West Lumberton Flood Gate EARLY NOTICE FLOODPLAIN and WETLANDS MAPS rdcd

WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD GATE AT VFW ROAD
AND RAILROAD UNDERPASS

EARLY NOTICE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAPS

 Proposed Project Location Maps, Robeson
County Parcel Data, and Site Plans

 FEMA FIRMette, NEPAssist FEMA FIRMs,
PFIRMs, NFIP Community Status Book, and
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Map, Total Wetlands Area Map, and USACE
Correspondence

Proposed Project Location Maps
Robeson County Parcel Data
Site Plans
Laclaire

R
d
SESE
H
i
l
t
o
n

S
t
CoxRd
Heste
r

D
r
W

5
t
h

S
t
Hect or

M
a
c
l ean

H
w
y
Hector
Mac l ean Hw y
VF
W

R
d
H a c k e t t S t
C
ivi
t
a
n

R
d
Laclaire

R
d
Cr y s t a l R d
He ct or

M
a
c lea n

H
w
y
SE
VFW

R
d
No
rr
i
s

S
t
Nation
al

A
v
e
Re
s
e
rv
oir

S
t
B u r ke

S
t
Co
x
Rd
Hacke
t
t

S
t
Se
alsSt
Cryst
a
l

R
d
W

5
t
h S t W 5th St
He ctor

M
a
c
l
e
a
n

H
wy
West Lumberton Flood Gate - Aerial Map
NC CGIA, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, State of North Carolina
DOT, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,
USDA, EPA OEI
WLFG Project Action Area
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
Railroads
December 1, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
Laclaire

R
d
SE
SE
95
H
i
l
t
o
n

S
t
C ox Rd
H ester

D
r
W

5
th S t
He c tor

M
a
c
l
e a n

H
w
y
H ecto r M ac lea n Hwy
V
F
W
Rd
H a c kett

S
t
Ci
v
i
t
a
n

R
d
Laclaire

R
d
Cr ys t al

R
d
Hecto
r Macl ean

H
wy
Hecto
r M ac l ean

H
wy
72
72
VFW

R
d
No
rr
isSt
Nationa
l

A
v
e
Re
s
e
r
voirSt
B u r ke St
Co
x
Rd
Hacke
t
t

S
t
Se
als

S
t
Cryst
a
l

R
d
W

5
t
h

S
t
He ctor

M
a
c
l ean H wy
West Lumberton Flood Gate - Street Map
Esri Community Maps Contributors, State of North Carolina DOT, ©
OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,
USDA, EPA OEI
WLFG Project Action Area
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
Railroads
December 1, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
West Lumberton Flood Gate - Topographic Map
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, EPA OEI
WLFG Project Action Area
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
Railroads
December 1, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
3608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.LHJunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:
NC Firm License # C-0459
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL
VICINITY MAP
P:
\
2
0
1
9
\
1
9
.
0
3
0
0
4
-
A
T
K
I
N
S
N
O
R
A
-
W
E
S
T

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

G
A
T
E
\
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
\
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
G
-
0
0
1

C
O
V
E
R
.
D
W
G
P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E

6
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

4
:
0
5

P
M

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
E

H
E
A
T
H
C
O
A
T
WEST LUMBERTON FLOODGATE
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERPASSCITY OF LUMBERTON
ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2023
DIVISION VALUE = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
200 100 200 400
200
0
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-G-002 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES
NORTH CAROLINA LAND QUALITY SECTION EROSION CONTROL NOTES
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
NOTES AND LEGEND
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-CG-003 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
NOT TO SCALE
CSX GENERAL NOTES
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
3608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.LHJunius.com
Tel:Fax:[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
Client
Seal
NOT TO SCALE
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY-
95% SUBMITTAL
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Original Size
Drawing Number Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
NCDEQ NCG01 GENERAL
PERMIT NOTES
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-CG-004 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Seal
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
3608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.LHJunius.com
Tel:Fax:[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Drawing Status
Client
Seal
NOT TO SCALE
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY-
95% SUBMITTAL
Seal
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Original Size
Drawing Number Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
NCDEQ NCG01 GENERAL
PERMIT NOTES
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-CG-005 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
DIVISION VALUE = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
40
0
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
(PRE- I-95 CONSTRUCTION)
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=40'
S0
100068207-C-101 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
DIVISION VALUE = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
40
0
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
(POST- I-95 CONSTRUCTION)
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=40'
S0
100068207-C-102 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:Fax:[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
DIVISION VALUE = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
40
0
NOTES:
1. OFFSET WATERLINE AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE
INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE IS 4
HOURS. REFER TO DETAIL 3 SHEET C-301.
2. WATERLINE OFFSET CAN BE USED AS TEMPORARY OF FINAL LOCATION OF PIPE.
FINAL PIPE PENETRATION THROUGH WALL SHALL BE PER DETAIL PROVIDED IN
STRUCTURAL SHEETS.
3. ALL PIPES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON.
4. PROVIDE CITY OF LUMBERTON AT LEAST TWO WEEKS NOTICE AHEAD OF
INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE AND COORDINATE WITH CITY ON LOCATION AND
OPERATION OF CUTOFF VALVES.
5. STEEL CASINGS, SPACERS, AND CARRIER PIPE SHALL BE RESTORED AS EXISTING,
IN SAME LOCATION. NO OFFSET IS OLLOWED.
6. STEEL CASING SHALLE BE WELDED AT CUT LOCATIONS. MECHANICAL JOINTS
SHALL BE USED TO RESTRAIN CARRIER PIPE.
7. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE FOR WATERLINE INSIDE STEEL
CASING IS TWO WEEKS.
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SITE PLAN
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=40'
S0
100068207-C-201 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:Fax:[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal



















































DIVISION VALUE = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
40
0
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=40'
S0
100068207-C-202 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
SECTION
SCALE: HORIZ. 1"= 40'
VERT. 1"= 20'
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
CROSS SECTIONS
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
S0
100068207-C-301 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
SILT FENCE1NOT TO SCALE
SILT FENCE - OUTLET
NOT TO SCALE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOT TO SCALE
RIP RAP CHECK DAM
NOT TO SCALE
2
3
8
GRAVEL ROAD TURNOUT
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD CROSS-SECTION
NOT TO SCALE4
5
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL
NOT TO SCALE
GROIN PROTECTION RIPRAP
NOT TO SCALE6
TYPICAL THRUST BLOCKS
NOT TO SCALE9
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DETAILS 1 OF 2
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-C-501 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
WATER MAIN OFFSET
NOT TO SCALE7
CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR
- FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -
95% SUBMITTAL
NOT TO SCALE
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DETAILS 2 OF 2
CHCH DS MH
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-C-502 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
STEEL NOTES:CONCRETE NOTES:
1.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ALL WELDING SHALL BE ELECTRIC WELDING.
WORKMANSHIP AND TECHNIQUE, WHERE
APPLICABLE, SHALL CONFORM TO THE
AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY (SEE SPECS.)STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE.
WELDING SYMBOLS SHOWN ARE THOSE
ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETYAND INDICATE ONLY SIZE AND TYPE
OF WELDS REQUIRED. DETAILED INFORMATION
SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE SHOP DRAWINGS
AND SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FORAPPROVAL.
DIMENSIONS SHOWN OR CALLED FOR ARE THE
FINAL DIMENSIONS; ALLOWANCES MUST BEMADE FOR MACHINING.
ITEMS MARKED C.R.S. SHALL BE CORROSION
RESISTANT STEEL (STAINLESS STEEL),SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
STEEL SHEET PILING SHALL CONFORM TO
ASTM A572, GRADE 50.
STEEL H-PILES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM
A572, GRADE 50.
6.
9.
CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (F'c) OF 4000 PSI AT
28 DAYS (90 DAYS IF POZZOLAN IS
USED), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
STABILIZATION SLAB CONCRETE SHALL
HAVE A COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (F'c)
OF 2500 PSI AT 28 DAYS (90 DAYS IFPOZZOLAN IS USED).
REINFORCING STEEL SHALL HAVE A
MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH (Fy) OF60,000 PSI.
CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WHERE SHOWN. WHERE NOTSHOWN, CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL
BE PLACED AT LOCATIONS LEAST LIKELY
TO IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE
CONCRETE STRUCTURE. CONSTRUCTIONJOINT LOCATIONS NOT OTHERWISE SHOWN
ON THE PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED
BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PROVIDE 3/4"
CHAMFER AT ALL EXPOSED JOINTS,
EDGES, EXTERNAL CORNERS, AND VERTICAL
EXPANSION JOINTS.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, CLEAR COVER SHALL BE:
2" FOR SECTIONS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 12" THICK
3" FOR SECTIONS GREATER THAN 12" AND LESSTHAN 24" THICK
4" FOR SECTIONS GREATER THAN 24" THICK
ALL BENDS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ALLBAR SPACERS AND SUPPORTS SHALL BE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SP-66, AMERICAN
CONCRETE INSTITUTE DETAILING
MANUAL - 2004.
REINFORCING BAR DESIGNATION NUMBERS
CONFORM TO THE NUMBERING SYSTEM OF
THE CONCRETE REINFORCING STEELINSTITUTE.
REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE
CONTINUOUS AT ALL CORNERSUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
REINFORCEMENT, WHERE NECESSARY TO
AVOID OPENINGS, PIPES, EMBEDDEDITEMS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, SHALL
BE BENT OR SHIFTED AS DIRECTED
BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.
THE EMBEDMENT AND SPLICE TABLE
SHALL BE USED IN DETERMINING LAP
SPLICES AND EMBEDMENT LENGTHS
WHERE LENGTHS ARE NOT OTHERWISE
INDICATED. SPLICE LENGTHS SHALL BE
BASED ON THE SMALLER BAR BEING
LAPPED. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE
ALLOWED TO MAKE SPLICES IN
ADDITION TO THOSE INDICATED IN THE
DRAWINGS, WHERE ESSENTIAL TO
CONSTRUCTIBILITY, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. SPLICES
OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE
DRAWINGS AND OTHER THAN ANY
ADDITIONAL SPLICES REQUIRED BY
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WILL BE AT
THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
ALL EXTERIOR FORMED SURFACES NOT
COVERED BY BACK FILL SHALL BE
CLASS ''A'' FINISH AND SURFACES
COVERED BY BACK FILL SHALL BE
CLASS ''D'' FINISH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
FOR "T-WALL" STEMS, CONCRETE
PLACEMENT SHALL BE BY PUMP / TREMIE
OR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY
TEMPORARY ''WINDOWS'' IN THE FORMS
TO FACILITATE CONCRETE PLACEMENT
AND CONSOLIDATION.
ABBREVIATIONS
MAX
MIN
SST
TYP
EXISTING
FAR FACE
GALVANIZED
INSIDE FACE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MISCELLANEOUS
NEAR FACE
OUTSIDE FACE
ON CENTER
STAINLESS STEEL
TOP AND BOTTOM
TYPICAL
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
UNDERGROUND
APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATE WITH
ALUMINUM
BITUMINOUS
BOTTOM
CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION JOINT
CONCRETE
DIAMETER
EACH FACE
BOT
C/L
C&G
CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
EXPANSION JOINT
ELEVATION
EACH WAY
DRAWING
HEIGHT
NUMBER
SAN SANITARY
SPECIFICATIONS
MIRR MIRRORED
* UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON EACH SHEET
APPROX
ALT W/
ALUM
BITUM
CENTER LINE
CLR CLEAR
CJ
CONC
EJ
FF
GALV
HT
IF
MISC
NF
OF
NO
OC
SPEC
T&B
UNO
UGND
FES FLARED END SECTION
WATER MAINWM
R/W
LONG
LANDWARDL/W
LG
W/ WITH
E.W.
EXIST.
DIA., Ø
DWG.
E.F.
1.
2.
3.
4.
NOTES:
USE THE BASIC TABLE IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
A) CENTER TO CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS AT LEAST 4 BAR DIAMETERS B) CONCRETE COVER IS AT LEAST 2 BAR DIAMETERS, AND
C) EDGE DISTANCE TO THE FIRST BAR IN A LAYER IS AT LEAST 2 BAR DIAMETERS.
THE ALTERNATE TABLE MAY BE USED IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: A) CENTER TO CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS AT LEAST 6 BAR DIAMETERS
B) CONCRETE COVER IS AT LEAST 2 BAR DIAMETERS, AND
C) EDGE DISTANCE TO THE FIRST BAR IN A LAYER IS AT LEAST 2.5 BAR DIAMETERS.
IF CONCRETE COVER OR EDGE DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 2 BAR DIAMETERS OR THE CENTER TO
CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS LESS THAN 4 DIAMETERS, SEE ACI 318 FOR APPROPRIATE
GUIDANCE.
TOP BARS ARE HORIZONTAL BARS AND BARS INCLINED LESS THAN 45 DEGREES WITH RESPECT TO A
HORIZONTAL PLANE WHICH ARE PLACED SUCH THAT MORE THAN 12 INCHES OF CONCRETE IS CAST
IN THE MEMBER BELOW THE BAR.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18 14
25 19
31 24
37 28
54 42
62 47
69 53
77 59
85 65
24 18
32 25
40 31
48 37
70 54
80 62
90 69
77
110 85
12 12
15 12
18 14
22 17
32 25
37 28
42 32
46 36
51 39
14 12
19 15
24 18
29 22
42 32
48 37
54 42
60 46
66 51
100
BAR SIZE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH
TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER
LENGTH, INCHES INCHES
MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH
LENGTH, INCHES INCHES
BASIC TABLE ALTERNATE TABLE
REINFORCEMENT EMBEDMENT AND SPLICE TABLES - 4000 PSI
SPACING

2
'
'
(M
I
N
)

3
'
'
(M
I
N
)

4
'
'
(M
I
N
)
NTS
SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT
FACE OF CONCRETE
PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT
RIGHT OF WAY
APP. APPARENT
B/L BASELINE
SURV SURVEY
T.O.C. TOP OF CASTING
RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PROJ PROJECT
REQ'D REQUIRED
R.R. RAILROAD
EQ. EQUAL
ELEV.
N/S NORFOLK SOUTHERN
S/W SIDEWALK
FTG FOOTING
W/L WALL LINE
SP SPACE
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
EQ
U
A
L

T
O

O
R

L
E
S
S
TH
A
N
12
'
'

I
N

T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
EQ
U
A
L

T
O

O
R
GR
E
A
T
E
R
TH
A
N

2
4
'
'

I
N
TH
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
REINFORCEMENT CLEARANCE DETAIL
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
GR
E
A
T
E
R

T
H
A
N

1
2
'
'

&
LE
S
S

T
H
A
N

2
4
'
'

I
N
TH
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
GENERAL NOTES
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
--
S0
100068207-G-001 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
SHEET TITLESHEET NO.
G
G-001
G-002
S
S-101
S-102
S-103
S-104
S-105
S-106
S-107
S-108
S-109
S-110
S-111
S-112
S-113
S-114
S-115
S-301
S-302
S-303
S-304
S-305
S-306
S-307
S-308
S-309
S-310
S-311
S-312
S-501
S-502
S-503
S-504
S-505
S-506
S-507
S-508
S-509
S-510
S-511
S-512
S-513
S-514
S-515
S-516
S-517
S-518
S-519
S-520
S-521
S-522
S-523
S-524
S-525
S-526
S-527
S-528
CS
CS-100
CS-101
CS-102
CS-103
CS-104
CS-105
STRUCTURAL - GATE BAY AND T-WALLS
OVERALL FOUNDATION PLAN AND PROFILE VIEW (1 OF 2)
OVERALL FOUNDATION PLAN AND PROFILE VIEW (2 OF 2)
MONOLITH 1 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 2 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 3 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 4 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 5 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 6 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 7 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 8 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 9 PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 10 PLAN VIEW
I-WALL 1 PLAN VIEW
I-WALL 2 PLAN VIEW
RAILROAD PLAN VIEW
MONOLITH 1 SECTION
MONOLITH 2 SECTION
MONOLITH 3 SECTION
MONOLITH 4 SECTION
MONOLITH 5 SECTION
MONOLITH 6 SECTION
MONOLITH 7 SECTION
MONOLITH 8 SECTION
MONOLITH 9 SECTION
MONOLITH 10 SECTION
I-WALL 1 SECTION
I-WALL 2 SECTION
GATE ELEVATION
SWING GATE DETAIL (1 OF 3)
SWING GATE DETAIL (2 OF 3)
SWING GATE DETAIL (3 OF 3)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (1 OF 6)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (2 OF 6)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (3 OF 6)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (4 OF 6)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (5 OF 6)
SWING GATE LOWER HINGE DETAIL (6 OF 6)
SWING GATE UPPER HINGE DETAIL
SWING GATE LATCHING DETAIL
LATCHING DETAIL (1 OF 2)
LATCHING DETAIL (2 OF 2)
LADDER DETAIL (1 OF 3)
LADDER DETAIL (2 OF 3)
LADDER DETAIL (3 OF 3)
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS
SETTLEMENT DETAILS
SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS (1 OF 2)
SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS (2 OF 2)
SCOUR PROTECTION DETAIL (1 OF 2)
SCOUR PROTECTION DETAIL (2 OF 2)
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY DETAILS
T-WALL JOINT DETAILS
RAILS AND COMPONENT PART DETAIL (1 OF 2)
RAILS AND COMPONENT PART DETAIL (2 OF 2)
TYPICAL PILE DETAIL
RAILROAD TRS
RAILROAD TRS (1 OF 6)
RAILROAD TRS (2 OF 6)
RAILROAD TRS (3 OF 6)
RAILROAD TRS (4 OF 6)
RAILROAD TRS (5 OF 6)
RAILROAD TRS (6 OF 6)
GENERAL
GENERAL NOTES
SHEET INDEX
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SHEET INDEX
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
--
S0
100068207-G-002 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
-NOT INCLUDED IN SET
MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E

A
-
A

S
T
A
.

1
0
0
3
+
2
9
.
4
3
I-W
A
L
L

1
20'-
0
"
MON
O
L
I
T
H

1
20'-
0
"
MON
O
L
I
T
H

2
20'-
0
"
MONOLITH 3
32'-3" (C/L OF WALL)
MONOLITH 4
(DRAINAGE MONOLITH)
25'-0"
MONOLITH 5 (GATE)
53'-0"
MONOLITH 6
(DRAINAGE MONOLITH)
25'-0"
MONOLITH 7
35'-0"
MONOLITH 8
29'-3" (C/L OF WALL)
M
O
N
O
L
I
T
H

1
0
2
0
'
-
0
"
M
O
N
O
L
I
T
H

9
2
0
'
-
0
"
I-
W
A
L
L

2
2
5
'
-
0
"
10
0
0
+
0
0
10
0
1
+
0
0
10
0
2
+
0
0
10
0
3
+
0
0
EXISTING RAILROAD
TRACKS CL
PROPOSED
SLUICE GATE PROPOSED
SLUICE GATE
REQ'D SHEET PILE
FACES OF
FLOOD WALL
SLOPE PAVEMENT
20'-
0
"
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOODSIDE
EMBANKMENT
CROWN
BEGIN STA. 1000+00.60
PROPOSED ORIFICEPROPOSED ORIFICE
I-WALL 1
20'-0"
MONOLITH 1
20'-0"
MONOLITH 2
20'-0"
MONOLITH 3
32'-3"
MONOLITH 4
25'-0"
MONOLITH 5
53'-0"
MONOLITH 6
25'-0"
MONOLITH 7
35'-0"
MONOLITH 8
29'-3"
MONOLITH 9
20'-0"
MONOLITH 10
20'-0"
I-WALL 2
25'-0"
M1 M10
BOTTOM OF
SHEET PILE
EL. 102.50
BOTTOM OF
SHEET PILE
EL. 96.75
BOTTOM OF
SHEET PILE
EL. 101.00
BOTTOM OF
SHEET PILE
EL. 105.75
BOTTOM OF
SHEET PILE
EL. 101.00
SLOPE
PAVEMENT
S-522
M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
S-523
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1"=20'
PROFILE VIEW
SCALE: 1"=20'
1001+00
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
1002+00 1002+00
1 inch = 20 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 10 20 40 60
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
OVERALL FOUNDATION
PLAN VIEW (1 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=20'
S0
100068207-S-101 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

A
-
A

S
T
A
.

1
0
0
3
+
2
9
.
4
8
10
0
4
+
0
0
10
0
5
+
0
0
10
0
6
+
0
0
I-WA
L
L

2
25'-0
"
SLOPE PAVEMENT
REQ'D
SHEET
PILE
I-95 EMBANKMENT
10
'
-
0
"
EMBANKMENT
CROWN
EMBANKMENT TOE
EMBANKMENT TOE
ST
A
.

1
0
0
3
+
8
2
.
3
3
BOTTOM OF SHEET PILE
EL. 105.75
I-WALL 2
25'-0"256'-0"
SHEET PILE CUT OFF
EL. 126.00
PROPOSED GRADE EL. 134.00
SLOPE PAVEMENT
EXIST. GRADE
20
'
-
3
"
S-523
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1"=20'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
1 inch = 20 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 10 20 40 60
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
OVERALL FOUNDATION
PLAN VIEW (2 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1"=20'
S0
100068207-S-102 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PROFILE VIEW
SCALE: 1"=20'
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
1006+001005+001004+00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
4'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
I - WALL 1
2'-53 4"
MONOLITH WALL 2
1 4" = C/L OF EXPANSION JOINT
19'-1112"
A
S-301
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
1 4" = C/L OF EXPANSION JOINT
4'
-
2
"
MONOLITH 1 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 1
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-103 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
FLOOD SIDE
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 2'-53 4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"
19'-1112"MONOLITH WALL 3MONOLITH WALL 1
1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
PROTECTED SIDENOTE:
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
A
S-302
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
4'
-
4
"
2'
-
8
"
1'
-
6
"
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
MONOLITH 2 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 2
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-104 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
18'-
8
3 4"
MONOLITH WALL 4
NOTE:
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
2'-5
3 4"
5'-0
"
5'-0
"
5'-0
"
1'-3
"
6'-312"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"
18'-914"
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
MON
O
L
I
T
H

W
A
L
L

2
1 4" =
C
/
L

E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N

J
O
I
N
T
1/2"

E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N

J
O
I
N
T
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
C/L
O
F

1
4
"

C
O
N
C
.

P
I
L
E
(BA
T
T
E
R

2
.
5
V
:
1
H

U
.
N
.
O
.
)
4'-
4
"
2'-
8
"
1'-
6
"
C/L
O
F

P
Z
-
2
2
STE
E
L

P
I
L
E
C/L
O
F

1
4
"

C
O
N
C
.

P
I
L
E
(VE
R
T
I
C
A
L
)
1'-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
B
A
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
14'-
3
3 4"
14'-4"
132°19
'
2
4
"
A
S-303
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
SEE S-XXX FOR
CONNECTION DETAILS
MONOLITH 3 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 3
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-105 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
8
"
1'
-
6
"
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
16
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
4'
-
4
"
11
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"2'-53 4"
24'-1112"
1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
NOTE:
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
SEE S-XXX FOR
CONNECTION DETAILS
A
S-304
113 4"
MONOLITH WALL 3 MONOLITH WALL 5
PROPOSED SLUICE GATE
(SEE S-524 FOR DETAILS)
6'-53 4"
DRAINAGE MONOLITH 4 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 4
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-106 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
FACES OF
FLOOD WALL
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
NOTE:
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
1'
-
6
"
7'
-
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
11
'
-
0
"
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
5'-0"1'-53 4"
52'-1112"MONOLITH WALL 4
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-53 4"1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
MONOLITH WALL 6
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
6'-53 4"5'-0"30'-0"
GATE OPENING
5'-0"6'-53 4"
A
S-305
MONOLITH 5 (GATE) PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 3/8"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/8 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 5
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/8"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-107 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
0 1 2 4 8
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
11"
1'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
8
"
1'
-
6
"
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
16
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 3V:1H U.N.O.)
4'
-
4
"
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
11
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"2'-53 4"
24'-1112"
1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
A
S-306
MONOLITH WALL 5 MONOLITH WALL 7
SEE S-XXX FOR
CONNECTION DETAILS
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDET - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
PROPOSED SLUICE GATE
(SEE S-524 FOR DETAILS)
6'-53 4"
DRAINAGE MONOLITH 6 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 6
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-108 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1'
-
6
"
2'
-
8
"
4'
-
4
"
1'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 1 4" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"2'-53 4"5'-0"5'-0"
34'-1112"MONOLITH WALL 6 MONOLITH WALL 8
5'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
A
S-307
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
MONOLITH 7 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 7
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-109 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1'
-
6
"
2'
-
8
"
4'
-
4
"
1'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
2'-53 4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-61 4"
25'-0"
1'
-
1
1
1
2"
5'
-
0
"
2'
-
5
3
4"
9'
-
5
1
4"
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
MONOLITH WALL 7
1
4"
=

C
/
L

E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N

J
O
I
N
T
M
O
N
O
L
I
T
H

W
A
L
L

9
2'-0"
STE
M
3'-0"
5'-0"
10'-0
"
BAS
E

S
L
A
B
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
A
S-308
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
20'-712"
5'
-
1
"
132°
4
6
'
4
3
"
1/
2
"

E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N

J
O
I
N
T
V V
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
MONOLITH 8 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 8
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-110 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
FLOOD SIDE
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 2'-53 4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"
19'-1112"MONOLITH WALL 10MONOLITH WALL 8
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
A
S-309
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
4'
-
4
"
2'
-
8
"
1'
-
6
"
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
PROTECTED SIDE
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
MONOLITH 9 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 9
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-111 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
FLOOD SIDE
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT 2'-53 4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-53 4"
19'-1112"I - WALL 2MONOLITH WALL 9
14" = C/L EXPANSION JOINT
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
A
S-310
EDGE OF
BASE SLAB1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
4'
-
4
"
2'
-
8
"
1'
-
6
"
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
C/L OF 14" CONC. PILE
(BATTER 2.5V:1H U.N.O.)
1'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
BA
S
E

S
L
A
B
PROTECTED SIDE
FACES OF FLOOD WALL
T - WALL BASE SLAB VERTICAL
TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN
NOTE:
1'
-
0
"
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 10
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-112 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
MONOLITH 10 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
A
S-307
20'-0"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
FACES OF
FLOOD WALL
I-WALL 1 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 3/4"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
I-WALL 1
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-113 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
0 1 2 4
25'-0"
2'
-
0
"
ST
E
M
FACES OF
FLOOD WALL
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
A
S-308
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
C/L OF PZ-22
STEEL PILE
I-WALL 2 PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 3/4"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
I-WALL 2
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-114 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
0 1 2 4
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
6'-6"5'-0"30'-0" OPENING 5'-0"6'-6"
11'-612"1'-8"3'-7"1'-8"11'-1012"
16
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
6
"
5'
-
0
"
MONOLITH WALL 5 (GATE) = 53'-0"MONOLITH WALL 4 MONOLITH WALL 6
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT
RR GATE SILL
FLOOD WALL SILL
FLOOD WALL SILL
A
S-303
2'
-
0
"
5'-0"2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
SCALE: 3/8"=1'
RAILROAD PLAN VIEW
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
3/8 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAIL ROAD
PLAN VIEW
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/8"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-115 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
0 1 2 4 8
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
2'-0"
WALL
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +121.45'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +117.45'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
4" CLR.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER (TYP.
AT EXPOSED EDGES)
3"
12
'
-
6
"
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 1 SECTION
SCALE: 3/4"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 1
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-301 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +119.95'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +115.95'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER
(TYP. AT EXPOSED
EDGES)
3"
14
'
-
0
"
4" CLR.
2'-0"
WALL
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 2 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 2
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-302 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +119.95'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +115.95'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER
(TYP. AT EXPOSED
EDGES)
3"
14
'
-
0
"
4" CLR.
2'-0"
WALL
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 3 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 3
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-303 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
2'-0"
WALL
16'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"11'-0"
STEEL SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
SLUICE GATE
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +115.70'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3 3
1 1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +111.70'
3'-0"3'-0"7'-0"1'-6"1'-6"
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE
2 IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"
3/4" CHAMFER (TYP.
AT EXPOSED EDGES)
C.J.
3"
2'
-
4
"
4"

C
L
R
.
4" CLR.
1/4"/FT
3"

C
L
R
.
9"
18
'
-
3
"
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 4 (DRAINAGE) SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 4
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-304 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
2'-0"
WALL
16'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"11'-0"
STEEL SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
3
1
3
1
3
1
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
GATE SILL
SWING GATE
TOP OF RAIL EL. +122.20'
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +118.95'
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +114.95'
1'-6"3'-0"3'-0"7'-0"1'-6"
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"2'
-
4
"
9"
C.J.3"
3"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
15
'
-
0
"
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 5 (GATE) SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 5
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-305 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
2'-0"
WALL
16'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"11'-0"
STEEL SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
SLUICE GATE
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +115.70'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3 3
1 1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +111.70'
3'-0"3'-0"7'-0"1'-6"1'-6"
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"
3/4" CHAMFER (TYP.
AT EXPOSED EDGES)
C.J.
3"
2'
-
4
"
4"

C
L
R
.
4" CLR.
1/4"/FT
3"

C
L
R
.
9"
18
'
-
3
"
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 6 (DRAINAGE) SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 6
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-306 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +119.95'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +115.95'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER
(TYP. AT EXPOSED
EDGES)
3"
14
'
-
0
"
4" CLR.
2'-0"
WALL
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 7 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 7
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-307 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +119.95'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +115.95'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER
(TYP. AT EXPOSED
EDGES)
3"
14
'
-
0
"
4" CLR.
2'-0"
WALL
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 8 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 8
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-308 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET PILE
14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +119.95'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +115.95'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
1/4"/ FT
3/4" CHAMFER
(TYP. AT EXPOSED
EDGES)
3"
14
'
-
0
"
4" CLR.
2'-0"
WALL
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 9 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 9
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-309 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
2'-0"
WALL
10'-0"
4'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"
STEEL
SHEET
PILE 14" SQUARE PRE-STRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
REINF. CONC. FOOTING
TOP OF FOOTING EL. +124.70'
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
3
1
3
1
BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. +120.70'
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
(SEE CONCRETE NOTE 2
IN GENERAL NOTES)
4"
4'-6"1'-6"2'-6"1'-6"
2'
-
4
"
9"
4"
3"

C
L
R
.
4"

C
L
R
.
3"

C
L
R
.
C.J.
4" CLR.
1/4"/FT
3/4" CHAMFER (TYP.
AT EXPOSED EDGES)
3"
9'
-
3
"
TOP OF WALL EL. +134.20'
2"

C
L
R
.
MONOLITH 10 SECTION
SCALE: 1/2"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MONOLITH 10
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-310 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
STEEL SHEET PILING
(PZ 22)
TIP EL. 102.50 C/L I-WALL &
SHEETING
6" CONCRETE
SLOPE PAVEMENT
W/ 6X6-W2.9XW2.9
@ MID DEPTH
EL 134.20
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
EL 122.50
2'-0"4'-0"
C/L I-WALL
4'-0"
C/L OF LEVEE
SEE S-504 FOR I-WALL
REINFORCEMENT
1
3
EXPANSION. JOINT
MATERIAL
W/ ELASTOMERIC
SEALER
TOP OF SHEET
PILE EL 126.00
1 4" / FT.1 4" / FT.
1
3
I WALL 1 SECTION
SCALE: 3/4"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
I-WALL 1
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-311 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4
STEEL SHEET PILING
(PZ 22)
TIP EL. 105.75 C/L I-WALL &
SHEETING
6" CONCRETE
SLOPE PAVEMENT
W/ 6X6-W2.9XW2.9
@ MID DEPTH
EL 134.20
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
EL 122.50
2'-0"4'-0"
C/L I-WALL
4'-0"
C/L OF LEVEE
SEE S-504 FOR I-WALL
REINFORCEMENT
1
3
EXPANSION. JOINT
MATERIAL
W/ ELASTOMERIC
SEALER
TOP OF SHEET
PILE EL 126.00
1 4" / FT.1 4" / FT.
1
3
I WALL 2 SECTION
SCALE: 3/4"=1'
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
I-WALL 2
SECTION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-312 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4
EL. 122.20TOP OF SILL
EL. 122.97
EL. 134.20
L TOP HINGE
EL. 133.62
C
EL. 134.95
5'-0"30'-0" GATE OPENING 5'-0"
1'-8"1'-0"
4"
1'-7 1/2"14 EQ. SPACES @ 2'-0" = 28'-0"1'-7 1/2"1'-0 3/4"
L HINGESC
3'-5 1/4"
13'-9 3/4"±
TOP HINGE
SEE DETAILS
ON DWG. 52
LOWER HINGE
SEE DETAILS
ON DWG. 52
L BOT HINGEC
FA
C
E

O
F
CO
L
U
M
N
FA
C
E

O
F
CO
L
U
M
N
3
5
/
1
6
"
3'
-
0
"
EL. 134.20
EL. 134.95
TOP OF GATE EL. 134.20
SEE DETAIL
SEE DETAIL
SEE DETAILOPP. HAND
6"
SEE DETAIL
LADDER
SEE DETAILS
ON DWG. S-515
ALL BEAMS (TYP.)
1"Ø DRAIN HOLES IN
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
C/L HINGE
1'
-
3

1
1
/
1
6
"
C/L HINGESKIN PLATE
LADDER
SEE DETAILS
ON DWG. 56A
1'-6 3/4"
312"
SEE DETAIL
312"
1
S-501 S-503
6
S-501 S-503
2
S-501 S-503 2
S-501 S-502
1
S-501 S-502
8
S-501 S-503
PROTECTED
SIDE
FLOOD
SIDE
EL. 122.20
TOP OF SILL
EL. 122.97
L GIRDERC
EL. 133.62
L GIRDERC
SEE
DETAIL
GATE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
WT5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
5/
8
"
ST
I
F
F
N
E
R
PL
SEE DETAIL3
S-501 S-503
SEE DETAIL4
S-501 S-503
A
TYP.
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/2"= 1'-0"
SECTION
B
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/2"= 1'-0"
SECTION
B
TYP.
HINGE
PEDESTAL
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
GATE ELEVATION
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/2"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-501 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
C LATCH
EL. 123.22
EL. 133.77
C LATCH
C LATCH
C
L
A
D
D
E
R
L
L
L
LC HINGES
C BOT. HINGE
EL. 122.97L
EL. 133.62
C TOP HINGEL
L
EL. 134.20 TOP OF WALL
EL. 134.95
1'-6 3/4"
EL. 134.20 TOP OF WALL
C LATCH
EL. 133.77L
EL. 123.12C LATCHL
EL. 134.95C LATCHL
32'-11 3/4"
SCREW JACK
SEE DETAIL
LATCH (TYP.)
53'-0"25'-0"
30'-0" OPENING 1'-5"
C/L OF MONOLITH JOINTC/L OF MONOLITH JOINT
EL. 119.20 TOP OF
FTG. AT WALL
SEE DETAIL
SEE DETAIL
C SCREW JACK
AND LATCHESL
W/L
C SCREW JACKL
16
'
-
0
"
6'-6"5'-0"5'-0"6'-6"
53'-0" GATE MONOLITH25'-0" T-WALL MONOLITH
C HINGESL C LATCHLGATE MONOLITHT-WALL MONOLITH
C/L OF MONOLITH JOINT C/L OF MONOLITH JOINT
30'-0" OPENING 1'-5"
1'-6 3/4"
32'-11 3/4"
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
GATE MONOLITH 5 PLAN
(GATE IN OPEN POSITION)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
EL. 122.20
TOP OF RAIL
EL. 114.95 BOT. OF FTG.
EL. 115.70 TOP OF SHEET PILE
EL. 118.95 TOP OF
FTG. AT EDGE
2
S-512 S-514
3
S-512 S-514
1
S-512 S-514
RAIL AND
COMPONENTS SEE
DETAILS ON S-526
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SWING GATE
LATCHING DETAIL
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-512 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
FACE OF WALL
1/4
1/4
1'' Ø STEEL BAR
BAR 3 X 1/2
ANGLE
3/4'' Ø EXPANSION
ANCHOR (GALV)
1'' Ø STEEL BAR
BAR 3 X 1/2
8X4X1/2" - 4" LONG
1'-3"2 1/2"
1'-6" TYP.
7"
4"
2 1/2"
1/4"
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
SECTION 1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
EL. 134.92 EL. 134.92
CL
L
A
D
D
E
R
C
C
NOTE:
FIELD ADJUST THE LOCATION
OF THE L LADDERS TO MATCH
L OF T-WALL MONOLITH.
NOTE:
ALL LADDERS SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED
GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION.
BAR 3 X 1/2
1'' Ø RUNGS (TYP)
6'
'
6'
'
BAR 3 X 1/2
3'
'
9"
5'
-
2

1
/
2
"
±
L8X4X1/2 - 3" LONG (TYP.)
TOP OF FTG. EL. 122.25
5'-0"
3'
-
6
"
7"
2'-0"
12
"
6"
1'-6"
3'
-
6
"
SEE DETAIL
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
5'
-
2

1
/
2
"
±
7"
1'
-
6
"
12" MAX C-C RUNGS
RUNG SP. EQUALLY
LADDER DETAILS
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
PROTECTED SIDE ELEVATION SECTION
A
TYP.
1
TYP.
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
LADDER DETAIL (1 OF 3)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-515 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
3 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 3 6 12
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 4
2'-11"
2'-7"
1'
-
0
"
(
M
A
X
.
)
(
T
Y
P
.
)
1'-6"
7" (MIN.)
4'
-
0
"
HO
O
P

B
A
R
S

@

4
'
-
0
"

O
.
C
.

