RFQ2026_104 3.pdf

A

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

ON

Stormwater Management Improvements to the

Gillum Drive Drainage Basin

Submitted as part of an application for the

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Area Development Program

FY 2026 Infrastructure Grant

Preliminary Engineering Report – Gillum Drive Drainage Basin

2 July 2026

Executive Summary

Project Name: Gillum Drive Drainage Basin Stormwater Management Improvements

Applicant: Whitfield County Board of Commissioners

County: Whitfield

State: Georgia

Engineering Consultant: Atlas, Inc. (Surveying and Hydrology)

Date: July 7, 2026

The proposed Stormwater Management Improvements Project will improve public infrastructure serving the Gillum Drive Drainage Basin, eliminate chronic flooding, reduce economic losses caused by stormwater events, and increase the capacity of the community to support commercial and industrial growth.

The project consists of the replacement of undersized storm drainage infrastructure, construction of regional detention facilities, stabilization of eroded channels, installation of water-quality improvements, and reconstruction of associated roadway drainage systems.

The project directly supports the Appalachian Regional Commission's Area Development Program by removing infrastructure constraints that currently limit economic development, business expansion, and investment within the community.

The proposed improvements will support existing and future industrial and commercial development in the area by:

• Reducing recurring flooding that affects businesses, industries, public facilities, and transportation corridors.

• Improving access to employment centers.

• Protecting public infrastructure investments.

• Improving emergency response and reducing maintenance costs.

• Increasing community resilience to severe weather events.

Estimated Total Project Cost:

$ 6,950,000

Requested ARC Funding:

$ 2,000,000

Whitfield County Matching Funds:

$ 4,950,000

3 July 2026

Project Purpose and Need

Existing Conditions

The project area encompasses approximately 7.0 acres within the jurisdiction of Whitfield County, Georgia. The size of the overall drainage basin is approximately 400 acres.

The existing drainage system consists of a mixture of box culverts, pipe culverts, and open channels. Most of this infrastructure was constructed between 1960 and 1980. It no longer provides adequate hydraulic capacity to convey safely the runoff generated by current development conditions.

The affected area is an older manufacturing area but it is still active and most, if not all, buildings are occupied with active industry. The buildings and other development in the area pre-date current stormwater management requirements.

Four local (County) roads and State Route 71 are affected and are overtopped by stormwater runoff several times per year, creating dangerous conditions for motorists.

Private property owners experience runoff entering their parking lots, loading areas, and buildings during these rain events. These conditions did not exist when the buildings were originally built.

The stormwater management issues are influenced mainly by three things:

1. A large manufacturing facility at the downstream end of the project was built over the stream by piping it back in the early 1960s, before any regulations existed regarding this type of activity. The pipe is several hundred feet long and was sized for the existing flow of the stream at the time without consideration of future development and increased runoff upstream. This pipe is now a restriction to the increased runoff from later development in the upper reaches of the basin.

2. A large residential development was built in the 1990s, before stormwater management regulations were in effect, at the upper end of the drainage basin. The runoff from this development flows unrestricted into the stream channel in the affected area. The volume of stormwater runoff is much higher than pre-development.

3. Other drainage structures in the area, including public- and privately-owned culverts and pipes, are old, damaged, and/or undersized for current flows.

Documented effects of stormwater management deficiencies include:

• Repetitive roadway flooding

• Business access interruptions

4 July 2026

• Flooding of commercial property, buildings, and vehicles

• Flooding of industrial facilities

• Damage to municipal infrastructure

• Streambank erosion

• Sedimentation

• Deteriorated drainage structures

• Inadequate detention capacity

Storm events have resulted in recurring transportation disruptions, emergency repairs, property damage, and lost economic productivity.

Whitfield County contracted with Atlas, Inc. to perform a topographic survey and hydraulic analysis of the basin and its existing drainage infrastructure. This analysis has led to the sizing of new infrastructure to handle the higher runoff volumes from development in the basin.

Further study is needed to determine if detention facilities could be helpful in reducing the sizes of the new piping and culverts to be installed.

Economic Development Impact

The project area contains existing industrial employers, commercial businesses, a small number of residences, public transportation infrastructure, and utility infrastructure. There is planned industrial or commercial development on the large former manufacturing site between Gillum Drive and Hollywood Drive.

Poor stormwater management infrastructure has become a limiting factor for continued economic growth and the preservation of existing industry. Periodic flooding has resulted in significant negative impacts which have strained existing businesses and made planning for future industrial growth or redevelopment difficult. Some of the impacts include:

• Temporary business closures

• Restricted customer access

• Product shipping delays or canceled orders

• Employee travel disruptions

• Damage to commercial property and inventory losses

• Increased insurance costs

• Deferred private investment

Completion of this project will remove these infrastructure constraints and improve the area's competitiveness for new business investment.

5 July 2026

Project Goals

The goal of the project is to preserve jobs and manufacturing activity in the area by managing stormwater runoff up to the 1% chance (100-year) rain event without significant flooding impacts to both road infrastructure and private properties.

A completely engineered design of stormwater conveyances and, potentially, detention facilities would achieve the following objectives:

• Eliminate repetitive flooding of buildings and structures

• Protect existing businesses

• Support future industrial recruitment

• Improve transportation infrastructure reliability and resilience

• Reduce maintenance costs for both public and private facilities

• Improve public safety

• Enhance environmental quality by restoring stream channels to natural cross-sectional shape

Preliminary Engineering Investigations

The affected area extends from Cleveland Hwy. (SR 71) on the north end to Gillum Drive on the south. (See Appendix A-Site location map) Streets within this zone include York St., McFalls St., and Hollywood St. Drainage flows generally from north to south through this area, passing through box or pipe culverts under the streets and open channels in between.

The exceptions to this flow condition are at the extreme northern and southern ends of the area.

At the north end, a box culvert has, at some time in the unknown past, been connected to the box culvert running under Cleveland Hwy. This box is on private property and is actually smaller in size than the one under the road, which restricts flow. At the south end, where flows are greater, there is a single corrugated metal pipe with a length of approximately 750 feet. This pipe flows under privately owned property and under a building pad. The building is no longer there, but the concrete pad is still in use as a materials loading/staging area. The pipe has a diameter of only 66 inches on the inlet end and 72 inches on the outlet end. There is great flow restriction and a major source of flooding problems at this location.

Whitfield County engaged Atlas, Inc. to perform the following tasks in order to develop preliminary design alternatives and provide an early look at potential property impacts:

• Topographic survey

• Watershed delineation

• Hydrologic modeling

• Hydraulic analysis

• Existing infrastructure assessment

6 July 2026

Engineering analyses utilized current rainfall frequency data, accepted hydrologic methodologies, and applicable state stormwater design standards. Modeling was performed to estimate the extents of flooding with current infrastructure under two scenarios: a 25-year storm event (4 percent chance) and a 100-year (1 percent chance) storm event. Graphic representations of this modeling can be viewed in the attachments.

Whitfield County’s code relating to street drainage infrastructure requires culverts to be sized for at least the 25-year event. Atlas calculated the appropriate sizes for box culverts under each street and ran the model again for a 100-year storm event. With infrastructure sized for a 25-year storm, the extents of the flooding were virtually unchanged from the existing condition. The depth of flooding may be lower, but the footprint was virtually the same.

At Whitfield County’s request, Atlas increased the size of the potential new culverts to accommodate the flow from a 100-year storm event. Modeling then showed almost all flooding to be eliminated. One small parking lot still showed inundation, but no buildings were flooded under this scenario.

Although the 100-year storm infrastructure appears to eliminate flooding, the sizes of the box culverts make the project more expensive than previously estimated. Further exploration of alternatives is needed to determine if the same results can be achieved more economically.

