20060411 Ver 2_Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response_20160406

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Don Curry <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Elmore, Thomas R
Cc: Jared Matthews; Chris Mullen; Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Attachments: 2015-04-23 Transept Ct - Response to NCDOT.PDF; 2015-08-25 USACE Approval.pdf,
2015-11-02 NCDENR DWQ Approval.pdf
Reid,
As a follow up to our discussion the other day, I spoke with Jennifer Burdette at NCDENR (copied here) and she indicated
that the 401 and 404 approvals were indicative of their approvals and acceptance of the culvert on Transept Court. I have
attached both USACE and DEQ approvals here.
Please advise concerning NCDOT's approval with the recommended repairs so our client can move forward.
Thanks so much.
DON CURRY, PE
president
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
don(&curryeng.com
www.currveng.com
From: Don Curry [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:56 AM
To: 'Elmore, Thomas R' <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
DON CURRY, PE
president
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
don(&curryeng.com
www.currveng.com
1

From: Jared Matthews [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Elmore, Thomas R <[e-mail]>
Cc: Briley, William R <[e-mail]>, Wheeler, Millard S <[e-mail]>, Chris Mullen
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Mr. Elmore,
Attached is information regarding the project we spoke about this afternoon. If you could please read this letter and the
thread below we can figure out where to go from here.
Many thanks,
JARED MATTHEWS
Associate
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
iared(&curryeng.com
www.currvenci.com
From: Don Curry [ma iIto: don(a)curryeng.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:26 PM
To: Elmore, Thomas R
Cc: Briley, William R; Wheeler, Millard S; Chris Mullen; Jared Matthews
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Reid,
The plan is to repair the culvert, as detailed in our original letter (attached), not removal and replacement.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
DON CURRY, PE
president
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
don(&curryeng.com
www.currveng.com

From: Elmore, Thomas R [mailto:trelmore(a)ncdot.Qov]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:00 AM
To: Don Curry
Cc: Briley, William R; Wheeler, Millard S; Chris Mullen; Jared Matthews
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
M
I am to assume that the fix is to remove and re -install to meet plan/permit design? I only ask so that we can review any
revised plans if there is a change to the original design.
Regards,
T.R. Elmore
District Supervisor
Division 5/District 1
Department of Transportation
919-733-3213 office
919-715-5778 fax
trelmorea-ncdot.gov
4009 District Drive (Physical Address)
Raleigh, NC 27607
1575 Mail Service Center (Mailing Address)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1575
Email C:'orretil'.)ol?"'{,ence to and ii`orn thio; a('{"'{I`ess o; sut`J ect to t1he
P,Iodhl Carolina Public Records L w and 1`Y7ay be dl`ii:'losed to thloi d I'.'s'ai{`fes,
From: Don Curry [ma iIto: donCa)curryena.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: Elmore, Thomas R
Cc: Briley, William R; Wheeler, Millard S; Chris Mullen; Jared Matthews
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Reid,
We are nearly complete with approvals from the Corps and NCDENR regarding the perched condition for this culvert. We
plan to begin work soon addressing the repairs to the pipe with the approach and procedures outlined in our original
response letter. We will coordinate with the contractor and inspect the work prior to requesting a final inspection from
NCDOT.
Please advise if there is anything in our proposed approach that the Department disagrees with.
Thank you.
DON CURRY, PE
president

rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
don(&curryeng.com
www.currveng.com
From: Elmore, Thomas R [mailto:trelmore(a)ncdot.Qov]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Don Curry
Cc: Briley, William R; Wheeler, Millard S; Chris Mullen
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
M
Thanks for getting back to me on this.
If we are to accept the roadway, we would want to know that we have no future liability from a non-compliance issue
with the permitting agency. I would think that they would have to check off on the aspects of the permit requirements.
A letter or email from them stating that they have no issues from a compliance standpoint would alleviate our concerns
with acceptance, providing any punch list items from Reese's inspection are addressed.
Respectfully,
L .Elmore
District Supervisor
Division 5/District I
Wake County
Respectfully,
From: Don Curry [ma iIto: don(a)curryena.com]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 4:14 PM
To: Elmore, Thomas R
Cc: Briley, William R; Wheeler, Millard S; Chris Mullen
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Reid,
As a follow up to my voice mail to you, I spoke with Amy Chapman at NCDENR about this location. She forwarded me the
attached plan excerpt. Although it doesn't appear the pipe has a full 7" of burial, it has flow (see picture) and is in good,
stable shape overall.
Amy said they could perform a site visit but is doubtful it has the full burial either. As a result, they couldn't state that it
was installed per plans. Again, a site visit may be helpful here.
I am not sure what that means from an NCDOT acceptance perspective.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,
DON CURRY, PE
president
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]
don(&curryeng.com
www.currveng.com
From: Elmore, Thomas R [mailto:trelmoreCa)ncdot.Qov]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:27 AM
To: Don Curry
Cc: Briley, William R; Chris Mullen; Wheeler, Millard S
Subject: RE: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
M
We need confirmation from the permitting agency that the pipe not being perched does not take this project out of
compliance with the original permit issued for the culvert installation.
Respectfully,
L .Elmore
District Supervisor
Division 5/District I
Wake County
From: Don Curry [ma iIto: don(a)curryena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Elmore, Thomas R
Cc: Briley, William R; Chris Mullen
Subject: Culvert on Transept Ct - Engineer Response
Reed,
Here is the culvert I discussed with you yesterday.
Sincerely,
DON CURRY, PE
president
rrENGINEERING
205 S. Fuquay Ave.
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
wk [phone]
fax [phone]
cell [phone]

don(cDcurryeng.com
www.curryeng.com
Email cormspordpnce to and 'tom this soncior is subJpct to thp N.C. ;Public Records i_aw and may bo disclos d o iiwd par ios.
Email corrospordpnce to and 'tom this soncior is subJpct to thp N.C. ;Public Records _aw and may by disclosed o Hwd paries.
Email corrospordpnce to and 'tom this soncior is subJpct to thp N.C. ;Public Records i_aw and may bo disclosed o Hwd par ios.

Curr
ENGINEERINGL
April 23, 2015
Mr. Reese Briley
NCDOT
Division Five - Bridge Maintenance
4809 Beryl Road
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Bartizan Drive Mods
Bridge Maintenance Pipe Investigation for Road Additions of
Alexander Woods Phase III, Transept Ct. (1 Structure)
Station +/- 14+80 Transept Ct.:
1 -Line of 72 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with Headwalls
Dear Mr. Briley:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your review comments dated January 23, 2015, for the
above referenced project. We performed a site inspection of the culvert to review your comments
and identify deficiencies. Overall, the culvert appears to be in good shape. The majority of the
repairs needed are related to grouting of joints and holes along the pipe. There isn't any evidence
of settlement or otherwise failing components throughout the pipe structure.
Upon your review, please provide feedback regarding our proposed approach so we can proceed
accordingly.
Your comments and corresponding responses are summarized below:
Pipe was not measured; however, estimated structure to be +/- 64inch diameter RCP in lieu of
72".
Per our site visit, the existing culvert measures 72". Please see attached pictures.
2. Portions of the fill slope primarily at and around the wing walls have vertical face that are
supported by erosion control devices.
Old erosion control devices will be removed. Site will receive no -mow groundcover on
steeper portions of slope. Site will be monitored to ensure proper establishment of
ground cover. If erosion issues arise, additional rip -rap stabilization may be required.
Inlet of pipe is perched several inches. Plans indicate that the pipe should be buried seven
tenths (0.70) of a foot.
This issue is difficult to address given the in-place nature of the structure, however,
there don't appear to be any detrimental effects from this condition. See below for
additional inlet/outlet repair recommendations.
T 1919)552-0849 205 S.Fuquay Avenue
F [phone] Fuquay-Varina, NC 2'
/��Y ENGEM\
F�
ES 7-. Ln
0 10
ay CA R 0�•�

