Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Report
Drainage Calculations Tom Wood Jaguar Land Rover Volvo Service Addition 4620 East 96th Street Carmel, Indiana Prepared for: Tom Wood, Inc. Job #: TWI.011 Revised: 08/03/22 Prepared by: Roger C. Ward, Jr. PE 6555 Carrollton Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46220 (317) 251-1738 (Fax) 251-1923 04/26/2022 Walker Professional Insurance PO BOX 55 Carmel IN 46082 Holly Gill-Gaither (317) 759-9321 Holly@WalkerProfessional.com Roger Ward Engineering, Inc. 6555 Carrollton Ave. Indianapolis IN 46220 Berkley Insurance Company 32603 21-22 Master A Professional Liability Claims Made Form AES-9049810-01 12/09/2021 12/09/2022 Per Claim Limit $2,000,000 Aggregate Limit $2,000,000 30 days notice of cancellation, except for non-payment, shall be provided to the certificate holder. Waiver of subrogation is provided on the Professional Liability policy in favor of the insured’s client only if required by written contract. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER F : INSURER E : INSURER D : INSURER C : INSURER B : INSURER A : NAIC # NAME:CONTACT (A/C, No):FAX E-MAILADDRESS: PRODUCER (A/C, No, Ext):PHONE INSURED REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OTHER: (Per accident) (Ea accident) $ $ N / A SUBR WVD ADDL INSD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $ $ $PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY (Per accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOS ONLY AUTOSAUTOS ONLY NON-OWNED SCHEDULEDOWNED ANY AUTO AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below If yes, describe under ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE $ $ $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH-STATUTEPER LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EFFPOLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTRINSR DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) EXCESS LIAB UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE $AGGREGATE $ OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $ $PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $GENERAL AGGREGATE $PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $MED EXP (Any one person) $EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO-JECT LOC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CANCELLATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. CERTIFICATE HOLDER The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD HIRED AUTOS ONLY Client Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I: Report A. Project Title B. Project Description C. Design Method and Criteria D. References E. Existing Conditions F. Proposed Conditions G. Stormwater Quality and BMP Recommendations Section II: Appendix A. Site Information (maps, exhibits, etc.) B. Existing Conditions C. Proposed Conditions D. Stormwater Quality Data E. Geotechnical Report by Alt & Witzig SECTION I: REPORT A. Project Title Tom Wood Jaguar Land Rover Volvo – Service Addition B. Project Description This project is located at the 4620 E. 96th Street, which is located east of the intersection of 96th Street and Randall Drive in Carmel, Indiana. The overall site is approximately +/- 12.18 acres. However, only approximately +/- 1.09 acres will be disturbed. The existing site is already developed and is used as a car dealership. The site is mostly roof top and asphalt parking areas, with some grass and tree areas along the north and northwest sides of the property. The existing site mostly sheet drains towards the west to Carmel Creek, with some drainage areas being collected in an on-site storm sewer first, and then discharging into Carmel Creek. From there, the stormwater eventually makes its way to the White River, the ultimate receiving waters for the site. The proposed development will consist of a service building addition, as well as some site improvements adjacent to the building. Since approximately +/- 1.09 acres of land will be disturbed (which is above Carmel’s ¼-acre threshold), the drainage from the building’s roof and immediately surrounding parking lot will be collected, treated for water quality and be detained in an underground detention facility. And the release rates from the detention facility will be at or below the allowed discharges under the redevelopment scenario. The existing land uses adjacent to the site are as follows: North: Residential/Commercial West: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial C. Design Method and Criteria 1. Soil Type: Soil maps from the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, identify Westland silty clay loam (We – 31% of site), Ockley silt loam (OcA – 19% of site) and Sleeth loam (St – 50% of site.) The Westland series are classified as type “B/D” soils and they consist of deep, very poorly drained, slowly permeable soils on broad terraces. The Ockley series are classified as type “B” soils and they consist of deep, well drained soils on outwash plains and river terraces. The Sleeth series are classified as type “C” soils and they consist of deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on terraces. 2. Design Storm: The 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events have been analyzed for the existing & proposed condition. The NRCS type-II 24-hour distribution was used in the calculations. 3. Overall Watershed: Carmel Creek => White River. D. References 1. TR55 Stormwater Design Manual. 2. Hamilton County Soil Survey. 3. HydroCAD Software E. Existing Conditions The existing site is already developed and is used as a car dealership. The site is mostly roof top and asphalt parking areas, with some grass and tree areas along the north and northwest sides of the property. The existing site drains into an on-site storm sewer system that then drains to the west to Carmel Creek. From there, the stormwater eventually makes its way to the White River, the ultimate receiving waters for the site. The overall site is approximately +/- 12.18 acres. However, only approximately +/- 1.09 acres will be disturbed. Basin EX with 1.09 acres encompasses the entire disturbed area, which includes the building addition and the parking lot improvements. The following are the computed 2-year, 10-year and 100-year runoff rates from the on-site existing basins utilizing the NRCS type-II 24-hour storm event, as computed by HydroCAD. On-site Basin EX – Building Addition and Parking Lot Improvements EX - Existing 2-year discharge 4.12 cfs EX - Existing 10-year discharge 5.99 cfs EX - Existing 100-year discharge 10.15 cfs Allowed Discharge Based Upon Existing Conditions Since the proposed project will be a redevelopment, the allowed discharge from the underground detention system under the proposed conditions will be based upon the redevelopment scenario – PR 100yr < EX 10yr and PR 10yr < EX 2yr. Below are the computed allowed discharges from the underground detention system: 10-year <= EX 2yr MINUS 10yr direct discharge* <= 4.12 – 2.36 (see below)* <= 1.76 cfs 100-year <= EX1 10yr MINUS 100yr direct discharge* <= 5.99 – 4.01 (see below)* <= 1.98 cfs F. Proposed Conditions The proposed development will consist of a building addition and some site improvements. Since approximately +/- 1.09 acres of land will be disturbed (which is above Carmel’s ¼-acre threshold), most of the drainage from the disturbed area will be collected, treated for water quality and be detained within the underground detention system. And the release rates from the underground detention system will be below the allowed discharges under the redevelopment scenario. The total area that will be captured and detained is 0.66 acres (Basin PR). Three proposed basins will direct discharge towards Carmel Creek either by direct runoff or conveyance through existing storm sewers and swales. These basins are D-1, D-2 and D-3 and they total 0.43 acres. The following are the direct discharges of these basins. Basin D-1 Basin D-2 Basin D-3 10-year proposed 1.32 cfs 0.27 cfs 0.77 cfs 100-year proposed 2.24 cfs 0.47 cfs 1.30 cfs The above flows have been subtracted from the existing conditions to determine the allowed discharge rate for the proposed underground detention facility. The underground detention system will have two separate discharge means. The main discharge will be the outlet structure that will have an 8” orifice plate followed by a 12” outlet pipe. The second discharge will be exfiltration. A soils permeability test was conducted with two samples taken near the proposed underground detention system. The slowest permeability rate of the two samples was found to be 1.5 in/hr. A factor of safety of 2 has been applied, so a permeability rate of 0.75 in/hr is used in the model. See the geotechnical report in the Appendix. The following are the computed 10-year and 100-year discharge rates from the detention facility utilizing the NRCS type-II 24-hour storm event, as computed by HydroCAD. Underground Detention Release Rates 10-year proposed = 1.32 cfs < 2.07 cfs 100-year proposed = 1.95 cfs < 1.98 cfs. G. Stormwater Quality and BMP Recommendations According to Chapter 7, section 701 of the City of Carmel Stormwater Management Ordinance, any project that disturbs ¼ acre or more of land is required to provide two (2) post-construction stormwater quality measures. The proposed development will disturb approximately +/- 1.09 acres. As part of this development, we are proposing one (1) Storm Drain Insert and one (1) infiltration trench, as labeled on Table 701-1 in Chapter 7. 1. We are proposing the Aqua-Swirl XC-4 In-Line model (storm drain insert) to be located just south of the renovated building in the front parking lot, labeled as BMP 103. 