Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Report -i- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 Project: ARDALAN PLAZA 331 W. Main Street Carmel, IN 46032 Prepared For: STUDIO M ARCHITECT 275 Veterans Way, Suite 200 Carmel, IN 46033 Prepared By: CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Indianapolis, Indiana Civil Engineer: Nicholas Justice, P.E. CEC Project 344-583 DECEMBER 2024 Drainage Report -ii- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 REPORT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................1 2.1 Existing conditions.................................................................................................. 1 2.1.1 FEMA Map ..................................................................................................1 2.1.2 Watershed Description .................................................................................2 2.1.3 Soils Map .....................................................................................................2 3.0 STORMWATER DESIGN ...............................................................................................2 3.1 Proposed CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2 3.2 Stormwater Management ........................................................................................ 2 3.2.1 Hydraulic Performance ................................................................................2 3.2.2 Outlet Control Structure ...............................................................................3 3.2.3 Runoff Curve Number (CN) Determination ................................................3 3.2.4 Water Quality Treatment..........................................................................3 4.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................4 5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................4 APPENDICES Appendix A – FEMA Firm Map Appendix B – Soils Map Appendix C – Existing & Proposed Watershed Maps Appendix D – Existing HydroCAD Output Appendix E – Proposed HydroCAD Output Appendix F – Water Quality Calculations Appendix G – Storm Sewer Sizing Calculations Appendix H – Geotechnical Report -1- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 1.0 REPORT OVERVIEW This report establishes the stormwater quantity and quality requirements for the Ardalan Plaza project located at 331 W. Main Street, Carmel, IN 46032. The existing site is made up of three separates, developed, residential-use parcels. The improvements to the site include an apartment building, parking garage, and underground detention. Through a system of storm sewer and permeable pavers, stormwater will be routed into an underground detention system. The proposed improvements will provide stormwater detention and water quality treatment. 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located to the southeast of the intersection between W Main Street and 4th Avenue. This site consists of three occupied buildings, three separated garages, and other landscaping items. The existing project site is a 0.66-acre parcel, Basin Pre-A. The site drains poorly with many pooling spots. Overall stormwater runoff drains west to east and leaves the site as direct discharge. The existing drainage basin map Figure B-1 in Appendix C delineates the drainage area used to calculate detention release rates. The existing discharge rates are summarized as below in Table 1. Detailed HydroCAD calculation results can be found in Appendix D. Table 1: Existing Peak Runoff Rates To Public Storm/Combined System (cfs) Condition 2-Year (cfs) 10-Year (cfs) 100-Year (cfs) Basin Pre-A 0.99 2.01 4.56 Basin Pre-B 0.30 0.79 2.18 Groundwater was not detected up to 25’ below the surface during geotechnical boring tests. The Geotechnical Report can be found in Appendix H. 2.1.1 FEMA Map The project site is located within the FEMA Community Panel Map #18057C0207G dated November 19, 2014 which indicates the site is located within the Flood Designation ‘Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.” The FEMA Map with determined Base Flood Elevations (BFE) is included in Appendix A. -2- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 2.1.2 Watershed Description The project site drains to the Cool Creek watershed as provided on the IndianaMap GIS system and identified with a 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of #051202011001. 2.1.3 Soils Map The approximate limits of each soil type are depicted in the Soils Map provided in Appendix B. 3.0 STORMWATER DESIGN 3.1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed property is approximately ±0.662 acres and the proposed improvements will include a mixed-use multi-family residential and retail building, streetscape, an underground stormwater detention system, water quality treatment unit, and utility infrastructure. The impervious area of the site will increase by approximately ±15,900 ft2 (0.36 acres). The proposed detention basin has been sized to store runoff from the entire developed site, Basin A. Runoff from the site will be routed into the proposed underground detention system through the proposed storm sewer before discharging into the public storm sewer located along 3rd Avenue. Refer to the proposed drainage map Figures C-1 in Appendix C. Calculations for detention sizing and detailed HydroCAD calculations can be found in Appendix E. 3.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 3.2.1 Hydraulic Performance The maximum allowable peak runoff rate is constrained to meet the criteria outlined in section 302.03 of the City of Carmel Stormwater Manual. An outlet control structure will reduce runoff from the site to the allowable release rates. The detention system has been sized for the entire developed site, see ‘Theoretical’ calculations in Appendix F. Approximately 0.04 acres of the site cannot be captured and detained and will direct discharge to the public storm sewer. To mitigate this, an equivalent runoff from the off-site area draining to the detention system will be detained. Excess runoff beyond the equivalent rate will bypass the control weir. The total required detention was sized to be 9,077 ft3. The proposed detention provided is 10,565 ft3 to allow for 10% storage for sediment collection and allow for offsite runoff to bypass through the site. Meeting the allowable discharge rates requires a 10-yr & 100-yr control orifice smaller than 2.0” in the outlet control structure. The ‘Actual’ proposed discharge rates consist of the site and off-site -3- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 areas draining to the detention system as well as the minimum 2” orifices. Both theoretical and actual results are presented below in Table 2. Table 2: Proposed Discharge Rates To Public Storm Sewer (cfs) Condition 2-Year (cfs) 10-Year (cfs) 100-Year (cfs) Allowable* 0.07 0.07 0.20 Theoretical (Post-A) 0.05 0.07 0.20 Actual (Post-A) 0.12 0.19 3.35 Direct Discharge 0.15 0.21 0.37 * Q2-yr,10-yr post = 0.1 cfs/ac | Q100-yr, post = 0.3 cfs/ac Q2-yr,10-yr post = 0.1 x 0.662 = 0.07 cfs | Q100-yr, post = 0.1 x 0.662 = 0.20 cfs 3.2.2 Outlet Control Structure As mentioned prior in Section 3.2.1, a theoretical and actual design outlet orifice will be provided to show that detention are designed to the City of Carmel’s standards, the actual orifice sizes to detain the runoff from the basins summarized as below:  2.0” @ 825.25’  2.0” @ 827.05’  Overflow weir @ 828.38’ 3.2.3 Runoff Curve Number (CN) Determination For impervious areas such as buildings and pavement, a CN value of 98 was used. Areas with exposed subgrade and grass cover were modeled using a CN of 61 for soil group “B”, CN of 74 for soil group “C” and CN of 80 for soil group “D” classification. Off-site residential areas were modeled using a CN of 75 soil group “B” and CN of 83 for soil group “C” classification highlighted in Appendix B. The HydroCAD reports in Appendix D and Appendix E show the calculated CN values as well as time of concentration for each site basin. Rainfall depths in the City of Carmel Technical Standards Manual were used to develop the basin hydrographs. 3.2.4 Water Quality Treatment For water quality treatment, ADS FlexStorm Pure FX filter bags rated at 85% TSS removal will provide the first BMP treatment measure. A proposed swale and an Aqua-Swirl XC-3 unit will be provided to treat the runoff before discharging into the detention system. The Aqua-swirl XC-3 unit will be used on-line. The water quality map and calculations can be found in Appendix F. -4- Ardalan Plaza December 2024 3.2.5 Pipe Sizing The storm sewer pipes are sized for a 10-year rainfall event. The time of concentration is assumed to be a minimum allowable of 5 minutes. Storm sewer sizing calculations from Hydraflow and inlet capacity calculations can be found in Appendix G. 4.0 CONCLUSION The proposed Ardalan Plaza project will be served with adequate detention and water quality facilities in accordance with the City of Carmel Stormwater Specification Manual. No adverse impacts are expected for upstream or downstream property owners. 5.0 REFERENCES 1. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey 2. U.S. Geological Survey, IndianaMap website 3. