Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIR-4026SAZEI 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 refer 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/floodway 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 of 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 floodplain/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 not 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 sedimentation 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 prevention. 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 300Feet 0 15 30 60 90Meters 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