20160216 Ver 1_Rebuttal to PN Comments_20160609

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Greer, Emily C SAW < [e-mail] >
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Gerald Pottern; Ellis, John W.; Kevin Lugo
Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: Rebuttal to Hope Mills Dam Public Notice Comments
Attachments: e9June2016 SAW -2010-01336 Position Letter.pdf
Gerald -
Please see the attached position letter for the Hope Mills Dam Project. I have requested a 30 -day turn -around
to receive your rebuttal; however, you may provide your response sooner. Feel free to contact me with any
questions.
Emily Greer
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District- Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)

Op
TSO STATES OEC¢
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
June 9, 2016
Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW -2010-01366
Mr. John Ellis, Town Manager
Town of Hope Mills
5770 Rockfish Road
Hope Mills, North Carolina 28348
Dear Mr. Ellis:
We received your application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to place fill
material in approximately 0.89 -acre of jurisdictional wetlands in order to construct a new dam on
Rockfish Creek located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection between Lakeview Drive
and Main Street in Hope Mills, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Subsequently, re -damming
the creek will impact approximately 4.72 acres of existing open water, 11,400 linear feet of
streambed, and 23.70 acres of established wetlands.
During the Public Notice period, this office received comments from two individuals who
expressed concern about the proposed project. Their comments are summarized below and
concern property rights and accessibility of the lake for public use by all local citizens.
In addition, comments were received from the following government agencies.
■ US Fish and Wildlife Service
■ National Marine Fisheries Service
■ NC Wildlife Resources Commission
■ NC Division of Water Resources
A copy of all agency comment letters are attached.
Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to propose a resolution and/or
rebut any and all objections before a final decision is made; however, additional information is
needed prior to a final permit decision on your proposed project. The following comments and
requests for information must be addressed in your rebuttal to comments:
1. Avoidance and Minimization: It appears that further avoidance and minimization of
1

impacts to jurisdictional features could be made with alternative site designs that would impound
less water. Please see comment 95 for further discussion.
2. Site Development Plan: Please address NMFS's concern of including provisions for
diadromous fish passage in the dam design.
The applicant states in the application under "Reason(s) for Discharge" that the proposed
dam will impound 120 acres; however, under "Potential Impacts to Open Waters, Streams, and
Wetlands" the applicant states that 115 acres will be impounded. Also, the provided maps do not
seem to coincide with the stated flooded acreage. Please clarify the acreage of impoundment and
supply the appropriate mapping to reflect the correct(ed) acreage.
3. Secondary Effects/Flooding/Properiy Rights: Because there is a potential for upstream
effects beyond the projected pool area as a result of impounding Little Rockfish Creek, the
applicant will need to contact the City of Fayetteville and its Public Works department to ensure
that the proposed project (@ 105') will not adversely affect structures, waters, properties, etc.
located on or near Rockfish Creek or its tributaries that could potentially be affected by the
project. Please provide documentation from the City stating whether potential adverse effects
may or may not occur. Be aware that public notice information may need to be disseminated
based on the response of the City of Fayetteville and/or their Public Works department if the
Corps determines any abutting landowners in the Fayetteville area need to be informed about the
project; however, the standard 30 -days of public review will not be reinstituted.
There are private landowners upstream of the dam site that will be impacted by flooding
after dam construction. To date, the Town has not legally acquired or otherwise compensated
these landowners for the condemnation of their property. Please be aware that the permit will be
issued with Special Conditions that prevent the applicant from starting construction of the new
dam until compensation to these individuals has been accomplished.
Please address the comment from NMFS that raises the concern that a smaller dam may
not provide sufficient flood storage capacity or alleviate flood risk for downstream communities.
The applicant must provide an explanation that addresses NMFS'S statement that recent dam
failures have resulted in `a significant economic impact because of a loss of homes and property'
to the downstream communities. In addition, the applicant will need to address the known
potential flooding effects on approximately 24 mobile homes that are located upstream in the
Parkway Mobile Home Park, and which the Town identified. These potential flooding effects on
private property are a result of the change in the floodplain for a lake elevation to 105' compared
to 104'.
Please note that any DA permit authorized for this project will be based on consideration
of the above concerns, as well as other issues related to the public interest (and sub -parts to the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines) such as safety, floodplain management, property ownership, and
general environmental concerns. All appropriate permits from local and state government
agencies with respect to surface water/stormwater management, and water quality, must be
obtained prior to any dam construction. Comments received from the public notice(s), as well as
authorizations from the State and local governments will be considered in our analysis of the
2