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA website 4. City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards Manual APPENDIX A FEMA FIRM 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 9/9/2024 at 3:54 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 86°8'13"W 39°58'55"N 86°7'35"W 39°58'27"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 APPENDIX B SOILS MAP Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana (344583) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 1 of 3 44 2 5 6 1 0 44 2 5 6 2 0 44 2 5 6 3 0 44 2 5 6 4 0 44 2 5 6 5 0 44 2 5 6 6 0 44 2 5 6 7 0 44 2 5 6 8 0 44 2 5 6 9 0 44 2 5 7 0 0 44 2 5 7 1 0 44 2 5 6 1 0 44 2 5 6 2 0 44 2 5 6 3 0 44 2 5 6 4 0 44 2 5 6 5 0 44 2 5 6 6 0 44 2 5 6 7 0 44 2 5 6 8 0 44 2 5 6 9 0 44 2 5 7 0 0 44 2 5 7 1 0 574130 574140 574150 574160 574170 574180 574190 574200 574210 574130 574140 574150 574160 574170 574180 574190 574200 574210 39° 58' 42'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 4 ' ' W 39° 58' 42'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 1 ' ' W 39° 58' 38'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 4 ' ' W 39° 58' 38'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 1 ' ' W N 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: 1:542 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") 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 24, Sep 1, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2022—Jun 21, 2022 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. Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana (344583) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Or Orthents 0.8 51.0% YmsB2 Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 0.7 49.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana 344583 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 3 of 3 Hamilton County, Indiana Or—Orthents Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 5dbc Elevation: 720 to 980 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 42 inches Mean annual air temperature: 49 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 185 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Orthents and similar soils:98 percent Minor components:2 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Orthents Setting Landform:Terraces, till plains Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Unranked Minor Components Water Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 1, 2023 Map Unit Description: Orthents---Hamilton County, Indiana 344583 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 1 of 1 Hamilton County, Indiana YmsB2—Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w586 Elevation: 180 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 Miami, eroded, and similar soils:50 percent Urban land:35 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Miami, Eroded Setting Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loess over loamy till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam Bt - 8 to 13 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt - 13 to 31 inches: clay loam 2BCt - 31 to 36 inches: loam 2Cd - 36 to 79 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:24 to 40 inches to densic material Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Low to moderately high (0.01 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:45 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Map Unit Description: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded--- Hamilton County, Indiana 344583 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 1 of 2 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F111XA009IN - Till Ridge Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Williamstown Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F111XA009IN - Till Ridge Other vegetative classification:Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Treaty Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Ecological site:F111XA007IN - Till Depression Flatwood Other vegetative classification:Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Yes Crosby Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Ecological site:F111XA008IN - Wet Till Ridge Other vegetative classification:Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 1, 2023 Map Unit Description: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded--- Hamilton County, Indiana 344583 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/9/2024 Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX C EXISTING & PROPOSED WATERSHED MAPS MAP LEGEND: DATE:DWG SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO: FIGURE NO.: EXISTING BASIN MAP 344-5831"=30'DECEMBER. 2024 HYC NPJ DRAFT C-1 STUDIO M ARCHITECT ARDALAN PLAZA 331 W. MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN 46032 NORTH Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.www.cecinc.com 530 E. Ohio Street Ph: 317.655.7777 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Suite G PROPOSED BUILDING F.F.E. = 831.00 MAP LEGEND: NORTH Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.www.cecinc.com 530 E. Ohio Street Ph: 317.655.7777 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Suite G DATE:DWG SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO: FIGURE NO.: PROPOSED BASIN MAP 344-5831"=30'DECEMBER. 2024 HYC NPJ DRAFT C-2 STUDIO M ARCHITECT ARDALAN PLAZA 331 W. MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN 46032 APPENDIX D EXISTING HYDROCAD OUTPUT Existing Conditions Pre-A Basin A Pre-B Basin B Routing Diagram for 344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Prepared by CEC Inc, Printed 12/5/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.457 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (Pre-A, Pre-B) 0.433 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (Pre-A, Pre-B) 0.012 96 Gravel surface, HSG B (Pre-A) 0.078 98 Impervious (Pre-A) 0.140 98 Roofs, HSG B (Pre-A) 1.120 74 TOTAL AREA Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 0.84" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,397 98 Impervious 12,464 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 6,347 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,111 98 Roofs, HSG B 531 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 28,850 77 Weighted Average 19,342 67.04% Pervious Area 9,508 32.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=28,850 sf Runoff Volume=0.046 af Runoff Depth=0.84" Tc=5.0 min CN=77 0.99 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff = 0.30 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 0.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (sf) CN Description 7,428 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 12,509 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 19,937 69 Weighted Average 19,937 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 100 0.0320 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.66" 0.6 60 0.0125 1.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.5 160 Total Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 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 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=19,937 sf Runoff Volume=0.019 af Runoff Depth=0.50" Flow Length=160' Tc=9.5 min CN=69 0.30 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff = 2.01 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af, Depth= 1.68" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,397 98 Impervious 12,464 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 6,347 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,111 98 Roofs, HSG B 531 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 28,850 77 Weighted Average 19,342 67.04% Pervious Area 9,508 32.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=28,850 sf Runoff Volume=0.093 af Runoff Depth=1.68" Tc=5.0 min CN=77 2.01 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 1.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (sf) CN Description 7,428 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 12,509 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 19,937 69 Weighted Average 19,937 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 100 0.0320 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.66" 0.6 60 0.0125 1.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.5 160 Total Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 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 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=19,937 sf Runoff Volume=0.044 af Runoff Depth=1.16" Flow Length=160' Tc=9.5 min CN=69 0.79 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff = 4.56 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.214 af, Depth= 3.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,397 98 Impervious 12,464 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 6,347 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,111 98 Roofs, HSG B 531 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 28,850 77 Weighted Average 19,342 67.04% Pervious Area 9,508 32.96% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=28,850 sf Runoff Volume=0.214 af Runoff Depth=3.88" Tc=5.0 min CN=77 4.56 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff = 2.18 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.117 af, Depth= 3.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (sf) CN Description 7,428 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 12,509 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 19,937 69 Weighted Average 19,937 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 100 0.0320 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.66" 0.6 60 0.0125 1.