2. We are also proposing StormTech Isolator Rows (which will act as infiltration trenches) within the underground detention system. SECTION II: APPENDIX A. SITE INFORMATION 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 5/17/2022 at 9:59 AM 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 86°5'53"W 39°56'2"N 86°5'16"W 39°55'34"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS EX Existing Basin Routing Diagram for TW Service HydroCAD EX Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/17/2022 HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD EX Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment EX: Existing Basin Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=1.090 ac Runoff Volume=0.301 af Runoff Depth>3.31" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 5.99 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD EX Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment EX: Existing Basin Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=1.090 ac Runoff Volume=0.301 af Runoff Depth>3.31" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 5.99 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD EX Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment EX: Existing Basin Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765Flow (cfs)11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=1.090 ac Runoff Volume=0.516 af Runoff Depth>5.68" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 10.15 cfs C. PROPOSED CONDITIONS ROGER WARD ENGINEERING, INC.STORM DRAIN FLOW TABULATION FORM - RATIONAL METHODPROJECT NAMETOM WOOD JLRV SERVICEPROJECT No. TWI.011 COMPUTED BY:RCWSTORM FREQUENCY DESIGN YEAR 10CHECKED BY:RCWC A L C U L A T E D 0.022D E S I G N HGLLOCATION INLET ACRES COEF. SUM TIME CONC. (min) INT. "Q" = PIPE (full) n =0.013Pipe Pipe Max Q Max V MANHOLEUS MH DEPTHLOCA TIONfrom to AREA sub total "C" CA CA inlet drain total "I" CIA size slope vel. length slope full full INV out INV inDSTC-INVFROM TOSLOT0.31 0.900.2855 6.12 1.71T.C.=743.00741.55SLOT2.21SLOTSLOT 1040.31 0.28 5.00 0.66 5.66 6.12 1.71180.08 0.97100 0.514.43 2.51 740.79 740.28 741.50Cover = 0.71SLOT 104ROOF0.38 0.900.3455 6.12 2.09T.C.=743.30741.32ROOF2.51ROOFROOF 1040.38 0.34 5.00 0.82 5.82 6.12 2.09100.91 3.84126 0.401.39 2.55 740.79 740.28 741.27Cover = 1.68ROOF 1041040.00 0.900.0055 6.12 0.00T.C.=743.00740.771042.82104104 1030.69 0.62 5.82 0.04 5.86 5.89 3.66150.32 2.988 0.404.06 3.31 740.18 740.15 740.68Cover = 1.57104 1031030.00 0.900.0055 6.12 0.00T.C.=743.10740.651033.05103103 1020.69 0.62 5.86 0.06 5.92 5.88 3.65150.32 2.9812 0.404.08 3.33 740.05 740.00 740.57Cover = 1.80103 102T.C.=743.33740.52DET3.33DET102 10116inch tall arch pipe 740.00 740.00 740.52Cover = 2.00102 1011010.00 0.900.0066 5.86 0.00T.C.=743.48737.721016.81101101 2010.00 0.00 5.92 0.78 6.70 5.86 0.00120.00 0.00118 0.311.98 2.52 736.67 736.30 737.67Cover = 5.81101 201737.30<= START OF HGL08/30/22UNDERGROUND DETENTION10-YR POND w/ 12" OUTLET = 1.32 CFSPage 1 Time of Concentration WorksheetPROJECT: TOM WOOD JLRV SERVICE Based on TR-55JOB #: TWI.011Typical values for Manning's nTypical values for Manning's nOverland Flow 2 year, 24 hour rainfall =2.64inches Channel Flow short grass 0.150 grass 0.030 dense grass 0.240 concrete 0.015 pavement 0.011 rip-rap 0.035 Overland flowseg. 1 Overland flowseg. 2 Shallow Concentrated Flow Channel FlowBasin Length S n T_t Length S n T_t Length SPaved/UnVel. T_t Length a Pw r S n Vel. T_tT_cname (ft) % (min) (ft) % (min) (ft) % (P or U) (ft/s) (min) (ft) (s.f.) (ft) (ft) % (ft/s) (min)(min)EX 100 1.00 0.011230 1.00 P2.03 05ROOF 70 2.00 0.0111341 0.55 2.620.210.25 0.0130.93 67SLOT 54 0.50 0.01115D-1 50 1.00 0.01115D-2 20 1.00 0.01105D-3 25 1.00 0.01115*NOTE: "ROOF" AND "SLOT" MAKE UP BASIN "PR". "ROOF" DRAINS TO MH 104 THROUGH THE ROOF DRAIN AND "SLOT" DRAINS TO MH 104 THROUGH THE CMP SLOTTTED DRAIN.Page 1 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-1: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.240 ac Runoff Volume=0.072 af Runoff Depth=3.60" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 1.32 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-2: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.050 ac Runoff Volume=0.015 af Runoff Depth=3.60" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 0.27 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-3: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.140 ac Runoff Volume=0.042 af Runoff Depth=3.60" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 0.77 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-1: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.240 ac Runoff Volume=0.124 af Runoff Depth=6.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 2.24 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-2: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)0.52 0.5 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.050 ac Runoff Volume=0.026 af Runoff Depth=6.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 0.47 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment D-3: Proposed Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.140 ac Runoff Volume=0.073 af Runoff Depth=6.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 1.30 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Underground Detention Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.660 ac Peak Elev=740.52' Storage=0.055 af 3.41 cfs 1.40 cfs 0.08 cfs 1.32 cfs Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Underground Detention [44] Hint: Outlet device #2 is below defined storage Inflow Area = 0.660 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.60" for 10yr-24hr event Inflow = 3.41 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af Outflow = 1.40 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.198 af, Atten= 59%, Lag= 7.5 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.102 af Primary = 1.32 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 740.52' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 0.095 ac Storage= 0.055 af Plug-Flow detention time= 45.7 min calculated for 0.198 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 45.7 min ( 795.4 - 749.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 739.50' 0.068 af 36.83'W x 112.00'L x 2.33'H Field A 0.221 af Overall - 0.051 af Embedded = 0.170 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 740.00' 0.051 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 150 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 150 Chambers in 10 Rows 0.119 af Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 736.67'12.0" Round Culvert L= 118.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 736.67' / 736.30' S= 0.0031 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 736.67'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 739.50'0.750 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 730.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=740.52' (Free Discharge) 3=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.32 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=740.52' TW=739.90' (Fixed TW Elev= 739.90') 1=Culvert (Passes 1.32 cfs of 2.23 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.32 cfs @ 3.78 fps) Type II 24-hr 10yr-24hr Rainfall=3.83"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Underground Detention - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing 15 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 108.00' Row Length +24.0" End Stone x 2 = 112.00' Base Length 10 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 9 + 24.0" Side Stone x 2 = 36.83' Base Width 6.0" Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 2.33' Field Height 150 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 2,211.3 cf Chamber Storage 9,625.8 cf Field - 2,211.3 cf Chambers = 7,414.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,965.8 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 5,177.1 cf = 0.119 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 53.8% Overall System Size = 112.00' x 36.83' x 2.33' 150 Chambers 356.5 cy Field 274.6 cy Stone Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Underground Detention Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.660 ac Peak Elev=741.25' Storage=0.097 af 5.78 cfs 2.04 cfs 0.08 cfs 1.95 cfs Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Underground Detention [44] Hint: Outlet device #2 is below defined storage Inflow Area = 0.660 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.22" for 100yr-24hr event Inflow = 5.78 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.342 af Outflow = 2.04 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.342 af, Atten= 65%, Lag= 8.2 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.134 af Primary = 1.95 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.208 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 741.25' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 0.095 ac Storage= 0.097 af Plug-Flow detention time= 48.1 min calculated for 0.342 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 48.0 min ( 788.8 - 740.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 739.50' 0.068 af 36.83'W x 112.00'L x 2.33'H Field A 0.221 af Overall - 0.051 af Embedded = 0.170 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 740.00' 0.051 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 150 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 150 Chambers in 10 Rows 0.119 af Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 736.67'12.0" Round Culvert L= 118.