 1P°letl peak lows for the
following scenarios:
1. Existing (2006) conditions
2. Combined (2012) conditions wi~iisi~i~ra~ffcn
Existing (2006) Traffic Conditions
Existing weekday peak hour traffic vo}isan~.~w~r~t~z ffx+arn tila~ t~pmi~ T}A frt. The
peak hour traffic counts were provided'.liyytH~ C~it~~ aEfl`Rzallh a3mdi )ice 1 tie counts
performed by Ramey Kemp and Assoclt~t~,Itra:.(~3~)attt~'~ ofA~.t}antic Avenue
and Hodges Road. Refer to Appendix~AAfSn~anziilluian? c~~ti~ g (Z~Ofa) weekday
AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes tYlattw~us~iliniti~Ap>~T>~ nepa~t_
The ADT volume on Atlantic Avenue/ rrt~rtH~ ofi')l~t 1 imm was approximately
23,000 vpd. The ADT volume on Ca}li~dl Il~ui}~a~dl (hro~ ~ ~ug~oods Bou}evard~ in
2005 was approximately 72,000 vpd. Rtt~>A~p~ 11$ ff~zrt~ c ~rolua~cs.
The study intersections were analyzed toy ~ t~ s of service based an
existing (2006) traffic conditions. Analysis` o~i~ f~v- t '~ ~ scan be found in the
Capacity Analysis section of this report. Pimrtouf~ c~tlhne ar+e i~-chxled in Appendix
C.
Background (2012) Traffic Conditions
Background (2012) traffic volumes were taken from the previously completed April 2006
TIA report. Background traffic includes existing traffic plus traffic due to growth of the
community and surrounding area that is anticipated to ocean- regardless of whether the
proposed development is constructed. The background traffic ~ohmles from the TIA report
included trips from the Costco store that is to be located on the east side of Wake Forest Raad,
south of its intersection with Six Forks Road as well as the Mellow Field apartment
development located east of Six Forks Road between Atlantic Avenue and Mellow Field
Drive. Refer to Appendix A for the Background (2012) -t~ Adjacent Development Traffic
volumes from the Apri12006 TIA report.
Trip Generation
Average weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour trips for the residential development were
taken from Table 1 in the April 2006 TIA report. In that study, site trips were calculated
utilizing methodology contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation manual, 7a' Edition. A copy of the trip generation table is shown below.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 3
TABLE 1
Trip Generation
Average...:. AM PM
ITE Land Use
Density Daily Peak Hour Peak Hour
(Code) Traffic h v h
(vpd) ~ Enter Exit Enter Exit
Residential Condo/Townhouse 1,200 Units 5,306 64 313 309 152
(230)
It is estimated that the site will generate a total of 5,306 trips (entering and exiting) during a
typical weekday. Of the total, approximately 377 trips (64 entering and 313 exiting) will
occur during the AM peak hour, while approximately 461 trips (309 entering and 152 exiting)
will occur during the PM peak hour.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution percentages were estimated based on location of employment and population
centers, existing traffic patterns and engineering judgment. In general, approximately 35% of
the residential trips will travel to/from the I-440 interchange at US 1 with 30% using
Highwoods Boulevard and 5% using Hodges Road to access US 1. Approximately 30% of
site trips will travel to/from the north of the study area with 25% using Atlantic Avenue and
5% using US 1. Approximately 25% of site trips will travel to/from the south of the study
area via Atlantic Avenue while 10% will travel to/from the west via Six Forks Road.
Refer to Appendix A for figures illustrating the site trip distribution percentages and peak
hour site trip assignment. The site trip distribution and site trip assignment figures represent
new traffic patterns without the connection to US 1 that was considered in the previous TIA.
Combined (2012) Traffic Conditions
The additional traffic generated by the residential development was added to the background
(2012) traffic to determine combined (2012) traffic conditions with the site fully built-out.
Refer to Appendix A for a figure illustrating the combined (2012) weekday AM and PM peak
hour traffic volumes.