7 July 2026

Alternatives Analysis

Alternative 1 – Limited Rehabilitation (Not recommended)

Scope

• Pipe replacement to improve water flow into and through road culverts

• Culvert repairs and cleaning to improve flow

• Ditch cleaning to improve flow

Advantages

• Lower initial cost

Disadvantages

• Does not resolve watershed-wide deficiencies.

• Minimal economic benefit.

• Continued flooding risk.

Limited rehabilitation of existing infrastructure does not address many issues, most notably the restrictions at the northern and southern ends of the project. These were discussed in more detail in Preliminary Engineering Investigations. This alternative also does not address street culverts that are drastically undersized for the flows seen during a heavy storm event.

Alternative 2 – Comprehensive Stormwater Improvements with infrastructure sized for the 25-year storm event (Not recommended)

Scope

• Replace undersized storm sewer culverts with concrete box culverts.

• Improve flow in ditch channel by removing overgrown vegetation

Advantages

• Meets minimum requirements of County Code

• Supports economic growth

• Some flood reduction (depth)

• Improved resiliency

8 July 2026

Disadvantages

• Does not resolve all watershed-wide deficiencies.

• Continued flooding risk, including significant property damage, for any rain event heavier than the 25-year (4 percent chance) storm.

• Extents of flooding are virtually the same as existing conditions, although depth of flooding would be reduced.

• Construction impacts are virtually no less than they are for the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 3 – Comprehensive Stormwater Improvements with infrastructure sized for the 100-year storm event (Preferred Alternative)

Scope

• Replace undersized storm sewer culverts with a combination of larger concrete box culverts and open channels.

• Size all infrastructure for the 100-year (1 percent chance) storm event

• Explore the potential for stormwater detention in the basin

• Improve flow in existing open channel by removing overgrown vegetation

• Improve capacity of existing channel by restoring to natural cross-sectional shape

• Stabilize streambanks.

Advantages

• Achieves almost complete elimination of flooding up to the 100-year event

• Supports economic growth through retained jobs and future development potential

• Greatly improved resiliency of both public and private facilities

• Exceeds requirements of County Code

• Protects life and property

Disadvantages

• Cost

• Property impacts, mainly during construction

Environmental Considerations

Preliminary environmental review indicates that project impacts are expected to be minimal and can be mitigated through normal permitting procedures. However, Whitfield County understands that grant requirements would include NEPA compliance. We would utilize an

9 July 2026 environmental consultant to meet these requirements during design, agency review/permitting, and construction.

Project Readiness

Whitfield County engaged Atlas, Inc. to gather topographic data, perform hydrologic studies and drainage modeling, and estimate the sizes of box culverts throughout the affected drainage area.

To date, Atlas and Whitfield County have completed the following tasks:

• Topographic survey

• Hydraulic/hydrologic analysis

• Preliminary infrastructure sizing

• Flood modeling under different storm event scenarios

• Interviewed impacted property owners to gain further information about flood events

• Gained support of property owners to provide easements across private property

• Developed a funding strategy

If the grant is awarded, pending activities include:

• Procurement of engineering design and environmental services

• Development of final design and construction documents

• Environmental review and permitting

• Easement acquisition

• Construction bidding

The project is expected to be construction-ready within approximately 12 months following grant award.

Opinion of Probable Cost

A more detailed breakdown of estimated cost can be found in Appendix E.

Item Estimated Cost

Engineering Design and Environmental $400,000 Easement Acquisition (Legal Fees Only) $50,000 Construction $6,500,000 Total Project Cost $6,950,000

10 July 2026

Funding Plan

Whitfield County voters passed a local 4-year SPLOST in 2024. The Gillum Drive drainage project was included in that referendum. Whitfield County’s matching funds for this grant would come from SPLOST proceeds.

Funding Source Amount

ARC $2,000,000

Local Match $4,950,000

Total $6,950,000

Operations and Maintenance

Upon project completion, Whitfield county will own, operate, and maintain all stormwater infrastructure as part of its MS4 inventory. Maintenance of the system will be performed by the County’s Public Works Department.

Annual maintenance and operating costs will be incorporated into Whitfield County’s annual operating budget.

11 July 2026

Appendix A - Project Location Map

12 July 2026

Appendix B – Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

Stormwater System Whitfield County, GA

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Stormwater System at North Oaks/Gillum Drive Whitfield County, GA

Prepared For:

Whitfield County

Department of Water Resources

201 S Hamilton St

Dalton, GA 30720

Prepared By:

Atlas

407 E Maple Street, Suite 107

Cumming, GA 30040

(770) 781-5507

COA – PEF #7665

Submitted: 1/27/2026

Revised:

Introduction

This report presents a hydrologic & hydraulic study for the reconstruction and improvement of a stormwater drainage network in Whitfield County, Georgia. The area under study is located between Cleveland Highway, Fleming Street, and US Highway 41. The area experiences frequent and extreme flooding. The area is developed, containing commercial and industrial businesses and single-family residential housing. The storm drainage network primarily conveys runoff from the north of the site to Mill Creek, which is located to the south. According to the

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the site is not located in a regulated floodplain.

The scope of this project is to determine the hydrologic parameters of the local drainage network and estimate the flow rates at various points, create a hydraulic model of the site to determine the level of service, and provide recommendations for improvements to the drainage network.

Data Collection

Site Visit

A site visit was performed in January 2022 to inspect the conditions of the system. The culverts convey flow during dry periods and water damage is present along the length of the main drainage channel. Many of the corrugated metal culverts are partially crushed. Photos of the site are included in Appendix D.

Field Work

A topographic and as-built survey of the area was performed by Atlas. The survey is included as a separate document in this submittal. Results obtained in this study are strictly based on the information from these plans.

Previous Studies

A technical memo was submitted by Atlas in March 2022. The concept report involved replacing many of the existing culverts with box culverts sized to pass the 25-year storm. The culverts were sized in the modeling software Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis, which is primarily designed to model closed pipe networks. However, due to recent reports of the severe flooding issues in the area, the mathematical model HEC-RAS, which specializes in modeling open channel flow, was deemed more appropriate. Thus, this study is original in its conception and the results contained in it are correspondent to the information provided and parameters adopted during the hydrologic and hydraulic simulations.

Historic Data

Historic rainfall for the site is not available. Rainfall data was obtained from the Atlas 14 dataset, published by NOAA. Parameters of the drainage basin were computed using publicly available data from federal and state resources. All sources of information are listed in the following sections.

Project Narrative

The Whitfield County Department of Water Resources has identified the area as “in immediate need of stormwater improvements.” Flooding issues in the area are widespread, resulting in flood damages to most of the local properties. The majority of the runoff that enters the system comes from the area north of the site, which is almost entirely either single-family residential housing or undeveloped woods.

The existing storm drainage network contains a variety of culvert sizes, ranging from a 60” CMP to a combined 36” and 48” CMP culvert to an 8’x6’ concrete box culvert. Within the site, the channel is relatively shallow. To effectively convey significant rainfall events, such as the 25- or

100-yr design storms, the entire network of culverts along the main drainage channel will have to be replaced.

The existing drainage channel is the most viable pathway to convey runoff. Alternative designs were considered, including runoff detention upstream of the site and diversion of runoff from the north around the site, but these did not prove viable.

Location

The affected area is located in Whitfield County, Georgia between Cleveland Highway, Fleming

Street, and US Highway 41. The channel runs north to south at the site. Figure 1 shows an aerial image and the location of the site in the USGS quadrangle.

Topography

All elevations in this study are listed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). The area to the north of the site drains to the south through the drainage channel. The overall slope of the area is relatively shallow, between 1-2%. The slope of the drainage channel varies significantly due to erosion and sedimentation. Figure 2 shows the site topography in existing conditions.

Water Bodies

The storm drainage network carries a tributary of Mill Creek.