(
M
A
X
.
)
9'
-
0
"
±
4'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
EL. 134.92EL. 134.92
TOP OF GATE COLUMN
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 122.25 EL. 122.25
HOOP BAR
(3"x1/4")
HO
O
P

B
A
R

@

4
'
-
0
"

O
.
C
.

(
M
A
X
.
)
4'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
VERT. BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
VERT. BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
RUNG (1"Ø)
(TYP.)
SIDE RAIL BAR
(3"x1/2")
SIDE RAIL BAR
(3"x1/2")
RUNG (1"Ø)
(TYP.)
HOOP BAR
(3"x1/4")
(TYP.)
9'
-
2

1
/
8
"
HOOP BAR
(3"x1/4")
EL. 122.25
TOP OF FOOTING
SEE DETAIL
(TYP.)
HOOP BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
SUPPORT (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL
HOOP BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
6'
-
0
"

L
A
D
D
E
R

S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
DO
O
R

(
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

5
6
)
BOTTOM/LADDER
2'
-
6
"
SECURITY DOOR
SECURITY DOOR
TOP/LADDER
6"
EL. 134.92
TYPICAL LADDER ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
A
S-517
B
S-517
C
S-517
2
S-517
1
S-517
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
LADDER DETAIL (2 OF 3)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/4" = 1'-0"
S0
100068207-S-516 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 4
1/4"
1"Ø BAR RUNG
@ 1'-0" O.C. UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTEDSIDE BAR
(3"x1/2")
1/4
2
S-516 S-517 SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
9"
1
1
/
4
"
FACE OF CONC.
FLOODWALL
C/L OF LADDER
3/4"Ø C.R.S. BOLTS
W/ C.R.S. WASHERS
AND NUTS (TYP.)3/4"Ø C.R.S.
EXP. ANCHORS
(5" MIN. EMBED.)
9"
1
1
/
4
"
7"
(
M
I
N
.
)
(T
Y
P
.
)
1 1/4"1 1/4"
L 8"x4"x1/2"L 8"x4"x1/2"
3/4"Ø C.R.S.
EXP. ANCHORS
(5" MIN. EMBED.)
PL3"x1/2"
(TYP.)
D
TYP.
A
S-516 S-517 SCALE: 2"= 1'-0"
SECTION
C/
L

O
F

L
A
D
D
E
R
R=1
'
-
5

1
/
2
"
40°(T
Y
P
.
)
7"
1'-1 1/2"3"
9"
9"
3/
4
"
7
3
/
4
"
3/
4
"
7
3
/
4
"
BAR RUNG
(1"Ø)
SIDE RAIL BAR
(3"x1/2")(TYP.)
VERT. BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
BENT BAR
(3"x1/4")(TYP.)
C/L OF RUNG
HOOP BAR
(3"x1/4")(TYP.)
BAR RUNG
(1"Ø)
7"
1'-1 1/2"
R=1
'
-
1

1
/
2
"
VERT. BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
SIDE RAIL BAR
(3"x1/2")(TYP.)
HOOP BAR
(2"x1/4")(TYP.)
C/
L

O
F

L
A
D
D
E
R
9"3/
4
"
3"
3
3
/
4
"
BENT BAR
(3"x1/4")(TYP.)
9"
3/
4
"
3
3
/
4
"
C/L OF RUNG
40°(T
Y
P
.
)
B
S-516 S-517 SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION C
S-516 S-517 SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION
CONC.
FLOODWALL
FOOTING
1 1/4"1
1
/
4
"
2
1
/
4
"
L 8"x4"x1/2"
PL 3"x1/2"
3/4"Ø C.R.S.
EXP. ANCHORS
(5" MIN. EMBED.)
3/4"Ø C.R.S. BOLTS
W/ C.R.S. WASHERS
AND NUTS (TYP.)
1
1
/
4
"
D
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 2"= 1'-0"
SECTION
1
1
/
4
"
1
1
/
4
"
5"
1/4
12"
3/4"Ø C.R.S.
EXP. ANCHORS
(5" MIN. EMBED.)L 8"x4"x1/2"
CONC.
GATE COLUMN
SIDE BAR RAIL
(3"x1/2")
1
S-516 S-517 SCALE: 2"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A
SECURITY DOOR FOR ALL
LADDERS ON THE PROTECTED
SIDE OF THE WALL ONLY
HINGE
HINGE
TYP.
EL. 134.92
CL LATCH
EXPANDED METAL
SECURITY DOOR (GALV)
FRAME PL 3/16 X 2
12
"
1'-10"
12
"
2'
-
6
"
4'
-
6
"
TOP OF FTG. EL. 122.25
6"
12
"
6'
-
0
"
PROTECTED SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
FACE OF WALL
EXPANDED METAL, WELD
TO FRAME OF DOOR.
1/4
3/8
WITH HOLE TO ACCEPT LOCK
(ATTACHED TO LADDER)
1/4 1/4
WITH HOLE TO ACCEPT LOCK
(ATTACHED TO SECURITY DOOR)
HINGES
(180° SWING)
BAR 1/2 X 1 1/2 X 0'-4''
PL 1/4 X 1 X 0'-1 1/2''
PL 1/4 X 1 X 0'-1 1/4''
FRAME PL 3/16 X 2 (TYP)
1 1/2"
1
1
/
4
"
1 1/2"
1"
PLAN
SCALE: 3/8" = 1"
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
LADDER SECURITY DOOR DETAILS
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
LADDER DETAIL (3 OF 3)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-517 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
3 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 3 6 12
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 4
0 1/2 1 2 3
1 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
3/8 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 8
0 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/2
2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
SIDE SEAL
ANGLE SIZE VARIES
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
C/L HINGE
C/L HINGE
SIDE SEAL
HINGE END
1/2'' Ø X 6" ANCHORS,
@ 12'' O.C., STAGGERED
1/2''Ø X 6" ANCHORS,
@ 12'' O.C., STAGGERED
L 4 X 4 X 3/8
BAR 1 3/8 X 1 3/8 CONT.
GATE OPENING VARIES
W
1'-3 11/16"
C/L HINGE
SEE DETAIL SEE DETAIL
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
W
FREE END
TYPICAL SECTION THRU SWING GATE
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
2
TYP
1
TYP
SIDE SEAL
SKIN PL
R=5/16''
FLANGE W
FACE OF COLUMN
L 4 X 4 X 3/8
END PL
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 5/16,
C.R.S., SEE DETAIL
1/2''Ø X 6" ANCHORS,
@ 12'' O.C., STAGGERED
9/16'' X 1 1/2'' VERTICAL
SLOTTED HOLES IN BEAM
FLANGES AND SKIN PL
1/2''Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS,
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
2.75 0.75 1.50
0.5625
5.7500
1" Ø
1 3/4" Ø
THIS SHT.
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 6"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
SIDE SEAL
L 8 X 4 X 1/2
FACE OF COLUMN
FLANGE W
R=5/16"
END PL
BAR 1 3/8 X 1 3/8 CONT.
5/16
SKIN PL
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 5/16,
C.R.S., SEE DETAIL
9/16'' X 1 1/2'' VERTICAL
SLOTTED HOLES IN BEAM
FLANGES AND SKIN PL
1/2''Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS,
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/2''Ø X 6'' ANCHORS,
@ 12'' O.C., STAGGERED
5.0000
0.5000
1.5000
1.5000
6.7500 2.7500
0.5625
1"Ø
1 3/4"Ø
2
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 6"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
C.R.S.
R=5/16"
9/16"Ø HOLES,
FOR 1/2''Ø BOLTS
2.00
1.00 1.00
0.3125
SEAL RETAINING BAR
SCALE: 12" = 1'-0"
AP
P
R
O
X
.
APPR
O
X
.
OPTIONAL SPLICE
CORNER DETAIL, TYPICAL BOTH SIDES
FACTORY VULCANIZED
SPLICE
BACK OF
VERTICAL
SEAL
FACTORY VULCANIZED
MITER SPLICE JOINT
FULL MOLDED VERTICAL
OUTSIDE BULB CORNER
5"
14
"
1"
TYPICAL GATE SEAL
SCALE: N.T.S.
NOTES:
1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE G-001.
2. ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL PRESS
RUBBER.
TO ASSEMBLY.
TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.
4. SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES PRIOR
5. AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL
50% OF THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED OF THE
3. ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT LEAST
A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.
GAPS IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SWING GATE
SEAL DETAIL (1 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-520 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
6 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 1 2 4
12 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 1/2 1 2
3 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 3 6 12
BOTTOM SEAL
1/2"
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
W
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 5/16, C.R.S.
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 5/16, C.R.S.
SIDE SEAL
SKIN PL
END PL
SKIN PL
BAR 1 3/8 X 1 3/8 CONT.
(@ FREE END ONLY)
COPE END OF ANGLE
SEE DETAIL THIS SHT.
1/2"Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS,
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/2"Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS,
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/2"Ø X 2 1/4" BOLTS
1"
1 1/2"
2"
1
3
/
4
"
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
END ELEVATION - PROTECTED SIDE
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
B
TYP.
A
TYP.
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 5/16, C.R.S.
W
BOTTOM SEAL
SKIN PL
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
(@ FREE END ONLY)
1/2"Ø X 2 1/4" BOLTS @ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/2"Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS @ 12" O.C., C.R.S.
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
1"
BACK OF
VERTICAL
SEAL
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
BAR 1 3/8 X 1 3/8 CONT.
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
SECTION
1.7500
1.5000
3.25003.2500
5.0000
7
1
3
/
1
6
"

-

A
L
L

G
A
T
E
S
3.
1
2
5
0
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
SLOTTED HOLES
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
9/16" X 1 1/2''
12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/2''Ø BOLTS W/WASHERS,
SKIN PL
NOTE: SEAL SET FOR 1/4'' DEFLECTION.
BOTTOM
1/2''Ø X 2 1/4" BOLTS,
@ 12'' O.C., C.R.S.
1/8
0.5625
R=5/16"
2 X 5/16, C.R.S.,
SEAL RETAINING BAR
SEE DETAIL ON S-XX
1"Ø
1 3/4"Ø
SEAL
B
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 6"= 1'-0"
SECTION
1/8
1/4
PL 1/2 X 2 X 0'-5''
9/16''Ø HOLE
9/16'' X 1 1/2''
SLOTTED HOLE
1"
3 1/8"
2"4"
1 1/2"
3 1/4"
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
L 5 X 5 X 1/2
PLAN
ELEVATION (PROTECTED SIDE)
END OF L 5 X 5 X 1/2
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
NOTES:
1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE G-001.
2. ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL PRESS
RUBBER.
TO ASSEMBLY.
TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.
4. SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES PRIOR
5. AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL
50% OF THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED OF THE
3. ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT LEAST
A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.
GAPS IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SWING GATE
SEAL DETAIL (2 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-521 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
6 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 1 2 4
3 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 3 6 12
SLOPE PAVEMENT ELEVATION- SOUTH SIDE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SEE TYPICAL
CONCRETE
KEY DETAIL
12" EXPANSION JOINT
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 115.95
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 119.95
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 101.00
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 115.95
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 119.95
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 117.45
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 121.45
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 102.50
BOTTOM OF I-WALL
EL. 122.45
SHEET PILE
CUT-OFF
EL. 126.00
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
EL. 134.00
SEE TYPICAL
CONCRETE
KEY DETAIL
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 102.50
12" EXPANSION JOINT
12" EXPANSION JOINT
20'-0" I-WALL 1 20'-0" MONOLITH 1
M1
20'-0" MONOLITH 2
M2
32'-3" MONOLITH 3
M3
TOP OF I-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF I-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF I-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF I-WALL
EL. 134.20
SEE CIVIL
1
10'-0" CONCRETE
SLOPE PAVEMENT
EARTHEN
EMBANKMENT
SPACING 2' O.C.,
1" FROM EDGE1'
-
6
"

9"
6''
6'
'
1 4"18" R
EXPANSION TUBE
ELASTOMERIC SEALER
12"
SMOOTH DOWEL#6 BAR
SURFACE OF
PAVEMENT
GREASE THIS END
OF THE DOWEL
PREMOLDED
JOINT FILLER
2" CHAMFER
18"
EMBANKMENT
NATURAL GRADE
LEVE
E

S
L
O
P
E
1V ON

3
H

O
R

4
H
TYPICAL CONCRETE KEYS FOR
SCOUR PROTECTION DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.S.
EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.S.
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SCOUR PROTECTION
DETAIL (1 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-522 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
SLOPE PAVEMENT ELEVATION- NORTH SIDE
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
29'-3" MONOLITH 8
M8
20'-0" MONOLITH 9
M9
20'-0" MONOLITH 10
M10
38'-0" CONCRETE SLOPE PAVEMENT25'-0" I-WALL 2 EARTHEN EMBANKMENT
SEE CIVIL
1
TOP OF T-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF T-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF T-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF T-WALL
EL. 134.20
TOP OF PAVEMENT
EL. 134.00
TOP OF EMBANKMENT
EL. 134.00
SEE TYPICAL
CONCRETE
KEY DETAIL
SHEET PILE
CUT-OFF
EL. 126.00
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 105.75
EXIST. GRADE
12" EXPANSION JOINT12" EXPANSION JOINT
12" EXPANSION JOINTSEE TYPICAL
CONCRETE
KEY DETAIL
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 115.95
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 101.00
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 115.95
PZ-22 SHEET
PILE WALL
TIP EL. 105.75
BOTTOM OF T-WALL
EL. 120.70
BOTTOM OF I-WALL
EL. 122.45TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 119.95
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 119.95
TOP OF FOOTING
EL. 124.70
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3/16 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SCOUR PROTECTION
DETAIL (2 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
3/16"= 1'
S0
100068207-S-523 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
4 3 4''
7
8''
1 1 4''9 32'' R
9 32'' R
12'' R
3'
'
7 8 ''
1''
1 7 32''3 4''
9
16
''
BUCKHORN RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC.MOLD NO. 6404,SPECIFICATION: NATURAL-177OR EQUAL
5
16
''
FACE PLATE 12''
13 4''
13 4''
12''
12''
1
4''

G
A
P
1
1
FLOOD SIDE
1'
'
6'
'
4'
'
1'
'
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G

P
I
P
E
HALF OF
PIPE O.D.
1''
12'' NEOPRENE
13
4''
512''
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION
FLOOD SIDE
9 16'' Ø HOLE, 12'' O.C.
FOR 12'' Ø BOLTS
9 16'' Ø HOLES,
FOR 12'' Ø BOLTS
DE
T
A
I
L

S
Y
M
.

A
B
O
U
T

C
/
L

P
I
P
E
FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE
6"
FACE OF SHEETPILE
MIN.
NOTES:
1. THIS DETAIL IS BASED ON THE NEW WALL FACEBEING PERPENDICULAR TO THE PIPE.
2. ALL FLANGE MATERIAL ATTACHED TO THESHEETPILE SHALL BE STEEL.
3. ALL MATERIAL FOR FRONTING PROTECTIONSHALL BE ALUMINUM, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
4. ALL STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM PLATES SHALL BEASTM B 209, TYPE 6061-T6.
5. ALL CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL (C.R.S.)SHALL BE TYPE 316.
6. WELDS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR JOINTSAND ALL WELDS ON WALL SIDE OF FACE PLATESHALL BE FLUSH WITH BASE METAL.
7. AFTER THE TWO FRAMES ARE LOOSELY CLAMPEDON THE PIPE, THE TOTAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BEPUSHED AGAINST THE WALL, SETTING THE SEALS,THEN TIGHTEN CLAMP PLATES TO CLOSE THE 1 4" GAP.
8. UPON COMPLETION OF THE ASSEMBLY, APPLY A ANAEROBIC ADHESIVE (LOCTITE THREADLOCKER 290 OR EQUAL) TO ALL NUT AND BOLT JUNCTURES
9. INCLUDE THE COST OF THE WORK ON THIS SHEET IN THE LUMP SUMP PRICE FOR "DRAINAGE CANAL CROSSINGS AND END TREAMENT"
NOTE:
SET SEAL FOR A MINIMUM OF A
14" INITIAL DEFLECTION
NOTE:
SET SEAL FOR A MINIMUM OF A
14" INITIAL DEFLECTION
6"
6"
12"
3" 3" 3"3"
5"5"
(TYP)
12''
1"
5"
PIPE O.D.
18''
1
4''

G
A
P
PI
P
E

O
.
D
.
31
2''
(T
Y
P
)
51
2''
(M
A
X
.

S
P
A
C
I
N
G
)
(T
Y
P
)
12''512''
(MAX. SPACING)(TYP)
6 12"6"6 12"6"9"9"
(TYP) (TYP) (TYP)(TYP) (TYP) (TYP)
3 16
C UTILITY PIPE
12" STIFFENER PL.
SEAL SETTING BAR 1x1 (C.R.S)
1 4" BACKING PL. (C.R.S)
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP
SEAL RETAINING BAR (C.R.S.)
12"Øx23 4" BOLTS W/ WASHERS
AND LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S. (TYP)
12" Ø 2 12" BOLTS W/LOCK WASHERS
AND TWO WASHERS, C.R.S.. AFTER BOLTS
ARE TIGHTENED, SCAR THREADS OR UPSET
BOLT TO PREVENT VANDALISM. (TYP)
12" PIPE SLEEVE
12" FACE PL.
FLANGE PL.12"x4
3/16
1/4
C.R.S. PL.
CLAMP PL.
12" STIFFENER PL.
3/16TYP.3/16
5/16 TYP.5/16
SEAL SETTING BAR 1x1 (C.R.S.)
SEAL SETTING BAR 1x1 (C.R.S.)
NEOPRENE PAD
116x4x0'-18"
SEAL SETTING
BAR 1x1 (C.R.S.)
SEAL PL. 12x312
C.R.S. BACKING PL. 1 4"x1112"
812" BACKING PLATE
STIFFENERS EQUALLY
SPACED RADIALLY
AROUND PIPE SLEEVE
12" PIPE SLEEVE
12" STIFFENER PL.
CLAMP PL.
12"x4"x0'-12"
NEOPRENE PAD
116x4x0'-18"
SEAL RETAINING BAR
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP
FRONTING
PROTECTION
SEALANT FILL
12" NEOPRENE
CONTACT SURFACE
WELDED TO SHEETPILE
DETAIL OF PROTECTED SIDE
FRONTING PROTECTION SAME
AS FLOOD SIDE ASSEMBLY
PIPE SLEEVE
STEEL
SHEET PILING
12" NEOPRENE
12" FACE PL.
5 16" R
ALL PLATE 12"
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
SEE SHEET C-201FOR LOCATION OFTHESE PENETRATIONS
18''
L
5/16 TYP.5/16
I-WALL PIPE PENETRATION DETAIL
SCALE: N.T.S.
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP
SCALE: 6" = 1'-0"
SEAL RETAINING BAR
SCALE: 6" = 1'-0"
SECTION THRU SHEETPILE WALL
SCALE: N.T.S.
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
SECTION
B
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3"= 1'-0"
SECTION
A
TYP.
B
TYP.
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
3 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY DETAILS
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-524 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
0 3 6 12
6 inch = 1 ft.
( IN INCHES )
0 1 2 4
10"10"
4"4"
C/L 7 8" Ø x 6"
WELDED ANCHORS
C/L RAIL
4"
4"
1'
-
3
"
1'
-
3
"
2'
-
6
"

S
I
L
L
C/L 7 8"Ø x6"
WELDED ANCHORS
RETAINER PLATE 3 8"
1" Ø INSPECTION HOLE
3 4" IN BENT PLATE
RETAINER PLATE 3 8"
RUBBER RAILROAD
FILLER BLOCKS NOT
SHOWN FOR CLARITY
FIELD SIDE GAGE SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
C
TYP.
B
TYP.
A
TYP.
812"
21
2"
C/L 1"Ø HOLES
FOR 3 4" Ø BOLTS
10"10"
6"6"
3"3 8"
C/L RAIL
FIELD SIDE GAGE SIDE
2"
RUBBER GUARDRAIL FILLER
BLOCKS (TO BE PROVIDED BY
THE CONTRACTOR)
TOP OF SILL
AND RAIL
GAGE SIDE BLOCKS WERE CUT TO
ALLOW PASSAGE OF RAIL WHEELS
SO THAT BLOCKS COULD BE BOLTED
IN PLACE PERMANENTLY. CUT STRIPS
RETAINED IN GATE FOR CLOSURE.
3 4" FABRICATED PLATE
TOP OF BASE SLAB
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
2'-6" SILL
L3x3 TYP.
3 8" RETAINER PLATE
5"x5"x3 4" TYP. (GALV.)
3 8" RETAINER PLATE
TOP OF RAIL
BALLAST
PRECAST
CONCRETE SILL
TOP OF BASE SLAB
C
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION- RAIL ASSEMBLY
3'
-
0
"
81
2"
1'
-
6
12"
212"
10"10"
6"6"
C/L RAIL
FIELD SIDE GAGE SIDE
TOP OF SILL
AND RAIL
RETAINER PLATE
3 8" SEE DETAIL,
THIS SHEET
TOP OF FOOTING
B
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION
4"
(TYP)
1'-8"
3
4"
6"7 8"Ø X 6" WELDED
ANCHORS (TYP.)
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1 1/2"= 1'-0"
DETAIL
1'
-
6
12"
73
4"
73
4"
3"
1"
11
2"
13
8"
11
4"
25
8"
1"
112"
C/L RAIL
618"
13
8"
11
4"
25
8"
73 8"21 2"418"
6"6"
53 4"618"
33 4"33 4"
3"10"3"3"10"3"
1'-4"1'-4"C/L 7 8"Ø HOLES FOR 3 4"Ø
EXP. ANCHORS (GALV)
C/L 7 8"Ø HOLES FOR
3 4"Ø BOLTS, C.R.S.
21
2"
RETAINER PLATE DETAIL
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAIL AND COMPONENT
PART DETAIL (1 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-526 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1 1/2 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 3
0 1/4 1/2 1 2
1 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
2'-6" SILL
L3x3 TYP.TOP OF L3x3 & RAIL
L8x6x12 x 2'-8" W/ 1 2 x 10 x 3'-4",
TIRE ASSEMBLY SHALL HOT-DIP
GALVANIZED FABRICATION
EACH ANGLE LEG
BALLAST
PRECAST
CONCRETE SILL
212"5"212"
C/L 7 8" DIA. X 6" SQ.
HEAD SCREW
SPIKES
TOP OF BASE SLAB
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SECTION
CROSS TIE
1'-4"1'-4"4"4"
2"3'-0"2"
3'-4"
C/L TRACKC/L RAIL C/L RAIL
CROSS TIE
2'
-
6
"

S
I
L
L
DEFLECTOR ANGLE
AND PLATE
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
PLAN - DEFLECTOR ANGLE
AND PLATE DETAIL
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
*DEFLECTOR ANGLE AND PLATE
TO BE PLACED ON FIRST TIE
EACH SIDE OF SILL.
A
TYP.
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAIL AND COMPONENT
PART DETAIL (2 OF 2)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-S-527 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
3/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 3
1 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1/2 1 2 4
SP
I
R
A
L
,

W
I
R
E

S
I
Z
E

W
4
12
'
-
0
"
1'
-
3
"
DR
I
V
I
N
G

H
E
A
D
14" X 14" PRESTRESSED
PRECAST CONCRETE PILE
NTS
14
"
14"
4 1/2" (TYP)
2 1/2" (TYP)
SPIRAL
3/4" CHAMFER (TYP)
6, 1/2" Ø, 7 WIRE, LOW RELAXATION STRAND, GR270
4, #8 HOOK ON REINFORCING FOR ALL PILES. STANDARD 180° TO
ALLOW FOR PROPER PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE, HOOKS SHOULD
BE PLACED SO THAT BEND OF HOOK IS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL
TO ADJACENT FACE OF PILE AS SHOWN
PL
(P
A
Y
M
E
N
T

L
E
N
G
T
H
)
2"

C
L
1"
5
T
U
R
N
S

A
T

1
"

=

5
"
16

T
U
R
N
S

A
T

3
"

=

4
'
-
0
"
6"

P
I
T
C
H
16

T
U
R
N
S

A
T

3
"

=

4
'
-
0
"
5
T
U
R
N
S

A
T

1
"

=

5
"
1"
3/
4
"

C
H
A
M
F
E
R
8,

1
/
2
"

Ø
,

7

W
I
R
E
,

L
O
W
RE
L
A
X
A
T
I
O
N

S
T
R
A
N
D
S
,

G
R

2
7
0
4,
#
8
DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS
AND SPIRAL TIES TO BE REMOVED
AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS
(NO PAYMENT)
NOTE:
GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH
WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP.
0.21 L 0.58 L 0.21 L
L
2 POINT PICKUP (L ≤ 83') 14" X 14" PILE
NOTE: PICKUP POINTS TO BE PLAINLY MARKED ON PILES
14" SQ. PPC PILE TYP.
HOOKED BARS
FROM PILE TYP.
4"

T
Y
P
.
TENSION CONNECTOR DETAIL
NTS
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
TYPICAL PILE DETAIL
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
NTS
S0
100068207-S-528 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
TRACK WINDOWS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PHASES OF WORK WHERE
TRACK(S) WILL BE BLOCKED OR OUT OF SERVICE, TRACK WINDOWS TO BE
COORDINATED WITH CSX.
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR COORDINATES FINAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE WITH THE
RAILROAD COMPANY AND EXECUTES A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
CROSSING AGREEMENT WITH CSX RAILROAD.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO
SCHEDULE TRACK WINDOWS TO INSTALL SECTIONS OF SHORING SHEET
PILING. THE RAILROAD COMPANY WILL REMOVE 34-FOOT SECTIONS OF
RAIL FROM EACH TRACK. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SECTIONS OF
SHORING (TRS) SHEET PILING. FINAL ELEVATION OF SHORING SHEET
PILING SHALL BE AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS. SHORING SHEET PILING SHALL
REMAIN IN-PLACE AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND WILL BE
CUT-OFF A MINIMUM OF 2-FT BELOW THE TOP-OF-TIE.
25
'
-
0
"
±67'-0"
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
EL. +121.6'
(SHORING) TRS
PZ-27 SHEET PILE
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
A
TYP.
TOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
C/L ABUTMENTS
(14" DIA. PIPE PILES)
C/L ABUTMENTS
(14" DIA. PIPE PILES)
34
'
-
1
"
W/L
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PHASE 1 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (1 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"=1'-0"
S0
100068207-CS-100 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
EXIST. GROUND
TOP OF CUT-OFF
SHEETPILE DRIVEN TO EL. +X.XX
BACKFILL W/ COMPACTED
FILL
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD COMPANY WILL COORDINATE AND
SCHEDULE STOPPAGE OF TRAIN OPERATIONS (TRACK WINDOW)
ON ALL TRACKS TO INSTALL PERMANENT CUT OFF SHEET PILING.
2. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL REMOVE 34-FT TRACK SECTIONS &
TWO TIMBER CROSSTIES FROM EACH TRACK. CONTRACTOR TO
DRIVE CUT-OFF SHEET PILING AFTER RAILS AND CROSS TIES ARE
REMOVED.
3. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PERMANENT CUT-OFF SHEET PILING
BEGINNING AT OWNER'S NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND
PROGRESSING SOUTHWARD TO A POINT TEN FEET NORTH OF
TRACK.
PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR DRIVES PERMANENT CUT-OFF SHEET PILING
FROM A POINT TEN FEET NORTH OF THE TRACK TO INTERSECT
WITH THE PZ-27 SHEET PILING, CUT-OFF SHEET PILING SHALL
BE "CHASED DOWN" BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THE BOTTOM
CHORD OF THE PROPOSED JUMP SPAN BRIDGE.
PHASE 4 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL REINSTALL TWO TIMBER
CROSS TIES AND TWO 34-FOOT SECTIONS OF RAIL
ON EACH TRACK, USING STAGGERED JOINTS AND
NO WELDS.
±67'-0"
±67'-0"
±67'-0"
10'-0" MIN.
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
A
TYP.
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
25
'
-
0
"
34
'
-
1
"
20
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 2 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION
2
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 3 PLAN VIEW
3
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PHASE 4 PLAN VIEW 22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (2 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/8"=1'-0"
S0
100068207-CS-101 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/8 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 4 8 16 24
PHASE 5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD COMPANY WILL
COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE TRACK WINDOWS FOR
PILING INSTALLATION (14" DIA. PIPE, AND CONCRETE
PILES). THE RAILROAD COMPANY WILL REMOVE TIMBER
CROSSTIES AT EACH PILE INSTALLATION LOCATION AS
SHOWN IN THE PLANS. PIPE PILES SHALL BE
"CHASED-DOWN" (DRIVEN WITH FOLLOWERS) TWELVE
INCHES BELOW TOP-OF-TIE (TOP OF RAILROAD TIMBER
CROSSTIE). CONCRETE PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN TO
FINAL GRADE.
25
'
-
0
"
±67'-0"
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
W/L
14" DIA.
PIPE PILE
PZ-27
SHEET
PILE
(SHORING) TRS
PZ-27 SHEET PILE
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
8"X10"X8"-6" CROSS TIES
TO BE REMOVED TO
DRIVE 14" DIA. PIPE PILES
AND STEEL H-PILES
EL. +121.6'
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
TOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
A
TYP.
19
'
-
0
"
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PHASE 5 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (3 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"=1'-0"
S0
100068207-CS-102 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
50'-0"
W/L
C/L OF STRUT EL. +119.35'
TOP OF BASE SLAB EL. +118.35'
CONTRACTOR TO CUT
PIPE PILE TO
REQUIRED ELEVATION EL. +121.6'
WXXxXX
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
50'-0"
W/L
14" DIA.
PIPE PILE
PZ-27
SHEET
PILE
(SHORING) TRS
PZ-27 SHEET PILE
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
WXXxXX
WXXxXXTOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
TOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION EL. +114.35'
14" DIA.
PIPE PILE
PZ-27
SHEET
PILE
(SHORING) TRS
PZ-27 SHEET PILE
STRUT
C/L OF STRUT EL. +119.35'
TOP OF BASE SLAB EL. +118.35'
EL. +121.6'
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION EL. +114.35'
PHASE 6 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD COMPANY WILL
COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE ONE 12-HR TRACK
WINDOW TO INSTALL THE JUMP SPAN BRIDGE.
2. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL REMOVE ONE 50-FT.
SECTION OF TRACK.
3. CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE MATERIAL, CUT-OFF
PILES, INSTALL WALES & STRUTS, INSTALL PILE
CAPS, AND INSTALL THE JUMP SPAN BRIDGE.
4. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL INSTALL ONE 50-FT.
PRE-ASSEMBLED TRACK PANEL, AND WELD
JOINTS ON EACH TRACK.
NOTES:
1. HATCHED AREA DENOTES APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
25
'
-
0
"
±67'-0"
A & B
TYP.
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
2
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PHASE 6 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SECTION B
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SECTION
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (4 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
SEE DWG.
S0
100068207-CS-103 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
3/16 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 1 2 4 6
PHASE 7 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR WORKS UNDER THE JUMP SPAN BRIDGE TO
EXCAVATE, CUT OFF PERMANENT SHEET PILING, AND
INSTALL REINFORCED CONCRETE BASE SLAB, WALL STEM,
AND PILASTERS.
25
'
-
0
"
±67'-0"
4" STAB.
SLAB
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
14" DIA.
PIPE PILE
PZ-27
SHEET
PILE
PZ-27
SHEET
PILE
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
CONTRACTOR TO CUT
PERMANENT SHEET PILE
TO FINAL ELEVATION
4" STAB.
SLAB
WXXxXX
WXXxXX
3-FT PILASTERS
3'
-
0
"
TOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
C/L OF STRUT EL. +119.35'
TOP OF BASE SLAB EL. +118.35'
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION EL. +114.35'
EL. +121.6'
W/L
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
STRUT
A
TYP.
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PHASE 7 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (5 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"=1'-0"
S0
100068207-CS-104 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
PHASE 8 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD COMPANY WILL COORDINATE
AND SCHEDULE TRACK WINDOWS TO REMOVE JUMP SPAN
BRIDGE AND COMPLETE THE INSTALLATION OF THE SILL WALL.
2. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL CUT RAILS ON SECTIONS OF TRACK
OVER JUMP SPAN BRIDGE.
3. CONTRACTOR REMOVES JUMP SPAN BRIDGE, INCLUDING THE
CUT TRACK SECTIONS.
4. CONTRACTOR INSTALLS CAST-IN-PLACE SILL, CUT OFF
SHORING AND JUMP SPAN BRIDGE PILES, AND INSTALLS
SUBGRADE TO AN ELEVATION 21 INCHES BELOW TOP-OF-TIE.
PHASE 9 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL PLACE TWELVE INCHES OF
BALLAST ROCK, INSTALL PRE-FABRICATED TRACK PANELS
ON ALL TRACKS, AND SURFACE THE TRACKS.
2. RAILROAD COMPANY WILL SCHEDULE TRACK WINDOWS TO
WELD JOINTS ON TRACK PANELS ON ALL TRACKS.
PHASE 10 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. THE CONTRACTOR AND RAILROAD COMPANY TO SCHEDULE
TRACK WINDOWS TO PLACE STEEL SWING GATE DURING
PLACEMENT OF THE GATE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 15'-0" FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF TRACKS. IF CLEARANCE REQUIRED IS LESS
THAN 15'-0", A FLAGMAN AND RAILROAD INSPECTOR SHALL
BE PRESENT.
25
'
-
0
"
±67'-0"
C/L CUT-OFF
SHEETING
4" STAB.
SLAB
25'-0"
PROTECTED SIDEFLOOD SIDE
EXIST. GROUND
14" DIA.
PIPE PILE
PZ-XX
SHEET
PILE
PZ-XX
SHEET
PILE
CONTRACTOR TO CUT
PERMANENT SHEET PILE
TO FINAL ELEVATION
4" STAB.
SLAB
WXXxXX3'
-
0
"
C/L OF STRUT EL. +119.35'
TOP OF BASE SLAB EL. +118.35'
DEPTH OF EXCAVATION EL. +114.35'
EL. +121.6'
8"X10"X8'-6"
CROSS TIE
WXXxXX
3-FT PILASTERS
TOP OF RAIL
(CSX RAILROAD)
W/L
A
TYP.
STRUT
1
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PHASE 10 PLAN VIEW
A
TYP. TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION
22x34 Date
DesignedScale
Drawing Title
Project Title
Drawing Status
DO NOT SCALE
Date Date Date
Drawn Checked Authorized
Client
Copyright C Atkins Limited (2020)
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27519
www.atkinsglobal.com
Original Size
Suitability
Tel:Fax:
Drawing Number
[phone]
[phone]
Revision
In
c
h
e
s
4
0
1
12
Rev. Date
Description By Chk'd App'd
13608 18th Street
Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
www.lhjunius.com
Tel:
Fax:
[phone]
[phone]
LINFIELD , HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27607
mcgillassociates.com
[phone]Tel:NC Firm License # C-0459
Seal Seal
Drawing Legend
PRELIMINARY
NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, RECORDATION,
CONVEYANCE OR SALES PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DANIEL A. FLORES GUEVARA
NORTH CAROLINA P.E.LIC. NO. 051021
LINFIELD, HUNTER & JUNIUS, INC.
WEST LUMBERTON FLOOD G
AT VFW ROAD AND RAILROAD UNDERP
ENGINEERING SERVICES
RAILROAD TRS (6 OF 6)
--------
--/--/----/--/----/--/-- --/--/--
1/4"=1'-0"
S0
100068207-CS-105 0
FOR INFORMATION
00
1/4 inch = 1 ft.
( IN FEET )
0 2 4 8 12
FEMA FIRMette
NEPAssist FEMA FIRMs
PFIRMs
NFIP Community Status Book
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 11/28/2023 at 1:00 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
79°2'46"W 34°37'57"N
79°2'9"W 34°37'27"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Laclaire