The study intersections were analyzed to determine the levels of service based on combined
(2012) traffic conditions. Improvements that were identified and recommended as part of the
proposed development were included in the analysis of combined (2012) improved
conditions. Analysis results for the intersections can be found in the Capacity Analysis
section of this report. Printouts of the analyses are included in Appendix C.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 4
Capacity Analysis
As in the previous TIA report, all intersection capacity analyses were completed using
Synchro 5.0. For comparison purposes, analysis procedures are the same as in the previous
TIA report including lane configurations, traffic control, and signal operations. The results of
the capacity analyses for each intersection are presented below.
Intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Higllwoods Boulevard / Wolfpack Lane
Capacity analysis indicates that the existing signalized intersection of Atlantic Avenue and
Highwoods Boulevard / Wolfpack Lane operates at an overall LOS D during the AM peak
hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour under existing (2006) traffic conditions. With the
addition of site traffic, capacity analysis indicates the intersection will operate at an overall
LOS E during the AM peak hour and an overall LOS F during the PM peak hour under
combined (2012) conditions. Refer to Table 2 for a summary of the capacity analysis results.
TABLE 2
Analysis Summary of Atlantic Avenue and Highwoods Boulevard / Wolfpack Lane
r WEEKDAY WEEKDAY
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANAL~'SIS R LANE
SCENARIO ~ CONFIGURATIONS LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
A SERVICE SERVICE
c
x A roach :Overall A ~` roach Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C D
Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT D
D E
E
(Signalized) NB I LT, 2 TH, 1 RT C F
SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT E C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT E
E F
F
New Access Alternative NB I LT, 2 TH, I RT D F
SB 2 LT, l TH, l TH-RT F C
Combined (2012) EB I LT, I TH-RT C F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT D
E F
F
Previous Access Alt. NB 1 LT, 2 TH, l RT D F
(April TIA Report) SB 2 LT, 1 TH, I TH-RT F C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT D F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT,1 LT-TH,1 RT E
D E
E
With Improvements NB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT C F
New Access Alternative SB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT D C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT D F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 LT-TH,1 RT E D E t'
With Improvements NB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT C E
Previous Access Alt. SB Z LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT D C
A ril TIA Re ort
Bold type denotes improvements to the intersection.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 5
Under combined (2012) improved conditions, the westbound approach of Highwoods
Boulevard was restriped to provide an exclusive left turn lane, a shared left and through lane,
and an exclusive right turn lane. This lane configuration requires split side street phasing
which is usually not the most efficient signal phasing. Analysis indicates that the intersection
operates at an overall LOS D during the AM peak hour and an overall LOS E during the PM
peak hour under combined (2012) improved conditions.
This intersection currently experiences poor LOS during the PM peak hour due to heavy
through volumes on Atlantic Avenue in combination with heavy turning volumes onto and
from Highwoods Boulevard. The current access alternative causes a significant increase in
the westbound left turn volume from Highwoods Boulevard and the northbound right turn
volume from Atlantic Avenue. The westbound left turn movement currently experiences long
delays and queues and would be significantly worse with the addition of site trips under the
proposed access scenario. If a connection to US 1 were provided at Yonkers Road, the
previous TIA report indicates that site trips would utilize this intersection and avoid the
Highwoods/Atlantic Avenue intersection.
Intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Meadow Wood Boulevard
Capacity analysis indicates that the minor street approach of Meadow Wood Boulevard at
Atlantic Avenue currently operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours, while the
southbound left turn movement from Atlantic Avenue currently operates at LOS B during the
AM peak hour under existing (2006) conditions. Refer to Table 3 for a summary of the
capacity analysis results.
Under combined (2012} traffic conditions with the current access alternative, capacity
analysis indicates the minor street approach of Meadow Wood Boulevard at Atlantic Avenue
will operate at LOS F during both peak hours while the southbound left turn movement from
Atlantic Avenue will operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM
peak hour. The poor LOS is due to the heavy through traffic on Atlantic Avenue in
combination with a relatively high number of site trips turning to/from Meadow Wood
Boulevard under this access scenario. The southbound left turn movement from Atlantic
Avenue is significantly higher in the current access scenario than in the previous TIA report,
which causes long delays and queues that could exceed the available storage in the
southbound left turn lane. As shown in the previous TIA report, a connection to US 1 at
Yonkers significantly improves operations at the intersection since a high percentage of site
trips will utilize this connection to access US 1 and the I-440 interchange.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 6
TABLE 3
Analysis Summary of Atlantic Avenue and Meadow Wood Boulevard
e WEEKDAI' WEEKDAY.
