HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_SIERRA HOMES_Technical_Information_Report_Drainage_Study_190213_v4.pdfSAZEI Design Group, LLC
6608 110th Ave. N. E. Te l: (425) 214-2280
Kirkland, WA. 98033
SIERRA HOMES, INC,
3802 Monterey Place NE
Renton, WA 98056
STORM
DRAINAGE
Report
Prepared for:
SIERRA HOMES, INC,
P.O. BOX 3069.
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
Prepared By:
SAZEI Design Group, LLC
Hamid Korasani, P.E.
January 31, 2019
___________________________________________________________________
Storm Drainage Report Project No. Sierra Homes, Inc. -01-2018
Figure No. 2 Vicinity Map
SITE PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY
___________________________________________________________________
Storm Drainage Report Project No. Sierra Homes, Inc. -01-2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
o Figure 1: TIR Worksheet
o Figure 2: Site Location Map
o Figure 3: Existing Site Conditions
SECTION 2 CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
City of Renton Requirements
SECTION 3 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
Sensitive Areas Map
Drainage Complaint Map
o Figure 4: Upstream and Downstream Flow Map
o Figure 5: Downstream System Table
SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS AND
DESIGN
o Figure 6: Soils Logs
o Figure 7: Developed Conditions Map
o Infiltration Requirements
o Soil Management Plan
SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS
SECTION 8 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
SECTION 9 BONDS, SUMMARIES AND COVENANTS
SECTION 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Operations and Maintenance Procedures
TIR SECTION 1PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project:
SIERRA HOMES, INC, (SFR)
Site Information:
The proposed project is the construction of a Single Family Residence. The site is
located 3802 Monterey Place NE, Renton WA. More generally the site is located
within NE ¼ of of the Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 05 East, W.M., see
Figure 2: Vicinity Map. The site is bordered by residential lots on the north, and east
sides of the site. Site Parcel Number is 3345700183
Pre-developed Site Conditions:
The site is 11,699 sf and contains “NO” existing home, Nor a driveway, with a total
existing impervious area of Zero sf. The lot slopes from south-east to north-west
with all runoff leaving the site along the north-west property corner. There are no
known sensitive areas on site. The soils infiltration test prepared for the site show the
site soils to be till and not suitable for infiltration . Please refer to Figure 3: Existing
Conditions Map.
Developed Site Conditions:
The project will consist of construction of a single family dwelling, patios, and
driveways. Half Street frontage improvements in the form of curbs, gutters, sidewalks
and landscape strip will be required on Monterey Place NE. Please ref er to Figure 7:
Developed Conditions Map
The total proposed impervious area is 4,718.50 sf as follows:
a- Roof: 2,789 sf,
b- Patios: 76.5 sf, (Pervious Pavers)
c- Walkways: 60.5 sf, (Pervious Pavers)
d- Driveways: 573 sf (Pervious Pavers)
And side walk along the roadway:
a- Monterey Place NE Sidewalk: 1,219 sf
Total Area = 4,718 sf of new impervious area.
Under Section 1.1.2.1 “Small Site Drainage Review” “Threshold” 1st Paragraph,
since project is under 10,000 sf of total impervious area after January 8 , 2001 and
under the 5,000 sf of NEW impervious area, it is exempt from detention and therefore
qualifies for Small Site Drainage Review.
However, since the site is proposing a new storm pipe a “Targeted Drainage
Report” is required per Table 1.1.2.A.
The project will use the Design Requirement’s under “Appendix C” of the 2017 City
of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Specifically, Section C.1.3.2 for small
lots under 22,000 sf
5
6
X
X
X
7
8
9
10
Figure 3: Drainage Basins, Sub-basins and Site Characteristics
Figure 3 Con’t: Drainage Basins, Sub-basins and Site
Characteristics
Drainage and Soils Information
Soils Survey
The Soils Conservation Service (SCS) mapped the soils information in the project as
Predominately Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping (Rde) across majority of the
site, transitioning into Indianola loamy Sand in the northwest corner of the parcel site.