R
d
SESE
H
i
l
t
o
n

S
t
CoxRd
Heste
r

D
r
W

5
t
h

S
t
Hec t o r M ac l ean Hwy
H ector
Ma c l ea n Hw y
VF
W

R
d
H a c k e t t S t
Civita
n

R
d
Laclaire

R
d
Cr y s t a l R d
He c t or

M
ac l ea n Hwy
SE
VFW

R
d
Nation
al

A
v
e
Reservoir

S
t
B u r ke

S
t
Co
x
Rd
Hack ett

S
t
Se
als
St
Crys tal Rd
W 5t h S t W 5th St
He ctor

M
a
clean

H
wy
West Lumberton Flood Gate - FEMA FIRM
NC CGIA, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, State of North Carolina
DOT, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,
USDA
Flood Hazard Zones
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
Area with Risk Due to Levee
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
November 29, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
Laclaire

R
d
SESE
H
i
l
t
o
n

S
t
CoxRd
Heste
r

D
r
W

5
t
h

S
t
Hect or

M
a
c
l ean

H
w
y
Hector
Mac l ean Hw y
VF
W

R
d
H a c k e t t S t
C
ivi
t
a
n

R
d
Laclaire

R
d
Cr y s t a l R d
He ct or

M
a
c lea n

H
w
y
SE
VFW

R
d
No
rr
i
s

S
t
Nation
al

A
v
e
Re
s
e
rv
oir

S
t
B u r ke

S
t
Co
x
Rd
Hacke
t
t

S
t
Se
alsSt
Cryst
a
l

R
d
W

5
t
h S t W 5th St
He ctor

M
a
c
l
e
a
n

H
wy
West Lumberton Flood Gate - FEMA FIRM with Action Area
NC CGIA, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, State of North Carolina
DOT, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,
USDA, EPA OEI
Flood Hazard Zones
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
Area with Risk Due to Levee
WLFG Project Action Area
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
Railroads
December 1, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
Community Status Book Report NORTH CAROLINA
Communities Participating in the National Flood Program
CID Community Name County Init FIRM
Identified
Curr Eff
Map Date
Reg-Emer
Date
Init FHBM
Identified
Tribal % Disc
SFHA
% Disc Non
SFHA
CRS Entry
Date
Curr
Class
Curr Eff
Date
370323#LOWELL, CITY OF GASTON COUNTY 11/04/09 03/05/9003/05/9008/15/75 No
370537#LUCAMA, TOWN OF WILSON COUNTY 04/16/13 11/03/0411/03/04 No
370203K LUMBERTON, CITY OF ROBESON COUNTY 12/06/19 11/05/8011/05/8006/28/74 No
370090K MACCLESFIELD, TOWN OF EDGECOMBE COUNTY 06/02/15 03/25/8003/18/8012/28/73 No
370150#MACON COUNTY *MACON COUNTY 04/19/10 06/01/0106/01/0106/30/78 No
370152#MADISON COUNTY *MADISON COUNTY 01/06/10 09/02/8209/02/8207/22/77 No
370207#MADISON, TOWN OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 01/02/09 11/16/7711/16/7711/22/74 No
370389#MAGGIE VALLEY, TOWN OF HAYWOOD COUNTY 04/03/12 04/17/8404/17/8407/08/77 No
370669#MAGNOLIA, TOWN OF DUPLIN COUNTY 02/16/07 07/23/1002/16/06 No
370056#MAIDEN, TOWNSHIP OF LINCOLN COUNTY/CATAWBA
COUNTY
07/07/09 09/03/8009/03/8009/20/74 No
375355K MANTEO, TOWN OF DARE COUNTY 06/19/20 01/05/7301/12/7301/12/73 No 5 10%10/01/21 25%10/01/91
370266#MARION, CITY OF MCDOWELL COUNTY 01/06/10 05/01/8707/15/8809/10/82 No
370385#MARS HILL, TOWN OF MADISON COUNTY 01/06/10 08/19/8708/19/8707/02/76 No
370154#MARSHALL, TOWN OF MADISON COUNTY 01/06/10 05/15/7805/15/7806/14/74 No
370474#MARSHVILLE, TOWN OF UNION COUNTY 03/02/09 12/15/0907/05/94 No
370155K MARTIN COUNTY *MARTIN COUNTY 06/19/20 07/16/9107/16/9111/29/74 No
370514#MARVIN, VILLAGE OF UNION COUNTY 02/19/14 12/28/9801/17/97 No
370310#MATTHEWS, TOWN OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY 02/19/14 02/04/0402/04/04 No
370587F MAXTON, TOWN OF SCOTLAND COUNTY/ROBESON
COUNTY
12/06/19 05/26/2001/19/05 No
370208#MAYODAN, TOWN OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 01/02/09 07/18/7707/18/77 No
370330#MAYSVILLE, TOWN OF JONES COUNTY 02/16/06 08/19/8607/02/04 No
370101#MCADENVILLE,TOWN OF GASTON COUNTY 11/04/09 06/01/8706/01/8706/21/74 No
370148#MCDOWELL COUNTY*MCDOWELL COUNTY 01/06/10 07/15/8807/15/8812/20/74 No
370390J MEBANE, CITY OF ORANGE COUNTY/ALAMANCE
COUNTY
11/17/17 11/05/8011/05/80 No
370158F MECKLENBURG COUNTY *MECKLENBURG COUNTY 11/16/18 06/01/8106/01/8110/22/76 No 5 10%04/01/21 25%10/01/91
370426L MESIC, TOWN OF PAMLICO COUNTY 06/19/20 09/04/8507/02/04 No 8 05%04/01/21 10%05/01/19
370500J MICRO, TOWN OF JOHNSTON COUNTY 06/20/18 11/08/1610/20/00 No
370445#MIDDLESEX, TOWN OF NASH COUNTY 07/07/14 03/19/9901/20/82 No
370182L MIDLAND, TOWN OF CABARRUS COUNTY 11/16/18 06/01/0905/05/8112/27/74 No
370393#MIDWAY, TOWN OF DAVIDSON COUNTY 06/16/09 02/05/1903/16/09 No
370529#MINERAL SPRINGS, TOWN OF UNION COUNTY 03/02/09 05/17/0007/18/83 No
370418K MINNESOTT BEACH, TOWN OF PAMLICO COUNTY 06/19/20 09/23/8508/05/8503/02/79 No 8 05%10/01/21 10%10/01/92
370539E MINT HILL, TOWN OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY 11/16/18 12/21/0702/04/04 No
370026#MISENHEIMER, VILLAGE OF STANLY COUNTY 06/16/09 02/17/1009/03/08 No
370161#MITCHELL COUNTY *MITCHELL COUNTY 06/02/09 09/04/8609/04/8606/30/78 No
370309#MOCKSVILLE, TOWN OF DAVIE COUNTY 06/16/09 09/17/0806/27/0007/11/75 No
370657#MOMEYER, TOWN OF NASH COUNTY (NSFHA)12/29/0511/03/04 No
370236#MONROE, CITY OF UNION COUNTY 03/02/09 01/19/8301/19/8309/20/74 No
370336#MONTGOMERY COUNTY*MONTGOMERY COUNTY 06/16/09 02/20/9706/01/8110/13/78 No
370476#MONTREAT, TOWN OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY 01/06/10 09/19/0505/06/96 No
370164H MOORE COUNTY *MOORE COUNTY 11/17/17 12/15/8912/15/8910/13/78 No
370314#MOORESVILLE, TOWN OF IREDELL COUNTY 06/16/09 05/01/8005/01/8004/25/75 No
370048#MOREHEAD CITY, TOWN OF CARTERET COUNTY 11/03/05 02/16/7702/16/7702/22/74 No 6 10%05/01/20 20%10/01/92
370035#MORGANTON,CITY OF BURKE COUNTY 07/07/09 02/19/8702/19/8703/22/74 No
370242K MORRISVILLE, TOWN OF WAKE COUNTY 07/19/22 11/01/7811/01/7810/29/76 No
370226B MOUNT AIRY,CITY OF SURRY COUNTY 11/18/16 12/01/8112/01/8106/28/74 No
370102L MOUNT HOLLY, CITY OF GASTON COUNTY 09/02/15 09/28/7909/28/7901/09/74 No
370369K MOUNT OLIVE, TOWN OF DUPLIN COUNTY/WAYNE COUNTY 06/20/18 02/17/8202/17/8206/17/77 No
370470J MOUNT PLEASANT, TOWN OF CABARRUS COUNTY 11/16/18 02/24/1211/02/94 No
370419#MURFREESBORO,TOWN OF HERTFORD COUNTY 08/03/09 06/01/8706/01/8711/10/78 No
370061#MURPHY, TOWN OF CHEROKEE COUNTY 04/19/10(M)07/03/8607/03/8603/08/74 No
375356K NAGS HEAD, TOWN OF DARE COUNTY 06/19/20 11/10/7211/10/72 No 5 10%04/01/22 25%10/01/91
Page 7 of 13 09/11/2023

West Lumberton Flood Gate
Closure Structure
at the VFW Road and CSX Railroad Interstate 95
Underpass
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
City of Lumberton
9 January 2023

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page ii

Document history
Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorized Date
Rev 0.0 Floodgate Closure
Structure Design
KH EB DS AS 3/19/2020
Rev 1.0 Floodgate Closure
Structure Design
KH EB DS AS 10/19/2020
Rev 2.0 Floodgate Closure
Structure Design
KH EB DS AS 1/09/2023

Client signoff
Client City of Lumberton
Project West Lumberton Flood Gate Closure Structure at the VFW Road and CSX Railroad
Interstate 95 Underpass
Job number 100068207

Client signature /
date

Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely as information for City of
Lumberton and use in relation to the design of the flood gate closure structure at the VFW Road and CSX
Railroad Interstate 95 Underpass.
SNC-Lavalin assumes no responsibility for the use of the information presented in this report for purposes other
than for the design of the flood gate closure structure.
This document has 174 pages including the cover.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page iii

Contents
Chapter Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 2
1.1. Authorization and Study Purpose 2
1.2. Assumptions and Limitations 3
2. Hydrological Setting 4
2.1. Watershed Location and Size(s) 4
2.2. Climate 4
2.3. Historical Floods 5
3. Data Collection 8
3.1. Terrain and Watershed Data 8
3.2. Precipitation Data 9
3.3. Streamflow Data 11
3.4. Soils Data 12
3.5. Land Use Data 13
3.6. Field Survey and Data Collection 14
4. Design Flood Selection 19
4.1. Review of FEMA Levee Accreditation Guidelines 19
4.2. Flood Frequency Analysis 19
4.3. Recommended Design Flood Frequency 24
5. Hydrologic Model Development 25
5.1. General Methodology 25
5.2. HEC-HMS Model Parameters 25
5.3. Sub-basin Delineation 26
5.4. Initial Parameter Estimation 28
5.5. Model Calibration to Historic Events 31
5.6. Model Validation to Historic Events 34
5.7. Design Flood Simulations 35
6. Hydraulic Model Development 39
6.1. Model Development 39
6.2. Boundary Conditions 42
6.3. Model Execution 43
6.4. Model Calibration and Verification 43
6.5. Design Flood Simulations and Results 46
7. Freeboard Estimation 51
7.1. Estimate average wind speed over an appropriate fetch 51
7.2. Estimate Wave Height and Wave Period 53
7.3. Estimate wind setup and wave runup 54
7.4. Sensitivity Analysis 55
7.5. Results 55
8. Recommendations 56
9. References 57

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page iv

Appendices 59
Field Data 60
Hydrologic Analysis 61
Hydraulic Analysis 62
Wind Wave Analysis 63
Electronic Attachments 64

Tables
Table 3-1. Precipitation gage availability and utilization in models. 10
Table 4-1. Calculated discharge per return period at the Lumberton gage (USGS 02134170). 20
Table 4-2. Calculated discharge per return period based on the extended Lumberton gage records (USGS
02134170). 21
Table 4-3. Calculated discharge per return period based on the extended Lumberton gage records (USGS
02134170) and altered Hurricane Matthew. 22
Table 4-4. Regional regression weighted peak flow rate estimates for Methods 2 approaches. 23
Table 5-1. HEC-HMS modeling methods and required parameters. 26
Table 5-2. Sub-basin composite curve numbers. 29
Table 5-3. Calculated sub-basin initial losses. 29
Table 5-4. Muskingum-Cunge routing parameters used for hydrologic modeling. 31
Table 5-5. Peak streamflow reported at USGS gages in Lumberton and Maxton for each study event. 31
Table 5-6. Peak flow comparison between observed and simulated calibrated events. 32
Table 5-7. Time of peak comparison between observed and simulated calibrated events. 33
Table 5-8. Volume comparison between observed (USGS 02134170 at Lumberton) and simulated calibrated
events. 33
Table 5-9. Average calibrated HEC-HMS parameters. 33
Table 5-10. Peak flow comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event. 34
Table 5-11. Time of peak flow comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event. 34
Table 5-12. Volume comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event. 34
Table 5-13. Initial and optimized parameters for the HEC-METVue model. 36
Table 5-14. Average PMP depths from optimized HMR 52 storm parameters. 37
Table 5-15. Design Rainfall Depths. 38
Table 5-16. Peak flow comparison between simulated HEC-HMS, FEMA reports, and gage statistics. 38
Table 5-17. Comparison of Peakflows from SCS and Partial Duration Rainfall Distributions. 38
Table 6-1. Manning's n coefficient ranges per land cover type. 39
Table 6-2. Lumber River historical storms used for calibration and verification. 44
Table 7-1. Deep water wave characteristics. 54
Table 7-2. Summary of sensitivity analysis. 55
Table 8-1. Recommended Range of Gate Heights 56

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page v

Figures
Figure 1-1. Lumberton site location map. 3
Figure 2-1. Lumber River basin location within southeastern North Carolina. 4
Figure 2-2. Flooding along I-95 and inside the Lumberton Levee from Hurricane Matthew; area to right of road
is the levee protected side of Lumberton (Source: City of Lumberton). 6
Figure 2-3. Flooding under I-95 at VFW Road and CSX railroad in Lumberton, NC from Hurricane Florence
(Source: City of Lumberton). 7
Figure 3-1. Lumber River basin terrain. 8
Figure 3-2. CRONOS rainfall gages in and near the Lumber River basin. 10
Figure 3-3. Example of Thiessen polygons used to calculate weighted rainfall; shown is the 2004 event
Thiessen polygons. 11
Figure 3-4. USGS gage (02134170 Lumber River at Lumberton, NC) within the Lumber River basin. 12
Figure 3-5. Lumber River basin soil type distribution. 13
Figure 3-6. Lumber River basin 2016 land cover type. 14
Figure 3-7. Collected field data for structures, high water marks, and survey points. 15
Figure 3-8. Location of field and USGS high water marks. 17
Figure 3-9. Example of HWM from Lumberton field visit near the VFW Road and railroad intersection by the
flood gate location. 18
Figure 4-1. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with reported Hurricane Matthew peak flow rate. 20
Figure 4-2. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with adjusted Hurricane Matthew peak flow rate.21
Figure 4-3. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with extended record. 22
Figure 4-4. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage (USGS 02134 170) with extended record and
altered Hurricane Matthew. 23
Figure 5-1. Lumber River sub-basin delineation. 27
Figure 5-2. HEC-HMS sub-basins, reaches, and junctions. 28
Figure 5-3. Centroid, channel length (L), and channel length to centroid (Lc) of each sub-basin for Snyder
hydrograph development. 30
Figure 5-4. Comparison of observed gage flow (black) and simulated flow (solid blue) for the September 2018
(Hurricane Florence) calibrated event. 32
Figure 5-5. Comparison of observed gage flow (black) and simulated flow (solid blue) for the October 2016
(Hurricane Matthew) verification event. 35
Figure 5-6. HMR 52 storm position with HEC-HMS (optimized) parameters. 37
Figure 6-1. Lumber River 2D external model domain. 40
Figure 6-2. Bridge example. 41
Figure 6-3. I-95 Meadow Branch culvert 2D connection example. 42
Figure 6-4. Boundary condition locations. 43
Figure 6-5. High water marks comparison for Hurricane Florence. 44
Figure 6-6. High water marks comparison for Hurricane Matthew. 46
Figure 6-7. Inundation boundaries without floodgate 49
Figure 6-8. WSE (ft) without flood gate compared to with flood gate and I-95 raised for 100YR storm. 50
Figure 6-9. WSE (ft) without flood gate compared to with flood gate and I-95 raised for 500YR storm. 50
Figure 7-1. Definition sketch for wave runup and wind setup (USACE, 1997). 51
Figure 7-2. Fetch line (red) superimposed on 500-year depth raster and satellite imagery. 52

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations
1D one-dimensional
2D two-dimensional
C conversion factor
cfs cubic foot per second
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CN curve number
Cp peaking coefficient
Ct basin coefficient
D average depth of water along fetch line
DEMLR Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (NCDEQ)
ECONet North Carolina Environment and Climate Observing Network
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fs maximum fetch distance
Ft feet
FWL ratio of winds over water to winds over land
g gravity
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
H wave height at the toe of the structure
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-MetVue Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Meteorological Visualization Utility Engine
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System
H&H hydrologic and hydraulic
HMR Hydrometeorological Reports
hr hour
HWM high water mark
Ia initial loss
in inch
in/hr inch per hour
KFAY Fayetteville Airport CRONOS rainfall gage
KMEB Laurinburg-Maxton Airport CRONOS rainfall gage
KSOP Moore County Airport CRONOS rainfall gage
L length of main channel
Ld deep water wavelength
Lc length of main channel to the centroid
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LILE NC Electric Cooperative Anson Peaking Plant CRONOS rainfall gage
mi mile
MOVE Maintenance of variance estimator
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation
mph miles per hour
NAVD North American Vertical Datum
NC North Carolina

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page vii

NC CRONOS North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCFMP North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
NCSCO North Carolina State Climate Office
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NLUM Lumberton CRONOS rainfall gage
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCK Rockingham CRONOS rainfall gage
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NUWH Uwharrie-Troy CRONOS rainfall gage
NWS National Weather Service
R wave runup
s seconds
SCS Soil Conservation Service
Se set-up
sq mi square mile
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database
t time
Td deep water wave period
Tp hydrograph lag
U average wind velocity
U1hr one hour averaged wind speed
U33 wind speed at height of 33 feet
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
Ut fastest wind speed at a specified duration
Uw overwater wind speed
Uz wind speed at a distance of z above surface
WHIT Border Belt Tobacco Res Station CRONOS rainfall gage
WSE water surface elevation
yr year
z elevation

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 1

Executive Summary
The western part of the City of Lumberton is protected from flooding from the Lumber River by a levee system
that consists of three segments: the levee that was designed and constructed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), a portion of I-95 highway embankment,
and a portion of Alamac Road. An opening exists within the I-95 highway embankment portion of the levee
system to allow a CSX rail corridor and VFW Road to traverse under the highway. During extreme storms, the
Lumber River overflows its banks and floods the western part of the city through this opening. Flow also
overtops low segments of the I-95 portion of the levee protection system. Floodwaters from recent extreme
weather events, like Hurricane Matthew (2016) and Hurricane Florence (2018) flooded the city through the
opening in the I-95 embankment, causing major damages to residences and businesses. The City of
Lumberton plans to improve its flood resiliency by installing a flood gate closure structure along the opening
within the I-95 highway embankment to prevent future flooding. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) also plans to widen and raise the I-95 portion of the flood protection system to
increase capacity and to prevent the I-95 highway embankment from overtopping. This report documents the
detailed hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) study of the Lumber River that was performed to establish the height of
the proposed flood gate closure structure.
It is the desire of the City of Lumberton to be protected from flooding events with magnitudes like that of the
flood of record (Hurricane Florence) and to pursue FEMA accreditation of the levee protection system. For the
levee system to be accredited, its minimum top elevation must be equal to the 100-year elevation plus 4.5 feet
of freeboard (128.5 feet, North American Vertical Datum [NAVD]88). The North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality’s Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) determined in October 2021
that the proposed floodgate is subject to the jurisdiction of the Dam Safety Law of 1967 and will have a Class C
high hazard and large size classification. This classification implies that the proposed floodgate should be
designed to withstand the ¾ Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). In determining the design elevation of the gate,
a statistical analysis was performed and the recurrence interval of the flood of record was estimated to be about
200-years. Hydraulic simulations were performed without the gate and with the gate and the proposed I-95
configuration in place, to estimate the resulting peak elevations of the 100-year through the Probable Maximum
Flood (PMF) return period events, and the flood of record.
Based on the results of the analysis, the recommended range of top of gate elevations and gate heights that
meets the objectives of the City of Lumberton and regulatory requirements are shown in tabular form below:
Design Storm
Recommended Top of Gate Elevation and Gate Height
Max. Stillwater Elevation
(feet, NAVD88)
Freeboard
(feet)
Top of Gate Elevation
(feet, NAVD88) Gate Height (feet)
100 YR 124.0 5.4 129.4 9.4
¼ PMF 126.0 6.6 132.6 12.6
500 YR 127.6 6.6 134.2 14.2
Reference Elevations: 1. Minimum elevation for levee accreditation = 128.5 feet (ft), NAVD88
2. Flood of record elevation at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 125.6 ft, NAVD88
3. Elevation of ¾ PMF at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 128.8 ft, NAVD88
4. Elevation of PMF at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 129.2 ft, NAVD88
5. Average ground elevation at gate location is 120.0 ft
6. ¼ PMF is the largest storm that does not overtop the levee and proposed I-95
7. Levee is overtopped during the 500-year storm.
The recommended range of top of flood gate elevations of 129.4 to 134.2 feet, NAVD88 ensures that the gate
is not overtopped up to the PMF if freeboard is not accounted and meets all the regulatory requirements. The ¼
PMF is the largest event that does not overtop the levees. Minor overtopping of the levee occurs during the
500-year event. Selection of the design gate height from this range should be based on cost, floodplain
impacts, and minimum desired level of service.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 2

1. Introduction
1.1. Authorization and Study Purpose
Atkins was authorized to conduct this study through its contract with City of Lumberton dated October 18, 2019.
The contract is to provide engineering services for the design of a flood gate closure structure at the VFW Road
and CSX Railroad Interstate 95 (I-95) Underpass in the City of Lumberton.
The City of Lumberton is susceptible to flooding from the Lumber River. A levee system provides flood
prevention to the City of Lumberton. The levee system consists of three segments: the levee that was designed
and constructed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation
Service), a portion of I-95 highway embankment, and a portion of Alamac Road (Figure 1-1). The levee begins
at the tie in with I-95, approximately 1,100 feet north-east of VFW Road and extends south-east to the tie-in
with Alamac Road, running parallel to the Lumber River. An opening exists within the I-95 highway
embankment to allow a CSX rail corridor and VFW Road to traverse under the highway. During extreme
storms, the Lumber River overflows its banks and through the opening in I-95 flooding portions of the City of
Lumberton. Floodwaters from recent extreme weather events, like Hurricane Matthew (2016) and Hurricane
Florence (2018) flooded the city through the opening in the I-95 embankment, causing major damages to
residences and businesses. During Hurricane Matthew, no attempts were made to close the opening, resulting
in significant flows into the protected area. In preparation for Hurricane Florence, sandbags and temporary
barriers were placed across the opening. Although these measures provided temporary protection they
eventually failed. And, therefore, the City of Lumberton wants to install permanent protection such as flood
gates within the opening under I-95. The gate would have to be closed over the CSX railroad corridor and local
road to protect the southern part of the city from flooding.. The purpose of this project is to design and install
the flood gate at this most vulnerable location to improve the flood resilience of the City of Lumberton.
To establish the height of the flood gate closure structure, a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) study of
the Lumber River is required. The H&H study includes a hydrologic analysis of the Lumber River from the
headwaters located near Eagle Springs, North Carolina (NC) to the confluence of the Lumber River and Jacob
Swamp located about 4 miles downstream of Lumberton. A hydraulic model was developed along the Lumber
River and of its tributaries near the city of Lumberton to establish flood elevations for use in the flood gate
closure design.
It is worth noting that there is a second opening in the levee protection system along Alamac Road. This
opening is a bridge that allows Jacob Swamp to connect with the Lumber River. Although flow in the Lumber
River backs up through this opening under extreme flooding conditions, it does not result in extensive flooding
compared to flow through the I-95 opening. The opening within Alamac road is not a focus of this study.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 3

Figure 1-1. Lumberton site location map.
1.2. Assumptions and Limitations
The assumptions and limitations of the analysis and report are as follows:
a. The analysis and results presented in this report are for the sole purpose of designing the flood gate.
b. Top elevations of the Lumberton levee system including the existing I-95 highway are based on terrain
data described in Section 3.1. The top of levee elevations from the terrain match elevations from a
survey performed by others as described in this report. Atkins does not guarantee the accuracy of this
data.
c. The geometry of the proposed I-95 embankment and hydraulic structures that traverse the highway
embankment are based on 25-percent design plans from NCDOT and is subject to change. Atkins
does not guarantee the accuracy of this data.
d. Atkins relied on hydraulic structure data included in the effective Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) models. Atkins spot checked the information gathered on these structures by
comparing them to field observations but does not guarantee the accuracy of all the data.
e. Atkins relied on the high-water mark, streamflow, and stage data collected by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) for model calibration. Atkins does not guarantee the accuracy of this data.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 4

2. Hydrological Setting
2.1. Watershed Location and Size(s)
The Lumber River basin is in southeastern North Carolina, approximately 30 miles (mi) south of Fayetteville,
NC, and has a total drainage area of 748 mi2 at the confluence of the Lumber River and Jacob Swamp (Figure
2-1). The drainage area to the USGS gage along Lumber River in Lumberton is 708 mi2. The location of the
USGS gage is approximately 1.7 miles downstream from the proposed flood gate closure location. The Lumber
River basin at the gage location is entirely within the state of North Carolina and encompasses portions of six
different counties: Robeson, Hoke, Scotland, Moore, Richmond, and Montgomery.

Figure 2-1. Lumber River basin location within southeastern North Carolina.
2.2. Climate
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides precipitation and temperature data for
the entire United States. The state of North Carolina is divided into eight climate regions (NOAA, 2020). The
Lumber River basin is in two of the regions: Southern Piedmont for the northern quarter and Southern Coastal
Plains for much of the basin. The mean annual temperature for these regions is 59.7°F and 61.5°F,
respectively. This is above the national average of 52.02°F. The mean annual precipitations for the NOAA-
defined NC climate regions of Southern Piedmont and Southern Coastal Plain are 46.59-in and 49.23-in,
respectively, which are well above the national average of 29.94-in (NOAA, 2020).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 5

Due to its proximity to the Atlantic seaboard, eastern NC is highly susceptible to coastal events including
tropical events that mainly occur during the official hurricane season (June 1st to November 30th) as well as
extratropical events such as nor’easters and storms that trail along stalled frontal boundaries. Hist orical data
shows that the North Carolina coast is most likely to have a hurricane in September and October based on the
prevailing wind patterns (NOAA, 2019a). In 2015, 2016, and 2018, annual precipitation depths were about 14 -
in, 11-in, and 22-in, respectively, above the annual North Carolina mean (1901-2019) (NOAA, 2020), primarily
due to tropical storms and hurricanes.
2.3. Historical Floods
2.3.1. Storms Prior to 2000
Records of major flooding caused by tropical storms dates to the 1600s. However, no flow measurements were
available until after the installation of the USGS Gage 02134170 (on Lumber River at Lumberton, NC) circa the
year 2000. Notable storms that occurred prior to 2000 include:
o The flood of October 1954 was the result of Hurricane Hazel which made landfall on October 14, 1954,
as a category 4 storm near Calabash, NC, approximately 70 miles southeast from Lumberton, NC.
Total rainfall was reported to be over 7 inches in parts of NC, including near the upstream portion of the
Lumber River basin, with totals between 5 to 6 inches closer to Lumberton, NC (North Carolina State
Climate Office (NCSCO), 2015). While tropical events occurred prior to 1954, Hurricane Hazel was
noted as one of the most catastrophic in the twentieth century (Barnes, 1998), thus selected as the
earliest record of interest.
o The flood of September 1996 was the result of Hurricane Fran which made landfall on September 5,
1996, as a category 3 storm near where the Cape Fear River reaches the Atlantic Ocean (NCSCO,
2015). This is approximately 75 miles southeast of Lumberton, NC. A total of 5 to 10 inches of rainfall
across parts of eastern and central NC was reported (USGS, 2016).
o The flood of September 1999 was the result of Hurricane Floyd, which made landfall on September 16,
1999, as a category 2 storm near Cape Fear, NC, approximately 75 miles southeast of Lumberton, NC .
Rainfall records across the state ranged from 12 to 20 inches. The rainfall total at the Lumberton
Airport was 8.48 inches (NOAA, 2019b) and 7.62 inches in Lumberton (USGS, 2016).
2.3.2. Storm and Flood of September 2004
Significant rainfall fell across the entire state of North Carolina in September 2004 as a result of Hurricane
Frances. Hurricane Frances impacted North Carolina from September 7-8 and mainly hit the western part of the
state but did result in significant rainfall in the eastern half (National Weather Service [NWS], 2004). Rainfall
gages near the Lumber River basin reported total rainfall depths from the storm from 4.31 to 11.87 inches
(NCSCO,2020). The USGS gage on Lumber River at Lumberton (USGS 02134170) reported a peak
streamflow of 7,420 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the early hours of September 11, 2004 (USGS, 2020).
2.3.3. Storm and Flood of October 2016
The flood of October 2016 was the result of Hurricane Matthew which made landfall on October 8, 2016, as a
Category 1 storm southeast of McClellanville, South Carolina, approximately 110 miles southwest of
Lumberton, NC. A front moved inland, pushing the storm north and east towards North Carolina. The storm
moved back into the Atlantic Ocean on October 9. While the storm was only over land for two days the sharp
turn of the path slowed down the forward speed, resulting in heavy precipitation for 2 days over the eastern
portions of both North Carolina and South Carolina (NOAA, 2019c). The total recorded precipitation depth in
Lumberton, NC from this storm was 12.53 inches, which is the highest recorded until 2018 (previously 7.62
inches in 1999) (Weaver et al., 2016). Recorded peak flows at the USGS gages in Lumberton (02134170) and
Boardman, NC (02134500) were 14,600 cfs and 38,200 cfs, respectively (USGS, 2020). The recorded peak of
38,200 cfs at the USGS gage in Boardman, NC is the highest ever recorded flow to date and it resulted in a
peak stage of 14.43 ft (USGS, 2016). The Boardman gage is approximately 15 miles downstream of the USGS
Lumberton gage.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 6

Based on high water marks (HWM) provided by the USGS, flood depths in and around Lumberton ranged from
0.65 to 6.89 ft. The levee did not overtop or fa il during Hurricane Matthew. Flooding in the area was caused by
overtopping of I-95, flow through the I-95 opening at VFW Road/CSX Railroad underpass, and inadequate
capacity of the internal drainage system (Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-2. Flooding along I-95 and inside the Lumberton Levee from Hurricane Matthew; area to right
of road is the levee protected side of Lumberton (Source: City of Lumberton).
2.3.4. Storm and Flood of September 2018
The flood of September 2018 was the result of Hurricane Florence. Hurricane Florence made landfall on
September 14, 2018, as a Category 1 storm at Wrightsville Beach, NC, approximately 75 miles southeast of
Lumberton, NC. After making landfall, the storm turned southwest into South Carolina, where it moved inland
and then turned north before becoming a tropical depression. While the winds were lower as a result of being a
Category 1 storm, the system moved slowly at about 2 to 3 miles per hour over North and South Carolina,
resulting in large rainfall amounts. Rainfall continued over a four-day period across the southeastern portion of
North Carolina (NOAA, 2019c). Total rainfall values reported by NOAA at stations 2.3 miles northeast of
Lumberton and 2.6 east-southeast of Lumberton are 22.8 inches and 21.4 inches, respectively. Hurricane
Florence resulted in the highest ever recorded peak flow at the USGS gage in Lumberton (02134170 Lumber
River at Lumberton) of 17,100 cfs with a peak stage of 22.21 ft. Hurricane Florence caused major flooding
within the City of Lumberton as floodwaters passed through the opening under I-95 at the VFW Road and CSX
railroad intersection into the city (Figure 2-3). USGS estimates about 12-percent of the total recorded peak flow
passed through the opening under I-95.
Levee
Protected
Side

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 7

Figure 2-3. Flooding under I-95 at VFW Road and CSX railroad in Lumberton, NC from Hurricane
Florence (Source: City of Lumberton).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 8

3. Data Collection
Data used for modeling included field data along with available hydrologic, terrain, and land data. Field data,
including high water marks and survey, is provided in Appendix A. Hydrologic data, including rainfall,
streamflow, and parameter calculations, is provided in Appendix B. Hydraulic data, including levee data, is
provided in Appendix C.
3.1. Terrain and Watershed Data
Terrain tiles were QL2 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) obtained from the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). QL2 data has a standard of 2 points per square meter, allowing for higher
resolution than previous LiDAR. The projection of the data source was in
NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200 _Feet. The vertical datum is NAVD 88. The terrain was for
the entirety of Robeson County and portions of Hoke, Scotland, Moore, Richmond, and Montgomery counties
and all are 10 ft resolution. The tiles within the project area were mosaiced using ArcG IS. The elevation within
the Lumber River basin ranges from 102 to 734 ft NAVD 88 (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1. Lumber River basin terrain.
The LiDAR terrain source did not account for bathymetry. Bathymetric data for Lumber River were obtained
from the Preliminary Lumber River one-dimensional (1D) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis
System (HEC-RAS) model obtained from NCFMP as part of this project. Channel banks were edited to ensure
that the channel thalweg and top width were captured. The bank-to-bank elevations at each cross-section were

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 9

exported as the bathymetry using RASMapper. This same procedure was followed for Jacob Swamp and Little
Jacob Swamp.
For Fivemile Branch, Meadow Branch, Gum Branch, Cotton Mill Branch and Collection Canal , cross section
data was obtained in the field for at least two points along the channel. This procedure is explained in further
detail in Section 3.6.2. A slope was interpolated from the two surveyed cross sections, and the slope was used
to drop the channel inverts along each reach. This procedure was completed using 1D HEC -RAS models and
the bathymetry generated using the approach described for Lumber River and Jacob Swamp.
The separate bathymetric terrains were then mosaiced with the original terrain, giving bathymetry the priority in
ArcGIS. At confluences, tributary elevations were altered to match that of the main re ach to ensure the terrain
merged smoothly.
3.2. Precipitation Data
Hourly precipitation in the area was obtained from the North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations
Network of the Southeast Database (NC CRONOS)/ North Carolina Environment and Climate Observing
Network (ECONet) Database, which was developed by the State Climate Office of North Carolina (2019). There
are eleven precipitation gages within or nearby the drainage basin, eight of which had precipitation data for
selected calibration and verification storms (Figure 3-2). Gages with available data varied across storms (Table
3-1).
For each event, Thiessen polygons were created based on the rainfall gages with available data to estimate the
rainfall contribution from each gage for each sub-basin (Figure 3-3). Thiessen polygons were created for each
event based on gages with available data to determine which gages to use for precipitation data for each sub-
basin. Depending on the outcome of the Thiessen polygon divisions, some gages with available data were not
used, as highlighted for the 2004 event in Figure 3-3. Sub-basin delineation is discussed in Section 5.3.
Additional details on the Thiessen polygon procedure are included in Appendix B1. The area proportions
determined from the Thiessen polygons were applied as weights to the precipitation data from the contributing
gages. The storm hyetograph applie d to a sub-basin is the weighted average from all contributing rainfall
gages. A summary of gage availability, weighted rainfall data sets, and the applied range of rainfall per event is
provided in Table 3-1.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 10

Figure 3-2. CRONOS rainfall gages in and near the Lumber River basin.
Table 3-1. Precipitation gage availability and utilization in models.
Event Gages Available Gages Used
Sept 2004 5 (KFAY, HAML, KMEB, NRCK, WHIT) KFAY, KMEB, NRCK, WHIT
Oct 2015 4 (LILE, NLUM, NUWH, WHIT) LILE, NLUM, NUWH
Oct 2016 5 (KSOP, LILE, NLUM, NUWH, WHIT) KSOP, LILE, NLUM, NUWH
Sept 2018 4 (LILE, NLUM, NRCK, WHIT) NLUM, NRCK

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 11

Figure 3-3. Example of Thiessen polygons used to calculate weighted rainf all; shown is the 2004 event
Thiessen polygons.