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.5 160 Total Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=19,937 sf Runoff Volume=0.117 af Runoff Depth=3.08" Flow Length=160' Tc=9.5 min CN=69 2.18 cfs Multi-Event Tables344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment Pre-A: Basin A Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 0.99 0.046 0.84 10 YR 3.83 2.01 0.093 1.68 100 YR 6.46 4.56 0.214 3.88 Multi-Event Tables344583-CV01-Existing Conditions Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment Pre-B: Basin B Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 0.30 0.019 0.50 10 YR 3.83 0.79 0.044 1.16 100 YR 6.46 2.18 0.117 3.08 APPENDIX E PROPOSED HYDROCAD OUTPUT Proposed Conditions P-A Basin A P-C Direct Discharge P-D Contech Detention Routing Diagram for 344-583 - Proposed Prepared by CEC Inc, Printed 12/5/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 2.66 2 2 10 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.83 2 3 100 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 6.46 2 344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C (P-A) 0.038 80 Grass, HSG D (P-A, P-C) 0.579 98 Impervious (P-A, P-C) 0.658 95 TOTAL AREA Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 2.18 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Depth= 2.12" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.109 af Runoff Depth=2.12" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 2.18 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth= 2.22" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.007 af Runoff Depth=2.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.15 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 0.658 ac, 87.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.12" for 2 YR event Inflow = 2.33 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 14.72 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 166.0 min Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 14.72 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 826.44' @ 14.72 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 3,298 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 712.1 min calculated for 0.115 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 702.4 min ( 1,484.6 - 782.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'1.4" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'1.9" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 14.72 hrs HW=826.44' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 0.06 cfs of 3.94 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.06 cfs @ 5.16 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.06 cfs of 3.35 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=Overflow Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.658 ac Peak Elev=826.44' Storage=3,298 cf 2.33 cfs 0.06 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 3.26 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.168 af, Depth= 3.26" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.168 af Runoff Depth=3.26" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 3.26 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.011 af, Depth= 3.37" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.011 af Runoff Depth=3.37" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.21 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 0.658 ac, 87.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.27" for 10 YR event Inflow = 3.48 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.179 af Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 15.44 hrs, Volume= 0.166 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 209.2 min Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 15.44 hrs, Volume= 0.166 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 827.05' @ 15.44 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 5,302 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 844.8 min calculated for 0.166 af (92% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 802.9 min ( 1,573.6 - 770.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'1.4" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'1.9" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 15.44 hrs HW=827.05' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 0.07 cfs of 6.33 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 6.40 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.07 cfs of 5.87 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.23 fps) 4=Overflow Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.658 ac Peak Elev=827.05' Storage=5,302 cf 3.48 cfs 0.07 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 5.66 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.302 af, Depth= 5.87" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.302 af Runoff Depth=5.87" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 5.66 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 5.99" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 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 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.020 af Runoff Depth=5.99" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.37 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 0.658 ac, 87.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.88" for 100 YR event Inflow = 6.03 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.322 af Outflow = 0.20 cfs @ 13.62 hrs, Volume= 0.293 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 100.2 min Primary = 0.20 cfs @ 13.62 hrs, Volume= 0.293 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 828.38' @ 13.62 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 9,077 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 694.7 min calculated for 0.293 af (91% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 646.5 min ( 1,403.4 - 756.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'1.4" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'1.9" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 13.62 hrs HW=828.38' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 0.20 cfs of 9.57 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 8.46 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.09 cfs of 9.35 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 5.38 fps) 4=Overflow Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.658 ac Peak Elev=828.38' Storage=9,077 cf 6.03 cfs 0.20 cfs Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 2.18 0.109 2.12 10 YR 3.83 3.26 0.168 3.26 100 YR 6.46 5.66 0.302 5.87 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 0.15 0.007 2.22 10 YR 3.83 0.21 0.011 3.37 100 YR 6.46 0.37 0.020 5.99 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 2 YR 2.33 0.06 826.44 3,298 10 YR 3.48 0.07 827.05 5,302 100 YR 6.03 0.20 828.38 9,077 Proposed Conditions P-A Basin A P-B Off-site P-C Direct Discharge P-D Contech Detention Routing Diagram for 344-583 - Proposed-Actual Prepared by CEC Inc, Printed 12/5/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 2.66 2 2 10 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.83 2 3 100 YR Type II 24-hr Default 24.00 1 6.46 2 344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.171 75 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG B (P-B) 0.287 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C (P-B) 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C (P-A) 0.038 80 Grass, HSG D (P-A, P-C) 0.579 98 Impervious (P-A, P-C) 1.116 89 TOTAL AREA Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 2.04 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Depth= 2.12" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.109 af Runoff Depth=2.12" Tc=6.7 min CN=95 2.04 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff = 0.82 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Depth= 1.00" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 75 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG B 0.287 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C 0.458 80 Weighted Average 0.284 62.00% Pervious Area 0.174 38.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.9 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 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=0.458 ac Runoff Volume=0.038 af Runoff Depth=1.00" Tc=5.0 min CN=80 0.82 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth= 2.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.007 af Runoff Depth=2.22" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.15 cfs Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 1.076 ac, 66.64% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.64" for 2 YR event Inflow = 2.86 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.147 af Outflow = 0.12 cfs @ 13.52 hrs, Volume= 0.147 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 93.0 min Primary = 0.12 cfs @ 13.52 hrs, Volume= 0.147 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 826.53' @ 13.52 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 3,607 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 383.1 min calculated for 0.147 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 382.1 min ( 1,182.9 - 800.