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANALYSIS R LANE' LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO ° CONFIGURATIONS
n SERVICE SERVICE.
c
tl A roach OveraII A roach Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic WB 1 LT-RT FZ Fz
Conditions NB 1 TH, l TH-RT -- NIA -- N/A
(Unsignalized) SB 1 LT, 2 TH B' --
Combined (2012) WB 1 LT-RT FZ F2
Traffic Conditions NB 1 T7-I, 1 TH-RT -- N/A -- N/A
New Access Alternative SB 1 LT, 2 TH C' E'
Combined (2012) WB ] LT-RT FZ FZ
Traffic Conditions
NB
1 TH, 1 TH-RT
--
N/A
-
N/A
Previous Access Alt. SB 1 LT, 2 TH i
B ~
C
(April TIA Report)
I . Level of service for major street left turn movement
2. Level of service for minor street
Intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Six Forks Road
Under existing (2006) traffic conditions, capacity analysis indicates the signalized intersection
of Atlantic Avenue and Six Forks Road operates at an overall LOS C during the AM and PM
peak hours. With the addition of site traffic, capacity analysis indicates the intersection will
operate at an overall LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours under combined (2012)
conditions. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of the capacity analysis results.
In the future, dual northbound left turns lanes could be provided on Atlantic Avenue to serve
the heavy northbound left turn movement and provide additional capacity at the intersection.
Providing protected plus permitted phasing for the southbound left turn movement is
recommended as part of the development. Adequate capacity will be provided at this
intersection to accommodate site traffic with minor modifications to the traffic signal.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 7
TABLE 4
Analysis Summary of Atlantic Avenue and Six Forks Road
r WEEKDAY WEEKDAY
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANALYSIS x LANE LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO o CONFIGURATIONS
n SERVICE SERVICE
C
x A roach. .Overall A roach Overall.
Existing (2006) Traffic EB 2 LT, I TH, 1 RT C E
Conditions WB 1 LT, I TH-RT D
C D
C
(Signalized) NB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT E C
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT A B
Combined (2012) EB 2 LT, I TH, 1 RT D F
Traffic Conditions WB I LT, 1 TH-RT D
D C
D
New Access Alternative NB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT F D
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, l RT B B
Combined (2012) EB 2 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT C F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT D D C D
Previous Access Alt. NB 1 LT, 1 TH, l TH-RT E D
(April TIA Report) SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT B B
Intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Hodes Road
Capacity analysis indicates that the signalized intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Hodges
Road operates at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour and an overall LOS C during the
PM peak hour under existing (2006) traffic conditions. Under combined (2012) traffic
conditions, capacity analysis indicates the intersection is expected to operate at an overall
LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Under combined
(2012) improved conditions, the intersection was analyzed with an exclusive right turn lane
on the westbound approach of Hodges Road. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of the capacity
analysis results.
With the current access scenario an increased number of site trips are expected to utilize
Hodges Road to access US 1. As indicated in the previous TIA report, a connection to US 1
at Yonkers Road would be utilized by site trips to access US 1 instead of Hodges Road.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 8
TABLE 5
Analysis Summary of Atlantic Avenue and Hodes Road
r WEEKDAY WEEKDAY
~~ PEAK`IIOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANALYSIS `R LANE LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO '' ~
A CONFIGURATIONS. SERVICE SERVICE
c
li _A roach Overall A roach Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C C
Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT D
B C
C
(Signalized) NB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT B C
SB I LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT B C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C C
Traffic Conditions WB I LT, I TH-RT E
C C
D
NB 1 LT, I TH, 1 TH-RT C E
New Access Alternative SB 1 LT, 1 TH, l TH-RT B C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C C
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT E
C C
D
Previous Access Alt. NB 1 LT, 1 TH, I TH-RT C D
(April TIA Report) SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT B C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, I TH-RT C C
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH,1 RT C B C C
With Improvements NB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT B D
New Access Alternative SB 1 LT, 1 TH, I TH-RT B C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT C C
Traffic Conditions
t
With I WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT C
B C
C
mprovemen
s NB l LT, i TH, 1 TH-RT B C
Previous Access Alt. SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 TH-RT B C
A ril TIA Re ort
Bold type denotes improvements to the intersection.