3.3. Streamflow Data
There is a USGS stream gage approximately 1.7 miles downstream of the Lumberton flood gate location,
USGS 02134170 Lumber River at Lumberton, NC (Figure 3-4). Fifteen (15) minute river discharge (cfs) and
gage height (ft) were obtained for the full period of record (July 2, 2000 to present) (USGS, 2020) (Appendix
E2.1). Additionally, there is a gage upstream on Lumber River in Maxton, NC (USGS 02133624) with a
drainage area of 365 sq mi and a gage downstream of our modeled basin on Lumber River in Boardman, NC
(USGS 02134500) with a drainage area of 1,228 sq mi (Figure 3-4).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 12

Figure 3-4. USGS gage (02134170 Lumber River at Lumberton, NC) within the Lumber River basin.
3.4. Soils Data
Hydrologic soil group data was obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) GeoSpatial Data Gateway (USDA, 2020). Gridded soil survey from
the Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) database was downloaded for all required counties. Most of the basin
consists of B and C soils, with some D soils and minimal A soils (Figure 3-5).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 13

Figure 3-5. Lumber River basin soil type distribution.
3.5. Land Use Data
Land use data was obtained from the 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Figure 3-6) (USDA, 2020).
The northern portion of the watershed is primarily evergreen forest, while the southern half is cultivated crops
and the developed area of Lumberton, NC.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 14

Figure 3-6. Lumber River basin 2016 land cover type.
3.6. Field Survey and Data Collection
A field survey was conducted to validate structure dimensions from effective models/inspection reports and
collect dimensions for structures without pre-existing data. A field survey was also conducted to gather cross
section information for reaches within the levee protected area that did not have an effective model with
bathymetry. Figure 3-7 below shows the locations of these structures and the cross-section locations. The
location map and field measurements are provided in Appendix A1 and photographs for each structure are
shown in Appendix E1. The team also gathered high water mark information from Hurricanes Florence and
Matthew.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 15

Figure 3-7. Collected field data for structures, high water marks, and survey points.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 16

Additional structure surveys were conducted by McGill Associates for selected structures along the main
reaches, Lumber River, and Fivemile Branch. McGill surveyed one structure on Lumber River/I-95 in the vicinity
of the proposed flood gate and four structures on Fivemile Branch.
3.6.1. Structure Data
An inventory of hydraulic structures within the project area was derived before the field survey. The initial list of
structures came from the effective FEMA models for Lumber River, Jacob Swamp, Little Jacob Swamp,
Fivemile Branch, Collection Canal, Cotton Mill Branch, and Raft Swamp. These were all obtained from the
North Carolina Flood Risk Information System website (NCFMP, 2019). The second source of known structures
was the NCDOT Bridges Map (NCDOT, 2019). Inspection reports were obtained from NCDOT for the
structures found on the NCDOT Bridges Map,. Other structures were found using aerial imagery or data. Levee
data was obtained from AECOM Project No. 60548447, Lumberton Flood Mitigation Report Levee Plans,
provided in Appendix C2.
The team collected general structure dimensions, material, skew, bed material and condition, normal depth,
channel width, structure condition, scour, sedimentation, obstructions, and guardrail height. More specifically,
data for bridges included: number of spans, width of spans, pier dimensions, cap dimensions, girder thickness,
seat dimensions, depth from low chord to channel invert, length of bridge, and width of bridge. Data collection
for culverts included: culvert type, number of barrels, rise, span/diameter, bed to crown, abutment type, scour,
and length of culvert.
The above data was obtained using Global Positioning System (GPS), measuring tapes, measuring wheels and
rods. The team also looked for any additional structures not found in aerial imagery or ongoing construction.
3.6.2. Cross Sections
Collection Canal, Gum Branch, and Cotton Mill Branch were surveyed at a minimum of two locations along the
reach. This allowed for a slope to be interpolated along the channel bed. The cross sections were taken at the
upstream side of a structure.
To collect the cross-section data, the survey team used a laser level, GPS, and rod. A benchmark was
determined using GPS coordinates (at top of bank). The elevation of the benchmark was estimated using
LiDAR data. The team then took a back sight reading and found the height of instrument. Foresight readings
were taken throughout the channel. Points were taken approximately every 5 feet across the channel to capture
top of bank, edge of water and channel inverts. calculations were performed to determine the channel
elevations from the collected measurements. Cross-section data and plots are provided in Appendix A3.
3.6.3. High Water Marks
Eleven high water mark (HWM) locations and depths were obtained from a field visit with City of Lumberton
waterworks department personnel (Figure 3-8). The City of Lumberton personnel provided the history of each
water mark during the field visit. At each mark, the location, height of water from the ground, and event were
noted, along with photos for each. An example of a recorded HWM photo is shown in Figure 3-9. Measured
HWM depths were converted to elevations based on the terrain data described in Section 3.1.
Additionally, HWM for Hurricanes Matthew and Florence were obtained from the USGS Flood Event Viewer
application ((United States Geological Survey, 2019) (Figure 3-8).
The high-water mark located just upstream of the proposed gate location was surveyed by McGill Associates.
This HWM can be seen in Figure 3-8 below. Additional details are included in Appendix A2.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 17

Figure 3-8. Location of field and USGS high water marks.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 18

Figure 3-9. Example of HWM from Lumberton field visit near the VFW Road and railroad intersection by
the flood gate location.

HWM from
Hurricane Florence

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 19

4. Design Flood Selection
4.1. Review of FEMA Levee Accreditation Guidelines
FEMA provides guidelines and requirements that must be met for levee systems to be accredited (FEMA,
1986). The FEMA requirements, as specified in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 65.10 (FEMA, 2006),
related to levee height are as follows:
• Levees mush have a minimum freeboard of 3 feet above the 100-year flood elevation (base flood
elevation), with
• an additional 1 foot of freeboard at locations within 100 feet of structures (such as bridges) or wherever
the flow is restricted, and
• an additional 0.5 foot of freeboard at the upstream end of a levee.
The minimum elevation of the flood gate will therefore have to be above the 100-year water surface elevation
plus 4.5 feet to meet FEMA accreditation requirements. The levee is currently not FEMA accredited.
4.2. Flood Frequency Analysis
It is the desire of the City of Lumberton to have a flood gate that can, at a minimum, prevent flooding from
events like that of Hurricanes Matthew and Florence, which are the highest recorded flooding events in
Lumberton. Flood frequency analysis was performed to estimate the recurrence intervals of historic floods
(Hurricane Matthew and Hurricane Florence) near the site. For reference, the recorded peak flow rate from
Hurricane Matthew at the Lumberton and Boardman gages were 14,600 cfs and 38,200 cfs, respectively, and
the recorded peak flows for Hurricane Florence at the Lumberton and Boardman gages were 17,100 cfs and
35,400 cfs, respectively.
Flow measurements at the Lumberton gage during Hurricane Matthew did not account for flow that was
diverted through the I-95 opening at the VFW Road and the CSX railroad track. The actual peak flow at
Lumberton from Hurricane Matthew is therefore larger than the reported peak flow of 14,600 cfs. USGS records
indicate that diverted flow through the I-95 opening during Hurricane Florence was about 2,000 cfs,
approximately 12% of the total flow (USGS Correspondence, Appendix B6). Based on the recorded water
surface elevations at the USGS gage in Lumberton (119.7 feet for Hurricane Florence versus 119.4 feet for
Hurricane Matthew) for the two events, a similar amount of flow can be assumed to have been diverted through
the I-95 opening during Hurricane Matthew. This implies that the actual peak flow at Lumberton from Hurricane
Matthew is about 16,600 cfs. This estimate is consistent with the simulated peak flow from the Hydrologic
Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model as described in Section 5.6 and Table
5-8. Additional analysis was performed with the adjusted peak flow for Hurricane Matthew to assess the
sensitivity of the estimated return periods to the change in the peak flowrate for that event.
PeakFQ (version 7.3) (USGS, 2019a) was utilized for the analysis. This version of the software was released in
2019 and uses Bulletin #17C methodology (USGS, 2019b) for the flood frequency computation. Log Pearson
Type III distribution was used for the analysis. Peak streamflow data was downloaded for two USGS gages:
1. USGS 02134170 – Lumber River at Lumberton, NC
o Near proposed Lumberton flood gate site
2. USGS 02134500 – Lumber River at Boardman, NC
o Approximately 15 miles downstream of the Lumberton gage
The flood frequency analysis was conducted for the gage at Lumberton (Gage 1). This gage had a record from
2001-2018 and the downstream gage (Gage 2) had a record from 1901-2018.
Two different methods were used in estimating the return periods to assess the impact gage record length and
method for gage adjustment based on nearby gage(s) with longer records:
• Method 1 uses Gage 1 observed data only.
• Method 2 extends the record at Gage 1 based on Gage 2 using the MOVE method.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 20

4.2.1. Method 1
The results of the analysis based only on the Gage 1 records with the reported and adjusted peak flow rates of
14,600 cfs, and 16,600 cfs for Hurricane Matthew are shown in Table 4-1 and Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Based on
this data, the return periods for Hurricane Matthew and Florence are between 30 to 50 years. The Log Pearson
Type III analysis for this is included in Appendix E4.2. The upper (95%) and lower (5%) confidence limits of the
peak flow estimates are also reported to show the potential range of peak flows that could occur for each return
period.
Table 4-1. Calculated discharge per return period at the Lumberton gage (USGS 02134170).
Return
Period
(years)
With Reported Matthew Peak Flow Rate With Adjusted Matthew Peak Flow Rate
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Peak Flow
5% Lower
Bound
Peak Flow
95% Upper
Bound
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Peak Flow
5% Lower
Bound
Peak Flow
95% Upper
Bound
1.25 1,654 1,122 2,269 1,645 1,109 2,267
2 3,130 2,283 4,375 3,145 2,282 4,427
5 6,139 4,389 9,687 6,254 4,440 9,979
10 8,856 6,103 15,830 9,099 6,218 16,510
25 13,240 8,603 28,460 13,740 8,836 30,140
50 17,270 10,680 43,080 18,050 11,030 46,170
100 22,020 12,920 64,080 23,170 13,410 69,470
200 27,600 15,330 94,040 29,230 15,990 130,100
500 36,460 18,760 153,600 38,940 19,700 171,000

Figure 4-1. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with reported Hurricane Matthew peak flow
rate.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 21

Figure 4-2. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with adjusted Hurricane Matthew peak flow
rate.

4.2.2. Method 2
The maintenance of variance estimator (MOVE) method described in Bulletin #17C (USGS, 2019 b) wa s used
to extend Gage 1 records. This method extends a shorter record series using a supplemental series while
maintaining the variance of the extended series. The procedure of the MOVE adds observations (ne) to the
original records (y). The values of the new observations have the information to transfer the mean and variance
of the original records. The statistical analysis following this procedure resulted in a total of 38 records (n1+ne),
compared to 18 in the original records (n1). A linear regression m odel was developed to estimate an additional
20 observations (ne). The 38 records were used as inputs for PeakFQ analysis (Appendix E4.2). Table 4-2
and Figure 4-3 below show the frequency analysis results.
Table 4-2. Calculated discharge per return period based on the extended Lumberton gage records
(USGS 02134170).
Return Period
(years)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Peak Flow
5% Lower Bound
Peak Flow
95% Upper Bound
1.25 2,080 1,736 2,442
2 3,305 2,821 3,898
5 5,419 4,547 6,734
10 7,109 5,826 9,393
25 9,588 7,561 14,000
50 11,700 8,923 18,580
100 14,040 10,330 24,370
200 16,640 11,800 31,680
500 20,530 13,820 44,300

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 22

Figure 4-3. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage with extended record.
The estimated return periods for Hurricane Matthew and Florence are approximately 120 and 235 years,
respectively. The extended record calculations and the Log Pearson Type III analysis for this is included in
Appendix E4.1.
When using the updated peak flow value of 16,600 cfs for Hurricane Matthew in the analysis, the return period
for hurricane Matthew and Florence are approximately 170 and 190 years, respectively. The extended record
calculations and the Log Pearson Type III analysis is included in Appendix E4.1. Table 4-3 and Figure 4-4
below show the results of the analysis using the adjusted flow for Hurricane Matthew.
Table 4-3. Calculated discharge per return period based on the extended Lumberton gage records
(USGS 02134170) and altered Hurricane Matthew.
Return Period
(years)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Peak Flow
5% Lower Bound
Peak Flow
95% Upper Bound
1.25 2,080 1,742 2,436
2 3,325 2,844 3,916
5 5,500 4,626 6,837
10 7,255 5,964 9,609
25 9,852 7,795 14,460
50 12,080 9,242 19,320
100 14,560 10,750 25,500
200 17,340 12,320 33,340
500 21,520 14,500 46,990

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 23

Figure 4-4. Discharge-Frequency curve for Lumberton gage (USGS 02134170) with extended record and
altered Hurricane Matthew.
4.2.3. Gage Weighted Regression Estimates
Regional regression flow rate for each return period was calculated using USGS -developed regional regression
equations for North Carolina (USGS, 2009). StreamStats was used to determine the basin percentage in each
hydrologic region (1-5). A total of 45-percent of Lumber River basin is in Region 3 and 55-percent is in Region 4
(USGS, 2016). Based on the PeakFQ estimated gage peak flow at the Lumberton gage (USGS 02134170),
regression estimated peak flow, and variance of prediction for each value, the gage weighted peak flow was
estimated for the 2 – 500-year return periods (Table 4-4). The resulting return periods for Hurricanes Matthew
and Florence remain the same as using only the gage estimates. The gage weighted regression calculation is
included in Appendix E4.3.
Table 4-4. Regional regression weighted peak flow rate estimates for Methods 2 approaches.
Return Period
(yrs)
Regression Peak Flow Rate
(cfs)
Weighted Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Method 2 – unaltered
Matthew
Method 2 –
altered Matthew
2 4,006 3,410 3,429
5 6,740 5,546 5,616
10 8,797 7,320 7,449
25 11,440 9,903 10,125
50 13,620 12,090 12,400
100 15,799 14,463 14,864
200 18,043 17,029 17,539
500 20,993 20,678 21,347

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 24

4.3. Recommended Design Flood Frequency
The results of the analysis indicate that there is a high amount of uncertainty regarding the return periods for
floods produced by Hurricanes Matthew and Florence at Lumberton, NC. This is due to the limited gage
records at that location. Updating the limited gage data at the USGS gage at Lumberton based on the longer
record at the USGS gage in Boardman provides more realistic estimates of the return periods. Based on this
approach, the return periods for the flood produced by both Hurricanes Matthew and Florence are about 170
and 190 years, respectively.
The minimum top of gate elevation must be the higher of the peak water surface elevation from Hurricane
Florence at the gate location or the 100-year elevation at the gate plus 4.5 feet of freeboard. The return period
of such a flood will be about 200-years or greater.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 25

5. Hydrologic Model Development
5.1. General Methodology
The Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) version 4.2.1 software was used
to model the Lumber River basin and develop outflow hydrographs for each sub-basin. HEC-HMS is a rainfall-
runoff model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2017) and is widely used for detailed
rainfall-runoff modeling across the United States.
HEC-HMS has three main components: watershed physical description (basin model), meteorology description
(meteorological model), and hydrologic simulation. For each basin and/or sub -basin a method can be selected
for canopy, surface, loss, transform, and baseflow. The meteorological model represents the precipitation input
needed by sub-basin elements in the basin model. Hydrologic simulation encompasses control specifications,
which detail the simulation times (dates, times, time interval).
The watershed physical description process involved the addition of sub-basins, junctions at the end of each
sub-basin, and reaches connecting the junctions. This allowed all sub-basins to be connected and set up how
water will move through the model from upstream to downstream.
5.2. HEC-HMS Model Parameters
The modeling methods were selected from methods available in HEC -HMS Version 4.2.1. The hydrologic
modeling methods selected were chosen based on the availability of data and ability to define modeling method
parameters with this data. Predictive ability of the modeling method based on experience was also a factor.
Based on these factors, the Snyder Unit Hydrograph method was selected and used to characterize the rainfall -
runoff relationship of the sub-basins within the watershed. The Snyder Unit Hydrograph method allows for
parameters to be compared across events and sub-basins so that the method can be transformed to ungagged
sub-basins. The method is relatively simple yet detailed enough to provide an adequate unit runoff response for
predicting large floods based on calibrated parameters.
For all the sub-basins, the loss method was set to ‘Initial and Constant’ and a transform method of ‘Snyder Unit
Hydrograph’. Table 5-1 summarizes the watershed physical parameters required for the selected mod eling
methods. A summary of the equations and required parameters for each method are included in the HEC -HMS
Technical Reference Manual (USACE, 2000). The initial loss was calculated using the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) runoff curve number method (USDA, 1986). Imperviousness was set to zero (0%) for all sub -
basins as this was incorporated into the curve number and thus initial loss value. The remaining loss parameter
is constant loss. The two parameters required for the transform method are the standard lag and peaking
coefficient. The constant loss, lag time, and peaking coefficient are variables based on basin characteristics
and thus were calibrated. Initial losses were also adjusted during calibration based on known a ntecedent soil
conditions for each calibration and verification storm.
The hydrologic simulation control specifications were individually set for each simulation event based on the
corresponding dates and times.
Rainfall and streamflow data were added as time series data. A precipitation gage was added for each basin for
each simulated event. The number of precipitation gages added per event was based on the number of rainfall
gages with available data and the associated weighted rainfall developed. The pr ecipitation gages included
values covering the full time period of the control specification with a one -hour interval. Discharge gages were
added for each event at the calibration points within the model (USGS Gage 02133624 at Maxton and USGS
Gage 02134170 at Lumberton). The discharge gages contained the discharge data for each storm as recorded
at those gage locations. Discharge was added at a fifteen-minute interval.
Cross-section data was also added for each reach for use in flow routing.
Initial parameter approximations were estimated using Geographic Information System (GIS) data and
applicable parameter ranges. Model parameters were refined through calibration and validated by comparing
model results to historic flow measurements.
The calibrated and verified model was then used to simulate design flood hydrographs that were routed in a
hydraulic model.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 26

Table 5-1. HEC-HMS modeling methods and required parameters.
Modeling
Method Parameter Description Acceptable Values
Initial and
Constant-
Rate Loss
Method
Initial Loss
(in)
Initial loss parameter that accounts for the moisture
condition in the watershed at the beginning of the
simulation – loss from canopy interception, surface
storage, and infiltration.
Based on curve
number (CN)
Constant Loss
(in/hr) Infiltration rate during saturated soil conditions. 0+
Impervious
Area
(%)
Impervious area directly connected to the channel
network (no losses are computed).
0% (for this study)
Snyder
Synthetic
Unit
Hydrograph
Standard Lag
(hr)
The time from the center of mass of excess rainfall to
the hydrograph peak.
Based on Ct, which
ranges from 0.4 to
8, and sub-basin
lengths
Peaking
Coefficient (Cp)
Dimensionless parameter affecting hydrograph
shape.
0.4 to 0.8
5.3. Sub-basin Delineation
Sub-basins were based on delineation of smaller channels/ tributaries within the Lumber River basin (Figure 5-
1) using StreamStats, which uses coarser terrain (30 ft x 30 ft) (USGS, 2016). Delineation was done where
each channel joins into Lumber River. Additionally, a sub-basin was delineated at the USGS gage in Maxton,
NC to allow for hydrograph calibration at the location. The streamstats delineated sub-basins were verified
using the QL2 LiDAR, which has a finer tile size of 10 ft x 10 ft and edits were made to the sub-basin
boundaries as necessary. Fourteen (14) sub-basins were delineated. There are twelve (12) sub-basins for
tributaries to the Lumber River and an additiona l two (2) sub-basins within the HEC-HMS model to account for
the drainage area right along the channel, which was not accounted for in the other basins. The sub -basins are
called: Back Swamp, Bear Swamp, Fivemile downstream, Fivemile upstream, Lumberton Ca nals, Ivey Branch,
Jacks Branch, Jacob Branch, Jacob Swamp, Lumber downstream, Lumber upstream, Meadow Branch, Raft
Swamp, and White Oak (Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2). StreamStats for each basin are provided in Appendix
E2.2.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 27

Figure 5-1. Lumber River sub-basin delineation.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 28

Figure 5-2. HEC-HMS sub-basins, reaches, and junctions.
5.4. Initial Parameter Estimation
Initial parameters were set constant across all sub-basins using: constant loss of 0.4 in/hr, basin coefficient (Ct)
of 2.2, and peaking coefficient (Cp) of 0.4. The values were selected as they were the lower end for each
parameter range. The starting initial loss estimates for the basins were estimated based on the sub-basin curve
number, CN. The standard lag was calculated using the Ct and the previously calculated length of main
channel (L, mi) and length of channel to centroid (Lc, mi). The initial loss, constant loss, Ct, and Cp were
changed during the calibration process.
5.4.1. Curve Number and Initial Losses
5.4.1.1. Curve Number
The curve number for each sub-basin is a useful basin characteristic and is needed to calculate other
parameters, such as the initial loss rate. To calculate a sub-basin curve number, the soil type and land cover is
required.
A composite curve number was calculated for each sub-basin because each sub-basin had multiple soil types
and land use classifications. Good condition curve numbers (USDA, 1986) were paired with the associated
2016 NLCD land cover classifications. ArcGIS was used to calculate the area of each land use classification
associated with each soil type. The area of each land use per soil type was used to create a curve number for
each soil type, and then those were used to calculate a composite curve number for each sub-basin (Table 5-
2). Curve number calculation are provided in Appendix B4.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 29

Table 5-2. Sub-basin composite curve numbers.
Sub-basin Curve Number
Back Swamp 85.7
Bear Swamp 83.1
Fivemile DS 82.8
Fivemile US 81.7
Lumberton Canals 83.2
Ivey Branch 79.4
Jacks Branch 82.2
Jacob Branch 85.2
Jacob Swamp 79.9
Lumber DS 84.3
Lumber Mid 82.9
Lumber US 62.1
Meadow Branch 78.0
Raft Swamp 78.9
White Oak 79.6
5.4.1.2. Initial Losses
Based on the curve number, the initial loss was calculated using the SCS runoff method (USACE, 1986). The
good condition curve number was used to calculate S (Equation 5-1), a value related to soil and cover
conditions, which was then used to calculate the initial loss (I a) (Equation 5-2) (Table 5-3). The initial loss for
each sub-basin was input into the HEC-HMS model and was not altered during calibration.
𝑅=1000
𝐶𝑁−10 (5-1)
𝐼𝑎=0.2𝑅 (5-2)
Table 5-3. Calculated sub-basin initial losses.
Sub-basin S Ia (in)
Back Swamp 1.67 0.33
Bear Swamp 2.03 0.41
Fivemile DS 2.08 0.42
Fivemile US 2.24 0.45
Lumberton Canals 2.02 0.40
Ivey Branch 2.59 0.52
Jacks Branch 2.17 0.43
Jacob Branch 1.74 0.35
Jacob Swamp 2.52 0.50
Lumber DS 1.86 0.37
Lumber Mid 2.06 0.41
Lumber US 6.10 1.22
Meadow Branch 2.82 0.56
Raft Swamp 2.67 0.53
White Oak 2.56 0.51

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 30

5.4.2. Snyder Unit Hydrograph Parameters
As previously stated, Snyder unit hydrograph was selected for the transform method. The equation for lag is
(Equation 5-3):
𝑡𝑝=𝐶𝐶𝑡(𝐿𝐿𝑐)0.3 (5-3)
Where tp is the hydrograph lag (hr), C is a conversion factor (1 for foot-pound system), Ct is a basin coefficient,
L is the length of the main channel (mi), and Lc is the length of the channel from the outlet to the nearest
watershed centroid (mi).
GIS was used to calculate L and Lc. The flow path was drawn from the outlet of the sub-basin along the
channel to the most remote point in the watershed. A centroid for each sub-basin was calculated in GIS (Figure
5-3). Based on the centroid, the length of channel to this point was measured. Values for L and Lc are available
in Appendix B3.
The basin coefficient, Ct, is a dimensionless parameter that can range from 0.4 in the mountains to 8.0 along
the coast. Since this is not a physically-based parameter it was determined via calibration.

Figure 5-3. Centroid, channel length (L), and channel length to centroid (Lc) of each sub-basin for
Snyder hydrograph development.
5.4.3. Reach Routing Parameters
Routing of sub-basin hydrographs within a watershed is necessary to capture the attenuation of flow while
moving downstream through the channel and floodplain. In the hydrologic model this is performed using routing

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 31

reaches. The Muskingum-Cunge hydrologic routing method was used for the main river reaches throughout the
Lumber River watershed. This method was chosen based on the need for a routing method capable of properly
calculating discharge through a routing reach for a wide range of flow conditions.
A representative 8-point cross-section was derived for each reach from representative 1-D HEC-RAS cross-
sections from the FEMA effective model or LiDAR data and used to characterize the reach channel and
floodplain. A location was selected that was reasonably characteristic of the reach of interest. This primarily
relates to the typical channel and floodplain width under high flow conditions. The 8 -point cross-sections are
included in Appendix B5. The adopted routing parameters used for this study are listed in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Muskingum-Cunge routing parameters used for hydrologic modeling.
Reach HMS
Junctions
Length
(ft)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Channel
N-Value
Left N-
Value
Right N-
Value
Cross-
section
1 0 to 1 11284 0.0002 0.045 0.1 0.1 8-point
2 1 to 2 10922 0.0006 0.045 0.13 0.1 8-point
3 2 to 3 14490 0.0002 0.045 0.15 0.09 8-point
4 3 to 4 7220 0.0003 0.045 0.13 0.11 8-point
5 4 to 5 39679 0.0002 0.045 0.125 0.125 8-point
6 5 to 6 7849 0.0003 0.045 0.125 0.125 8-point
7 7 to 6 24525 0.0008 0.065 0.035 0.16 8-point
8 8 to 4 6644 0.0002 0.045 0.12 0.12 8-point
9 11 to 1 183005 0.0003 0.08 0.16 0.16 8-point
5.5. Model Calibration to Historic Events
Four events were selected based on peak discharge: September 2004, October 2015, October 2016 (Hurricane
Matthew), and September 2018 (Hurricane Florence) (Table 5-5). A complete hydrograph (rising limb, peak,
and falling limb) was needed for analysis to allow for calibration to the storm peak and full storm volume. Of
these, three calibration events were selected: September 2004, October 2015, and September 2018. The 2004
and 2015 events were peak water-year gage events, with peaks of 7,420 and 2,390 respectively. The 2018
event corresponds to Hurricane Florence, which is one of the largest rainfall events to hit the state of North
Carolina. The peak flow at the USGS Lumberton gage set a peak record at 17,100 cfs. Hydrographs of the
selected events for both gages are provided in Appendix B2.
Table 5-5. Peak streamflow reported at USGS gages in Lumberton and Maxton for each study event.
Event
USGS Gage 02134170 at Lumberton, NC USGS Gage 02133624 at Maxton, NC
Peak Streamflow
(cfs) Time of Peak Peak Streamflow
(cfs) Time of Peak
Sept 2004 7,420 9/11/2004 2:00 2,280 9/11/2004 8:00
Oct 2015 2,390 10/9/2015 15:45 2,460 10/6/2015 12:15
Oct 2016 14,600 10/10/2016 7:00 6,790 10/11/2016 6:45
Sept 2018 17,100 9/17/2018 11:00 12,300 9/19/2018 4:00

The points of comparing simulated and observed peak flow rate, volume, and time of peak are at a junction
along Lumber River where the USGS gage in Lumberton is located and at the location of the USGS gage in
Maxton. During calibration trials the peak simulated flow rate, hydrograph shape, and time of peak flowrate
were compared to what was observed at the USGS gages from the respective storm event.
Calibration of the model to the observed values at the USGS gage in Lumberton was prioritized over the
observed values at the USGS gage in Maxton due to the proximities of the two gage locations to the location of
the proposed gate.
Hurricane Florence was the first event to be calibrated due to its magnitude. The calibration parameters were
changed for each of the sub-basins, relative to basin characteristics, until the peak flow rate, volume, and time
to peak were as close to that of the observed as the model could achieve (Figure 5-4). The first set of

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 32

calibrated constant loss, Ct, and Cp values were applied to the other two calibration events for an initial baseline
and adjusted iteratively until the simulated hydrographs matched reasonably well with the observed
hydrographs for those storms. Results for each calibration are shown in Tables 5-6, 5-7, and 5-8. The
calibrated parameters were able to accurately model the peak flow rate and time of peak for all the storms.
Except for the October 2015 storm, the calibrated parameters were also able to accurately model the
hydrograph shapes and volumes for the storms. The October 2015 storm is the smallest of the three storms ,
with a return period of less than 2 years. Since the design storms are more like the other two storms in terms of
magnitude, additional iterations of the calibration parameters to get a better match for the volume for that storm
was not necessary.

Figure 5-4. Comparison of observed gage flow (black) and simulated flow (solid blue) for the September
2018 (Hurricane Florence) calibrated event.
Table 5-6. Peak flow comparison between observed and simulated calibrated events.
Storm Peak Flow rate (cfs)
Observed Simulated % Difference
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Sept 2004 7,420 7,097 -4%
Oct 2015 2,390 2,421 1%
Sept 2018 17,100 17,257 1%
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Sept 2004 2,280 3,439 51%
Oct 2015 2,460 2,330 -5%
Sept 2018 12,300 8,281 -33%

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 33

Table 5-7. Time of peak comparison between observed and simulated calibrated events.
Storm
Time Date and Time
Observed Simulated Difference
(hrs)
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Sept 2004 9/11/2004 0:30 9/11/2004 12:00 10
Oct 2015 10/9/2015 15:45 10/9/2015 12:00 -3.75
Sept 2018 9/17/2018 11:00 9/17/2018 11:00 0
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Sept 2004 9/11/2004 8:00 9/11/2004 6:00 -2
Oct 2015 10/6/2015 14:00 10/6/2015 11:00 -3
Sept 2018 9/19/2018 4:00 9/19/2018 11:00 7

Table 5-8. Volume comparison between observed (USGS 02134170 at Lumberton) and simulated
calibrated events.
Storm Volume (ac-ft)
Observed Simulated % Difference
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Sept 2004 152,897 149,569 -2%
Oct 2015 38,912 27,568 -29%
Sept 2018 230,179 229,185 -0.4%
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Sept 2004 59,436 39,728 -33%
Oct 2015 29,054 21,498 -26%
Sept 2018 79,108 59,424 -25%

The calibrated parameters for each of the three calibration storms were averaged to obtain the calibrated
parameters for the sub-basins. The calibrated parameters are shown in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9. Average calibrated HEC-HMS parameters.
Sub-basin Constant Loss
(in/hr)
Initial Loss
(in) Ct Lag Time based
on Ct (hr) Cp
Back Swamp 0.14 0.36 7 31.3 0.40
Bear Swamp 0.14 0.41 7 31.8 0.40
Fivemile DS 0.05 0.44 7 9.1 0.40
Fivemile US 0.05 0.42 7 23.7 0.40
Lumberton Canals 0.05 0.43 7 13.9 0.40
Ivey Branch 0.05 0.58 7 12.6 0.40
Jacks Branch 0.05 0.39 7 21.1 0.40
Jacob Branch 0.05 0.34 7 22.4 0.40
Jacob Swamp 0.05 0.52 7 18.2 0.40
Lumber DS 0.05 0.37 7 33.0 0.40
Lumber Mid 0.14 0.43 8 62.7 0.40
Lumber US 0.14 5 7 76.0 0.73
Meadow Branch 0.05 0.68 7 15.2 0.40
Raft Swamp 0.19 0.46 8 56.2 0.40
White Oak 0.05 0.5 7 12.3 0.40

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 34

It is noted that the calibrated initial loss for the Lumber US sub-basin is higher than normal. This will likely lead
to underestimation of more frequent storm events. The calibrated parameters noted in Table 5 -9 are
appropriate for storms with recurrence intervals similar to that of the design storm for the flood gate project
(100yr or greater). A spreadsheet with the simulated results and calibrated parameters is provided in Appendix
E2.3.
5.6. Model Validation to Historic Events
Following calibration, the average parameters were applied to a verification event. Hurricane Matthew, October
2016, was selected as the verification event. As previously discussed, Matthew was another large hurricane to
hit North Carolina, setting many rainfall and streamflow records prior to Florence. Verification using the average
parameters overpredicted the peak flow rate but matched the time of peak (Tables 5-10, 5-11, and 5-12).
Graphical inspection of the observed and simulated hydrographs also indicates a good match of the rising and
falling limbs (Figure 5-5). As discussed in Section 4.2, the recorded peak flow at the USGS gage of 14,600 cfs
during Hurricane Matthew did not account for the diverted flow through the I-95 opening. Thus, this verification,
while higher, is an accurate representation of the peak flows in the area.
Table 5-10. Peak flow comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event.
Storm Peak Flow rate (cfs)
Observed Simulated % Difference
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Oct 2016 14,600 16,550 13%
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Oct 2016 6,750 3,277 -51%

Table 5-11. Time of peak flow comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event.
Storm Time Date and Time
Observed Simulated Difference (hrs)
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Oct 2016 10/10/2016 7:00 10/10/2016 10:00 3
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Oct 2016 10/11/2016 8:00 10/11/2016 14:00 6

Table 5-12. Volume comparison between observed and simulated for a verification event.
Storm Volume (acre-ft)
Observed Simulated % Difference
At Lumberton Gage (USGS 02134170)
Oct 2016 223,956 197,598 -12%
At Maxton Gage (USGS 02133624)
Oct 2016 82,111 27,026 -67%

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 35

Figure 5-5. Comparison of observed gage flow (black) and simulated flow (solid blue) for the October
2016 (Hurricane Matthew) verification event.
5.7. Design Flood Simulations
Using the calibrated and verified parameters, floods from a 100-year through the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF) were simulated in HEC-HMS. The 100-year through 1,000-year flows were generated using the
procedure described in Section 5.7.1. The Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and resulting PMF values
were estimated using the procedure described in Section 5.7.2
5.7.1. 100-Year through 1,000-Year Flows
Analysis of the durations of previous rainfall events within the Lumber Basin ranged from 24 to 72 hours, with
most of the major events having a duration of 48-hours. Thus, a 48-hour rainfall event was selected as the
design flood duration for the 100-year to 1000-year return period events. Based on the location, an SCS Type II
rainfall distribution (NRCS, 2019) was used. A spreadsheet with the distribution was downloaded from the
NRCS website (NRCS, 2019). The spreadsheet provides the distribution for the peak 24-hour period which is
assumed to occur during the first 24-hour period for any duration storm. Based on our sensitivity analysis, this
assumption provided more conservative peak flow estimates compared to other placements of the peak 24 -
hour period. For the 48-hour duration storm, the difference between the total 24-hour and 48-hour total rainfall
depths is distributed evenly on the second day. For the 72-hour storm, the difference between the total 24-hour
and 72-hour total rainfall depths is distributed evenly on the second and third days. Electronic files of the
sensitivity analysis are included in Appendix E2.7. NOAA Atlas 14 was used to find the rainfall totals
associated with 100-year to 1000-year return periods, assuming a 48-hour event.
5.7.2. PMP and PMF Estimation
The PMP values for the Lumberton flood gate dam were estimated using the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s
HEC-MetVue (version 3.0) and HEC-HMS (version 4.8) software packages (Appendix E5). The HEC-MetVue
software has HMR52 plugin extension that allows the modeler to use NOAA’s Hydrometeorological Reports
HMR 51 and 52 (HMR 51/52) to estimate the storm characteristics and generate PMP hyetographs. The initial
storm parameters obtained from the HEC-MetVue model were optimized to maximize peak flow at the
watershed outlet. The parameters were optimized using the HMR 52 precipitation method in the HEC-HMS
meteorologic model. The calibrated HEC-HMS model described in the above sections was used for the

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 36

optimization run. This calibrated model required an upgrade from version 4.2.1 to version 4.8 to perform the
optimization run. The initial and optimized storm parameters are summarized below in Table 5-13 and the
positions of the storms based on the initial and optimized parameters are shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7,
respectively.
The optimized storm parameters were used in the HEC-MetVue model (Appendix E5) to generate the average
PMP depths and hyetographs. The resulting 72-hour PMP depths and volumes for the sub-basins are
summarized below in Table 5-14. The hyetographs from HEC-MetVue were then saved to a DSS file and
linked to the calibrated HEC-HMS (version 4.2.1) model to estimate the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).
Discharge ratio factors of 0.25, 0.5, 0.67, and 0.75 were applied to the subbasins in the HEC-HMS simulation
run to generate the ¼ PMF. 1/3 PMF, ½ PMF, 2/3 PMF, and ¾ PMF, respectively (Appendix E5).

