20160216 Ver 1 _Response to Agency Comments _20160720

MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
MOGENSCN MrrlGATION, INC
RALEIGH (Robert J. Goldstein &Associates, RJGA)
104 East Chestnut Avenue CHARLOTTE —MMI MAIN OFFICE
Wake Forest, NC 27587 P.O. Box 690429, Charlotte, NC 28227
Tel: [phone] [e-mail] Tel: [phone] [e-mail]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL COVER PAG
DATE: 08 July 2016 _I` '016 .' f
TO: Ms. Jennifer Burdette
NC-DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
FROM: Gerald Pottern
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI-RJGA
104 East Chestnut Ave
Wake Forest NC 27587
[e-mail]
DESCRIPTION: 2 paper copies of Responses to Public Comments on Hope Mills Dam
404-401 Permit, as requested by email on 29 June 2016.
Permit review comments were received from USACE on 09 June 2016. Responses to
comments were submitted electronically (PDF file, sent via WeTransfer) to all reviewing
agencies on 28 June 2016.
CC: Rich Mogensen
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Impact Reports ■ Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations ■ Section 404-401 Permitting ■ Endangered
& Threatened Species Surveys ■ Environmental Agency Consultation ■ Stream & Wetland Restoration & Mitigation Planning ■ Mitigation Banking &
Monitoring ■ GPS & GIS Mapping ■ Water Quality & Instream Flow Studies ■ Phase 1 Risk Assessments ■ Lake & Watershed Management ■
Conservation Planning ■ Parks & Greenways ■ Public & Private Utilities ■ Lakes & Dam Repair ■ Residential & Commercial Site Development

Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. MMI-RJGA
(Robert J. Goldstein and Associates)
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
27 June 2016
Ms. Emily Greer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Tel: [phone]
GPotterngRJGAc arolina. coin
Subject: Hope Mills Dam Repair, Cumberland County NC, 404-401 Individual Permit.
Action ID # SAW -2010-01336
Dear Ms. Greer,
The attached document contains responses to the public review comments that you sent us on
June 9, including comments from USACE, NCDWR, NOAA-NFMS, USFWS, NCWRC, and private
landowners. It includes a summary of each comment followed by the applicant's response, and
several appendices containing supporting documentation and more in-depth discussion of project
need, alternatives, and mitigation.
In light of the on-going negotiations with two property owners at the upper end of the lake, the
Town decided recently to lower the proposed spillway elevation to 104 feet at this time, to keep
the construction work on schedule. A revised site plan and profile drawing are included in
Appendix E, and wetland impacts for both the 104 and 105 foot spillway elevations are discussed
in Appendix B. We will revisit the preferred 105 foot elevation and re -apply for a permit
modification or new permit at the appropriate time if a settlement can be reached with these
property owners.
Thank you for your assistance in steering us through this complex permitting process. Please feel
free to call or email me if you have any questions.
19 M__J0
ME I �Ml " 1
It ED OMAM
Gerald Pottern, M.S.
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
Richard K. Mogensen, President
PO Box 690429, Charlotte, NC 28227
[e-mail] [phone]
MMI-RJGA Raleigh (R. J. Goldstein & Assoc)
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610 Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Documents: EA, EIS, CE I Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations 1 404 - 401 Permits I GIS/GPS Mapping I Water
Quality Studies I Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration I Endangered Species Surveys I Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans I Water Intakes &
Reservoirs I Water Lines & Treatment Plants I Sewerlines & Wastewater Treatment I Instream Flow Analyses I Interbasin Transfer Certificates I Watershed
Assessment & Management I Archaeological Surveys and Testing I Phase 1 Site Assessments I Parks & Greenways Planning I CWMTF Grant Applications

Hope Mills Dam 404-401 Permit — Responses to Agency Review Comments 09 June 2016.
MMI-RJGA submitted a Section 404-401 Individual Permit Application (IP) to the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) on March 2, 2016 for approval to demolish and replace
the existing spillway and extend the dam embankments at Hope Mills Dam in Cumberland County NC. The IP
(Action ID# SAW -2010-01336) was circulated for public review from April 7 to May 6, and review comments
were received from USACE agent Emily Greer on June 9 (Appendix A). Ms. Greer's comment letter (June 9,
2016) summarizes the comments received from federal and state agencies including (USACE, NCDWR,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), and from private citizens.
This document provides the applicant's responses and rebuttals to the comments received. Comments and
responses below are generally listed in the order they appear in the USACE summary letter, followed by other
comments gleaned from agency letters and emails that are not included in the USACE letter. The numbering
sequence used below does not match those in the USACE letter, as some comments have been separated or
combined for clarity and discussion purposes.
On June 16, 2016, the Town of Hope Mills Board of Commissioners hosted a public meeting and decided to
reduce the requested spillway elevation from 105 feet, as specified in the IP Application, to 104 feet for the
time being, due to property infringement issues at 105 feet from two property owners near the upper end of
the lake. Our responses below reflect a modification to the USACE permit request for a 104 ft spillway
elevation at this time, rather than 105 ft as stated in the IP application, but we also discuss the need for and
related impacts of the Town's preferred elevation of 105 ft. If successful negotiation with the affected
property owners occurs, the Town will re -apply later for a permit modification or new permit to raise the
spillway to 105 feet. The attached plans also reflect the design modification for an interim spillway elevation
of 104 feet.
1) Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts (USACE, USFWS, NMFS, NCDWR)
Comment: The Alternatives Analysis discussion provided 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. 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.
Response: A more in-depth discussion of Project Need and Alternatives Analysis is provided in Appendix B.
In summary, the no -action alternative is unacceptable because the existing failed spillway will continue to
erode and eventually collapse, posing a safety risk and potential damage to the adjacent bridge, roadway,
aerial sewer crossing, and Little Rockfish Creek downstream of the bridge.
Removing the spillway and allowing the stream and floodplain wetlands to naturalize was also considered, as
suggested by USACE, USFWS, NCWRC, and NMFS. This alternative would eliminate the current safety hazard
of the failed spillway and future liability associated with any dam and lake project, but the cultural and socio-
economic importance of Hope Mills Lake as a recreational and historical centerpiece of the Town would be
lost forever. Residents have sorely missed their lake from 2003 to 2008, and 2010 to 2016, and have been
working fervently with Town officials for many years to rebuild it. Removing the failed spillway and restoring
a natural stream and floodplain is an ecologically sensible alternative, but would not meet the community's
needs for public swimming, boating, water skiing, and lake fishing. Re-foresting the former lake bed might

also increase 100 -yr flood elevations adjacent to and upstream of the lake, as increasing tree density in the
former lake bed may slow the drainage of floodwater through this area, relative to the existing open pool
condition. Also, without the lake, there will be no storage capacity to augment stream flow in lower Little
Rockfish Creek during droughts.
The alternatives analysis also considers the height of the lake pool. From 1924 to 2003, the spillway elevation
was 106.1 feet based on the NGVD-29 vertical datum, which equates to 105.3 feet based on the current
standard NAVD-88 vertical datum (see item 6 below). Riparian fringe wetlands including marsh/scrub and
cypress -gum forest communities developed at that water elevation for 80 years. The 2008 replacement dam
had a spillway elevation of 104.0 feet (NAVD-88). The resulting lake level drop (about 1.3 feet or more) was
disappointing to users of the Town's beach, swimming area, boat ramp, and public and private piers and docks
around the lake. A collection of letters from local residents is provided, all expressing their support for
rebuilding the lake close to its original 105 ft spillway elevation (Appendix C). All current design plans by
Schnabel Engineering are referenced to the NAVD-88 vertical datum. An Alternative Mitigation Plan
(requested by NCDWR for 401 Certification) compares impacts at 104 and 105 feet, and demonstrates that the
105 ft spillway elevation will not be more "environmentally damaging" to wetlands than the 104 ft spillway
elevation (Appendix D).
2) Diadromous Fish Passage (USACE, NMFS)
Comment: Please address NMFS's concern of including provisions for diadromous fish passage in the dam
design, plans for fish passage monitoring, and measures to avoid and minimize impacts during fish spawning
and migration seasons.
Response: In November 2014 MMI-RJGA contacted staff biologists at NMFS (Fritz Rohde), NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (Michael Fisk), US Fish & Wildlife Service (Mike Wicker and Wilson Laney), and NC
Division of Marine Fisheries to assess the need for including a fish passage structure in the replacement
spillway, and to clarify the reasons why the 2008 fish ladder was built. None of the agency staff queried was
aware of their agency (or other agencies) requesting that the Town include the previous fish ladder. USFWS
consulted with the Rose Group engineers on design of the fish ladder at the engineer's request in 2006-07.
The agencies agreed that a ladder could have been useful, and they had no reason to recommend against it.
However, no monitoring was conducted to assess fish usage of the ladder, and Town staff who maintained the
dam had not received any reports of fish sightings on the ladder, when queried in 2015.
Regarding need for a replacement fish ladder in the current project, none of the agency staff queried in 2014-
15 offered compelling information to support requiring a fish ladder as part of the proposed spillway. Mr. Fisk
replied by email to MMI-RJGA in Dec 2014:
"I dug around and checked with Christian Waters, David Cox, and recently retired Bennett Wynne and it
sounds like the Fish and Wildlife Service was heavily involved initially. The WRC does not have any priority
species that would benefit from the fish ladder. We do not have any data to support the inclusion of the fish
ladder. Although I think it would be a great idea to have, I'm not sure what benefits it would have as the
habitat upstream is marginal."
Based on these discussions with agencies and Town staff, the Town and engineers chose to not include a fish
ladder in the proposed structure as described in the March 2016 IP application. However, in light of Dr. Riley's
permit review comments dated May 6, 2016, the Town has reconsidered the fish passage issue. MMI-RJGA
checked agency data and other references to determine which diadromous species occur in the Rockfish Creek

watershed and might benefit from a fish passage device. The NC State Museum and NCDWR records included
a few records of American Eel in this watershed, but no records of Striped Bass, Shad, or Sturgeon. The
distribution maps in Edward Menhinick's Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina has a dot for Hickory Shad near
the confluence of Rockfish Creek and Cape Fear River (about 8 miles below Hope Mills Dam), and a few dots
for American Shad and Blueback Herring in the Cape Fear River above and below Rockfish Creek. Based on
these maps and available data, Shad and Herring species do not appear to ascend Rockfish Creek or other
Cape Fear River tributaries far from the main stem river.
Based on discussions with agency biologists and literature reviewed to date, Striped Bass larvae would be
unlikely to survive in Hope Mills Lake even if adults could get past the dam to spawn, as the lake would not
provide good larval and juvenile habitat. Shad larvae might stand a slightly better chance in the lake than
Striped Bass would, but Michael Fisk's opinion (above) is that upstream habitat quality is marginal and
potential benefits of passage are doubtful. We have queried agency staff for any further data on anadromous
fishes or habitat suitability in Little Rockfish Creek that might contradict our conclusions, and we will
reconsider providing passage for these species should it be deemed necessary.
This leaves American Eel as the species most likely to realize potential benefits from a fish passage device. The
Town is willing to install a passage device for American Eels at Hope Mills Dam, assuming the agencies agree
that it would be beneficial to do so. Based on review of the eel passage discussion in Chapter 9 of the NMFS
Diadromous Fish Passage Primer (2015) plus other reference materials, we are currently favoring a pegged
chute type trap such as those made by Milieu www.milieuinc.com, rather than a full-length ladder. This type
of eel trap would be easy to install during the migration season, easy to remove when not needed, and would
facilitate quantitative monitoring of eel passage. The trap would be emptied 2 or 3 times per week during the
principal migration season (late March to late May) and eels released into the lake. Milieu eel traps have been
very successful at Roanoke Rapids Dam and many other dams.
3) Lake Pool Impoundment Acreage (USACE)
Comment: The applicant states 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 appropriate mapping to reflect the correct acreage.
Response: The cypress -gum swamp in the upper portion of the lake is a complex network of forested islands
and multiple braided channels with diverse micro -topography, which makes pool area measurements
complicated. The "120 acres" used in the permit application was based on a line surrounding the outermost
105 -ft contour, without subtracting the islands contained in that area. The correct pool surface area, after
subtracting the islands, is 94.5 acres at 104 ft, and 113.2 acres at 105 ft, as shown in the color -coded maps
created from LIDAR elevation data, provided in Appendix D.
4) Flooding on Private Lands Upstream (USACE, Private Landowners)
Comment: Private landowners upstream of the dam site will be impacted by flooding after dam construction,
including Parkway Mobile Home Village. To date, the Town has not legally acquired or otherwise compensated
these landowners for their property. Provide documentation from the City of Fayetteville Public Works that
upstream flooding caused by this project will not adversely affect structures or properties in the flood -pool of
the lake.

Response: Prior to the 2008 spillway replacement, the Town negotiated an easement and paid compensation
to the Smith Family Conservancy at the upper end of the lake to impound water at 104 ft spillway elevation,
despite this land being inundated by the previous spillway elevation of 105.3 feet prior to the 2003 dam
failure. The owner of Parkway Mobile Home Village was not compensated at that time. All land below 106 ft
on the Smith properties and Parkway Mobile Home Village property is undeveloped. Furthermore, the
proposed 104 ft spillway elevation will not increase flooding impacts to structures or improved lands during
100 -yr flood events, as compared with current conditions.
Hydraulic modeling by Schnabel Engineering using HEC -RAS 4.1 shows that both the 104 and 105 ft spillway
designs will yield 1% frequency (100 -year) flood elevations of 112 to 115 feet (NAVD-88) in the vicinity of
Parkway Mobile Home Village. The 112 ft flood elevation would occur along the lower portion of the mobile
home park near the end of Morrozoff Rd, and the 115 ft elevation would occur along the upper portion east of
Camden Rd. These flood elevations are slightly lower than floods that could have occurred when the 2008
spillway was in place. Some mobile homes are within the 100 -yr floodplain footprint, but were installed on
these flood -prone lots before the 2003 dam failure. The project will not increase the risk of flood damage to
these homes, relative to 2008 conditions, based on the hydraulic model. The difference in 100 -yr flood
elevations created by the 104 versus 105 ft spillway designs is slight near the mobile home park, ranging from
0.0 to 0.2 ft difference. See also item #10 below regarding impact to low-income housing.
The lower portion of the lake between the new spillway and the railroad bridge will have 100 -yr flood
elevations between 107 and 110 ft for both the 104 and 105 ft spillway designs, based on the model. A
Structure No -Impact Certification from Schnabel Engineering and CLOMR Certification for this project signed
by the Cumberland County Floodplain Manager in December 2015 is included in Appendix E.
The Town is currently in discussions with the affected property owners in the upper lake area that have
requested compensation for losses if the spillway is raised to 105 ft. The remaining 50+ property owners
whose lands will be re -flooded to pre -2003 conditions have not requested compensation nor publically
objected to refilling the lake to the 105 -ft elevation at this time.
The City of Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC) provides water and sewer service to properties
around the lake. PWC maintains a 48 -inch diameter sewer line crossing on Little Rockfish Creek near the
upper end of the lake, and a temporary access easement on the Smith property for sewer maintenance. PWC
informed the Town during a telephone discussion on June 24, 2016, that soil material has eroded beneath this
line since the lake has been drained. The line was designed for submerged conditions, and it is in PWC's best
interest to refill the lake to prevent further undermining of this line. Documentation from PWC providing
support for the project is included in Appendix E.
5) Flood Storage Capacity and Downstream Flooding (USACE, NMFS)
Comment: NMFS is concerned that construction of a "smaller dam" may not provide the necessary flood
storage capacity or alleviate flood risk for communities downstream. Address the comment that recent dam
failures in 2003 and 2010 resulted in a significant economic impact because of a loss of homes and property
Response: The new spillway structure will be smaller in footprint area than the current spillway, but its
height and water storage capacity will be roughly the same as the pre -2003 lake, and its flood conveyance
capacity will equal or exceed that of the 1924 and 2008 spillway designs. Neither of the past dam designs nor
the proposed design is intended for flood control. The lake is essentially a "flow in equals flow out" system,
and has negligible effect on flood elevations downstream of Lakeview Drive. HEC -RAS hydraulic modeling by

Schnabel Engineering shows that the modeled 100 -yr flood elevations in Little Rockfish Creek downstream of
Lakeview Road are virtually the same (within 0.2 ft) for the previous (2008) spillway, the proposed 104 ft
spillway, or the potential 105 ft spillway designs (Appendix E). Minor property damage downstream of Hope
Mills Dam was reported after the 2003 dam failure; a dock was damaged, and the basement/lower floor of a
doctor's office had some water damage. The Town is not aware of any reported loss of homes that occurred
from that event. The Town is not aware of any reported property damage as a result of the 2010 spillway
failure, other than the spillway itself.
Furthermore, the dam and spillway have been properly sized for the safe passage of the Design Storm (1/3 of
the probable maximum precipitation) as required, reviewed, and approved by NCDEQ Dam Safety. Due to the
hydrology and hydraulics of the lake and spillway, neither the existing failed dam nor the newly designed dam
provide flood attenuation (less than 1%). Additionally, flooding risk downstream of the dam is unchanged
whether a dam is in place or not.
6) Public Recreation and Justification of 105 ft Spillway Elevation (USACE)
Comment: Justify the purpose and need for impounding water to an elevation of 105 feet compared to 104
feet. Also include data supporting the stated 'historical' lake levels presented in the permit application.
Response: The Town recently decided to revise the permit request from a 105 ft elevation spillway down to
104 ft for the time being, due to landowner concerns and construction scheduling. However, since 105 ft
remains the preferred spillway elevation for meeting the lake users' long-term needs, justification for the 105
ft elevation is provided below, in the event that a permit modification may be sought in the future.
In 1981 Soil Testing Services (STS) of Research Triangle Park conducted a structural safety evaluation and
survey of the dam and spillway structures. The surveyed water surface elevation then was 106.1 feet based
on the 1929 vertical datum (NGVD-29) in use at that time. Converting this value to the current standard
vertical datum (NAVD-88) gives an equivalent spillway elevation of 105.3 feet NAVD-88. The STS 1981 survey
drawings, selected pages from a 1979 Phase 1 Inspection Study also indicating a 106.1 feet surface elevation,
and Schnabel's datum conversion calculations are provided in Appendix E. A 1992 Preliminary Permit from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) listed a spillway elevation of 105 feet, based on the NAVD-
88 datum. (The current and proposed structures do not involve FERC licensing).
Many lake users, including both lakefront property owners and non -lakefront citizens who used the public
park facilities, conveyed their disappointment to Town staff about the diminished pool level of the 2008
replacement spillway. The smaller and shallower swimming area at the Town Park, and lower water elevation
at the boat ramp and public pier hampered their use of these facilities.
The Hope Mills Lake Advisory Committee (formerly Lake Restoration Advisory Committee) comprises a group
of interested citizens working closely with Hope Mills Parks & Recreation staff to develop programs and
policies to improve and expand recreational facilities, educational programs, and promote safe and
responsible stewardship of the lake's resources. Restoring the lake to a pool level similar to the pre -2003
condition has been recognized by the Advisory Committee as a priority for restoring lost recreational uses and
ecological functions of the lake, including lake fishery habitat and historic hydrology to the cypress -gum
swamp forests and other wetlands that grew for 80 years in standing water or saturated soils around the lake
perimeter. The Town recognizes that the spillway elevation drop from 105.3 ft (1924 to 2003) to 104 ft in
2008 is not a public health or safety issue, and could accept the 104 ft spillway elevation if it were truly better
for the lake's ecosystem and had substantially less adverse impact to wetlands. However, the Alternative

Mitigation Plan (Appendix D) demonstrates that the restoration of hydrology to historic wetlands above the
104 ft contour achieved by constructing the 105 ft spillway will amply offset the wetlands below 104 foot that
are "drowned" by an extra foot of water. The 105 ft elevation will affect 7 to 8 percent more stream length
than will the 104 ft elevation, but the effect will be ecologically negligible due to the channel depth and
morphology of Little Rockfish Creek and its tributaries in the upper portion of the lake. Overall, the 105 ft
spillway elevation will not be more "environmentally damaging" to waters and wetlands than the 104 ft
spillway elevation.
The recreational and educational improvements suggested in the USACE comment letter are much
appreciated and are already being considered by the Hope Mills Lake Advisory Committee and Parks &
Recreation staff. These improvements include expanded recreational green space on the earthen dam
embankments, improvements to public swimming facilities and areas around the lake, additional and
improved boat launch areas, fishing piers, hiking trails, and interpretive signage explaining the history and
ecology of Hope Mills Lake and adjacent streams and wetlands. The Code of Ordinances concerning the lake
recreational facilities (Chapter 62, Article II) shows that the Town is consistent with public usage and fees; the
ordinance has no special allowances for those that live on the lake (Appendix C). The Lake Advisory
Committee along with Parks and Recreation will review and update the Ordinance as necessary to
accommodate new facilities and increased usage while protecting the lake's natural resources and
recreational facilities. Promoting widespread use of the lake and surrounding publically-accessible lands by all
residents, not just lakefront landowners, is of prime importance to the Town.
7) Erosion Control and Water Quality Protection (USACE, NCWRC, NMFS, NCDWR)
Comment: Describe erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during demolition and
construction; address how toxic material release (e.g. uncured concrete) will be managed.
Response: Schnabel Engineering received notice of Erosion and Sediment Control Plan acceptance on January
28, 2016 from NCDEQ. The erosion and sediment control measures for the spillway demolition are currently
working under the NCDEQ General Permit. There are three phases of construction for Hope Mills Dam, each
with specific erosion and turbidity control measures to effectively reduce sediment laden runoff downstream.
Each construction area will be sequentially dewatered and isolated from the flowing stream to prevent escape
of turbidity and toxic materials such as uncured concrete.
During the first phase of construction a stage 1 cofferdam has been installed approximately 5 feet off of the
existing left sidewall of the fish ladder. The stage 1 cofferdam connects to the existing upstream cofferdam
and to the existing right sidewall downstream of the new dam footprint. The stage 1 cofferdam encapsulates
the limits of work for stage 1 construction. The stage 1 cofferdam is constructed of large sand bags that are
wrapped with an impermeable plastic material. To redirect the current flow path the existing cofferdam was
repaired and rip rap armored. After redirection of the flow, pumps with sediment bags were used to drain the
standing water within the stage 1 construction footprint. The existing slabs, walls and fish ladder to the right
side of the cofferdam were demolished. The debris and earthen material was hauled to the contractor's
staging area, within the drained reservoir. Sediment fence with rock outlets were installed around the staging
area to reduce sediment runoff. The right side slurry cutoff wall will be installed within the limits of work for
stage 1 construction. All earthen runoff from the construction inside the stage 1 limits will be pumped through
a sediment bag and discharged downstream. The runoff from the slurry wall will be collected and disposed of
in an onsite concrete waste pit.