According to the SCS soil survey types for this property a saturated rate of about 0.2
inch/hour is expected for the site and precludes the use of infiltration to mitigate
stormwater runoff. We performed a site visit on July 26th, 2018 to evaluate the soils
for stromwater infiltration. A hand auger was used and refusal was met at about 12
inches below the surface where dense glacial soils were encountered (see below for
infiltration test results). Based on these results it was determined the soil are not
suitable for infiltration of stomwater.
USDA----Soils Map
Infiltration Test / Percolation Test
On July 26, 2018 SAZEI Design Group, LLC conducted a simple Percolation test per
infiltration test standards. The weather was partly sunny. Infiltration test holes were
dug to investigate the feasibility of infiltration of developed runoff from the subject
property.
The 18 inch diameter (approximate), 50” (+/-) deep holes were dug in the front and
backyard, between the proposed house and alley/access road, and the future
proposed house the Property line. A percolation test was conducted with 10 gallons of
water pre-soaking the hole. Based on observations, the result of the Percolation test
showed that the upper soil (Top soils) pervious with a percolation rate of 0.2 to max
0.25 inches per hour. Deeper layers of soil indicated mottled soil and glacial till
resulting that the site has a high winter water table making total infiltration unreliable
and therefore not feasible.
Test Hole # 1: (4.0’ deep-refusal)
12” of water in hole to start:
Time Elapsed: Water Depth:
0:00 12”
0:30 11”
1:00 10” => 2.0 inches/hour Short Term Infiltration Rate
Per DOE Table 3.9, the following correction factors were used:
CFv = 3
CFm = 5
CF I = 2
CF = 10
Estimated Long Term Infiltration Rate I = 0.2 inches/hour.
Test Hole # 2: (4.25 deep)
12” of water in hole to start:
Time Elapsed: Water Depth:
0:00 12”
0:30 10.75”
1:00 9.5” => 2.5 inches/hour Short Term Infiltration Rate
Per DOE Table 3.9, the following correction factors were used:
CFv = 3
CFm = 5
CF I = 2
CF = 10
Estimated Long Term Infiltration Rate I = 0.25 inches/hour.
TIR SECTION 2 CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
The City of Renton has adopted the City of Renton 2017 storm water manual which
governs the design of stormwater systems to serve this project. The Core and
Special Requirements are being met in the following manner:
City of Renton 2017 storm water manual Core Requirements:
1. Discharge at the Natural Location
Under 1.2.1-2, The surveyed contours show all runoff leaves the site towards the
south-west. The drainage design proposes to use BMP’s to address the runoff with
the flow leaving the site along the north-west side maintaining the natural discharge
location.
2. Off-site Analysis
The Level 1 downstream analysis showed that there will be minimal impacts on the
downstream conditions, since the site proposes to use small site BMP’s to address
all stormwater runoff.
3. Flow Control
The site is exempt from flow control (total Impervious surface is less than 5,000 SF)
and will provide BMP’s as outlined in Appendix C Small Site Drainage requirements.
4. Conveyance System
A new 12-inch storm pipe is required on the frontage improvements on Monterey
Place NE. The flow is minimal since it only picks up 242 feet of the roadway and the
on-site improvements .
5. Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control
All TESC measures proposed will conform to the 2017 RSWDM during construction,
Refer to Section 9 of this TIR for additional information. The measures shown on the
TESC plans include: Clearing limits, sediment control, soil stabilization, BMP’s
maintenance and construction sequence
6. Maintenance & Operations
Maintenance and Operations manual has been provided. Note that a “Declaration of
Covenant” may be required. See Section 10.
7. Financial Guarantees & Liability
A completed bond quantity worksheet is required
8. Water Quality Since new pollution generating impervious surface is less than
5,000 sf, water quality is not required. Refer to Section 4 of this report.
City of Renton 2017 storm water manual Special Requirements:
1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements
There are no area-specific requirements for this project site.
2. Floodplain/Floodway Delineation
A review of the FEMA FIRM panels for the site, shows that the site and area of work
is outside any floodplain areas and site does not contain any floodplain/f loodway
delineations.
3. Flood Protection Facilities
There are no flood protection facilities located on or directly adjacent to the site.