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'2.0" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'2.0" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 13.52 hrs HW=826.53' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 0.12 cfs of 4.33 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.12 cfs @ 5.32 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.12 cfs of 3.76 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 4=Overflow Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=2.66"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.076 ac Peak Elev=826.53' Storage=3,607 cf 2.86 cfs 0.12 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 3.06 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.168 af, Depth= 3.26" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.168 af Runoff Depth=3.26" Tc=6.7 min CN=95 3.06 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff = 1.57 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af, Depth= 1.90" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 75 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG B 0.287 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C 0.458 80 Weighted Average 0.284 62.00% Pervious Area 0.174 38.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.458 ac Runoff Volume=0.073 af Runoff Depth=1.90" Tc=5.0 min CN=80 1.57 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.011 af, Depth= 3.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.011 af Runoff Depth=3.37" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.21 cfs Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 1.076 ac, 66.64% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.68" for 10 YR event Inflow = 4.61 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.241 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.240 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 87.4 min Primary = 0.19 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.240 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 827.29' @ 13.42 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 6,066 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 470.7 min calculated for 0.240 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 469.0 min ( 1,259.0 - 790.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'2.0" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'2.0" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 13.42 hrs HW=827.29' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 0.19 cfs of 7.28 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.15 cfs @ 6.77 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.15 cfs of 6.97 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.04 cfs @ 1.92 fps) 4=Overflow Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=3.83"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.076 ac Peak Elev=827.29' Storage=6,066 cf 4.61 cfs 0.19 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 5.31 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.302 af, Depth= 5.87" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.302 af Runoff Depth=5.87" Tc=6.7 min CN=95 5.31 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff = 3.37 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.160 af, Depth= 4.20" Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 75 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG B 0.287 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C 0.458 80 Weighted Average 0.284 62.00% Pervious Area 0.174 38.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.458 ac Runoff Volume=0.160 af Runoff Depth=4.20" Tc=5.0 min CN=80 3.37 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 5.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.004 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.036 98 Impervious 0.040 96 Weighted Average 0.004 10.00% Pervious Area 0.036 90.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 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 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.040 ac Runoff Volume=0.020 af Runoff Depth=5.99" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.37 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 1.076 ac, 66.64% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.16" for 100 YR event Inflow = 8.65 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.462 af Outflow = 3.35 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.462 af, Atten= 61%, Lag= 8.5 min Primary = 3.35 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.462 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 828.76' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 9,799 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 395.9 min calculated for 0.461 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 395.6 min ( 1,171.1 - 775.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'2.0" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'2.0" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=3.25 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=828.75' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 3.25 cfs of 10.23 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.19 cfs @ 8.93 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.19 cfs of 10.02 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.13 cfs @ 6.13 fps) 4=Overflow Weir (Weir Controls 2.93 cfs @ 2.00 fps) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.076 ac Peak Elev=828.76' Storage=9,799 cf 8.65 cfs 3.35 cfs Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 2.04 0.109 2.12 10 YR 3.83 3.06 0.168 3.26 100 YR 6.46 5.31 0.302 5.87 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 0.82 0.038 1.00 10 YR 3.83 1.57 0.073 1.90 100 YR 6.46 3.37 0.160 4.20 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 21HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment P-C: Direct Discharge Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2 YR 2.66 0.15 0.007 2.22 10 YR 3.83 0.21 0.011 3.37 100 YR 6.46 0.37 0.020 5.99 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Actual Printed 12/5/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 2 YR 2.86 0.12 826.53 3,607 10 YR 4.61 0.19 827.29 6,066 100 YR 8.65 3.35 828.76 9,799 Emergency Conditions P-A Basin A P-B Off-site P-D Contech Detention 1.25x 1.25x Routing Diagram for 344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Prepared by CEC Inc, Printed 12/6/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff = 5.31 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.302 af, Depth= 5.87" Routed to Link 1.25x : 1.25x Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.041 74 Grass, HSG C * 0.034 80 Grass, HSG D * 0.543 98 Impervious 0.618 95 Weighted Average 0.075 12.14% Pervious Area 0.543 87.86% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-A: Basin A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.618 ac Runoff Volume=0.302 af Runoff Depth=5.87" Tc=6.7 min CN=95 5.31 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff = 3.37 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.160 af, Depth= 4.20" Routed to Link 1.25x : 1.25x Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Area (ac) CN Description 0.171 75 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG B 0.287 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C 0.458 80 Weighted Average 0.284 62.00% Pervious Area 0.174 38.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment P-B: Off-site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46" Runoff Area=0.458 ac Runoff Volume=0.160 af Runoff Depth=4.20" Tc=5.0 min CN=80 3.37 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Area = 1.076 ac, 66.64% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.45" for 100 YR event Inflow = 10.81 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.578 af Outflow = 8.30 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.577 af, Atten= 23%, Lag= 4.3 min Primary = 8.30 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.577 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 829.12' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 3,915 sf Storage= 10,356 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 342.9 min calculated for 0.577 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 341.7 min ( 1,117.2 - 775.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 825.25' 3,397 cf Stone (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 15,660 cf Overall - 7,168 cf Embedded = 8,492 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 825.25' 3,492 cf 42.0" Round 42" CMP Inside #1 L= 363.0' #3 825.25' 3,676 cf 36.0" Round 36" CMP Inside #1 L= 520.0' 10,565 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 825.25 3,915 0 0 829.25 3,915 15,660 15,660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 825.13'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 14.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.13' / 825.07' S= 0.0043 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf #2 Device 1 825.23'2.0" Vert. 10-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 827.05'2.0" Vert. 100-yr Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 1 828.38'4.0' long Overflow Weir 2 End Contraction(s) #5 Device 2 825.25'15.0" Round 15" HDPE L= 6.