Stage 2 construction will begin once the right side slurry cutoff wall has been installed. The right portion of the
labyrinth spillway and the adjacent embankment section will be constructed. The leftover concrete that
remains from the concrete placements will be collected and disposed of in an onsite concrete waste pit. After
the right embankment is constructed it will be permanently seeded and mulched. An upstream stage 2
cofferdam will be installed that ties into the newly constructed portion of the labyrinth and the left abutment.
Flow will then be rerouted through a labyrinth weir cycle that has been left open. A stage 2 downstream
cofferdam will be installed that ties into a portion of the completed labyrinth and the existing left sidewall.
The stage 2 upstream and downstream cofferdams will encapsulate the limits of work for stage 2 construction.
The stage 2 upstream and downstream cofferdams will be constructed using of large sand bags that are
wrapped with an impermeable plastic material. After redirection of the flow, pumps with sediment bags will
be used to drain the standing water within the stage 2 construction footprint. The remaining slabs and walls
will be demolished. The debris and earthen material will be hauled to the contractor's staging area, within the
drained reservoir. The left side slurry cutoff wall, labyrinth and embankment will be installed within the limits
of work for stage 2 construction. The left embankment will be permanently seeded and mulched. All earthen
runoff from the construction inside the stage 2 limits will be pumped through a sediment bag and discharged
downstream. The runoff from the left side slurry cutoff wall and leftover concrete that remains from the
concrete placements will be collected and disposed of in an onsite concrete waste pit.
Stage 3 construction will begin once the left earthen embankment has been stabilized and the majority of the
upstream riprap has been installed. The upstream and downstream stage 2 cofferdams will be removed and
the flow will be directed through the low level drain gate on the new labyrinth. A stage 3 upstream cofferdam
will be constructed to encapsulate the open cycle from stage 2 construction. The stage 3 upstream cofferdam
will be constructed of large sand bags that are wrapped with an impermeable plastic material. The remaining
labyrinth cycle will be constructed and the downstream riprap will be installed. The stage 3 upstream
cofferdam will be removed and the upstream riprap will be completed. The remaining disturbed areas from
the staging areas will be permanent seeded and mulched. Once the site is stabilized the erosion control
measures will be removed.
During construction minimum release will be maintained because base flow of Little Rockfish Creek will never
be interrupted. A turbidity curtain will be used downstream of the new structure within the confines of Little
Rockfish Creek if there is a visual need for it. However during construction of the new spillway there is no
reason for any work to be done so that sediment runoff is entering Little Rockfish Creek at normal base flow.
8) Minimum Stream Flow and Lake Sediment Release (USACE, NCWRC, NCDWR)
Comment: Describe how sediment accumulation will be managed and minimum instream flow will be
maintained after project completion.
Response: The USGS method for assessing 7Q10 low -flow statistics in natural streams in NC (Giese and
Mason, 1991) reports a 7Q10 flow of 18 cfs at a gauge upstream of Hope Mills Lake where the drainage basin
area is 45 sq. mi. Adjusting for the 94 sq. mi drainage area at the dam, the estimated natural 7Q10 flow at this
site is 38 cfs. NC Dam Safety specifies 38 cfs as the recommended target minimum release flow for Hope Mills
Dam. This minimum release will be achieved by opening the low-level outlet gate near the base of the
spillway whenever the staff gage installed upstream of the spillway reads less than 0.15 ft above the spillway
design elevation, either 104.15 or 105.15 ft. Opening the low-level gate six inches will release about 41 cfs,
along with any sediment that has accumulated in front of the gate. The gate will be closed after water starts
flowing over the crest of the spillway, indicating that outflow is greater than 41 cfs. The Dam Operation and
Maintenance Manual will include this guidance. It should be noted that the 2008 dam was a similar overflow

structure and was not designed to pass sediment downstream. Municipalities usually assess their lake bottom
conditions 10 to 20 years after impoundment and determine if dredging is required. The Town will take this
under advisement to evaluate sedimentation in the pool after 10 years of impoundment.
9) Water Quality Monitoring Below Dam (USACE, NCWRC)
Comment: The 401 Certification will be conditioned to require a water quality and quantity plan for
maintaining minimum water release and meeting dissolved oxygen and temperature standards.
Response: The Town will monitor dissolved oxygen and water temperature in Little Rockfish Creek on the
downstream side of the Lakeview Road bridge monthly during morning hours from April to November, when
oxygen depletion could potentially be a problem. If dissolved oxygen levels less than 5 mg/L are detected,
sampling frequency will be increased to weekly until conditions improve. Lake maintenance staff will balance
flows between the low-level drain gate and surface spillway to the extent practicable to maintain a dissolved
oxygen concentration above 5 mg/L, water temperature of 27 C or less, and minimum flow release of 38 cfs. If
no water quality problems are detected during the first monitoring year, sampling in future years will be
conducted once each summer during hot weather and low -flow conditions. The first year is the most likely to
be problematic, due to decomposition of submerged vegetation when the lake is refilled. Building the dam
during July 2016 to January 2017 will allow it to be refilled during January to February 2017, thus minimizing
the risk of oxygen depletion in hot weather.
10) Low Income Housing and Environmental Justice (USACE, comment by telephone)
Comment: Provide evidence regarding potential impacts to low-income and/or minority housing in the
Mobile Home Park near the upper end of the lake.
Response: The USEPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen) was used to document
the demographic composition of the Parkway Mobile Home Village east of Camden Rd and north of the lake.
The EJScreen data (Appendix E) includes 33 housing units, 57% white and 43% racial minority population, and
a median per capita income of $21,694. Several mobile homes on this property are within the 1% (100 -year)
floodplain as determined by the NC Floodplain Mapping Program in accordance with FEMA guidance. The
proposed 104 -ft and potential future 105 -ft spillway elevations would create 100 -yr flood elevations on this
property no higher than the previous (2008 to 2010) spillway. A map showing the 100 -yr flood boundary at
Parkway Mobile Home Village due to the previous and proposed spillways is provided in Appendix E.
APPENDIX A. Permit Review Comments, May -June 2016
APPENDIX B. Project Need and Alternatives Analysis
APPENDIX C. Lake Advisory Committee, Lake Ordinance & Citizen Support
APPENDIX D. Alternative Mitigation Plan for Wetland Impacts
APPENDIX E. Spillway and Flood Elevations, Easements, Demographics

Hope Mills Dam Public Comments & Responses
APPENDIX A. Permit Review Comments, May -June 2016
USACE Emily Greer comment letter, 09 June 2016
USFWS Mike Wicker comment letter, 05 May 2016
NCWRC Gabriela Garrison comment letter, 01 June 2016
NOAA-NMFS Ken Riley & Pace Wilber comment letter, 06 May 2016
NC-DWR Jennifer Burdette & Karen Higgins comment letter, 17 May 2016
NC-SHPO Renee Gledhill -Earley comment letter, 29 April 2016

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

Hope Mills Dam Public Comments & Responses
APPENDIX B. Project Need and Alternatives Analysis

APPENDIX B. Hope Mills Dam — Project Need and Alternatives Analysis
Project Setting and History
Hope Mills Lake is an important central feature of the Town's identity and history, and its main recreational
and visual attraction. The main traffic intersection at the center of Town is NC -59 (Main Street) and Lakeview
Road, adjacent to the southwest corner of the lake. Lakeview Road is built along the crest of the dam just east
of Main Street. A Town park with a boat ramp, dock, beach, and swimming area is located on the western
shoreline 800 ft north of this intersection, and a UNC -managed nature preserve with walking trails along the
lake is located adjacent to the Hope Mills Senior Center at the end of Davis Street, 0.7 mile northwest of the
Town Park.
The first dam at the site of Hope Mills Dam on Little Rockfish Creek was built in the late 1700s to power a grain
mill and saw mill. In 1839 the area's first cotton mill was built adjacent to the dam, and the dam was modified
for powering the new factory. By the mid -1840s Rockfish Factory was the largest cotton mill in NC in terms of
capital investment and production value. General Sherman's troops burned the mill in 1865, but a new mill
was built soon after the Civil War. It was renamed Hope Mill in 1872, and the Town of Hope Mills
incorporated in 1891. As demand for cotton cloth increased through the rest of the 1800s and early 1900s,
the mill and dam were expanded and converted from water -wheel power into a modern electric facility using
hydroelectric turbines. The 1924 dam upgrade used radial gates (Tainter gates) to maintain a normal pool
elevation of about 106.1 ft NGVD-29 (= 105.3 ft NAVD-88; Appendix Q. The Town of Hope Mills continued to
grow and prosper around the mill and lake. In 1941 Rockfish Manufacturing was purchased by Dixie Yarns Inc,
which operated until 1992 when it became unprofitable due to foreign competition and was closed.
In 1984, Dixie Yarns Inc. granted the lake and dam to the Town of Hope Mills for public use, since the lake was
no longer needed for power generation. This was a significant day in Hope Mills as the lake had been the
centerpiece of the Town for generations. While recreational use of the lake had been permitted in the past by
the private owners, now the Town was finally able to develop a public park and swimming area near the dam.
People from the Town and surrounding communities came to swim, canoe, kayak, and fish on the lake, and
explore the picturesque upper reaches of the lake where multiple channels flow through cypress -gum swamp
forest around islands with abundant scenery and natural habitat. Hope Mills Lake had a reputation for some
of the best public fishing in the region from the 1950s until the spillway failed in 2003 after a heavy storm.
The failed 1924 spillway (elevation 105.3 ft NAVD-88) was replaced in 2008 by the current spillway (elevation
104 ft NAVD-88). Unfortunately, the 2008 spillway failed again in 2010 due to erosion under the poorly built
foundation. The Town attempted to negotiate a voluntary settlement with the previous engineering firm and
contractor, but was unsuccessful and thus turned to a legal settlement. In 2014, after years of litigation, the
Town finally settled the lawsuit and hired Schnabel Engineering to repair the dam and re-establish the Town's
proud, historic lake centerpiece. Through public hearings and outreach, the Town residents overwhelmingly
supported the return of Hope Mills Lake to the prior lake elevation of 105 ft NAVD-88 at a cost of
approximately $8.8 million to include design and construction. By returning the lake to its historic elevation,
the local residents will again be able to swim in a designated swimming area and use the existing public boat
ramp and dock at the Town Park northwest of the dam. The park is serviced by Big T's, a local food stand
where residents can sit on picnic tables or under the gazebo and gaze out at the lake while eating. On the
Fourth of July and Christmas each year, the Town holds celebrations at this park, where the historic Tainter
gates from the 1924 spillway are on display.

Project Need
The 1924 dam provided hydroelectric power and water supply for textile manufacturing at the mill, and also
served as a recreational, aesthetic, and fishing amenity for the public. After the mill closed in 1992, these
latter uses remained. The lake is not used as a public water supply source, but its minimum release flow does
help ensure adequate instream flow in Little Rockfish Creek below the dam during droughts.
After the 2008 replacement spillway was built, lake users soon found that the lowered pool elevation
hampered their use of the Town beach, swimming area, boat ramp, dock, and public and private piers along
the lake. Following the 2010 dam failure, the Hope Mills Lake Advisory Committee, a town -chartered
volunteer citizen board, defined their goals to include restoring the pre -2003 elevation with the next spillway
replacement, to restore the lake to its full recreational potential and improve public access and recreation
areas around the lake.
The Town has recently received letters of support from local citizens, including many who are not lakefront
property owners, expressing their sense of loss for not having their lake available for most of the past 13
years, and the need for restoring the historic lake level. The central location of the lake near the downtown
area makes it an integral part of the Town's image and identity; it represents much more to Hope Mills's
citizens than does a "typical old lake" used for fishing and boating on the edge of town. Big T's and other
businesses near the lake and along Main Street rely on lake users as a significant customer base.
Project Alternatives Considered
The Clean Water Act guidance under which USACE and NCDWR have permitting authority directs these
agencies to approve the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that achieves the
project need, assuming that the need is justifiable. Alternatives may include different project locations,
project designs and operational features, and different construction methods.
Since the existing failed spillway is structurally unstable and will continue to erode beneath its foundation and
probably collapse if left as is, the No -Action alternative is not feasible for public safety reasons. The old
structure must be removed, regardless of whether it is replaced or not. The remaining alternatives to be
considered are:
1) Remove the existing spillway and restore the stream and floodplain to a pre -dam condition.
2) Rebuild a new spillway to the 104 -ft elevation of the current failed spillway (2008 to 2010).
3) Rebuild a new spillway to the 105 -ft elevation of the previous spillway (1924 to 2003).
4) Build a new dam at another location.
Project Alternatives — Remove Dam and Restore Stream
Removing the existing dam and spillway and allowing the stream and floodplain to naturalize would restore
about 11,000 ft of Little Rockfish Creek and several tributary streams that had been impounded for 80+ years.
It would remove a barrier to fish passage and allow diadromous fishes including American eel and possibly
shad to migrate up and down Little Rockfish Creek for spawning, as they presumably did prior to construction
of the first dam in the late 1700s. Wetland forests that developed and matured around the lake prior to 2003
would gradually shift to more upland forest communities as the bald cypress, swamp gum, river birch, and

other hydrophytic trees in the dewatered fringe areas die off and are replaced with mesic forest species. The
former lake bed area would continue to succeed into a mosaic of wetland and non -wetland plant
communities, as has been occurring over the past six years since the 2010 lake draining. Re-foresting the
former lake bed might also increase 100 -yr flood elevations adjacent to and upstream of the lake, as new
trees in the former lake bed would likely slow down floodwater drainage, relative to the existing open pool
condition.
This alternative would achieve the greatest benefit for stream habitat and stream -dependent fish and wildlife,
including diadromous fish species. Canoeing, kayaking, and stream fishing would be possible on the restored
stream, provided that publicly accessible boat launch areas are provided at suitable locations upstream and
downstream. Hiking and biking trails through the restored floodplain could be built, although the area would
be predominantly dense scrub and saplings for the first few decades before a more visually appealing and
pleasant (for recreation) canopy forest develops. This alternative would be far less expensive than rebuilding
and maintaining the lake, and financial assistance from a variety of public and private sources may be available
to the Town for dam removal and stream restoration, as stated in the permit review comment letters. That
would allow the funds collected from the legal settlement with the previous engineers to be put toward other
Town needs.
Drawbacks to the stream restoration alternative are as follows: Total wetland acreage would be reduced,
compared with the build alternatives below. We do not have adequate topographic mapping below the 103 ft
contour to make a reasonable estimate of the wetland acreage that would likely remain if the stream
restoration alternative is followed, but it would clearly be much less acreage than under the build alternatives.
Existing wetland vegetation in the dewatered wetlands around the lake perimeter will gradually die out. The
stream restoration alternative would also result in loss of lake habitat and lake -dependent fish and wildlife.
While this is a man-made lake and the habitat is thus artificial, it has been impounded at various levels for
most of the past 200 years, and the plant and animal communities in the vicinity had adapted to lake
conditions until the 2003 failure. The former lake bed is currently part-way through the transition back to a
stream and floodplain ecosystem, and is currently dominated by a mix of hydrophytic and upland grasses,
herbs, vines, shrubs, and sapling trees. Changes in plant and animal community composition will continue to
occur regardless of which alternative is followed.
The stream restoration alternative would also result in loss of the Town's main aesthetic and recreational
amenity for swimming, lake fishing, and lake boating. The children's beach and swimming area at the Town
Park would become forest. While some recreational use could still occur if the lake pool area reverted to a
stream and forested floodplain, the number of users is likely to significantly decrease, based on input from
citizens that the Town has received through its outreach activities and public meetings. Young children and
older citizens, especially those with limited mobility, are better able to use and enjoy lake recreation facilities
than riverine facilities. Furthermore, it would take decades to restore an attractive forest with trees large
enough to provide usable shade in the open portion of the old lake bed (80+ acres). The overwhelming desire
among Town residents is to rebuild the lake. Consequently, the stream restoration alternative was rejected,
despite its lower cost and biological advantages, because it does not meet the project need for the vast
majority of Town citizens. Also, this alternative would not accommodate storage to provide a minimum flow
during droughts into the lower reach of Little Rockfish Creek.
Project Alternatives - Build New Spillway at 104 or 105 ft
Demolishing and replacing the failed spillway is the Town's preferred alternative. The current proposed plan
(which differs from the plan described in the IP application reviewed during April -May 2016) is to build a new

spillway with an initial elevation of 104 ft NAVD-88. The desired 105 ft elevation is placed on hold at this time
due to ongoing negotiations with two property owners along the upper end of the lake who have objected to
the 105 ft elevation. Consequently, the revised design (attached) will allow the spillway to be retrofitted in
the future for 105 ft elevation, if and when agreements can be worked out with the affected landowners and
the permitting agencies.
The proposed spillway at 104 ft elevation will create a pool similar to the 2008-2010 conditions. The 104 foot
spillway will partially restore a usable beach and swimming area (about 600 ft of shoreline), boat ramp and
fishing pier at the Town Park northwest of the dam, and use of many private piers and docks along the lake
shoreline. Use of these facilities will be somewhat impaired by the normal pool elevation being 1.3 ft lower
than the prevailing elevation when these structures were built, but they will at least be usable again. Scrub
and sapling vegetation that has grown up in recent years in the lower one-third of the lake will be cleared
prior to filling, to minimize the risk of clogging the low-level drain gate and posing a hazard to swimmers and
boaters. Removal of this material will also reduce the organic decomposition load in the lake and thus the risk
of oxygen depletion downstream when the low-level gate is opened for minimum release flows (see
Responses to Agency Comments item #8).
No stream or wetland impacts will occur in the proposed dam and spillway construction footprint; only open
waters associated with the existing dam and spillway structures occur within the construction footprint. The
permanent impact to these open waters from demolition and construction is 0.89 acre, as depicted in the
March 2016 IP application. Temporary impacts from cofferdams will also occur, but these impacts are within
the footprint of the subsequent permanent impacts, and thus do not represent any additional impact beyond
the permanent impacts. The lake will be refilled following spillway completion and NC Dam Safety inspection,
hopefully during the first few months of 2017. Refilling during the coldest months will reduce the risk of
oxygen depletion, and facilitate maintenance of the assigned minimum release flow of 38 cfs below the dam.
At 104 ft elevation, the restored lake will re -impound about 2,500 ft of semi -impounded open -water channel
(4.72 acres) and 11,400 ft of free-flowing streams including 8,500 ft of Little Rockfish Creek, 1,100 ft of
Buckhead Creek, and 1,800 ft of unnamed minor tributaries. Roughly three-fourths of the free-flowing stream
reaches affected (8,300 ft) will be flooded above their banks and will become open water lake habitat. The
remaining one-fourth (3,100 ft) in the upper reaches will be impounded at or below their bank elevation and
will retain their existing stream characteristics, but will become deeper and slower -flowing.
Wetland impacts of the build alternatives are herein revised using more accurate topographic data than we
had available when the IP application was submitted in March 2016. The 104 -ft pool area contains 10.4 acres
of existing forested wetlands and 9.1 acres of existing marsh/scrub wetlands. The marsh/scrub wetlands are
mainly in areas that will be flooded with two ft or more of water, and will become non -wetland open water
areas. The forested wetlands are in areas that developed as lake -fringe swamp forests prior to 2003, and will
remain forested wetlands. Understory and groundcover species composition will change after re -flooding, as
non -flood -tolerant species that colonized these sites in recent years die out, but canopy trees are expected to
remain essentially unchanged. Additional areas of former lake -fringe swamp forests that were dewatered by
draining of the lake (not currently wetlands) will have wetland hydrology restored. These impacts are
discussed in the Alternative Mitigation Plan (Appendix D). The acreage of forested wetlands to be re -hydrated
far exceeds the acreage of marsh/scrub wetlands that will be lost due to inundation.
If and when the spillway is raised to 105 ft, stream impacts will change little relative to the 104 ft spillway.
Because the stream reaches affected by the 105 foot pool are almost entirely in the upper end of the lake, and
are predominantly deep E -type sinuous channels, the predominant effect will be an increase in water depth
and slightly reduced velocity, but negligible conversion of stream habitat to open water habitat.

The 105 ft pool area contains an additional 3.6 acres of existing forested wetlands (beyond the 104 ft pool)
and 0.4 acre of existing marsh/scrub wetlands. As explained above, the forested areas survived for 80 years
with the original 105.3 ft spillway elevation, and the canopy trees should not be adversely affected. Only the
recently -colonized understory and groundcover species that cannot tolerate prolonged inundation will be lost.
The additional one foot of water on the marsh/scrub wetlands may either cause theses areas to become open
water (non -wetland) or swamp forest, depending on whether saplings of bald cypress and other trees tolerant
of long-term inundation have already colonized these sites.
Approximately 9.8 acres of dewatered (non -wetland) lake -fringe forest exists between the 104 and 105 ft
contours around the upper end of the lake, and will have wetland hydrology restored if the spillway is raised
to 105 ft, as discussed in the Alternative Mitigation Plan (Appendix D). The net effect of raising the spillway
from 104 to 105 ft will thus be a positive impact for wetland acreage.
Restoring the lake will also yield an economic benefit to the Town and to local businesses along Main Street
that previously relied on lake users as a significant part of their customer base. Future expansion and
improvements to lakeside facilities and the Heritage Park Museum focusing on life in the Mill Village are
expected to further increase the area's value as a regional attraction, drawing more users and more economic
support for local businesses.
Project Alternatives - Build New Dam at Another Location
The Town of Hope Mills developed around Hope Mills Lake and its associated cotton mill and mill village
community. The recreational, economic, historic, and aesthetic values of the lake are closely linked to its
downtown setting and easy accessibility to local residents. There is no other practicable location alternative;
the only sensible location for the replacement spillway is in the vicinity of the failed one. Building a similar -
sized lake elsewhere would require impacts to non -impounded streams and probably riparian wetlands with
far greater adverse impacts than restoring the lake at its current location. Site investigations and land
acquisition for a new site would be lengthy and expensive, and would likely be more disruptive to existing
homes and other land uses than reuse of the existing lake site would be.