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 736.67' / 736.30' S= 0.0031 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 736.67'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Discarded 739.50'0.750 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 730.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=741.24' (Free Discharge) 3=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.94 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=741.24' TW=739.90' (Fixed TW Elev= 739.90') 1=Culvert (Passes 1.94 cfs of 3.29 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.94 cfs @ 5.56 fps) Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/3/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Underground Detention - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing 15 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 108.00' Row Length +24.0" End Stone x 2 = 112.00' Base Length 10 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 9 + 24.0" Side Stone x 2 = 36.83' Base Width 6.0" Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 2.33' Field Height 150 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 2,211.3 cf Chamber Storage 9,625.8 cf Field - 2,211.3 cf Chambers = 7,414.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,965.8 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 5,177.1 cf = 0.119 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 53.8% Overall System Size = 112.00' x 36.83' x 2.33' 150 Chambers 356.5 cy Field 274.6 cy Stone Emergency Overflow Weir-Underground Detention Trapezoidal Weir Discharge Q = (2/3)*Cd*b*sqrt(2g)*H^(3/2) Q(100) = 5.78 cfs - Inflow Q(100x1.25) = 7.23 cfs b = 5 ft Cd = 0.63 g = 32.2 ft/s^2 H = 0.57 ft H (depth) = 6.8 inches Base Elevation =741.25 ft Top-of-Bank = 742.81 ft Freeboard =0.99 ft INPUT INFO FOR ABOVE: OUTLET STR. 101 T.C. = 743.48 INV = 736.67 Top of Weir = 741.25 b above = assume 5' minimum diam. manhole = 5 foot wide overflow weir H max = 743.48 - 8" - 741.25 = 1.56 feet maximum allowed Base Elevation = top weir = 741.25 Top-of-Bank = 743.48 - 8" = 742.81 Emergency Overflow Path-Pipes Clogged Trapezoidal Weir Discharge Q = (2/3)*Cd*b*sqrt(2g)*H^(3/2) Q(100) = 5.78 cfs - Inflow input 5.78 cfs b = 85 ft Cd = 0.63 g = 32.2 ft/s^2 H =0.07 ft H (depth) =0.9 inches Base Elevation =743.00 ft Top-of-Bank = 743.15 ft Overflow Elev =743.07 Freeboard = 0.08 ft INPUT INFO FOR ABOVE: OVERFLOW AT SLOTTED DRAIN T.C. = 743.00 Breakaway Elevation = 743.00 b above = distance between M.E. top of bank grades = 85 feet Base Elevation = breakaway = 743.00 Top-of-Bank = 743.15 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.01 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.01 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.20 0.01 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.30 0.01 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.40 0.02 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.50 0.02 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.60 0.02 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.70 0.02 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.80 0.02 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.90 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 2.00 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.02 0.02 0.00 2.10 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.20 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.30 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.40 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.50 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.60 0.03 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.70 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 2.80 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 2.90 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.00 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.10 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.20 0.04 0.000 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.30 0.04 0.001 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.40 0.04 0.001 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.50 0.04 0.001 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.60 0.04 0.001 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.70 0.05 0.001 739.51 0.04 0.04 0.00 3.80 0.05 0.001 739.51 0.05 0.05 0.00 3.90 0.05 0.001 739.51 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.00 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.10 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.20 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.30 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.40 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.50 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.60 0.05 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.70 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 4.80 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 4.90 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.00 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.10 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.20 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 5.30 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.40 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.50 0.06 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.60 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.70 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.06 0.06 0.00 5.80 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 5.90 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.00 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.10 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.20 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.30 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.40 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.50 0.07 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.60 0.08 0.001 739.52 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.70 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.80 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 6.90 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.00 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.10 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.20 0.08 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.30 0.08 0.001 739.54 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.40 0.08 0.001 739.54 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.50 0.08 0.002 739.54 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.60 0.09 0.002 739.54 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.70 0.09 0.002 739.55 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.80 0.09 0.002 739.55 0.07 0.07 0.00 7.90 0.09 0.002 739.55 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.00 0.09 0.002 739.56 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.10 0.09 0.002 739.56 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.20 0.09 0.002 739.56 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.30 0.10 0.003 739.57 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.40 0.10 0.003 739.58 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.50 0.11 0.003 739.58 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.60 0.11 0.003 739.59 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.70 0.12 0.004 739.60 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.80 0.12 0.004 739.61 0.07 0.07 0.00 8.90 0.12 0.005 739.62 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.00 0.13 0.005 739.63 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.10 0.13 0.005 739.64 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.20 0.13 0.006 739.66 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.30 0.13 0.006 739.67 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.40 0.13 0.007 739.68 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.50 0.13 0.007 739.70 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.60 0.13 0.008 739.71 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.70 0.14 0.009 739.72 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.80 0.15 0.009 739.74 0.07 0.07 0.00 9.90 0.15 0.010 739.76 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.00 0.16 0.010 739.77 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.10 0.17 0.011 739.79 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.20 0.18 0.012 739.82 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.30 0.19 0.013 739.84 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.40 0.20 0.014 739.87 0.07 0.07 0.00 10.50 0.21 0.015 739.89 0.07 0.07 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 10.60 0.22 0.016 739.91 0.20 0.07 0.12 10.70 0.24 0.016 739.91 0.23 0.07 0.15 10.80 0.25 0.016 739.91 0.25 0.07 0.17 10.90 0.27 0.016 739.92 0.26 0.07 0.19 11.00 0.29 0.016 739.92 0.28 0.07 0.21 11.10 0.31 0.016 739.92 0.30 0.07 0.22 11.20 0.34 0.016 739.92 0.32 0.07 0.25 11.30 0.38 0.016 739.93 0.35 0.07 0.28 11.40 0.42 0.017 739.94 0.39 0.07 0.31 11.50 0.47 0.017 739.94 0.43 0.07 0.35 11.60 0.66 0.017 739.96 0.49 0.08 0.42 11.70 1.46 0.021 740.03 0.68 0.08 0.61 11.80 2.48 0.031 740.16 0.94 0.08 0.86 11.90 4.37 0.049 740.42 1.29 0.08 1.22 12.00 5.59 0.080 740.91 1.77 0.08 1.69 12.10 2.15 0.096 741.24 2.03 0.08 1.95 12.20 0.93 0.091 741.13 1.95 0.08 1.86 12.30 0.69 0.082 740.95 1.81 0.08 1.72 12.40 0.58 0.073 740.79 1.67 0.08 1.59 12.50 0.48 0.064 740.65 1.54 0.08 1.46 12.60 0.39 0.056 740.52 1.40 0.08 1.33 12.70 0.35 0.048 740.40 1.27 0.08 1.19 12.80 0.33 0.041 740.30 1.14 0.08 1.07 12.90 0.31 0.034 740.21 1.02 0.08 0.94 13.00 0.29 0.029 740.14 0.90 0.08 0.82 13.10 0.27 0.024 740.07 0.78 0.08 0.70 13.20 0.25 0.021 740.02 0.66 0.08 0.59 13.30 