Flooding

According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel No. 13313C0137D issued on

September 19, 2007 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Georgia

DFIRM Effective Map for the same panel, the site is not located within a regulated floodplain.

Figure 3 shows the location of the site on the flood maps.

Hydrology

The NRCS TR-55 hydrologic method was used to determine peak discharges for the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-yr design storms.

Drainage Areas

There are 14 drainage areas associated with the drainage network. The most significant drainage area is E1 with 232.50 acres, which is the offsite drainage area to the north of the site that contributes most of the discharge in the channel. E1 discharges into the culvert that runs under

Cleveland Highway. E2 with 26.58 acres, along with E1, discharges into the culvert that runs under

York Street. E1 and E2 along with E3 with 0.82 acres, E4 with 1.61 acres, and E5 with 9.34 acres discharges drain into the culvert under McFalls Street. Those drainage areas, along with E6 with

2.11 acres and E7a with 2.44 acres drain into the culvert under Hollywood Drive. E7 with 0.98 acres, E7b with 0.90 acres, and E7c with 4.19 acres are added south of Hollywood Drive, then all flow is carried under the distribution warehouse connected to Gillum Drive. E8 with 38.77 acres, E8a with 49.04 acres, E8b with 11.33 acres, and E8c with 17.35 acres discharge to the outfall of the culvert that runs under the distribution warehouse.

The culvert under US Highway 41 carries runoff from all drainage areas associated with the site.

Figure 4 shows the drainage areas.

Curve Numbers

Curve numbers were estimated using information from the field visit, surveyed data, and aerial imagery. Curve number values were obtained from Table 3.1.5-1 of the Georgia Stormwater

Management Manual (GSMM). See Appendix A.

Travel Time

Travel time was estimated using the methodology outlined in the TR-55 and the GSMM. See

Appendix A.

Precipitation

Rainfall data used in this study were obtained from the Atlas 14 database, published by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Rainfall depths for the 24-hour storm in various return periods are shown in Table 1. Appendix A includes the rainfall data as obtained from NOAA.

Table 1: Precipitation Depth (inches) from NOAA Atlas 14

Duration (hr) 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr

24 3.74 5.26 6.22 6.97 7.72

Results

Peak discharges were computed for the drainage network. The results of the analysis are included as Appendix B. A summary of the discharges is included as Table 2.

Table 2: Basin Summary

Basin # Area

(ac)

Curve

Number

Time of

Concentration (min) 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr

E1 232.50 82 20.63 362.6 608.7 767.9 893.0 1018.4

J1 (E1) - - - 362.6 608.7 767.9 893.0 1018.4

E2 26.58 93 6.35 98.5 143.0 170.9 192.6 214.2

J2 (J1+E2) - - - 396.0 656.8 825.2 957.6 1090.1

E3 0.82 98 6.25 3.3 4.6 5.5 6.2 6.8

J3 (J2+E3) - - - 397.1 658.4 827.1 959.6 1092.4

E4 1.61 94 1.75 6.1 8.7 10.4 11.7 13.0

J4 (J3+E4) - - - 399.1 661.3 830.6 963.5 1096.7

E5 9.34 89 11.45 24.8 37.9 46.1 52.5 58.8

J5 (J4+E5) - - - 417.4 689.0 864.2 1001.7 1139.5

E6 2.11 91 5.71 7.5 11.1 13.3 15.0 16.8

J6 (J5+E6) - - - 419.9 692.7 868.7 1006.8 1145.2

E7a 2.44 96 4.52 9.4 13.4 15.9 17.9 19.8

J7 (J6+E7a) - - - 425.2 699.3 876.4 1015.8 1155.4

E7 0.98 98 3.97 3.8 5.4 6.3 7.1 7.9

E7b 0.90 89 2.73 3.0 4.5 5.5 6.2 7.0

E7c 4.19 86 6.44 12.3 19.4 23.9 27.4 30.9

J8 (J7+E7+E7b+E7c) - - - 438.1 719.0 900.4 1043.0 1186.0

E8a 49.04 88 17.23 102.7 159.1 194.6 222.2 250.0

E8b 11.33 97 12.34 36.1 51.0 60.4 67.8 75.1

J9a (E8a+E8b) - - - 137.2 209.1 254.4 289.8 325.1

E8c 17.35 95 12.60 52.8 76.1 90.7 102.1 113.5

J9 (J8+J9a+E8c) - - - 628.1 1004.1 1245.6 1435.0 1624.6

E8 38.77 86 17.85 75.9 120.3 148.5 170.5 192.4

J10 (J9+E8) - - - 702.3 1123.1 1393.0 1604.7 1816.5

Hydraulic Analysis

The computer program HEC-RAS 6.0 was used to develop a hydraulic model of the site in existing and proposed conditions.

General Parameters

Coefficients of contraction and expansion were used as recommended by the HEC-RAS

Hydraulic Reference Manual. Thus, coefficients of 0.1 and 0.3 were used for contraction and expansion, respectively, for gradual transitions. The flow regime was assumed to be subcritical because of the slope of the watercourse.

Cross Sections

Cross sections for the model were measured from the field work elaborated by Atlas. Figure 6 shows the location of the cross sections.

Discharges

The discharges for the hydraulic analysis were obtained from the hydrologic analysis presented in the previous section.

Existing Conditions

The hydraulic model was set up using the measured cross sections and the discharges obtained from the hydrologic analysis. Due to the heavy vegetation noted during the site visit, a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.08 was adopted for the channel.

28 cross sections were used to model the main drainage channel in existing conditions. The model shows high water surface elevations due to the capacity of the culverts in the area. Table 3 includes the summary of the results for the 25-year storm in existing conditions. Table 4 includes the results for the 100-year storm in existing conditions.

Table 3: Results for the 25-yr Design Storm in Existing Conditions

River

Sta Profile

Q

Total

Min

Ch El

W.S.

Elev

Crit

W.S.

E.G.

Elev

E.G.

Slope

Vel

Chnl

Flow

Area

Top

Width

Froude

# Chl

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft)