4. Source Control
This final site does not meet the threshold for source control requirements.
5. Oil Control
This final site does not meet the threshold for oil control requirements
City of Renton Conditions
FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS:
To be determined
TIR SECTION 3OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
TASK 1 – STUDY AREA DEFINITIONS AND MAPS
Overview
This section of the TIR is a Level 1 Downstream Analysis per the City of Renton 2017 storm
water manual Section 2.3.
The project will consist of construction of a single family dwelling, patios, and driveway. Half
Street frontage improvements in the form of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and landscape strip will be
required on Monterey Place NE., see Figure 2: Vicinity Map. The site is bordered by residential
lots on the north, and east sides of the site.
Upstream Drainage Analysis / Upstream Contributing Area
Based on the site contours, there is potential off-site drainage from upstream areas (unimproved
Alley) draining onto the site. To the north and west is the public Alley, a continuous trench is
provided on-site to intercept any off-site runoff from the east. The site itself slopes from south to
north-west eliminating any off-site runoff from the east and west sides of the site. Therefore the
drainage is limited to the site itself and the unimproved R.O.W to the east.
TASK 2 – RESOURCE REVIEW
Adopted Basin Plan
The site is located in the East Lake Washington Basin which flows into Puget Sound.
Community Plan
The site is located in the East Lake Washington Basin Planning Area.
Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report
We are not aware of a current Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report for this area.
Critical Drainage Area
The site is not considered to be within a critical drainage area as defined by the 2009 KCSWDM.
A review of the DOE “water quality assessment” web site shows that the section o f the site
discharges into is not on the DOE 303(d) list.
Sensitive Area Maps
Per City of Renton the site does contain areas of steep slope with a potential for landslide hazard
sensitive areas.
Soils Survey
The soils infiltration test for the site show the site soils to be a till and not suitable for infiltration
Wetland / Stream Inventory
No known wetlands or streams exist with-in the area of grading.
A review of the FEMA FIRM panels for the site, shows that the site and area of work is outside
any floodplain areas and site does not contain any fl oodplain/floodway delineations.
Drainage Complaints
There appeared to be no drainage complaints downstream of the site. (See “Drainage
Complaints Map”)
TASK 3 – FIELD INSPECTION
A Level 1 site inspection was performed on July 26, 2018. The weather was overcast with
temperatures around 65 degrees. The inspection focused on identifying potential downstream
drainage and water quality problems
As previously indicated, the site slopes to the north-west with all runoff leaving along the
northwest side of the site.
TASK 4 – DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, AND PREDICTED DRAINAGE AND
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
OFFSITE LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
1. The runoff leaves the property along the north-west side then runs north with: In drainage ditch
flow for a distance of 800 feet north-west, where it flows into the storm catch basin system
serving crossing Monterey Place NE.
2. The drainage system then flows west through the streams connecting to May Creek for a
distance of 1,000 feet, then west along the west heavy forested land and crosses I-405.
3. It then turns north and flows under Lake Washington Blvd discharging into a stream.
4. This stream flows for a distance of 1,900 feet though residential areas before discharging into
the south end of Lake Washington. 4,500 feet away
The total distance covered is just over 1.3-miles
Note: There was no access to most of the downstream area. These areas were on private property
or on I-405 right of way and not accessible to inspection.
Basin 1 Predicted Drainage and Water Quality Problems
The steep slopes located along the freeway may have erosion issues. However, since most of the
downstream including the discharge locations were on private property and no t
accessible to inspection, no drainage issues could be confirmed.
TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
The project proposes to use small site BMP’s to address the storm water runoff from
the proposed site improvements, thus mitigating any downstream impacts.
Figure 5: Upstream Area and Downstream Flow Map
Figure 6: Downstream System Table
20
Drainage Complaints
TIR SECTION 4
FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The project will consist of construction of a single family dwelling, patios, and
driveways. Half Street frontage improvements in the form of curbs, gutters, sidewalks
and landscape strip will be required on Monterey Place NE.
Under Section 1.1.2.1 “Small Site Drainage Review” “Threshold” 1st Paragraph The
project is under 10,000 sf of total impervious area after January 8, 2001 and is under
the 5,000 sf of NEW impervious area and is exempt from detention.