0.24 0.018 739.97 0.51 0.08 0.43 13.40 0.23 0.016 739.93 0.34 0.07 0.26 13.50 0.21 0.016 739.91 0.23 0.07 0.15 13.60 0.20 0.016 739.91 0.21 0.07 0.13 13.70 0.19 0.016 739.91 0.20 0.07 0.12 13.80 0.19 0.016 739.91 0.19 0.07 0.11 13.90 0.18 0.015 739.91 0.18 0.07 0.11 14.00 0.17 0.015 739.91 0.17 0.07 0.10 14.10 0.16 0.015 739.91 0.16 0.07 0.09 14.20 0.16 0.015 739.91 0.16 0.07 0.08 14.30 0.15 0.015 739.91 0.15 0.07 0.08 14.40 0.15 0.015 739.91 0.15 0.07 0.08 14.50 0.15 0.015 739.91 0.15 0.07 0.07 14.60 0.14 0.015 739.91 0.15 0.07 0.07 14.70 0.14 0.015 739.91 0.14 0.07 0.07 14.80 0.14 0.015 739.91 0.14 0.07 0.06 14.90 0.14 0.015 739.91 0.14 0.07 0.06 15.00 0.13 0.015 739.90 0.13 0.07 0.06 15.10 0.13 0.015 739.90 0.13 0.07 0.06 15.20 0.13 0.015 739.90 0.13 0.07 0.05 15.30 0.12 0.015 739.90 0.12 0.07 0.05 15.40 0.12 0.015 739.90 0.12 0.07 0.05 15.50 0.12 0.015 739.90 0.12 0.07 0.04 15.60 0.11 0.015 739.90 0.12 0.07 0.04 15.70 0.11 0.015 739.90 0.11 0.07 0.04 15.80 0.11 0.015 739.90 0.11 0.07 0.03 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 15.90 0.11 0.015 739.90 0.11 0.07 0.03 16.00 0.10 0.015 739.90 0.10 0.07 0.03 16.10 0.10 0.015 739.90 0.10 0.07 0.03 16.20 0.10 0.015 739.90 0.10 0.07 0.02 16.30 0.10 0.015 739.90 0.10 0.07 0.02 16.40 0.10 0.015 739.90 0.10 0.07 0.02 16.50 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.02 16.60 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.02 16.70 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.02 16.80 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.02 16.90 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.02 17.00 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.01 17.10 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.01 17.20 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.01 17.30 0.09 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.01 17.40 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.09 0.07 0.01 17.50 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.01 17.60 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.01 17.70 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.01 17.80 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.01 17.90 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.01 18.00 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.00 18.10 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.00 18.20 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.00 18.30 0.08 0.015 739.90 0.08 0.07 0.00 18.40 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 18.50 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 18.60 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 18.70 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 18.80 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 18.90 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.00 0.07 0.015 739.90 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.10 0.07 0.015 739.89 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.20 0.07 0.015 739.89 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.30 0.06 0.015 739.89 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.40 0.06 0.015 739.89 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.50 0.06 0.015 739.88 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.60 0.06 0.014 739.88 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.70 0.06 0.014 739.88 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.80 0.06 0.014 739.88 0.07 0.07 0.00 19.90 0.06 0.014 739.87 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.00 0.06 0.014 739.87 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.10 0.06 0.014 739.86 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.20 0.06 0.014 739.86 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.30 0.06 0.014 739.86 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.40 0.06 0.013 739.85 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.50 0.05 0.013 739.85 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.60 0.05 0.013 739.84 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.70 0.05 0.013 739.84 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.80 0.05 0.013 739.84 0.07 0.07 0.00 20.90 0.05 0.013 739.83 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.00 0.05 0.012 739.83 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.10 0.05 0.012 739.82 0.07 0.07 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 21.20 0.05 0.012 739.82 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.30 0.05 0.012 739.81 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.40 0.05 0.012 739.81 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.50 0.05 0.012 739.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.60 0.05 0.011 739.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.70 0.05 0.011 739.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.80 0.05 0.011 739.79 0.07 0.07 0.00 21.90 0.05 0.011 739.79 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.00 0.05 0.011 739.78 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.10 0.05 0.010 739.78 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.20 0.05 0.010 739.77 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.30 0.05 0.010 739.77 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.40 0.05 0.010 739.76 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.50 0.05 0.010 739.76 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.60 0.05 0.010 739.75 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.70 0.05 0.009 739.75 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.80 0.05 0.009 739.74 0.07 0.07 0.00 22.90 0.05 0.009 739.74 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.00 0.05 0.009 739.73 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.10 0.05 0.009 739.73 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.20 0.05 0.008 739.72 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.30 0.05 0.008 739.72 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.40 0.05 0.008 739.71 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.50 0.05 0.008 739.70 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.60 0.05 0.008 739.70 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.70 0.05 0.007 739.69 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.80 0.05 0.007 739.69 0.07 0.07 0.00 23.90 0.05 0.007 739.68 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.00 0.05 0.007 739.68 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.10 0.02 0.006 739.67 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.20 0.00 0.006 739.66 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.30 0.00 0.005 739.64 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.40 0.00 0.005 739.62 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.50 0.00 0.004 739.61 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.60 0.00 0.004 739.59 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.70 0.00 0.003 739.58 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.80 0.00 0.002 739.56 0.07 0.07 0.00 24.90 0.00 0.002 739.55 0.07 0.07 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.001 739.53 0.07 0.07 0.00 25.10 0.00 0.001 739.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 25.20 0.00 0.000 739.51 0.03 0.03 0.00 25.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 25.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 25.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 26.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 31.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 37.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 42.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.10 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.20 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.30 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.40 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.50 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.60 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Type II 24-hr 100yr-24hr Rainfall=6.46"TW Service HydroCAD PR Revised 2 Printed 8/5/2022Prepared by Microsoft HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 08404 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: Underground Detention (continued) Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (acre-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 47.70 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.80 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.90 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 0.00 0.000 739.