4. Outlet of pipe is perched six (6) to eight 181 inches. Plans indicate that the pipe should be
buried seven tenths (0.70) of a foot.
Please see responses to #3 and #5.
Water is running beneath and around the pipe. Observations indicate that this has caused
stability issues of the pipe and potentially the fill section above the pipe. Voids under and
around pipe is assumed. The section of the road above the structure shows sign of
settlement.
Recommendations to remedy this condition include removal of the upstream rip -rap for
additional investigation of inlet condition. Anticipated repair based on to -date
observations include grout -filling of any voids at inlet and potential expansion of
concrete inlet apron to facilitate drainage into the culvert. Re -sealing pipe joints will
also help eliminate the potential for this to occur in the future.
6. Lifting holes in pipe are not properly sealed.
Owner to seal all Lifting holes and voids with grout.
7. Attempts were made to hand grout or repair multiple joints inside the pipe. Not sure of the
condition of the structure prior to grouting joints or how successful the attempt to repair is.
Portions of work are poor quality craftsmanship.
Owner to re -seal all pipe joints with grout to eliminate gaps at pipe sections and provide
a water -tight seal.
8. Approximately 2/3rds of the way through the pipe the. pipe has a distinctive increase in the
slope of the pipe. Reason for this is unknown.
There doesn't appear to be any visual detrimental effects to this variable slope in the
pipe. Sealing the pipe joints and hales/voids in the culvert should alleviate any concerns
for future settlement and address any potential areas of exfiltration.
9. There is no sign of an NCDOT inspection stamp.
The Owner is researching paperwork in an attempt to provide adequate documentation;
however, these records may not be available.
Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this project.
Sincerely,
The Curry Engineering Group, PLLC
.. q,,
Donald L. Curry, Jr., PE
President
2

Transept Court Culvert
April 23, 2015
Pgute 1 .e Field Measurement Cvo ji , ii.5 72" Culvert
Figure 2 — Lifting Hole to be Grouted
1

Transept Court Culvert
Figure 3 — Interior Pipe Joint to he Grouted
Figure 4 -- Old Silt ref ire to be Removed with Slope Repoir/Seeding
April 23, 2015