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 825.25' / 825.23' S= 0.0033 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=7.90 cfs @ 12.04 hrs HW=829.09' (Free Discharge) 1=15" HDPE (Passes 7.90 cfs of 10.79 cfs potential flow) 2=10-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.20 cfs @ 9.36 fps) 5=15" HDPE (Passes 0.20 cfs of 10.59 cfs potential flow) 3=100-yr Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.15 cfs @ 6.74 fps) 4=Overflow Weir (Weir Controls 7.55 cfs @ 2.76 fps) 15" HDPE 10-yr Orifice 100-yr Orifice Overflow Weir 15" HDPE Pond P-D: Contech Detention Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: Contech Detention Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.076 ac Peak Elev=829.12' Storage=10,356 cf 10.81 cfs 8.30 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=6.46"344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 1.25x: 1.25x Inflow Area = 1.076 ac, 66.64% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.16" for 100 YR event Inflow = 8.65 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.462 af Primary = 10.81 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.578 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Pond P-D : Contech Detention Primary outflow = Inflow x 1.25, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1.25x: 1.25x Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.076 ac x 1.258.65 cfs 10.81 cfs Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond P-D: Contech Detention Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 100 YR 10.81 8.30 829.12 10,356 Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Proposed-Emergency Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Link 1.25x: 1.25x Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) 100 YR 8.65 10.81 0.00 APPENDIX F WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS PROPOSED BUILDING F.F.E. = 831.00 MAP LEGEND: NORTH Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.www.cecinc.com 530 E. Ohio Street Ph: 317.655.7777 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Suite G DATE:DWG SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO: FIGURE NO.: WATER QUALITY MAP 344-5831"=30'DECEMBER. 2024 HYC DRAFT DRAFT F-1 STUDIO M ARCHITECT ARDALAN PLAZA 331 W. MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN 46032 06 / 2 8 / 0 7 Ex h i b i t 7 0 1 - 1 : C u r v e N u m b e r C a l c u l a t io n f o r W a t e r Q u a l i t y S t o r m E v e n t Water Quality Curve Number 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 0 102030405060708090100 Percent Imperviousness Wa t e r Q u a l i t y C u r v e N u m b e r ( C N w q ) WQ Site Routing Diagram for 344-583 - Water Quality Prepared by CEC Inc, Printed 12/6/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 344-583 - Water Quality Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.405 99 Curve Number (WQ) 0.405 99 TOTAL AREA Type II 24-hr WQ Rainfall=1.00"344-583 - Water Quality Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment WQ: Site Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af, Depth= 0.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr WQ Rainfall=1.00" Area (sf) CN Description * 17,634 99 Curve Number 17,634 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Subcatchment WQ: Site Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 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 WQ Rainfall=1.00" Runoff Area=17,634 sf Runoff Volume=0.030 af Runoff Depth=0.89" Tc=6.7 min CN=99 0.53 cfs Multi-Event Tables344-583 - Water Quality Printed 12/6/2024Prepared by CEC Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 01006 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment WQ: Site Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) WQ 1.00 0.53 0.030 0.89 City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 02/11/2020 Version 17.0 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 4-ft 1.12 2.95 9 6-ft 2.52 6.63 12 8-ft 4.49 11.81 15 10-ft 7.00 18.40 18 Hydro International Downstream Defender1 12 ft 10.08 26.51 21 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 Capacity1 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, LLC1 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-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 APPENDIX G STORM SEWER SIZING CALCULATIONS PROPOSED BUILDING F.F.E. = 831.00 MAP LEGEND: NORTH Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.www.cecinc.com 530 E. Ohio Street Ph: 317.655.7777 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Suite G DATE:DWG SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO: FIGURE NO.: INLET BASIN MAP 344-5831"=30'DECEMBER. 2024 HYC DRAFT DRAFT G-1 STUDIO M ARCHITECT ARDALAN PLAZA 331 W. MAIN STREET CARMEL, IN 46032 CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. CEC Project No.: 344-583 By: HYC Project Name: Ardalan Plaza Date 12/05/24 Description:Inlet Conditions - Composite C Computation Rational Method runoff coefficients All watertight roof surfaces ………. 0.90 Pavement ………. 0.85 Gravel ………. 0.85 Slightly perivous soil (with turf) ………. 0.20 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 818 0 0 818 0.019 0.85 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 274 0 0 274 0.006 0.85 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 406 0 0 406 0.009 0.85 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 0 0 961 961 0.022 0.20 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 267 0 0 267 0.006 0.85 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 398 0 0 398 0.009 0.85 Total Total Composite C107 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf Total Total Composite C 108 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf Total Total Composite C 113 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf Total Total Composite C 109 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf Total Total Composite C 112 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf TD-1 All watertight surfaces Pavement Composite CGravel Total Total Pervious soil / turf P:\340-000\344-583\-Calculations\Drainage\Inlet\D-3, Composite C Worksheet.xlsx CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. CEC Project No.: 344-583 By: HYC Project Name: Ardalan Plaza Date 12/05/24 Description:Inlet Conditions - Composite C Computation Rational Method runoff coefficients All watertight roof surfaces ………. 0.90 Pavement ………. 0.85 Gravel ………. 0.85 Slightly perivous soil (with turf) ………. 0.20 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 14,511 0 0 0 14,511 0.333 0.90 (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres)(ft2) 0 6,458 0 2,705 9,163 0.210 0.66 RD-1 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf Total Total Composite C Total Total Composite C116 All watertight surfaces Pavement Gravel Pervious soil / turf P:\340-000\344-583\-Calculations\Drainage\Inlet\D-3, Composite C Worksheet.xlsx 200-6 TABLE 201-2: Rainfall Intensities for Various Return Periods and Storm Durations Rainfall Intensity (Inches/Hour) Return Period (Years) Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 Min. 4.63 5.43 6.12 7.17 8.09 9.12 10 Min. 3.95 4.63 5.22 6.12 6.90 7.78 15 Min. 3.44 4.03 4.55 5.33 6.01 6.77 20 Min. 3.04 3.56 4.02 4.71 5.31 5.99 30 Min. 2.46 2.88 3.25 3.81 4.29 4.84 40 Min. 2.05 2.41 2.71 3.18 3.59 4.05 50 Min. 1.76 2.06 2.33 2.73 3.07 3.47 1 Hr. 1.54 1.80 2.03 2.38 2.68 3.03 1.5 Hrs. 1.07 1.23 1.42 1.63 1.91 2.24 2 Hrs. 0.83 0.95 1.11 1.37 1.60 1.87 3 Hrs. 0.59 0.72 0.84 1.04 1.22 1.42 4 Hrs. 0.47 0.58 0.68 0.84 0.99 1.15 5 Hrs. 0.40 0.49 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.97 6 Hrs. 0.35 0.43 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.85 7 Hrs. 0.31 0.38 0.44 0.55 0.64 0.75 8 Hrs. 0.28 0.34 0.40 0.49 0.57 0.67 9 Hrs. 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.45 0.52 0.61 10 Hrs. 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.56 12 Hrs. 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.48 14 Hrs. 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.42 16 Hrs. 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.38 18 Hrs. 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.29 0.34 20 Hrs. 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.31 24 Hrs. 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.27 Source: Purdue,A.M., et. al., "Statistical Characteristics of Short Time Incremental Rainfall", Aug., 1992. (Values in this table are based on IDF equation and coefficients provided for Indianapolis, IN.) TABLE 201-3: Rainfall Depths for Various Return Periods 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 12" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 12" Drop In Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 103 Depth Orifice Casting ACO Brickslot 0.00 0.00 Area* 4.96 ft2 0.05 2.71 A 2.48 ft2 0.10 3.83 Q=4.89*A*D^0.5 (Orifice) 0.15 4.70 0.20 5.42 0.25 6.06 0.30 6.64 i = 6.12 0.35 7.17 C= 0.85 0.40 7.67 A= 0.02 0.45 8.14 0.10 0.50 8.58 *0.04 sf per linear foot; 124 ft Sump Grates Ponding Depth Calculation Structure Number Q=CiA GRATE FLOW IN CFS Q= C x I x A = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Di s c h a r g e , c f s Depth Over Grate, ft Grate Discharge Weir Orifice P:\340-000\344-583\-Calculations\Drainage\Inlet\Grate Inlet Capacities-ACO.xlsxTD-1 - 12/5/2024 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Dec 6 2024 344-583 Swale Calculations Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) = 2.82, 4.50 Total Depth (ft) = 3.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 827.50 Slope (%) = 2.00 N-Value = 0.020 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.84 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.29 Q (cfs) = 0.840 Area (sqft) = 0.31 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.73 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.20 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.32 Top Width (ft) = 2.12 EGL (ft) = 0.41 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 826.00 -1.50 827.00 -0.50 828.00 0.50 829.00 1.50 830.00 2.50 831.00 3.50 Reach (ft) APPENDIX H GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARDALAN PROJECT CARMEL, INDIANA A&W PROJECT NO.: 24IN0506 PREPARED FOR: STUDIO M ARCHITECTURE CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED BY: ALT & WITZIG ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL DIVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 4105 West 99th Street • Carmel, Indiana • 46032 Ph (317) 875-7000 • Fax (800) 875-6028 Offices: Cincinnati • Columbus, Ohio • Hebron, Kentucky Indianapolis • Evansville • Ft. Wayne • Lafayette • Merrillville, Indiana Subsurface Investigation and Foundation Engineering Construction Materials Testing and Inspection Environmental Services September 17, 2024 Studio M Architecture 275 Veterans Way, Suite 200 Carmel, Indiana 46032 Attn: Mr. Dan Moriarity Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Recommendations RE: Ardalan Project West Main Street and 4th Avenue SW Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 Dear Mr. Moriarity: 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 criteria for use by the design engineers in assessing the site for construction, preparation of site grading plans, and determination of appropriate foundation types. 