24 25-yr 767.90 702.92 713.45 707.14 713.52 0.00094 2.54 561.62 279.73 0.14

23.9 Culvert

23.7 25-yr 767.90 703.35 712.00 712.07 0.00015 3.15 400.43 258.24 0.19

23.3 25-yr 767.90 703.34 712.00 710.85 712.07 0.00014 3.12 403.51 259.50 0.19

23.1 Culvert

22.7 25-yr 767.90 702.89 710.92 711.12 0.00038 4.87 265.96 206.91 0.30

22.3 25-yr 767.90 702.88 710.92 710.38 711.11 0.00037 4.81 269.14 208.59 0.30

22.1 Culvert

21 25-yr 825.20 700.82 710.95 709.79 711.05 0.00723 3.65 370.10 232.08 0.20

20 25-yr 825.20 702.05 707.80 707.80 710.67 0.10730 13.74 62.14 14.06 1.06

19.5 Culvert

19 25-yr 827.10 702.33 709.58 709.83 0.00848 5.19 272.98 149.63 0.35

18 25-yr 827.10 701.75 709.53 708.27 709.80 0.00718 5.30 275.78 148.60 0.34

17.9 Culvert

17.7 25-yr 830.60 701.26 709.49 709.74 0.00023 4.64 285.84 199.42 0.29

17.3 25-yr 830.60 701.31 709.50 705.87 709.74 0.00023 4.63 287.89 201.90 0.29

16.5 Culvert

16 25-yr 864.20 700.12 707.67 707.79 0.00529 4.17 363.86 173.40 0.27

15 25-yr 864.20 698.31 706.55 703.75 706.76 0.00506 4.55 326.59 173.67 0.29

14.5 Culvert

14 25-yr 868.70 699.24 706.26 706.41 0.00696 4.35 353.76 212.38 0.30

13 25-yr 868.70 697.86 705.13 703.57 705.23 0.00526 3.55 394.26 222.28 0.25

12.5 Culvert

12 25-yr 876.40 697.94 704.75 704.75 705.23 0.00110 7.57 200.24 191.71 0.51

11 25-yr 876.40 697.94 704.75 704.47 705.02 0.00066 6.00 251.86 218.33 0.41

10.5 Culvert

10 25-yr 900.40 696.59 704.32 704.46 0.00599 4.51 410.36 265.97 0.30

9 25-yr 900.40 695.65 704.36 702.68 704.39 0.00245 2.24 644.30 348.88 0.14

8.9 Culvert

8.7 25-yr 900.40 692.83 702.59 702.60 0.00008 1.21 1051.09 534.52 0.07

8.3 25-yr 900.40 692.82 702.59 700.38 702.60 0.00008 1.20 1057.97 536.74 0.07

7.5 Culvert

7 25-yr 1245.60 692.39 699.18 699.18 702.58 0.00349 14.79 84.21 12.40 1.00

6 25-yr 1245.60 691.79 698.50 698.50 701.89 0.00347 14.77 84.36 12.57 1.00

5.5 Culvert

5 25-yr 1393.00 691.98 701.67 701.74 0.00415 3.62 773.93 454.10 0.21

4 25-yr 1393.00 692.00 701.34 701.65 0.00524 5.65 507.04 290.08 0.33

3 25-yr 1393.00 691.01 700.73 696.37 701.47 0.01526 6.87 203.37 33.69 0.40

2.5 Culvert

2 25-yr 1393.00 690.51 698.66 699.93 0.03396 9.07 153.53 22.18 0.61

1 25-yr 1393.00 691.00 699.22 695.92 699.42 0.00500 5.10 509.60 234.93 0.32

Table 4: Results for the 100-yr Design Storm in Existing Conditions

River

Sta Profile

Q

Total

Min

Ch El

W.S.

Elev

Crit

W.S.

E.G.

Elev

E.G.

Slope

Vel

Chnl

Flow

Area

Top

Width

Froude

# Chl

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft) 24 25-yr 1018.40 702.92 713.95 707.81 714.03 0.001082 2.81 714.60 331.00 0.16

23.9 Culvert

23.7 25-yr 1018.40 703.35 712.46 712.52 0.000129 3.08 528.56 301.51 0.18

23.3 25-yr 1018.40 703.34 712.46 711.16 712.52 0.000127 3.05 532.18 302.80 0.18

23.1 Culvert

22.7 25-yr 1018.40 702.89 710.99 711.30 0.000593 6.09 281.54 214.16 0.38

22.3 25-yr 1018.40 702.88 711.00 710.68 711.29 0.000578 6.02 284.83 215.85 0.37

22.1 Culvert

21 25-yr 1090.10 700.82 710.64 710.07 710.91 0.020095 5.96 302.13 201.76 0.34

20 25-yr 1090.10 702.05 709.90 709.90 710.73 0.027571 8.72 204.96 135.22 0.57

19.5 Culvert

19 25-yr 1092.40 702.33 709.88 710.18 0.010480 5.94 319.70 165.26 0.39

18 25-yr 1092.40 701.75 709.79 708.96 710.14 0.009424 6.22 316.83 162.78 0.40

17.9 Culvert

17.7 25-yr 1096.70 701.26 709.74 710.04 0.000291 5.35 338.93 225.65 0.32

17.3 25-yr 1096.70 701.31 709.75 706.80 710.04 0.000290 5.33 341.90 228.51 0.32

16.5 Culvert

16 25-yr 1139.50 700.12 708.17 708.29 0.005317 4.37 455.26 196.43 0.28

15 25-yr 1139.50 698.31 706.85 704.65 707.12 0.006503 5.29 382.49 196.46 0.33

14.5 Culvert

14 25-yr 1145.20 699.24 706.68 706.83 0.006928 4.53 449.09 243.35 0.30

13 25-yr 1145.20 697.86 705.36 703.90 705.49 0.006823 4.15 447.54 242.09 0.29

12.5 Culvert

12 25-yr 1155.40 697.94 705.01 705.01 705.48 0.001129 7.85 254.03 221.22 0.52

11 25-yr 1155.40 697.94 705.14 704.72 705.36 0.000541 5.63 346.17 261.67 0.37

10.5 Culvert

10 25-yr 1186.00 696.59 704.77 704.89 0.005540 4.51 539.42 311.91 0.29

9 25-yr 1186.00 695.65 704.79 702.91 704.83 0.002378 2.28 806.54 392.58 0.14

8.9 Culvert

8.7 25-yr 1186.00 692.83 703.55 703.56 0.000043 0.95 1631.09 670.03 0.05

8.3 25-yr 1186.00 692.82 703.55 700.56 703.56 0.000042 0.94 1640.16 672.44 0.05

7.5 Culvert

7 25-yr 1624.60 692.39 703.43 703.53 0.000139 3.79 801.27 495.30 0.20

6 25-yr 1624.60 691.79 703.49 700.89 703.51 0.000025 1.75 1577.89 671.61 0.09

5.5 Culvert

5 25-yr 1816.50 691.98 703.49 703.50 0.000783 1.77 1841.82 720.39 0.09

4 25-yr 1816.50 692.00 703.44 703.49 0.001071 2.93 1456.38 616.01 0.15

3 25-yr 1816.50 691.01 703.18 697.38 703.43 0.005777 4.76 613.63 301.61 0.25

2.5 Culvert

2 25-yr 1816.50 690.51 698.64 700.82 0.058160 11.86 153.15 22.18 0.80

1 25-yr 1816.50 691.00 699.81 696.66 700.02 0.005001 5.34 667.22 298.62 0.32

Proposed Conditions – Alternative #1: 25-yr Design

To meet the 25-yr design storm, all culverts must be replaced, excluding the twin 9’x8’ box culvert that runs under Highway 41. The culverts on and north of McFalls Street must be replaced by twin 14’x6’ (WxH) reinforced concrete box culverts (RC Box Culverts). The culverts south of

McFalls Street (excluding the culvert under Highway 41) must be replaced by twin 16’x6’ (WxH)

RC Box Culverts. The culverts must not be embedded and must be installed at a 0.5% slope.

Junction boxes must be used to connect culverts where needed. Headwalls must be placed wherever a culvert accepts or discharges runoff into an open channel. Trapezoidal channels must be graded to accommodate the culvert openings and must be graded at a 0.5% slope. 2:1 side slopes (H:V) must be cut from the bottom of the channel to the existing grade.

Portions of Hollywood Drive and McFalls Street will have to be raised to accommodate the proposed culverts. The required elevation change will not restrict access to structures along the roadways. Due to the severity of flooding and the lack of vertical clearance at all crossings, freeboard will be limited. The only objective of the 25-yr design is to pass the 25-yr design storm without overtopping the roadways.

The computer output for the hydraulic analysis is included in Appendix C. Table 5 includes the summary of the results for the 25-year storm for the proposed 25-yr design. Figures 8a and 8b show the proposed 25-yr design layout.

Table 5: Results for the 25-yr Design Storm for the Proposed 25-yr Design

River

Sta Profile

Q

Total

Min

Ch El

W.S.

Elev

Crit

W.S.

E.G.

Elev

E.G.