ABANDONED MILL WATER 1
POWER INLET STRUCTURE \
owl l
w low
now
10,
ex
�\ '\� I I I ELEVATED 48 DIAMETER STEEL
�\\ 11 �I I \ SANITARY SEWER PIPEVI
100
\�\ \
IJ'mol \`\ THIS AREA TO BE RE -GRADED AND - — — — \\\ / I / /\ �^O� \&
RESTORED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.-- — — ` \ \ / - -\
NCDOT CLASS II RIPRAP
Ef
coTHIS AREA TO BE RE -GRADED AND ° ° o w
-•— — - - NCDOT CLASS B RIPRAP
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DRAIN OUTLET I OR CONCRETE RUBBLE RESTORED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS\\ W
\ SEE DETAIL 7 ON DWG S-12. SLOPE GRADING I \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DRAIN OUTLET
TO DRAIN. ��---'110
\ / N EE DETAIL 7 ON DWG S-12.. SLOPE GRADING TO DRAIN.
00' l 1 /� /' ►�. \n to
/// / ` �'� / Jai \\ �� / / / /moi /�'�i�C-i►_► °\�\\ z Z
Q
40
_ _ _ __ \ \
� � — �— PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE I \ ♦ � \�\� S
\ ie / X x 110
III I Ill Lu
lu Ua
LABYRINTH CYCLES AT EL 105.0 l \
+���� LABYRINTH CYCLES AT EL 104.0 _ NCDOT CLASS B RIPRAP `�\ \ \
\ • �� / / i�
110,
100 o OR CONCRETE RUBBLE \`� , \
'� \\ ice/ I /// / / \� /�Q5
C /I ,: / �\
\ Ste44l / �e
/1001iC \ / // 100 100 \\♦ \`\�\
110 110
o O
\ 1+00 / ♦ '" \ \ \ \
1 / 1 +50 2 00 2+50 3+ 0 3+50 +0 +5 +0 5+50 6 0 6+50 7+ 0 7+50 ♦\ \ 1 8+001 1 Waft U
00 00
\ \ c
00 B-04 B-04�
00 00
w
®� �` `/ /' a 110 110 \ � \
00
00 00 1 2 3 4 5 --------------- ----- \ �L� \ \�� = w
0
'I'D PROPOSED DAM BASELINE / \ \ __ __ JJ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
11111 11111����111 1111111111111111111111111111���,����„1;1111 11, -111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111 \
11 111111 Til
111111111111111111 ---___ \ o
100 ���� ������ ����������������������������������������� 100 \ \ \ \ LFI `� f A
\ \ \ \ \♦ �� \�\ w
i 11111111 11111 111111111111111111�1111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111_ o ° �!°. \ \\
NCDOT CLASS B RIPRAP FROM EL 105 TO EL 108
LOW-LEVEL DRAIN GATE
� � LF♦ `er
DEMOLISHED CONCRETE RUBBLE FROM X 1 \ ����������,,,,- - -
SEE DWGS S-22 TO S -23__i __11
EL 105 TO 102 OR LOWER / \ I I �����- - - -- - -��������������������Di����� 1 1 \ \ ♦ _ \\ � \ .
L I \
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 _ \ \ N C D OT CLASS B R I P RAP FROM EL 105 TO EL 108
,,,,,,����„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, DEMOLISHED CONCRETE RUBBLE FROM EL 105 TO 102 OR LOWER
/ I /1 �1� 1\ I \ 1 \ \ —90 „�,1„�1,1��, 1,11, �, 11, �1,1��1,��11, 1, 11,1�111�111111111, 111111 11, 111,111 �,11�11,�1„111,1,11—I I_
/ 1 \
���������-III I J I _ � \ \\ \ \ \ ` \L ♦ \\o �' �
90 o z
� � \ f I I \ \\ ��\ �� 90 llll\\ \\\\ \ \ \\\ \° \� J J
DEMOLISHED CONCRETE DISPOSAL AREA �' I \ \ O
TOP EL. 86.0
o w U
04
04 Lu
1 1 I 2 \ 2 \ 3 3 4 \ \ i \ \ \\ 2 0
I
B-05 I I \ B-05 \ B-04 \\\ B-04 B-05 — B-05
� � LL = O
1 \ 1
/ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ C`I �' — — — \\\ i�°( I (_ \ \ \ \ \L ♦\\ o LL z
I I I / 1 / I \ \ \\ �� \\\I I I \ \ \ rte\ \ �' \\ \ \ \ I ��\�\ I I� 1 I I I I \ \ \ \ ♦yy z o vi
ozJ
a O
l \ \ �� > \ \ ,( \ \
\�\\ \ / \\ \ \\\\ I �5 jll \ �� oI I / / > I LF w
U o
Lu
I \ I I 1 \ 1 \ \\ l
/ \ /
Tw<01
z
0
a
U)
0
LU
0
O U
0_
N �
U �
H rn z m
c
0 LLo °v
U) N0
y
U �
�w
w�
Z Z N
zLu :�
Z uJ O co
LU Z
W U c co
ED 2 Lo
a J co v
z O
Y
U ON
Q M
��
z
J
z
Q
J
Q
z
LL
IN
\ I\ I / / I ( 1 / \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \►'►iia \�
1 I J 1 \ \ \ / \ \ \�s� \ \ \ \ I \ t l \ I \ o
Lu
\ ��wo moo ��Iq
�a� \ EXISTING FIBER OPTIC CABLES \ ��� ( \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ I I \ I
\ / I I I I I I 1 _\� / \\ ----- ♦® ,�\! '� \ \ Z \ \� \\ \ �� \\ \\ \\ ,III \� \ \ \ \� \\ \� \ 1 I U)
W I I I 1 1 / � ��� � � \ \ ♦� \
\ \ \ \ z
Owl now
00
00 00
\ Lu
00 00 Nl
�\ — \ i �\ \ _ 1 I I a\ PROJECT: 15821009.00
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION = 9.08 ACRES \ mill
/
` awl
��:, \ �, `\. ,�. �♦ `, `/ / �, \ DATE: MAY 2016
� FINAL GRADING PLAN
1 SCALE: 1 ”=30'
FLOW
0 30' 60'
DRAWING NO.
B-03
SHEET
13 OF 53

FOUNDATION GRADE
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
�R
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 0 0�
w
SLURRY CUT-OFF WALL DETAIL n
SCALE: 1"=10' � R
0 10' 20' / v
110
100
.8
70
170
160
Ln0
N
N
N
co
EXISTING GRADE
w
z
a
o
w
w
O
STATION
Z
W
L
L
901
150
JU)0
J
1 EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE PROFILE
a
u
J
LL
O
0
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
FINAL
GRADING
W
0 30' 60'
a Q
CUT-OFF WALL EL 108.0
L
=O�
J
80
W
W ('
LABYRINTH SPILLWAY SEE
z
LABYRINTH SPILLWAY SEE DWGS
Y
_
N N
S-01 THROUGH S-32 FOR DETAILS.
120 O
L
EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE
m
U
z
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
z
m
rn
pCLO
c
U
U
U
w
j
160.50'
90
DWGS S-01 THROUGH S-32
70
EL 110.0
z
�
U)
m
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL 9 ON DWG B-10
EL 104.0
U
W
U)
U)
wLuC
Lu z
CC
FOR DETAILS
J
0 o
Jw
U
CD
Ln
80
uJ
EL 110.0
m
Mm
17.50'1—
7.50'
EL 105.0
Y
4
60
o
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
o N
O
�W U
Q ~
70
6" DIAMETER SLOTTED WALL PVC PIPE EL 74.5
U)
W z
1
1
EXISTING
EXISTING GRADE
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
CORE FILL EL 108.0
F
a
60
m
120
TOP OF
EXISTING CONCRETE
PROJECT: 15821009.00
TOP
86.0
OF SLAB
N
DATE: MAY 2016
- 3
1.5
B-04
SHEET
14 OF 53
__7
A7T] -FT -T
10.00'
10.00' EL 78.0
3.50'
r
2.50'
I
7.50'
E L 82.0
22.00'
4.00'
2.50'
EL 78.5
15.00'
L�
=
--
— _
ip— I"
2.00'
EXISTING
GRADE
RAL
L—__—
���
1.50'
1-5.50-
1
1
15.00'
1.
3' OF CLASS II RIPRAP
1.00'
�\
1
—
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0'
15.00'
_ _ _
FOUNDATION
EXCAVATION
GRADEEMBANKMENT
CORE FILL
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION GRADE
— —
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ J
— — _ � �
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION GRADE
TOP OF SLAB EL 86.0
SLURRY CUT-OFF WALL
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM 0.5' OF NCDOT #57 STONE
BOTTOM OF DOWNSTREAM STILLING BASIN SLAB
15' SLURRY WALL
SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET
SLURRY CUT-OFF WALL DETAIL n
SCALE: 1"=10' � R
0 10' 20' / v
110
100
.8
70
170
160
Ln0
N
N
N
co
EXISTING GRADE
w
z
a
o
w
w
O
STATION
Z
W
L
L
901
150
JU)0
J
1 EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE PROFILE
a
u
J
LL
O
0
140
FINAL
GRADING
W
0 30' 60'
a Q
130
L
=O�
J
80
W
W ('
W
z
LABYRINTH SPILLWAY SEE DWGS
Y
_
N N
S-01 THROUGH S-32 FOR DETAILS.
120 O
L
EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE
m
U
z
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
z
m
rn
pCLO
c
U
U
U
w
j
8 v
p
90
110
70
z
z
�
U)
m
w�
z z
SEE DETAIL 9 ON DWG B-10
60
U
W
U)
U)
wLuC
Lu z
CC
J
0 o
100 J
0
EXISTING GRADE
w
z
LI
w
w
O
STATION
Z
W
L
L
901
JU)0
J
1 EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE PROFILE
a
u
J
LL
O
0
0
FINAL
GRADING
W
0 30' 60'
a Q
Q
L
=O�
J
80
W
W ('
W
o o�
LABYRINTH SPILLWAY SEE DWGS
Y
_
N N
S-01 THROUGH S-32 FOR DETAILS.
66.50'
L
EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE
m
U
z
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
ALIGNMENT
m
rn
pCLO
c
U
U
U
w
j
8 v
p
90
Z
O
70
z
z
�
U)
m
w�
z z
SEE DETAIL 9 ON DWG B-10
60
zU)
>(0 L co
co
50
wLuC
Lu z
CC
J
Jw
1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 4+00 4+25 4+50 4+75 5+00 5+25 5+50 5+75 6+00 6+25 6+50 6+75 7+00 7+25 7+50 7+75 8+00
0
EXISTING GRADE
w
z
CREST
U
104.0
O
STATION
Z
W
L
L
JU)0
J
1 EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE PROFILE
a
u
J
LL
O
_03 SCALE: 1"=30'
FINAL
GRADING
W
0 30' 60'
a Q
Q
L
=O�
J
L
W
W ('
W
o o�
LABYRINTH SPILLWAY SEE DWGS
Y
_
N N
S-01 THROUGH S-32 FOR DETAILS.
66.50'
L
EMBANKMENT CENTERLINE
m
U
z
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
ALIGNMENT
m
rn
pCLO
c
U
110
W a
w
j
8 v
p
90
Z
O
z
Z Of
w
p W
(D ;T
�
U)
70
w�
z z
SEE DETAIL 9 ON DWG B-10
vi
zU)
>(0 L co
co
W
wLuC
Lu z
J
Jw
U
CD
Ln
80
uJ
a J
m
Mm
z
Y
4
60
o
U
60 1 11 1 11
-120 -110 -100
110
100
all
70
60
-120 -110 -100
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30
Ac
100
EXISTING GRADE
SLAB
z
CREST
EL
104.0
O
Z
W
110
JU)0
J
a
J
LL
O
FINAL
GRADING
W
0 0-
J
=O�
E
p
100
W
W ('
0LL=LO
o o�
((��
Plo
z
UID
N N
d
H
U
z
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
c
Lu
rn
pCLO
c
U
)NCRETE SLABO
w
j
8 v
p
90
Z
O
z
Z Of
w
p W
(D ;T
�
U)
70
w�
z z
SEE DETAIL 9 ON DWG B-10
vi
zU)
>(0 L co
co
W
wLuC
Lu z
J
Jw
U
CD
Ln
80
uJ
a J
m
Mm
z
Y
4
60
U
o N
O
�W U
Q ~
70
6" DIAMETER SLOTTED WALL PVC PIPE EL 74.5
U)
W z
1
1
a
60
m
120
TOP OF
EXISTING CONCRETE
PROJECT: 15821009.00
TOP
86.0
OF SLAB
N
DATE: MAY 2016
- 3
1.5
B-04
SHEET
14 OF 53
10.00'
10.00' EL 78.0
3.50'
r
2.50'
7.50'
E L 82.0
4.00'
2.50'
EL 78.5
=
ip— I"
2.00'
1.50' STRUCT7!U
FILL
RAL
1.50'
1-5.50-
1.
3' OF CLASS II RIPRAP
1.00'
0'
FOUNDATION
EXCAVATION
GRADEEMBANKMENT
CORE FILL
1.00'
SEEPAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM 0.5' OF NCDOT #57 STONE
15' SLURRY WALL
SEE DETAIL 8 ON DWG B-10 GEOTEXTILE
60 1 11 1 11
-120 -110 -100
110
100
all
70
60
-120 -110 -100
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30
Ac
100
SLAB
z
Qrr^^ Q
V)
90
O
Z
W
110
JU)0
J
a
J
LL
O
Lu
W
0 0-
J
=O�
E
p
100
W
W ('
0LL=LO
o o�
((��
Plo
z
UID
N N
d
H
U
z
c
Lu
rn
pCLO
c
U
)NCRETE SLABO
w
j
8 v
p
90
Z
O
z
Z Of
w
p W
(D ;T
�
U)
70
w�
z z
��
N N
vi
zU)
>(0 L co
co
W
wLuC
Lu z
J
Jw
U
CD
Ln
80
uJ
a J
m
Mm
z
Y
4
60
U
o N
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 CO
SPILLWAY PROFILE AT STA 4+35
SCALE: 1"=10'
0 10' 20'
NOTE:
1. STRUCTURAL FILL IS ONLY TO BE USED UNDER SLABS / FOOTINGS AND MEETS
SHELL FILL REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT COMPACTED TO 98% ASTM D698.
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
3 SPILLWAY PROFILE AT STA 4+96
C _03 SCALE: 1"=10'
0 10' 20'
Qrr^^ Q
V)
Z
W
110
JU)0
J
J
LL
O
Lu
0 0-
=O�
100
0LL=LO
O
Q J
)NCRETE SLABO
J
90
Z
O
a
I-_ O
L _
U)
W
J
80
uJ
Z
of
LL 0
O
�W U
Q ~
70
U)
W z
a O
a
60
m
120
a
0
PROJECT: 15821009.00
N
DATE: MAY 2016
m
DRAWING NO.
B-04
SHEET
14 OF 53

Hope Mills Dam Public Comments & Responses
APPENDIX C. Lake Advisory Committee & Citizen Support
June 2016 Town Board decision to pursue 104 -ft spillway elevation
Charter for Hope Mills Lake Advisory Committee
Town Ordinance Chapter 62: Use of Hope Mills Lake
Citizens Letters Pertaining to Hope Mills Lake Restoration

PUBLIC STATEMENT
From: The Hope Mills Board of Commissioners
To: Public Release
Re: Ilope Mills Lake Elevation
Date: June 16, 2016
Tonight, the Dope Mills Board of Commissioners held a public meeting to discuss the
elevation of the Hope Mills Lake. The Town has been pursuing a new dam with a lake elevation
of 105 feet, but the Town recently became aware that citizens have expressed concerns to the US
Army Corps of Engineers about possible flooding. In response, the Army Corps has delayed
issuance of the Town's requested 404 wetlands permit, and the Army Corps has indicated that
resolution of the property owners' concerns is very important precondition to the issuance of the
404 permit. It is uncertain when and at what cost the Town will be able to resolve the property
owners' concerns. Moreover, the Town recently became aware that the bridge over Lakeview
Road needs repairs, which may cost more than $600,000.000, and these repairs need to be
completed in the same timeframe as the construction of the new dam. Permitting delays are
already anticipated to cost the Town a month of time.
The Town's engineers, attorneys and other advisors have conferred with the Army Corps,
and our advisors have determined that lowering the lake level to 104 feet will be the most cost-
effective and most time -certain way of proceeding forward with the dam project. If the Town
lowers the lake level to 104 feet, the Town will likely be able to keep the dam project on track
and within budget. If the Town continues to pursue a lake elevation of 105 feet, the costs of the
project remain uncertain, and it is unclear when and if the dam project will be able to resume.
Given all of these uncertainties, the Board of Commissioners believes the most fiscally
prudent course of action is to proceed withan elevation of 104 feet. r
Jackie Warner, Mayor QaL_L( a�Date tD - C (o
Bob Gorman, Mayor Pro Tem Ue,�,71 '_ Date Gr� —ZG -/�
J
Edwin Deaver, Commissioner �C!- Date d�a_)4
Pat Edwards, Commissioner _hi�t1/ _ Date ed
ol
Jerry Legge, Commissioner Date
Bryan Marley, Commissioner t/1 • r Date 10 -

To: Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners
Town Manager John Ellis
Town Clerk Melissa Adams
From: Mayor Jackie Warner
Re: Lake Restoration Committee to Become Lake Advisory Committee
Hope Mills Lake holds special meaning and countless memories—whether you fish, bird watch, boat,
swim or simply enjoy the peaceful serenity the water provides. The Hope Mills Lake Restoration
Committee did not get off to a good start to be involved in the phases of selection and contract
formation therefore I would like to recommend a new name so that the committee can move forward to
preserving our valuable resource by stimulating interest from a variety of groups with a shared vision for
a restored and improved lake. This new Lake Advisory Committee would consist of the current
members of the LRC if they choose to remain. The committee would "advise and make
recommendations" regarding the issues:
(1) Revision or recommending policy regulating the construction and use of structures on Hope Mills
La ke
(2 Recommendations for enforcement of regulations to create a safer environment for all who use the
lake
(3) A community network that could handle warning and clean-up operations before and after major
storms
(4)Recommend various ways of improving fishing in Hope Mills Lake and review current boat regulations
(5)Recommend uses of swimming area to include other recreational uses
(6) Long range—recommendations if needed for silt removal, dredging and other methods that could
improve eco -system of lake
(7) Consider the potential liability of the town for injuries occurring on the lake
(8) Receive a monthly update from Mr. Kevin Lugo about the progress of the dam to include time -line
for construction ---Mr. Lugo would be a non-voting member of the committee along with the
commissioner that is the liaison
The committee would make recommendations to the board through the commissioner liaison and
would meet by notice to the public.

Hope Mills, NC Code ol'Ordinances Page I of 8
ARTICLE II. - HOPE MILLS LAKE
DIVISION 1. -GENERALLY
Sec. 62-31. - Use of proceeds.
Monies derived from the operation of the Hope Mills Lake shall only be spent to carry out and
improve the programs under the jurisdiction of the parks and recreation department.
(Code 198S, § 101,20(A))
Sec. 62-32. - Hours open for use.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to be on or upon any part of the park and recreational area
adjacent to Hope Mills Lake between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and sunrise daily, and no sunbathing
or wearing of a bathing suit is permitted on Sunday before 12:30 p.m.
(b) It shall be unlawful to swim in Hope Mills Lake except during the following periods: from April 1
through September 30 of each year, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturdays, and 12:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. No swimming shall be allowed in such lake
from October 1 to March 31 of each year.
(Code 1985, § 101.21(8), (C); Ord. of 9-17-95, § 1)
Sec. 62-33. - Swimming.
No charge shall be made for swimming in Hope Mills Lake. Swimming shall be limited to that area
of Hope Mills Lake which is appropriately designated for swimming, which shall be separate from
boating areas. Swimmers shall swim in the Hope Mills Lake at their own risk. It shall be unlawful for
any person to swim in Hope Mills Lake who is under the age of 14 years unless that person is
accompanied by an adult supervisor. An adult supervisor shall be considered as any person who has
attained 18 years of age. The town shall not be liable for any injury or damage resulting from the use of
Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101,200)
Sec. 62-34. - Closure.
The board of commissioners reserves the right to close the Hope Mills Lake and adjacent
launching, parking and recreational facilities to all boaters upon two weeks' notice. The notice shall be
posted at the lake launching site in writing.
(Code 1985, § 101.20(G))
Sec. 62-35. - Illegal conduct.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in illegal conduct in the park and recreational area
adjacent to Hope Mills Lake. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, display, use, or consume
any alcoholic beverage in the park and recreational area adjacent to Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101.21(A))
Sec. 62-36. - Littering prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to throw trash, debris, or other litter or materials on the Hope
Mills Lake or any property adjacent thereto.
about:blank 61" 16/2016

Hope Mills, NC Code ol'Ordinances Page 2 ol'8
(Code 1985, § 101.22)
Cross reference— Solid waste management, ch. 78
Sec. 62-37. - Proper swimming and sunbathing attire.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to swim in the nude or otherwise go nude in Hope Mills Lake or
at the facilities adjacent thereto.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to swim or sunbathe in any attire that exposes more than half
of the buttocks. This includes spray -on, paste -on, glued -on or so-called dental floss, string or
thong bathing suits.
(Code 1985, § 101.23)
Sec. 62-38. - Dogs.
It shall be unlawful for any person maintaining a dog in his possession and control to permit the
dog to enter on to or be on or upon the premises of the park and recreation area adjacent to Hope
Mills Lake at any time.
(Code 1985, § 101.21(D))
Cross reference— Dogs, § 10-41 et seq.
Sec. 62-39. - Mistreatment of animals.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person within the corporate limits of the town, or on any lake or
stream of water within the corporate limits of the town, to willfully overdrive, overload, wound,
injure, torture, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill,
or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tortured, tormented,
deprived of necessary sustenance, cruelly beaten, needlessly mutilated or killed as aforesaid, any
useful beast, fowl, or animal.
(b) In this section, and in every law which may be enacted relating to animals, the words "animal" and
"dumb animal" shall be held to include every living creature; the words "torture," "torment," or
"cruelty," shall be held to include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical
pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted. Such terms shall not be construed to prohibit the
lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the wildlife resources commission.
(Cade 1985, § 101.29(8))
Cross reference— Animals, ch. 10
State law reference— Cruelty to animals, G.S. 14-360.
Sec. 62-40. - Feeding of ducks prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in feeding water fowl or any other animal within the
park area adjacent to Hope Mills Lake.
(Ord. of 3-4-02, § 1)
Secs. 62-41-62-55. - Reserved.
DIVISION 2. - BOAT PERMITS
Sec. 62-56. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
about:blank 6/16/2016

I -lope Mills, NC Code of Ordinances Page 3 01' S
Motorboat means any boat that has an internal combustion engine on board.
Nonmotor boat means a sail boat, row boat, canoe, paddle boat or any other boat that does not
have an internal combustion engine on board.
Wake means a clear and substantial wave action from the operation of a boat, craft or device, that
causes any other boat, craft or device of any kind, type or description whatsoever to be interfered with,
moved or rocked, or which would be likely to interfere with, move or rock another such boat, craft or
device, if such a boat, craft or device were on the lake nearby. It shall also mean any wave action that
causes a clear and substantial disturbance of the water at any shoreline of Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(A))
Cross reference— Definitions generally, -Ll -2
Sec. 62-57. - Required.
No motor -driven boat of any description shall be operated on the Hope Mills Lake without a valid
permit for the operation thereof, issued by the town. Boat permits shall expire on March 31 of the year
following the year in which they are issued.
(Code 1985, § 101.20(8))
Sec. 62-58. - Lake attendant.
A lake attendant shall be on duty daily from April 1 through September 30 of each year. The lake
attendant shall maintain order and dispense applications for boat permits. Boat permits shall be
issued only by the designated town official, upon payment of the fees set forth in this division.
(Code 1985, § 101.20(C))
Sec. 62-59. - Regular permits.
(a) Any resident of the town with a lawfully registered motor boat (i.e., registered with the state) may
obtain a season permit by paying the currently required annual fee to operate the motor boat
from the town launch onto Hope Mills Lake. Nonresidents of the town may obtain a season permit
by paying the currently required annual fee to operate a motor boat from the town launch onto
Hope Mills Lake, but only a total of 20 such nonresident season permits will be issued by the town
to such nonresidents and only to the 0rst 20 applicants on a first come, first serve basis.
(b) Residents of the town may obtain a daily permit for the operation of a motor boat from the town
launch onto Hope Mills Lake by paying the currently required fee. Nonresidents of the town may
obtain a daily permit for the operation of a motor boat from the town launch onto Hope Mills Lake
by paying the currently required fee. Residents of the town may operate a nonmotor boat on Hope
Mills Lake without a permit. Nonresidents of the town may obtain a daily permit for the operation
of a nonmotor boat from the town launch onto Hope Mills Lake by paying the currently required
fee. Nonresidents of the town may obtain a season permit to operate a nonmotor boat from the
town launch onto Hope Mills Lake by paying the currently required fee, but only a total of 20 such
nonresident season permits will be issued by the town to such nonresidents and only to the first
20 applicants on a l=ust come, first serve basis.
(c) It shall be unlawful to operate a nonmotor boat from the town launch onto Hope Mills Lake except
between the hours of sunrise and one-half hour before sunset Mondays through Saturdays and
from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sundays. It shall also be unlawful to operate a nonmotor boat in
about:blanlc 6/16/2016

I -lope Mills, NC Code ofOrdinances Page 4 or 8
those areas of the Hope Mills Lake designated as special use permit areas except between the
hours of sunrise and 10:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. until one-half hour before sunset Monday
through Saturday and from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sundays.
(d) Resident and nonresident season permitholders are entitled to use Hope Mills Lake asset out in
this section, except when the lake is closed for any reason as determined by the town.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(B))
Sec. 62-60. - Special use permits—Residents.
(a) Special use permits may be issued to residents of the town for the purpose of testing, winterizing,
dewinterizing or demonstrating their motor boat or craft for sale. These permits may be issued on
a daily basis only to the owner of the boat or craft and shall be valid for a period of one hour only.
A fee shall be charged for such permit.
(b) Only one permit per day will be issued to such owner. The permit shall allow the holder thereof to
operate his boat or craft in that area of Hope Mills Lake so designated for use by special use
permitholders for a period of one hour only and during the designated time for the operation of
motor boat as outlined in this chapter. Upon the issuance of such a special use permit, the owner
of such boat or craft shall not be limited to a no wake speed in those areas of Hope Mills Lake not
designated as "no wake" zones. The designated town employee issuing the special use permits
shall have the final authority to determine all scheduling for the issuance of such permits. No more
than two such permits shall be issued for any given hour.
(c) This special use permit shall be in addition to any other permit required to operate a motor boat
on Hope Mills Lake. Upon a violation of any of the conditions of the special use permit, the town
shall have the authority to revoke the special use permit.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(0))
Sec. 62-61. - Same—Businesses.
(a) Seasonal special use permits for the purpose of testing, winterizing, dewinterizing or
demonstrating their motor boat or craft for sale, may be issued to any business or enterprise,
located inside the corporate limits of the town or within three miles of the town's corporate limits,
which business or enterprise has a primary business of maintaining or selling boats or boating
equipment. The fee for such seasonal permits shall be set from time to time for such a business or
enterprise located within the corporate limits of the town and for such a business or enterprise
not located within the corporate limits of the town, but located within three miles of the corporate
limits.
(b) Daily special use permits, for the purposes set out hereinabove, may be issued to any such
business or enterprise located within the corporate limits of the town for a fee as set from time to
time and to any such business or enterprise not located within the corporate limits of the town,
but located within three miles of the corporate limits of the town, for the currently required daily
fee.
(c) Any business obtaining a seasonal permit for the lawful use and under the guidelines in this
section need not schedule such use with the town; however, such business may have only one
boat on the lake at any given time.
(d)
about:blank 6/16/2016