The total proposed impervious area is 4,718 sf as follows:
1-Roof: 2,789 sf,
2-Patios: 76.5 sf, (Pervious Pavers)
3-Walkways: 60.5 sf, (Pervious Pavers)
4-Driveways: 573 sf (Pervious Pavers)
And side walk along the roadway:
a- Monterey Place NE Sidewalk: 1,219 sf
This site is undeveloped and there is “NO” existing impervious surface on site.
Per Appendix C Section C.1.3.1, the following BMP’s were reviewed and analyzed
for use:
Full Infiltration: The soils were found to not be suitable for infiltration.
Limited Infiltration: The soils were found to not be suitable for infiltration.
Rain Gardens: Not feasible due to site constraints and with NO safe overflow path
(overflow would be onto adjacent properties.)
Bioretention: Not feasible due to site constraints and with NO safe overflow
(overflow would be onto adjacent properties)
Permeable Pavement: The soils are not suitable for infiltration.
Basic Dispersion: (Splash Locks, Rock Pads, Gravel Filled Trenches, Sheet
Flow) Not feasible, the 25-foot flow paths cannot be met.
Reduced Impervious Surface Credit: The amount of impervious area is just
enough to allow driveway access and parking.
Native Growth Retention Credit: Not feasible due to the small area of each lot.
Tree reduction Credit: is feasible, the site has some significate trees.
Soil Amendment BMP’s: Will be used on site
Perforated Pipe Connection: Will be used.
Due to the site constraints and soils type the only BMP that is feasible is having all
downspouts tied into perforated stub outs prior to discharging into the street’s storm
drain system
The project will use the BMP’s as outlined in the Small Site Drainage Design under
“Appendix C” of the City of Renton 2017 storm water manual. Specifically, Section
C.1.3.2 for small lots under 22,000 sf
Since the total driveway PGIS area is under 5,000 sf, water quality treatment is not
required.
Water Quality Exemption
Since the total PGIS surface is 2,366 sf and under the 5,000 sf threshold, the site is
exempt from water quality
Figure 7: Developed Conditions
TIR SECTION 5
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
PIPE CAPACITY: ROADWAY
The 12- CPEP pipe from the roadway is designated to handle the runoff from the
100-year storm from both the roadway and site improvements.
TIR SECTION 6
SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
None Required.
TIR SECTION 7
OTHER PERMITS
Below is the list of anticipated permits required for this project. Other permits may be
required that are not mentioned below.
Building Permit – New Single Family Residence
TIR SECTION 8
CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
For the purposes of this report, several standard erosion control procedures will be
utilized by the contractor to minimize the amount of erosion and sed imentation
perpetuated by the construction of the site. Furthermore, these techniques are
proposed for the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) and
should be reviewed and instituted by the onsite contractor. Some of the measures
include filter fabric fence, and standard ground cover practices, A construction
sequence will also be used to minimize the impacts of erosion due to construction.
ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part A)
1. At just under 12,000 sf the site is small requiring only minimal ESC measures. The
13-Elements of a Construction CSWPPP listed below, discuss and describe the
appropriate ESC measure to be used.
2. Due to the small size of the site, no ESC facilities are proposed. Therefore, no
analysis of the site’s ESC facilities was required. The proposed BMPs consist of
standard items including: filter fences, construction entrance, CB inlet protection and
plastic cover, etc. No sediment traps are proposed.
3. The site is fairly flat and the areas of high erosion are minimal and will be
controlled by the filter fence around the perimeter of the site.
4. There were no special reports done for the site.
5. No exceptions or modifications are proposed of the “Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Standards”
ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part B)
A full SWPP Plan and report will be prepared for the site after preliminary approval is
received.
THE 13 ELEMENTS OF A CONSTRUCTION CSWPPP
1. Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits: The clearing limits are indicated on
the plan sheet. Furthermore, clearing and grading will be limited to only areas that
need to be disturbed for grading/construction of the road surface to preserve as much
natural vegetation as possible. Field marking the clearing limits shall be completed
prior to clearing and grubbing activities.