Slope

Vel

Chnl

Flow

Area

Top

Width

Froude

# Chl

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft)

24 25-yr 767.90 703.08 708.16 705.69 708.39 0.00719 3.86 198.74 49.30 0.34

22 Culvert

21 25-yr 825.20 700.52 707.49 707.75 0.00016 4.08 202.26 29.00 0.27

20 25-yr 825.20 700.49 707.50 703.41 707.75 0.00016 4.06 203.15 29.00 0.27

19.5 Culvert

19 25-yr 827.10 700.29 707.17 707.44 0.00017 4.15 199.49 29.00 0.28

18 25-yr 827.10 700.27 707.17 703.20 707.44 0.00017 4.13 200.09 29.00 0.28

17.9 Culvert

17.7 25-yr 830.60 699.78 706.81 707.07 0.00016 4.07 203.87 29.00 0.27

17.3 25-yr 830.60 699.76 706.81 702.69 707.07 0.00016 4.06 204.46 29.00 0.27

16.5 Culvert

16 25-yr 868.70 699.36 706.45 706.73 0.00647 4.23 205.54 29.00 0.28

15 25-yr 868.70 698.37 705.05 701.39 705.36 0.00736 4.48 194.49 31.70 0.31

14.5 Culvert

14 25-yr 868.70 698.18 704.72 705.04 0.00818 4.58 189.55 29.00 0.32

13 25-yr 868.70 697.21 704.12 699.98 704.35 0.00188 3.80 229.73 36.64 0.26

12.5 Culvert

12 25-yr 876.40 696.72 703.82 704.04 0.00013 3.74 234.28 33.00 0.25

11 25-yr 876.40 696.68 703.82 699.47 704.04 0.00012 3.72 235.62 33.00 0.25

10.5 Culvert

10 25-yr 900.40 696.43 703.53 703.76 0.00013 3.84 234.20 33.00 0.25

9 25-yr 900.40 696.38 703.53 699.22 703.75 0.00013 3.82 235.89 33.00 0.25

8.9 Culvert

8.7 25-yr 1154.80 693.16 702.86 703.07 0.00009 3.61 320.23 33.00 0.20

8.3 25-yr 1154.80 693.13 702.86 696.48 703.07 0.00009 3.59 321.23 33.00 0.20

7.5 Culvert

7 25-yr 1245.60 692.57 702.12 702.36 0.00011 3.95 316.55 57.18 0.23

6 25-yr 1245.60 692.50 702.12 696.03 702.36 0.00011 3.92 317.45 33.00 0.22

5.5 Culvert

5 25-yr 1393.00 692.35 701.35 701.69 0.00238 4.69 297.02 33.00 0.28

4 25-yr 1393.00 692.00 701.50 701.59 0.00163 2.69 710.48 313.49 0.18

3 25-yr 1393.00 691.01 700.73 696.37 701.47 0.01526 6.87 203.37 33.69 0.40

2.5 Culvert

2 25-yr 1393.00 690.51 698.66 699.93 0.03396 9.07 153.53 22.18 0.61

1 25-yr 1393.00 691.00 699.22 695.93 699.42 0.00500 5.10 509.60 234.93 0.32

Proposed Conditions – Alternative #2: 100-yr Design

To meet the 100-yr design storm, all culverts must be replaced, including the twin 9’x8’ box culvert that runs under Highway 41. The culverts on and north of Hollywood Drive will be replaced by triple 12’x6’ (WxH) RC box culverts. The culverts south of Hollywood Drive (excluding the culvert under Highway 41) must be replaced by triple 14’x6’ (WxH) RC Box Culverts. The culvert under Highway 41 must be replaced by a triple 12’x8’ (WxH) RC Box Culvert. The culverts must not be embedded and must be installed at a 0.5% slope.

Junction boxes must be used to connect culverts where needed. Headwalls must be placed wherever a culvert accepts or discharges runoff into an open channel. Trapezoidal channels must be graded to accommodate the culvert openings and must be graded at a 0.5% slope. 2:1 side slopes (H:V) must be cut from the bottom of the channel to the existing grade.

Portions of Hollywood Drive and McFalls Street will have to be raised to accommodate the proposed culverts. The required elevation change will not restrict access to structures along the roadways. Due to the severity of flooding and the lack of vertical clearance at all crossings, freeboard will be limited. The only objective of the 100-yr design is to pass the 100-yr design storm without overtopping the roadways. The proposed 100-yr design requires significant grading and disturbance to existing lots and structures.

The computer output for the hydraulic analysis is included in Appendix C. Table 6 includes the summary of the results for the 100-year storm in the proposed 100-yr design. Figures 9a and 9b show the proposed 100-yr design layout.

Table 6: Results for the 100-yr Design Storm for the Proposed 100-yr Design

River

Sta Profile

Q

Total

Min

Ch El

W.S.

Elev

Crit

W.S.

E.G.

Elev

E.G.

Slope

Vel

Chnl

Flow

Area

Top

Width

Froude

# Chl

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft)

24 100-yr 1018.40 703.08 707.77 705.75 708.10 0.01039 4.58 222.20 56.76 0.41

22 Culvert

21 100-yr 1090.10 700.52 706.73 707.06 0.00021 4.62 235.82 38.00 0.33

20 100-yr 1090.10 700.49 706.73 703.43 707.06 0.00021 4.60 237.01 38.00 0.32

19.5 Culvert

19 100-yr 1092.40 700.29 706.43 706.77 0.00022 4.68 233.42 38.00 0.33

18 100-yr 1092.40 700.27 706.43 703.21 706.77 0.00021 4.66 234.21 38.00 0.33

17.9 Culvert

17.7 100-yr 1096.70 699.78 706.10 706.42 0.00020 4.57 240.13 38.00 0.32

17.3 100-yr 1096.70 699.76 706.10 702.71 706.42 0.00020 4.55 240.92 38.00 0.32

16.5 Culvert

16 100-yr 1139.50 699.36 705.76 705.95 0.00430 3.50 325.11 63.60 0.27

15 100-yr 1139.50 698.37 704.98 701.23 705.15 0.00371 3.30 345.25 66.39 0.26

14.5 Culvert

14 100-yr 1145.20 698.18 704.48 704.67 0.00448 3.53 324.46 65.02 0.28

13 100-yr 1145.20 697.21 703.63 700.09 703.82 0.00430 3.51 326.42 63.68 0.27

12.5 Culvert

12 100-yr 1155.40 696.72 703.09 703.44 0.00022 4.78 241.97 38.00 0.33

11 100-yr 1155.40 696.68 703.09 699.73 703.44 0.00021 4.74 243.53 38.00 0.33

10.5 Culvert

10 100-yr 1186.00 696.43 702.73 702.90 0.00375 3.29 360.61 70.47 0.26

9 100-yr 1186.00 696.38 702.70 699.07 702.86 0.00372 3.28 361.84 70.59 0.26

8.9 Culvert

8.7 100-yr 1511.10 693.16 701.94 702.18 0.00010 3.91 386.47 44.00 0.23

8.3 100-yr 1511.10 693.13 701.94 696.44 702.18 0.00010 3.90 387.82 44.00 0.23

7.5 Culvert

7 100-yr 1624.60 692.57 701.23 701.51 0.00012 4.26 381.14 44.00 0.26

6 100-yr 1624.60 692.50 701.23 695.97 701.51 0.00012 4.23 384.29 44.00 0.25

5.5 Culvert

5 100-yr 1816.50 692.35 700.52 700.73 0.00352 3.69 492.68 76.66 0.26

4 100-yr 1816.50 692.28 700.42 700.67 0.00421 4.01 452.64 70.21 0.28

3 100-yr 1816.50 692.20 700.33 696.05 700.60 0.00463 4.15 437.81 69.69 0.29

2.5 Culvert

2 100-yr 1816.50 691.60 699.52 699.81 0.00503 4.26 426.71 69.70 0.30

1 100-yr 1816.50 691.50 699.44 695.34 699.72 0.00500 4.25 427.51 69.74 0.30

Downstream Conditions

The results in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 assume that water can freely discharge after it passes through the culvert under Highway 41. However, there are three culverts downstream of the system: a dual box culvert that runs under Highway 41, a dual elliptical culvert that runs under Northgate

Drive, and a dual circular culvert that runs under Smith Industrial Boulevard. When accounting for the culverts downstream of Highway 41, the water surface elevations in existing and proposed conditions are likely to increase. To effectively convey the design storms by upsizing the storm drainage network, the two culverts downstream of Highway 41, one under Northgate Drive and one under Smith Industrial Boulevard, must be analyzed in a separate study.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following are the conclusions of this study.

1. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map, the project site is not located in a regulated floodplain.

2. Due to the slope of the watercourse and the flow velocities in the channel, erosion damage is not a major concern in the area. Most of the current damage is caused by high flood elevations.

3. None of the culverts along the main drainage channel can convey the 25-yr or 100-yr design storms.

The following are the recommendations of this study.

1. Due to the high cost of upsizing the storm drainage network, it is not recommended to convey the storm by increasing the culvert sizes in the area. Other options may be considered, including purchasing lots along the channel to concentrate flooding.

2. A maintenance schedule must be prepared and implemented, which should include cleaning the entrance of the culvert after any significant rainfall event. The banks of the channel on the upstream and downstream side of the channel must be inspected to ensure erosion damage does not become significant, especially on the downstream side.

Damage, if any, must be repaired promptly.

Study Limits

The recommendations specified in this study must be considered in order to assure the optimum performance of the structures. The design engineer will be responsible for elaborating the drawings in accordance with the recommendations of this study. If changes occur, the results and recommendations may be impaired. Finally, results and recommendations included in this report must be used only and exclusively by the design engineer for the intended purposes as indicated in this study.

North Oaks Gillum Drive HH Study

January 2026

Figures

SITE

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DEC 2025

SCALE 1:20,000

ES

DA

SITE LOCATION

NORTH OAKS GILLUM DRIVE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS

FIGURE

AERIAL IMAGERY OF SITE (SCALE 1:8,000)

PREPARED BY:

DAVID S. ANCALLE, P.E.

LIC. NO. PE043789

PREPARED FOR:

ATLAS TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

WHITFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF WATER RESOURCES

201 S HAMILTON ST

DALTON GA 30720

1344 IE 60"CMP

.30

1345 IE 42"CMP

.05

1356 IE 60"CMP

.60

1357 IE 42"CMP

.33

1359 IE 48"CMP

.03

1524 IE 48"CMP

.36

1534 IE 48"CMP698

.78

1535 TOP 48"CMP702

.31

1580 IE 48"CMP699

.50

1581 IE 48"CMP699

.24

1648 IE 60"CMP

.86

1674 IE 48"CMP+-697

.92

1731 IE 48"CMP

.65

1732 IE 48"CMP696

.59

BL*EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

1905 IE 60"CMP691

.98

1936 IE 72"CMP691

.46

1937 IE 72"CMP

.24

TW

IN

108"W x 96"H

BO

X CU

LVERT

SWCB

TOP=713.73

IE IN=709.53

IE OUT=709.43

SWCB

TOP=713.74

IE IN=707.44

IE OUT=707.24

DWCB

TOP=711.40

IE IN=704.40

IE OUT=704.30

DI

TOP=711.13

IE OUT=706.03

DWCB

TOP=711.24

IE OUT=706.6415

"R

CP

"R

CP

30"

RCP

"R

CP

"R

CP

18"RCP

"R

CP

"C

MP

IE=699.84

IE=701.82

24"RCP

IE=695.65

60"CM

P

IE=699.75

"R

CP

IE=699.92

IE=700.36

15"RCP

IE=700.62

72"CM

P

IE=692.39

IE=691.98

60"CM

P

IE=691.16 IE=691.01

IE=692.13

IE=690.51

IE=691.24

IE=691.46

SWCB

TOP=700.26

15"RCP

IE=708.21

IE=709.53

DI

TOP=711.85

SWCB

TOP=713.72

SWCB

TOP=713.72

SSMH

RIM=705.60

IE OUT=697.11

SSMH

RIM=698.92

IE IN=690.40

IE OUT=690.35

SSMH

RIM=699.25

IE IN=689.69

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP/TP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP PP

GUY

GU

YS

GU

Y

GUY

TP

TP

IE OUT=705.43

PP/LP

GUY

GUY

GU

Y

GUY

TP

G U

Y

4 GUYS

G

12" CHANGES

TO 15"

15"RCP

IE=705.31

IE=705.51

15"RCP

IE=706.25

CLE

VELA

ND H

IG

HW

AY

YORK STREET

McFALLS STREET

HOLLYWOOD DRIVE

GILLUM DRIVE

NORTH BYPASS

IPF(1/2"RB)

CMF

IPF(1/2"RB)

CMF

CMF

CMF(DISTURBED)

CMF

IPF(1"OT)

IPF(1/4"RB) IPF(1/4"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1"OT)

IPF(AXEL) IPF(AXEL) IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1-1/2"OT)

IPF(CAPPED)

IPF(CAPPED)

IPF(3/4"ROD)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

BR

IC

K

BU

ILD

IN

G

FF

E=

2.

BUILDING

FFE=712.4

BUILDING

FFE=705.1

BU

IL

D

IN

G

FF

E=

3.

BU

IL

D

IN

G

FF

E=

7.

CH

AIN

LIN

K

FE

NCE

BUILDING

FFE=710.7

CH

AI

N

LI

N K

FE

N

CE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CH

AI

NL

IN

K

FE

NC

E

CHAINLINK FENCE

CH

AI

N

LI

N K

FE

N

CE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CHAINLINK FENCE

GUARD RAIL

G

RA

VE

L

G

RA

VE

L

G

RA

VE

L

AS

PH

AL

T

EDGE OF GRAVEL

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

7.5

6.9

706.80

0.3

6.9

7.0

6.9

6.9

2.5

7.4

7.5

7.4

7.5

0.2

0.4

GRAVEL

G

RA

VE

L

W G

W

W

W

ASPHALT

ED

G

E O

F ASPH

ALT

ASPHALT

POSSIBLE S.S. LATERAL (VISIBLE OVER

STORM PIPE)

6.9

EDGE OF ASPHALT

ST

RE

AM

ST

RE

AM

STREAM

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.5

8.4

8.1

8.2

8.1

8.1

8.2

7.6

7.3

7.3

6.6

4.1

4.1

3.7

2.4

3.4

5.3

5.3

0.6

700.17

1.1

3.3

7.1

6.4

710 705

1.8

2.5

2.8

3.3

6.4

4.6

3.8

9.7

4.8

3.6

IE=704.87

15"RCP

IE=705.37

2.

1.

1.

711.42

1.