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 D. STORMWATER QUALITY DATA Water Quality Calculaion 06/28/07 Exhibit 701-1: Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Storm Event Water Quality Curve Number7072747678808284868890929496981000 102030405060708090100Percent ImperviousnessWater Quality Curve Number (CNwq) City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 0/2022 Version 22 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 3-ft 0.85 1.84 9 4-ft 1.5 3.24 9 5-ft 2.35 5.08 9 6-ft 3.38 7.30 9 7-ft 4.60 9.94 9 Hydro International First Defense High Capacity 8-ft 6.00 12.96 9 HS-3 0.50 1.00 6 HS-4 0.88 1.76 6 HS-5 1.37 2.74 6 HS-6 1.98 3.96 6 HS-7 2.69 5.38 6 HS-8 3.52 7.04 6 HS-9 4.45 8.9 6 HS-10 5.49 10.98 6 HS-11 6.65 13.3 6 HydroStorm by Hydroworks, LLC HS-12 7.91 15.82 6 XC-2 0.57 1.16 6 XC-3 1.13 2.30 6 XC-4 1.86 3.79 6 XC-5 2.78 5.66 6 XC-6 3.88 7.90 6 XC-7 5.17 10.52 6 XC-8 6.64 13.51 6 XC-9 8.29 16.87 6 XC-10 10.13 20.62 6 XC-11 12.15 24.73 6 XC-12 14.35 29.20 6 AquaShield Aqua-Swirl Xcelerator1 XC-13 15.53 31.60 6 CS-3 1.02 2.27 9 CS-4 1.80 4.03 9 CS-5 2.81 6.29 9 CS-6 4.05 9.07 9 CS-8 7.20 16.1 9 CS-10 11.3 25.3 9 Contech Cascade Separator CS-12 16.2 36.3 9 E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & PERCOLATION TESTING ADDITIONS TO TOM WOOD JAGUAR/LAND ROVER/VOLVO INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA A&W PROJECT NO.: 22IN0411 PREPARED FOR: ROGER WARD ENGINEERING INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA PREPARED BY: ALT & WITZIG ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION JULY 25, 2022 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 4105 West 99th Street Carmel Indiana 46032 Ph (317) 875-7000 Fax (317) 876-3705 Offices: Cincinnati Columbus Dayton, Ohio Evansville Ft. Wayne Indianapolis Lafayette Merrillville/South Bend, Indiana Subsurface Investigation and Foundation Engineering Construction Materials Testing and Inspection Environmental Services July 25, 2022 Roger Ward Engineering 6555 Carrollton Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46220 Attn: Mr. Roger Ward Jr., P.E. Report of Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Testing RE: Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo 4620 E. 96th Street, Suite 1 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 Dear Mr. Ward: In compliance with your request, we have conducted a subsurface investigation and geotechnical evaluation for the above referenced project. It is our pleasure to transmit an electronic copy of the report. The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to determine the various soil profile components, the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials, and to provide information for use in determining an economical, structurally sound foundation system for the new facilities. A detailed discussion of our subsurface investigation results and recommendations are presented herein. We appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this project. Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning the soil conditions. If we can give further service in these matters, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. David M. Shumate, Engineering Geologist David C. Harness, P.E. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 DESCRIPTION OF SITE ............................................................................................................................. 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................ 3 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 6 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 9 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 12 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX A Recommended Specifications for Compacted Fills and Backfills Undercut Detail for Footing Excavation in Unstable Materials Boring Logs General Notes APPENDIX B Seismic Design Parameters Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a subsurface investigation performed for the proposed additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo to be constructed in Indianapolis, Indiana. Our investigation was conducted for Roger Ward Engineering of Indianapolis, Indiana. Authorization to perform this investigation was in the form of a proposal prepared by Alt & Witzig, Engineering, Inc. (Alt & Witzig Proposal: 2206G003) and was accepted by Roger Ward. The scope of this investigation included a review of geological maps of the area and a review of geologic and related literature; a reconnaissance of the immediate site; a subsurface exploration; field and laboratory testing; and engineering analysis and evaluation of the materials. The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to determine the various soils profile components, the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials, and to provide criteria for use in assessing the site for construction and evaluating subsurface conditions. The scope or purpose of this investigation did not either specifically or by implication provide an environmental assessment of the site. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located at 4620 E. 96th Street, Suite 1, on the north side of E. 96th Street and approximately seven hundred (700) feet west of Gray Road in Indianapolis, Indiana. The general vicinity of the site is shown in an aerial photograph taken in 2021 provided in Exhibit 1 below. Exhibit 1 – 2021 Aerial Photograph of Site; Google Earth Site Description The site is currently occupied a paved asphalt parking lot used by the existing Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo. The site is relatively flat with an estimated relief of less than one (1) foot across the site. The approximate elevation of the site ranges between 742 feet to 743 feet, per the survey provided by the client. Ground cover across the site during drilling operations consisted of asphalt. The surrounding areas are developed with commercial structures, paved roadways, and underground/overhead utilities. Drainage of the site towards Carmel Creek located to the west. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION Boring Locations Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. staked the locations of the borings using the site plan provided with the RFP. The site plan was projected onto aerials provided by the Google Earth website allowing for the correlation of the approximate latitude and longitude coordinates with each location. These coordinates were then assigned as waypoints and uploaded into a handheld GPS unit. The locations referred to on our boring logs and presented on the Boring Location Plan below (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 2 – Boring Locations General Field investigations to determine the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and performing six (6) borings and two (2) percolation tests located approximately as shown in the Exhibit 2, performing standard penetration tests, and obtaining soil samples retained in the standard spilt-spoon sampler for further laboratory testing. The apparent groundwater level at each boring location was also determined. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 4 Drilling and Sampling Procedures The soil borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with a rotary head. Hollow- stem augers were used to advance the holes. The advancement of the borings was temporarily stopped at regular intervals to perform standard penetration tests in accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586 to obtain the standard penetration value of the soil. The standard penetration test involves driving a split spoon soil sampler into the ground by dropping a 140-pound hammer, thirty (30) inches. The number of hammer drops required to advance the split-spoon sampler one (1) foot into the soil is defined as the standard penetration value. The soil samples retained in the split-spoon sampling device as a result of the penetration tests were obtained, classified, and labeled for further laboratory investigation. Water Level Measurements The apparent groundwater level at each boring location was measured during and upon completion of the drilling operations. These water level measurements consisted of observing the depth at which water was encountered on the drilling rods during the soil sampling procedure and measuring the depth to the top of any water following removal of the hollow stem augers. It should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded on the individual Boring Logs in Appendix A of this report are accurate only for the specific dates on which the measurements were performed. It must be understood that the groundwater levels will fluctuate throughout the year and the Boring Logs do not indicate these fluctuations. Ground Surface Elevation Ground surface elevations were interpolated from the site plans provided by the client titled C103 – Site Grading and Drainage. These elevations are assumed to be accurate to +/- one (1) foot. All depths reported on the Boring Logs are from the existing ground surface at the time of the drilling operations. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 5 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION In addition to field investigations, a supplemental laboratory investigation was conducted to ascertain additional pertinent engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials. The laboratory-testing program included: • Classification of soils with ASTM D-2488 • Moisture content tests with ASTM D-2216 • Samples of the cohesive soil were frequently tested in unconfined compression by use of a calibrated spring testing machine. • A soil Penetrometer was used as an aid in determining the strength of the soil. The values of the unconfined compressive strength as determined on soil samples from the split-spoon sampling must be considered, recognizing the manner in which they were obtained since the split-spoon sampling techniques provide a representative but somewhat disturbed soil sample. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General The types of foundation materials encountered have been visually classified and are described in detail on the Boring Logs. The results of the field penetration tests, strength tests, water level observations and laboratory water contents are presented on the Boring Logs in numerical form. Representative samples of the soils encountered in the field were placed in sample jars and are now stored in our laboratory for further analysis if desired. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of after two (2) months. Soil Conditions Borings B-1 through B-4, which were performed in the footprint of the proposed addition, encountered approximately four (4) to six (6) inches of asphalt underlain by six (6) to eight (8) inches of crushed stone. Beneath the surface elements, the borings encountered very soft to medium stiff cohesive, possible fill soils extending to a depth of seven (7) feet. These shallow, possible fill soils were underlain by soft to stiff cohesive soils with sand seams extending to the termination depth of the borings. However, boring B-1 encountered wet, medium dense granular soils from a depth of fourteen (14) feet extending to the boring termination depth. Moisture contents of the shallow soils ranged between 14 to 26 percent. Borings P-1 and P-2, which were performed in the proposed underground detention area, encountered four (4) inches of asphalt underlain two (2) to six (6) inches of crushed stone. Beneath the surface elements the boring encountered very soft to medium stiff cohesive, possible fill soils extending to the boring termination depths. Moisture contents of the shallow soils ranged between 13 to 19 percent. Detailed soil descriptions at each boring location have been included on the Boring Logs in Appendix A of this report. According to the Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana published by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the majority of the soil covering this site is classified as Urban Land-Ockley Silt Loam Complex (UkpA), Urban Land-Sleeth Loam Complex (UmqA), Urban Land-Westland Silty Clay Loam Complex (UwtA) type soils. The Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana has been included in Appendix B. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 7 Bedrock Geology Geologic maps published by the Indiana Geological Survey indicate the bedrock at this site consists of New Albany Shale, which is characterized by shale of the Devonian age. The approximate elevation of this bedrock ranges between 650 and 700 feet, which is less than 100 feet below the existing ground surface. Seismic Consideration Based on the field and laboratory tests performed on the subsurface materials and an assumption that the bedrock surface is greater than 100 feet below the existing ground surface, this site should be considered a Site Class D in accordance with the 2015 Indiana Building Code. Maximum spectral response acceleration values of Ss=0.148 g and S1=0.082 g are recommended for seismic design. Groundwater Groundwater levels taken during and upon completion of the boring operations yielded dry boreholes. The exact location of the water table may fluctuate somewhat depending upon normal seasonal variations in precipitation and surface runoff. The Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana indicates a seasonal high groundwater table as shallow as the natural ground surface. Again, it should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded on the individual Boring Logs included in Appendix B of this report, are accurate only for the dates on which the measurements were performed. Infiltration Discussion The infiltration tests were conducted on June 24th, 2022. A falling-head percolation rate was measured at two locations by introducing water into the borehole and allowed to fall while taking readings at specific time intervals. This was conducted numerous times in the borehole and the data reviewed for trends and determination of percolation rate. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 8 The geometry of the borehole and water head was utilized to determine the average permeability rate of the soil profile. The soil at the infiltration zone was a medium stiff, sandy clay. Percolation tests conducted on differing subsurface layers will produce results that vary from the results indicated herein. The percolation and infiltration rates as determined through the two (2) borehole permeameter tests conducted at this site can be found in the following Table 1. Table 1: Percolation Test Results Location Infiltration Depth (ft.) Field Measured Percolation Rate (min/in) Calculated Infiltration Rate (in/hr) P-1 1.0-4.0 34.3 1.75 P-2 1.0-4.0 40.0 1.5 Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS Project Description Provided plans indicate the proposed building will be constructed as a single-story, slab-on-grade structure, along with associated paved parking and driving lanes surrounding the structure and an underground detention system will be located to the east. Site plans provided by the client indicate a final floor elevation of 743.44’ for the existing structure. It is assumed the final floor elevation for the proposed addition will match the existing structure. Based on the existing topography of the site, approximately (1) foot of relief exists over the proposed building footprint. Finished grade will be established slightly above the existing ground surface. Structural loads were not available at the time of this report; however, it was assumed for analysis purposes that the structure will be constructed with maximum column and wall loads not exceeding 75 kips and 4 klf, respectively. It is expected that these structural loads will be transferred to the soils by conventional spread footings or continuous wall footings, if possible. Once final design loads are available, they should be submitted to Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. for review. After a review of this information, it will be determined if changes to these recommendations are warranted. Foundation Recommendations Considering the encountered soil conditions at the boring locations, the estimated loads of the structure, and the relative economics of the available foundation types, conventional spread and continuous wall footings founded at a shallow depth appear to represent a feasible foundation solution for this project. A net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf is recommended for dimensioning spread footings and continuous wall footings, provided they are founded on medium stiff, native soils or properly compacted fills. It is recommended that a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. inspect all foundation excavations prior to the placement of concrete. At the time of this inspection, Housel penetrometer or other approved tests may be performed to confirm that unanticipated soil materials or debris are not present. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 10 The above recommended bearing pressures will help reduce differential settlements associated with footings founded on soil with varying stiffness across the building pad. Using the above-mentioned bearing pressure and recommendations for limiting settlements, total settlements of less than one (1) inch and differential settlements of one half (½) inch or less can be anticipated. In utilizing the above-mentioned net allowable pressures for dimensioning footings, it is necessary to consider only those loads applied above the finished floor elevation. To alleviate the effects of seasonal variation in moisture content on the behavior of the footings and eliminate the effects of frost action, all exterior foundations should be founded a minimum of three (3) feet below the final grade. Some modifications to the recommendations provided in this report may be necessary based on potential complications or modifications to the design plan. Some shallow fills not evident in our sampling may be present that can affect the suitability of the subgrade and foundation soil. The modifications may influence the overall cost of the project and construction sequence. If complications become apparent to the design team or owner, this information should be provided to Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. as soon as possible. Floor Slab Recommendations Prior to elevating the site, the existing subgrade soils must be proofrolled with approved equipment. Areas that pass the proofroll inspection may be raised to design subgrade elevation as outlined in Appendix A of this report. It is recommended that a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. be present to determine remediation, dictated by the field conditions during construction. Areas of shallow unstable materials should be anticipated due to possibly fill soils and elevated moisture contents within the shallow soils. The exact stabilization method used will be dependent upon the size of the area and the types of materials encountered, as well as the project schedule. If weather conditions are favorable, the soils may be aerated, dried, and recompacted. However, if weather conditions or construction schedule dictate immediate improvement then chemical modification may be necessary. After the building area has been raised to the proper elevation, a free-draining granular fill should be placed immediately beneath all floor slabs. It is recommended that the materials within the floor slab Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 11 subgrade area be compacted to a minimum density of 93 percent of maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Pavement Recommendations The strength of the subgrade soils at this site depends upon several variables including compaction and drainage. It is, therefore, extremely important that all paved areas be designed to prevent water from collecting or ponding immediately beneath the pavement. This can be accomplished by sheet draining the parking area and sloping the subgrade soils and outletting them to a drain or a ditch to allow for subgrade drainage, or by the installation of a subsurface drainage system. It is recommended that underdrains be installed at the transitions from concrete to asphalt as well. For these soils to provide adequate support for pavement, it will also be necessary that the earthmoving contractor follow