BMP's: Preserve Natural Vegetation (VEG)
Field Marking Clearing Limits (CL)
2. Establish Construction Access: Access to the construction site shall be limited
to the rock construction entrance. The construction entrance shall be extended to
provide access to the construction vehicle/equipment staging and employee parking
areas.
BMP's: Stabilized Construction Entrance (CE)
3. Control of Flow Rates: Storm water detention: No detention is proposed for the
site since the increase in volume is minimal
4. Installation of Perimeter Sediment Controls: Sediment control will be provided
through a combination of filtration through the surround on-site vegetation, filter
fence, straw bails,
BMP's: Silt Fence (FF)
5. Soils Stabilization: Temporary and permanent soil stabilization will be provided.
Temporary stabilization will be provided through the application of straw and/or
plastic sheeting to exposed, worked earth. From October 1 until April 30, no exposed
soil may remain exposed and unworked for more than two days; after May 1, no
exposed soil may remain exposed and unworked for more than seven days.
BMP's: Plastic Sheeting,
6. Slope Protection: Slopes shall be protected from erosion through cover and
prevention of concentrated surface runoff flows.
BMP's: Plastic Sheeting,
7. Protection of Permanent Drain Inlets and Dust/Mud Control: Inlet protection
will be provided for all catch basins.
BMP’s: Inlet Protection
BMP’s: Street Sweeping and watering of dust areas
8. Stabilization of Channels and Outlets: All channel slopes shall be constructed
and protected against erosion in accordance with City of Renton
BMP's: None required
9. Pollutant Control: Pollutants shall be controlled as described in the Potential
Pollutants section of this SWPPP.
10. Dewatering Control: De-watering: Interception of the water table is not expected
to occur, even if there is an increase in precipitation. However, should ground water
flows be encountered, the flows can be directed to on site native vegetation for
cleanup.
BMP's: Native vegetation (As Required)
11. BMP Maintenance: All BMP's and SWPPP elements shall be inspected daily
and maintained as required.
12. Project Management: The project shall be managed in a cooperative effort by
the project manager, contractor, engineer, and the county inspector. During the
construction process, if unforeseen issues arise that cannot be resolved on site,
construction activity (other than SWPPP maintenance) shall be halted and the county
inspector and the project engineer are to be contacted and informed of the situation.
The Erosion Control Lead TBD
Since the project is for residential lots, under SCC 30.63 A.530, (2) the project does
not fall under the “High Use Sites” covering commercial or industrial sites.
BMP C-151: Concrete Handling (Design and Installation Specifications)
Concrete truck chutes, pumps, and internals shall be washed out only into formed
areas awaiting installation of concrete or asphalt. Unused concrete remaining in the
truck and pump shall be returned to the originating batch plant for recycling.
Hand tools including, but not limited to, screeds, shovels, rakes, floats, and trowels
shall be washed off only into formed areas awaiting installation of concrete or
asphalt. Equipment that cannot be easily moved, such as concrete pavers, shall only
be washed in areas that do not directly drain to natural or constructed stormwater
conveyances. Washdown from areas such as concrete aggregate driveways shall not
drain directly to natural or constructed stormwater conveyances.
When no formed areas are available, washwater and leftover product shall be
contained in a lined container. Contained concrete shall be disposed of in a manner
that does not violate groundwater or surface water quality standards
Maintenance Standards:
Containers shall be checked for holes in the liner daily during concrete pours and
repaired the same day.
13. The ESC Facilities shall be inspected by the permittee/contractor daily during
non-rainfall periods, every hour (Daylight) during a rainfall event, and at end of every
rainfall, and maintained as necessary to ensure their continued functioning. In
addition, temporary siltation ponds and all temporary siltation controls shall be
maintained in a satisfactory condition until such time that clearing and/or construction
is completed, permanent drainage facilities are operational, and the potential or
erosion has passed. Written records shall be kept documenting the reviews of the
ESC facilities.
13-Soil Management Plan for “Post Construction Soil Standard”
The top soils will be stockpile on-site and reused per “Implementation Options #4b
“Amend existing soil in place per the Post Construction Soil Standard” which requires
“Stockpile existing top soils during grading and replace it prior to planting…” In
addition, the soils will be required to be tested for organic compliance. See the
following requirements.