I iope Mills, NC Code of Ordinances
Page 5 o F 8
This special use permit shall be in addition to any other permit required to operate a boat on Hope
Mills Lake. Upon the issuance of such a special use permit, the holder of such permit shall not be
limited to a no wake speed in those areas of Hope Mills Lake not designated as "no wake" zones.
(e) The permit shall allow the holder thereof to operate its motor boat or craft in that area of the lake
so designated for use by special use permitholders for a period of one hour only and during the
designated time for the operation of motor boats as outlined in this chapter.
(f) Upon a violation of any of the conditions of the special use permit, the town shall have the
authority to revoke the special use permit.
(Code 1985, § 101,26(D))
Cross reference— Businesses, ch. 18
Sec. 62-62. - Same—Insurance required.
No special use permit shall be issued as set out in this section in subsection (c) of this section,
unless and until the owner of such boat or craft presents to the town satisfactory evidence of liability
insurance coverage on such boat or craft and further executes an appropriate release to the town to
indemnify the town for any damages to the town or any other person for any damage resulting from
the operation of such boat or craft upon Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 701.26(F))
Sec. 62-63. - Display.
It shall be unlawful to operate a motor boat upon Hope Mills Lake without a boat permit issued for
that boat by the town being prominently displayed on the starboard side of the motor boat at all times
during its operation on Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(E))
Sec. 62-64. - Issuance agent.
All boat permits required by this division will be issued by the parks and recreation director or his
appointee.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(G))
Sec. 62-65. - Denial.
The parks and recreation department reserves the right to deny any request for a permit,
determined not to be in the best interest of the town.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(H))
Sec. 62-66. - Revocation.
The parks and recreation department reserves the right to revoke any permit, if the boat owner
does not abide by established policies, rules and regulations governing the use of Hope Mills Lake and
Park.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(1))
Sec. 62-67. - Duration.
The annual permit year under this division is from April 1 through March 31.
about:blank 6/16/2016

Hope Mills, NC Code of Ordinances Page 6 or 8
(Code 1985, § 101.26Q))
Sec. 62-68. - Maximum number—Total.
The total number of annual permits sold under this division shall not exceed 173.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(1q)
Sec. 62-69. - Same—Daily.
The total number of daily permits sold each day under this division shall not exceed ten.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(Q)
Sec. 62-70. - Fees nonrefundable.
All fees collected under this division are nonrefundable.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(M))
Secs. 62-71-62-85. - Reserved.
DIVISION 3. - BOAT OPERATION
Sec. 62-86. - Boating Safety Act adopted.
The provisions of G.S. 75A-1 et seq., the Boating Safety Act, are hereby incorporated by reference
and are hereby made a part of this Code the same as if fully set forth in this section.
(Code 1985, § 101.20(E))
Sec. 62-87. - Hours of operation.
Motor boats (observing no wake limitations) may operate on Hope Mills Lake between the hours of
sunrise to one-half hour before sunset Monday through Saturday, and between the hours of 12:30
p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Sunday. It shall be unlawful to operate a motor boat upon the Hope Mills Lake
except during the times set forth in this section and subject to the limitations set forth in this article.
(Cade 1985, § 101.20(D))
Sec. 62-88. - Boat launching area.
(a) The dock and boat launching area shall be restricted to launching and docking boats only. No
swimming or picnicking shall be allowed in the dock and boat launching area.
(b) It shall be unlawful to leave a boat unattended in the dock and boat launching area.
(c) Boats shall be launched and loaded only in areas designated for launching and loading.
(Code 1985, § 101.25)
Sec. 62-89. - Parking areas.
It shall be unlawful for motor vehicles with boat trailers to park in areas other than that designated
for vehicles with boat trailers to park. It shall be unlawful for motor vehicles without boat trailers to
park in the area designated for vehicles with boat trailers.
(Code 1985, § 101.24)
Cross reference— Parking, stopping and standing, -1 1 et seq.
Sec. 62-90. - Size of boats regulated.
Boat permits shall not be issued for boats in excess of 25 feet in length. No boat in excess of 25
about:blank 6/16/2016

Hope Mills, NC Code of Ordinances Page 7 0l' 8
feet in length shall be allowed on Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101,27)
Sec. 62-91. - Water skiing prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for the operator of any boat or craft to tow or otherwise pull any person at any
time or place on Hope Mills Lake with water skis or other similar device.
(Code 1985, § 101.28(A))
Sec. 62-92. - Operation near dam.
It shall be unlawful to operate a boat within 50 feet of the dam at Hope Mills Lake.
(Code 1985, § 101.28(8))
Sec. 62-93. - Counterclockwise direction.
It shall be unlawful to operate any boat on the Hope Mills Lake in a clockwise direction, except
when the boat is being launched or docked. All boats shall be operated upon the lake so that the boats
circle the lake in a counterclockwise direction.
(Code 1985, § 101.28(C))
Sec. 62-94. - Wakes.
(a) The following areas of Hope Mills Lake are hereby established as no wake zones:
(1) The area from the Hope Mills Lake boat ramp to the dam, the Iine of such zone running
parallel to the dam from the boat ramp to the side of the lake opposite from the boat ramp.
(2) On Sundays, the entire Hope Mills Lake is a no wake zone.
(3) The area of the lake north of the railroad trestle.
(4) The area of the lake north of the boat ramp to the train trestle shall be a no wake zone, except
for the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays, when such area is not
designated as a no wake zone only for special use permits issued to residents and businesses
under the provisions of sections 62.60.62-61 and 62-62
(b) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any boat, craft or device of any type or kind whatsoever, at
any time to operate said boat, craft or device on Hope Mills Lake in any manner so as to create a
wake, except for those boats authorized by special use permit.
(Code 1985, § 101.28(D), (F); Ord of 9-5-95(1), § 1)
Sec. 62-95. - Racing.
It shall be unlawful to operate any boat, craft or device to engage in racing on Hope Mills Lake,
except as may be specifically authorized by the board of commissioners.
(Code 1985, § 101.28071
Sec. 62-96. - Dangerous operation of motorboats.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motorboat on any lake or stream of water within
the corporate limits of the town carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the
rights or safety of others.
(b)
about:blank 6/16/2016

F -lope Mills, NC Code of Ordinances Page 8 of 8
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor boat on any lake or stream of water within
the corporate limits of the town without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a
manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motorboat on any lake or stream of water within
the corporate limits of the town while consuming any quantity of any alcoholic beverage.
(Code 1985, § 101.29(A)—(C))
Sec. 62-97. - Noise control.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor boat on any lake, stream, or body of water
within the corporate limits of the town if that boat is equipped with over transoms, open headers, or
any device which creates an unreasonable noise, or is of such intensity or duration as to be a nuisance
to others, or to be detrimental to the life or health of others.
(Code 1985, § 101.29(E))
Cross reference— Noise, § 34-26 et seq.
Sec. 62-98. - Fishing area designated.
(a) That area of the Hope Mills Lake north of the Seaboard Coastline railroad trestle is hereby
designated for fishing only. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a boat in such
designated area except for purposes of ingress and egress to the fishing area.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a boat while going to or coming from the fishing
area at such a speed or in a manner so as to leave any wake.
(Code 1985, § 101.32)
Sec. 62-99. -jet skis.
Jet skis will not be allowed to use boat ramps, or any other town property for access to the lake.
(Code 1985, § 101.26(N))
Sec. 62-100. - Removal of boats upon request.
It shall be unlawful for any person operating a boat of any description on the Hope Mills Lake to
fail or refuse to remove the boat from the waters of the lake when requested to do so by any law
enforcement of0cer, lake attendant, or other person having the authority to enforce this Code.
(Code 1985, § 101.33)
Secs. 62-101-62-120. - Reserved.
about:blank 6/16/2016

Zl, ZL
cx in1r n
jr re r� S +�►
�_ ak 1eve.._�a _ 11 �nd
La kre. •�. laO wit. n.��.�ur �wn _ ���.�� .m
k J ��a �rw►?X' .eak 1 �ll� fie.
UUa i_+° d:. 63 _ a n �_ `gyrus+ lb 5 I-elu
__.
will __. a4urv,_ our ... lake-� 4-a the .ttn4 raeo
loora.�► Jo (�r� 5a h

WOODLAND MANAGEMENT, INC.
P.O. I3ox 267 Hope Mills, North Carolina 28348 MARSHALL HARTSFIELD, .IR.
[phone] President/Registered Foresler
.lune 1, 2016
Mayor Jackie Walmer
P.O. Box 549
Hope Mills, NC
Dear Mayor Warner,
I am writing to you concerning Hope Mills Lake and the dam that will soon be
constructed to impound the waters of Little Rockfish Creek to create the lake. This letter is in
response to your inquiry concerning the water level in the new lake and it's effect on the Gordon
Butler Nature Preserve and other properties adjacent to the lake that I am familiar with
(including my own). I am also including some opinions and insights concerning the take bed
clearing that we discussed by telephone recently. 1 have discussed the lake level with Mr.
Johnny Randall, the Director of the N.C. Botanical Garden, and we are in agreement that a level
close to the original lake level (105 to 106 feet) would be preferable for the management of the
Gordon Butler Nature Preserve. The primary negative effect of low water level in Hope Mills
Lake and Little Rockfish Creek is difficulty with conducting; prescribed burns.
Because of the effort and money required to remove all of the trees and brush from the
lake bed I be]ieve that it would be best to do a minimal amount of lake bed clearing west of the
railroad tracks. The positive impact that clearing; has on aesthetics is relatively short lived (most
of the stems should rot and Bill over in 2 to 3 years). In addition, during the time that it takes for
most of the saplings to rot and fall over, the vegetation wi l l provide high val ue habitat for fish
and waterfowl. In my opinion, it would be sufficient to cut and remove only the largest tree
saplings to reduce boating hazards. It would be desirable in terms of wildlife and aesthetics to
leave some of the largest pond cypress saplings to become part of the new lake. The following is
a more in depth discussion of the two issues discussed above along with a summary of my
credentials.
I own a 2.17 acre parcel of land that borders Hope Mills Lake. My land is on the west
side of the railroad trestle and on the south side of the lake adjacent to Shirley Blake and Family.
My wife and I have lived on the property since August of 1987. I am a Registered Forester (N.C.
Registration # 789) and a Certified Prescribed Burner (4412). 1 have worked as a professional
forester in N.C. for over 32 years and have operated a consulting forestry business, Woodland
Management, Inc., for 25 years. My company assists with managing the 12 acre Gordon Butler
Nature Preserve which borders the westernmost end of Hope Mills Lake and a section of Little
Rockfish Creek. I have seen small and large lakes impounded and have witnessed the results. 1
have also talked with lakefront property owners in Hope Mills concerning the lake level and
clearing the lake bed. The following paragraphs summarize my observations and opinions
concerning the new lake.
Lake Level
My company assists with managing Gordon Butler Nature Preserve. The preserve was
created to protect rare and threatened plant species that are native to the coastal plain. One of
our prinnary management tools is prescribed fire which is used to mimic the natural historic fire
occurrence in this part of North Carolina. Periodic fires help to control vines, hardwoods, and
other perennials in the: understory that are competing with the rare and threatened brasses, (orbs,
and widerstory species. Hope Mills Lake provides an excellent fire break for prescribed burns
:long the north side of the lake where the nearest homes are located (Old Bluff Trailer Park).

t We have only conducted one prescribed burn in the Nature Preserve since the first dam failed in
2003. When we conducted that burn, we found that it was very difficult to control and
extinguish a fire in the old lake bed, This was due to the layer of organic material that had
accumulated in some areas along with the fibrous roots in the old lake bed and around the
cypress trees. Many of the cypress trees sustained fire damage. We would have liked to conduct
more burns, but were concerned with control issues and damage to desirable trees. I have spoken
with Mr. Johnny Randal with the N.C. Botanical Gardens. He and I are in agreement that a lake
level close to the original level (105 to 1061 ft.) would be bestfor the continuing management of
the preserve.
It has come to my attention that some landowners whose properties border Hope Mills
Lake or Little Rockfish Creek are in favor of a lake level that is lower than the original level.
Prior to the first dam breech in May of 2003, my neighbors and I enjoyed the Lake and the
variety of wildlife species that benefited from the impoundment. I never heard anyone complain
that the water level was too high or that it was adversely affecting their property in any way.
When the lake was restored in 2008 the lake level was significantly lower than its original level.
My neighbors and I were disappointed by the lower lake level but our pleasure and excitement
with having our lake back far outweighed any disappointment that we had. My wife and I will
be happy with having the lake back and will adapt to whatever water level is decided upon. I
think that the majority of landowners that are affected by the lake should rule. I will vote for a
level as close as possible to the original lake level.
Clearing the Lake Bed
It is my understanding that the contract for darn construction includes cutting and
removing all trees and brush up to the railroad trestle that crosses the west end of the lake. There-
is
hereis now some discussion concerning what degree of cutting and removal is needed west of the
trestle. If no cutting and removal is done, the visual impact of the saplings and brush standing
above the water will be substantial. The negative impacton aesthetics will be short lived
however, since the majority of the vegetation will die and break off within the first 2 years of
being inundated. During that time the tree saplings and brush will provide high quality habitat
for fish and waterfowl. The tree saplings that are now growing in the lake bed include IobiolIy
pines, pond cypress, black willows, and red maples. Most of these trees will die within I _ 2
years of the lake being filled. The exceptions are the black willows and the largest cypress
saplings. In order for these species to survive their tops must be sticking well above the water
level. From a wildlife and aesthetic standpoint, it would be desirable to leave some of the largest
cypress to become part of the new lake. I believe that only a minimal amount of lake bed
clearing is needed west to the railroad tracks. The largest tree saplings could be cut to remove
boating hazards. Cutting and removing all of the debris would be a large expense for a short
term cosmetic benefit.
Thank you for the opportunity to give some input into this matter. I will try to attend
some of the meetings so that I can stay involved. My wife and I are proud to be from I -lope Mills
and proud to have you as our mayor.

Dear Mayor Warner,
I was happy to hear that our new dam will bring back the water to its original historic Ievel and
that the new dam will be much smaller.
Hope Mills Lake is an important part of the community and I think everyone is excited to see the
work that is being; done.
I am looking; forward to the return of the lake. -
I would like to thank you and the elected for seeing that we get our "old" lake back to its former
glory.
Sincerely, //,"
Vt C- H-/+2- 0 L D r -14—R %, pcz
X69 C,4c,1
AIC—

Bear Mayor Warner and Hope Mills Board,
I am writing to thank you for all your efforts to restore Hope Mills Lake. I believe the community is
happy to see a smaller dam and the water level return to its historical level prior to the breach in 2003.
Last time the water came back more than two feet lower and the lake did not look like itself.
We are looking forward to once again seeing the lake we remember, and what has been part of Hope
Mills for well over a century.
Sincerely,
a�3y�
ce,

Dear Mayor Warner and hope Mills Board,
I am writing to thank you for all your efforts to restore Hope Mills Lake. I believe the community is
happy to see a smaller dam and the water level return to its historical level prior to the breach in 2003.
Last time the water came back more than two feet lower and the lake did not look like itself.
We are looking forward to once again seeing the lake we remember, and what has been part of Hope
Mills for well over a century.
Sincerely,

Dear Mayor Warner,
I am writing to express my support of the return of Hope Mills Lake to its original historic level. I am
pleased with the work I have seen and the progress. 1 am looking forward to seeing a "full" lake this
time around.
I was shocked when the water came back over two feet low when the now failed dam. We had been
told we were getting the "original" lake level back and that is what people expected.
I have lived in and around Hope Mills most of my life. I grew up learning to swim and fish in the lake.
Thank you for everything you are doing to get our lake back with a smaller dam and 145 asl water level.
Sincerely,

23/1-7AVZ19/�
Dear Mayor Warner and Hope Mills Board,
I am writing to thank you for all your efforts to restore Hope Mills Lake. I believe the community is
happy to see a smaller dam and the water level return to its historical level prior to the breach in 2003.
Last time the water came back more than two feet lower and the lake did not look like itself.
We are looking forward to once again seeing the lake we remember, and what has been part of Hope
Mills for well over a century.
Sincerely,
1V U��C
X101 4Jdl AIC 2834-9

Rear Mayor Warner,
I am writing to express my support of the return of Hope Mills Lake to its ori,gnai historic level. I am
pleased with the work I have seen and the progress. I am looking forward to seeing a "full" lake this
time around.
I was shocked when the water came back over two feet low when the now failed dam. We had been
told we were getting the "original" lake level back and that is what people expected.
I have lived in and around Hope Mills most of my life. f grew up learning to swim and fish in the lake.
Thank you for everything you are doing to get our lake back with a smaller dam and 105 asl water level.
Sincerely,

Dear Mayor Jackie Warner,
Thanks so much for helping get our lake back. I am happy to hear that it will look like the old
lake did before the Memorial Day Breach in 2003. We support the 105 water level and the idea
of a much smaller dam.
Looking forward to seeing our old lake back once again.
Sincerely,

Dear Mayor,
Thank you for helping restore our lake. I know it has been a community struggle.
People were disappointed with the over -built now failed dam and the lower water
level didn't look right. I am excited to see the water return to the historic level and
to see a smaller dam instead of the concrete monstrosity we have had to look at.
Keep up the good work?
Sincerely,
Kat-a+�.�

Dear Mayor Warner and Board,
I am writing to support of the return of Hope Mills Lake. I am especially happy to see the community
was promised to it return to its original level prior to the breach in 2003.
The lake we had with our now "failed" dam just wasn't itself. I am looking forward to seeing our "old"
fake back and happy to see so much progress on the demolition of the failed dam.
Thank you.

5/23/2010
Gmail
save the lake
2 messages
Grand = mw Ilila Inku
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Tracy Truett <[e-mail]> Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:01 PM
To: "[e-mail]" [e-mail]>
Good afternoon ,
I am writing in reference to support the getting the lake back to its formal glory, I have many memories as a
child spending my summers swimming at the lake, my children also spent many summer days at the lake as
well as making fourth of July celebrations a tradition every year. I would like to see that future generations of
hope mills citizen's have that tradition of not only celebrating independence but the memories of spending family
quality time on the shores of the lake. Our lake is the center piece of our town, homes, lives, and many
memories of the people.
thank you for your time
Tracy Truett
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Ta. Tracy Truett <[e-mail]>
Thank you
Sent from my Phone
]Quoted text hiddei]
Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24 PM
httos:llmaii.0000le.com/mail/ui(Y?ul=2&ik=ef9a56e34a&view=pems ■ M ':-r M • Mfr M c4.

5431 Thompson Circle
Hope Mills, NC 28348
May 21, 2016
To: The Army Corps of Engineers
Re: Support of Historic Lake Level for Hope Mills Lake
My husband, Bruce, and I have lived on Hope Mills Lake
since 1984. When the old dam failed, we watched a much lower
lake take its place. The water marks on the cypress trees across
from our lot showed that the lake level was a LOT lower than the
old lake. It was more like a puddle than a lake.
Then the replacement dam failed. We have waited for our
original lake to come back. We do not want to see a lake that is
at a lower water level than the historic level of 105-106 feet
above sea level. That level was in place for 90 years or so before
the old dam failed. That is where it naturally belongs and where
it should be.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
6�7�mx_� -42.
J�2
Loretta A. Armstrong

5123/2010 GmnlI - Support for 105 Level (H.M , Lake)
Gmail Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Support for 105 Level (H.M. Lake)
2 messages
[e-mail] [e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
TO THE MAYOR:
Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:57 PM
We are writing this concern regarding the new dam that we all are anticipating. I support the original level of the
lake as promised. 1 had lots of pictures from some years ago showing the lake level and those pictures are very
impressive and makes the area look very tasteful with the delight that I would sincerely be pleased to see again.
Our two sons grew up enjoying the lake and even though they no longer live in this area, they continue to show a
lot of concern for our lake. We send them pictures to show the progress that is being made. They have so
many fond memories of our lake and really want to see it returned to its original appearance.
We want to help make this dream come true by supporting the 105 level as promised.
Thank you,
Renouard & Mary Sanders
3626 Frierson Street
Hope Mills, NC 28348-1911
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Thank you
Sent from my Phone
[Quoted text hidden]
Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24 PM
F e ♦i4 f . - . ..
i is .. -♦ : � . s ::r . w ':- . '. 4 e a # � ' . � i Fr r e. t ! 6 ' i a i:... b r ' - 4 9.- 4

512312016
Gmail
Hope Mills Lake Restoration
2 messages
mgilmore0610 <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
OMNI - Hupu Mills L,Au Rt!,,1or4L1 Axa
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Sun, May 22, 2016 at 3:58 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Long term residents of Hope Mills have waited years to have our beautiful lake restored to its original state. It
Wouldn't be right unless it is completely restored back to its grandeur before the dam broke. My parents raised
me and my siblings in Hope Mills and we've been proud of our town and it's lake. Please return the center
attraction of Hope Mills back to its original slate.
Sincerely,
Mary Gilmore
Earl Gilmore (father)
Louise Gilmore (mother)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smiartphone
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]> Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:21 PM
To: mgiImore0610 <[e-mail]>
THANK YOU
[Quoted text hddenj
httos:llmailm000lecomlmaillidol?ui=2&ik=ef9a56e34a&viaw=nt&seam-h=inhnxRth=9rc4daffrAck:fn0r..Inn.Riml=l5driafh-.dorfanr:,mgimi=lrAd,p�7mnanha U4

To: Mayor Jackie Warner
From: Lisa Carter Waring
Dear Mayor Warner,
I am writing this concerning the restoration of Hope Mills Lake. Mike and 1 have lived on the lake for 14
years. We moved here in 2002 because we loved the town and the lake. Mike and his family are long, -
time residents of Hope Mills. We were devastated when on Memorial Day 2003, a torrential rain caused
the earthen dam to breach and we lost the fake. Citizens fought hard to get the lake back and when the
water returned in 2007, it obviously wasn't the lake we knew. As a Fayetteville Observer editorial aptly
stated, it was only "a shadow of its former self".
The lower water level left shorelines exposed and the public children's swimming area where children
come to swim in the summertime, became a wading area. The public floating docks were sitting on dry
land. There was barely any water under the community pier. The knees of the old bald cypress trees,
which line the lake were left exposed. We were disappointed because we were promised our old lake
would be brought back to the original level and it wasn't.
Through a Freedom of Information request, I was able to obtain a copy of the US Army Corp permit for
the dam. It stated that 106 asl was the original water level prior to the 2003 breach and the now failed
spillway was built at 104 asl.
We are now working on again restoring our lake. I attended the community meeting at the lake park
with the board members and engineer. We were so concerned that this time the water would come
back low, we wanted to see for ourselves the difference between 104 asl, 105 asl and 106 asl. The
engineer was kind enough to have a surveyor shoot grades to various structures in the lake to include
our docks, piers and shorelines.
It was very clear that those that attended the meeting would only be satisfied with 105 asl, knowing 106
asl (the historic level) would not be an option. The 105 asl level was marked with green paint. At the
following board meeting it was evident the community expected 105 asl for our new lake level. The
meeting room was packed with residents and everyone wore a green shirt to send a message to the
board. We were so pleased when the board approved the design at 105 asL
This community has been fighting this battle for well over a decade. We have the opportunity to get it
right this time. All we want is our beautiful lake back the way it looked prior to 2003, and over a hundred
years before that. We appreciate the smaller dam design that will take up less of the lake and
everything you and the board are doing to get this accomplished for the citizens of Hope Mills.
Sincerely,
Lisa Carter Waring