Table 5-13. Initial and optimized parameters for the HEC-METVue model.
HMR 52 Storm Characteristics HEC-MetVue (Initial Parameters) HEC-HMS (Optimized Parameters)
X Coordinate -79.33 -79.413
Y Coordinate 34.93 34.995
Orientation (deg.) 145.63 141.51
Peak Intensity Hours 36 to 42 Hours 36 to 42
Area (sq. mi.) 984.04 982.84

Figure 5-6. HMR 52 storm position with HEC-MetVue (initial) parameters

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 37

Figure 5-7. HMR 52 storm position with HEC-HMS (optimized) parameters.
Table 5-14. Average PMP depths from optimized HMR 52 storm parameters.
Name Average
Depth (in)
Volume
(ac-ft)
Back Swamp 24.38 45340
Bear Swamp 28.27 42664
Fivemile DS 23.17 2092
Fivemile US 25.33 29744
Ivey Branch 20.97 4214
Jacks Branch 25.55 4100
Jacob Branch 20.91 17178
Jacob Swamp 18.68 9531
Lumber DS 21.79 11787
Lumber Mid 29.81 118036
Lumber US 32.89 639092
Lumberton Canals 22.3 4616
Meadow Branch 20.73 5483
Raft Swamp 30.63 272525
White Oak 21.8 4322
Watershed 30.4 1210726

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 38

5.7.3. Results
The total rainfall depths ranged from 10.2 inches (100-yr) to 14.9 inches (1,000-yr) (Table 5-15). The total
rainfall for watershed for the full PMP storm event is 30.4 inches. The design flood hydrographs are provided in
Appendix E2.2. Rainfall distributions are provided in Appendix E2.4.
Table 5-15. Design Rainfall Depths.
Recurrence Interval
(Yrs)
Rainfall Duration
24 Hours 48 Hours 72 Hours
100 8.99 10.20 10.60
500 11.90 13.30 13.70
1,000 13.30 14.90 15.20
Full PMP (Watershed Average) 30.4

The developed rainfall distribution was added to the HEC-HMS model as a cumulative precipitation gage for
each event (Appendix E2.4). The simulated peak flow rates, FEMA peak flow rates (FEMA, 2014) and gage
statistics (Section 4.2), at the location of the USGS gage in Lumberton are shown in Table 5-16. Simulated
peak flow rates were lower than both those from FEMA and the gage statistics. The FEMA peak flow estimates
are based on regression equations which are regionally based and not specific to the Lumber River Basin. The
simulated results are from a calibrated and verified model for the basin and hence provide a more reliable
estimate of both the peak flow and streamflow hydrograph for the basin .
Table 5-16. Peak flow comparison between simulated HEC-HMS, FEMA reports, and gage statistics.
Recurrence
Interval
(Yrs)
Simulated Peak
Flow
(cfs)
FEMA Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Gage Statistics
Flow
(cfs)
% Difference
FEMA
% Difference
Gage
100 13,140 14,900 14,000 -13% -11%
500 22,110 20,200 20,530 9% 3%
1,000 26,990 - - - -
1/4 PMF 17,370 - - - -
1/3 PMF 23,590 - - - -
1/2 PMF 36,210 - - - -
2/3 PMF 48,990 - - - -
3/4 PMF 55,450 - - - -
Full PMF 74,960 - - - -

Additionally, partial duration rainfall distributions were created based on the NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation -
frequency data for each return period and simulated in HEC-HMS. The partial duration rainfall distribution is an
updated distribution compared to the SCS distribution (NRCS, 2019). The spreadsheet to develop the rainfall
temporal distribution was also downloaded from the NRCS website (NRCS, 2019). However, this distribution
produced lower stream flows than that of the SCS method and thus were not utilized for the hydraulic analysis.
A comparison of the 48-hour duration peak flows from the SCS and partial duration distribution methods are
shown in Table 5-17. Partial distributions are provided in Appendix E2.4. The HEC-HMS model is included the
electronic Appendix E2.1.
Table 5-17. Comparison of Peakflows from SCS and Partial Duration Rainfall Distributions.
Recurrence Interval
(Yrs)
SCS Type II Peak Flow
(cfs)
Partial Duration Peak Flow
(cfs)
100 13,140 10,670
500 22,110 19,330
1,000 26,990 23,980

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 39

6. Hydraulic Model Development
A detailed two-dimensional model of the City of Lumberton, Lumber River, and its tributaries in the vicinity of
the city was developed to help determine design flood elevations for the proposed gate. The model was
developed using version 6.0 of the USACE HEC-RAS model (USACE, 2021). This section summarizes data
used, assumptions and results of the hydraulic modeling effort.
6.1. Model Development
The two-dimensional (2D) domain was selected to include all areas of flood concern within the extents of
Lumber River. The domain extends along each river that confluences with Lumber River: Raft Swamp, Back
Swamp, Bear Swamp, White Oak Branch, Meadow Branch, Jacob Swamp, Ivey Branch, Jack’s Branch and
Fivemile Branch. It also extends in the Northeast region to include North Lumberton so that project impacts
related to flooding levels can be assessed at those locations. Except for inflow and outflow boundary locations,
the model boundary was placed at relatively high ground so that flooding is fully contained within the
computational mesh. The locations of the boundary conditions were placed far enough from the location of the
proposed gate so that boundary condition impacts would be negligible. The location and geometry of the flood
gate within the model is based on the proposed layout of the flood gate. The model domain is shown in Figure
6-1 (see Section 6.1.2).
6.1.1. Manning’s N Coefficients
Base model Manning’s n coefficients were based on land use classes selected from Table 6-1. Values were
based on the “normal” column. A GIS shapefile of Lumber River and Fivemile Branch was used to override the
land use of Lumber River and Fivemile Branch. The channel segment was assigned a base Manning’s n
coefficient of 0.045. The initial roughness coefficients were modified during the model calibration phase. The
calibrated roughness values and the procedure followed are documented in Section 6.2.5.
Table 6-1. Manning's n coefficient ranges per land cover type.
NLCD Classification
Manning’s Roughness
Source Minimum Normal Maximum
11 Open Water 0.025 0.03 0.033 Chow, 1959
21 Developed, Open Space 0.01 0.013 0.016 Calenda et al., 2005
22 Developed, Low Intensity 0.038 0.05 0.063 Calenda et al., 2005
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.056 0.075 0.094 Calenda et al., 2005
24 Developed, High Intensity 0.075 0.1 0.125 Calenda et al., 2005
31 Barren Land 0.025 0.03 0.035 Chow, 1959
41 Deciduous Forest 0.1 0.12 0.16 Chow, 1959
42 Evergreen Forest 0.1 0.12 0.16 Chow, 1959
43 Mixed Forest 0.1 0.12 0.16 Chow, 1959
52 Scrub/Shrub 0.035 0.05 0.07 Chow, 1959
71 Grassland Herbaceous 0.025 0.03 0.035 Chow, 1959
81 Pasture/Hay 0.03 0.04 0.05 Chow, 1959
82 Cultivated Crops 0.025 0.035 0.045 Chow, 1959
90 Woody Wetlands 0.08 0.1 0.15 Chow, 1959
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0.075 0.1 0.15 Chow, 1959
Channel 0.035 0.045 0.05 Chow, 1959

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 40

6.1.2. Mesh Development
The 2D model domain for the hydraulic analysis is shown in Figure 6-1. The mesh utilized refinement regions,
2D connections, and breaklines to accurately capture focal points and variations within the terrain. Figure 6-1-
A(1) shows the extent of the 2D domain with breaklines and 2D Connections. Figure 6-1-A(2) is an example of
one of the refinement regions utilized in the mesh. This one is located at the gate. Figure 6-1-A(3) is a zoomed
in example of how breaklines were applied and enforced. This breakline is representing the centerline of
Lumber River.

Figure 6-1. Lumber River 2D external model domain.
A mesh resolution of 250-feet was applied to the 2D flow area. Refinement regions were used to represent
areas of higher urbanization, Lumber River, and the flood gate location. A resolution of 100-ft was applied for
urban areas and Lumber River, while a resolution of 50 -feet was used for the flood gate location.
A breakline was enforced with 100-foot spacing along the Lumber River stream centerline to capture the lowest
points in the terrain and account for total storage capacity. Breaklines were drawn and enforced with 50-foot
spacing along all additional channels within the domain. Breaklines wer e then drawn along points of higher
elevation representing roads, railroads, or berms. These were enforced with a spacing that varied between 50
and 100-feet. Within the flood gate opening, breaklines were also drawn with a spacing of 25-feet to properly
align the grid representing the railroad.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 41

6.1.3. Lumberton Levee System
The Lumberton levee was included as a 2D connection with top of levee elevations taken from AECOM Project
No. 60548447, Lumberton Flood Mitigation Report. Provided surveyed top of levee elevations were within a few
inches of the top of levee elevations in the terrain. See Appendix C2 for detailed comparison. For levee
segments that were not surveyed, LiDAR elevations were utilized. Levee grid size was enforced as 20x20-feet
to define the top width.
Gravity drains were not modeled. Gravity drains are pipes within the levee embankments that drain rainfall
trapped on the landward side of the levee system through the levee embankment. The gravity drains have
gates on the pipe outlet to restrict river backwater from backing up in the pipe during periods of high river flows.
The gravity drains therefore do not serve any hydraulic purpose when modelling flows in the Lumber River.
6.1.4. Hydraulic Structures
HEC-RAS v6.0 provides the capability to model bridges within a 2D model. This version was utilized to model
all the hydraulic structures within the modeled domain as either culverts or bridges. The normal 2D equation
was selected as the overflow computation method as it is computationally more stable compared to the weir
equation option. A full list of structures within the hydraulic model and their areas are included in Appendices
C1 and E3.3.
Bridges along Lumber River were modeled using bridge geometry data from the effective model. Figure 6-2
below shows an example of a bridge that was modeled.

Figure 6-2. Bridge example.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 42

Large culverts on Fivemile Branch were modeled as 2D connections with a rectangular notch when possible.
However, for the culverts on I-95, the structure length was too long to be considered for a notch, so they were
modeled as culverts. For these structures, roadway and deck elevations were taken from LiDAR. See Figure 6-
3 for an example of a long culvert on I-95.

Figure 6-3. I-95 Meadow Branch culvert 2D connection example.
6.2. Boundary Conditions
There are nine inflow locations representing flow from Lumber River, Raft Swamp, Jacob Swamp, Jacks
Branch, Fivemile Branch, Meadow Branch, Ivey Branch, and White Oak Branch. Flows from Back Swamp were
included in the flows for Lumber River. There are no significant inflows within the project area that would cause
direct impact. A normal depth boundary condition was applied at the downstream end of the model and
upstream along Back Swamp to prevent flows reaching that boundary from piling up. The normal depth was set
to a friction slope of 0.001 after averaging the slope of several locations along the boundary. The boundary
condition locations are shown in Figure 6-4.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 43

Figure 6-4. Boundary condition locations.
6.3. Model Execution
The completed models were executed using a fixed timestep of 5 seconds. The selected timestep provided
stable results without unduly prolonging the simulation time. The Shallow Water Equations with a Eulerian-
Lagrangian approach to solving for advection (SWE-ELM equation set) was used for all simulations.
Stage and flow hydrograph data at hydraulic structure locations were reviewed and verified to be appropriate.
In certain cases, minor instabilities were noted in the flow data going through the structures, however, this did
not impact the stages and hence do not impact the accuracy of the results.
6.4. Model Calibration and Verification
The 2D HEC-RAS model was calibrated and verified by comparing the simulated peak stages and flows to
observed peak stages and flows, and high-water marks.
Observed data used for calibration and verification included USGS streamflow gage data at the USGS gage in
Lumberton (USGS Gage 02134170), high water marks obtained during field data collection, a surveyed high-
water mark, and high-water marks from the USGS National Water Information System Database (USGS,
2019).
Available peak flows and stages at the USGS gage in Lumberton were reviewed to identify significant flooding
events for use in calibration and verification. Two flooding events were identified and selected for use in

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 44

calibration and verification (Table 6-2). Hurricane Florence in September 2018 was used for calibration and
Hurricane Matthew from October 2016, was used for verification.
Table 6-2. Lumber River historical storms used for calibration and verification.
Storm Peak Flow (cfs) Peak Stage (ft, NAVD88) Purpose
Sept 2018 (Hurricane Florence) 17,100 119.69 Calibration
Oct 2016 (Hurricane Matthew) 16,6001 119.36 Verification
1 Flow adjusted to account for bypass flow through I-95 opening. Recorded flow at gate without bypass flow was 14,600 cfs.
The inflows for these storms were derived from the HEC-HMS model generated in the hydrology phase of this
project. Manning’s n-coefficients were adjusted iteratively until the simulated values matched the observed
values at both the USGS gage location and at the high-water mark locations. The comparison between the
calibrated model results and observed data for the two storms are provided in Table 6-3. Figure 6-5 shows the
differences between the simulated water surface elevations and the observed high-water marks for Hurricane
Florence (September 2018).
Matching HWMs in the vicinity of the proposed gate was prioritized over matching water surface elevations at
the USGS gage location during the calibration process.
Table 6-3. Observed versus simulated results at the USGS Gage in Lumberton.
Gage vs. Simulated Results
Storm
Peak Flowrate (cfs) Peak Stage (ft, NAVD88)
Observed Simulated %
Difference Observed Simulated Difference
(ft)
Calibration
Sept 2018
(Hurricane
Florence)
17,100 15,877 -7.2 119.69 120.63 0.94

Figure 6-5. High water marks comparison for Hurricane Florence.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 45

The difference between the simulated peak water surface elevation and the USGS high -water marks ranges
from -1.6 feet to 1.2 feet. Near the gate, the model results are within 0.5 feet of the USGS HWM elevations.
The simulated peak water surface elevation is about 1.2 feet higher than the observed elevation at the location
of the surveyed high-water mark near the proposed gate location. Along Lumber River, the results indicate that
the simulated results are within 1 foot of the HWM elevations, although mostly lower than the HWM elevations.
The model results at the USGS gage location were 0.9 feet higher than the recorded gage elevation. The
analysis shows that for USGS high-water marks around the gate location, the model tends to underpredict
values. Whereas for field collected high-water marks around the gate location, the model overpredicts values.
This trend may reflect inherent errors associated with the collection of the high-water mark data. Achieving
calibration results that fall in-between the two data sets was the desired goal.
Note that the resulting flows in HEC-RAS at the USGS gage location are slightly different from those applied as
boundary conditions due to attenuation of the peak flows within the HEC -RAS model and 2-dimensional
distribution of the flows.
The final calibrated roughness coefficients that were assigned to the various land use classifications are
provided in Table 6-4. Results of the various calibration iterations are included in Appendix C3.
During the calibration process, the Manning’s n values were generally increased to achieve a better match
between simulated and observed water levels. Changes to the Manning’s n values for all land use classes are
within the published Manning’s n value ranges (Table 6-1). Additionally, Manning’s n refinement regions were
created for portions of the Lumber River and the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed gate location.
This was done to better capture the variations in land uses in those areas and were necessary in achieving
good calibration results. The land use classes and assigned Manning’s n values for the refinement regions are
included in Table 6-4.
The calibrated Manning’s n coefficient was used to simulate Hurricane Matthew for verification. The results are
shown in Table 6-5.
Table 6-4. Calibrated Manning's n coefficients.
NLCD Code NLCD Classification Base N Final Calibrated N
11 Open Water 0.03 0.033
21 Developed, Open Space 0.013 0.016
22 Developed, Low Intensity 0.05 0.063
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.075 0.094
24 Developed, High Intensity 0.1 0.125
31 Barren Land 0.03 0.03
41 Deciduous Forest 0.12 0.12
42 Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.12
43 Mixed Forest 0.12 0.12
52 Scrub/Shrub 0.05 0.05
71 Grassland Herbaceous 0.03 0.03
81 Pasture/Hay 0.04 0.04
82 Cultivated Crops 0.035 0.045
90 Woody Wetlands 0.1 0.15
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 0.1 0.1
Channel 0.045 0.065
Area Upstream of Gate 0.05 0.05
Black's Tire and Auto Service 0.1 0.1
I-95 0.013 0.013
Ponds 0.03 0.033
Railroad Area 0.02 0.02
Wetland Upstream of I-95 0.1 0.1
Wooded Area 0.12 0.12

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 46

Table 6-5. Lumber River verification historical storms data versus simulated results.
Gage vs. Simulated Results
Storm
Peak Flowrate (cfs) Peak Stage (ft, NAVD88)
Observed Simulated %
Difference Observed Simulated Difference
(ft)
Verification
Oct 2016
(Hurricane
Matthew)
16,600 14,924 -10.1 119.36 120.42 1.06

Like Hurricane Florence, final water surface elevations produced from the Hurricane Matthew simulation were
compared to the USGS high-water mark elevations. The results of this comparison can be seen in Figure 6-6.
The trend noted in calibration was consistent throughout the verification process.
The results of calibration trial runs are included in Appendix C3. The calibration of HEC-RAS model is included
in the electronic Appendix E3.1. The calibration model consists of 2 geometries, 2 unsteady flow files and 3
plans. Each unsteady flow file is a different storm event, and each geometry is a different trial, utilizing different
roughness coefficients. Ultimately, there was a base Manning’s n coefficient plan, and three trials were run for
the calibration storm. The verification storm (Hurricane Matthew) was only run once with the final geometry.

Figure 6-6. High water marks comparison for Hurricane Matthew.
6.5. Design Flood Simulations and Results
6.5.1. Design Flood Simulations
The 100-year, 500-year, 1,000-year, ¼ PMF, 1/3 PMF, ½ PMF, 2/3 PMF, ¾ PMF and PMF peak stages at the
proposed gate location were simulated using the calibrated HEC-RAS model. The hydrographs developed in

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 47

Section 5.7 were used as the inflow boundary conditions for the simulations. As stated in Section 5.7, the
duration of all the design storms was 48 hours.
Geometry files were created for the existing conditions (without the proposed gate), and for the proposed
conditions (with the proposed floodgate in place and I-95 embankment raised). Both geometry files use the
calibrated and verified Manning’s n-coefficients.
Nineteen different runs were performed using two different geometry files. The ten plans are:
1. 100yr Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 100YR, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
2. 100yr with Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 100YR, Geometry: Lumber River with Proposed
I-95 and Gate
3. 500yr Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 500YR, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
4. 500yr With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 500YR, Geometry: Lumber River with Proposed
I-95 and Gate
5. 1,000yr Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 1,000YR, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
6. 1,000yr With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 1,000YR, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
7. Florence Design – Unsteady flow: Hurricane Florence, Geometry: Lumber River with Proposed I-95
and Gate
8. 0.25PMF Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 0.25PMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
9. 0.25 PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 0.25PMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
10. 0.33 PMF Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 0.33PMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
11. 0.33 PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 0.33PMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
12. 0.5 PMF Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 0.5PMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
13. 0.5 PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 0.5PMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
14. 0.67 PMF Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 0.67PMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
15. 0.67 PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 0.67PMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
16. 0.75 PMF Without Gate – Unsteady flow: 0.75PMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
17. 0.75 PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: 0.67PMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate
18. FullPMP Without Gate – Unsteady flow: FullPMP, Geometry: Lumber River without Gate
19. PMF With Gate and Proposed I-95 – Unsteady flow: FullPMP, Geometry: Lumber River with
Proposed I-95 and Gate

Plans using the geometry “Lumber River without Gate” represent existing conditions; without the gate in place
and without a raised I-95. Plans with the geometry “Lumber River with Proposed I-95 and Gate” represent
proposed conditions with the flood gate and proposed I-95 raised embankment configuration in place.
Simulations with and without the gate provide insights into possible impacts from the installation of the flood
gate and raising of I-95.
Hurricane Florence was also simulated with the proposed conditions geometry to determine the resulting peak
water surface elevation at the proposed gate location for the flood of record.
The models are included in the electronic Appendix E3.2.
6.5.2. Hydraulic Results
6.5.2.1. Water Surface Elevations
The maximum water surface elevations from the ten simulations are summarized in Table 6-6. The maximum
water surface elevations were extracted from a profile line along the upstream end of the proposed gate
location in RasMapper.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 48

Table 6-6. Maximum Water Surface Elevation (WSE) from simulations at the flood gate location .

Under the 100-year flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows through the I-95 opening at the
VFW Road (proposed gate location). The peak water surface elevation upstream of the gate is 123.7 feet,
NAVD88. No segments of the levee system are overtopped. Installing the floodgate and raising I-95 results in
an increase in the peak water surface elevation of 0.3 feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the gate. Inundation maps
for these simulations are included in Appendix C4.
Under the ¼ PMF flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows through the I-95 opening at the
VFW Road (proposed gate location). The peak water surface elevation upstream of the gate is 124.8 feet,
NAVD88. No segments of the levee system are overtopped. Installing the floodgate and raising I-95 results in
an increase in the peak water surface elevation by 1.2 feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the gate. Inundation maps
for these simulations are included in Appendix C4.
Under the 500-year flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows through the I-95 opening at the
VFW Road (proposed gate location). About 2,500 cfs of flow goes through the I-95 opening. In addition to flow
through the I-95 opening, flow overtops the low segments of I-95 east and west of the proposed gate location.
The overtopping flowrate at the low segments of I-95 is about 2,800 cfs on the west side and about 2,500 cfs
on the east side. No overtopping occurs with the gate in place and I-95 raised. However, minor overtopping of
the levee occurs at the intersection of the levee and NC72 where the levee is relatively low. Peak water
surface elevation upstream of the gate under this scenario is 127.6 feet, NAVD88. Installing the floodgate and
raising I-95 results in an increase in the peak water surface elevation 2.1 feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the gate.
Inundation maps for these simulations are included in Appendix C4.
Under the 1/3 PMF flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows through the I-95 opening at the
VFW Road (proposed gate location). In addition to flow through the I -95 opening, flow overtops at multiple
locations along I-95 and causes widespread inundation in the city. Overtopping occurs on the west side of I-95
farther away from the gate location when the gate is in place and I-95 raised. The levee is also overtopped at
multiple locations. Peak water surface elevation upstream of the gate under this scenario is 127.7 feet,
NAVD88. Installing the floodgate and raising I-95 results in an increase in the peak water surface elevation 2.1
feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the gate. Inundation maps for these simulations are included in Appendix C4.
Under the 1,000-year flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows through the I-95 opening at
the VFW Road (proposed gate location). In addition to flow through the I-95 opening, flow overtops at multiple
locations along I-95 and the levee and causes widespread inundation in the city. Overtopping occurs on the
west side of I-95 farther away from the gate location when the gate is in place and I-95 raised. Peak water
surface elevation upstream of the gate under this scenario is 12 8.1 feet, NAVD88. Installing the floodgate and
raising I-95 will result in an increase in the peak water surface elevation of 2.3 feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the
gate. Inundation maps for these simulations are included in Appendix C4.
Storm Event Maximum WSE (feet, NAVD88)
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
100 YR 123.7 124.0
Hurricane Florence 124.8 125.6
¼ PMF 124.8 126.0
500 YR 125.5 127.6
1/3 PMF 125.6 127.7
1,000 YR 125.8 128.1
½ PMF 126.1 128.4
2/3 PMF 126.4 128.7
¾ PMF 126.5 128.8
PMF 126.8 129.2

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 49

Under the ½ PMF, 2/3 PMF, ¾ PMF and full PMF flood conditions, Lumber River overtops its banks and flows
through the I-95 opening at the VFW Road (proposed gate location). Flow also overtops at multiple locations
along I-95 and the levee and causes widespread inundation in the city. The peak water surface elevations
upstream of the gate without the gate and with the gate installed and I -95 raised for the different PMF runs are
listed in Table 6-6. For the ¾ PMF flood condition, the peak water surface elevation upstream of the gate is
128.8 feet when the gate is in place and I-94 raised. Installing the floodgate and raising I-95 results in an
increase in the peak water surface elevation by 2.3 feet (Table 6-6) upstream of the gate for the ¾ PMF flood
condition.
Peak water surface elevations upstream of the gate for the flood of record (Hurricane Florence) under existing
conditions is 124.8 feet, NAVD88. Installing the gate and raising I-95 to prevent overtopping increases the peak
water surface elevation to 125.6 feet, NAVD88.
When comparing the simulated 100-year existing conditions (without gate) inundation boundary to the effective
floodplain, the internal flooding estimated by the model is less extensive (Figure 6-7). This difference is due to
the fact that the effective floodplain includes mapping for Jacob Swamp and Little Jacob Swamp, whereas the
model does not include either stream as an inflow. However, in the northeast and northwest corners of the
domain, the simulated boundary is predicted to spread further. Jack’s Branch, to the west of Raft Swamp, is not
included in the effective floodplain, but shows substantial flow within the model. The same scenario occurs with
Ivey Branch, north of Meadow Branch.

Figure 6-7. Inundation boundaries without floodgate
6.5.2.2. Impacts of Flood Gate Installation
The impacts of the flood gate installation in terms of increases in water surface elevations were assessed by
comparing flood depths and inundation areas from model simulations with and without the flood gate for the
100-year, and 500-year floods.
Figures 6-8 and 6-9 show the difference in water surface elevations and extents of impact of the proposed
projects (floodgate and raising of I-95) for the 100-year and 500-year storms. The results show that proposed
projects will result in peak water surface elevation increases of up to about 0.4 feet are expected during the
100-year flood (Figure 6-8) and up to about 3 feet during the 500-year flood (Figure 6-9).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 50

Figure 6-8. WSE (ft) without flood gate compared to with flood gate and I -95 raised for 100YR storm.

Figure 6-9. WSE (ft) without flood gate compared to with flood gate and I-95 raised for 500YR storm.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 51

7. Freeboard Estimation
The proposed flood gate will impound water leading to temporary pond-like situation at the northern side of the
gate. This situation is expected to last for about 5 days during the design flood. During this temporary pond-like
situation, wind setup caused by the horizontal stress exerted on the water surface by the winds and runup
associated with wind generated waves (Figure 7-1) may develop. The height of the flood gate should include
freeboard allowance that considers these wind effects on the surface of water.
This section outlines the procedure used to calculate the wind setup and wave run-up based on simplified wave
models.

Figure 7-1. Definition sketch for wave runup and wind setup (USACE, 1997).
In general, the different steps involved in calculating wave run-up are as follows:
• Estimate average wind speed over an appropriate fetch
• Estimate wave height and wave period
• Estimate wind setup and wave-runup
Above steps are described in more detail in the following sections.
7.1. Estimate average wind speed over an appropriate fetch
7.1.1. Fetch
Fetch is defined as the unobstructed distance along which wind blows over the surface of water to creat e wind
generated waves. The inundation extents computed from H&H modeling for the 500-year storm with gate and
I-95 raised was superimposed on satellite imagery to determine the longest unobstructed distance (measured
along a straight line) that is exposed to wind effects wh en water pools behind the Lumberton Flood Gate during
the flood. The longest fetch was estimated to be around 2 miles to the northwest of the flood gate (red line in
Figure 7-2).

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 52

Figure 7-2. Fetch line (red) superimposed on 500-year depth raster and satellite imagery.
7.1.2. Wind Speed
Annual extreme fastest mile wind speed measured at 30 feet for 138 stations around United States was used to
draw maps for the 2-year, 50-year and 100-year mean recurrence intervals (Thorn, 1968, shown in Appendix
D). The 2-yr return period wind speed from that dataset was used as the input to compute the design wind
speed. The estimated 2-year fastest mile wind speed over the state of North Carolina is 50 miles per hour.
The following assumptions (USACE, 1989) are made about the wind speed used as input for wave growth
models:
• Wind fields are well organized and can be adequately described using an average wind speed and
direction over the entire fetch
• Wind speed should be corrected to the 33-foot (10 meter) level.
• Wind speed should be representative of the average wind speed measured over the fetch
• When the fetch length is 10 miles (16 kilometers) or less, the wind has not fully adjusted to the frictional
characteristics of the waves.
• When the fetch length is greater than 10 miles (16 kilometers), thermal stability effects must be
included in the wind speed transformation.
To satisfy these assumptions, the following adjustments are made to the wind speed.
7.1.2.1. Height Adjustment
Since the wind speed was measured at 30 f eet, an adjustment was applied to get the equivalent wind speed at
a height of 33 feet using the 1/7 power law (USACE, 1989) (Equation 7-1):

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 53

𝑈33 =(33
𝑧)
1
7 ∗𝑈𝑧 (7-1)
Where U33 is the wind speed at the 33-foot level (miles per hour [mph]), z is the elevation above the surface (ft),
and Uz is the wind speed at a distance of z above the surface (mph). When z is 30 feet and U30 is 50 mph, U33
is equal to 50.68 mph.
7.1.2.2. Overland Wind Adjustment
The fastest mile data is based on measurements at land-based stations. Under comparable meteorological
conditions, wind velocities over water are higher than over lan d surfaces because of smoother and more
uniform surface conditions. Factors to adjust land-based wind speed measurements to account for these
effects are presented on page 15-2 of USACE, 1997 (see Appendix D). For a wind fetch of 2 miles (see
section 7.1.1), the ratio of winds over water to the winds over land (FWL) was estimated to be 1.21. The
overwater wind speed, 𝑈𝑤 was calculated using Equation 7-2.
𝑈𝑤=𝐹𝑊𝐿∗𝑈33 (7-2)
𝑈𝑤=1.21 ∗50.68 =61.32 𝑚𝑝ℎ
Where FLW is the ratio of winds over water to winds over land, and U33 is the previously calculated wind speed
at the 33-foot level (mph). With an FWL of 1.21 and the U33 of 50.68 mph, the Uw is 61.32 mph.
7.1.2.3. Computing Adjusted Wind Speeds based on Averaging Time
There are two approaches (fetch-limited and duration-limited) for determining the characteristics of wind
generated waves. Fetch-limited conditions assume that the wind blows with a constant speed and direction
over a certain fetch for sufficient time for the waves to travel the entire fetch length (Ozeren et al., 2009). Within
this time steady state conditions are achieved within the fetch. If the wind duration is less than the required time
for the waves to travel the fetch, then the wave conditions will be time dependent, and such wave conditions
are described as duration‐limited.
In the present work, since the wind generated waves are limited by the extent of the ponded areas adjacent to
the flood gate, the assumption of fetch-limited conditions is appropriate. Therefore, a minimum duration (t) must
be selected to meet the assumptions of the fetch-limited conditions discussed above. An averaging interval
(larger than the minimum duration, t) over which wind speeds are rela tively constant should also be selected
and the corresponding averaged wind speed must be computed.
The equations for computing wind speeds over different averaging intervals are based on Figure 5-26 in
USACE, 1989 (also shown in Appendix D).
First, the duration corresponding to a fastest mile wind speed of 50 mph was determined from the relationship
t=3600/U (from Figure 5-35 in USACE, 1989), where Ut is the fastest mile wind speed. Thus, t = 72 s.
The 72s fastest mile winds to which overland adjustment has been applied is converted to 1 hour averaged
wind speed using equation below (Equation 7-3):
𝑇𝑟
𝑇1ℎ𝑟
=1.277 +0.296 tanh (0.9 log (49
𝑡)) (7-3)
𝑇72
𝑇1ℎ𝑟
=1.277 +0.296 tanh (0.9 log (49
72))
𝑈1ℎ𝑟 = 50.13 mph

7.2. Estimate Wave Height and Wave Period
Deepwater wave characteristics based on the fetch and adjusted wind speeds computed in Section 7.1 are
determined using hindcasting charts for deep water waves (Figure 5-34, USACE, 1989, shown in Appendix D).
The computed wave heights, periods and minimum duration are shown in Table 7-1

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 54

Table 7-1. Deep water wave characteristics.
Adjusted Wind Speed
(mph) Fetch (miles) Duration (min) Deep water Wave
Height (ft)
Deep water Wave
Period (s)
50.13 2 45 3 3

The minimum duration computed from the chart is around 45 minutes, therefore the assumption of fetch-limited
conditions is valid if we assume a duration of 1 hour. Therefore, the design deep water wave height and period
is selected to be equal to 3 ft and 3 seconds (s) respectively.
Next, we compute the deep-water wavelength (Equation 7-4) using the dispersion relationship to verify the
assumption of deep-water conditions.
𝐿𝑐=𝑔𝑇𝑑2
2𝜋 (7-4)

Where Ld is the deep-water wavelength (ft), g is gravity (ft/s2), and Td is the deep-water wave period (s). When
Td is 3 s, the deep-water wavelength (Ld) is 46.12 ft.
𝐿𝑐=32.2∗32
2𝜋 = 46.12 feet
For deep water wave growth to be unimpeded by the bottom, the ratio of water depth to wavelength must be
equal to or greater than 0.5 (USACE, 1989). Design flood depth at the gate is about 8 feet so the ratio of the
water depth to wavelength is 0.17 which is significantly less than half the wavelength. Therefore, the
assumption of deep-water wave growth is not applicable. The wave height and period should therefore be
based on shallow water curves. The hindcasting charts for computing shallow water wave cha racteristics at a
depth of ten feet is shown in Appendix D, Figure D-5 (or Figure 5-36 USACE, 1989). For a wind speed of
50.13 mph and fetch of 2 miles, the shallow water wave height and wave period are 2.5 feet and 2.75 s
respectively.
7.3. Estimate wind setup and wave runup
7.3.1 Wind Setup
Set-up (Se) is the piling up of water at the leeward end, and a lowering of water level at the windward end in a
reservoir caused by wind (Figure 7-1). Wind set-up can be estimated for the reservoir, based on the following
equation (USACE, 1989) (Equation 7-5):
𝑅𝑐=𝑇2 ∗𝐹𝑟
1400𝐶 (7-5)
Where Se is set-up in feet above the still water level (ft), U is the average wind velocity (mph) over the
maximum fetch distance (Fs) (mi) that influences the wind, and D is the average depth of water along the fetch
line (ft). When D is 13 ft and Fs is 2 ft the Se is 0.3 ft.
𝑅𝑐=50.132∗2
1400∗13 = 0.3 ft
7.3.2 Wave Runup
Wave runup is defined as the height above still water level to which a wave will rise on a structure or beach
(Figure 7-1).
The upper limit for relative runup on smooth vertical walls (derived from laboratory experiments), is presented in
the U.S Army Corps of Engineers miscellaneous paper CERC-90-4 (USACE, 1990) and is equal to (Equation
7-6):
𝑅
𝐻=2.5 (7-6)
Where R is the wave runup (ft) and H is the wave height at the toe of the structure (ft). For a wave height of 2.5
ft, the runup is 6.25 ft.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 55

𝑅 =2.5 ∗2.5 =6.25 𝑓𝑡
7.4. Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the variability of the computed wave runup and was setup
with changes in the fetch and wind speed for the 100-year, 500-year and the ¼ PMF return period events. As
stated in Section 3, the top elevation of the flood gate should be at a minimum higher than the elevation from
the flood of record, which has a return period of about of 200 years. The sensitivity analysis provides a range of
values for freeboard for the 100-year and 500-year floods to provide lower and upper freeboard threshold
estimates.
The direction of the prevailing winds determines the fetch length. The black dashed lines in Figure 7-2 indicate
the different fetch lines that may be applicable depending on the wind direction over the study area. Thus, the
fetch length can vary between a maximum of 2 feet to a minimum of 0.6 feet. Also plotted were the modeled
depths along the fetch to confirm that the average depth along the fetch length (around 12 feet) is large enough
to overtop the vegetation in that area and thereby provide an unobstructed path for the winds. The wind setup
and wave runup computed for the different fetch-wind speed combinations are summarized in Table 7-2. These
quantities were found to be sensitive to changes in the fetch.
Table 7-2. Summary of sensitivity analysis.
Design
Storm
Fetch
(mi)
Wind Speed
(mph)
Wave Runup
(ft)
Wind Setup
(ft)
Total Wind and Wave
Component (ft)
100-Year 2 50 5 0.4 5.4
0.6 50 3.8 0.1 3.9
500-Year 2 50 6.3 0.3 6.6
0.6 50 3.8 0.1 3.9
¼ PMF 2 50 6.3 0.3 6.6
0.6 50 3.8 0.1 3.9

7.5. Results
The estimated range of freeboard to account for wind-wave action is 3.9 feet to 5.4 feet for the 100-year flood
and 3.9 feet to 6.6 feet for the 500-year and ¼ PMF return period events. The lower bound estimate of 3.9 feet
results from the use of a fetch of 0.6 miles during either the 100-year or 500-year or ¼ PMF event. The upper
bound estimates of 5.4 and 6.6 feet corresponds to a fetch of 2 miles during the 100-year and 500-year or ¼
PMF events, respectively.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 56

8. Recommendations
The recommended range of top of gate elevations and gate heights are shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8-1. Recommended Range of Gate Heights
Design Storm
Recommended Top of Gate Elevation and Gate Height
Max. Stillwater Elevation
(feet, NAVD88)
Freeboard
(feet)
Top of Gate Elevation
(feet, NAVD88) Gate Height (feet)
100 YR 124.0 5.4 129.4 9.4
¼ PMF 126.0 6.6 132.6 12.6
500 YR 127.6 6.6 134.2 14.2
Reference Elevations: 1. Minimum elevation for levee accreditation = 128.5 feet (ft), NAVD88
2. Flood of record elevation at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 125.6 ft, NAVD88
3. Elevation of ¾ PMF at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 128.8 ft, NAVD88
4. Elevation of PMF at gate location assuming gate is in place and I-95 raised = 129.2 ft, NAVD88
5. Average ground elevation at gate location is 120.0 ft
6. ¼ PMF is the largest storm that does not overtop the levee and proposed I -95
7. Levee is overtopped during the 500-year storm.