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. Nicholas K. Hayes, P.E. Thomas J. Coffey, P.E. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF SITE ........................................................................................................................... 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 6 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 8 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 Location Plan Boring Logs General Notes APPENDIX B Seismic Design Parameters Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a subsurface investigation performed for the proposed Ardalan Project development to be constructed in Carmel, Indiana. Our investigation was conducted for Studio M Architecture of Carmel, Indiana. Authorization to perform this investigation was in the form of a proposal prepared by Alt & Witzig, Engineering, Inc. (Alt & Witzig Proposal: 2408G017) that was accepted by a representative of the client. 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 project site, a subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and an 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. 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 Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of West Main Street and 4th Avenue SW in Carmel, Indiana. An aerial photograph of the site taken in 2022 is provided in Exhibit 1 below. Exhibit 1 – 2022 Aerial Photograph of Site; Google Earth Site Description The site is relatively flat, with an estimated relief of four (4) feet across the proposed site. The approximate elevation of the site ranges between 828 feet to 832 feet, per the 2019 topographic map from the Hamilton County GIS. Ground cover across the site during drilling operations consisted of asphalt pavement, concrete sidewalks, trees, and grass/weeds. Also, multiple residential structures with associated outbuildings currently occupy the site. The surrounding areas are developed with commercial and residential structures, paved roadways, and underground/overhead utilities. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION Boring Locations Field investigations to determine the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and performing eight (8) soil borings, located approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, performing standard penetration tests, and obtaining soil samples retained in the standard split-spoon sampler for further laboratory testing. The apparent groundwater level at each boring location was also determined. Exhibit 2 – Boring Locations plotted on Google Earth Aerial Photograph (2022) 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 in order to perform standard penetration tests in accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586 to obtain the standard penetration value of the soil. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 4 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 not available at the time of this report. However, available topographic information provided by the Hamilton County GIS indicates that the site varies in elevation from approximately 828 to 832 feet. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 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 in general accordance with ASTM D-2488 • Moisture content tests in general accordance 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 Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 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 The borings conducted in the grass areas encountered approximately two (2) to six (6) inches of topsoil at the ground surface, while boring B-07 conducted in the asphalt encountered approximately two (2) inches of asphalt. Beneath the surface materials, the borings generally encountered soft to medium stiff, silty clay and sandy silty clay soils within the upper six (6) to fourteen (14) feet. These soils generally exhibited moisture contents between twelve (12) and twenty-eight (28) percent. The soils then transitioned to stiff sandy silty clay soils. It should be noted that each of the borings encountered varying layers of silt soils between fourteen (14) and twenty-six (26) feet. Borings B-03, B-04, and B-08 encountered layers of medium dense to dense granular soils at depths ranging between twenty-one (21) and thirty- one (31) feet. 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 shallow soils covering this site are classified as Orthents (Or) and Miami silt loam-Urban land complex (YmsB2). The Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana has been included in Appendix B. Bedrock Geology Geologic maps published by the Indiana Geological Survey indicate the bedrock at this site consists of the Muscatatuck Group, which is characterized by dolomite and limestone of the Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 7 Devonian age. The approximate elevation of this bedrock is mapped between 700 and 750 feet, which is greater than 75 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 75 feet below the existing ground surface, this site should be considered a Site Class D in accordance with the current Indiana Building Code. The location of the site was entered into the website www.seismicmaps.org to determine seismic parameters. Maximum spectral response acceleration values of Ss=0.146 and S1=0.081 g were generated by the program. Additional parameters are included in the printout in Appendix B. Groundwater Groundwater levels taken during and upon completion of the boring operations yielded measurements greater than fourteen (14) feet below the ground surface. 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 as shallow as two (2) feet below the natural ground surface. Again, it should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded on the individual Boring Logs included in Appendix A of this report, are accurate only for the dates on which the measurements were performed. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 8 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS Project Description It is understood that the proposed mixed-use building will be a three-story, slab-on-grade structure. Associated paved parking and drive lanes will be constructed on the south side of the building as well. The location of the soil borings in relation to the site is shown on the enclosed Boring Location Plan. Grading plans were not available at the time of this report. Based on the existing topography of the site, approximately four (4) feet of relief exists across the proposed building footprint. Therefore, it is anticipated that minor to moderate cuts/fills, will be necessary to establish the proposed building footprint. Structural loads were not available at the time of this report; however, it was assumed for analysis purposes that the structures will be constructed with maximum column and wall loads not exceeding 225 kips and 6 klf, respectively. Once final design loads and grading plans 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. Existing Structures/Utility Concerns As previously mentioned, multiple residential structures and outbuildings currently occupy the site. Shallow, uncontrolled fills may be evident from activities associated with past construction. Care should be taken to properly abandon the existing utilities and buildings located in the area. At no time should new foundations be placed on or above abandoned utilities, old floor slabs, or old foundations. Some loose fill materials should be anticipated in areas of the utilities and former structures. Upon completion of the demolition process, it is recommended that Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. evaluate the soil conditions in the area of the previous structures prior to backfilling. It is further recommended that if backfilling is required, a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. be present to assure that proper compaction is achieved. 