proper site work techniques. The exposed subgrade should be proof- rolled with equipment approved by a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. This proof- rolling will assist in identifying pockets of soft unstable materials beneath exposed subgrades. As mentioned before, some of the shallow soils encountered elevated moisture contents. Where soft areas or unstable fill materials are encountered, remediation will be necessary. Remediation will be dictated by the field conditions experienced during construction. In areas where fill will be required to raise the site to proposed grade, the performance of the pavements will be greatly affected by the quality of compaction achieved in the subgrade soils. Thus, it is recommended that all pavement areas be compacted to 93 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 12 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Site Preparation Excessively organic topsoil and loose dumped fill materials will generally undergo high volume changes that are detrimental to the behavior of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations placed upon them. It is recommended that all topsoil and/or loose materials be stripped from the construction areas and wasted or stockpiled for later use. The depth and consistency of these materials will vary across the site. It should be noted that the soil borings only indicate the apparent topsoil section thickness at their specific locations. Borings do not indicate variations in the thickness of this layer between selected locations. Thus, borings only provide a general indication of the amount of stripping. The condition of the subgrade at the time of earthmoving operations and the methods used by the contractor will influence the depth of stripping. A representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. in the field should determine the exact depth of stripping and undercutting at the time of stripping operations. It is recommended that after the above-mentioned stripping procedures have been performed, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled with approved equipment. This proofrolling will determine where areas of soft unsuitable materials are encountered. Due to the possible fill soils and elevated moisture contents encountered in some of the shallow soils, some subgrade soils may not favorably pass a proofroll inspection. It is recommended that a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. be present for this phase of this project. After the existing subgrade soils are excavated to design grade, proper control of subgrade compaction and fill, and structural fill replacement should be maintained in accordance with the Recommended Specifications for Compacted Fills and Backfills, presented in Appendix A of this report; thus minimizing volume changes and differential settlements which are detrimental to behavior of shallow foundations, floor slabs and pavements. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 13 Groundwater Groundwater levels taken during and upon completion of the boring operations yielded dry boreholes. The exact location of the water table may fluctuate somewhat depending upon normal seasonal variations in precipitation and surface runoff. The Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana indicates a seasonal high groundwater table as shallow as the natural ground surface. Again, it should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded on the individual Boring Logs included in Appendix B of this report, are accurate only for the dates on which the measurements were performed. Depending upon the time of the year and the weather conditions when the excavations are made, seepage from surface runoff may occur into shallow excavations or soften the subgrade soils. Since these foundation materials tend to loosen when exposed to free water, every effort should be made to keep the excavations dry should water be encountered. Sump pumps or other conventional dewatering procedures should be sufficient for this purpose within the cohesive soil. Significant dewatering should be expected if excavations penetrate the underlying wet sands. It is also recommended that all concrete for footings be poured the same day as the excavation is made. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 14 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is solely for the use of Roger Ward Engineering and any reliance of this report by third parties shall be at such party’s sole risk and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any other objectives than those set out in the scope of work, except where written approval and consent are provided by Roger Ward Engineering and Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. An inherent limitation of any geotechnical engineering study is that conclusions must be drawn based on data collected at a limited number of discrete locations. The geotechnical parameters provided in this report were developed from the information obtained from the test borings that depict subsurface conditions only at these specific locations and on the date indicated on the boring logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions encountered at these boring locations and groundwater levels shall be expected to vary with time. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. The exploration and analysis reported herein is considered in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for design. The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information and assumed design details enumerated in this report. If actual design details differ from those specified in this report, this information should be brought to the attention of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. so that it may be determined if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 APPENDIX A Recommended Specifications for Compacted Fills and Backfills Undercut Detail for Footing Excavation in Unstable Materials Boring Logs General Notes Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTED FILLS AND BACKFILLS All fill shall be formed from material free of vegetable matter, rubbish, large rock, and other deleterious material. Prior to placement of fill, a sample of the proposed fill material should be submitted to Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. for approval. The surface of each layer will be approximately horizontal but will be provided with sufficient longitudinal and transverse slope to provide for runoff of surface water from every point. The fill material should be placed in layers not to exceed eight (8) inches in loose thickness and should be sprinkled with water as required to secure specified compactions. Each layer should be uniformly compacted by means of suitable equipment of the type required by the materials composing the fill. Under no circumstances should a bulldozer or similar tracked vehicles be used as compacting equipment. Material containing an excess of water, so the specified compaction limits cannot be attained should be spread and dried to a moisture content that will permit proper compaction. All fill should be compacted to the specified percent of the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM density Test D-1557 (95 percent of maximum dry density below the base of footing elevation, 93 percent of maximum dry density beneath floor slabs and pavements). Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate that the specified compaction limits are not obtained; the areas represented by such tests should be reworked and retested as required until the specified limits are reached. Alt & Witzig Engineering Inc. 4105 W. 99th Street ·Carmel, IN 46032 TEL (317)875-7000 · FAX (317) 876-3705 www.altwitzig.com PROJECT: Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo LOCATION: Indianapolis, IN CLIENT: Roger Ward A&W File No.: 22IN0411 Undercut Detail for Footing Excavation in Unstable Material 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 6" Asphalt 6" Crushed Stone Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) Brown and Gray Sandy CLAY Brown, Wet SAND End of Boring at 21 feet 742.3 741.8 735.8 728.8 721.8 0.5 1.0 7.0 14.0 21.0 7 8 7 6 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS SS SS SS SS SS 18.9 18.7 18.4 16.9 1.4 2.2 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/24/22 30 2 B-1 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 742.8 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/24/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG Caved At Completion 13.0 ft. 2.0 3.5 4" Asphalt 8" Crushed Stone Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) Brown and Gray Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams Gray Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams End of Boring at 21 feet 742.1 741.4 735.4 729.4 721.4 0.3 1.0 7.0 13.0 21.0 5 5 6 4 6 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS SS SS SS SS SS 20.3 21.5 7.62.7 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/24/22 30 2 B-2 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 742.4 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/24/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG Caved At Completion 14.0 ft. 2.5 2.0 1.5 4.5 6" Asphalt 6" Crushed Stone Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) Brown Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams Gray Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams End of Boring at 21 feet 742.5 742.2 736.0 730.0 722.0 0.5 0.8 7.0 13.0 21.0 7 7 4 5 15 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS SS SS SS SS SS 15.9 15.7 26.5 7.7 1.8 1.6 3.5 