Mayor Jackie Warner,
Town of Hope Mills
PO Box 549
Hope Mills, NC 28348
2101 May 2016
Madam Mayor,
It has been brought to my attention that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
received a complaint by a citizen, in reference to the return of the Hope Mills Lake.
Please forward my comments in rebuttal of this complaint.
I had the distinct bad fortune to see the demise of the lake in 2003. I visited my
Mother-in-law the day after the Lake breached the dam and destroyed Lakeview Road.
This was a sad day not only for our family, but for all residents of Hope Mills. The Lake
had been a center -point of the Town for many years, and many folks locally and in
Town had been employed by the mills still functioning into the 201h century. The lake
was a place to celebrate July 4th, Old Mills Day and Christmas, amongst others. The
number of children and their parents that used to gather on the lakefront was notable.
Following the breach, the lakebed was nothing more than a rather smelly drainage
ditch, until vegetation started to grow and cover the mud. I was aware that the Town
was trying to rebuild the dam and refill the lake and I was in total support of this
endeavor. Due to my interest, and the fact I moved into my Mother-in-law's house, 1
became interested in the Friends of Hope Mills Lake, a non-profit organization to help
restore the lake. I closely followed the Town's progress in finding companies to rebuild
the dam and the search for funds to do so. The start of the rebuilding of the dam was a
tremendous boost to the morale of all Hope Mills- citizens, and many from areas close
by were happy to see the beginning of the construction.
Unfortunately, the restoration of the lake was doomed to fail for several reasons,
which are unimportant to this letter. One of the most notable complaints of the new dam
was the fact that it had a water lev6l"so much lower than the original earthen dam. This
caused the "swimming area" to be so low that swimming was in fact almost impossible.
Cypress trees that had been in the water were no longer even touched by the water,
and there was a visible line between the original water level and the current water. level.
This was definitely visible at the Town's boat ramp. Not only was it very difficult to
launch a boat, but the floating docks located by the ramp were sitting on dry land.
Citizens questioned the level of the lake and asked for it to be brought back to its
original level. We, the citizens, were told the level was 104 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL). There was a marker in the lake that showed a level of 104 feet on one side
(closest to the shore,!ine) bit with a level of 103 on the lake side. It has since been
proven that the lake neer came close to the oryginal levels it had prior to the initial

breach and was in fact probably just under 103, MSL, The original level was
determined to be between 106 and 105 feet MSL,
Having finally resolved the legal problems of the =it.gation for repairlrep,acement
of the dam the Town has contracted for a new dam to be built. Citizen demands
required the MSL of the lake to be 105 feet. It is understood that this might be slightly
less than the original level, but it is a level that the c'tizens can accept, and one that will
generally once again cover the cypress trees left dry. The ASI des'gners came to Town
to show the Board of Commissioners (BOC) and the citizens what the level of 105
would look like on various structures around the Town boat ramp. As a citizen I bought
a brass plaque and mounted it on one of the floating dock anchor poles on the level of
105 MSL, that the engineer indicated. This has been used to indicate to all citizens
where the water will be on completion of the dam.
Due to my interest in the dam 1 have volunteered to be on the Town's Lake
Advisory Committee, and currently serve as the Vice Chairman of the Committee. We
are dedicated to the restoration of the Lake and to ensure that it is once again the
centerpiece of the Town. We are working with the Historical Commission to link the
lake to the proposed Heritage Park just below the dam. It is our intent to consolidate
the Lake, the Paris and the Historical area of Town into an area citizens would be proud
to have others come and see the only remaining mill village. Without the lake there is
no mill, there is little need to commemorate the village. The lake needs to be restored
as close as possible to the original level, and we have accepted that as 105' MSL.
There is no argument that there have been questions on the level of the lake.
However, the return of the lake at 105' MSL will still be just under the original level. As
stated before this level has been accepted by the BOC and citizens. Anyone that
complains that they will "lose'" land due to the increese of level from 103' MSL to 105'
MSL is, unfortunately, failing to tell the whole truth The original level has been
determined to have been between 105 and 106' MSL, therefore this indiv dual has
already gained some land that will never be covered by the lake again. To demand that
the level be no higher than 143' MSL in order to gain land, never before available, is an
affront to the citizens of the Town.
Sincerely,
Rod MacLean
435 Fountain Lane,
Hope Mills NC 28348

H
�
� 3
o e
1
t
_
t�
3
i�
m V
n L' �'
w 4
'00 -A
am m c
o d
w e
to
to
C ICY.
C
w a ^
O
0
4
s f zm
m
0= m
m �_ Cl 3 .0
m
4 w
�_ m
c W w
n
w a a 3 w
i9 f w
w
w
m
w
-n
n m u
7
C
p�j T
0= oz
..,
0..
S
m
Q p C mm7
m
d
r
c
N
m
L
a ¢ 350
4
g
m Y
n 3 ': 0
b
$
c
3 ,�
ri
L
-u
w
CD
a
5. 3 c m
'o
v' v' m
�
-aa
m m
co 2 0
6
w m
m
to z a
A s
y
�
o
m e
Z
C
O d
p
L
©
'0
ry
m
h
W+
C
m d
Gln
m ®
a
O'
g
m
om
m
g
ra
o
� y
�
m a n ro
la,
.�
3
F m
0
W W G a
- .mom
�.b,r
In
in
r o m m n g n w W
Er
G
c$� 97 m
N
® p p
j d a= w q G
m
W
o
m W
M.
N
n
fm Z O 4
W W
N
0
o m
3 F
'09_ N m m m a
�
9
n
G7 'Ci
_
N C
a
N
O
m
co
c c m c m
a? o°
o
N x er
W a
v
a
n ffi m
w
3
� ce 3
FL M
ro
g
w 57 -0
m f p®
®
=
9D pO O m
3®
3
m g
m $ m c m a
=rf❑
Do - , C rr
0
5
t:z
v=
`c
®
a
d 0 3
-<m 'r am
tai
C +s m
O
in
— x 0 rr r 5F m
m m
®
O
O N
S
�y
® C &8S 0 m. p
m
N ^
p a
ua
C a
�' C31 d 'o
c
3
w
N a cc
m p� D ® m
4 3 a 0 2.
O W
C ci
N 7 m C �n. �"
- o
C
�' 6 O
N
v~ r 0 (D
A � O � ®
7 W
7 O
_
3 Je
eaa ca m w ^' 0 €t
0 r acr
0 m 3 a
N W 0 1 Oi a
CL m m m N ®
Q=¢ m N O
'0 Gt
W
#� Ej___
a
Mi bi Ell
IN
ff
Z m o
3 m c m 0 a+
Mr
rX
?� m 0 p
�
Ing
L W
n ?. ° m
a m ami
3 =,r
3
(fl
cn
d m g K d
d
`< 5 '� — 3
N® ai
C 0
m 7
» = d N
m n w q
m=
Qm. d
m ® Wm Sr w
t? 6 w
u
v n
w
W
n
w a
m
o a
C
®
CL
�j
w X 7 a G �'* C�
j
®
®
m
O^ m
:r
C
9
s
m
s
x
r
O
:s}
Q
a
tY`
1
t
1
t�
fx
i�
Q
a
tY`

512312016 HulxrMill5 conimisr, uners mnndale'hi�lorlc' lake level j Locnl Nuws I tuyubserver.com
A Ii4
GET HEWS ALERTS (http://www.fayobserver.com/email)
Breakin0 news & tap locni headlines b,, email from The Fayetteville Qbsewer, Sign tp for free, stop them am,=tme.
SIGN MC UP (htlp Ywww,fnyobservor.cumlemaiIs
Hope Mills commissioners mandate 'historic' lake level
From lhu Hope Mills dam (1hope-mills-dam/collecton_1`32'2`�6c-17B9•lioG-913f-5 j6OddblOc � hlrnl) e.eries
By Rodilur Mullen Staff writer Jul 20, 2015
HOPE MILLS - The town's centerpiece lake should be restored to its "historz elevation," the Board of Commissioners unanimously decided Monday
night.
The action was met by applause from the audience, some of whom wore green shirts to show their support for the higher elevation.
The board decided to go w:th the elevation of 105 feet above mean sea level instead of 104 without getting a preliminary cost estimate from ASI
Constructors, one of the firms chosen to build a new dam. The firm said the preliminary estimate would cost about an extra $14,000.
The town has not yet been given a cost estimate for the dam, which will replace one that failed in 2010.
It has budgeted $8 million for the project, to come from a $9.4million selt'ement the town won from the builders of the previous dam, which failed less
than two years after It we-, completed.
When the previous dam was built, residents complained the water level was lower than it had been with an 80 -year-old earthen dam that failed in heavy
rains in 2003. As a result, docks and other lakeside structures were too far above water.
While ASI and Schnabel Engineering haven't yet given the town a cost estimate for the dam, representatives from the firms have told the board that
bringing the lake to the higher elevation would cost an estimated $800,000 more and require a different dam design.
Commissioners had said they wanted a cost estimate, but Monday they decided to go with the higher water elevation before getting the estimate.
Commissioner Jerry Legge said he supported the higher elevation, but warned about the cost.
"We only have a set of money," Legge said. "if we can't build that dam for $9.4 million, we're In trouble. We're approaching the thin water mark now."
After the vote, board members said they thought It was right to Insist on the higher water level.
"Now it's up to us to make sure it stays where it is and it doesn't drop," Mayor Pro Tem Bob Gorman said.
Commissioner Pat Edwards said she was happy with the vote.
"I'm glad that 105 came through and we're all in agreement," Edwards said.
Some audience members wore green shirts because the higher water elevation was marked with green paint by Schnabel representatives at a lakeside
meeting last week.
The board also discussed possible attorney fees for the dam project.
Town Attorney T.C. Morphis Jr. said it Is difficult to estimate the fees. He said it will depend on whether the town has to acquire any property or go to
court over a trailer park that is partially In the lake's flood plane.
hrtn•ltwww favnhgprvpr.rnm/news/locaUhooe-mills-commissioners-mandate-historic-lake-level/article 2dg07640-e049- 9c13-4bbc55bO6b75.html 112

Ready for Another Crappie Day!
By
Lisa Carter Waring
The first time my husband announced he wanted to take me crappie fishing on
Hope Mills Lake, I thought to myself, "Why would I want to catch crappie fish?"
Little did I know that crappie were not only a legitimate kind of fish, they also
happen to provide southern sportsmen and women with one of the most fun
fishing experiences possible on a freshwater pond or lake. Why? I was told it
was because if you do happen to get lucky enough to catch one, they don't go
down without a good fight. I remember looking out at the lake that morning and
wondering if there were really all that many crappie fish out there. After all, Hope
Mills Lake, even in all her glory, was not the ocean. However, my husband
assured me there were plenty of fish out there and they were just waiting to be
caught. 5o being a good sport, I decided I would give it a try.
There were several important decisions that had to be made. The
first decision was to determine the necessary supplies for the fishing trip.
packed sodas, several sandwiches, crackers, chips and an extra large thermos

of coffee. I figured that if we somehow became stranded on the lake, we would at
least need enough grub to maintain us a day or two. The next decision
concerned appropriate fishing attire. I was told I should wear comfortable clothing
and rubber -soled shoes. I was also informed that sunglasses and a hat with a
brim were both required. These items would help cut down the amount of glare
from the water and keep the sun out of my eyes so 1 could see all the fish.
Sunglasses weren't a problem but I had to find a hat. After searching through
closets, I discovered an old baseball cap with the letter "T" on it like one I had
observed Bill Dance wearing on one of his Saturday morning fishing shows. I
figured if it were good enough for Bill, it would be good enough for me. I packed
it in with the rest of my stuff.
The final decision was securing the right bait, which according to my
husband, was probably the most important decision of all. So off we went to
Rita's Bait Shop. I had never been in Rita's Bait Shop so of course I had to look
around a little before shopping for bait. 1 was amazed to find all kinds of
interesting things in the store, ranging from fishing gear to groceries. There was
also a large tank filled with minnows. My husband announced that they would
make great crappie bait.
I peered through the glass at the tiny little fish swimming innocently
around in the tank completely unaware they were about to become crappie food.
I really felt sorry for them but was told we needed at least a couple of dozen. I
tried to pick out the bigger ones that looked like they could be able to get away.
As we left with our minnows, I had even started giving them names. My husband
informed me that it wasn't such a good idea, so I stopped looking in the bucket.
Armed with fishing poles and tackle, we put everything we had
accumulated in the boat and went out on the lake. My husband said we had to
search for what he called a "good spot." Funny, when you are on the water, all
the spots seem to look the same. We rode around a little while and he finally

brought the boat to a stop and threw out the anchor. He baited the hooks, which
1 refused to do for obvious reasons, and threw out the two lines in the water.
We both sat quietly and I stared at the orange bobber thing on my line
floating aimlessly around in the water. I was mesmerized by the sound of the
water rippling beneath the boat. After a while, my husband looked over at me and
asked, "What are you thinking about?" I replied "The orange bobber thing
floating around in the water." He said "Exactly] Isn't it great?" Believe it or not,
we did catch a lot of crappie fish that day and I learned a lot of things about
fishing. Interestingly enough, the most important thing I learned is that fishing
isn't really about catching fish. It is about experiencing nature, getting your mind
off the worries of life, just relaxing and listening to the sound of the water rippling
beneath a boat. It is about being in tune with oneself and being totally at peace. I
understand now why so many people like to fish and I am really looking forward
to the day I can once again go crappie fishing on Hope Mills Lake.
You know, I guess it's not so bad to have a crappie day after all!

5/2312016
Gmail
Return of HM Lake to 905'
2 messages
Rex Johnson <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
gmail.com
Gmnil r Ruturn of f I M Lnku to 105`
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Sat. May 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Mayor Warner
I would like to express my support for the Town returning our lake level back to it's historic level of 105ft. I grew
up in Hope Mills, and am now fortunate enough to be a lakefront property owner. It is with great joy that my
family and I anticipate the water level coming back to what it was prior to the 2003 breach.
Please continue the effort for a water level of 105ft on Hope Mills Lake.
Thank you,
Rex Johnson
3636 Lakeshore Dr
Hope Mills
Sent from my iPad
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
To: Rex Johnson <[e-mail]>
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden]
Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:43 PM
'� ■�#� ► �. 1 S -+_:.:. ,.' : 1,k• a-11,1pill 1111 �• 5 ti �1 ,r

51; 312016
Gmail
Lake
2 messages
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
LLI'RQt
Gin"d , Lilota
Jackie [e-mail]>
Sal, May 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM
would like to thank the Town of Hope Mills for returning
our lake to the original levels. It is very exciting to see that
the lake is coming back.
Thank You!
Agnes Lowder
FREE Animations for your email Click Here!
5
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]> Sat, May 21, 2096 at 1:43 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
htt3sJfmaiwowle com,"mai`1u14/?ui=2&jk=e &view=ot aarch=inhnx8th lS4r14.525f29Rafu cA.giml=15Arl4599; 7gQWA,Rc ml=lr"Ra1SRhriarQl 119

5/2312010 i-Isn Cnrtur Waring: Community uxpucts darn lu tw donu right this limu I liopri, Mill.,. I fnyobsurvor,con1
Start Downlond Ito
IiUkklonV0 YA&rr.1} iVEa6kcp11..4Vliel@at9
GET NEWS ALERTS (littp://www.fayobservor.coin/email) V
Briml%wO news to lop local headlines by uma from The F;ayetloville Obsurvu% Sign up for frne slop Them anytlrne
SIONM€OP tall{a:ClwwwJnyobsarver.cL4ii,t!mnYl)
Lisa Carter Waring: Community expects dam to be done right this time
From 1w Hope ME dam tfhopo-mills-dumlcolection 1327276c-1789.1106-913f-5b6G44b10crf,5 hlmlf series
Apr 1. 2015
In ft past few weeks, there has been a lot of activity in the empty Hope Mills lake bed.
Workers from Red Dog Drilling Co. ha,,v been busy collecting soil samples for repair of the dam. They have used large p'eces of equipment to bore
holes In the concIrate floor of the spillway; and I have to admit I am taking a little delight In watching the men and machinery tear away at the current
sl,uclure some refer to as the "concrete monstrosity."
It is good to see work get underway to restore the lake.
Hopefully, before loo long, the community will get to see a des gn plan to replace the current dam structure. Hopefully, we wit see a smaller dam that wfl
bring the lake back to its historic water level.
When the lake was restored n 2008, many expressed concern about the water level in the lake. There was not enough water to surround the community
fshing pier, the floating docks at the lake park did not float, the water did not reach the old boat ramp, and what was once the chrdren's swimm=ng area
was practically dry.
The small roped -off area had to be dug out just to get enough water for the children to wade, and doing so created a steep Incline on the bank of the
lake- The bank has since washed out and eroded from storm water.
In fact, one Fayeltev,le Observer adtorial actually referred to the lake as a "1 hadow of its former self."
We were told that the 103-foof water level in 2008 was computed using two aerial photographs taken 10 years apart. Evidently, 103 feel was at least two
to three feet lower than the historic water level which some estimate was between 105 and 106 feet.
The lower level resulted in about only 70 to 80 percent of the original lake surface restored.
According to a Pubit Notice issued for the construction of the failed dam by U.S. Array Corps of engineers In July 2004, the proposed project would
bring back the lake to the original elevation.
The notice goes on to stale that the information was taken from Informatbn provided to them by the applicants.
Obviously, something went very wrong last Vme.
The result of our $15 mill'on investment was a smaller, shallow lake and a failed dam.
As work gets underway, we have been assured that the new Design-Bui d team clearly understands the community expectation that it be done right th's
time.
We don't need another over -engineered, over-bui't dam that brings the water back two or three feet lower than its original history ievel.
We want our old lake back, and we want it to be there for generations to come.
htto://www.favobserver.com/news/hone 4i

512312016
M Gmail
Hope Mills Lake
message
Gmail , Hopu Mills Lnku
Megan Larson <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Megan Larson <[e-mail]>
Dear Mayor Warner,
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Sun, May 22, 2016 at 1:29 PM
I would like to personally thank you and the members of the board for all you are doing to restore Hope Mills
Lake. I have been impressed with the workers and am excited to see progress every day. I have such fond
memories of visiting the lake with my young daughter, who is now 27 years old and my son who is now 16 years
old. They loved feeding the geese.
Fourth of July fireworks over the lake were special for my family as well.
I am so happy that the old historical lake is returning and it will look like it did before. This will restore beauty to
what is now considered an eyesore in the heart of community.
Thank you again for everything that is being done.
Sincerely,
Megan Larson
Hope Mills Resident
Meg Larson
20160522�132434.jpg
2875K
httos-'imaii.0000le.com/mail/ut0l?ui=2&ik=ef9a56e34a&view=r)t&search=inbox&th=164d9B3bac6BB78b&siml=IW983bac6B878b III/. L'

5/2312016
Gmail
Lake Leel
1 message
patrick mitchell <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Jackie,
Gmail Lnka Lovnl
Jackie Warner <[e-mail]>
Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:11 PM
I would like to express my concern about the lake returning to the historical level of 105. 1 hope you can support
our community in this effort. Thank you so much.
Patrick Mitchell
WnwIlmail mmlarnmlmaiIhY(V?iii=9Rik=a(clnliAplda&viaw=ntAe,?arrh=inhnxRth=1Sdrih?n(M. 1AR49RcimI=1Wh2af7F. IU49 ill

June 1, 2016
To whom it may concern:
am writing to express my concern that the Hope Mills Lake will not be restored to its original
level of 105. When I first opened The Mill Antiques at the corner of Main and Trade in 20011
was delighted with the view I had of the lake and the stately homes with their boat docks on
the other side of the lake. It was a dismal day when the dam was breached in 2003 and very
frustrating that it took until 2008 to repair the dam and bring the lake back. I was happy when
they began to fill the lake bed but was disappointed when after a week the water level on the
docks was far below what it had been with the first dam making the launching of boats hard or
impossible. The docks were no longer functional or pleasant to look at. Cypress trees which had
been in the water were now ashore with the ring from the previous water level visible. The
Children's swimming area had been reduced to a small wading pool. Structures and foliage
whose beauty had been complimented by their proximity to the lake level were no longer
functional or had lost their appeal. It was not the original lake. That dam failed in 2010 and
now after many more years of frustration we are finally repairing the dam and are about to get
the lake back. It would be a disaster to make the same mistake and not bring the lake up to its
original level of 105!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Glenn
Concerned Business Owner of
The Mill Antiques
3700 S. Main St.

—M 04Vo2lj
a1
shah ou 0,

Hope Mills Dam Public Comments & Responses
APPENDIX D. Alternative Mitigation Plan for Wetland Impacts

APPENDIX D.
Alternative Mitigation Plan for Wetland Impacts at Hope Mills Lake
Background and Scope
Hope Mills Dam is located on Little Rockfish Creek 200 feet east of the intersection of Main Street (NC -
59) and Lakeview Road in downtown Hope Mills, Cumberland County NC (Lat = 34.973, Lon = -78.945).
MMI-RJGA submitted a Section 404-401 Individual Permit (IP) application to USACE and NCDWR on
March 2, 2016 for demolishing and replacing the existing spillway (which failed in 2010), extending the
dam embankments on each side of the new spillway, and refilling the lake to a normal pool elevation of
105 ft NGVD.
Due to the time elapsed between the 2010 spillway failure and the permit application, and the degree to
which the stream and lakebed wetlands had naturalized, USACE determined that NWP-3 for repair and
maintenance was not applicable, and an IP would be required. Given the prolonged legal dispute with
the previous engineering firm and related extenuating circumstances beyond the Town's control, USACE
agreed to waive the usual Section 404 compensatory mitigation requirements for the stream and
wetland impacts resulting from dam construction and refilling of the lake. However, ecological impacts
can also be mitigated in a non-traditional sense, such as providing additional facilities and opportunities
to enhance environmental education and nature -based recreation for a wide range of users.
NCDWR does not have a regulatory mechanism for waiving Section 401 mitigation requirements
associated with an IP, as stated in their May 17 comment letter, but can instead accept an "Alternative
Mitigation Plan" approved by the director of NCDWR. Because refilling the lake will restore wetland
hydrology to extensive areas of drained cypress -gum and bottomland hardwood swamp forests within
and adjacent to the lake pool, this effect will help offset the adverse impacts to wetlands in deeper parts
of the lake pool that will be drowned by refilling.
This Alternative Mitigation Plan was developed by MMI-RJGA in consultation with NCDWR, USACE, and
Town staff to satisfy Section 404 mitigation requirements and Section 401 Water Quality Certification
requirements for the Hope Mills Dam permit. It includes a quantitative and qualitative assessment of
impacts to existing wetlands that will be re -flooded by the lake, drained wetlands that will be
hydrologically restored, and the resulting expected ecological changes to these communities.
Existing Wetlands
Wetland mapping of the lake pool and adjacent areas was conducted by MMI-RJGA using a combination
of field delineation during June -July 2015 and subsequent aerial photo and topographic interpretation.
Acreages of existing wetland and non -wetland vegetation classes between the various topographic
contours in and adjacent to the lake pool, from 103 ft to 107 ft elevation (NAVD-88), are presented in
Table D1. Existing forested wetlands occur within the pool area mainly in the upper portion and in
other areas where seeps and tributaries enter the lake. Existing forested wetlands comprise about 10.4
acres within the 104 -ft pool and 14.0 acres within the 105 -ft pool. Non -wetland forests, most of which
are former wetland forests dewatered when the lake was drained, comprise about 19.1 acres within the
104 -ft pool and 28.9 acres within the 105 -ft pool. Existing marsh/scrub wetlands occur mainly in areas
that were formerly open water under the full lake (9.0 acres below the 103 -ft contour), but some occur

at higher elevations where utility rights-of-way and other disturbance precluded tree growth in wetlands
(0.5 acre). Existing non -wetland herb/scrub areas occur mainly in areas that were formerly open water
under the full lake(39.8 acres below the 103 -ft contour), but some are probably former marsh/scrub
wetlands at higher elevations that were dewatered by draining (2.7 acres).
From 1924 until 2003, Hope Mills Dam had a spillway crest elevation of 105.3 feet using the NAVD-88
vertical datum (converted from 106.1 feet NGVD-29 elevation — see Appendix Q. The lower 1/3 of the
lake had relatively steep shorelines with minimal lake -fringe wetlands, while the upper 2/3 of the lake
had extensive adjacent cypress/gum and bottomland hardwood swamp forests. Full -pool conditions
and adjacent swamp forests are visible in Google Earth historical images taken during 2/1993.
In 2003 the old spillway failed and the lake was drained for five years. A new spillway was built in 2007-
2008, with a lower normal pool elevation of approximately 104 feet NAVD-88, as depicted in Google
Earth historical images taken during 3/2009. The 2008 spillway was used for only two years, failing in
June 2010 when the lake was drained again. The lake bed has remained mostly drained since then,
refilling partially for brief periods during occasional heavy rainfall events. Most of the previously
impounded reach of Little Rockfish Creek has naturalized to become a free-flowing lotic ecosystem,
except for the lower 2,500 feet upstream of the breached spillway, which remains semi -impounded.
Much of the historic lake bed is now dry land dominated by grasses and weedy herbs, shrubs, and tree
saplings that have colonized during the past five years, while low depressional areas in the drained lake
bed have become marsh/scrub wetlands. Much of the historic lake -fringe wetland forests are now
dewatered, and the swollen trunks of bald cypress and swamp gums that developed under submerged
conditions now stand exposed with their above -water tapered trunk sections four to eight feet above
dry ground.
Impacts of No -Action Alternative and Stream Restoration
The No -Action Alternative would leave a small shallow remnant of the former lake approximately 2,500
feet long (4.72 acres) just above the existing spillway. Existing marsh and scrub fringe wetlands along
the perimeter (9.5 acres) would probably transition to cypress -gum swamp forest over several decades,
while the former wetland forest areas dewatered by draining of the lake (28.9 acres) will probably
transition to more facultative and upland forest species over time. The formerly impounded stream
segment between the head of the "remnant lake" and Camden Rd (about 8,500 feet long, Table D2)
would continue its gradual process of naturalizing back to a Sandhills stream ecosystem with a gravel
and sand dominated substratum supporting a community of lotic benthic invertebrates and fishes.
MMI-RJGA observed extensive gravel and small cobble dominated bed areas in some of the steeper
stream reaches in 2015, but most of the stream appeared dominated with fine sand and silt that
presumably accumulated during the impounded years. Relatively few lotic invertebrates and fishes
were observed during the field reconnaissance. If the remainder of the dam is removed and the stream
restored, then the lower 2,500 foot "remnant lake" segment of Little Rockfish Creek will also return to
free-flowing stream. The No -Action Alternative and Stream Restoration Alternative both result in a net
gain of free-flowing streams (11,400 ft gained) and a net loss of forested wetlands (14.5 acres lost).
Reasons for rejecting the No -Action Alternative (safety concerns) and the Stream Restoration
Alternative (does not meet the community's needs), are explained in Appendix B, Need and Alternatives
Analysis.