29
Amend Existing Soils, Purpose and Definition
Naturally occurring (undisturbed) soil and vegetation provide important stormwater
functions including: water infiltration; nutrient, sediment, and pollutant adsorption;
sediment and pollutant biofiltration; water interflow storage and transmission; and
pollutant decomposition. These functions are largely lost when development strips
away native soil and vegetation and replaces
it with minimal topsoil and sod. Not only are these important stormwater functions
lost, but such landscapes themselves become pollution- generating pervious
surfaces due to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and other landscaping and
household/industrial chemicals, the
concentration of pet wastes, and pollutants that accompany roadside litter.
Establishing soil quality and depth regains greater stormwater functions in the post
development landscape, provides increased treatment of pollutants and sediments
that result from development and habitation, and minimizes the need for some
landscaping chemicals, thus reducing pollution through preventi on.
Applications and Limitations
Establishing a minimum soil quality and depth is not the same as preservation of
naturally occurring soil and vegetation. However, establishing a minimum soil quality
and depth will provide improved on-site management of stormwater flow and water
quality. Soil organic matter can be attained through numerous materials such as
compost, composted woody material, biosolids, and forest product residuals. It is
important that the materials used to meet the soil quality and depth BMP be
appropriate and beneficial to the plant cover to be established. Likewise, it is
important that imported topsoils improve soil conditions and do not have an
excessive percent of clay fines.
Design Guidelines
Soil retention. The duff layer and native topsoil should be retained in an undisturbed
state to the maximum extent practicable. In any areas requiring grading remove and
stockpile the duff layer and topsoil on site in a designated, controlled area, not
adjacent to public resources and critical areas, to be reapplied to other portions of the
site where feasible.
Soil quality. All areas subject to clearing and grading that have not been covered by
impervious surface, incorporated into a drainage facility or engineered as structural
fill or slope shall, at project completion, demonstrate the following:
I. A topsoil layer with a minimum organic matter content of ten percent dry weight in
planting beds, and 5% organic matter content (based on a loss -on-ignition test) in turf
areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil.
The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches except where tree roots
limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils
below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 4 inches with some incorporation
of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible.
2. Planting beds must be mulched with 2 inches of organic material
3. Quality of compost and other materials used to meet the organic content
requirements:
a. The organic content for -pre-approved” amendment rates can be met only using
compost that meets the definition of -composted materials” in WAC I73-350-220. This
code is available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/facilities/350.html.
Compost used in bioretention areas should be stable, mature and derived from yard
debris, wood waste, or other organic materials that meet the intent of the organic soil
amendment specification. Biosolids and manure composts can be higher in bio-
available phosphorus than compost derived from yard or plant waste and therefore
are not allowed in bioretention areas due to the possibility of exporting bio -available
phosphorus in effluent.
The compost must also have an organic matter content of 35% to 65%, and a carbon
to nitrogen ratio below 25:I.
The carbon to nitrogen ratio may be as high as 35:I for plantings composed entirely
of plants native to the Puget Sound Lowlands region.
b. Calculated amendment rates may be met through use of composted materials as
defined above; or other organic materials amended to meet the carbon to nitrogen
ratio requirements, and meeting the contaminant standards of Grade A Compost.
The resulting soil should be conducive to the type of vegetation to be established.
Implementation Options: The soil quality design guidelines listed above can be met
by using one of the methods listed below.
I. Leave undisturbed native vegetation and soil, and protect from compaction during
construction.
2.Amend disturbed soil according to the following procedures:
b. Scarify subsoil to a depth of one foot
c. In planting beds, place three inches of compost and till in to an eight -inch depth.
d. In turf areas, place two inches of compost and till in to an eight -inch depth.
e. Apply two to four inches of arborist wood chip, coarse bark mulch, or compost
mulch to planting beds after final planting.
Alternatively, disturbed soil can be amended on a site-customized manner so that it
meets the soil quality criteria set forth above, as determined by a licensed engineer,
geologist, landscape architect, or other person as approved by City of Renton.