The resulting peak elevation upstream of the gate f or the flood of record, the minimum elevation required for
levee accreditation, and the ¾ PMF and PMF peak water surface elevations are also shown in the table for
reference. The range of recommended top of flood gate elevation of 129.4 feet, NAVD88 to 134.2 feet,
NAVD88 all meet the minimum requirements for levee certification. The recommended top of gate elevation
also ensures that the gate is not overtopped even during the PMF, if freeboard is not considered. Selection of
the gate height from the range provided should consider the following factors:
• Cost;
• Floodplain Impacts; and
• Minimum desired level of service

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 57

9. References
1. Barnes, J., 1998. North Carolina’s Hurricane History, Revised and updated version. University of North
Carolina Press.
2. Calenda et al., 2005. Distribution of the extreme peak floods of the Tiber River from the XV century.
Advances in water resources, 28(6), 615-625.
3. Chow, 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. Meeting the Criteria for Accrediting Levee Systems on
NFIP Flood Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008, Meeting the Criteria for
Accrediting Levee Systems on NFIP Flood Maps, www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1600-
20490-4180/lv_accredit_checklist_nov08.pdf.
5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2006. Mapping of areas protected by levee systems. Code
of Federal Regulations Title 44 Section 65.10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Aug. 25,
1986
6. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2014. A Report of Flood Hazards in Robeson County, North
Carolina and Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance Study Number 37155CV000, Federal Emergency
Management, Atlanta, GA.
7. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015. Maps of Non-hurricane Non-tornadic Wind
Speeds with Specified Mean Recurrence Intervals for the Contiguous United States Using a Two-
dimensional Poisson Process Extreme Value Model and Local Regression, National Institute of
Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-301, 102 pages
8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2019a. Tropical Cyclone Climatology. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane
Center. Available at: nhc.noaa.gov/climo
9. National Weather Service, 2019a. Hurricane Floyd: September 16, 1999. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service. Available at: http://weather.gov/ilm/Floyd
10. National Weather Service, 2019b. Hurricane Florence: September 14, 2018. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service. Available at:
http://weather.gov/ilm/HurricaneFlorence
11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 202 0. Climate at a Glance-Statewide Time Series.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information.
Available at: ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series
12. National Weather Service, 2017. Hurricane Matthew in the Carolinas: October 8, 2016. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service. Available at:
http://weather.gov/ilm/Matthew
13. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2019. North Carolina Department of Transportation
Bridges Map,
ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=db3b56c3228743b3811e36761393d661.
Date accessed: 9 Dec. 2019
14. North Carolina Flood Risk Information System, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program,
fris.nc.gov/fris/Index.aspx?user=General Public&ST=NC&FIPS=161.
15. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2019. National Engineering Handbook, Part 630 Hydrology .,
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, August 2019.
Rainfall Distribution spreadsheet available at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/?&cid=stelprdb1044959
16. Ozeren, Yavuz & Wren, D., 2009. Technical Note: Predicting Wind-Driven Waves in Small Reservoirs.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Vol. 52(4), pages 1213
– 1221.

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 58

17. Rucker, Gregory C. Hurricane Matthew: Sources of Flooding and Mitigation Strategies in Lumberton,
NC. AECOM, 2017, pp. Appendix C, Hurricane Matthew: Sources of Flooding and Mitigation Strategies
in Lumberton, NC.
18. State Climate Office of North Carolina, 2015. NC Extremes: Damaging hurricanes from slopes to
shores. NC State University. Available at: http://climate.ncsu.edu/climateblog?id=157
19. State Climate Office of North Carolina, NC State University. CRONOS [internet database] available at
http://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/. Accessed December 20, 2019.
20. Thorn, H.C.S, 1968. New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States. Journal of the Structural
Division, 1968, Vol. 94, Issue 7, Pg. 1787-1802

21. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984. Shore protection manual. Vicksburg, Miss: Dept. of the
Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center.
22. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1989. "Water Levels and Wave Heights for Coastal
Engineering Design," US Army Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1414, July 5, 1989.
23. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. “Maximum Periodic Wave Runup on smooth slopes”,
US Army Corps of Engineers Miscellaneous Paper CERC-90-4.
24. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1997. "Hydrologic Engineering Requirements 1. for
Reservoirs," US Army Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1420.
25. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2000. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical
Reference Manual. Report CPD-74B. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA.
26. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2017. Hydrologic Modeling System Version 4.2.1, United
States Army Corps of Engineers, March 2017, Davis, CA.
27. United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 2021. Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis
System (HEC-RAS), Version 6.0. February 2021.
28. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Geospatial Data
Gateway [internet database] available at: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed October 30,
2019.
29. United States Geological Survey, 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural floods in the Southeastern
United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S department of Interior, U.S Geological
Survey.
30. United States Geological Survey, 2016. The StreamStats program. Available at:
http://streamstats.usgs.gov. Accessed on: November 1, 2019.
31. United States Geological Survey, 2019 a. PeakFQ Version 7.3. November 21, 2019.
32. United States Geological Survey, 2019 b. U.S. Guidelines for Determining Flood Frequency. Bulletin
17C.Techniques and Methods 4-B5 version 1.1., Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, May
2019.
33. United States Geological Survey, 2020. USGS Current Conditions for North Carolina. Available at:
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/uv?. Accessed on January 4,2020.
34. USGS Flood Event Viewer, 2019. United States Geological Survey National Water Information System
Database, stn.wim.usgs.gov/fev/.
35. Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Robbins, J.C., 2016. Preliminary peak stage and streamflow data at
selected streamgaging stations in North Carolina and South Carolina for flooding following Hurricane
Matthew, October 2016: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1205, 38:
https://doilorg/10.3133/ofr20161205

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report Page 59

Appendices

1 | 1.0 | 16 March 2020
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report

Field Data

Page A1.0
Page A1-1
Label
Name Channel Street Name
Field
Accesible?Status Latitude Longitude
Structure
Type Material Inlet Rise Span Diameter # Piers
Culvert
Length
Obstruction/
Buried
E1 Fivemile Branch Dawn Dr (next to I-95)Will be surveyed 34.650605 -79.012221 2RCBC Concrete 8 10
E2 Meadow
Branch Dawn Dr (next to I-95)Will be surveyed 34.649444 -79.012578 2RCBC Concrete 8 10
E3 Fivemile Branch N Roberts Ave (SR 211)Will be surveyed 34.649424 -79.016424 3RCBC Concrete 9 14
E4 Fivemile Branch W Carthage Rd (SR 1536)Will be surveyed 34.635177 -79.030266 3RCBC Concrete 11 14
E5 Lumber River Kenric Rd (SR 1539)Effective 34.624071 -79.057228 Bridge 194.9 2
E6 Lumber River S Caton Rd Effective 34.624567 -79.054882 Bridge 354.9 4
E7 Lumber River CSX Railroad Not accessible Effective 34.630821 -79.04933 Bridge 350 14
E8 Lumber River I-95 Effective 34.632279 -79.029675 2 Bridges 7
E9 Lumber River 5th Street Effective 34.620186 -79.010729 Bridge 236.6 5
E10 Lumber River W 2nd St Effective 34.617969 -79.011103 Bridge 282.9 5
E11 Lumber River CSX Railroad Effective 34.617576 -79.011324 Bridge 14
E12 Lumber River Alamac Rd (SR 2289)Effective 34.610595 -79.009171 Bridge 330.5 6
E13 Lumber River
S Chippewa St/
Hestertown Rd Will be surveyed 34.607211 -79.000088 Bridge 198 4
E14 Lumber River NC HWY 72 Effective 34.591539 -78.982678 Bridge 360.9 7
E15 Small Trib NC Hwy 72 Missing 34.584553 -79.986302 Arch Culvert Aluminum 6.4 26
LJ1
Little Jacob
Swamp
Diversion
Contempora Dr (SR 2513)Effective 34.607631 -79.076069
Circular Culverts
(2)CMP Headwall 4.5 60
Look at field
sketch; Left = 3.1',
Right = 1.8'
LJ2 Little Jacob
Swamp Contempora Dr (SR 2513)Effective 34.597965 -79.070544 Circular Culvert Concrete
Square edge
entrance with
headwall
5 40
LJ3 Little Jacob
Swamp KB Rd (SR 2413)Effective 34.596479 -79.067027
Circular Culverts
(2)CMP
L @ Mitered to
conform to slope; R
@ Headwall
60
LJ4 Little Jacob
Swamp MLK Dr (NC 41)Effective 34.589393 -79.043117 Arch (2) Corrugated Metal 90 degree headwall 7.1 15 60
LJ5 Little Jacob
Swamp Lovette Rd (SR 2204)Effective 34.587254 -79.022739 Arch Corrugated Metal 90 degree headwall 8 20 40
JS1 Jacob Swamp Culvert in Field Missing 34.605287 -79.057754
JS2 Jacob Swamp Culvert in Field Missing 34.604426 -79.056623
JS3 Jacob Swamp KB Rd (SR 2413)Effective 34.603918 -79.055988 CMP Corrugated Metal Thin wall projecting 6 50
JS4 Jacob Swamp Culvert in Field Not accessible Missing 34.601447 -79.047198 Culvert
JS5 Jacob Swamp MLK Dr (NC 41)Effective 34.595612 -79.038041 Box Culverts (2) Concrete
Wingwall flared 30
to 75 deg 4.5 6 40
JS6 Jacob Swamp Lovette Rd (SR 2204)Effective 34.59306 -79.020421 Bridge 7.4 to LC 24 0 40
JS7 Jacob Swamp Alamac Rd (SR 2289)Not accessible Effective 34.587111 -79.006068 Bridge
JS8 Jacob Swamp SR 2305 Effective 34.580668 -78.99918 Bridge 11 to LC 90 1
JS9 Jacob Swamp Wilmington Hwy (NC 72)Effective 34.565913 -78.976465 Bridge 14 to LC 90 2
GB1 Gum Branch Kenny Biggs Rd (SR 2413)Missing 34.609149 -79.040569 Elliptical CMP (2) CMP 90-deg HW 5 8
GB2 Gum Branch Railroad Not accessible Missing 34.608131 -79.036988 Culvert
GB3 Gum Branch Crandlemire Rd Missing 34.608943 -79.032704 2 CMP CMP Stone HW 6
GB4 Gum Branch MLK Dr (NC 41)Missing 34.60779 -79.023378 Arched Bridge 7.3 23.5
GB4.5 Gum Branch CMP CMP 5.5 39
GB5 Gum Branch Lovette Rd (SR 2204)Missing 34.609855 -79.016345 2 Arched CMP CMP 6 12
CM1 Cotton Mill
Branch School St Missing 34.621688 -79.035749 Culvert Plastic 4
CM2 Cotton Mill
Branch Railroad Not accessible Missing 34.624044 -79.033085 Culvert
CM3 Cotton Mill
Branch Railroad Not accessible Missing 34.622187 -79.033458 Culvert
CM4 Cotton Mill
Branch Railroad Not accessible Missing 34.621246 -79.033609 Culvert
CM5 Cotton Mill
Branch Culvert in Field Not accessible Missing 34.620526 -79.030114 Culvert
CM6 Cotton Mill
Branch Culvert in Field Not accessible Missing 34.619697 -79.024166 Culvert
CM7 Cotton Mill
Branch MLK Dr (NC 41)Effective 34.614704 -79.01783 2RCBC Concrete Flared WW,
Beveled 8 9
CC1 Collection Canal Crystal Rd Missing 34.629362 -79.03478 Pipe Culvert Concrete Proj. 2 52
CC2 Collection Canal Crystal Rd Missing 34.630156 -79.033034 Pipe Culvert
Concrete, Open
Bottom
3:1 Tapered Inlet,
Proj. 3 1 54
CC3 Collection Canal Crystal Rd Obstructed Missing 34.630653 -79.03194 Culvert
Completely
obstructed
CC4 Collection Canal The Riverwalk (Levee)Missing 34.630864 -79.028611 Bridge Aluminum 37.4 0 3
CC5 Collection Canal The Riverwalk (Levee)Missing 34.628388 -79.024622 Arched Bridge Aluminum 9' to LC 59 0 8.9
CC6 Collection Canal Lowery St
Not accessible
Missing 34.62794 -79.025577 Culvert
Outlet Submersed,
no inlet found
CC6.5 Collection Canal Pipe Culvert Concrete 1.5 Couldn't located
inlet
CC7 Collection Canal The Riverwalk (Levee)Missing 34.62674 -79.023144 Bridge Wood 51 2 5.7
CC8 Collection Canal The Riverwalk (Levee)Missing 34.622822 -79.016516 2 Pipes CMP 4
CC9.5 Collection Canal Bridge 41 2 7
CC9 Collection Canal W 5th Street Missing 34.62021 -79.01208 RCP Concrete 90 degree headwall 6
CC10 Collection Canal MLK Dr (NC 41)Missing 34.618242 -79.012282 Pipe Culvert CMP 90 degree headwall 7
CC11 Collection Canal Railroad
Not accessible
Missing 34.61793 -79.012451 Pipe Culvert CMP 7
Completely
blocked with
Sediment
CC12 Collection Canal Bullard St/ The Riverwalk Missing 34.617154 -79.012644 2 CMP CMP Proj. 4 29.5
CC12.5 Collection Canal Missing RCP Concrete 3 76
CC13 Collection Canal Fig St/ The Riverwalk Missing 34.615763 -79.013626 Culvert (long)RCP Proj. 5/7
CC14 Collection Canal Chicken Foot Rd Missing 34.609231 -79.014287 Arch Culvert CMP HW 9 22
Complete Structure List from Field Data Collection
Page A1-2
E9
E8
E7
E6E5
E4
E3 E2
E1
CC9
CC8
CC7
CC6CC5
CC4CC3CC2CC1
CM7
CM6CM5CM4CM3
CM2
CM1
GB5
GB4
GB3GB2
GB1
JS8
JS7
JS6
JS5
JS4
JS3JS2JS1
LJ5
LJ4
LJ3
LJ2
LJ1
E14
E13
E12
E11E10
CC14
CC13
CC12
CC11
CC10
Lumberton Flood Gate
Lumber R
i
v
e
r
Ivey Branch
Meadow Bran
c
h
Jacob

S
w
a
m
p
Raft Swamp
Fivemi
l
e

B
r
a
n
c
h
Jac
k
s

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bear Swamp
Mill Branch
Re
e
d
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Ke
r
s
e
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Po
w
e
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h
Bac
k

S
w
a
m
p
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 20.5
Miles
Legend
Field Structures
Channel
Collection Channel
Cotton Mill Branch
Fivemile
Gum Branch
Jack Swamp
Little Jack Swamp
Lumber
Page A1-3
Page A1-4

Page A1-5
Number Street Name Business/Address Height Latitude Longitude Storm Notes
1 1451 Lowery St Lumberton Water Plant 39" from floor 34.626688 -79.024735 Matthew
2 1451 Lowery St Lumberton Water Plant Maintenance Building 41" from floor 34.626243 -79.024175 Matthew
3 Well Site #2 ( Park)42-43" from ground 34.630742 -79.031307 Matthew
4 VFW Crest by future Flood Gate 36" from crest 34.627654 -79.039719 Florence
5 2460 Cox Rd Lift Station #23 85" 34.627352 -79.04139 Florence Top of barbed wire
6 Steel building by CSX Railroad (by gate location)36" 34.628221 -79.041324 Florence
7 Raw Water Intake 120" 34.633669 -79.037256 Matthew; Florence
8 415 County Club Dr Lift Station #21 34.626366 -79.058788 Florence 68" from mound to bottom of generator; 40" from ground to mound base
9 2385 Lackey St Lift Station #25 77" 34.64292 -79.025638 Florence
10 3621 Dawn Drive Lift Station #27 66" 34.65168 -79.012432 Florence
11 Ramada Inn - Lift Station #31 45" from floor 34.647553 -79.010911 Matthew?
Page A1-6
Page A1-7
D
D
D
D
D
D
CM7
CC3
CM1
GB5GB3CC14
Lumber
R
i
v
e
r
Cotto
n

M
i
l
l

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gum Branch Canal
±
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles
Legend
D Survey Backsight
Levee
Lumber River
Page A1-8

Cross Section Data Analysis

Table 1. CC3 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 4.36 119.2087 114.8487
0 4.36 114.8487
5 5.99 113.2187
15.5 9.15 110.0587
19 11.8 107.4087
22.5 11.3 107.9087
25.7 8 111.2087
30 5.82 113.3887
33 5.44 113.7687

Figure 1. CC3 cross section

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
CC3 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
Lidar
Page A1-9

Table 2. CC14 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 3.39 115.75 112.36
0 3.39 112.36
5 3.79 111.96
13 6.92 108.83
21 13.14 102.61
34 14.35 101.4
48 14.37 101.38
56 10.16 105.59
64 5.71 110.04
75 3.93 111.82

Figure 2. CC14 cross section

100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
CC14 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
LiDAR
Page A1-10

Table 3. CM7 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 3.35 119.37 116.02
0 4.97 114.4
8 6.03 113.34
13 11.78 107.59
16 12.84 106.53
20 13.4 105.97
22 12.46 106.7
26 12.67 106.9
27.5 12.47 111.07
33 8.3 113.85
37 5.52 114.31
43 5.06 119.37

Figure 3. CM7 cross section

106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
CM7 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
LiDAR
Page A1-11

Table 4. GB3 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 4.52 121.16 116.64
0 5.88 115.28
17 5.64 115.52
25 8.04 113.12
30 11.43 109.73
34.5 12.45 108.71
44 11.69 110.53
48.5 10.63 114.26
53 6.9 114.94
60 6.22 121.16

Figure 4. GB3 cross section

106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
GB3 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
LiDAR
Page A1-12

Table 5. GB5 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 4.48 117.3 112.82
0 6.39 110.91
6 6.76 110.54
11 10.23 107.07
21 12.46 104.84
35 10.4 106.9
42.5 4.32 117.3 not reliable

Figure 5. GB5 cross section

104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
GB5 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
LidAR
Page A1-13

Table 6. CM1 Survey Data
Station BS HI FS Elev
BM 5.42 122.15 116.73
0 6.21 115.94
9 5.89 116.26
13 8.78 113.37
17 10.59 111.56
21 11.67 110.48
27 10.6 111.55
30.5 8.72 113.43
36 5.22 116.93

Figure 6. CM1 cross section

106
108
110
112
114
116
118
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station
CM1 Survey vs. LiDAR
Survey XS
Lidar
Page A1-14

1 | 1.0 | 16 March 2020
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report

Hydrologic Analysis
Page B1.0
B1 Rainfall Data and Analysis
Page B1-1

Thiessen Polygon Procedure
1. Determine precipitation gage data availability for specific event (see table below)
2. Use a point shapefile with only the available gages to create a set of Thiessen polygons
in GIS
3. Determine which polygons overlay the sub-basins
4. If a basin is within two or more polygons, calculate the area in each polygon and its
proportion in relation to the sub-basin’s total area. This proportion will become the weight
5. For sub-basins that have area-based weights collect the raw data from all rainfall gages
being used (polygons falling within). The incremental rainfall for each gage will be
multiplied by the appropriate area-based weight. The weighted rainfall from each of the
gages utilized will be added across each time interval to get the new weighted rainfall.
6. Any sub-basin that completely falls within one thiessen polygon will use the rainfall gage
data from that one gage with no weighting applied

Gage Sep-04 Oct-15 Oct-16 Sep-18
Fayetteville Airport
Hamlet
Jackson Springs
Laurinburg
Lilesvile
Lumberton
Mackall Airfield
Moore Airport
Rockingham
Troy
Whiteville

Event Gage Rainfall
Range (in)
Sept 2004 4.31 – 11.87
Oct 2015 5.74 – 7.40
Oct 2016 8.12 – 12.59
Sept 2018 12.95 – 17.53

Page B1-2

Thiessen Weights
September 2004
Sub-basin KFAY KMEB NRCK WHIT
Back Swamp 0 1 0 0
Bear Swamp 0 1 0 0
Fivemile DS 0 0.13 0 0.87
Fivemile US 0.08 0.86 0 0.06
Internal Canals 0 0.03 0 0.97
Ivey Branch 0 0 0 1
Jacks Branch 0 1 0 0
Jacob Branch 0 0.14 0 0.86
Jacob Swamp 0 0 0 1
Lumber DS 0 0.32 0 0.68
Lumber Mid 0 1 0 0
Lumber US 0 0.24 0.76 0
Meadow Branch 0 0 0 1
Raft Swamp 0 1 0 0
White Oak 0.05 0 0 0.95

Page B1-3

October 2015
Sub-basin LILE NLUM NUWH
Back Swamp 0 1 0
Bear Swamp 0 1 0
Fivemile DS 0 1 0
Fivemile US 0 1 0
Internal Canals 0 1 0
Ivey Branch 0 1 0
Jacks Branch 0 1 0
Jacob Branch 0 1 0
Jacob Swamp 0 1 0
Lumber DS 0 1 0
Lumber Mid 0 1 0
Lumber US 0.5 0.14 0.36
Meadow Branch 0 1 0
Raft Swamp 0 1 0
White Oak 0 1 0

Page B1-4

October 2016
Sub-basin KSOP LILE NLUM NUWH
Back Swamp 0 0 0 0
Bear Swamp 0 0 0 0
Fivemile DS 0 0 0 0
Fivemile US 0 0 0 0
Internal Canals 0 0 0 0
Ivey Branch 0 0 0 0
Jacks Branch 0 0 0 0
Jacob Branch 0 0 0 0
Jacob Swamp 0 0 0 0
Lumber DS 0 0 0 0
Lumber Mid 0.02 0 0.98 0
Lumber US 0.82 0.02 0.06 0.1
Meadow Branch 0 0 0 0
Raft Swamp 0.22 0 0.78 0
White Oak 0 0 0 0

Page B1-5

September 2018
Sub-basin NLUM NRCK
Back Swamp 1 0
Bear Swamp 1 0
Fivemile DS 1 0
Fivemile US 1 0
Internal Canals 1 0
Ivey Branch 1 0
Jacks Branch 1 0
Jacob Branch 1 0
Jacob Swamp 1 0
Lumber DS 1 0
Lumber Mid 0.95 0.05
Lumber US 0.03 0.97
Meadow Branch 1 0
Raft Swamp 0.81 0.19
White Oak 1 0

Page B1-6
B2 Streamflow Data
Page B2-1

USGS 02133624 Lumber River at Maxton, NC

September 2004

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
8/1/2004 0:00 8/11/2004 0:00 8/21/2004 0:00 8/31/2004 0:00 9/10/2004 0:00 9/20/2004 0:00 9/30/2004 0:00 10/10/2004 0:00 10/20/2004 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-2

October 2015

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
9/13/2015 0:00 9/18/2015 0:00 9/23/2015 0:00 9/28/2015 0:00 10/3/2015 0:00 10/8/2015 0:00 10/13/2015 0:0010/18/2015 0:0010/23/2015 0:00
Fl
o
w

Ra
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-3

October 2016

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9/27/2016 0:00 10/7/2016 0:00 10/17/2016 0:00 10/27/2016 0:00 11/6/2016 0:00 11/16/2016 0:00 11/26/2016 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-4

September 2018

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
9/7/2018 0:00 9/12/2018 0:00 9/17/2018 0:00 9/22/2018 0:00 9/27/2018 0:00 10/2/2018 0:00 10/7/2018 0:00 10/12/2018 0:00
Fl
o
w
R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-5

USGS 02134170 Lumber River at Lumberton, NC

September 2004

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
8/1/2004 0:00 8/11/2004 0:00 8/21/2004 0:00 8/31/2004 0:00 9/10/2004 0:00 9/20/2004 0:00 9/30/2004 0:00 10/10/2004 0:00 10/20/2004 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-6

October 2015

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
9/3/2015 0:00 9/13/2015 0:00 9/23/2015 0:00 10/3/2015 0:00 10/13/2015 0:00 10/23/2015 0:00 11/2/2015 0:00 11/12/2015 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-7

October 2016

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
9/27/2016 0:00 10/2/2016 0:00 10/7/2016 0:0010/12/2016 0:0010/17/2016 0:0010/22/2016 0:0010/27/2016 0:0011/1/2016 0:00 11/6/2016 0:0011/11/2016 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-8

September 2018

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
8/28/2018 0:00 9/7/2018 0:00 9/17/2018 0:00 9/27/2018 0:00 10/7/2018 0:00 10/17/2018 0:00 10/27/2018 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Date
Page B2-9
Verification Results
B3 HEC-HMS Model Calibration and
Page B3-1
HEC-HMS Calibration
Junction 5
Observed volume
Computed
Volume
Volume
Differential
Observed Simulated % Difference Observed Simulated Difference (hrs)
Sep 2004 7420 7097.2 -4% 9/11/2004 2:00 9/11/2004 12:00 10 152897 149569 -2%
Oct 2015 2390 2421.1 1% 10/9/2015 15:45 10/9/2015 12:00 -3.75 10/9/2015 18:00 38912 27568 -29%
Sept 2018 17100 17257 1% 9/17/2018 11:00 9/17/2018 11:00 0
Hurricane Florence 230179 229185 -0.4%
Junction 11
Observed Simulated % Difference Observed Simulated Difference (hrs)
Sep 2004 2280 3438.8 51% 9/11/2004 8:00 9/11/2004 6:00 -2
Oct 2015 2460 2329.6 -5% 10/6/2015 14:00 10/6/2015 11:00 -3 10/9/2015 18:00
Sept 2018 12300 8281 -33% 9/19/2018 4:00 9/19/2018 11:00 7
Hurricane Florence
Reach 9 Routing 0.0003 0.08 Reach 9 Routing 0.0003 0.08 Reach 9 Routing 0.001 0.03
Sep-04
Initial Loss Constant Loss Ct Cp Initial Loss Constant Loss Ct Cp Initial Loss Constant Loss Ct Cp Constant Loss Ct Cp
Back Swamp 0.15 7 0.4 0.15 7 0.4 0.12 7 0.4 0.14 7 0.40
Bear Swamp 0.15 7 0.4 0.15 7 0.4 0.12 7 0.4 0.14 7 0.40
Fivemile DS 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Fivemile US 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Internal Canals 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Ivey Branch 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Jacks Branch 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Jacob Branch 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Jacob Swamp 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Lumber DS 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Lumber Upper 5 0.14 6 0.8 3.3 0.14 8 0.8 4 0.14 8 0.6 0.14 7 0.73
Lumber Mid 0.15 8 0.4 0.15 8 0.4 0.12 8 0.4 0.14 8 0.40
Meadow Branch 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
Raft Swamp 0.18 8 0.4 0.18 8 0.4 0.2 8 0.4 0.19 8 0.40
White Oak 0.05 6 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.4 0.05 7 0.40
AVERAGE
Storm
Approx. Return
Period (Yrs)
Peak Flowrate (cfs)Time Date and Time
Notes
Sep-18 Oct-15
Storm
Approx. Return
Period (Yrs)
Peak Flowrate (cfs)Time Date and Time
Notes
Page B3-2
HEC-HMS Design Storm Comparison
SCS-24HR SCS-48HR SCS-72HR
Recurrence Interval (Yrs) Simulated Peak Flow (cfs)FEMA Peakflows(cfs) Gage Statistics (cfs) % Diff_FEMA % Diff_Gage % Diff_FEMA % Diff_Gage % Diff_FEMA % Diff_Gage
10 5,334 5,506 5,520 8,150 7,255 -53%-36%-48% -32% -48% -31%
25 6,991 7,191 7,204 10,700 9,852 -53%-41%-49% -37% -49% -37%
50 8,451 9,683 10,569 12,800 12,080 -51%-43%-32% -25% -21% -14%
100 10,103 13,141 13,993 14,900 14,560 -47%-44%-13% -11% -6% -4%
500 18,720 22,105 23,025 20,200 21,520 -8%-15%9% 3% 12% 7%
1000 22,920 26,991 27,634
NOAA Partial - 48HR
Recurrence Interval (Yrs) Simulated Peak Flow (cfs) FEMA Peakflows(cfs) Gage Statistics (cfs) % Diff_FEMA % Diff_Gage
10 5,661 8,150 7,255 -44%-28%
25 7,030 10,700 9,852 -52%-40%
50 8,487 12,800 12,080 -51%-42%
100 10,665 14,900 14,560 -40%-37%
500 19,333 20,200 21,520 -4%-11%
1000 23,977
SCS 24HR SCS-48HR SCS-72HR
Page B3-3
HEC-HMS Verification
Observed Simulated % Difference Observed Simulated Difference (hrs)
Observed
volume
Computed
Volume
Volume
Differential
Oct 2016 14600 16551.3 13% 10/10/16 7:00 10/10/16 10:00 3
Hurricane Matthew 223956 197598 -12%
Storm
Approx. Return
Period (Yrs)
Peak Flowrate (cfs)Time Date and Time
Notes
Page B3-4

Subbasin L (mi) Lc (mi)
Back Swamp 17.61 8.39
Bear Swamp 17.94 8.66
Fivemile DS 2.48 0.98
Fivemile US 12.49 4.67
Internal Canals 5.31 1.85
Ivey Branch 4.17 1.69
Jacks Branch 8.21 4.85
Jacob Branch 10.5 4.59
Jacob Swamp 7.32 3.33
Lumber DS 18.84 9.34
Lumber US 101.36 68.64
Meadow Branch 5.21 2.57
Raft Swamp 35.77 18.55
White Oak 3.87 1.69