Impacts of Spillway Re -build Alternatives
Direct impacts of spillway demolition and construction of the new spillway and dam embankments will
affect 0.89 acre of open waters only, including 0.31 acre on the existing concrete spillway, 0.12 acre of
rock -lined diversion channel immediately upstream of the breached spillway wall, and 0.46 acre of
shallow pools on either side of the spillway. No wetlands or streams will be directly impacted within the
proposed construction footprint. The preferred alternative thus achieves avoidance of solid fill
placement directly into streams or wetlands. The only proposed "fill' in streams and wetlands will be
the water impounded by the repaired dam.
Refilling the lake after dam construction will affect additional open waters, streams, marsh/scrub
wetlands, and forested wetlands. The open waters impacts will be the same for both the 104 ft and 105
ft normal pool elevation: 4.72 acres of semi -impounded channel upstream of the new spillway. This
area will become deeper by 10 to 12 feet after refilling, and will remain open waters, suitable for lentic-
habitat fish and wildlife. Popular sport -fishing species including Largemouth Bass, Black Crappie, Bluegill,
Redear Sunfish, Channel Catfish and Brown Bullhead will benefit from restoring the lake. Lotic-habitat
species such as Redbreast Sunfish, Bluehead Chub, Notchlip Redhorse, Margined Madtom, Sandbar
Shiner, and Piedmont Darter will lose suitable habitat.
Approximately 7,000 feet of Little Rockfish Creek, 800 feet of Buckhead Creek, and 800 feet of of minor
tributaries (total 8,600 feet of streams) will be flooded above the level of their adjacent floodplain by
the 104 -ft spillway (Table D2). These creek channel reaches will be submerged within the lake pool and
lose their stream characteristics, becoming lentic open -water habitat again, as they were from 1924 to
2003 and 2008 to 2010. The remaining 1,500 feet of Little Rockfish Creek, 300 feet of Buckhead Creek,
and 1000 feet of minor tributaries (total 2,800 feet of streams) will be impounded at or below their
adjacent floodplain elevation, and will become deeper but retain their existing stream pattern. Riffle
habitat may be degraded in these reaches due to slower velocities and deposition of finer bed materials,
but they will continue to function as streams.
The potential 105 ft spillway elevation, if built later, will affect 600 additional feet of Little Rockfish
Creek (upstream of Camden Rd), 200 additional feet of Buckhead Creek (northeast of Parkway Mobile
Home Village) and 200 additional feet of minor unnamed tributaries. However, due to the bank
elevations and channel morphology of these affected reaches, little additional "loss" of stream beneath
the lake pool will occur. Most of the additional stream impact from 104 ft up to 105 ft elevation will
result in channels becoming slightly deeper and slower, but still functioning as streams rather than lake
habitat.
Lake re -impoundment will affect wetlands in a variety of ways (Tables D1 and D3). Recently established
marsh/scrub wetlands below 103 -ft elevation on the lake bed will mostly be obliterated by
impoundment under deep water (9.0 acres) although long-stemmed aquatic plants such as Nymphaea,
Myriophyllum, Ludwigia, and Brasenia may persist as aquatic bed communities. Existing marsh/scrub
wetlandsand drained former wetlands may be either positively or adversely affected by re -inundation,
depending on elevations and existing plant communities. Color codes are used in Table D3 to assign a
summary impact for each vegetation category within each elevation range: blue for strong benefit,
green for slight to moderate benefit , yellow for neutral or no effect, orange for slight to moderate
adverse effect, and red for strong adverse effect. Combining these impact categories with the acreages
in Table D1 yields the following summary of impacts to existing wetlands and dewatered former
wetlands:

Wetland Impact Summary for 104 -ft spillway elevation:
Former (drained) forested wetland restored:
28.8 acre
Existing forested wetland enhanced:
6.3 acre
Existing forested wetland altered by deeper water:
9.2 acre
Existing forested wetland lost:
0.0 acre
Former (drained) marsh/scrub wetland restored:
7.5 acre
Existing marsh/scrub wetland enhanced:
0.5 acre
Existing marsh/scrub wetland altered by deeper water:
0.1 acre
Existing (recent) marsh/scrub wetland lost:
9.0 acre
Wetland Impact Summary for 105 -ft spillway elevation:
Former (drained) forested wetland restored:
43.8 acre
Existing forested wetland enhanced:
4.3 acre
Existing forested wetland altered by deeper water:
10.4 acre
Existing forested wetland lost:
0.0 acre
Former (drained) marsh/scrub wetland restored:
13.6 acre
Existing marsh/scrub wetland enhanced:
0.1 acre
Existing marsh/scrub wetland altered by deeper water:
0.5 acre
Existing (recent) marsh/scrub wetland lost:
9.0 acre
For both the 104 -ft and 105 -ft spillway elevations, the net effect to wetlands is positive, and the project
thus provides its own mitigation to offset wetland losses.

Table D1. Wetland and Non -Wetland Communities and Acreages Between Contours (NAVD-88).
Topographic
Contour
spillway
elevation
Forested
Wetlands
Marsh/Scrub
Wetlands
Non-
Wetland
Forests **
Non-
Wetland
Scrub **
Open
water +
stream
104'
Total
acres
1500
106-107 ft
Buckhead Creek
1.48
0.00
11.42
5.79
0.00
104'
18.70
105-106 ft
1800
2.78
0.12
14.87
6.08
0.00
23.85
104-105 ft
3.59
0.40
9.83
4.84
0.00
9100
18.65
103-104 ft
900
1.21
0.09
2.66
2.66
0.00
1100
6.62
below 103 ft
105'
9.18
9.02
16.42
39.83
13.44
87.89
104' pool acres
10.39
9.11
19.08
42.49
13.44
94.51
105' pool acres
13.98
9.51
28.91
47.33
13.44
113.16
106' total acres
16.76
9.63
43.78
53.41
13.44
137.02
107' total acres
18.24
9.63
55.20
59.20
13.44
155.71
** Non -wetland areas include dewatered former wetlands (drained cypress -gum forest, bottomland
hardwood forest, marsh/scrub, and open pool) plus bottomland hardwood and mesic forests that
were probably not wetlands when the lake was full.
Table D2. Free-flowing Stream Impoundment Impacts at 104' and 105'
Free -Flowing
STREAM impacts
spillway
elevation
submerged
under lake
deepened
channel
stream feet
total impact
Little Rockfish Cr
104'
7000
1500
8500
Buckhead Creek
104'
800
300
1100
minor tributaries
104'
800
1000
1800
All Streams 104'
104'
8600
2800
11400
Little Rockfish Cr
105'
7200
1900
9100
Buckhead Creek
105'
900
400
1300
minor tributaries
105'
900
1100
2000
All Streams 105'
105'
9000
3400
12400

Table D3. Hydrologic Impact (Depth) and Description of Vegetation Impacts of Refilling Hope Mills Lake to 104 or 105 ft Spillway Elevation.
Spillway Elevation & Hydrologic Impact
F Existing Wetland Communities
Existing De -Watered Wetland and Non -Wetland Communities
104' Pool:
105' Pool:
Hydrologic impact of
forested wetlands: cypress -gum
marsh/scrub wetlands: herbs,
de -watered former wetland
previous non -wetland forests:
de -watered former marsh and
previous non -wetland herb,
Elevation
Elevation Range
lake refilling
swamp, bottomland hardwood
shrubs, saplings
forests: cypress -gum,
bottomland hardwood & mesic
scrub/sapling wetlands
scrub and sapling areas
Range
bottomland hardwood
pine/hardwood
cypress -gum & bottomland
cypress -gum &bottomland
bottomland forest hydrology
'
forest hydrology enhanced;
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
non -wet herb/scrub hydrology
105 - 106'
(1 - 2' above
106 - 107
(1 - 2' above
intermittent
saturation < 12"
slight increased saturation;
enhanced: slight increased
forest hydrology enhanced;
slight increased saturation;
enhanced; slight increased
saturation; trees not affected;
enhanced: slight increased
enhanced; slight increased
normal pool)
normal pool)
below soil surface
trees not affected; groundcover
saturation; shift to more OBL
groundcover shift to more OBL
groundcover shift to more
saturation; shift to more OBL
saturation; shift to more FACW
shift to more OBL and FACW
and FACW plants.
and FACW plants.
FACW plants.
and FACW plants.
plants.
plants.
cypress -gum & bottomland
forest hydrology enhanced;
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
cypress -gum &bottomland
bottomland forest hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
non -wet herb/scrub hydrology
104 - 105'
105 - 106'
permanent
saturation significantly
enhanced: saturation
forest hydrology restored;
enhanced; increased saturation;
restored: increased saturation;
enhanced; increased saturation;
(0 - 1' above
(0 - 1' above
saturation < 12"
saturation significantly
trees not affected; groundcover
normal pool)
normal pool)
below soil surface
increased; trees not affected;
significantly increased; shift to
increased; groundcover shift to
shift to more OBL and FACW
shift to more OBL and FACW
shift to more OBL and FACW
groundcover shift to OBL and
more OBL and FACW plants.
plants.
plants.
FACW plants.
OBL and FACW plants.
plants.
cypress -gum swamp hydrology
cypress -gum & bottomland
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland converted
forest hydrology restored to
103 - 104'
104 - 105 '
permanent
enhanced; trees not affected;
restored to shallow ponding:
(0 - 1' below
(0 - 1' below
inundation 0 - 12"
loss of non -flood -tolerant
to littoral aquatic bed &
shallow ponding; loss of non -
None /NA
loss of non -flood -tolerant
None /NA
normal pool)
normal pool)
standing water
groundcover plants; shift to
emergent marsh plants; loss of
flood -tolerant groundcover;
groundcover; shift to aquatic &
aquatic &emergent spp.
non -flood -tolerant spp
shift to aquatic & emergent
emergent plants.
plants.
cypress -gum swamp hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland converted
cypress -gum forest hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland hydrology
102 - 103'
103 - 104'
permanent
enhanced; trees not affected;
to littoral aquatic bed &
restored to shallow ponding;
restored to shallow ponding:
(1 - 2' below
(1 - 2' below
inundation 12 - 24"
loss of non -flood -tolerant
loss of non -flood -tolerant
None /NA
loss of non -flood -tolerant
None /NA
normal pool)
normal pool)
standing water
groundcover plants; shift to
emergent marsh plants; loss of
groundcover; shift to aquatic &
groundcover; shift to aquatic &
non -flood -tolerant spp
aquatic & emergent spp.
emergent plants.
emergent plants.
cypress -gum swamp hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland converted
cypress -gum forest hydrology
marsh/scrub wetland converted
below 102'
below 103'
permanent
enhanced; trees not affected;
restored to ponding; trees not
(> 2' below
(> 2' below
inundation > 24"
loss of non -flood -tolerant
to open water; loss of most
affected; loss of non -flood-
None /NA
to open water; loss of most
None /NA
normal pool)
normal pool)
standing water
groundcover plants; shift to
vegetation except long-
tolerant groundcover plants;
vegetation except long -
aquatic spp.
stemmed aquatic spp
shift to aquatic herbs.
stemmed aquatic spp
Wetland Impact Color Codes: Strong Beneficial Impact Moderate Beneficial Impact Neutral or No Impact Slight Adverse Impact Strong Adverse Impact

R IJJr
too,w 7.
+
`�, i r11r1
10
},.
CF <103 Contour _
0 103-104 Contour
Q 104-105 Contour
r� 105-115 Contour
105-107 Contour
Figure D1. Hope Mills Lake lower pool area, from dam to railroad bridge. Topographic contours from 103' to 107'
within and adjacent to the pool area, for assessing stream and wetland impacts at 104' and 105'.

"i A4
,t1*„4
14
\ �� !� , f 1, •. •I • ,f - ` �
41
.M
• t
• r
r t
a _
1�
1 _ � ► !f +�R� Wit, - � .�
fop
�• 1I iia �'" y �w+ R1 + -r - � � • . ,� �' � t
J � • - �� �����r 4 i �� �i �- r �7^ til I M �.

•
1 i
4
• '.
�i nnel -
t
- -,�.1 -
A6
r 'tel . • � •� � 1.
1annG I ;ter
•, .r :_
M • • r^•
dim
X103 Contour •' ..' _.,
' •� *.
103-104 Contour r. « .., p4•
AL
104-105 'Contour
VIC
v j
10-1 �'� 'Contour ' `�• ; . - - - - - - - -
106-107 Contour
cB
3
O
O
m
O
E
O
Ln
O O
o�
U fB
Q O
O
Q-
0
H cB
0-
E E
�_0
_0cz
E-7'
U
Ocz
cz E
c� v
to
L
L N
cB
Q N
L N
N
Q �
L
O
J �
�o
Q) CL
o
2 +'
� O
C)
a�
U
=�

7 , , ■
Jr
ol
le
ol
oft
:'�.. �` _a .ter �, r� .^ •.� M�1 !_� 51 .,� '• � '',,
op
►J Legend
Forested Wetlands T`
Marsh/Scrub Wetlands
Non -Wetland Forest
Non -Wetland Scrub 0 0.05 4.1 0.2 4.3 0.4
Miles
3
N
U
E
U
aU
0
Q
to
N
N
N
N
fB
L
0
N
N
U
O
fB
N
w
N
ca
N
C
O
(U
co
O
ca r -j
O
m
N O
I
ca E
J O
N L
Q o
o �
= O
U
O
v
a,o Q)
LZ E)

Hope Mills Dam Public Comments & Responses
APPENDIX E. Spillway and Flood Elevations, Easements, Demographics
1981 Dam Safety Phase II Study drawing by Soil Testing Services with Pool Elevation 106.1 ft
1981 Dam Safety Phase I Inspection Report with Pool Elevation 106.1 ft
1994 FERC Preliminary Permit with Spillway Elevation
NGVD-29 to NAVD-88 Datum Conversion Calculation
HEC -RAS Flood Model Elevations for Previous and Proposed Dams
100 -yr Floodplain Map of Parkway Mobile Home Village
Structure No -Impact Certification & County Floodplain Manager Approval
PWC Utility Easements on Neil Smith Property
PWC correspondence regarding erosion repair at sewer crossing
PWC location map of erosion repairs at sewer crossing
Town of Hope Mills Easement to Impound Lake at 104 ft on Smith Property
Environmental Justice EJScreen Demographic Report & Census Summary

K
St i I SL
ELE /113.9 5�
S.
ece HOJXJAR ,aNt .j4xj4RA9•m^-Nua
L,6 K If
SEE sHEET 2 -
pe
pe mr1/
D E t7� n
i
• 36�
/ EVI E IJ R D
s �
d=
s Q \� ! sLv � , , /
y
11,
fOTI/�/Ell\ � \
� \sTa .
110
CdP OF AM
L 1AQUA-
HYPRO- - - -
I
0 FL
LrFTL

CM10
f" E
I fE
i
01 oq1QTE
I
vl�w eo:
1
CR4C K I IJ
W. G. loco, I b
"<E
1�1 3.02.-0
,&-4L sP7 qw -�I-► IJ oa o - Pd CT- (moo e �L v�-�lo �1 s�
Lul E scoLE: I''- I01
Tic I; Fc P- 12,4TE HOIST
I
log rg
qoT E
STA,
EL L7 I,
—2-112 - _7 5'
to P K 110.11
q°TE
AQEp q� wr'> Z l 16 � p
FMGI a of COI tv-ET
—• lIo.371
/n
I / V
ELEU, i lo. Z9'
=cK I i
�p w Lo K� wl�LL
T�� � tJ �wIJ sLae�
r-'�IUXI
EN d of d�l�b�J
IJ�'E�(�1�itJg gEIJEaTH
sig
I ELL) -- Sri lwt Y-
�4LE: I "= zo I
-Ilo. 55 (¢.n.)
_ T
L,AK E UrEw e P.
83.s�
s E_TloJ s [i LL�wo Y _
544 E I = 7O
--1 . 1.IlNRh9 NA_I.lI)(1
�•i9' �wl I,�C WALL
ILLJA7tx'bdeFacE 7s
�G.961 ASSdt QED 7dp_0 poWIJ SL,6B
EtEv, 1(78. I°� sL,J ICE
flEv.log.7q ,
,0 �LEu lls.s7
GATE HOU SE
I 4
I II
LISKEUI Ew (� � I
I� II
� Pf'Izox,
501
Et- Eu. 25. '1-
A
I VIEW -ELECT P
SCvI-E= I -lo
HorE r1 I L Ls P4 �i t:t I
�7 ri I L Ls, tib[ZTH an FzoL i Il.lp
r-[�SF I::� S� DT
DRAWN BY
Jig
DATE
18 i'l4�3C H
CHECKED BY -
g ULV.
REVISE!
SOIL TESTING SERVICES
P.O. BOX 12015
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.
27709
APPR(WED BY 5- !_
.Qs D
JOB NUMBER. SHEET
71-iA z F
M
C)
O
b
A

W,s IOlo.101
LAKE s Hoe E D;�,
--T°r ©F PI PE tOWdST12Ear-(
t o.55 110.1-7 I10.S�
v o t o
It
t� t
tl tt t t t
"Ken3rl-of SwICF-
I
►mid sr
D4 ri _ i LE Lcor [ O�i
sc.QL Hoe I�oOTAL I''= 50'
VEe''FCA
OTO Abl.VJAll ..:)Ml �.IJ3HPA7-NADMUG
s T,o
%T,6s Ta
o sTA. STA
sT4k
sT,o sTo
11-00
14 too 3+00
9+00 5+00 b+00
7+0o
9+00 8t 50
D4 ri _ i LE Lcor [ O�i
sc.QL Hoe I�oOTAL I''= 50'
VEe''FCA
OTO Abl.VJAll ..:)Ml �.IJ3HPA7-NADMUG

�1
HOPF-
SOIL
TESTING
SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL
AND
MATERIALS
ENGINEERS

Mr. Doug Woolweaver
March 23,1981
Page 6
I. State Dam Safety Requirements:
The Hope Mills Dam €1 is classified as an intermediate size high hazard
earth and concrete gravity dam under the North Carolina State Criteria
(Reference 2). The dam is approximately 35 feet in height and the storage in the
lake at the low point top of dam is approximately 1200 acre feet.
The design storm for an intermediate size high hazard dam is the 112
Probable Maximum Precipitation under the North Carolina Guidelines (Reference 2).
2. Hydrologic Parameters of the Drainage Area for Hope Mills Dam No. 1
WW The hydrologic parameters used by N. Q. Thomas in the Phase 1 report
were thoroughly reviewed. A preliminary soil survey report prepared by the Soil
Conservation Service was obtained to check the soil types used by Mr. Thomas in
developing the hydrologic curve number. The soils report and maps furnished to us
by the Soil Conservation Service showed that the soil types used by Mr. Thomas to
develop the curve number appeared to be reasonable and somewhat on the
conservative side. Therefore, the curve number developed by Mr. Thomas and
checked by Soil Testing Services was used to develop the design hydrographs.
The lag time and time of concentration developed b Mr. Thomas for the
P Y
1/2 PMP by the SCS Methods were based on general methods included in the Soil
Conservation Services National Engineering Handbook. The lag time and time of
concentration developed by Mr. Thomas were: log (L) = 9.9 hours, time of
concentration (Tc) = 16.4 hours. The flows for the 6 hour 1/2 problem maximum
precipitation using these parameters produced a maximum flow of 30,000 cfs with
the maximum overtopping depth of the dam of 5.5 feet. A new lag and time of
concentration were computed by the overland method (SCS Procedues). By this
Imethod, the lag time was found to be 13.6 hours with the time of concentration being
, L -:�00 I 1. �02) rp-z�
(IL,,. -4)
�3c����

Mr. Doug Wool weaver
March 23, 1981
Page 7
�.IgV-k:�Is oIC-
22.6 hours. This significantly reduces the flow computed by the SCS Methods. A
new peak flow was computed using the overland method log time and was found to --Vo
be 26,288 cfs. Calculations for the peak flow and lag time and time of
concentration are included in the appendix to this report.
3. Hydraulic Computations:
1. 0
4
Hydraulic capacities for the principal spillway, the abandoned power �
sluiceway and the Legion Road bridge were computed by hand and input directly into
the computer. The hydraulic calculations are included as Appendix A in this report. 1
Other hydraulic computations such as flow over the dam and stream flow
routing were performed by the computer. The cross sections at Station 3, and
Station 5 and the profile of the top of dam input into the computer are included in
Appendix B and the drawings in this report.
PART 11-B. HEC -1 DAM SAFETY COMPUTER PROGRAM RESULTS
The HEC -1 Dam Safety Computer Program was used to evaluate various
hydrologic and hydraulic conditions and to evaluate the dam's safety under the North
Carolina Dam State Safety Criteria. The program was run to conduct an
overtopping analysis of the dam under the 6 hour and 24 hour PMP and to evaluate
the downstream channel under storm flow conditions and simulated breach
conditions for several different breach types.
The HEC-ldb computer program generated the storms for the 1/2
Probable Maximum Precipitation using SCS parameters. The dam break model
utilized in the computer program is the National Weather Service Dam Break Model.
The stream routing technique used in the computer program is the Modified -Pula
method The results of the various program runs are as follows:

m
NYPCALJLtr- eke 3 re �c' 3 t=5 �Jf' Syl�v le'.r Gres 1 r�Fo�iCc> �
�G �3yers =uo� ato rrie,�� J. W h V� �\pscdC Tic A 1�^�
I
5L M51..,
As 4,
C3,4"iTr1C�- =a%cs w+ic� e o�,e.�� F(��E F�.a.! cam,-►nrryo r�!
(►'L '�1,t5 caste '�i�,� ��� � t � � �e t'a� � g�"
S� c•.�i-ur�4j t'�(S I-- .
>JP1_ttpNS: Cres. al�aPG �cA-) a.V-A as -A cortr�c oL
-L-4-r5 w T; -,e.
,O=S CS�WIaW
e -s S4,11
rp n A til `
Vac.°-Lr a1 0,9r -3i 'cal {t{�� V.A i a 4e.%A4 lZ2 oce,..� fper C>�A,c Vvjet CsBSG �S�S,
it 0.11
It 11, 1 �' ,t �� �t ei 11l $I
A- 1
to3.o
'T,r(
3.5X25 x7.7
�CNs
r td5
1
Id. S
-3 5 Xgq to -o" �
S,1O(p
15�o
rp n A til `
Vac.°-Lr a1 0,9r -3i 'cal {t{�� V.A i a 4e.%A4 lZ2 oce,..� fper C>�A,c Vvjet CsBSG �S�S,
it 0.11
It 11, 1 �' ,t �� �t ei 11l $I
A- 1