direct, secondary, and cumulative effects of the proposed project on the environment.
Additionally, all information received regarding this project, as well as any proposed changes,
may warrant further public involvement, to include additional public notice and public meeting.
4. Purpose and Need: Understanding that the applicant's stated purpose for the proposed
project is to dam Little Rockfish Creek in order to provide recreational opportunity to the local
community and to meet current dam safety requirements, please provide a justified purpose and
need for constructing the dam to impound water to an elevation of 105 feet compared to 104 feet.
The response should include data supporting the stated `historical' lake levels presented
throughout the permit application and what public benefits justify why this elevation should be
maintained with the construction of a new dam. Including a discussion of the recreational
opportunities the proposed dam construction will provide for residents that do not reside on the
lake itself is essential. This is because the proposed elevation seems to only satisfy the request of
the very small number of lakeside residents currently living on the lake; however, no recreational
benefit to the rest of the community was discussed in the application.
For instance, it appears that the Town currently has approximately 600-800 linear feet of
usable shoreline for public use, an approximately 60 -foot long fishing pier, and a single -use boat
ramp (i.e., only one motorized boat can launch at a time). Additionally, previous Town policies
required a fee of all non -lakeside residents to utilize the boat ramp. How much usable shoreline
will accessible with the proposed lake elevation? Does the applicant have intensions of
improving the public use space or otherwise expanding it? Based on the stated proposed purpose
and need, the limited public use area appears to be inadequate for such a large lake and again
begs the applicant to provide a sufficient justification for the need of a lake elevation of 105'.
5. Alternatives: The lack of an Alternatives Analysis discussion does not meet the
requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and is insufficient in providing information
that can be used to make an informed decision to identify the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Please provide an analysis that presents a No Build/No Action
Alternative, offsite alternatives, and an analysis of onsite iterations of the site development plan.
A summary of the process for analyzing alternatives is provided below for your convenience.
Because this is a water -dependent project, with the potential for conflict regarding resource
use, the applicant should provide a brief narrative supporting that there are no less
environmentally damaging practicable alternatives, including alternative locations or designs,
available, considering costs, existing technology, and logistics, in order to accomplish the project
purpose and need. However, a comparison between the No Action Alternative and the Proposed
Onsite Alternatives is required. Please note that the No Action Alternative should address
comments from the NMFS and USFWS regarding the removal of the failed dam and the
corresponding restoration of Little Rockfish Creek and its riparian zone.
7. Water Quality: Please provide a summary describing soil and erosion control measures
to be used during demolition and construction and address how sediment accumulation and a
minimum flow will be maintained after project completion (see comments by DWR and WRC).
3

8. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Please clarify what the temporary wetland/stream
impacts are versus the permanent impacts if temporary fills are necessary for the proposed
demolition and the construction phases. Please be aware that all temporary fills or disturbance
must be restored upon project completion (i.e. removal of all access roads).
9. Compensatory Mitigation: Taking into consideration that litigation and lack of funding
prevented the Town from addressing the most recent dam failure in a timely manner, which
would have likely allowed for the application of Nationwide Permit 3: Maintenance in -lieu of a
standard permit, and, thus, would likely not require mitigation, the applicant has requested that
mitigation, conducted in the traditional sense of restoration, for the proposed project be waived.
However, there are opportunities to offset impacts in a non-traditional sense. The Corps would
like to review a proposal of mitigative measures that would provide additional benefits for the
public as a result of the project. For example, there are educational opportunities for the citizens
of Hope Mills regarding area wildlife and plants or the history of the dam and/or lake. Expanded
recreational opportunities for all residents would also be favorable in mitigating for impacts (see
USFWS comment letter). Please feel free to contact the Corps project manager to discuss other
potential opportunities for non-traditional mitigation. Please also address NCDWR's comment
regarding their requirements for compensatory mitigation in your response.
You may provide all of the information requested above to me via email, on or before July
8, 2016. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Feel free to contact me by email at
Emily. c.greergusace, army.mil, or by phone at [phone] if you have any further questions
concerning the processing your application and coordinating with the review agencies.
Sincerely,
GREER.EMILY.
GREE ally signed
GREEllEMILY..by
b 85325300
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou="l,ou=USA,
C.1385325300
cn=G REER.EM ILY.C.1385325300
Date: 2016.06.09 08:46:53 -04'00'
Emily Greer
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Cc/Electronically provided:
Mr. Gerald Pottern, Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
Ms. Jennifer Burdette, Division of Water Resources
I

Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
ZVJMM
Emily Greer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
MEMM���
it M-UV-Mff=-
J
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The Service believes the stated purpose of protecting the bridge can bc
met with a less damaging alternative than the one proposed and recommends the applicant
conduct an alternatives analysis that considers removing the remains of the failed darn. Dam
removal would benefit the environment by restoring free flowing stream conditions, restoration
of natural floodplain and riparian wetlands and remove any obstacle to the movement of
migratory fish. Removing the remains of the failed structure should be much less expensive and
the old lake bed could be used as a recreational park
(http:,/lwww.americanrivers.org/newsroom/resources/taking-a-second-loo . There may be
such as American Rivers which would allow the town to spend its money for other priorities.
Dam removal would remove any risk to the town of another expensive dam failure that could
result from hurricanes or from sinkholes forming in the lake bottom and also remove liability to
the town from accidental drowning that can be associated with dams. It would also remove the
environmental risks downstream associated with dam failure such as large uncontrolled release
of sediment.
Y fie project as proposea is not i
defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA). Therefore the requiremen
of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember thira
obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if. (1) new information identifies impacts of t
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (1,
this action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species I
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Ef the project moves forward as proposed, to reiterate, the Service believes that removing the

remains of the existing darn would be the less damaging alternative to protect the bridge. Should
you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Mike Wicker at [phone]
extension 22.
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

IQ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Burdette, Raleigh Regional Office
N.C. Division of Water Resources
FROM: Gabriela Garrison �L , 6
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification for Hope Mills Dam Repair, Cumberland County, North
Carolina. Corps Action ID 4.: SAW -2010-01336; DWR Project No.: 20160216.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to impact `open waters', to include a portion of the existing spillway that normally
conveys water (0.31 acre), the lower end of the diversion channel above the spillway (0.12 acre) and two
shallow pools on either side of the spillway, contiguous with the main channel during high flows (0.46
acre). The purpose of the project is to repair the Hope Mills Dam on Little Rockfish Creek, specifically
the spillway which failed in 2008. There will be no stream or wetland impacts as a result of construction.
Upon completion, refilling the lake will flood 4.72 acres of semi -impounded channel above the spillway,
8,500 feet of perennial stream, 2,900 feet of tributaries, 16.02 acres of forested wetlands and 7.68 acres of
marsh/shrub wetlands.
Work will include installing a cofferdam to isolate and dewater the right half of the spillway, followed by
demolition and excavation of the right half of the existing spillway. Once this portion of the spillway has
been constructed, a cofferdam will be used to isolate and dewater the left half of the existing spillway,
followed by dewatering and demolition of the left half of the existing spillway. Once the left half of the
spillway has been constructed, a 3rd cofferdam will be installed to isolate and dewater the right half of the
new spillway, diverting flow through the drain gate on the left side. After construction on the right half of
the new spillway is complete, the drain gate will be closed to allow refilling to occur.
There are records for the state -significantly rare, Sandhills spiny crayfish (Cambarus hystricosus) in Little
Rockfish Creek, downstream of the proposed site. The Natural Heritage Program Natural Area —
Rockfish Creek Corridor — is located downstream of the site.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
June 1, 2016
Hope Mills Dam Repair
Corps Action ID No.: SAW -2010-01336
DWR Project No.: 20160216
Should the permit be issued, the NCWRC offers the following recommendations to minimize impacts to
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. The minimum release flow should be maintained during repair activities in order to protect
downstream aquatic resources. The applicant should coordinate with the N.C. Division of Water
Resources regarding any required minimum flow releases following completion of the dam repairs.
2. A silt curtain or other means to contain sediment should be used to minimize turbidity in Little
Rockfish Creek.
3. Concrete is toxic to aquatic life and should not be allowed to come in contact with surface waters
until cured.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land -disturbing activity. The
use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that is
made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and
clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabriela.garrison(a),ncwildlife.org.
ec: Emily Greer, USACE