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 Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 9 continuous wall footings founded at a shallow depth appear to represent a feasible foundation solution for this project. However, due to the soft soils encountered, excessive settlement would be anticipated if foundations are constructed without considerable undercutting or ground modification. Conventional Footings These borings typically encountered soft to medium stiff cohesive soils near the anticipated footing depth. Undercutting to depths ranging from seven (7) to thirteen (13) feet is anticipated in many areas to achieve suitable soils. Net allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 and 1,600 psf are recommended for dimensioning spread footings and continuous wall footings, respectively, provided they are founded on firm natural soil or structural fill. Ground Modification Alternatively, the use of a soil modification system, such as rammed aggregate piers, would allow construction of conventional foundations without the potential for excessive settlement while avoiding extensive undercuts. Rammed aggregate piers densify the surrounding soil and provide a stone-soil matrix on which to base footings. After proper soil modification has taken place, conventional shallow footings may be utilized. Bearing capacities achieved through this type of ground modification will be dictated by tolerable settlement criteria. A contractor specializing in this type of work should determine specific details as to the exact number, spacing, and placement of the elements, as well as the final resulting bearing capacity and settlement estimates. Our experience is that this type of soil modification beneath foundations may improve the bearing capacity to in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 psf. It is anticipated that the ground modification systems will be designed by the specialty contractor to extend to a depth of twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet. General 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 in order to confirm that suitable materials are present. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 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. In order 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. 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. at the earliest possible date. Floor Slab Recommendations It is typically desirable to place the floor slab as a slab-on-grade supported by the soil. In the areas where the existing grade is above the final floor elevation, the building area should be undercut and a well-draining granular material placed beneath the slab. In those areas where the existing grade is below the final floor elevation, a well-compacted structural fill will be necessary to raise the site to the desired grade. All fill materials may consist of approved materials if proper moisture content and compaction procedures are maintained. Prior to elevating the site, the existing subgrade soils must be proofrolled with approved equipment. It is recommended that a representative of Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. be present to determine the exact depth of undercutting and to monitor backfilling operations if necessary. Also, areas of shallow unstable materials should be anticipated in most areas due to elevated moisture contents encountered in the shallow soils. The exact remediation 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 Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 11 conditions or construction schedule dictate immediate improvement then chemical modification may be necessary. Remediation will be dictated by the field conditions upon construction. If fills greater than three (3) feet are proposed it is recommended that Alt & Witzig be notified, since these fills may induce settlement of the shallow in-situ soils. After the building area has been graded to the proper elevation, a well-draining layer of granular material should be placed immediately beneath all floor slabs. It is recommended that the materials within the subgrade area, above footing elevation, be compacted to a minimum density of 93 percent of maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Utility Excavations The depths of the utility lines to be constructed on this project were not available at the time of this report. Deep utilities should not be placed too close to the proposed structure. Differential settlement becomes a concern when structures are constructed within the cutback slope and backfill of deep utilities. As mentioned, wet sand layers were encountered in borings B-03, B-04, and B-08. Deep utilities may require dewatering if extended to these deep sand layers. All excavations should be performed in accordance with any applicable OSHA regulations. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 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 and asphalt 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. As mentioned, the shallow soils across the site exhibited elevated moisture contents, which may cause failure. 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. Groundwater 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 Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 13 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 soils across the site. Significant dewatering should be expected if excavations penetrate groundwater within the wet sand layers. It is also recommended that all concrete for footings be poured the same day as the excavation is made. Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 14 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is solely for the use of Studio M Architecture 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 Studio M Architecture 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 initial 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 Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 APPENDIX A Recommended Specifications for Compacted Fills and Backfills Undercut Detail for Footing Excavation in Unstable Materials Boring Location Plan Boring Logs General Notes Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 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. 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. The addition of water may be required if the fill is below moisture content that will permit 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: Ardalan Project LOCATION: Carmel, Indiana CLIENT: Studio M Architecture A&W File No.: 24IN0506 Undercut Detail for Footing Excavation in Unstable Material B-1 0 Scale: 1" =40' 20 40 N A&W PROJECT NAME: PREPARED FOR: PROJECT NO:Date: Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 4105 West 99th Street • Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 875-7000 • Fax (800) 875-6028 LOCATION: Drawn By: Checked By: Project Manager: BORING LOCATION PLAN Ardalan Project Carmel, IN Studio M Architecture 24IN0506 NH TC JT 08/24 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-4 B-6 B-7 B-8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 3.0 1.5 TOPSOIL Dark Brown Silty CLAY with a Trace of Organics Brown Silty CLAY Brown Sandy Silty CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Brown, Wet Sandy SILT End of Boring at 26 feet 0.2 4.0 6.0 12.0 24.0 26.0 7 7 5 6 10 7 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 23.2 21.0 12.6 14.4 11.7 11.3 1.5 1.4 2.2 2.2 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 24.0 ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/28/24 30 2 B-01 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/28/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 1.3 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TOPSOIL Dark Brown Silty CLAY with a Trace of Organics Brown Silty CLAY Brown Sandy CLAY Brown Sandy Silty CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Brown SILT End of Boring at 26 feet 0.4 4.0 7.0 8.5 19.0 24.0 26.0 5 5 2 5 7 26 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 28.0 22.5 17.9 14.3 18.5 11.1 21.1 1.4 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 14.0 ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/29/24 30 2 B-02 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/29/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e 15.0 ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 3.3 1.5 0.3 2.0 1.3 1.3 TOPSOIL Brown and Gray Silty CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Brown SILT Gray, Wet SAND and GRAVEL End of Boring at 31 feet 0.2 14.0 19.0 21.0 31.0 6 5 3 2 5 10 0 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 21.8 23.5 22.7 13.1 12.8 13.9 2.3 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 30 19.0 ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/28/24 30 2 B-03 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/28/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e 20.0 ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 2.0 1.3 0.3 1.8 0.8 TOPSOIL Dark Brown Silty CLAY Brown Silty CLAY Brown Silty Sandy CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Gray Sandy SILT Gray, Wet SAND and GRAVEL End of Boring at 26 feet 0.5 4.0 7.0 13.0 17.0 21.0 26.0 6 5 4 1 7 10 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 24.5 22.8 15.2 17.3 11.8 18.4 1.7 0.5 2.1 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/29/24 30 2 B-04 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/29/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e Dry ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 2.3 0.8 1.8 1.0 2.8 1.8 3.3 TOPSOIL Brown and Gray Silty CLAY with a Trace of Organics Brown Silty CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Gray SILT End of Boring at 26 feet 0.2 7.0 12.0 24.0 26.0 7 5 4 2 10 10 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 24.8 22.1 18.2 16.3 10.7 9.9 18.2 2.1 1.5 1.4 3.7 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/28/24 30 2 B-05 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/28/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e Dry ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 3.0 1.3 2.3 1.0 3.0 1.3 TOPSOIL Brown and Gray Silty CLAY Brown Sandy Silty CLAY Brown Silty Sandy CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Gray, Wet Sandy SILT End of Boring at 26 feet 0.5 6.0 9.0 12.0 24.0 26.0 12 5 7 8 11 10 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 22.8 21.8 17.0 14.7 8.4 11.5 19.6 3.1 2.4 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/29/24 30 2 B-06 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/29/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e Dry ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 2.