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE -USE. $300
2 6 0 10`347E) Li T 0 f
T !A C, A R 0 1 R
s - U .. 'I'l
fit C A 1 LJ IN! At , L tA N F.) ME* i3 C) [J jR C.,
RfEc mm Dl:. V E
Dr..: PT OP:' N&ITURAI... REISOU CN'
1'30X 27627
761,
RALE:11GI-1 , Nc 2" .11
UALMML
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
FEAC-351
6 *

I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
TOMn of Hope Mills Project No. 11260-000 -
North Carolina
ORDER ISSUING PRELIMINARY PERMIT
(Issued August 19, 1992)
on February 21, 1992, the Town of Hope Mills filed an
application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (Act) for the proposed Hope Mills
#1 Project. The project is located at an existing dam and
is described in the attached public notice.
The purpose ef'any preliminary permit is to maintain
priority of application for a license during the term of the
permit while the permittee conducts investigations and secures
data necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed
project and prepares an acceptable application for license. A
preliminary permit does not authorize construction of any project
works. This permit does require the permittee to conduct certain
studies to address the technical, environmental, and economic
feasibility of the proposed project, but these studies will not
cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Should the
permittee find the project to be feasible and file a development
application, notice of the application will be published and all
interested persons and agencies will have an opportunity to
present their views concerning the project and the effects of its
construction and operation. Issuance of this preliminary permit
therefore is not a major federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment.
No motions to intervene have been filed. The comments filed
by interested agencies have been fully considered in determining
whether to issue this permit. Comments and objections related to
the potential effects of actually constructing and operating the
proposed project are premature at the preliminary permit stage
and have therefore not been addressed in this proceeding.
The named permittee is the only party entitled to the
priority of application for license afforded by this preliminary
permit. In order to invoke this permit -based priority in any
subsequent licensing competition, the named permittee must file
an application for license as the sole applicant, thereby
evidencing its intent to be the sole licensee and hold all
proprietary rights necessary to construct, operate, and maintain
the proposed project. Should any other parties intend to hold
during the term of any license issued any of these proprietary
rights necessary for project purposes, they must be included as
joint applicants in any application for license filed. In such
,an instance where parties other than the permittee are added as
joint applicants for license, the joint application will not
be eligible for any permit -based priority. See City of
DC -A-4
C .
2
Fayetteville, 16 FERC 161,209 (1981).
The Director orders:
(A) A preliminary permit is issued for this project to
the Town of Hope Mills for a period effective the first day of
the month in which this permit is issued, and ending either 36
months from the effective date or on the date that a development
application submitted by the permittee has been accepted for
filing, whichever occurs first.
(B) This permit is subject to the terms and conditions of
the Act and related regulations. The permit is aiso subject to
!articles 1 through 6 set forth in the attached Form P-1, and to
the following special articles:
Article 7. A liaison officer must be designated to act for
the permittee in keeping appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies specified in this permit informed about the progress of
investigations throughout the term of the permit. In the
interest of protecting and developing the natural resources and
other environmental values of the project area, the permittee
shall consult with the appropriate federal, regional, state, and
local agencies in their fields of responsibility and expertise,
shall conduct its project investigations in a manner that
protects the environmental integrity of the area, and shall fully
explore all reasonable alternatives to the project and
alternative project designs, taking into account impacts on
natural resources and other environmental values. These
resources and values include, but are not limited to: forests,
land management and treatment, fish, wildlife, recreational and
public use, flood regulation, water and air quality (including
water supply, groundwater studies, waste treatment and disposal),
public health and safety, archeological, historic, Indian
religious and cultural sites, threatened or endangered species of
flora and fauna, and scenic and aesthetic values. The permittee
shall initiate and conduct any studies necessary to determine the
impact of the construction and operation of the proposed project
on these natural resources and values and measures needed to
protect and develop them or to provide for their mitigation or
replacement, including alternative designs and operational
measures. The permittee also shall utilize the results of these
studies in the preparation of the relevant exhibits or reports
required to accompany any application for a license to construct
and operate the project. In connection with studies pertaining
to archeological, historic, and Indian religious and cultural
sites, the permittee shall consult with the State Historic
Preservation officer for each state in which any part of the
project would be located, and the National Park Service of the
Department of the Interior.

Article S. At the close of each 6 -month period from the
effective date of this permit, the permittee shall file four
copies of a report with the Director, Office of Hydropower
Licensing, or with any other officer the Commission may
designate, and shall provide a copy to any entity specified in
this order to be consulted during the permit term. Proof of
service on these entities shall accompany each copy of the report
filed with officers of the Commission. Specifically, the report
shall describe the purposes and scope of all conferences and
investigations, identify participants, summarize decisions and
conclusions, provide a schedule for completing remaining work,
and contain copies of important correspondence and studies or
summaries thereof. Each report shall include a statement
summarizing the permittee's anticipated date for submitting a
license or exemption application, as appropriate. The first
report shall include a specific schedule, showing when study
tasks will start and when they will be completed. In particular,
the report shall address the following items: (1) the studies
conducted during the past 6 -month period (copies of studies or
summaries thereof shall be furnished); (2) a summary of
consultation with the agencies and copies of correspondence and
meeting notes, verifying that such consultations took place
during the past 6 -month period; (3) an outline and summary of
engineering, environmental, and other investigations to be
conducted during the ensuing 6 -month period to determine the
feasibility of the project, as delineated by article 1; (4) a
summary of the consultations with the appropriate federal, state,
interstate resource agencies and any Indian Tribe affected by the
project that will take place during the ensuing 6 -month period,
as outlined by articles 7 and 9; and (5) an assessment of the
feasibility of the project. The appropriate federal, state, and
interstate resource agencies and any Indian Tribe affected by the
project shall be contacted, pursuant to section 4.38 of the
Commission's regulations (18 C.F.R. 4.38).
Article 9. The permittee, during the initial period of the
permit, shall consult with the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service of
the Department of the Interior, the state fish and game agencies,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department
of Commerce if the project affects anadromous fish, to obtain
their views and recommendations on studies to be conducted during
the term of the permit to assess the effect that the proposed
project might have on fish and wildlife resources, and the
facilities or measures that may be needed to conserve and develop
those resources. A.copy of the report on the permittee's study
shall be filed as part of the fish and wildlife exhibits or
reports of any subsequent application for license.
"UTTRn SSTATRR nW AMRitT-f°3
4
(C) This order is issued under authority delegated to the
Director and constitutes final agency action. Requests for
rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the
date of this issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R.
§385.713.
Dean VShumway
Director, Division of
Project Review
a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit
. 9}.
0?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Application Filed with the Commission
(June 4, 1992)
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has
been file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is
available for public inspection:
a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit
b. Project No.: 11260-000
C. Date filed: February 21, 1992, and revised May 11, 1992
d. Applicant: Town of Hope Mills
e. Name of Project: Hope Mills #1
f. Location: On the Little Rockfish Creek, Town of Hope Mills,
Rockfish Township, Cumberland County,
North Carolina
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. §§791 (a) -
825 (r)
h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Wilbur Dees
3701 South Main Street
Hope Mills, NC 28348
[phone]
i. FERC Contact: Charles T. Raabe (dt) [phone]
j. Comment Date: August 8, 1992
k. Description of Project: The existing, inoperative project
would consist of: (1) a 550 -foot -long, 33 -foot -high earthen
dam having an 80 -foot -long, tainter-gate-controlled concrete
spillway near its right abutment; (2) a reservoir having
an 85 -acre surface area and a 1,000 acre-foot storage
capacity at normal surface elevation 105.0 feet MSL; (3)
an intake structure near the dam's left abutment; (4) a
211 -foot -long concrete -lined canal; (5) a 48 -foot -long
steel penstock; (6) a powerhouse containing a 530 -HP turbine
operated at a 23 -foot -head and at a flow of 125 cfs; (7) a
150 -foot -long, 40 -foot -wide concrete -lined tailrace; and
(8) appurtenant facilities. Applicant would rehabilitate
the existing facilities, construct a new powerhouse
containing a 250 -kW generator, and would install a
50 -foot -long, 23,000-v transmission line. Applicant
estimates that the average annual generation would be
1.239 -MW and that the cost of the studies under the
permit would be $25,000. Project energy would be sold
to Carolina Power and Light Company. The existing
facilities are owned by the applicant.
1. This notice also consists of the following standard
paragraphs: A5, A7, A9, A10, B, C & D2.
�s

Form P-1
(Revised June, 1987)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
PRELIMINARY PERMIT
Article 1. The Permittee shall make such engineering and
other investigations, secure such data, and perform such acts as
are necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed pro-
ject and, if said project is found to be feasible,"to prepare an
application for license for the project that will be in conform-
ance with current rules and regulations of the Commission. In
carrying out the requirements of this permit the Permittee shall:
A. Install as soon as practicable, and'thereafter
maintain, such stream gages and stream -gaging stations
as the District Engineer of the United States Geologi-
cal Survey having charge of stream -gaging operations
in the region shall designate as necessary and best
adapted for the purpose of determining the state and
flow of the stream or streams affected by the proposed
project, and shall provide for the required reading of
such gages and for the adequate rating of such sta-
tions. The number, design, location, and time of
installation of gages and stations, the rating of such
stations, and the determination of the flow of the
affected stream or streams, shall be made under the
supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District
Engineer of the United States Geological Survey having
charge of stream -gaging in the region of said project;
and the Permittee shall advance to said Geological
Survey the amount of funds estimated to be necessary
for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods
as may be mutually agreed upon. The Permittee shall,
to the satisfaction of the Commission, keep accurate
and sufficient records of the stage and flow of the
affected stream or streams, and shall make such records
available to the Commission at such times as the Com-
mission may prescribe.
B. Sink such test pits or make such boring of other
foundation explorations, and make such detailed geo-
logic studies and tests on foundations and fill
materials, as are necessary to support preliminary
engineering designs and cost estimates.
C. Begin the required investigations within 60 days
after acceptance of the permit, and thereafter
prosecute said investigations in such manner and at
such rate as in the judgement of the Commission will
ensure their completion within the period of the
permit.
D. Furnish with any application for license subse-
quently filed with the Commission copies of engineering
and geologic reports, results of tests and analyses,
and any other information secured in connection with
the investigations, examinations and surveys conducted
under this permit.
E. Exercise appropriate measures at all times during
field studies to prevent irreparable damage to the
environment of the proposed project. All test sites
shall be restored as closely as possible to their
original condition, and to the satisfaction of the
Commission's authorized representative, or, where
Federal lands are affected, to the satisfaction of,
the agency administering such lands.
Article 2. A license will be issued for the proposed
project only if in the judgement of the Commission said project
will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the improvement
or development of a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit
of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utili-
zation of water power development, for the adequate protection,
mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including
related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial
public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply,
and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e).
In reaching a decision on the desirability of issuing a license,
the Commission will consider, among other things:
A. Whether the maps, plans, and specifications are such:
(1) That full, practicable utilization will
be made of the water, storage possibilities,
and head at the site to be developed;
(2) That the structures will be safe and
constructed in accordance with good engineer-
ing practice; and
(3) That all unnecessary energy losses,
whether in hydraulic works or in mechanical
or electrical equipment, will be avoided.
B. Whether in relation to existing or probable future
projects upon the same or adjacent streams, the poten-
tial for the fullest practicable utilization of the

3
available water, storage possibilities, and head will
be maintained.
C. Whether said project will be to general accord with
the most beneficial utilization of the water for navi-
gation, water power, irrigation, the adequate
protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and
wildlife, water supply, recreation, or other public
uses, and for aiding flood control, reclamation, and
similar developments.
D. Whether proper provision is made for present or
future electrical interconnection with other projects
or systems in order to take advantage of diversity of
streamflow, and of power demands.
E. Whether the use to which.the power will be devoted
is, in general, in accord with the public interest.
F. whether the applicant is financially able to carry
out the development.
G. Whether the construction, maintenance, and opera-
tion of the proposed project works will interfere or be
inconsistent with the purpose for which any reserva-
tion, as defined in the Federal Power Act, was created
or acquired.
Article 3. The priority granted under the permit shall be
lost if the Permittee fails to fulfill the requirements of the
permit, if the permit is canceled by order of the Commission, or
if the Permittee fails, on or before the expiration date of the
permit, to file with the Commission or its designated agent an
application for license for the proposed project in conformity
with the Commission's rules and regulations then in effect.
Article 4. The Permittee shall keep accurate records of all
expenditures made for the purposes authorized by the permit,
together with all vouchers and other supporting data relating to
such expenditures, which records and related materials shall be
retained by the Permittee.
Article S. The permit confers no authority upon the
Permittee to undertake construction of the proposed project, or
any part thereof, or to occupy or use lands or other property of
the United States for the purposes of construction, unless speci-
fic'permission is given by the Commission for such occupancy or
use; and neither the granting of such authority nor the perform-
ance of construction work, whether with or without such author-
ity, shall be deemed to have created any equities or to have
established any rights with respect to issuance of a license for
the proposed project, beyond what would have been created or
established had such authority not been given or such work not
been performed.
Article 6. The permit is not transferable and may be
canceled by order of the Commission upon failure of the Permittee
to begin in good faith, or to prosecute diligently, the investi-
gations, examinations, and surveys contemplated under the permit,
or to comply with any other conditions therein, or for any other
good cause shown after notice and opportunity for hearing. ,
9
established had such authority not been given or such work not
been performed.
Article 6. The permit is not transferable and may be
canceled by order of the Commission upon failure of the Permittee
to begin in good faith, or to prosecute diligently, the investi-
gations, examinations, and surveys contemplated under the permit,
or to comply with any other conditions therein, or for any other
good cause shown after notice and opportunity for hearing. ,

Questions concerning the VERTCON process may be mailed to NGS
Latitude: 34.972222
Longitude: 078.945000
NGVD 29 height: 106.1 ft
Datum shift (NAVD 88 minus NGVD 29) :
Converted to NAVD 88 height:
-0.807 feet
105.293 feet
Page 1 of 1
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert-con2.prl 5/31/2016

1% Annual Chance Flood Floodplain Elevations -
Comparison between Duplicate Effective and Post -Project Conditions
River
Station
Duplicate
River
Station
Post-
project
Duplicate
Effective
ft
Floodplain
Post-
Project Difference
ft ft
29683
29683
118.85
118.85
0.00
29580
29580
Hope Mills Road
29498
29498
115.88
115.87
-0.01
29248
29248
115.88
115.87
-0.01
28881
28881
115.79
115.78
-0.01
28446
28446
115.65
115.64
-0.01
27874
27874
115.33
115.32
-0.01
27599
27599
115.26
1 115.26
0.00
27553
27553
Camden Road
27489
27489
115.07
115.06
-0.01
26174
26174
114.61
114.60
-0.01
25755
25755
114.38
114.36
-0.02
25328
25328
113.89
113.87
-0.02
24365 1
24365
112.79
112.77
-0.02
24018
24018
112.11
112.07
-0.04
23237
23237
111.52
111.47
-0.05
22549
22549
111.02
110.96
-0.06
21696
21696
110.82
110.76
-0.06
21552
21552
Rail Road Brid e
21430
21430
109.85
109.77
-0.08
21079
21079
109.34
109.24
-0.10
20644
20644
108.84
108.85
0.01
19754
19754
107.75
108.24
0.49
18837
18837
107.05
107.96
0.91
17990
17990
106.59
107.79 1
1.20
17196
17196
106.42
107.73
1.31
17156
17156
Dam
17015
17015
97.77
97.77
0.00
17005
17005
97.79
97.79
0.00
16955
16955
97.79
97.79
0.00
16924
16924
Lakeview Road
16900
16900
97.78
97.78
0.00
16885
16845
97.80
97.80
0.00
16800
16800
97.39
97.39
0.00
16798
16798
97.49
97.49
0.00
16263
16263
97.05
97.05
0.00

1% Annual Chance Flood Floodplain and Floodway Elevations -
Comparison between Duplicate Effective and Post -Project Conditions
River
Station
Duplicate
River
Station
Post-
project
Duplicate
Effective
ft
Floodplain
Post-
Project
ft
Difference
ft
Duplicate
Effective
ft
Floodway
Post-
Project
ft
Difference
ft
29683
29683
118.85
118.85
0.00
118.85
118.85
0.00
29580
29580
Hope Mills Road
29498
29498
115.88
115.84
-0.04
116.70
116.64
-0.06
29248
29248
115.88
115.84
-0.04
116.66
116.59
-0.07
28881
28881
115.79
115.75
-0.04
116.59
116.52
-0.07
28446
28446
115.65
115.60
-0.05
116.44
116.37
-0.07
27874
27874
115.33
115.28
-0.05
116.11
116.03
-0.08
27599
27599
115.26
115.22
-0.04
116.02
115.94
-0.08
27553
27553
Camden Road
27489
27489
115.07
115.02
-0.05
115.81
115.72
-0.09
26174
26174
114.61
114.54
-0.07
115.30
115.19
-0.11
25755
25755
114.38
114.31
-0.07
115.02
114.91
-0.11
25328
25328
113.89
113.80
-0.09
114.48
114.35
-0.13
24365
24365
112.79
112.64
-0.15
113.34
113.13
-0.21
24018
24018
112.11
111.84
-0.27
112.58
112.26
-0.32
23237
23237
111.52
111.35
-0.17
111.56
111.49
-0.07
22549
22549
111.02
110.95
-0.07
111.02
111.06
0.04
21696
21696
110.82
110.72
-0.10
110.82
110.83
0.01
21552
21552
Rail Road Bridge
21430
21430
109.85
109.73
-0.12
109.85
109.87
0.02
21079
21079
109.34
109.31
-0.03
109.34
109.33
-0.01
20644
20644
108.84
108.97
0.13
108.84
109.01
0.17
19754
19754
107.75
108.40
0.65
107.75
108.41
0.66
18837
18837
107.05
108.13
1.08
107.05
108.13
1.08
17990
17990
106.59
1 107.97
1 1.38
106.59
107.97
1 1.38
17196
17196
106.42
107.91
1.49
106.42
107.91
1.49
17156
17156
Dam
17015
17015
97.77
97.89
0.12
98.66
98.79
0.13
17005
17005
97.79
97.84
0.05
1
98.68
98.74
0.06
16955
16955
97.79
97.80
0.01
98.68
98.71
0.03
16924
16924
Lakeview Road
16900
16900
97.78
97.79
0.01
98.67
98.71
0.04
16885
16845
97.80
97.77
-0.03
98.64
98.62
-0.02
16800
16800
1 97.39
97.39
0.00
98.36
98.36
0.00
16798
16798
1 97.49
97.49
0.00
98.44
98.44
0.00
16263
16263
1 97.05
97.05
1 0.00
98.01
98.01
0.00

Lad
Oj
,� . �� �' . rid' •.�(n
) a
ISO
Fes' . � •4.��
{A
/.t
� r r

0)
(D
it
yip
3y
®°°
r
c
0 D
m.°r.)
wcn
3 D
D
�
m 9:
0 m O 5
03
m m
C
U3
n
ca �w
m o p
it
yip
3y
CD
c
0 D
o=C
CL D
3 D
D
�
m 9:
0 m O 5
03
m m
C
U3
n
ca �w
m o p
C<
m
0
7
p.
NCD
3
y C
x
— IA m
po �C
cr
0
s
m
,.
CD
3 p
r01A c
m °m'
3 r
C
N.
m a
S
to
—0-
UF =
Qm 33
y
O
a
M.
�°:d
O —
p
=p
m
:5 CL
8 RM3
O
'0 ?
O -
a of
0
w "^
7� a ca n
M
m
N
m
O
m
c'
c Oc c
W yZ
y
0
0
:3*C
x
3 Q
m e
c
y
m
<
m t
a� r�
N .z
of
y .n.
a
m
to C7
05---4
CD
0 T
c�
O m am
CD a
3 m
ac.
a
a(r
m
Co��
CD O
p�
m
A m�
7
m W
7 m
m 3y
O m
y-
Ol
0 M(D
7 R m
O. y
'+ " a
3
m m
:t -'
Q30
Q Q
0
N
N
m m 7
(G 3
O
Q
w co
m a
O
pj m
(A N—
-C
OQ
C
O
NA
C3'a
+
mO
H
n0
to
m 01
O03
M
CL
0
e
O-
-
(gyp
Q.3
0) °_a
'O
0
a Q
cm
LL a 7
0 3
j
X m
�
O C
�
0' m
7
o.�
O
m
39
/0
-Olm
-W
S =
0 3
(a
N
n
( p
Ot
-0Nm
C
m
�m a1
of
x
m
0 c
= a
O Q 0.
"0a
O
M
D(G
N QO
qG
7
m
a 10
;&
N
m
m
q
O
m m
C
y
p
fA O
c�
CE
3
O
C L 3
m
A C
CD
C-- (D
C
0 0
>
m a
0<
T
rt
>
H
0, 0 W
0
7