(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701.5505
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov
May 6, 2016
Colonel Kevin P. Landers Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Attention: Emily C. Greer
Dear Colonel Landers:
F/SER47:KR/pw
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the public notice for Action ID No.
SAW -2010-01336, dated April 7, 2016. The Town of Hope Mills seeks authorization for work that
includes demolition of an existing failed dam and construction of a new dam within the waters and
associated wetlands of Little Rockfish Creek in Cumberland County. The Wilmington District's initial
determination is the proposed project would not affect essential fish habitat (EFH) or associated fisheries
managed by South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), the Mid -Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC), or NMFS. The NMFS agrees the proposed project is not within areas
designated EFH, and the NMFS accordingly offers no comments under the authorities of the Magnuson -
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As the nation's federal trustee for the conservation
and management of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the NMFS provides the
following comments and recommendations pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act.
Description of the Proposed Project
The Town proposes to replace a dam that failed in 2010 and drained the 120 -acre Hope Mills Lake. As a
result of chronic erosion, the remaining dam infrastructure poses a threat of failure for the nearby
Lakeview Road Bridge, an important thoroughfare for the community. The Town proposes to construct a
smaller dam that would restore the lake to normal pool elevation, while providing services for flood
storage and recreation. The project seeks to reduce the risk and threat of failure for Lakeview Road
Bridge by structurally separating the dam from Lakeview Road. The new spillway would be smaller than
the existing structure and constructed entirely within the existing footprint of the failed dam. The
environmental impacts of construction activities include temporary fill of 0.23 acres of open water for the
cofferdam installation and permanent fill of 0.66 acres of open water for construction of the new spillway
and foundation. Upon completion and once the lakebed refills, the dam would have impounded water to
its historical level of 106 feet in elevation, impacting 4.72 acres of open water, 11,400 linear feet of
streambed, and 23.70 acres of wetlands that have established since the 2010 dam failure. According to
the public notice, the Wilmington District would waive mitigation requirements for the loss of wetlands
and re -flooding the lakebed.
Comments on Habitat Conservation
The NMFS believes the applicant should consider and present alternatives for dam replacement, including
removal of dam infrastructure and restoration of Little Rockfish Creek to re-establish the hydrology,
hydraulics, and geomorphic conditions of the stream and riparian areas. Restoration of the stream could

be a long-term cost-effective solution for improving water quality and upland watershed issues while
providing important fish habitat and unimpeded fish passage.
With recent dam failures (2003 and 2010), the NMFS is concerned construction of a smaller dam would
not provide the necessary flood storage or reduce the risk of flooding for communities downstream in the
watershed of the Cape Fear River. Flooding from the recent failures has resulted in a significant
economic impact because of a loss of homes and property. The applicants should provide additional
information on engineering, technical specifications, and risk analysis to justify construction of a new
dam in a period -of -time when emphasis is placed on dam removal and habitat restoration.
The NMFS believes the new spillway should include provisions for diadromous fish passage. The public
notice does not include any description or engineering specifications for fish passage systems or
monitoring programs for fish passage. The Cape Fear River and Little Rockfish Creek include spawning,
foraging, or migration habitat for American shad (Alosa sapidissima), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and
American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The NMFS would be happy to assist the applicant with reviewing
designs of fish passage systems and monitoring programs.
The NMFS recommends the project design should include measures to reduce construction impacts,
including noise disturbance, sediment and toxicant input into streams and rivers, and direct physical
injury, which threatens diadromous fish and their habitats. Environmental windows (seasonal
restrictions) should be prescribed for the timing of construction activities to protect protected species and
fish during sensitive life history phases (e.g., reproduction, migration). Work should not occur during
times designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the NMFS for protection of fish or wildlife resources. Lastly, the NMFS recommends the
Wilmington District examine whether loss of freshwater wetlands associated with this project could
adversely affect water quality as this habitat filters pollutants and facilitates transport of organic material,
and impacts to streams can permanently eliminate habitats used by aquatic organisms.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related questions or comments to
the attention of Dr. Ken Riley at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North
Carolina 28516-9722, or at [phone].
cc: COE, [e-mail]
USFWS, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
F/SER4, [e-mail]
F/SER47, [e-mail]
PA
/ for
Sincerely,
2
,r CICS' 11&
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