9.3

9.4

0.2

440'R/W

0'

R/W

5.2

5.5

5.6

9.5

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.7

9.7

9.7

9.6

0.7

6.7

6.0

5.4

0 70 4.8

4.4

4.1

40' R/W

40' R/W

40' R/W

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(CAPPED)

CMF

R/W VARIES

ICE BIN

1.0

2.2

0.9

0.6

0.5

PP

"R

CP

"R

CP

"R

CP

"R

CP

12"RCP

INVERT NOT VISIBLE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CO

NCR

ET

E

CO

NCR

ET

E

CO

NCR

ET

E

CO

NCR

ET

E

POSSIBLE POWER

EASEMENT (NO DEED

FOUND)

IE=706.09

FES

IE=708.00

CO

NCR

ET

E

CO

NCR

ET

E S

ID

EW

AL

K

SH

ED

SHED

BRICK BUILDING

(S&W

PHARMACY)

CONCRETE SIDEW

ALK

ASPHALT PARKING

DI

TOP=711.06

IE=707.56

ROUGH CONCRETE

FLUME

AS

PH

AL

T

GRA

VE

L

GRA

VE

L

30"

RCP

2'x2' BRICK BOX

(NO TOP)

"R

CP

CONC. PATCH OVER

POSSIBLE SEWER

LATERAL

POSSIBLE SEWER LIFT

STATION

NOTE: NO S.S. FORCE MAIN IS

MARKED IN THIS AREA

60"CM

P SW

ITCH

ES TO

72"CM

P

(LO

CATIO

N U

N

KN

O W

N

1.3

2.4

2.7

1.7

6"PVC DRAIN FOR RAMP

PIT

CO

N

CR

ET

E

PA

D

RA

M

P

CONCRETE

DI

TOP=699.65

IE IN=697.72

IE=697.66

15"RCP

24"RCP

IE=691.79

THIS BARREL 25%

BLOCKED WITH SILT

84"W x 62"H

ARCH PIPES

12"RCP

6"PVC

6"PVC

66"W x 60H" CEMENT BLOCK

CULVERT (LOCATION CANNOT BE

CONFIRMED BY FIELD

INVESTIGATION)

"W x

"H

BO

X C

ULV

ER

T

96"W x 60"H

BOX CULVERT

IE=703.50

DI

TOP=710.12

IE OUT=707.62

12"RCP

66"W x 60"H

BOX CULVERT

IE=700.82

DIRECTION ONLY

15"RCP

IE=706.11 IE=702.30

IE=702.05

"C

MP 48

"C

MP

IE=702.60

IE=702.33

IE=702.03

(RUSTED INVERT)

48"RCP

IE OUT

=701.75

IE=701.26

36"RCP

IE IN=701.36

IE=701.31

IE=701.36

GI

TOP=707.86

"R

CP

"C

M P

IE=700.12

IE=700.36

IE=698.78

IE=698.31

"C

M P±

(C

RU

SH

ED

"C

M P±

(C

RU

SH

ED

IE=699.24

IE=699.50

END 60"CMP

IE=697.86

IE=697.92

54"CMP

JB

TOP=703.09

IE BOX=697.94 24"RCP

IE=699.70

IE=696.59

IE=692.49

12"RCP

DI

TOP=699.58

IE IN=695.80(15")

IE IN=692.78(42")

IE OUT=692.78

48"CMP

36"CMP

DI

TOP=701.06

IE=698.10

12"RCP

IE=704.88

"W x

"H

BO

X C

ULV

ER

T

AP

PR

OXIM

AT

E E

ND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

REDUCES TO 66"W x 60"H

CEMENT BLOCK CULVERT

60"x 36"

ARCH PIPE

(1/2 FULL SILT)

6'x 3.5' ARCH PIPE

DI

TOP=698.97

IE IN=695.53(18")

IE IN=695.51(24")

IE OUT=693.80

15"CMP

42"RCP

IE=692.39

THIS SECTION HAS 1.5'

SILT IN BOTTOM

66"W x 60H" CEMENT BLOCK

CULVERT (LOCATION CANNOT BE

CONFIRMED BY FIELD

INVESTIGATION)

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DEC 2025

SCALE 1:3,500

ES

DA

SITE TOPOGRAPHY

NORTH OAKS GILLUM DRIVE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS

FIGUREPREPARED BY:

DAVID S. ANCALLE, P.E.

LIC. NO. PE043789

PREPARED FOR:

ATLAS TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

WHITFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF WATER RESOURCES

201 S HAMILTON ST

DALTON GA 30720

AutoCAD SHX Text J

AutoCAD SHX Text J

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text S

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text S

AutoCAD SHX Text S

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text S

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

8"CONCRETE WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

12"CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

POLE (TYPICAL)FOR FUTURE BUILDING EXTENSION

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WATER LINE BASED ON VALVE LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

6"CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text

RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOADING DOCK

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE RAMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOADING DOCK

AutoCAD SHX Text

DIRT

AutoCAD SHX Text

CANOPY OVER LOADING DOCKS

AutoCAD SHX Text

CANOPY OVER LOADING DOCKS

AutoCAD SHX Text

CANOPY OVER LOADING DOCKS

AutoCAD SHX Text

STEPS

AutoCAD SHX Text W

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATER MAIN SHUT-OFF FOR BUILDING

SITE SITE

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DEC 2025

SCALE 1:5,000

ES

DA

FLOOD MAPS

NORTH OAKS GILLUM DRIVE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS

FIGURE

FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)

PANEL NO. 13313C0137D

EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

GEORGIA DFIRM EFFECTIVE MAP

PANEL NO. 13313C0137D

EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

PREPARED BY:

DAVID S. ANCALLE, P.E.

LIC. NO. PE043789

PREPARED FOR:

ATLAS TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

WHITFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF WATER RESOURCES

702.30

1345 IE 42"CMP

702.05

1356 IE 60"CMP702.60

1357IE 42"CMP702.331359 IE 48"CMP702.03

1524 IE 48"CMP700.36

1534 IE 48"CMP698.78

1535 TOP 48"CMP702.31

1580 IE 48"CMP699.50

1581IE 48"CMP699.24

1648IE 60"CMP697.86

1674IE 48"CMP+-

697.92

1731 IE 48"CMP695.65

1732 IE 48"CMP696.59

BL*EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

1905 IE 60"CMP691.98

1936 IE 72"CMP691.461937 IE 72"CMP691.24

TW

IN

108"W x 96"H

BO

X CU

LVERT

SWCB

TOP=713.73

IE IN=709.53

IE OUT=709.43

SWCB

TOP=713.74

IE IN=707.44

IE OUT=707.24

DWCB

TOP=711.40

IE IN=704.40

IE OUT=704.30

DI

TOP=711.13

IE OUT=706.03

DWCB

TOP=711.24

IE OUT=706.6415

"R

CP

"R

CP

30"RCP

"R

CP

"R

CP

18"RCP

"R

CP

"C

MP

IE=699.84

IE=701.82

24"RCP

IE=695.65

60"CM

P

IE=699.75

"R

CP

IE=699.92

IE=700.36

15"RCP

IE=700.62

72"CM

P

IE=692.39

IE=691.98

60"CM

P

IE=691.16

IE=691.01

IE=692.13

IE=690.51

IE=691.24

IE=691.46

SWCB

TOP=700.26

15"RCP

IE=708.21

IE=709.53

DI

TOP=711.85

SWCB

TOP=713.72

SWCB

TOP=713.72

SSMH

RIM=705.60

IE OUT=697.11

SSMH

RIM=698.92

IE IN=690.40

IE OUT=690.35

SSMH

RIM=699.25

IE IN=689.69

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP/TP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

GUY

G U

YS

GUY

GUY

TP

TP

IE OUT=705.43

PP/LP

GUY

GUY

GUY

GUY

TP

G U

Y

4 GUYS

G

12" CHANGES

TO 15"

15"RCP

IE=705.31

IE=705.51

15"RCP

IE=706.25

CLE

VELA

ND H

IG

HW

AY

YORK STREET

McFALLS STREET

HOLLYWOOD DRIVE

GILLUM DRIVE

NORTH BYPASS

IPF(1/2"RB)

CMF

IPF(1/2"RB)

CMF

CMF

CMF(DISTURBED)

CMF

IPF(1"OT)

IPF(1/4"RB) IPF(1/4"RB) IPF(1/2"RB) IPF(1"OT)

IPF(AXEL) IPF(AXEL) IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB) IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1-1/2"OT)

IPF(CAPPED)

IPF(CAPPED)

IPF(3/4"ROD)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

BR

ICK

BU

ILD

IN

G

FF

E=

2.3

BUILDING

FFE=712.4

BUILDING

FFE=705.1

BU

IL

D

IN

G

FF

E=

3.