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.0 2" Asphalt Brown Silty CLAY Brown Sandy Silty CLAY Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Brown SILT End of Boring at 26 feet 0.2 6.0 14.5 25.0 26.0 8 5 5 4 10 12 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 21.2 22.0 15.5 14.2 12.1 10.9 20.2 1.1 1.2 1.9 2.2 1.6 1.1 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 Dry ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 9/13/24 30 2 B-07 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 9/13/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e Dry ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG 4.5 4.0 2.3 0.8 2.0 2.5 TOPSOIL Brown and Gray Sandy Silty CLAY (Possible Fill) Brown Silty CLAY Gray Clayey SILT Gray Sandy Silty CLAY Gray, Wet SAND and GRAVEL End of Boring at 26 feet 0.5 4.0 14.0 16.0 25.0 26.0 6 4 5 4 8 54 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 18.8 20.2 17.6 21.6 20.2 7.6 2.8 CFA Sa m p l e r G r a p h i c s Re c o v e r y G r a p h i c s Gr o u n d W a t e r Studio M Architecture ALT & WITZIG FILE # Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % D r y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) PROJECT LOCATION During Drilling TEST DATA Driller C. Peterman D-50 Track ATVRig Type Qu - t s f U n c o n f i n e d Co m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h Po c k e t P e n e t r o m e t e r Groundwater Boring Method - Pressed Shelby Tube Sc a l e ST CA RC CU CT St a n d a r d P e n e t r a t i o n CLIENT - Driven Split Spoon 5 10 15 20 25 25.0 ft. DC MD Page of1 1 Alt & Witzig Engineering, Inc. 8/28/24 30 2 B-08 24IN0506 - Hollow Stem Augers in. STRATA ELEV. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Sample Type PROJECT NAME St r a t a Sa m p l e No . in. - Continuous Flight Augers - Driving Casing - Continuous Tube SURFACE ELEVATION 140 BORING # Te s t , N - b l o w s / f o o t DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started PP - t s f - Continuous Flight Auger Re m a r k s Carmel, IN 8/28/24 HSA De p t h De p t h SS Date Completed Boring Method Hammer Wt. lbs. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler OD - Rock Core - Cuttings - Mud Drilling At Completion Sa m p l e T y p e ft. Ardalan Project HSA BORING LOG Project: Ardalan Project Location: Carmel, IN Number: 24IN0506 MATERIAL GRAPHICS LEGEND GENERAL NOTES Apparent water level noted while drilling. ASPHALT: Asphalt CL-ML: USCS Low Plasticity Silty Clay CL: USCS Low Plasticity Sandy Clay ML: USCS Silt ML: USCS Sandy Silt SP-GP: USCS Poorly-graded Gravelly Sand TOPSOIL Apparent water level noted upon completion. Apparent water level noted upon delayed time. SS: Split Spoon SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS Standard "N" penetration value. Blows per foot of a 140-lb hammer falling 30" on a 2" O.D. split-spoon.N: PP:Pocket Penetrometer, tsf LL: Qu:Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf Plastic Limit, %PL:Liquid Limit, %PI:Plasticity Index, % DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS RELATIVE DENSITY & CONSISTANCY CLASSIFICATION (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) TERM BLOWS PER FOOT Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense 0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50 >51 RELATIVE DENSITY & CONSISTANCY CLASSIFICATION (COHESIVE SOILS) TERM BLOWS PER FOOT Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 30 >31 GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS GE N E R A L N O T E S - P R O J E C T S P E C I F I C 2 4 I N 0 5 0 6 G I N T . G P J U S E V A L . G D T 9 / 1 7 / 2 4 Alt & Witzig Telephone: Fax: Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Recommendations Ardalan Project-Carmel, Indiana Alt & Witzig File: 24IN0506 APPENDIX B Seismic Design Parameters Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, Indiana 24IN0506 Latitude, Longitude: 39.977841, -86.131268 Date 9/4/2024, 11:06:51 AM Design Code Reference Document IBC-2015 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 0.146 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.081 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 0.234 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.195 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.156 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.13 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 0.107 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 0.146 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 0.161 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.081 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.094 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) Type Value Description PGAUH 0.067 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.909 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.865 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV Vertical coefficient 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 24IN0506 Natural Resources Conservation Service August 14, 2024 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 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Hamilton County, Indiana................................................................................13 Or—Orthents...............................................................................................13 YmsB2—Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded...................................................................................................13 References............................................................................................................16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 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. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 2 5 6 1 0 44 2 5 6 2 0 44 2 5 6 3 0 44 2 5 6 4 0 44 2 5 6 5 0 44 2 5 6 6 0 44 2 5 6 7 0 44 2 5 6 8 0 44 2 5 6 9 0 44 2 5 7 0 0 44 2 5 7 1 0 44 2 5 7 2 0 44 2 5 6 1 0 44 2 5 6 2 0 44 2 5 6 3 0 44 2 5 6 4 0 44 2 5 6 5 0 44 2 5 6 6 0 44 2 5 6 7 0 44 2 5 6 8 0 44 2 5 6 9 0 44 2 5 7 0 0 44 2 5 7 1 0 44 2 5 7 2 0 574130 574140 574150 574160 574170 574180 574190 574200 574210 574130 574140 574150 574160 574170 574180 574190 574200 574210 39° 58' 42'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 4 ' ' W 39° 58' 42'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 0 ' ' W 39° 58' 38'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 4 ' ' W 39° 58' 38'' N 86 ° 7 ' 5 0 ' ' W N 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: 1:587 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") 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 24, Sep 1, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2022—Jun 21, 2022 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 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Or Orthents 0.9 51.6% YmsB2 Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 0.9 48.4% Totals for Area of Interest 1.8 100.0% 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. 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, Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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 12 Hamilton County, Indiana Or—Orthents Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 5dbc Elevation: 720 to 980 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 42 inches Mean annual air temperature: 49 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 175 to 185 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Orthents and similar soils:98 percent Minor components:2 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Orthents Setting Landform:Terraces, till plains Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Unranked Minor Components Water Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No YmsB2—Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w586 Elevation: 180 to 1,040 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Miami, eroded, and similar soils:50 percent Urban land:35 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Miami, Eroded Setting Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Loess over loamy till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam Bt - 8 to 13 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt - 13 to 31 inches: clay loam 2BCt - 31 to 36 inches: loam 2Cd - 36 to 79 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:24 to 40 inches to densic material Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Low to moderately high (0.01 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:45 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F111XA009IN - Till Ridge Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Williamstown Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Ecological site:F111XA009IN - Till Ridge Other vegetative classification:Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Treaty Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Ecological site:F111XA007IN - Till Depression Flatwood Other vegetative classification:Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: Yes Crosby Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Ecological site:F111XA008IN - Wet Till Ridge Other vegetative classification:Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 17