�Y," 11
"J
�p
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Town of Hope Milles
Attn: Mr. John W. Ellis
5770 Rockfish Road
Hope Mills, NC 28348
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL !NFORIVIATION
Hope Mills Dam & Lake Restoration I
-6 �-I
11+71
PAT MCCRORY
DON'ALD R. VAN DER V'AART'
Socrelarr
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
On March 2, 2016, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application dated
January 22, 2016, requesting an individual Water Quality Certification from the Division for the
subject project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be
processed, The application is on -hold until all of the following information is received-.
Mitigation is required for losses of equal to or greater than 1 acre of wetlands. Please
provide a mitigation plan that conforms to the reqements of 15A AC 02H 0506(h)
for 7.68 acres of marsh and shrub wetlands that will be converted to open water by tht
proposed project. Mitigation proposals must provide for the replacement of wetland
acres lost at a minimum of 1:1 ratio through restoration or creation unless, the Director
4etermines that the public good would be better served by other types of mitigation.
2. Provide documentation of the normial pool elevation between 105 and 106 feet
reported for the lake from 1923 to 2003.
Please note that the certification will be conditioned to require a water quality and
quantity plan for maintaining and monitoring minimum water release and'meeting
dissolved oxygen and temperature water quality standards before the approved impacts
may occur. The plan must include the following information and may be submitted
prior to issuance of the certification [15A NCAC 02B.0506(3)j-
A monitoring plan including locations, frequiency, water quality parameters, and
method of measurement.
la Ic of N ort I I Ca ro I I na Environmental Quafity � W � (�so
' a er R urycs
1617 M a � I Sc ry ic c Cn tc r � Ra I v i gh, N orl h Ca ro I Ina 2 7 ()99 - 16& 7
919 8()7 6300

Page 2 of 2
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .050I2(e), the appl'icant shall furniish all of the above requested
information for the proper consiideration of the application. If all of the requested information
is not received in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the Diivision will be
unable to approve the application and it will be returned. The return of this project will
necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application packag&.
!mnd the appropriate fee.
P lea se respon d 1 n writ ing with i n! 30 ca len da r d ays of recei pt of th is I etter by send i ng th ree
copies of all of the above requested information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 16
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. 1
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
for this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North
Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code.
concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
174we =-. rlff��* 17MIAM0 ro bffl= ��
W414MMMI.-
1WR FRO 401 file
wWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file--
Iq I
MERE=

u STATE
�a 4
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Klutz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
April 29, 2016
Emily Greer
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Demolish Dam & Construct Spillway within Project Footprint, Hope Mills, SAW 2010-01336,
Cumberland County, ER 16-0632
Dear Ms. Greer:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project and offer the following comments.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area,
it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
It appears improvements proposed to the dam and spillway at Hope Mills Lake will not adversely, a� the
National Register -listed Hope Mills Historic District (CD0141), as work will be limited to the current footprint
of the dam and spillway, may prevent damage to neighboring historic properties, and will protect the Lakeview
Road Bridge. Although the staging area for the project lies within the boundaries of the historic district, it
appears the worksite will be accessed by a dirt road, which winds from the staging area under the Lakeview
Road Bridge to the dam and spillway.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review(a�nc, dcr.�4ov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599