BU

IL

D

IN

G

FF

E=

7.

CH

AI

NL

IN

K

FE

NC

E

BUILDING

FFE=710.7

CH

AI

N

LI

N K

FE

N

CE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CH

AI

NL

IN

K

FE

NC

E

CHAINLINK FENCE

CH

AI

N

LI

N K

FE

N

CE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CHAINLINK FENCE

GUARD RAIL

G

RA

VE

L

G

RA

VE

L

GR

AV

EL

AS

PH

AL

T

EDGE OF GRAVEL

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

7.5

6.9

706.80

700.30

706.94

707.00

706.99

6.9

2.5

7.4

7.5

707.47

7.5

0.2

0.

GRAVEL

G

RA

VE

L

W G

W

W

W

ASPHALT

ED

G

E O

F ASPH

ALT

ASPHALT

POSSIBLE S.S. LATERAL (VISIBLE OVER

STORM PIPE)

6.9

EDGE OF ASPHALT

ST

RE

AM

ST

RE

AM

STREAM

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.

8.4

8.1

8.2

8.1

8.1

8.

7.

707.35

7.3

6.

4.1

4.1

3.

2.4

3.4

5.3

5.

700.61

700.17

1.1

3.3

707.11

706.46

1.8

2.5

2.8

3.3

6.4

704.62

703.86

709.72

4.8

3.6

IE=704.87

15"RCP

IE=705.37

2.

1.

1.

711.42

1.

9.

709.42

0.

2440'R/W

0'

R/W

5.2

5.5

5.6

699.51

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.

9.7

9.7

9.6

0.

6.7

6.

5.4

4.8

4.4

4.1

40' R/W

40' R/W

40' R/W

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(CAPPED)

CMF

R/W VARIES

ICE BIN

1.0

2.

0.9

710.62

0.5

PP

"R

CP

"R

CP

"R

CP

"R

CP

12"RCP

INVERT NOT VISIBLE

CHAINLINK FENCE

CONCRE

TE

CO

NC

RE

TE

CONCRE

TE

CONCRE

TE

POSSIBLE POWER

EASEMENT (NO DEED

FOUND)

IE=706.09

FES

IE=708.00

CO

NC

RE

TE

CO

NC

RE

TE

SI

DE

WAL

K

SH

ED

SHED

BRICK BUILDING

(S&W

PHARMACY)

CONCRETE SIDEW

ALK

ASPHALT PARKING

DI

TOP=711.06

IE=707.56

ROUGH CONCRETE

FLUME

ASP

HALT

GRA

VE

L

GRA

VE

L

30"RCP

2'x2' BRICK BOX

(NO TOP)

"R

CP

CONC. PATCH OVER

POSSIBLE SEWER

LATERAL

POSSIBLE SEWER LIFT

STATION

NOTE: NO S.S. FORCE MAIN IS

MARKED IN THIS AREA

60"CM

P SW

ITCH

ES TO

72"CM

P

(LO

CATIO

N UNKNO

W

N)

1.3

2.4

2.7

701.71

6"PVC DRAIN FOR RAMP

PIT

CO

N

CR

ET

E

PA

D

RA

M

P

CONCRETE

DI

TOP=699.65

IE IN=697.72

IE=697.66

15"RCP

24"RCP

IE=691.79

THIS BARREL 25%

BLOCKED WITH SILT

84"W x 62"H

ARCH PIPES

12"RCP

6"PVC

6"PVC

66"W x 60H" CEMENT BLOCK

CULVERT (LOCATION CANNOT BE

CONFIRMED BY FIELD

INVESTIGATION)

"W x

"H

BO

X C

ULV

ER

T

96"W x 60"H

BOX CULVERT

IE=703.50

DI

TOP=710.12

IE OUT=707.62

12"RCP

66"W x 60"H

BOX CULVERT

IE=700.82

DIRECTION ONLY

15"RCP

IE=706.11

IE=702.30

IE=702.05

"C

M P

"C

MP

IE=702.60

IE=702.33

IE=702.03

(RUSTED INVERT)

48"RCP

IE OUT

=701.75

IE=701.26

36"RCP

IE IN=701.36

IE=701.31

IE=701.36

GI

TOP=707.86

"R

CP

"C

M P

IE=700.12

IE=700.36

IE=698.78

IE=698.31

"C

M P±

(C

RU

SH

ED

"C

M P±

(C

RU

SH

ED

IE=699.24

IE=699.50

END 60"CMP

IE=697.86

IE=697.92

54"CMP

JB

TOP=703.09

IE BOX=697.94 24"RCP

IE=699.70

IE=696.59

IE=692.49

12"RCP

DI

TOP=699.58

IE IN=695.80(15")

IE IN=692.78(42")

IE OUT=692.78

48"CMP

36"CMP

DI

TOP=701.06

IE=698.10

12"RCP

IE=704.88

"W x

"H B

OX

CU

LV

ER

T

AP

PR

OXIM

AT

E E

ND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

REDUCES TO 66"W x 60"H

CEMENT BLOCK CULVERT

60"x 36"

ARCH PIPE

(1/2 FULL SILT) 6'x 3.5' ARCH PIPE

DI

TOP=698.97

IE IN=695.53(18")

IE IN=695.51(24")

IE OUT=693.80

15"CMP

42"RCP

IE=692.39

THIS SECTION HAS 1.5'

SILT IN BOTTOM

66"W x 60H" CEMENT BLOCK

CULVERT (LOCATION CANNOT BE

CONFIRMED BY FIELD

INVESTIGATION)

E1 233 ac

E8a

49.0 ac

E8

38.8 ac

E2

26.6 ac

BUILT FROM SUBD PLAT AS REMNANT

FROM DEEDS AROUND PARCEL.

DEED NOT ONLINE

1344 IE 60"CMP

702.3

1345 IE 42"CMP702.0

1356 IE 60"CMP702.6

1357 IE 42"CMP702.3

1359 IE 48"CMP702.0

1524 IE 48"CMP

700.3

1534 IE 48"CMP

698.7

1535 TOP 48"CMP702.3

1580 IE 48"CMP

699.5

1581 IE 48"CMP

699.2

1648 IE 60"CMP697.8

1674 IE 48"CMP+-

697.9

1731 IE 48"CMP695.6

1732 IE 48"CMP696.5

BL*EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

EC167/TRANS

1905 IE 60"CMP691.9

SWCB

TOP=713.74

IE IN=707.44

IE OUT=707.24

18"RCP

"R

CP

"C

MP

IE=699.84

IE=701.82

24"RCP

IE=695.65

60"CM

P

IE=699.75

"R

CP

IE=699.92

IE=700.36

15"RCP

IE=700.62

72"CM

P

IE=692.39

IE=691.98

60"CM

P

IE=691.16 IE=691.01

SWCB

TOP=700.26

15"RCP

IE=708.21

IE=709.53

SSMH

RIM=705.60

IE OUT=697.11

SSMH

RIM=698.92

IE IN=690.40

IE OUT=690.35

SSMH

RIM=699.25

IE IN=689.69

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP/TP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

PP

GUY

GU

YS

GU

Y

GUY

TP

TP

IE OUT=705.43

PP/LP

GUY

GUY

GU

Y

GUY

TP

G U

Y

4 GUYS

G

12" CHANGES

TO 15"

15"RCP

IE=705.31

IE=705.51

15"RCP

IE=706.25

YORK STREET

McFALLS STREET

HOLLYWOOD DRIVE

GILLUM DRIVE

CMF

IPF(1/2"RB)

CMF

CMF

CMF(DISTURBED)

CMF

IPF(1"OT)

IPF(1/4"RB) IPF(1/4"RB)

IPF(1/2"RB)

IPF(1"OT)

IPF(AXEL) IPF(AXEL)…