Intersection of US 1 (Capital Boulevard) and Highwoods Boulevard
Under existing (2006) traffic conditions, capacity analysis indicates the signalized intersection
of Capital Boulevard and Highwoods Boulevard operates at an overall LOS D during the AM
peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Under combined (2012) traffic conditions,
with the addition of site traffic, capacity analysis indicates the intersection will operate at an
overall LOS E and LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Refer to Table 6
for a summary of the capacity analysis results.
'The current access alternative causes a significant increase in the eastbound right turn volume
from Highwoods Boulevard and the northbound left turn volume from US 1. Both of these
movements already have high traffic volumes and currently experience long delays and
queues and would worsen with the addition of site trips under the proposed access scenario.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 9
As indicated in the previous TIA report, if a connection to US 1 were provided at Yonkers
Road, site trips would utilize this intersection and avoid the heavy movements at the
Highwoods/US 1 intersection.
TABLE 6
Anal sis Summa of US 1 (Ca ital Boulevard and Hi hwoods Boulevard
r WEEKDAY WEEKDAY
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANALYSIS R LANE, LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO ° CONFIGURATIONS SERVICE SERVICE
~~
c
t~ A roach Overall A roach Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic EB 1 LT, 2 RT E F
Conditions NB 2 LT, 4TH C D B C
(Signalized) SB 4TH, 1 RT D B
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 2 RT E F
Traffic Conditions NB 2 LT, 4TH C ~i B C
New Access Alternative SB 4 TN, 1 RT F C
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 2 RT E F
Traffic Conditions NB 2 LT, 4TH C ~+ B C
Previous Access Alt. SB 4TH, 1 RT E C
(April TIA Report)
Intersection of US 1 (Capital Boulevard) and Yonkers Road
Capacity analysis indicates that the signalized intersection of Capital Boulevard and Yonkers
Road operates at an overall LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours under existing (2006)
traffic conditions. Capacity analysis indicates the intersection is expected to operate at an
overall LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours under combined (2012) traffic conditions
with site traffic. Refer to Table 7 for a summary of the capacity analysis results.
Currently, very little traffic utilizes the eastbound approach at the intersection; therefore, more
than adequate capacity is available at this intersection to accommodate site trips. As indicated
in the previous TIA report, the intersection would operate at LOS C or better under combined
(2012) conditions if the connection were provided as an access to the proposed development.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 10
TABLE 7
Analysis Summary of US 1 (Capital Boulevard) and Yonkers Road
A
r
WEEI~AY
WEEKDAY
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
ANALYSIS R LANE , LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO ° CONFIGURATIONS
a SERVICE SERVICE
c
H A roach Overall A roach .:Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic EB I LT-TH, I RT E E
Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT F
B E
B
(Signalized) NB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 TH-RT B A
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 TH-RT B A
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT-TH, 1 RT E E
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT F
B E
B
New Access Alternative NB 1 LT, 2 TH, I TH-RT B B
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, l TH-RT B A
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT F E
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT F
C E
B
Previous Access Alt. NB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 TH-RT B B
(April TIA Report) SB 1 LT, 3 TH, 1 RT B B
Intersection of US 1 (Capital Boulevard) and Hodges Road
Under existing (2006) traffic conditions, capacity analysis indicates the signalized intersection
of Capital Boulevard and Hodges Road operates at an overall LOS B during the AM peak
hour and an overall LOS C during the PM peak hour. Under combined (2012) traffic
conditions with the addition of site traffic, capacity analysis indicates that the intersection is
expected to continue to operate at an overall LOS B and LOS C during the AM and PM peak
hours, respectively. Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the capacity analysis results.