-n
m
D
0
3
O
co
91
0
N
V
N
N
0
a
CD
O
c
<
T1
m
K
D
T
O
C6
N
T
O
r
v
CD
CD
N
O
CJ
CD
'm
Ci
R
m
w
0
0
3
'0
w
Z
3
R
U)
0
s
O'
CD
m
Q
CD
to
v
O
CD
CD
Z
0
CJ
CJ
CA
N
A
(o
Cn
rn
m
Z
O
CA)
rn
N
V
A
(O
co
CA
0
Z
w
(D
r
w
w
m
U)
CD
w
r
0
CD
y
CD
Z
0
0
CA)
14
CO
m
10 C CDs
0
T9-' g
P
o 0 0,,-rm p o^D
(n
=cn
v
y H. (�
6=
3
a :
3
3
c_ STS_ m m �a
w o y
p
w
� o=
(D
3
w Cl.'
w °u
w
(CD
co
<•Na
C
3= z n w
CD CT rn cu 0
p
w
o
�w»'ii
'-
l<
y
3°
3mLn 0 >'L.0 ,<
Dac
m
0D
C-
33
w a
w o w
0
CD �.n
w
O
m am3 0 3
O �. �• H 3
o
N Ta
y
3
7
CD
vi 7
t1Du <
CD S
3 CD 3 j
Z
0
�
y tOii CD C O
7 O- C r. Ll 3 7
o
Z
y
CC
? in
3• a
(D SU
'» � o �
n
D-'
N
w
n
DT"
N W r p_ p w� .� a ^.
c �'
(D
c
N V1
CO a
G
y
CD Q
(D
m
3 N 0 p
y
r
vi
CD Q p - o'`�
n.c c, n 3 cn0 p o
CD
Co
m
-
m
w
2 w
w T a n
`c w
co
0
Z
w
p (q a 0 j (D CL w n
m -5 -
D' 3-cr
CD
O
C
m
T
aONy
y�.
y
y
3
On
r—
0)_ (D�(D�w•O=�
y
O
o
CL CL
w
m O
w
-0 �
c
0
x� m m p w 3� m
3
O
o
N w C1 -w N 0
m
a
G
-ca
3 07 D
CD
O
{Q
to03 rd (Q A),
Q
O
w
7
wa
CD O
Q 0, Co. a -I
c
G.
w
p a a m m w °-' � 0 v
0
C.
(o
aD �
w
y
w j? su O
w
••
a o_ - w -
f: = n CD 3 w
❑
❑
w
�_
- w
CD w
.6 y C1 lD Z
a
m
L
0 CSD
7 .C-' 3 0- 3 3 W O
X,
0
m
=r OLW
w
m
��°vinmCD0
T
w y
C
c
CD d a<
2
�G
- T j n W 2 Q
N
�• D
CD
U)�
oC��w 111
�
o
3
Qm�mmvw
ncm
0
CD
v 3
?
g Dwa3 0 z
v
Cn--
su
Doi
N> 7 y
d
m
- S o T- p O? w
A. (r7 _ N CD
❑
❑
w
O y
�w 70
O
o
(p 7
n9 w(^o-0w
3 O fo
CD
CD
(/1 0
O OR
3
(7
3 C tn•
7 a a m
7
w
TI n
(D w c 3 3 D
D
c
0
a n
w
CD
0 (D
3.
CD
0
Ln OL CU 7
=r
w
\
C= O. C
7 CD 2
v
7
t0
CD 3-
N 3 (D O-
fn 0
n
CL L1 w CD
�•�� 0
0
w
3
w .� _
o o w
_ 0 O 3y
y
O
�.m
w
�. n
O TI
i0�� m
..
(1
S w o. w CD
jw�r CD
O
=m
CD
(® a
CD a N
CD
>
OIL og ��
7
-
O
w
O y C?
rA
N
_
3QOn MT w
O O fii
C�
Oo yr-_
000CD D
n
ammDq
D
7
m
0
w
m
O
n
3
C (o 0 m
m
< '< 5.0 o
w,
3
c
m
m
�ii 0
D
-1
�vOi w(p
a
w
w
Nc?.
a m o ur
Q
(D
w?'.CD
o�rO�
m a T o
aCD
�
a
m
y
y
CD
w� 03�
y
0
p
0
-
a
fl^�iwmm m
0^D,Di•
6 -v�
-w
i
c
3
O
w
y S
a w T
m
p
o_
O ❑
Ci O w (o D
y 7
_0
O
Z
0
a Cr CD
p p d w w CD 5 CD
O-
�
w
Z
�p
C Cj -O M
D
O
�
3
= y M (D (p- Oa 0 w
m na
�
N
O
O
W
w O y
w
m
m
0
c
O
w n a�
.0 -
m
P�
co
fo
C
a
D
3
(D Z O
T
^.m
c
0
3..�
H< O
^ a�
y
CD
w
3
-pN r
7 a S D
�.
a
Im
OD
Z
w
c o� sa3 (�i'o
`G C �' 7 w T 2 w
m
in
.wa.
7
c
3 %
co Z
CD
V CD
T (� O �Co C
<_
y D
O O ID �
7
W
(gipp �
�.y.. aie -40
3
W.
w
3 7 T
w
�3o•c C
a
n
c
0
Don<=po -5,
-
CD
a w CD
� y
O
a
w CD 3— _�� ` ED
n
....
X O w
w
0
O w N. m
1
C
y
w�
-®a T� 0 0 2 d
w m 3
0
3
w
03
3
w
T
N
r o m
03D(KOo(o. 3
o
3
CD
c
,. w
w(O CT
CLw c
.
Z
Q
n DKrf ff
y a(D v zOA) 6j' r
a
C ..
d;
(D =r
CD
n
O
:E a [u K CL
Z 40y
O
3
C U7
coh.
`C
p- 3 N NO"tO
_ J
o
0
a^O
6
pi-= ((D p
=r S3
Cl
'
Cr
(D
CD Q w
(D .y ' N p. K
A
C
N
y C `<
00
-1
cnO p 0.yN p -w0
T 7
.Np
7
ni
7 d
0)
"
= V [U Try 3 M
A
3
o.
�
y O S <
w
Cl
�
w
w^O ...y
Z:! :3 w0
N
CD
g
Vi
m
m
Fn
n
m
m
m
v
cn
--i
C
�
3
n
CD
CD
w
c
CD
y
y
w
oo
7
O
<
m
a)
o
D
:3
0
w
O
3
0
3
�
w
H
0
CD
®
❑
y
y
y
On
y
w
3-
3
0
C
6
3
m
o
O
N
O
{Q
CD
O
y
C
C
0
C.
C
O
y
❑
❑
o
w'
21
A
m
=
wr
m
X,
0
m
w
O
T
2
O
N
0.CD
w
�
v
<
v
(D
❑
❑
O
co
CD
CD
(Q
o
0
D
c
CD
0
=r
CD2
v
2
0
D
y
O
..
3
O
CD
7
3
�7
O
7

(N.R SEAL)
1-7
�g 018723
RIGHT -OF -ENTRY AND
TEMPROARY UTILTIY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
ROCKFISH CREEK INTERCEPTOR STABLIZATION PROJECT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
BR1212PG598
4.... 21--2006 1", lyl 4:: 4:1. ., 5 9
: N J
W A Fz R! 1.H
1::, 1) 1::: 1::- YN Cz
RI::: (311STEA 0
("UNBER1 AND CO., 141.. t.,.
PWC E,.vEMENTNUMBER
A Q
THIS INSTRUMENT made the day of A&& '2006
QrIAInn-_�-0:
WITNESSED THAT
This EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made by and the between Public Works Commission of the City of
Fayetteville herein referred to as PWC or GRANTEE, and Neil Evans Smith and wife, Alice M. Smith,
herein referred to as OWNER or GRANTOR.
Whereas, PWC owns and maintains a 48" concrete sanitary sewer line (the "INTERCEPTOR") extending
from Camden Road southward to and across what was formerly Hope Mills Lake to and along Little
Rockfish Creek; and
Whereas, a section of the INTERCEPTOR crosses Little Rockfish Creek on property of OWNER located
south of Camden Road and described in Deed Book 5099, Page 822 of the Cumberland County, North
Carolina Registry and identified as TAX Pin 0415-20-1058; and
Whereas, due to a dam failure, the water level of Hope Mills Lake is now approximately six feet below
the normal lake level causing approximately 97 linear feet of PWC's INTERCEPTOR crossing said
tributary on property of OWNER to be exposed; and
Whereas, in an effort to protect the exposed part of the INTERCEPTOR until the Hope Mills Lake Dam
can be repaired, PWC wishes to install and maintain as a temporary measure a cross vane darn consisting
of root masses and trunks bound by steel cable; and the cross vane dam would be installed approximately
30 -feet downstream from the INTERCEPTOR; and
Whereas, the purpose of the cross vane dam is to raise the water level at the creek crossing approximately
1 -foot above the pipe to prevent scouring and undermining of the sewer line due to low water level. In
normal circumstances, the sewer line would be sub stream. The cross vane darn with time will decay,
while also providing a possible enhancement for the aquatic wildlife.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the hold harmless agreement provided herein to the
OWNERS by PWC hereby acknowledged, OWNER does herewith give, grant and convey to PWC a non-
exclusive, temporary access easement to and from the construction site across his property and to permit
the construction and maintenance of said cross vane dam on the property of OWNER referenced
hereabove for a minimum period of 24 months or until such time as a more permanent structure can be
designed, permitted, and constructed or the intended purpose for constructing the dam can be
accomplished by other means or methods of mutual consent by OWNER and PWC. After the initial 24 -
month period from date this agreement is executed, either party may terminate this agreement upon 180
day written notice to cancel this agreement.
PWC in consideration of the grant of this temporary utility easement agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the OWNER from
any claims, causes of action, or damage incurred as a result of the work to be performed or related to the results of the work to
be performed pursuant to this temporary utility easement.
6.'. —

BKT2 I 2PG599
HAVE, TO HOLD, AND TO ENJOY said right, easement, and privilege as above fully defined and
xibed in, on, under, over, through and across said land, and all privileges and appurtenances thereto
aging, to Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the
to the same against the lawful claims of all person.
ierever used herein, the singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall
applicable to all genders as the context may require.
WHEREOF, Grantor hips signed and sealed this instrument,
M
(No Markings, to include Notary Seal is to be outside of the margin lines)
TH CAROLINA — CUMBERLAND COUNTY
1 71 M&S -3- tK4tt-t.%, 3a . , a Notary Public of said County and State, do hereby certify that
it M SA'A' .. k"W14A Nell ivalis S :0,. personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial seal, this the 12:6-' day of j4rmtL- 2006.
commission expires: OrTo6er V I 'xL001
Not lie
5 '3, A- v+ r tn' Z2. -
The foregoing Certificate(s) of
certilieO to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the
and Page shown on the first page hereof.
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR _ CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Deputy/Assistant —Register of Deeds

WILSON A. LACY, COMMISSIONER PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION 955 OLD WILMINGTON RD
TERRI UNION, COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 1089
LUIS J. OLIVERA, COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28302.1089
MICHAEL G. LALLIER, COMMISSIONER TELEPHONE (AREA CODE 910) 4831401
STEVEN K. BLANCHARD, CEO/GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRIC & WATER UTILITIES FAX (AREA CODE 910) 829,0207
November 10, 2010
Mr. Neil E. Smith
5301 Camden Road
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Subject: Right -of -Entry and Vane Dam Agreement – Smith Family Conservancy,
LLC; Reference Pin No. 0415-20-1058
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed is a copy of the fully executed agreement referenced above. Thank you for
working with PWC on the installation of and access to the temporary Vane Dam as a measure to
protect our 48" sanitary sewer outfall line until such time the Hope Mills Dam is restored.
JA:gb
Cc: Rick Davis
Joe Callis
Very truly yours,
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
V—kF�—
Jim Autry
Right -of -Way Supervisor
BUILDING COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SINCE 1905
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

RIGHT -OF -ENTRY AND
AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY
WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE
LITTLE ROCKFISH CREEK
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
"I
PWC AGREEMENT No. /I 1?
/ (:-0
THIS INSTRUMENT made the '9 day ofNOWAB6�(?_ 2010
WITNESSED THAT
This AGREEMENT is made by and the between PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION of the City of
Fayetteville herein referred to as "PWC", and SMITH FAMILY CONSERVACY, LLC, herein referred to
as "OWNER".
WHEREAS, PWC currently owns, operates, and maintains a 48 -inch concrete sanitary sewer outfall line
(the "INTERCEPTOR") a section of which extends in a north/south direction to and across Camden Road
and to and across Little Rockfish Creek and southerly up to and under the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
Right-of-way near the head of Hope Mills Lake, and
WHEREAS, a portion of said INTERCEPTOR crosses property of OWNER described in Deed Book
5099, Page 822 of the Cumberland County, North Carolina Registry and identified as TAX Pin 0415-20-
1058; and
WHEREAS, due to a recent dam failure, the water level of Hope Mills Lake is now approximately six feet
below the normal lake level causing approximately 100 linear feet of PWC's INTERCEPTOR along creek
bordering OWNER'S property to be exposed; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to protect the exposed section of the INTERCEPTOR until the recently
constructed Hope Mills Lake Dam can be repaired, PWC wishes to install and maintain as a temporary
measure a cross vane dam consisting of root masses and tree trunks; and the cross vane darn would be
installed approximately 30 -feet downstream from the INTERCEPTOR; also, as an additional temporary
measure, PWC wishes to install and maintain a cross vane dam consisting of bulk sand bags; and the cross
vane dam would be installed adjacent to and immediately downstream of the INTERCEPTOR; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the cross vane dam being to raise the water level at the creek crossing
approximately 1 -foot above the pipe to prevent scouring and undermining of the sewer line due to low
water level. In normal circumstances, the sewer line would be sub stream. The most downstream cross
vane dam with time will decay, while also providing a possible enhancement for the aquatic wildlife; the

M
LPN
nearest cross vane darn downstream of the INTERCEPTOR will be removed upon repair of the Hope
Mills dam and the water level is back to normal;
NOW, THEREFORE, upon mutual agreement of both parties hereby acknowledged, OWNER permits
PWC, it agents, contractors, and assigns, the right -of -entry and temporary access to and from the vane
dam construction site for a maximum period of 36 months or until such time that a more permanent
structure can be designed, permitted, and constructed or the intended purpose for constructing the dam is
no longer necessary. After the initial 36 -month period from date of this agreement, the agreement will
automatically renew for additional 12 month intervals and either party may terminate this agreement upon
180 day written notice to cancel this agreement.
In consideration of the grant of this temporary agreement, PWC agrees to indemnify and hold OWNER
harmless from any claims, causes of action, or damage incurred as a result of the work to be performed or
related to the results of the work to be performed pursuant to this agreement.
This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding to its successors in title.
SMITH FAMILY CONSERVACY, LLC
4 ce, -rz;zP114'4'1 (SEAL) DATE:
MEM hER/ MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
A
(SEAL) DATE:
(Low r -V

From: Ellis, John W. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:21 AM
To: Kevin Lugo <[e-mail]>; Mark Landis <[e-mail]>; TC Morphis
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Adams, Melissa P <[e-mail]>; Ellis, John W. <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Agreement -Neil Smith
Kevin et al,
I am forwarding the email with attachments from PWC. Kevin and I had a conversation with them on Friday
about any easements, access agreements, etc. that they had with the Smith's / Smith Family Conservancy.
Thanks,
John Ellis
From: Jim Autry [mailto:jii [e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 6:24 PM
To: Ellis, John W. Cc: Chris Rainey
Subject: Agreement -Neil Smith
John,
Attached are the two previous agreements PWC entered into with Mr. Smith. As you can see, both pertain
to giving PWC right to enter and construct a temporary vane dam across Rockfish Creek. As discussed with
Mr. Rainey & myself, when the dam broke and the lake water receded, it exposed our 48" sewer
interceptor crossing the creek and the creek water began undermining our pipe. To protect our pipe, PWC
constructed a temporary dam just downstream of the crossing in order to raise the water level above our
pipe until such time the lake was restored and the water level was above our pipe as it was before the dam
broke.
We are unaware of any other formal agreements with the landowner. Mr. Smith did come to PWC some
time back with a conceptual development plan inquiring about the availability of utilities to the
development. As I recall, we acknowledged that utilities (i.e. water, sewer, elec) were in place for future
extensions into the development. Again, it was solely based on the conceptual layout presented.
As Chris & I reiterated, PWC is very much in favor of replacement of the Town of Hope Mills dam and
restoring the lake to at or near its former level.
Jim Autry
Right-of-way Supervisor
Public Works Commission
PO Box 1089 (28302)
955 Old Wilmington Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301
910-223-4342 Office
910-263-5078 Cell
[e-mail]

i
I ® '
71Hd r C
a
as GNeia3zgms
® a .
Ilky

013986
II ptla
RL:(;L' I V[ -D
�g....
9---P000 M1 10 n c?4 �-z tG
l r.. [,, F~ WARREN JFK n
This Document Prepared by: Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorneyty and r-e4fff The Yarborough Law Firm P A
NORTH CAROLINA
EASEMENT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Know all men by these presents, that we, Neil Evans Smith and wife, Alice M. Smith,
being the owners of a parcel of land, in or near the Town of Hope Mills for and in consideration
of the representations made in its Resolution Accepting Easement and other good and valuable
considerations, do hereby give, grant and quitclaim, with the reservations noted hereinbelow,
unto the said Town of Hope Mills, an easement to impound water as a part of the Hope Mills
Lake Dam Project on the below described subject property, lying and being situated in
Cumberland County, North Carolina, to wit
All lands formerly used as a portion of Hope Mills Lake, including tributaries,
owned by the Grantors as evidenced in the following four deeds up to and
including the 104 feet (above sea level) high water mark elevation: Book 5099,
Page 822, Book 5099, Page 825, Book 3609, Page 479 andBook 647, Page 243.
Reserved and excepted from said easement therefrom are the following rights:
1. Any density value for developmental purposes contained in the subject area. In
other words, the Grantees may utilize any land in the easement area as part of its square foot

e
R A,
calculations for density as it applies to any town zoning or land use regulation.
2 Rights in the easement to build piers and/or ramps upon the easement area to
access and enjoy Hope Mills Lake.
3. Rights for the use and enjoyment of Hope Mills Lake, including, but not limited
to fishing, swimming, non -wake boating, etc.
To have and to hold the said easement subject to the above referenced reservations unto the said
Town of Hope Mills to impound water as apart of the Hope Mills Lake Dam Project, so long as
the same shall be used, operated and maintained for such purpose and no longer; and the grantors
hereby dedicate their respective interests in said strip of land to public use for such purposes.
The grantors herein expressly limit the grant and quitclaim of this easement to their
respective interests in those parcels of land across which the above described strip of land lies.
In Witness Whereof, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first
above written.
TANS SMITH ,
LC 1( S{%tom' (Seal'
Q. SMITH
NORTH CAROLINA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
I, G( l -p- r1 K /� f5 , a Notary Public of said County, hereby certify that
Neil Evans Smith and Alice M. Smith personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the due execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein expressed.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal this day of 4, "- f, 2008.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: O 0 % G

WIted W -ft
EPA AW4
EnOww=U NOmwo EJSCREEN Census 2010 Summary Report
Location: User-specified polygonal location
Ring (buffer): o'mneramuo
Description: Mobile Home Park
Population
115
Population Density (per sq. mile)
1.805
Minority Population
no
% Minority
44m
Households
na
Housing Units
61
Land Area (ul. miles)
0.06
% Land Area
97m
Water Area (,q.miles)
».»»
% Water Area
am
Population by Race
Number
Percent
Total
115
-------
--'Popu|ationneportinaonenace
Population Reporting One Race
110
nom
White
uo
nnm
Black
34
onm
American Indian
o
om
Asian
o
1m
Pacific Islander
o
om
Some Other Race
4
4m
Population Reporting Two orMore Races
n
4m
Total Hispanic Population
10
nm
Total Non -Hispanic Population
105
91m
White Alone
on
nom
Black Alone
oo
oam
American Indian Alone
o
om
Non -Hispanic Asian Alone
1
1m
Pacific Islander Alone
o
om
Other Race Alone
o
om
Two orMore Races Alone
o
om
Population by Sex
Number
Percent
Male
54
47m
Female
61
nom
Population by Age
Number
Percent
Age 0-4
10
nm
Age 0-17
34
oom
Age 18+
81
70m
Age 65+
a
7m
Households by Tenure
Number
Percent
Total
na
Owner Occupied
42
73m
Renter Occupied
15
27m
Data Note: Detail may not mmtototals due torounding. Hispanic population can ucof any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.
z/1

NVAm� ���������������������R��K���
�'-- ���� -- Summary "
Location: User-specified polygonal location
Ring (buffer): 0 -mile radius
Description: Mobile Home Park
Population
48
Population Density (per sq. mile)
1.327
Minority Population
21
% Minority
43m
Households
on
Housing Units
oo
Housing Units Built Before 195O
o
Per Capita Income
21.694
Land Area (sq.miles) (so"ne: Spd
0.04
Y6Land Area
nom
Water Area (sq. miles) (source: Spd
0.00
Y6Water Area
10m
2ozo'2O1u
Percent
K8O[(�)
ACS Estimates
Population by Race
Tota|
48
100m
264
Population Reporting One Race
45
nnm
570
White
oo
oom
000
Black
14
oom
214
American Indian
1
om
na
Asian
o
om
a
Pacific Islander
o
om
12
Some Other Race
o
om
12
Population Reporting Two orMore Races
o
nm
70
Total Hispanic Population
4
am
120
Total Non -Hispanic Population
44
White Alone
27
57m
2e7
Black Alone
14
oom
214
American Indian Alone
o
om
19
Non -Hispanic Asian Alone
o
om
a
Pacific Islander Alone
o
om
12
Other Race Alone
o
om
12
Two or More Races Alone
o
4m
57
Population by Sex
Male
oo
47m
155
Female
oo
nom
164
Population by Age
Age 0-4
n
10m
an
Age 0-17
15
31m
150
Age 18+
oo
onm
221
Age 65+
4
am
on
Data Notez Detail may not sum to totals due torounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. N/A means not available.
ao"mezu.S.Census Bureau, American Community Survey (AcS)zuzu 2014.
June 24, 2016 z$

EPA
VO APXY EJSCREEN ACS Summary Report
Location: User-specified polygonal location
Ring (buffer): o'mneramuo
Description: Mobile Home Park
Data Notez Detail may not sum to totals due torounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. N/A means not
available. Soaoez u.S.Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 2014.
*I-Iouseholds in which no one 14 and over speaks English "very well" or speaks English only.
June 24, 2016 z$
2O1O'2O1u
Percent
MO[pW
ACS Estimates
Population 25+ by Educational Attainment
Tota|
on
100m
169
Less than 9th Grade
1
nm
37
9th 12th Grade, No Diploma
1
4m
oo
High School Graduate
o
oom
rg
Some College, NoDegree
14
48m
130
Associate Degree
o
10m
na
Bachelor's Degree ormore
7
oom
121
Population Age 5+ Years by Ability to Speak English
Total
43
100m
219
Speak only English
41
94m
ooa
Non-English atHome 1+2+*^
o
om
nn
'Speak English "very weU"
1
om
37
~Speak English "weU"
o
1m
oe
^3peak English "not weU"
o
1m
oo
^3peak English "not atall"
o
1m
on
*^s`eak English "less than weU"
1
zm
on
2+3+4peak English "less than very weU"
1
am
41
Linguistically Isolated Households*
Total
o
100m
18
Speak Spanish
o
100m
13
Speak Other Indo-European Languages
o
om
12
Speak Asian -Pacific Island Languages
o
om
12
Speak Other Languages
o
om
12
Households by Household Income
Household Income Base
on
100m
rg
^$15'OOO
o
7m
37
$15'000 $25'000
n
18m
70
$25'000 $50\000
o
oom
oa
$50\000 $75'000
7
24m
74
$75'000+
n
oom
ao
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Tota|
on
100m
rg
Owner Occupied
19
onm
81
Renter Occupied
10
35%
91
Employed Population Age 16+ Years
Total
on
100m
190
In Labor Force
oo
oom
162
Civilian Unemployed inLabor Force
o
om
45
Not In Labor Force
13
37m
134
Data Notez Detail may not sum to totals due torounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. N/A means not
available. Soaoez u.S.Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 2014.
*I-Iouseholds in which no one 14 and over speaks English "very well" or speaks English only.
June 24, 2016 z$

EJSCREEN ACS Summary Report
Location: User-specified polygonal location
Ring (buffer): 0 -mile radius
Description: Mobile Home Park
2010-2014
Percent MOE (±)
ACS Estimates
Total (persons age 5 and above)
43
100%
219
English
N/A
N/A
N/A
Spanish
N/A
N/A
N/A
French
N/A
N/A
N/A
French Creole
N/A
N/A
N/A
Italian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Portuguese
N/A
N/A
N/A
German
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yiddish
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other West Germanic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Scandinavian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Greek
N/A
N/A
N/A
Russian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Polish
N/A
N/A
N/A
Serbo-Croatian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Slavic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Armenian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Persian
N/A
N/A
N/A
G ujarathi
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hindi
N/A
N/A
N/A
Urdu
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Indic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Indo-European
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chinese
N/A
N/A
N/A
Japanese
N/A
N/A
N/A
Korean
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mon-Khmer, Cambodian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hmong
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thai
N/A
N/A
N/A
Laotian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Vietnamese
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Asian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tagalog
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Pacific Island
N/A
N/A
N/A
Navajo
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other Native American
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hungarian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Arabic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hebrew
N/A
N/A
N/A
African
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other and non-specified
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Non-English
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race.
N/A means not
available. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2010 - 2014.
*Population by Language Spoken at Home is available at the census tract summary level and up.
June 24, 2016 3/3