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/24/22 30 2 B-3 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 743.0 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/24/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG 1.0 2.5 1.5 4.5 2.5 4" Asphalt 8" Crushed Stone Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) Brown Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams Gray Sandy CLAY with Sand Seams End of Boring at 21 feet 742.7 742.0 736.0 729.0 722.0 0.3 1.0 7.0 14.0 21.0 3 9 5 4 15 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS SS SS SS SS SS 18.9 14.0 22.4 8.6 10.1 1.6 1.2 1.8 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/23/22 30 2 B-4 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 743.0 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/23/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG 1.0 4" Asphalt 6" Crushed Stone Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) End of Boring at 4 feet 742.8 742.3 739.1 0.3 0.8 4.0 4 12 1 2 SS SS 17.0 17.6 0.6 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/23/22 30 2 P-1 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 743.1 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/23/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG 4.5 4" Asphalt 2" Gravel Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (Possible Fill) End of Boring at 4 feet 742.9 742.7 739.2 0.3 0.5 4.0 2 10 1 2 SS SS 18.9 13.1 0.4 CFASampler GraphicsRecovery GraphicsGround WaterRoger Ward ALT & WITZIG FILE #Moisture Content % Dry Unit Weight (pcf)PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman B-57 TruckRig Type Qu-tsf UnconfinedCompressive StrengthPocket PenetrometerGroundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube ScaleST CA RC CU CT Standard PenetrationCLIENT - Driven Split Spoon Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 6/23/22 30 2 P-2 22IN0411 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME StrataSampleNo.in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 743.2 140 BORING #Test, N - blows/footDRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP-tsf- Continuous Flight Auger RemarksIndianapolis, IN 6/23/22 HSA DepthDepthSS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt.lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sample TypeDry ft. Additions to Tom Wood Jag LR Volvo HSA BORING LOG Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Additions to Tom Wood Jaguar/Land Rover/Volvo-Indianapolis, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 22IN0411 APPENDIX B Seismic Design Parameters Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana 7/20/22, 10:32 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/2 22IN0411 Latitude, Longitude: 39.929974, -86.092316 Date 7/20/2022, 10:32:24 AM Design Code Reference Document IBC-2015 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 0.148 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.082 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 0.236 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.197 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.157 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.131 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC B Seismic design category Fa 1.6 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv 2.4 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.067 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.6 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.108 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 0.148 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 0.162 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.082 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.095 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.91 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.865 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s 7/20/22, 10:32 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 2/2 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana 22IN0411 Natural Resources Conservation Service July 20, 2022 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 Soil Map..................................................................................................................5 Soil Map................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................8 Map Unit Descriptions..........................................................................................8 Hamilton County, Indiana................................................................................10 UkpA—Urban land-Ockley silt loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes..........10 UmqA—Urban land-Sleeth loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes...............11 UwtA—Urban land-Westland silty clay loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................................................................12 4 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 6 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44203404420350442036044203704420380442039044204004420410442034044203504420360442037044203804420390442040044204104420420577530 577540 577550 577560 577570 577580 577590 577600 577610 577620 577630 577640 577650 577530 577540 577550 577560 577570 577580 577590 577600 577610 577620 577630 577640 577650 39° 55' 49'' N 86° 5' 33'' W39° 55' 49'' N86° 5' 28'' W39° 55' 46'' N 86° 5' 33'' W39° 55' 46'' N 86° 5' 28'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 25 50 100 150 Feet 0 5 10 20 30 Meters Map Scale: 1:607 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 9, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 1, 2018—Sep 30, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI UkpA Urban land-Ockley silt loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 1.2 62.5% UmqA Urban land-Sleeth loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.7 36.0% UwtA Urban land-Westland silty clay loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.0 1.5% Totals for Area of Interest 1.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 8 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 9 Hamilton County, Indiana UkpA—Urban land-Ockley silt loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2y478 Elevation: 600 to 1,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Urban land:60 percent Ockley and similar soils:35 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ockley Setting Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Riser Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loess over loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam BA - 10 to 15 inches: silt loam Bt1 - 15 to 18 inches: silt loam Bt2 - 18 to 37 inches: clay loam 2Bt3 - 37 to 49 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam 3C - 49 to 79 inches: stratified very gravelly coarse sand to gravelly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:40 to 72 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:50 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1 Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F111AY015IN - Dry Outwash Upland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wawaka Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains on outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F111AY015IN - Dry Outwash Upland Hydric soil rating: No UmqA—Urban land-Sleeth loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2xf6s Elevation: 640 to 1,040 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 185 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Urban land:60 percent Sleeth and similar soils:35 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sleeth Setting Landform:Outwash plains, terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: loam H2 - 11 to 20 inches: clay loam H3 - 20 to 54 inches: gravelly clay loam H4 - 54 to 60 inches: stratified sand to very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Depth to restrictive feature:40 to 60 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:55 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: F111AY014IN - Outwash Upland Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Poorly drained aqualfs Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Depressions Other vegetative classification:Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Yes Westland Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Depressions Ecological site:R111AY016IN - Outwash Mollisol Other vegetative classification:Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Yes UwtA—Urban land-Westland silty clay loam complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2y48p Elevation: 400 to 1,040 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Urban land:60 percent Westland, drained, and similar soils:40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Description of Westland, Drained Setting Landform:Depressions on stream terraces, swales on stream terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread, dip Down-slope shape:Concave, linear Across-slope shape:Concave, linear Parent material:Loess over loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 10 inches: silty clay loam Btg1 - 10 to 21 inches: silty clay loam 2Btg2 - 21 to 37 inches: clay loam 2BCg - 37 to 47 inches: loam 3Cg - 47 to 79 inches: stratified extremely gravelly coarse sand to coarse sand to gravelly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:40 to 60 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content:55 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: R111AY016IN - Outwash Mollisol Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 13