With the current access scenario an increased number of site trips are expected to utilize
Hodges Road to access US 1. As indicated in the previous TIA report, a connection to US 1
at Yonkers Road would be utilized by site trips to access US 1 instead of Hodges Road.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 11
TABLE 8
Analysis Summary of US 1 (Capital Boulevard) and Hodges Road
p ' WEEKDAY WEEI~AY
'` AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HQUR
ANALYSIS R I,~E LEVEL OF LEVEL OF
SCENARIO ° CONFIGURATIONS `
n SERVICE SERVICE
c
H A roach Overall A roach Overall
Existing (2006) Traffic EB 1 LT, 1 LT-TH-RT F E
Conditions WB 1 LT-TH-RT --
B D
C
(Signalized) NB 1 LT, 2 TH, I TH-RT B B
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 TH-RT B B
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 LT-TH-RT F F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT-TH-RT --
B D
C
New Access Alternative NB 1 LT, 2 TH, I TH-RT B C
SB 1 LT, 2 TH, I TH-RT B B
Combined (2012) EB 1 LT, 1 LT-TH-RT F F
Traffic Conditions WB 1 LT-TH-RT A
B D
C
Previous Access Alt. NB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 TH-RT B C
(April TIA Report) SB 1 LT, 2 TH, I TH-RT B B
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study summarizes the findings of the traffic assessment performed for the proposed
Meadow Wood development to determine the impacts to the surrounding transportation
network if a driveway connection is not provided to US 1 at Yonkers Road. In this study,
access is considered via Meadow Wood Boulevard and a driveway connection to Mellow
Field Drive.
In summary, the findings of this study suggest that the access alternative considered creates
operational concerns at some intersections and causes significant increases in delays and
queues at some intersections. The access alternative considered (with no connection to US 1
at Yonkers Road) causes a significant increase in the number of site trips traveling to/from the
north via Atlantic Avenue and Highwoods Boulevard to access US 1 and the I-440
interchange. Site trips cause significant increases in some turning movements at the
intersections with Highwoods Boulevard at Atlantic Avenue and US 1 that currently
experience long delays and queues. If a driveway connection were provided to US 1 at
Yonkers Road, site trips could utilize an existing signalized intersection to access US 1 and
the I-440 interchange. The eastbound approach at the intersection of US 1 and Yonkers Road,
which would be impacted by site trips if the connection were made, currently carries very low
traffic volumes. In addition traffic volumes on US 1 south of the I-440 interchange are
significantly lower (approximately 50%) than on US 1 north of Hodges Road.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 12
Traffic patterns with the current access alternative also cause a high southbound left turn
volume on Atlantic Avenue at Meadow Wood Boulevard. Analysis indicates the southbound
left turn movement from Atlantic Avenue at this intersection will operate at LOS E in the PM
peak hour under combined conditions. Adequate storage may not be available in the left turn
lane on Atlantic Avenue to accommodate the high left turn volume, which could cause left
turn queues to extend into the southbound through lane in the PM peak hour.
The remaining study intersections would not be as significantly impacted by site trips at full
build out with the current access alternative. The remaining intersections would be expected
to operate at acceptable levels of service under combined conditions with the current access
scenario.
The following improvements are recommended to accommodate full build-out site traffic. It
should be noted that these improvements are the same as in the TIA report and include a
recommendation to provide access to US 1 at Yonkers Road. If the connection to Yonkers
Road were not provided, the same improvements would be recommended at study
intersections other than US 1 and Yonkers Road. Refer to Appendix A for an illustration of
the recommended improvements.
Capital Boulevard and Yonkers Road
• Provide a connection to the existing roadway west of US 1 such that access is provided
from the proposed development to the intersection at US 1.
• Construct an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound approach of Capital Boulevard
with full-width storage of 100 feet and a 150 foot taper.
• Restripe the eastbound minor street approach of Yonkers Road to provide an exclusive left
turn lane and a through and right shared lane.
• Modify the traffic signal design to provide protected plus permitted phasing for the
eastbound and westbound left turn movements on Yonkers Road.
Atlantic Avenue and Highwoods Boulevard / Wolfpack Lane
• Restripe the westbound minor street approach of Highwoods Boulevard to provide an
exclusive left turn lane, a shared left and through lane, and an exclusive right turn
lane.
Atlantic Avenue and Six Forks Road/Mellow Field Drive
• Provide protected plus permitted phasing for the southbound left turn movement on
Atlantic Avenue.
Atlantic Avenue and Hodges Road
• Construct an exclusive right turn lane on the westbound approach of Hodges Road
with full width storage of 100 feet and a 100 foot taper.

Mr. Ed Hallberg
February 21, 2007
Page 13
If you should have any questions or comments relative to this traffic assessment, please feel
free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Rynal Stephenson, PE
Transportation Engineer
Attachments