Sub-basin Snyder Characteristics
Page B3-5
B4 Curve Number Calculations
Page B4-1
Sub-basin Curve Number
Sub-basin Basin Area
(sq. mi)
Good Conditions
Composite CN
Back Swamp 35.09 85.7
Bear Swamp 28.39 83.1
Fivemile DS 1.71 82.8
Fivemile US 22.14 81.7
Lumberton Canals 3.88 83.2
Ivey Branch 3.76 79.4
Jacks Branch 3 82.2
Jacob Branch 15.28 85.2
Jacob Swamp 9.61 79.9
Lumber DS 10.15 84.3
Lumber Mid 73.54 82.9
Lumber US 365.27 62.1
Meadow Branch 4.94 78
Raft Swamp 167.02 78.9
White Oak 3.73 79.6
Page B4-2
Back Swamp
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 58.5 2.5 100 16.3 0.9 100 89.0 1.7 100 284.7 2.2 100
21 Developed, Open Space 269.1 11.4 49 167.6 9.4 69 441.5 8.2 79 742.4 5.7 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 133.1 5.6 54 103.0 5.8 70 242.6 4.5 80 376.9 2.9 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 38.9 1.6 61 31.2 1.7 75 71.1 1.3 83 90.5 0.7 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 3.4 0.1 77 0.2 0.0 85 7.2 0.1 90 12.0 0.1 92
31 Barren Land 1.7 0.1 77 1.0 0.1 86 1.1 0.0 91 1.3 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 60.3 2.5 36 11.5 0.6 60 205.3 3.8 73 334.7 2.6 79
42 Evergreen Forest 150.5 6.4 36 99.7 5.6 60 766.1 14.3 73 1589.9 12.3 79
43 Mixed Forest 13.4 0.6 36 3.9 0.2 60 39.3 0.7 73 98.7 0.8 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 54.9 2.3 35 19.4 1.1 56 194.5 3.6 70 331.9 2.6 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 5.5 0.2 30 7.0 0.4 58 19.3 0.4 71 40.4 0.3 78
81 Pasture/Hay 4.2 0.2 39 0.0 0.0 61 4.7 0.1 74 3.1 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 1230.2 52.0 67 1193.8 66.7 78 2323.4 43.3 85 4176.3 32.3 89
90 Woody Wetlands 341.3 14.4 100 132.4 7.4 100 946.4 17.6 100 4789.2 37.0 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 1.1 0.0 100 2.6 0.1 100 16.0 0.3 100 63.9 0.5 100
2365.9 100.0 65.9 1789.6 100.0 77.0 5367.6 100.0 84.3 12936.0 100.0 91.0
85.7Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-3
Bear Swamp
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 7.9 0.2 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 55.1 0.5 100
21 Developed, Open Space 364.5 8.4 49 288.3 10.4 69 7.5 9.1 79 822.1 7.5 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 130.1 3.0 54 135.8 4.9 70 2.6 3.2 80 348.8 3.2 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 34.1 0.8 61 31.5 1.1 75 0.2 0.3 83 145.5 1.3 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 8.0 0.2 77 18.9 0.7 85 0.0 0.0 90 33.8 0.3 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 29.0 0.7 36 8.5 0.3 60 1.4 1.7 73 62.0 0.6 79
42 Evergreen Forest 151.9 3.5 36 183.8 6.6 60 5.1 6.2 73 881.4 8.1 79
43 Mixed Forest 6.1 0.1 36 8.3 0.3 60 1.0 1.2 73 28.9 0.3 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 36.1 0.8 35 45.4 1.6 56 2.4 2.9 70 146.3 1.3 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 5.2 0.1 30 6.8 0.2 58 0.0 0.0 71 23.8 0.2 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.2 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 3052.5 70.1 67 1846.5 66.5 78 53.7 65.5 85 4830.1 44.2 89
90 Woody Wetlands 525.6 12.1 100 200.7 7.2 100 7.2 8.7 100 3528.8 32.3 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 3.4 0.1 100 0.2 0.0 100 0.9 1.1 100 29.4 0.3 100
4354.4 100.0 67.5 2774.8 100.0 76.6 82.0 100.0 84.2 10936.2 100.0 91.0
83.1Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-4
Lumberton Canals
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 2.1 1.2 100 1.0 1.3 100 15.1 1.4 100 85.0 7.3 100
21 Developed, Open Space 27.1 16.1 49 13.3 17.0 69 220.3 20.6 79 233.6 20.0 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 32.4 19.2 54 12.6 16.2 70 258.0 24.2 80 151.2 13.0 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 19.1 11.4 61 14.7 18.8 75 174.4 16.3 83 57.3 4.9 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 7.3 4.4 77 8.0 10.3 85 81.7 7.7 90 13.5 1.2 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 1.1 0.7 36 0.0 0.0 60 1.7 0.2 73 8.4 0.7 79
42 Evergreen Forest 30.7 18.2 36 0.1 0.1 60 86.6 8.1 73 123.9 10.6 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.0 0.0 36 0.0 0.0 60 0.0 0.0 73 0.7 0.1 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 15.2 9.0 35 0.0 0.0 56 8.5 0.8 70 24.5 2.1 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 0.0 58 0.5 0.0 71 7.6 0.6 78
81 Pasture/Hay 4.4 2.6 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.5 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 19.1 11.4 67 28.2 36.0 78 197.3 18.5 85 234.9 20.1 89
90 Woody Wetlands 9.9 5.9 100 0.3 0.3 100 23.4 2.2 100 224.8 19.3 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.1 0.0 100 1.0 0.1 100
168.5 100.0 54.2 78.2 100.0 75.7 1067.6 100.0 82.0 1166.9 100.0 88.9
83.2Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-5
Fivemile DS
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 0.7 0.2 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 18.1 3.0 100
21 Developed, Open Space 36.1 9.8 49 11.1 16.9 69 6.2 10.2 79 47.0 7.9 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 23.0 6.2 54 5.0 7.6 70 4.9 8.0 80 23.7 4.0 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 11.6 3.1 61 9.7 14.8 75 24.6 40.3 83 23.2 3.9 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 3.5 0.9 77 3.4 5.1 85 8.0 13.1 90 6.7 1.1 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 36 1.1 1.7 60 0.0 0.0 73 3.9 0.7 79
42 Evergreen Forest 19.9 5.4 36 9.7 14.8 60 6.8 11.2 73 33.2 5.6 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.1 0.0 36 0.0 0.0 60 0.3 0.5 73 5.9 1.0 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 3.8 1.0 35 0.1 0.1 56 0.7 1.1 70 9.8 1.6 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 0.0 58 0.0 0.0 71 0.0 0.0 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 227.8 61.8 67 12.7 19.3 78 5.6 9.2 85 109.0 18.2 89
90 Woody Wetlands 41.1 11.1 100 12.9 19.7 100 3.9 6.4 100 311.7 52.1 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 1.3 0.4 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 5.6 0.9 100
368.9 100.0 66.2 65.7 100.0 77.1 61.0 100.0 83.2 597.8 100.0 93.7
82.8Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-6
Fivemile US
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 8.4 0.2 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 32.4 0.4 100
21 Developed, Open Space 446.2 11.3 49 116.7 6.1 69 30.3 16.5 79 362.0 4.5 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 215.3 5.4 54 46.0 2.4 70 20.0 10.9 80 147.3 1.8 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 64.0 1.6 61 16.6 0.9 75 18.7 10.2 83 52.4 0.6 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 21.7 0.5 77 6.2 0.3 85 1.0 0.5 90 6.2 0.1 92
31 Barren Land 0.4 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 26.7 0.7 36 17.2 0.9 60 1.3 0.7 73 92.8 1.1 79
42 Evergreen Forest 279.7 7.1 36 300.8 15.8 60 12.3 6.7 73 1223.9 15.1 79
43 Mixed Forest 4.2 0.1 36 4.3 0.2 60 0.0 0.0 73 24.9 0.3 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 68.9 1.7 35 27.2 1.4 56 4.0 2.2 70 162.9 2.0 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 11.8 0.3 30 39.7 2.1 58 2.6 1.4 71 30.0 0.4 78
81 Pasture/Hay 8.4 0.2 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 6.7 0.1 80
82 Cultivated Crops 2393.1 60.5 67 1091.3 57.4 78 57.6 31.4 85 2662.2 32.9 89
90 Woody Wetlands 403.8 10.2 100 227.6 12.0 100 35.0 19.0 100 3230.7 39.9 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 3.7 0.1 100 7.2 0.4 100 1.0 0.6 100 64.5 0.8 100
3956.3 100.0 64.5 1900.8 100.0 76.2 183.9 100.0 84.8 8098.9 100.0 91.3
81.7Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-7
Ivey Branch
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 5.7 0.4 100
21 Developed, Open Space 52.2 11.8 49 56.4 11.8 69 27.7 26.5 79 176.6 12.7 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 76.3 17.3 54 36.9 7.8 70 32.4 31.0 80 131.8 9.5 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 56.5 12.8 61 14.3 3.0 75 13.5 12.9 83 75.9 5.5 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 16.8 3.8 77 5.8 1.2 85 2.9 2.8 90 20.7 1.5 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 2.6 0.6 36 2.8 0.6 60 0.0 0.0 73 22.7 1.6 79
42 Evergreen Forest 29.2 6.6 36 46.9 9.9 60 1.4 1.4 73 235.1 17.0 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.0 0.0 36 0.7 0.1 60 0.0 0.0 73 1.9 0.1 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 1.1 0.2 35 8.3 1.7 56 0.9 0.9 70 18.4 1.3 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 30 0.1 0.0 58 0.0 0.0 71 0.1 0.0 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 199.3 45.2 67 289.6 60.8 78 25.4 24.3 85 582.7 42.0 89
90 Woody Wetlands 7.4 1.7 100 14.0 2.9 100 0.3 0.3 100 114.6 8.3 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100
441.2 100.0 60.5 476.0 100.0 74.7 104.6 100.0 81.5 1386.2 100.0 86.8
79.4Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-8
Jacks Branch
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 3.4 0.3 100
21 Developed, Open Space 52.7 18.5 49 40.0 6.8 69 1.2 3.5 79 46.3 4.6 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 13.6 4.8 54 13.3 2.2 70 1.4 4.2 80 11.7 1.2 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 6.1 2.1 61 3.2 0.5 75 0.7 2.0 83 1.4 0.1 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 1.3 0.5 77 4.2 0.7 85 0.1 0.3 90 0.0 0.0 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 36 0.3 0.0 60 0.0 0.0 73 4.9 0.5 79
42 Evergreen Forest 19.2 6.7 36 111.2 18.8 60 10.6 31.2 73 227.1 22.5 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.1 0.0 36 0.4 0.1 60 0.0 0.0 73 6.7 0.7 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 0.2 0.1 35 17.9 3.0 56 0.0 0.0 70 29.6 2.9 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.6 0.2 30 8.3 1.4 58 0.0 0.0 71 2.8 0.3 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 154.9 54.3 67 279.0 47.2 78 15.5 45.6 85 307.2 30.4 89
90 Woody Wetlands 35.0 12.3 100 111.2 18.8 100 4.4 12.8 100 369.0 36.5 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 1.3 0.5 100 2.1 0.3 100 0.1 0.4 100 0.9 0.1 100
285.0 100.0 65.0 590.9 100.0 77.1 34.1 100.0 82.8 1011.1 100.0 90.0
82.2Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-9
Jacob Branch
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 41.0 2.3 100 18.1 2.8 100 101.1 5.1 100 273.4 5.1 100
21 Developed, Open Space 167.3 9.3 49 45.0 7.0 69 188.9 9.5 79 381.1 7.1 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 111.5 6.2 54 29.8 4.7 70 150.7 7.6 80 160.9 3.0 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 54.1 3.0 61 21.6 3.4 75 81.2 4.1 83 60.5 1.1 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 11.1 0.6 77 2.3 0.4 85 20.3 1.0 90 16.4 0.3 92
31 Barren Land 0.5 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 1.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 3.2 0.2 36 6.2 1.0 60 41.5 2.1 73 46.3 0.9 79
42 Evergreen Forest 97.9 5.4 36 71.5 11.2 60 271.3 13.6 73 526.0 9.9 79
43 Mixed Forest 3.8 0.2 36 1.7 0.3 60 6.7 0.3 73 9.1 0.2 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 33.0 1.8 35 6.6 1.0 56 42.3 2.1 70 108.3 2.0 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 43.3 2.4 30 9.5 1.5 58 21.4 1.1 71 47.1 0.9 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.4 0.0 39 0.1 0.0 61 2.9 0.1 74 3.1 0.1 80
82 Cultivated Crops 984.2 54.5 67 315.3 49.3 78 795.7 39.9 85 1308.4 24.5 89
90 Woody Wetlands 195.9 10.8 100 111.2 17.4 100 211.8 10.6 100 2177.3 40.8 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 58.1 3.2 100 0.4 0.1 100 60.6 3.0 100 220.3 4.1 100
1805.2 100.0 66.5 639.4 100.0 78.6 1996.4 100.0 84.4 5339.2 100.0 92.6
85.2Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-10
Jacob Swamp
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 0.8 0.0 100 3.5 0.4 100 0.0 0.1 100 65.0 2.1 100
21 Developed, Open Space 219.1 10.5 49 58.0 7.2 69 0.3 0.5 79 159.2 5.0 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 99.3 4.7 54 35.9 4.5 70 0.2 0.3 80 61.2 1.9 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 11.1 0.5 61 6.1 0.8 75 0.0 0.0 83 12.5 0.4 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 2.5 0.1 77 0.7 0.1 85 0.0 0.0 90 4.1 0.1 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.2 0.01 94
41 Deciduous Forest 13.8 0.7 36 4.9 0.6 60 0.4 0.8 73 31.3 1.0 79
42 Evergreen Forest 158.7 7.6 36 113.5 14.1 60 22.6 44.6 73 506.9 16.0 79
43 Mixed Forest 5.0 0.2 36 1.2 0.1 60 0.6 1.2 73 14.3 0.5 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 33.0 1.6 35 15.2 1.9 56 0.3 0.6 70 58.0 1.8 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 1.8 0.1 30 0.4 0.0 58 0.03 0.1 71 2.4 0.1 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 1380.1 65.9 67 464.5 57.6 78 20.6 40.7 85 1014.0 32.0 89
90 Woody Wetlands 168.8 8.1 100 102.1 12.7 100 5.7 11.3 100 1224.9 38.7 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.8 0.0 100 0.2 0.03 100 0.0 0.0 100 13.7 0.4 100
2094.6 100.0 64.0 806.1 100.0 76.8 50.7 100.0 81.0 3167.7 100.0 91.2
79.9Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-11
Lumber DS
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 24.5 1.4 100 5.4 1.1 100 66.8 10.8 100 703.0 19.2 100
21 Developed, Open Space 329.7 18.5 49 118.4 24.3 69 73.3 11.8 79 309.5 8.5 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 374.3 21.0 54 156.1 32.0 70 57.7 9.3 80 249.6 6.8 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 178.2 10.0 61 56.5 11.6 75 76.5 12.4 83 98.8 2.7 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 83.7 4.7 77 12.0 2.5 85 21.5 3.5 90 28.4 0.8 92
31 Barren Land 3.1 0.2 77 0.0 0.0 86 1.4 0.2 91 3.8 0.1 94
41 Deciduous Forest 9.4 0.5 36 0.7 0.1 60 11.7 1.9 73 16.1 0.4 79
42 Evergreen Forest 113.9 6.4 36 20.1 4.1 60 50.3 8.1 73 166.6 4.5 79
43 Mixed Forest 2.7 0.2 36 0.4 0.1 60 1.3 0.2 73 5.1 0.1 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 27.4 1.5 35 7.2 1.5 56 8.0 1.3 70 31.4 0.9 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 2.6 0.1 30 0.3 0.1 58 1.7 0.3 71 11.3 0.3 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.2 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.2 0.01 80
82 Cultivated Crops 369.6 20.8 67 76.5 15.7 78 98.6 15.9 85 191.5 5.2 89
90 Woody Wetlands 249.1 14.0 100 33.2 6.8 100 121.4 19.6 100 1774.6 48.5 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 10.1 0.6 100 0.8 0.2 100 28.5 4.6 100 71.3 1.9 100
1778.5 100.0 63.3 487.7 100.0 73.7 618.6 100.0 87.6 3661.3 100.0 95.3
84.3Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-12
Lumber Mid
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 54.9 0.4 100 64.5 1.5 100 12.8 0.5 100 679.5 2.7 100
21 Developed, Open Space 1041.5 7.2 49 391.0 9.3 69 681.4 24.1 79 1195.1 4.7 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 382.7 2.6 54 175.0 4.2 70 215.9 7.6 80 518.6 2.0 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 63.9 0.4 61 65.0 1.5 75 118.4 4.2 83 163.6 0.6 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 23.7 0.2 77 20.1 0.5 85 34.7 1.2 90 48.6 0.2 92
31 Barren Land 0.2 0.002 77 0.4 0.01 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.1 0.0003 94
41 Deciduous Forest 176.4 1.2 36 41.4 1.0 60 15.4 0.5 73 222.6 0.9 79
42 Evergreen Forest 867.0 6.0 36 225.6 5.4 60 136.9 4.8 73 1486.8 5.8 79
43 Mixed Forest 39.1 0.3 36 13.4 0.3 60 10.1 0.4 73 82.6 0.3 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 314.5 2.2 35 70.4 1.7 56 47.2 1.7 70 274.5 1.1 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 123.5 0.9 30 26.2 0.6 58 12.5 0.4 71 77.0 0.3 78
81 Pasture/Hay 23.8 0.2 39 7.6 0.2 61 5.0 0.2 74 11.4 0.04 80
82 Cultivated Crops 9680.8 66.6 67 2698.8 64.3 78 1306.5 46.2 85 8541.3 33.5 89
90 Woody Wetlands 1705.8 11.7 100 395.2 9.4 100 224.0 7.9 100 11896.2 46.6 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 27.3 0.2 100 5.5 0.1 100 6.3 0.2 100 314.3 1.2 100
14525.1 100.0 66.1 4200.0 100.0 77.5 2826.9 100.0 83.4 25512.2 100.0 93.4
82.9Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-13
Lumber US
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 96.2 0.1 100 3603.7 7.3 100 275.7 0.7 100 304.3 0.8 100
21 Developed, Open Space 12212.7 11.2 49 3287.0 6.7 69 3659.3 9.5 79 863.2 2.3 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 3886.1 3.6 54 823.6 1.7 70 809.9 2.1 80 130.6 0.4 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 1077.9 1.0 61 285.2 0.6 75 256.0 0.7 83 31.7 0.1 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 243.3 0.2 77 36.3 0.1 85 49.8 0.1 90 3.5 0.01 92
31 Barren Land 692.7 0.6 77 379.2 0.8 86 76.4 0.2 91 13.3 0.04 94
41 Deciduous Forest 3299.2 3.0 36 2152.4 4.4 60 1789.9 4.7 73 374.7 1.0 79
42 Evergreen Forest 44799.7 41.2 36 20704.5 42.0 60 17445.5 45.3 73 4677.0 12.5 79
43 Mixed Forest 2070.3 1.9 36 5405.0 11.0 60 2229.7 5.8 73 894.8 2.4 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 6893.8 6.3 35 2137.8 4.3 56 1887.5 4.9 70 338.2 0.9 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 14772.7 13.6 30 4267.2 8.7 58 2355.9 6.1 71 457.6 1.2 78
81 Pasture/Hay 3576.2 3.3 39 1142.3 2.3 61 631.1 1.6 74 60.3 0.2 80
82 Cultivated Crops 12211.6 11.2 67 2687.9 5.5 78 1673.7 4.3 85 2381.4 6.4 89
90 Woody Wetlands 2763.4 2.5 100 2311.1 4.7 100 5214.6 13.5 100 26340.0 70.6 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 99.5 0.1 100 57.2 0.1 100 130.5 0.3 100 419.6 1.1 100
108695.4 100.0 43.2 49280.3 100.0 66.6 38485.6 100.0 78.1 37290.2 100.0 95.0
62.1Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-14
Meadow Branch
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 0.5 0.1 100 0.2 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.7 0.0 100
21 Developed, Open Space 115.2 15.1 49 108.0 18.3 69 20.1 15.0 79 275.7 16.6 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 161.0 21.1 54 152.2 25.8 70 27.1 20.2 80 265.1 16.0 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 73.4 9.6 61 61.7 10.5 75 35.8 26.7 83 162.9 9.8 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 36.9 4.8 77 17.2 2.9 85 49.5 37.0 90 50.3 3.0 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 3.0 0.4 36 3.0 0.5 60 0.0 0.0 73 10.7 0.6 79
42 Evergreen Forest 40.9 5.3 36 34.1 5.8 60 1.4 1.1 73 180.0 10.8 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.5 0.1 36 0.0 0.0 60 0.0 0.0 73 3.3 0.2 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 5.7 0.7 35 6.9 1.2 56 0.0 0.0 70 21.5 1.3 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.4 0.1 30 0.4 0.1 58 0.0 0.0 71 1.2 0.1 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 307.3 40.2 67 185.9 31.5 78 0.0 0.0 85 505.0 30.4 89
90 Woody Wetlands 19.9 2.6 100 20.1 3.4 100 0.0 0.0 100 184.0 11.1 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 100
764.6 100.0 60.3 589.8 100.0 73.5 134.0 100.0 84.3 1660.3 100.0 87.3
78.0Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-15
Raft Swamp
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 110.5 0.2 100 6.3 0.1 100 44.5 1.5 100 896.3 1.9 100
21 Developed, Open Space 3527.5 7.5 49 672.0 7.3 69 135.8 4.7 79 1501.3 3.1 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 1386.9 2.9 54 351.2 3.8 70 57.4 2.0 80 723.6 1.5 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 213.0 0.5 61 112.8 1.2 75 19.9 0.7 83 131.8 0.3 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 68.3 0.1 77 45.3 0.5 85 12.8 0.4 90 41.9 0.1 92
31 Barren Land 10.4 0.02 77 0.2 0.002 86 0.6 0.02 91 0.6 0.001 94
41 Deciduous Forest 746.3 1.6 36 151.4 1.6 60 60.7 2.1 73 426.1 0.9 79
42 Evergreen Forest 4666.1 9.9 36 1335.4 14.5 60 482.7 16.8 73 4057.3 8.5 79
43 Mixed Forest 274.7 0.6 36 94.8 1.0 60 27.9 1.0 73 235.7 0.5 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 1594.4 3.4 35 357.5 3.9 56 89.2 3.1 70 723.4 1.5 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 788.1 1.7 30 114.9 1.2 58 60.1 2.1 71 225.9 0.5 78
81 Pasture/Hay 103.6 0.2 39 12.7 0.1 61 1.6 0.1 74 11.3 0.02 80
82 Cultivated Crops 27567.2 58.6 67 5091.3 55.3 78 954.5 33.2 85 12306.4 25.8 89
90 Woody Wetlands 5916.2 12.6 100 834.4 9.1 100 916.1 31.8 100 26044.2 54.5 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 66.6 0.1 100 20.8 0.2 100 15.5 0.5 100 448.5 0.9 100
47039.8 100.0 64.0 9200.9 100.0 74.9 2879.4 100.0 86.6 47774.3 100.0 93.9
78.9Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-16
White Oak
Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN Area (ac) Area (%) CN
11 Open Water 1.2 0.7 100 0.3 0.05 100 0.0 0.0 100 11.3 0.7 100
21 Developed, Open Space 32.5 18.6 49 81.9 14.7 69 3.3 20.3 79 253.8 15.5 84
22 Developed, Low Intensity 39.5 22.7 54 59.0 10.6 70 5.3 32.3 80 145.9 8.9 85
23 Developed, Medium Intensity 37.1 21.3 61 25.8 4.6 75 4.0 24.4 83 64.9 4.0 87
24 Developed, High Intensity 21.3 12.2 77 11.3 2.0 85 0.5 2.7 90 24.9 1.5 92
31 Barren Land 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0.0 91 0.0 0.0 94
41 Deciduous Forest 2.3 1.3 36 4.6 0.8 60 0.0 0.0 73 13.8 0.8 79
42 Evergreen Forest 16.0 9.2 36 232.2 41.8 60 1.8 10.8 73 619.7 37.7 79
43 Mixed Forest 0.0 0.0 36 5.5 1.0 60 0.0 0.0 73 5.4 0.3 79
52 Shrub/Scrub 1.5 0.9 35 16.3 2.9 56 0.0 0.0 70 68.8 4.2 77
71 Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 30 0.1 0.03 58 0.0 0.0 71 3.6 0.2 78
81 Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 0.0 80
82 Cultivated Crops 12.7 7.3 67 88.0 15.8 78 0.0 0.0 85 128.8 7.8 89
90 Woody Wetlands 10.2 5.8 100 31.0 5.6 100 1.6 9.5 100 297.8 18.1 100
95 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0 0.0 100 0.1 0.02 100 0.0 0.0 100 3.7 0.2 100
174.3 100.0 59.3 556.1 100.0 68.6 16.4 100.0 81.9 1642.4 100.0 85.5
79.6Weighted Average CN =
Existing Landuse Conditions
CN for Soil Type DLUCODE Land Use Descriptions
Total
CN for Soil Type A CN for Soil Type B CN for Soil Type C
Page B4-17
B5 Reach Routing Parameters
Page B5-1

Muskingum-Cunge Routing Parameters

Notes:
• Cross-section data from terrain with bathymetry for all reaches

Reach HMS
Junctions
Length
(ft)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Channel
N-Value
Left
N-Value
Right
N-Value 8pt XS #
1 0 to 1 11284 0.0002 0.045 0.1 0.1 XS1
2 1 to 2 10922 0.0006 0.045 0.13 0.1 XS2
3 2 to 3 14490 0.0002 0.045 0.15 0.09 XS3
4 3 to 4 7220 0.0003 0.045 0.13 0.11 XS4
5 4 to 5 39679 0.0002 0.045 0.125 0.125 XS5
6 5 to 6 7849 0.0003 0.045 0.125 0.125 XS6
7 7 to 6 24525 0.0008 0.065 0.035 0.16 XS7
8 8 to 4 6644 0.0002 0.045 0.12 0.12 XS8
9 11 to 1 183005 0.0003 0.08 0.16 0.16 XS9

Page B5-2

Cross-Section 1
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 126
64 121.4
216 121.9
275.78 112.82
281 112.79
330.5 122
884 121.09
1669 123.5

100
105
110
115
120
125
130
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-3

Cross-Section 2
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 124
458 117.6
787 118.47
828.42 110.36
849.05 110.17
870.1 118.67
1362.6 118.05
2180 123.3

100
105
110
115
120
125
130
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-4

Cross-Section 3
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 117
112 113.35
1237 113.44
1293.34 104.66
1327 107.21
1356.5 113
2022.5 112.7
2759 117

100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-5

Cross-Section 4
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 125
180 115
275 115.65
327 104.56
410 102
431 113
570 112.19
630 117

95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-6

Cross-Section 5
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 114.3
64 109.1
510.9 108.55
560.6 96
603.4 105.71
632 109.83
982.5 108.1
1650 110.27

80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-7

Cross-Section 6
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 110.9
54 104.4
485.1 105.25
550 92.43
560.5 93.48
614.4 105.26
3178.25 103.48
3256 109.56

90
95
100
105
110
115
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-8

Cross-Section 7
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 117.22
500 111.83
1070 113.62
1090 100.88
1100 100.88
1131.25 112.36
1500 111.69
2461 114.9

80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-9

Cross-Section 8
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 125.12
452.65 113.68
727.02 114.48
750.33 107.29
762.12 107.19
784 114.06
989 111.47
1956 123.89

106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-10

Cross-Section 9
Station
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
0 165
410 163
1130 162.7
1310 146.1
2840 145
3039.7 152.4
4079.7 149.7
4400 157

140
145
150
155
160
165
170
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
El
e
va
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Page B5-11
B6 USGS Correspondence
Page B6-1
From: McClenney, Bryce J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 12:38 PM
To: Sachan, Amit
Cc: Walters, Douglas A; Weaver, John C; Hunu, Kenneth; Beadenkopf, Edward G
Subject: Re: Lumber River flows discussion

Per your request after our conversation today, I looked into the Hurricane Matthew peak
discharges. We did make a slight change to the rating based on the measurement made during
Florence. The peak recorded gage height for the Matthew event was 21.87 ft. Rating 4.0 was in
use at the time a gives a value of 14,600 cfs for this peak. Rating 5.0 was developed following
the Florence measurement in 2018 and activated in September 2018. It computes a discharge
of 15,700 cfs for the 21.87 peak gage height for Matthew. This is around 7% different. We
would not have issues a revision based on this as the uncertainty of the measurements are
higher than the percent difference of the computed discharges.

There were three measurements made during Matthew as follows:
142- GH=19.85 Q=9900
143- GH=19.05 Q=8000
144-GH=19.02 Q=7380

It was noted during all three measurements that large pumps were setup behind the levee that
were pumping water back into the channel downstream of the gage from behind the levee. This
flow was not able to be measured. There was no note of any secondary channel being
measured such as with Florence, however, the gage height was roughly 2.5 ft lower than the
Florence measurement at 22.20 ft so there likely would not have been as much flow through
the breach at that time.

Hope this helps.

Page B6-2
Bryce McClenney
Hydrologic Technician
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center
Raleigh, NC [phone]

From: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:28 AM
To: McClenney, Bryce J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Walters, Douglas A <[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Hunu, Kenneth
<[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Lumber River flows discussion

Thanks Bryce. We will call you on Monday (2/3) at 11 AM.

Amit Sachan, PE, CFM
Project Director, Public & Private Business Unit
Tel: [phone] Cell: [phone]
Atkins, member of the SNC-Lavalin Group
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27519
From: McClenney, Bryce J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:44 AM
To: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Cc: Walters, Douglas A <[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Hunu, Kenneth
<[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lumber River flows discussion

That should work for me. I could do Monday or Tuesday mornings.

Bryce McClenney
Hydrologic Technician
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center
Raleigh, NC [phone]

From: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 1:57 PM
To: McClenney, Bryce J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Walters, Douglas A <[e-mail]>; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; Hunu, Kenneth
Page B6-3
<[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Lumber River flows discussion

Hi Bryce, Hope that you are doing well. We would like to learn about your experience during hurricanes
Florence and Matthew. Would you be available for a brief call sometime in next few days? Let me know
and we will plan accordingly. Thanks

Amit Sachan, PE, CFM
Project Director, Public & Private Business Unit
Tel: [phone] Cell: [phone]
Atkins, member of the SNC-Lavalin Group
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27519

From: Walters, Douglas A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 7:36 AM
To: Hunu, Kenneth <[e-mail]>; Sachan, Amit
<[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G <[e-mail]>
Cc: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>; McClenney, Bryce J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lumber River flows discussion

Amit, Ken and Ed,
I spoke with the technician, Bryce McClenney, who measured Lumberton flows
during Florence. As you can see below, they did measure the main channel at
the gage (15,100 cfs) as well as the the overflow (1,977 cfs) under I-95 (railroad
opening). The overflow was significant, comprising almost 12% of the total flow.
The overflow was measured by wading the flows (split into 2 sections)
overtopping 5th street, downstream of the I-95 opening. I hope this information
is helpful. If you have further questions about the measurement or the
conditions at the time, you can contact Bryce directly (cc'd in this email or at
919-417-7021). Bryce also has pictures and video of the conditions which he can
share with you, if you like.

Page B6-4

Page B6-5
Doug,

Can you swing by for a few minutes before you leave for the day?

JCWeaver

J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: [e-mail]
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]

From: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 2:33 PM
To: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hunu, Kenneth <[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Lumber River flows discussion

Hi Curtis, Here are few questions for our discussion. I’ll send out a meeting invite for everyone’s
calendars. Thanks

· Does the USGS have any official estimate of the frequency of Matthew and Florence at
Lumberton?
· Can the USGS comment to how Atkins has done the frequency analyses and offer
any suggestions for what we have not done?
· Can we discuss the rating curve at Lumberton? Is the backup available? Is the USGS
comfortable with the observed hydrographs and peaks for the two major Hurricanes?
· Significant flow left the Lumber River at I-95 during these events and we were told for
Florence that was overtopped and/or out of service for a time. How was the rating curve
developed and how reliable are the flow estimated and hydrographs for Florence and
Matthew?

From: Sachan, Amit
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:43 AM
To: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hunu, Kenneth <[e-mail]>; Beadenkopf, Edward G
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Lumber River flows discussion

Curtis, Thanks for your prompt response. Our discussion will be focused on a flood gate design project
for the City of Lumberton on opening under I-95. Our questions will be based on flood frequency
Page B6-6
analysis and rating curves on Lumber River stream gages. We will send few specific questions this
afternoon. Let me know if we can meet on Thursday (1/23) afternoon (say 3 PM). Thanks

Amit Sachan, PE, CFM
Project Director, Public & Private Business Unit
Tel: [phone] Cell: [phone]
Atkins, member of the SNC-Lavalin Group
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27519

From: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Cc: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lumber River flows discussion

Amit,

Aside from an appointment on Thursday morning, I am generally available the coming several
days.

In the interest of transparency, I just completed a review for NCDOT a few weeks ago of several
FF analyses for the streamgage on the Lumber River at Lumberton that were completed as part
of their planning for future I-95 work near Lumberton. Please let me know if you're interest in
the Lumber River issues is related to this NCDOT planning.

Also, it would be helpful to get a heads up on the specific questions you have on the Lumber
River so I could plan accordingly in advance of a conversation.

Thank you.

JCWeaver

J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: [e-mail]
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]

From: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:30 PM
Page B6-7
To: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lumber River flows discussion

Hi Curtis, Hope that you are doing well. We have talked briefly at the NCAFPM conferences. I would like
to request a quick meeting to discuss a project that we are working on. It is flood control project for the
City of Lumberton and we want to get your input on Lumber River gages and flows. Let me know a
convenient time in next few days and we’ll plan accordingly. Regards

Amit Sachan PE, CFM
Project Director, Mid-Atlantic
Private & Public Business Unit

[phone]

[phone]

1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27609

Company

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally
binding. The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. Registered in Québec, Canada No. 059041-0.
Registered Office 455 boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Z 1Z3. A list of Atkins Group companies registered in the
United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-
details

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Page B6-8

1 | 1.0 | 16 March 2020
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report

Hydraulic Analysis
Page C1.0
C1 Hydraulic
Structures Data
Page C1-1
Label
Name Channel Street Name
Effective Model
XS Data Origin Structure
Type Rise Span or
Diameter # Piers
E1 Fivemile Branch Dawn Dr (next to I-95)NA McGill Survey 2RCBC 7.67 10
E2 Meadow Branch Dawn Dr (next to I-95)NA McGill Survey 2RCBC 8 10
E3 Fivemile Branch N Roberts Ave (SR 211)NA McGill Survey 3RCBC 10 14
E4 Fivemile Branch W Carthage Rd (SR 1536)NA McGill Survey 3RCBC 11 13
E5 Lumber River Kenric Rd (SR 1539)376455 Effective Model Bridge 194.9 2
E6 Lumber River S Caton Rd 375387 Effective Model Bridge 354.9 4
E8 Lumber River I-95 360856 Effective Model Bridge 214.7 7
E9 Lumber River 5th Street 350697 Effective Model Bridge 236.6 5
E10 Lumber River W 2nd St 349864 Effective Model Bridge 282.9 5
E12 Lumber River
S Chestnut St [Alamac Rd
(SR 2289) in model]345664 Effective Model Bridge 330.5 6
E13 Lumber River
S Chippewa St/
Hestertown Rd NA McGill Survey Bridge 197.7 2
E14 Lumber River
Structure 44 on NC HWY
72 323321.5 Effective Model Bridge 360.9 7
E15 Lumber River I-95 Proposed Bridge 360856 Preliminary Model Bridge 428.8 4
E16 Lumber River CSX Railroad 370045 Effective Model Bridge 350 14
E17 Lumber River Railroad 349691 Effective Model Bridge 345 13
LJ4 Little Jacob Swamp MLK Dr (NC 41)NA Field Data Arch (2)7.1 15
JS5 Jacob Swamp MLK Dr (NC 41)25316.41 Effective Model Box Culverts (2) 4.5 6
CC9 Collection Canal W 5th Street NA Field Data RCP 6
CC10 Collection Canal MLK Dr (NC 41)NA Field Data Pipe Culvert 7
Summary of Final Structures in External Hydraulic Model
Page C1-2
C2 Lumber Levee and
I-95 Data
Page C2-1

119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
E
LEV
A
T
I
O
N

(
F
T
)
STATION ALONG LEVEE
L I DAR VS. SURVEY ELEVATIONS
L iDAR Survey
Page C2-2
Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 Microsoft Corporation © 2017 HERE © AND
© 2017 HERE © AND © 2017 Microsoft Corporation
G-101
CITY OF LUMBERTON
DRAWING INDEX
DWG. No.
ADMINSTRATIONAPPROVED BY:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PLANS PREPARED
AECOM
AND APPROVED BY:
DATE
DATE
LUMBERTON FLOOD MITIGATION
ROBESON COUNTY
GENERAL DRAWINGS
G-101 COVER SHEET
G-102 GENERAL NOTES
CIVIL DRAWINGS
C-100 GENERAL SITE PLAN
XXXX, 2017
CO
V
E
R

S
H
E
E
T
AECOM PROJECT NO. 60548447
STATE PROJECT NO. XXXX
FUNDED IN PART BY XXXX
PROPOSED PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
XX % SUBMITTAL
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA NA NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

x
x
x
x
x
x
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PROPOSED
PROJECT LOCATION
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 10,000'
Page C2-3
Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 Microsoft Corporation © 2017 HERE © AND
Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 Microsoft Corporation © 2017 HERE © AND
0
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
1
5
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
2
5
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
3
5
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
4
5
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
5
5
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
75
+
0
0
80+
0
0
85+00
90+00
95
+
0
0
10
0
+
0
0
10
5
+
0
0
110+00
115+00
120+
0
0
12
5
+
0
0
130
+
0
0
135
+
0
0
140+00
145+00
150+
0
0
155
+
0
0
160
+
0
0
165+00
170+00
175+00
180
+
0
0
185
+
0
0
190
+
0
0
19
3
+
8
8
EXISTING LEVEE ALIGNMENT
Elevations Table
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Minimum Elevation
105.00
110.01
113.01
114.01
115.01
116.01
117.01
118.01
120.01
122.01
Maximum Elevation
110.00
113.00
114.00
115.00
116.00
117.00
118.00
120.00
122.00
158.84
Color
G-101
PR
O
J
E
C
T

O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA NA NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

x
x
x
x
x
x
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
NOTES:
1. CONTOURS SHOWN ARE TAKEN FROM XXX.
Page C2-4
0+
0
0
2+
5
0
5+
0
0
7+
5
0
10
+
0
0
12
+
5
0
1
5
+
0
0
1
7
+
5
0
2
0
+
0
0
2
2
+
5
0
2
5
+
0
0
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00
BFE+3
BFE
LIDAR SURVEY
124.29 124.29 124.28 124.27 124.26 124.24 124.22 124.21 124.19 124.17 124.15 124.13 124.08 124.03 123.99 123.96 123.94 123.92 123.89 123.87 123.84 123.82 123.79 123.76 123.72 123.71
127.29 127.29 127.28 127.27 127.26 127.24 127.22 127.21 127.19 127.17 127.15 127.13 127.08 127.03 126.99 126.96 126.94 126.92 126.89 126.87 126.84 126.82 126.79 126.76 126.72 126.71
-1.57 -1.66 -1.46 -1.64 -2.21 -2.64 -2.95 -2.80 -1.19 0.94 3.27 5.59 9.36 14.04 16.83 17.56 12.52 8.28 4.92 1.91 -0.60 -1.86 -1.73 -1.79 -1.85 -1.78
LIDAR SURVEY IS ABOVE BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
LIDAR SURVEY IS BELOW BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
LIDAR SURVEY IS BELOW BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
NOTES:
1. GROUND SURVEY SHOTS WERE COLLECTED IN NOVEMBER 2009.
2. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) TAKEN FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA
FLOOD RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (NC FRIS) WEBSITE.
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-100
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
1
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
Page C2-5
Imag
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Imag
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

25
+
0
0
27
+
5
0
30
+
0
0
32
+
5
0
35
+
0
0
37
+
5
0
40
+
0
0
42
+
5
0
45
+
0
0
47
+
5
0
50
+
0
0
COX ROAD
COX ROAD
I-95
I-95
HESTER DRIVE
HESTER DRIVE
W 5TH STREET
W 5TH STREET
W 5TH STREET
US 72
US 72
US

2
5
2
2
HES
T
E
R

D
R
I
V
E
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00
BFE+3
BFE
LIDAR SURVEY
123.71 123.70 123.69 123.68 123.67 123.66 123.65 123.63 123.62 123.61 123.60 123.60 123.60 123.60 123.59 123.59 123.59 123.58 123.58 123.58 123.57 123.57 123.57 123.56 123.56 123.56
126.71 126.70 126.69 126.68 126.67 126.66 126.65 126.63 126.62 126.61 126.60 126.60 126.60 126.60 126.59 126.59 126.59 126.58 126.58 126.58 126.57 126.57 126.57 126.56 126.56 126.56
-1.78 -1.59 -1.65 -1.72 -1.88 -1.86 -1.95 -2.19 -2.25 -2.42 -2.55 -2.82 -2.98 -2.91 -2.91 -2.36 -1.91 -0.71 0.54 2.07 4.03 6.49 8.93 11.30 13.43 15.75
LIDAR SURVEY IS ABOVE BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
LIDAR SURVEY IS BELOW BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-101
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
0
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

5
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
2
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
Page C2-6
Imag
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Imag
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

50
+
0
0
52
+
5
0
55
+
0
0
57
+
5
0
60
+
0
0
62
+
5
0
65
+
0
0
67
+
5
0
70
+
0
0
72
+
5
0
75
+
0
0
C
O
X

R
O
A
D
COX

R
O
A
D
I-95 I-95
CRYSTAL ROAD
V
F
W

R
O
A
D
VFW

R
O
A
D
HACKETT STREET HACKETT STREET
CRYSTAL ROAD
C
S
X

R
R
SEE SHEET C-200 FOR WALL DETAILS
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00 64+00 65+00 66+00 67+00 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00 75+00
BFE+3
BFE
123.56 123.55 123.55 123.55 123.55 123.48 123.36 123.27 123.25 123.24 123.23 123.21 123.20 123.19 123.18 123.17 123.16 123.14 123.13 123.12 123.11 123.10 123.09 123.08 123.07 123.05
126.56 126.55 126.55 126.55 126.55 126.48 126.36 126.27 126.25 126.24 126.23 126.21 126.20 126.19 126.18 126.17 126.16 126.14 126.13 126.12 126.11 126.10 126.09 126.08 126.07 126.05
15.75 17.97 19.45 20.63 4.72 -4.02 21.38 20.31 18.76 16.72 14.34 11.83 9.59 7.06 4.90 2.41 0.25 -1.57 -1.76 -1.54 -1.19 -1.31 -1.47 -1.55 -1.18 -1.02
SEE C-200 FOR DETAILS
I-95 BRIDGE
CSX RR VFW RD
LIDAR SURVEY IS BELOW BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
LIDAR SURVEY IS ABOVE BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
LIDAR SURVEY
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-102
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