3. Stockpile existing topsoil during grading, and replace it prior to planting. Stockpiled
topsoil must be amended if needed to meet the organic matter and depth
requirements by following the procedures in method (2) above).
4. Import topsoil mix of sufficient organic content and depth to meet the organic
matter and depth requirements.
5. More than one method may be used on different portions of the same site. Soil that
already meets the depth and organic matter quality standards, and is not compacted,
does not need to be amended.
Maintenance
Soil quality and depth should be established toward the end of construction and once
established, should be protected from compaction, such as from large machinery
use, and from erosion.
Soil should be planted and mulched after installation.
Plant debris or its equivalent should be left on the soil surface to replenish organic
matter.
TIR SECTION 9
BONDS, SUMMARIES AND COVENANTS
All the necessary documents listed below will be included in the Full TIR report after
preliminary approval is received.
These will include:
TIR SECTION 10
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Stormwater System Description
The stormwater system for the site is fairly basic and contains the following elements:
-inch storm pipe
The stormwater runoff from the site improvements flows over to street catch basin.
Water quality treatment is not a requirement for the site since it is under the 5,000 sf
threshold
Appendix A
Soils Map
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
King County
Area,
Washington
SIERRA HOMES, INC, 3802
Monterey Place NE PKWY SE
Renton, WA 98056
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
September 10, 201836
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
237
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.
338
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
King County Area, Washington.......................................................................13
EvC—Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.................13
RdC—Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping..............................................14
RdE—Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep..............................15
References............................................................................................................18
439
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
540
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
641
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
742
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.
843
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
52639105263930526395052639705263990526401052640305264050526407052639305263950526397052639905264010526403052640505264070560710 560730 560750 560770 560790 560810 560830 560850 560870 560890 560910 560930 560950
560710 560730 560750 560770 560790 560810 560830 560850 560870 560890 560910 560930 560950
47° 31' 38'' N 122° 11' 36'' W47° 31' 38'' N122° 11' 24'' W47° 31' 32'' N
122° 11' 36'' W47° 31' 32'' N
122° 11' 24'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,180 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
44
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
1:24,000.
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: King County Area, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 7, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013—Oct 6,
2013
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
1045
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
EvC Everett very gravelly sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
3.1 52.2%
RdC Ragnar-Indianola association,
sloping
1.4 23.5%
RdE Ragnar-Indianola association,
moderately steep
1.5 24.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 6.0 100.0%
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
1146
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
1247
King County Area, Washington
EvC—Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2t62b
Elevation: 30 to 900 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 91 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 180 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Everett and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Everett
Setting
Landform: Kames, eskers, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly glacial outwash
Typical profile
Oi - 0 to 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material
A - 1 to 3 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
Bw - 3 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
C1 - 24 to 35 inches: very gravelly loamy sand
C2 - 35 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA), Droughty Soils
(G002XS401WA), Droughty Soils (G002XF403WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
1348
Minor Components
Alderwood
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Hills, ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Nose slope, talf
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Indianola
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Eskers, kames, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
RdC—Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1hmty
Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Ragnar and similar soils: 45 percent
Indianola and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ragnar
Setting
Landform: Kames, terraces, eskers
Parent material: Glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: ashy fine sandy loam
H2 - 4 to 27 inches: ashy fine sandy loam
H3 - 27 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Custom Soil Resource Report
1449
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Indianola
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Parent material: Glacial drift
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loamy fine sand
H2 - 6 to 30 inches: loamy fine sand
H3 - 30 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
RdE—Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1hmtz
Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days
Custom Soil Resource Report
1550
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Ragnar and similar soils: 45 percent
Indianola and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ragnar
Setting
Landform: Eskers, kames, terraces
Parent material: Glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: ashy fine sandy loam
H2 - 4 to 27 inches: ashy fine sandy loam
H3 - 27 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Indianola
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Parent material: Glacial drift
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loamy fine sand
H2 - 6 to 30 inches: loamy fine sand
H3 - 30 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.0 inches)
Custom Soil Resource Report
1651
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
1752
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
1853
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
1954
Appendix B
Proposed TESC and Drainage Plan