Transept Court Culvert
April 23, 2015
Figure 5 — Pipe Joint to be Re -Grouted
3

PAT MCCRORY
GOVERNOR.
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANTHONY 1. TATA
SECRETARY
January 23, 2015
Mr. Reid Elmore
Division 5 District Engineer, District 1
Mr. Reese Briley
Division 5 Bridge Maintenance Engineer
Bridge Maintenance Pipe Investigation for Road Additions of
Alexander Woods Phase IlI, Transept Ct. (1 Structure).
This memo documents the deficiencies or the items requiring discussion regarding long term
stability of the one (1) structure inspected during the January 22, 2015 inspection.
The following is the structure and subsequent deficiencies identified:
Structure: Station +/- I4+80 Transept Ct.:
1 -.Line of 72 Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) with Headwalls
Deficiency:
1. Pipe was not measured; however, estimated structure to be +/- 64 inch
diameter RCP in lieu of 72".
Correctav�gAcfica:
• Verify pipe size is 72 inch diameter RCP.
• If pipe is smaller than plan size, perform hydraulic analysis to
determine if there will be negative impacts with undersized. pipe.
2. Portions of the fill slope primarily at and around the wing walls have vertical
face that are supported by erosion control devices.
Corrective Action:
Contractor should make recommendations for corrective action.
Recommendation:
# Stabilization by approved methods for steepness of slope around
wings and other sections of fill slope supported by erosion
control devices.
3. Inlet of pipe is perched several inches. Plans indicate that the pipe should be
buried seven tenths (0.70) of a foot.
Corrective Action:
Division Five — Bridge Maintenance — 4509 Beryl Road, Raleigb, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Mr. Elmore
January 23, 2015
Page 2 of 3
b Contractor should explain and make recommendations for
corrective action.
4. Outlet of pipe is perched six (6) to eight (8) inches. Plans indicate that the
pipe should be buried seven tenths (0.70) of a foot.
Corrective Action:
Contractor should explain and make recommendations for
corrective action.
5. Water is running beneath and around the pipe. Observations indicate that
this has caused stability issues of the pipe and potentially the fill section
above the pipe. Voids under and around pipe is assumed. The section of the
road above the structure shows sign of settlement.
Cormetive Action:
9P Contractor should make recommendations for corrective action.
Recommendation:
Pressure grout, epoxy inject, polyurethane foam or like approved
materials injected to seal from water infiltration around pipe and
stabilize structure and fill slope.
Geotechnical verification of the stability of fill and subgrade
over structure.
6. Lifting holes in pipe are not properly sealed.
Recommendation
V Properly fill lifting holes with non -shrink grout.
7. Attempts were made to hand grout or repair multiple joints inside the pipe.
Not sure of the condition of the structure prior to grouting joints or how
successful the attempt to repair is. Portions of work are poor quality
craftsmanship.
Correc-ive Action:
Contractor should explain repair and make recommendations for
corrective action.
Recommendation:
Properly repair joints with good craftsmanship. Using approved
material.
8. Approximately 2/3rds of the way through the pipe the pipe has a distinctive
increase in the slope of the pipe. Reason for this is unknown.
Corrective Action:
0 Contractor should provide explanation.
Recommendation:
to Properly repair joints with good craftsmanship. Using approved
material.
9. There is no sign of an NCDOT inspection stamp.

Mr. Elmore
January 23, 2015
Page 3 of 3
Correcdve Action:
® Contractor to provide material cert. or other proof of structure
class and material quality
The aforementioned is to the best knowledge of Bridge Maintenance.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2015-01776 County: Wake U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-FUOUAY-VARINA
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee:
Chris Mullen
Address: 5225 Wade Nash Rd.
Holly Springs, NC, 27540
Telephone Number: 919-906-0812
Size (acres) Nearest Town Holly Springs
Nearest Waterway Basal Creek River Basin Upper Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 35.622689999308
Longitude: -78.8314544278427
Location description: The project site is an existing culvert/stream crossing over a UT to Basal Creek, located on Transept
Court in the existing Alexander Woods subdivision, near the town of Holly Springs, Wake County, North Carolina. Aquatic
resources on site drain to Basal Creek in the Neuse River basin.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit verification allows for 0.01 acre of wetland impacts, and 5 linear feet of
stream channel impacts for the repair/maintenance of an existing culvert. No mitigation is required for this proposal.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number or Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 3 Maintenance.
SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated 08/12/2015. Any violation of the attached
conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class
I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone].
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact James Lastinger at 919-554-4884 x32 or James.C.Lastinaer(i,usace.army.mil.
LASTINGERJAMES.C.13 D.!^"�°�`"�°"��"-C.13B3fi6'°°°
- m—ou-o^o, uu-PKL
Corps Regulatory Official: 63642400 �° o„°,�33=9� "'°°° Date: 08/25/2015
Expiration Date of Verification: 03/18/2017

SAW -2015-01776
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project
area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please reference
jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID: SAW -
Basis For Determination: Stream channels on site exhibit an established OHWM. Wetlands on site exhibit the
three criteria as described in the Corps 1987 wetland delineation manual and appropriate regional supplement.
Remarks: This jurisdictional determination is only for the waters/wetlands proposed for impacts associated with
this Nationwide Permit and does not include any other waters/wetlands that may be located on the property.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B
and C above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 10/26/15.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Digitally signed by LASTINGERJAMES.C.1363642400
LASTINGER.JAMES.C.1363642400 DN.rUS,o=U.S. Government, O -DOD, -P19, 0 -USA,
Corps Regulatory Official: ate: 2015.08.25 09:36:12
00
�� Date: 2015.08.2509:36:12 -04'00'
James Lastinger
Date of JD: 08/25/2015
Expiration Date of JD: 3/18/17