5
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
1
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
PHOTO NO. 178
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
3
Page C2-7
7
5
+
0
0
7
7
+
5
0
8
0
+
0
0
8
2
+
5
0
85
+
0
0
87
+
5
0
90
+
0
0
92
+
5
0
95
+
0
0
97
+
5
0
100
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE
125.46
C/L LEVEE125.95
C/L LEVEE
126.05
C/L LEVEE125.66
C/L LEVEE125.56
C/L LEVEE
121.56
C/L LEVEE
119.67
C/L LEVEE
117.53
C/L LEVEE
117.28
C/L LEVEE
116.36
I-95
THE RIVER
W
A
L
K
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
75+00 76+00 77+00 78+00 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 85+00 86+00 87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 100+00
BFE+3
BFE
SURVEY POINTS
LOWER THAN
BFE+3
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY INDICATES LOW SPOTS
BE
G
I
N

G
R
O
U
N
D
SU
R
V
E
Y

D
A
T
A
123.05 123.02 122.99 122.97 122.95 122.93 122.91 122.89 122.87 122.86 122.84 122.81 122.80 122.77 122.75 122.73 122.71 122.68 122.66 122.63 122.60 122.57 122.54 122.51 122.48 122.45
126.05 126.02 125.99 125.97 125.95 125.93 125.91 125.89 125.87 125.86 125.84 125.81 125.80 125.77 125.75 125.73 125.71 125.68 125.66 125.63 125.60 125.57 125.54 125.51 125.48 125.45
-0.14 -0.02 0.10 0.23 0.25 0.01 -0.22 -0.09 0.04 0.17 0.30 0.42 0.49 0.56 0.63
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
GROUND SURVEY
LIDAR SURVEY
-1.02 -1.26 -0.92 -0.98 -1.05 -1.05 -0.64 -0.31 -0.21 -0.49 -0.32 -0.57 -0.04 -0.17 0.01 0.09 -0.19 -0.37 -0.16 -0.26 0.15 0.22 0.20 0.38 0.59 0.80
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SURVEY POINTS
LOWER THAN
BFE+3 SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SURVEY IS BELOW BFE+3
NO GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-103
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
0
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
4
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
Page C2-8
court
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

1
0
0
+
0
0
10
2
+
5
0
105
+
0
0
107
+
5
0
110
+
0
0
112
+
5
0
11
5
+
0
0
1
1
7
+
5
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
2
+
5
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE125.46
C/L LEVEE
125.92
C/L LEVEE124.60
C/L LEVEE
125.90
C/L LEVEE
125.66
C/L LEVEE
126.11
LUM
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
T
H
E

R
I
V
E
R
W
A
L
K
L
U
M
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
LOWERY STRE
E
T
L
O
C
K
L
E
A
R

S
T
.
LOWERY STRE
E
T
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00
BFE+3
BFE
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
122.45 122.41 122.38 122.34 122.31 122.28 122.25 122.23 122.21 122.19 122.17 122.16 122.14 122.11 122.09 122.06 122.02 121.98 121.95 121.91 121.87 121.83 121.79 121.75 121.71 121.67
125.45 125.41 125.38 125.34 125.31 125.28 125.25 125.23 125.21 125.19 125.17 125.16 125.14 125.11 125.09 125.06 125.02 124.98 124.95 124.91 124.87 124.83 124.79 124.75 124.71 124.67
0.80 0.28 0.20 0.50 0.37 0.30 0.88 0.73 0.51 0.87 0.81 0.23 0.43 0.68 0.92 0.35 0.47 -0.02 -0.49 0.26 0.31 0.12 -0.11 0.10 0.16 -0.30
0.63 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.43 0.41 0.54 0.66 0.48 0.27 0.06 -0.14 -0.35 -0.45 0.00 0.45 0.90 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.44
GROUND SURVEY
LIDAR SURVEY
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
SURVEY POINTS
LOWER THAN
BFE+3
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY INDICATES LOW SPOTS
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-104
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
0
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
3
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
5
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
Page C2-9
cou
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Ima
g
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

1
2
5
+
0
0
1
2
7
+
5
0
1
3
0
+
0
0
13
2
+
5
0
13
5
+
0
0
13
7
+
5
0
14
0
+
0
0
1
4
2
+
5
0
145
+
0
0
1
4
7
+
5
0
1
5
0
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE124.61
C/L LEVEE
124.67
C/L LEVEE
124.80
C/L LEVEE
125.05C/L LEVEE124.91
C/L LEVEE
124.91
C/L LEVEE
125.19
C/L LEVEE
125.14
C/L LEVEE125.39
C/L LEVEE125.09
THE
R
I
V
E
R
W
A
L
K
LU
M
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
LOWER
Y

S
T
R
E
E
T
A
Y
E
R
S

C
T
.
KI
N
G

S
T
R
E
E
T
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00
BFE+3
BFE
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY INDICATES LOW SPOTS
121.67 121.64 121.61 121.59 121.58 121.56 121.54 121.50 121.45 121.41 121.40 121.38 121.37 121.36 121.35 121.33 121.32 121.31 121.29 121.28 121.27 121.26 121.25 121.24 121.22 121.20
124.67 124.64 124.61 124.59 124.58 124.56 124.54 124.50 124.45 124.41 124.40 124.38 124.37 124.36 124.35 124.33 124.32 124.31 124.29 124.28 124.27 124.26 124.25 124.24 124.22 124.20
-0.30 0.36 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.26 0.40 0.28 0.60 0.35 0.40 0.49 0.44 0.20 -0.16 -0.20 0.18 0.11 0.94 1.05 0.36 0.36 0.09 -0.12 -0.31
0.44 0.50 0.61 0.70 0.79 0.75 0.66 0.65 0.71 0.76 0.79 0.77 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.64 0.72 0.71 0.52 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.38
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
GROUND SURVEY LIDAR SURVEY
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-105
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
4
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
5
2
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
6
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
Page C2-10
Im
a
g
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Im
a
g
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

1
5
0
+
0
0
1
5
2
+
5
0
1
5
5
+
0
0
1
5
7
+
5
0
16
0
+
0
0
16
2
+
5
0
165
+
0
0
167
+
5
0
170
+
0
0
172+
5
0
175
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE121.89
C/L LEVEE
121.83
C/L LEVEE
122.66
C/L LEVEE
123.02
C/L LEVEE123.11
C/L LEVEE
123.28
C/L LEVEE
122.82
C/L LEVEE123.62
C/L LEVEE124.41C/L LEVEE
124.57
C/L LEVEE
124.45
C/L LEVEE121.72
C/L LEVEE120.56
C/L LEVEE120.51
C/L LEVEE121.27
C/L LEVEE
123.23
C/L LEVEE124.28C/L LEVEE
124.35
C/L LEVEE
124.44
C/L LEVEE
124.56
C/L LEVEE
124.61
TH
E

R
I
V
E
R
W
A
L
K
W 2N
D

S
T
.
THE R
I
V
E
R
W
A
L
K
W 5
T
H

S
T
.
W 5T
H

S
T
.
W 2ND

S
T
.
A
P
P
L
E

S
T
.
LINCOLN
S
T
.
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
150+00 151+00 152+00 153+00 154+00 155+00 156+00 157+00 158+00 159+00 160+00 161+00 162+00 163+00 164+00 165+00 166+00 167+00 168+00 169+00 170+00 171+00 172+00 173+00 174+00 175+00
BFE+3
BFE
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY INDICATES LOW SPOTS
121.20 121.13 121.06 121.00 120.94 120.87 120.82 120.76 120.70 120.61 120.49 120.38 120.27 120.16 120.05 119.94 119.81 119.69 119.56 119.53 119.50 119.47 119.24 118.69 118.49 118.35
124.20 124.13 124.06 124.00 123.94 123.87 123.82 123.76 123.70 123.61 123.49 123.38 123.27 123.16 123.05 122.94 122.81 122.69 122.56 122.53 122.50 122.47 122.24 121.69 121.49 121.35
-0.31 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.18 -0.07 0.52 0.55 0.19 0.49 0.23 0.41 0.48 -0.04 -2.55 -0.29 1.31 1.45 1.61 1.55 1.36 1.26 1.09 1.78 0.12 0.64
0.38 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.71 0.80 0.66 0.34 -0.33 -2.52 -0.92 1.10 1.80 1.97 1.96 1.84 1.17 0.97 1.10 0.43 0.87
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
GROUND SURVEY
LIDAR SURVEY
W.

5
T
H

S
T
SURVEY POINTS
LOWER THAN
BFE+3
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY INDICATES LOW SPOTS
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-106
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
5
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
5
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
7
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
PROTECTED SIDE
FLOOD SIDE
Page C2-11
I
m
a
g
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

1
7
5
+
0
0
17
7
+
5
0
18
0
+
0
0
18
2
+
5
0
18
5
+
0
0
18
7
+
5
0
1
9
0
+
0
0
1
9
2
+
5
0
1
9
5
+
0
0
1
9
7
+
5
0
2
0
0
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE122.44
C/L LEVEE
122.25
C/L LEVEE
122.43
C/L LEVEE122.75
C/L LEVEE122.32
C/L LEVEE122.15
C/L LEVEE
121.66
C/L LEVEE
121.36
C/L LEVEE121.33
121.13
C/L LEVEE
122.39
C/L LEVEE
122.13
C/L LEVEE
122.26
C/L LEVEE122.22
C/L LEVEE
121.97
C/L LEVEE
121.86
C/L LEVEE
121.89
C/L LEVEE
121.69
C/L LEVEE
122.47
C/L LEVEE122.36
C/L LEVEE
122.15
C/L LEVEE122.29
C/L LEVEE122.25
C/L LEVEE
LU
M
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
HO
P
P
E
R

S
T
.
BULL
A
R
D

S
T
.
CA
M
P
B
E
L
L

S
T
.
KIN
L
A
W

S
T
.
LUMBER R
I
V
E
R
LUM
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
Profile View of Lumberton Levee Alignment
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
175+00 176+00 177+00 178+00 179+00 180+00 181+00 182+00 183+00 184+00 185+00 186+00 187+00 188+00 189+00 190+00 191+00 192+00 193+00 194+00 195+00 196+00 197+00 198+00 199+00 200+00
BFE+3
BFE
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY HIGHER THAN BFE+3
118.35 118.20 118.09 117.98 117.88 117.78 117.68 117.57 117.46 117.34 117.21 117.08 116.95 116.83 116.74 116.69 116.63 116.58 116.53 116.48 116.43 116.37 116.32 116.27 116.22 116.15
121.35 121.20 121.09 120.98 120.88 120.78 120.68 120.57 120.46 120.34 120.21 120.08 119.95 119.83 119.74 119.69 119.63 119.58 119.53 119.48 119.43 119.37 119.32 119.27 119.22 119.15
0.64 0.67 0.76 0.74 1.21 1.56 1.40 1.15 1.08 1.32 1.60 1.91 2.29 2.34 2.73 2.22 2.46 2.87 3.02 2.73 2.57 2.51 2.26 2.14 2.19 2.13
0.87 1.08 1.10 1.31 1.52 1.67 1.46 1.13 1.37 1.54 1.69 2.00 2.30 2.34 2.64 2.65 2.72 3.03 3.10 2.93 2.84 2.81 2.67 2.48 2.28 2.19
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
GROUND SURVEY
LIDAR SURVEY
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-107
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
6
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
FLOOD
SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
0
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
8
Page C2-12
of

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Im
a
g
e

c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

20
0
+
0
0
2
0
2
+
5
0
2
0
5
+
0
0
2
0
7
+
5
0
2
1
0
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
5
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
217
+
5
0
220
+
0
0
222
+
5
0
225
+
0
0
C/L LEVEE
C/L LEVEE
121.36 C/L LEVEE
121.33 C/L LEVEE
121.13
C/L LEVEE
121.07
C/L LEVEE
121.53
C/L LEVEE
121.56
C/L LEVEE
121.43
C/L LEVEE121.64
C/L LEVEE
121.73
C/L LEVEE121.71
C/L LEVEE121.60
C/L LEVEE121.18
C/L LEVEE
119.73
CHICKEN FOOT RD.
U
S

2
2
8
9
LUMBER RIVER
LU
M
B
E
R

R
I
V
E
R
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00 213+00 214+00 215+00 216+00 217+00 218+00 219+00 220+00 221+00 222+00 223+00 224+00 225+00
BFE+3
BFE
EN
D

G
R
O
U
N
D
SU
R
V
E
Y

D
A
T
A
116.15 116.06 115.97 115.93 115.88 115.83 115.78 115.74 115.69 115.64 115.60 115.55 115.51 115.46 115.41 115.31 115.25 115.25 115.25 115.24 115.23 115.23 115.22 115.20 115.18 115.15
119.15 119.06 118.97 118.93 118.88 118.83 118.78 118.74 118.69 118.64 118.60 118.55 118.51 118.46 118.41 118.31 118.25 118.25 118.25 118.24 118.23 118.23 118.22 118.20 118.18 118.15
2.13 1.74 1.78 1.86 2.04 2.23 2.25 2.34 2.49 2.79 2.56 2.89 3.07 2.94 3.10 1.85 1.31 0.61 0.13 -0.31 -0.35 -0.40 -0.57 -0.44 -0.62 -0.76
2.19 2.06 2.12 2.26 2.41 2.54 2.69 2.80 2.86 2.89 2.86 2.95 3.13 3.26 3.19 2.01
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ
LIDAR SURVEY
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
GROUND SURVEY
SURVEY POINTS HIGHER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY HIGHER THAN BFE+3 LIDAR SURVEY LOWER THAN BFE+3
LIDAR SUVEY HIGHER
THAN BFE+3
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-108
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
0
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
7
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
FLOOD
SIDE
PROTECTED
SIDE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
9
Page C2-13
US
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

22
5
+
0
0
22
7
+
5
0
23
0
+
0
0
23
2
+
5
0
23
5
+
0
0
23
7
+
5
0
24
0
+
0
0
24
2
+
5
0
24
5
+
0
0
24
7
+
5
0
25
0
+
0
0
CHIC
K
E
N

F
O
O
T

R
D
.
ALAMAC DR.
HE
N
D
R
E
N
S

P
O
N
D

D
R
.
FL
O
O
D

L
N
.
WA
Y
N
E
'
S

R
D
.
ALAMAC DR.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
225+00 226+00 227+00 228+00 229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236+00 237+00 238+00 239+00 240+00 241+00 242+00 243+00 244+00 245+00 246+00 247+00 248+00 249+00 250+00
BFE+3
BFE
115.15 115.12 115.09 115.06 115.03 114.98 114.93 114.89 114.84 114.82 114.79 114.76 114.73 114.50 114.27 114.25 114.23 114.21 114.18 114.15 114.11 114.07 114.05 114.02 113.98 113.95
118.15 118.12 118.09 118.06 118.03 117.98 117.93 117.89 117.84 117.82 117.79 117.76 117.73 117.50 117.27 117.25 117.23 117.21 117.18 117.15 117.11 117.07 117.05 117.02 116.98 116.95
-0.76 -0.84 -0.88 -0.73 -0.64 -0.43 -0.37 -0.39 -0.32 -0.24 -0.40 -0.45 -0.45 -0.32 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.09
LIDAR SURVEY
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
LIDAR SURVEY LOWER THAN BFE+3
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-109
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
8
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
5
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
1
0
Page C2-14
sy

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

25
0
+
0
0
25
2
+
5
0
25
5
+
0
0
25
7
+
5
0
26
0
+
0
0
26
2
+
5
0
26
5
+
0
0
26
7
+
5
0
27
0
+
0
0
27
2
+
5
0
27
5
+
0
0
MA
C
O
N

S
T
.
BRO
A
D
W
A
Y

D
R
.
ALAMAC DR.US 2289 US 2289
BRO
A
D
W
A
Y

D
R
.
ALAMAC DR.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
250+00 251+00 252+00 253+00 254+00 255+00 256+00 257+00 258+00 259+00 260+00 261+00 262+00 263+00 264+00 265+00 266+00 267+00 268+00 269+00 270+00 271+00 272+00 273+00 274+00 275+00
BFE
BFE+3
LIDAR Δ
SURVEY Δ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BFE+3
BFE
LIDAR SURVEY
113.95 113.92 113.89 113.84 113.81 113.78 113.76 113.71 113.66 113.59 113.53 113.47 113.40 113.30 113.22 113.14 113.08 113.06 113.04 113.01 113.00 112.98 112.97 112.95 112.93 112.90
116.95 116.92 116.89 116.84 116.81 116.78 116.76 116.71 116.66 116.59 116.53 116.47 116.40 116.30 116.22 116.14 116.08 116.06 116.04 116.01 116.00 115.98 115.97 115.95 115.93 115.90
-0.09 -0.24 -0.13 -0.19 -0.33 -0.31 -0.29 -0.29 -0.27 -0.29 -0.22 -0.09 -0.20 -0.06 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.23 0.13 0.06 0.11 -0.01 0.13 0.07 -0.01 -0.05
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-110
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
5
0
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
9
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
FLOOD SIDE
PROTECTED SIDE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
1
1
Page C2-15
e
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

U
S
G
S

©

2
0
1
7

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

28
2
+
5
0
28
5
+
0
0
28
7
+
5
0
29
0
+
0
0
29
2
+
5
0
29
5
+
0
0
29
5
+
3
6
JACO
B

B
R
A
N
C
H
JA
C
O
B

B
R
A
N
C
H
US 2289ALAMAC DR.
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
280+00 281+00 282+00 283+00 284+00 285+00 286+00 287+00 288+00 289+00 290+00 291+00 292+00 293+00 294+00 295+00 296+00 297+00 298+00 299+00 300+00
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BFE+3
BFE
LIDAR SURVEY
112.88 112.88 112.87 112.87 112.87 112.86 112.86 112.86 112.85 112.85 112.85 112.84 112.84 112.83 112.83 112.83
115.88 115.88 115.87 115.87 115.87 115.86 115.86 115.86 115.85 115.85 115.85 115.84 115.84 115.83 115.83 115.83
-0.33 -0.18 -0.22 -0.24 -0.15 -0.17 -0.06 -0.14 -0.39 -0.32 -0.26 -0.28 -0.34 -0.43 -10.84 -1.83
LEGEND:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION +3' (BFE+3)
LIDAR SURVEY
GROUND SURVEY
C-111
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
SO
L
I
C
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

N
O
.
:
DW
N

B
Y
:

C
K
D

B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
1
D
2 3
C
4 5
A
B
DA
T
E
:
FI
L
E

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
SI
Z
E
:
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D

B
Y
:
PL
O
T

S
C
A
L
E
:

P
L
O
T

D
A
T
E
:
MA
R
K
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T

N
O
.
:
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
DA
T
E

A
P
P
R
.
15
1
5

P
O
Y
D
R
A
S

S
T

S
T
E

2
7
0
0
NE
W

O
R
L
E
A
N
S
,

L
A

7
0
1
1
2
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
AN
S
I

D
CI
T
Y

O
F

L
U
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
NO
T
E
D
NA
60
5
4
8
4
7
7
NA
AE
C
O
M

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
No
.

6
0
5
4
8
4
4
7
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:
NO
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N

F
L
O
O
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
21
5

S

C
E
D
A
R

S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
M
B
E
R
T
O
N
,

N
C

2
8
3
5
8
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
7
PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PROFILE
SCALE: 1" = 100'
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
7
5
+
0
0
SH
E
E
T

C
-
1
0
6
200'100'050'100'
1"= 100'
FLOOD
SIDE
PROTECTED
SIDE
Page C2-16
C3 Calibration
Results
Page C3-1

Table 1. Roughness coefficients used for calibration trial runs
NLCD
Classification Base N Min.
Value
Max.
Value
Final
Calibrated N
11 Open Water 0.03 0.025 0.033 0.033
21 Developed, Open
Space 0.013 0.01 0.016 0.016
22 Developed, Low
Intensity 0.05 0.038 0.063 0.063
23 Developed,
Medium Intensity 0.075 0.056 0.094 0.094
24 Developed, High
Intensity 0.1 0.075 0.125 0.125
31 Barren Land 0.03 0.025 0.035
41 Deciduous Forest 0.12 0.1 0.16
42 Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.1 0.16
43 Mixed Forest 0.12 0.1 0.16
52 Scrub/Shrub 0.05 0.035 0.07
71 Grassland
Herbaceous 0.03 0.025 0.035
81 Pasture/Hay 0.04 0.03 0.05
82 Cultivated Crops 0.035 0.025 0.045 0.045
90 Woody Wetlands 0.1 0.08 0.15 0.15
95
Emergent
Herbaceous
Wetland
0.1 0.075 0.15
Channel 0.045 0.035 0.05 Override
Region 0.065
Area Upstream of
Gate 0.05
Black's Tire and
Auto Service 0.1
I-95 0.013
Ponds 0.03 0.033
Railroad Area 0.02
Wetland Upstream
of I-95 0.1
Wooded Area 0.12

Page C3-2

Hurricane Florence Calibration Results at USGS Gage Location
Table 2. Hurricane Florence water surface elevations for calibration trial runs.
Water Surface Elevation (ft)
Gage
Peak Base n Final
119.69 120.02 120.63

Table 3. Hurricane Florence peak discharges for calibration trial runs.
Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Gage
Peak Base n Final
17,100 16,092 15,877

Figure 1- Hurricane Florence hydrographs for calibration trial runs.

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
9/
1
3
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
9/
1
5
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
9/
1
7
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
9/
1
9
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
9/
2
1
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
9/
2
3
/2
0
1
8

0
:
0
0
Fl
o
w

Ra
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Time
Observed
Base n
Final
Page C3-3

Hurricane Matthew Verification Results at USGS Gage Location
Table 4. Hurricane Matthew water surface elevations for verification.
Water Surface Elevation (ft)
Gage Peak Verification
119.36 120.42

Table 5. Hurricane Matthew peak discharges for verification
Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Gage Peak Verification
14,600 14,924

Figure 2. Hurricane Matthew hydrographs for verification run.

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
9/30/2016 0:00 10/5/2016 0:00 10/10/2016 0:00 10/15/2016 0:00 10/20/2016 0:00
Fl
ow

R
a
t
e

(
c
f
s
)
Time
Observed
Verification
Page C3-4
C4. Inundation Maps
Page C4-1

Figure C4-1 – Water depths (ft) for the 100YR flood event during the Scenario - Without Gate.

Page C4-2

Figure C4-2 – Water depths (ft) for the 100YR flood event during the Scenario – With Gate and I-95 raised

Page C4-3

Figure C4-3 – Water depths (ft) for the 500YR flood event during the Scenario - Without Gate.

Page C4-4

Figure C4-4 – Water depths (ft) for the 500YR flood event during the Scenario – With Gate and I-95 raised.

Page C4-5

Figure C4-5 – Water depths (ft) for the 1000YR flood event during the Scenario - Without Gate.

Page C4-6

Figure C4-6 – Water depths (ft) for the 1000YR flood event during the Scenario – With Gate and I-95 raised.
Page C4-7

1 | 1.0 | 16 March 2020
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report

Wind Wave Analysis
Page D1.0

FIGURES FOR WIND SET-UP AND WAVE RUNUP CALCULATIONS

Figure D-1. Isotachs showing wind speeds with a recurrence interval of 2 years over the
United States (Thorn, 1968)
Page D1-1

Figure D-2 Table for overland to over water conversion of wind speeds from USACE, 1997

Figure D-3 Chart for converting wind speeds between various averaging intervals from USACE,
1989
Page D1-2

Figure D-4 Hindcasting Charts for Deep water Wave Characteristics from USACE, 1989

Figure D-5 Hindcasting Charts for Shallow water Wave Characteristics from USACE, 1989
Page D1-3

Electronic Attachments
Items submitted electronically are:

1. E1 – Field Data
a. F1 – Photo Log
2. E2 – Hydrologic Analysis
a. E2.1 – HEC-HMS Model
b. E2.2 – Design Flood Hydrographs
c. E2.3 – Calibration and Verification Spreadsheets
d. E2.4 – Rainfall Hyetographs and Thiessen Polygon Weights
e. E2.5 – StreamStats Reports
f. E2.6 – USGS Gage Data
g. E2.7 – Hydrograph Sensitivity
3. E3 – Hydraulic Analysis
a. E3.1 – Final HEC-RAS Model
b. E3.2 – Calibration Runs
c. E3.3 – Hydraulic Structure Data
4. E4 – Flood Frequency Analysis
a. E4.1 – Gage Data Record Extension
b. E4.2 – PeakFQ Analysis
c. E4.3 – Regional Regression Weighted Peak Flowrates

Page E1-1

1 | 1.0 | 9 January 2023
Atkins | West Lumberton Flood Gate H&H Report

© SNC-Lavalin except where stated otherwise
Atkins North America
1616 East Millbrook RoadRaleigh, NC
27609
Ken Hunu, PE, DWRE, PMP, CFM
[e-mail]
USFWS NWI Map
Total Wetlands Area Map
USACE Correspondence
Laclaire

R
d
SESE
H
i
l
t
o
n

S
t
CoxRd
Heste
r

D
r
W

5
t
h
St
Hec t o r M ac l ean Hwy
Hecto r Ma c l ean Hw y
VF
W

R
d
H a c k e t t S t
C
ivita
n

R
d
Laclaire

R
d
Cr y s t a l R d
He c t or

M
ac l ea n Hwy
SE
VFW

R
d
No
rr
i
s

S
t
Nation
al

A
v
e
Reservoir

S
t
B u r ke

S
t
Co
x
Rd
Hacke
tt

S
t
Se
als
St
Crys tal

R
d
W 5t h S t W 5th St
He ctor

M
a
clean

H
wy
West Lumberton Flood Gate - NWI Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,
[e-mail], NC CGIA, Maxar, Esri Community Maps
Contributors, State of North Carolina DOT, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri,
HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA,
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, EPA OEI
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
WLFG Project Action Area
550 VFW Rd #938189443052
2306 W 5th St #938189201500
2400 Cox Rd #938179684407
2460 Cox Rd #938179143700
VFW & Hackett #938280300700
Railroads
December 1, 2023
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
West Lumberton Flood Gate – Total Wetlands Area Map

1
Gievers, Andrea
From:Gievers, Andrea
Sent:Monday, December 20, 2021 12:06 PM
To:Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Hair, Sarah E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); [e-mail]; Sachan, Amit
Subject:FW: West Lumberton Flood Gate Project (Previous Correspondence)
Attachments:I-95 Flood Gate Lidar.pdf; WLFG CONCEPTUAL Plan 11.3.21.pdf
Hello: 

Please see the email below from August 18, 2020 regarding the West Lumberton Flood Gate project.  Matt Cusack is the 
contact along with Amit Sachan at Atkins, cc’d on this email.  The original design was located on the eastern side and the 
current proposal is for the western side of I‐95.  I am attaching the conceptual plan as well.  As you can see in the emails 
below, the proposed project is being conducted in concert with the I‐95 widening team.  Please let me know if you have 
any questions.  Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea 

Andrea Gievers, JD, MSEL, ERM 
Environmental SME 
Community Development 
NC Office of Recovery and Resiliency 
[e-mail] 
(845) 682‐1700 

From: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:26 AM 
To: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>; Mickey Sugg <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT waters of the US Delineations 

Mr. Cusack, 

Based on the Lidar Image and Soils Map for the site it does appear that the proposed project area will not be in wetlands 
or Waters of the US.  

I can write a No Permit Required, however I must issue an Approved JD with it. I’ve attached a Jurisdictional 
Determination Request Form for you to fill out. If you already have one filled out, please send it to me. 

Respectfully, 

Gary 

From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:33 PM 
To: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Sugg, Mickey T CIV USARMY CESAW 
2
(USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT waters of the US Delineations 

Gary/Mickey, 

I issued a PJD for the NC DOT I‐6064 project (I‐95 widening). If the City of Lumberton is asking for a No permit required, 
then I believe you would need to do an AJD for the project area. I believe the site is all uplands based on the PJD and 
information provided by Matt Cusack. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Liz 

From: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:22 PM 
To: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Boot, Robert A <[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Huff, Christy 
<[e-mail]>; Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT waters of the US 
Delineations 

Greetings Mr. Beecher, 

I am following up with regards to this email below. I also tried to reach your office voicemail, which instructed me to 
correspond with you via email. 

There are more project details below, but the essential question is whether you will agree to use the NCDOT data from I‐
6064 to issue a “No Permit Required” form for the City of Lumberton’s floodgate project, or whether independent 
project review is required. The NCDOT data is current, and has recently been reviewed by Ms. Hair. 

Please let me know if you would like to setup a Webex to screenshare and discuss this request and the associated 
information we have that is pertinent. 

Thanks! 

Best, 
Matt 

Matt Cusack PWS
Senior Project Manager/Scientist, Technical Professional Organization
North America
Engineering, Design, and Project Management

919-431-5255

919-800-1234 

1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27609
3

 Company     

From: Cusack, Matthew T  
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 8:52 AM 
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
Cc: Boot, Robert A <[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Huff, Christy 
<[e-mail]>; Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Subject: City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT waters of the US Delineations 

Greetings, 

For the benefit of this email, please see a screen capture below for an overlap area between a proposed natural 
resources Study Area related to the City of Lumberton’s flood gate project and the I‐6064 corridor that Liz Hair is 
currently reviewing for NCDOT. The flood gate project is possibly new to USACE regulatory, but Civil Works has been 
involved. The proposed floodgate is located where the CSX rail line and Cox Rd/VFW Road passes under I‐95 centered at 
34.6227789,‐79.0329097. 

We understand that Liz has been working with NCDOT to evaluate delineations performed by their consultants for I‐
6064. Through coordination with NCDOT, Atkins and the City of Lumberton have determined that the entire natural 
resources Study Area for flood gate project has already been evaluated for I‐6064. Further, the entirety of the City’s 
Study Area did not have any waters of the U.S. features. Please see the Study Area for the flood gate project (red outline 
below) appears to contain no waters of the US. Correspondence with NCDOT is also provided below. 

To support everyone’s goal of avoiding overlapping work between these projects, the City of Lumberton would like to 
rely upon NCDOT’s findings for the flood gate project once Liz has completed her review. This would include the PJD and 
NRTR prepared by NCDOT (when available) as basis for the environmental documentation related to waters of the U.S. 
for the proposed floodgate. All we need right now is agreement from Gary that he will consider those resources when 
they are available, and will be willing to issue a “No Permit Required” determination for the City’s Study Area if the 
documents approved by Liz for NCDOT end up demonstrating what is explained in this email.  

Please let me know if that is an agreeable plan. If you have any questions, please let Amit Sachan and/or me know and 
we can set up a teleconference to better describe this situation. I am available to coordinate as necessary. 

Best, 
Matt 

Yellow is I‐6064 Study Limits with blue/white depicting waters of the US as identified by NV5. Red is the natural 
resources study area for the City of Lumberton floodgate project 
4

Matt Cusack PWS
Senior Project Manager/Scientist, Technical Professional Organization
North America
Engineering, Design, and Project Management

919-431-5255

919-800-1234 

1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27609

Company     

From: Rerko, James J <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:37 AM 
To: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>; Huff, Christy <[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Boot, Robert A <[e-mail]>; Heather Wallace <[e-mail]>; Nick Mountcastle 
<[e-mail]>; Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Subject: RE: [External] City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT Wetland Delineations 
5

Matt 

I am fine with the plan. We are getting together with the Corps and DWR virtually to start the review today.  

James J. Rerko, PWS 
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Engineer 
North Carolina Department of Transportation 

910 364-0834 office 
910 486 1959 fax 
[e-mail] Email 

1000 Transportation Drive 
Fayetteville, NC 28302 

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the 
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 
_____________________________________________________________ 

From: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 7:43 PM 
To: Huff, Christy <[e-mail]>; Rerko, James J <[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Boot, Robert A <[e-mail]>; Heather Wallace <[e-mail]>; Nick Mountcastle 
<[e-mail]>; Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Subject: [External] City of Lumberton floodgate project overlapped by I‐6064 DRAFT Wetland Delineations 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
[e-mail] 

Greetings, 

For the benefit of this email, please see a screen capture of the overlap area between the I‐6064 corridor and the 
natural resources Study Area for the City of Lumberton’s flood gate project. 

I understand that NCDOT and it’s consultants are waiting on a field concurrence meeting with the USACE to approve the 
delineation for I‐6064. I am also curious if the other environmental work, specifically the protected species surveys, 
identified anything that isn’t resolved at this location in Lumberton where the rail line and Cox Rd/VFW Road passes 
under I‐95 centered at 34.6227789,‐79.0329097. 

To support everyone’s goal of avoiding overlapping work between these projects, we would like to rely upon NCDOT’s 
findings for our project. This would include the PJD and NRTR prepared for NCDOT (when available) as our basis for our 
environmental documentation. Since my understanding is that the City’s Study Area (red outline below) appears to 
6
contain no waters of the US or protected species (assumption), this seems to be the logical choice. Obviously, we don’t 
need NCDOT’s documents at this time, but I wanted to confirm there isn’t an issue of the City proceeding in this manner. 
If NCDOT is amenable to this approach, Atkins will reach out to the NCDOT and private Corps reps and confirm that our 
project will be relying upon NCDOT’s findings and environmental documentation and that our project has no impacts.  

Please let me know if that is an agreeable plan. If you have any questions, please let Amit Sachan and/or me know and 
we can coordinate as necessary. 

Best, 
Matt 

Yellow is I‐6064 Study Limits with blue/white depicting waters of the US as identified by NV5. Red is the natural 
resources study area for the City of Lumberton project 

Matt Cusack PWS
Senior Project Manager/Scientist, Technical Professional Organization
North America
Engineering, Design, and Project Management  

919-431-5255

919-800-1234 

1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27609  

7

Company     

From: Brian Yamamoto <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:46 PM 
To: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Huff, Christy <[e-mail]>; Nick Mountcastle <[e-mail]>; Rerko, James J 
<[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Heather Wallace <[e-mail]>; Boot, 
Robert A <[e-mail]>; Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: I‐6064 DRAFT Wetland Delineations 

OK Amit. 

Sounds like there is no way right now to put a schedule on that, but we will stay tuned to what is happening with COVID‐
19 situation. 

Brian Yamamoto, PE | Senior Project Development Engineer | NV5 
6750 Tryon Road | Cary, NC 27518 | P: 919.858.1865 | C: 919.606.9716  

Electronic Communications Disclaimer 

From: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:35 PM 
To: Brian Yamamoto <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Huff, Christy <[e-mail]>; Nick Mountcastle <[e-mail]>; Rerko, James J 
<[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Heather Wallace <[e-mail]>; Boot, 
Robert A <[e-mail]>; Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: I‐6064 DRAFT Wetland Delineations 

Thanks for sending these over, Brian. Please let us know when these have been verified by the USACE. Regards 

Amit Sachan, PE, CFM
Project Director, Public & Private Business Unit
Tel: [phone] Cell: [phone] 
Atkins, member of the SNC-Lavalin Group
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27519 

From: Brian Yamamoto <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:11 PM 
8
To: Sachan, Amit <[e-mail]>; Boot, Robert A <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Huff, Christy <[e-mail]>; Nick Mountcastle <[e-mail]>; Rerko, James J 
<[e-mail]>; Price, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Heather Wallace <[e-mail]> 
Subject: I‐6064 DRAFT Wetland Delineations 

Hey guys, 

See attached DRAFT delineations for the I‐6064 (I‐95 widening from Exit 13 to Exit 22 in Robeson County near 
Lumberton). These probably cover your study area for the Lumberton Floodgate Project that you are currently working 
on. Because of the COVID‐19 situation, the USACE is restricted from doing field work. As such, these delineations are 
unverified at this stage. I don’t know if you all were planning to conduct delineations as part of your project, but this will 
help USACE to avoid dual delineations in overlapping areas. We plan to have these delineations (conducted by NV5 
biologists) verified as soon as restrictions are lifted on the USACE. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Brian Yamamoto, PE | Senior Project Development Engineer | NV5 
6750 Tryon Road | Cary, NC 27518 | P: 919.858.1865 | C: 919.606.9716  

Electronic Communications Disclaimer 

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding. The ultimate parent company of the Atkins
Group is SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. Registered in Québec, Canada No. 059041-0. Registered Office 455 boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, Montréal, Québec, Canada,
H2Z 1Z3. A list of Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at
Blockedhttp://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-details

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.