SAW -2015-01776
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our customer Satisfaction Survey online at htt]2://regulatoKy.usacesurvey.com/.
l�ry.usacesurvey.com/.
Copy furnished:
Agent: Curry Engineering, PLLC
Jared Matthews
Address: 205 S. Fuauay Ave
Fupuay Varina, NC, 27526
Telephone Number:

Action ID Number: SAW -2015-01776 County: Wake
Permittee:
Chris Mullen
Project Name: Transept Court/culvert maintenance/Alexander subdivision/Holly Springs/Wake
County
Date Verification Issued: 08/25/2015
Project Manager: James Lastinger
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: James Lastinger, Regulatory Specialist
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
AL
Applicant:
Chris Mullen
File Number: SAW -2015-01776
Date: 08/25/2015
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL
C
® APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑ PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.g=.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPertnits.aspx
or the Coms regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 1I of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
CESAD-PDO
Attn: James Lastinger, Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., suite 105
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
919-554-4884 ext 32
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant oragent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: James Lastinger, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Governor
November 2, 2015
Mr. Chris Mullen
522.5 Wade Nash Road
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
DWR # 06-0411 V2
Wake County
Subject: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification Neuse Riparian Buffer Impacts with
Additional Conditions
Alexander Woods Transept Court Culvert Maintenance
Dear Mr. Mullen:
You have our approval for the impacts listed below for the purpose described in your application
July 29, 2015, received by the Division of Water Resources (Division) August 31, 2015, with
subsequent information on October 15, 2015. These impacts are covered by the attached Water
Quality General Certification Number 3883 Buffer Rules and the conditions listed below. This
certification is associated with the use of Nationwide Permit Number 3 once it is issued to you by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the enclosed certifications) or
general permit and the following additional conditions:
The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and
general conditions of the Certification and Buffer Rules are met. No other impacts are
approved, including incidental impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b) and (c)] and 15A NCAC
02B.0233(8)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
Amount Approved (units)
(units)
Temporary
Permanent
Stream
5 (linear feet)
0 (linear feet)
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone],494 1 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterResources.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

Mr. Chris Mullen
DWR# 06-0411 V2
401/Buffer APPROVAL
Page 2 of 3
Type of Impact Amount Approved
(units)
Permanent
Amount Approved (units)
Temporary
404/401 Wetlands 0.01 (acres)
0 (acres)
Buffers — Zone 1 0 (square feet)
20 (square feet)
Buffers —zone 2 0 (square feet)
0 (square feet)
2. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the
Certification/Authorization. If you change your project, you must notify the Division and
you may be required to submit a new application package with the appropriate fee. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this approval letter and
General Certification(s)/Permit/Authorization and is responsible for complying with all
conditions. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2)]
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. [G.S. 143-215.5]
This Certification/Buffer Authorization can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General
Statute 1508 by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within sixty (60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.cbm/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding official state
holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service: If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center 1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714 Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DENR:

Mr. Chris Mullen
DWR# 06-0411 V2
401/Buffer APPROVAL
Page 3 of 3
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act and
the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules as described in 15A NCAC .0233. Please contact Jennifer
Burdette at 919-807-6364or [e-mail] if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
4AAIN -,\C
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Enclosures: GC 3883
cc: Jared Matthews, Curry Engineering, PLLC, 205 S. Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Kimberly & Geremy Knapp, 4616 Transept Court, Holly Springs, NC 27540
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWR RRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit file
Filename: 060411v2Alexande rWoodsTranse ptCtCulvertMa intenance(Wake)_N RB_401.docx